PDA

View Full Version : Damon's Departure=Crawford's Arrival?



sjb23
01-29-10, 09:45 AM
Maybe the Rays deal Crawford if they're out of it in July. Maybe Cashman is zeroing in. It makes sense to me. Replacing Damon in LF with a 29yr old Crawford going into his prime over the next few years is a smart move.

Because of the offensive strength of the infield, the Yanks can afford to start off the year with a 4-man outfield of Winn, Gardner, Granderson, and Swisher.

If he gets off to a good start, Gardner can really increase his trade value -- perhaps he'd be involved in the Crawford deal?

I think Cashman simply didn't want Damon for more than a year.

JavyVazquezIsSick
01-29-10, 09:50 AM
Hope not. I'd never want to part with the prospects that it would take. Especially considering he'll be a FA after next season, so you could just wait.

flymick24
01-29-10, 09:51 AM
no, we'd have to give up a gold mine in prospects... just wait until the off-season to sign him

NewEraYanks2527
01-29-10, 09:53 AM
Rays will probably not trade within their division this year, if they are out of it (and I believe they will be) I can see them moving him out of the AL East at the deadline. To get him from Tampa would probably start Montero and a pitcher, no thanks. If the Yanks really want him they can sign him in the offseason as I suspect he will test the FA market no matter where he lands this season.

aeromac76
01-29-10, 09:53 AM
Maybe the Rays deal Crawford if they're out of it in July. Maybe Cashman is zeroing in. It makes sense to me. Replacing Damon in LF with a 29yr old Crawford going into his prime over the next few years is a smart move.

Because of the offensive strength of the infield, the Yanks can afford to start off the year with a 4-man outfield of Winn, Gardner, Granderson, and Swisher.

If he gets off to a good start, Gardner can really increase his trade value -- perhaps he'd be involved in the Crawford deal?

I think Cashman simply didn't want Damon for more than a year.

It is clear the Yankees did not want Damon back, they can scream payroll all they want, the obviously just have a different plan and are trying not to impune Damon's ability as a player. But they are not going to shut off the spiggot for a 5 million dollar increase (less than 2.5% of their total payroll and likely under 1% of their total cash influx) if they thought Damon was going to be a key player for them next year.

I believe that both Matusi and Damon were instances of the Yankees thinking they just got the least best gasp from both and were not about to roll the dice on getting lucky again.

To your question, does it lead to Crawford? It would not surprise me if it did...

teknetic
01-29-10, 09:54 AM
I wouldn't wanna sign him even if he hits FA. I can't see him aging well.

THEBOSS84
01-29-10, 09:55 AM
I rather attempt a trade similar to the Granderson/Swisher trades than committ 6/90 to Crawford.

b_joseph
01-29-10, 09:58 AM
He will be an option as a free agent ( if he explores it ) but it is not set in stone like Sabathia and Burnett were when they approach free agency.

Who knows, Gardner might get on base 37% of the time and become a monster table setter.

Yankee Fan in Boston
01-29-10, 10:05 AM
The Yankees have refrained from trading a boatload of prospects for a guy approaching FA the past few years, and I hardly think Crawford is the kind of guy they'd change that approach for. They might be interested if he hits the market next year, but I agree with others -- he's not the kind of guy I'd want to give a mega-contract too. I think they are more likely to go after starting pitching next offseason

ShaneTravis
01-29-10, 10:05 AM
Crawford gets pimped a lot on here.

I don't see him worth the cash or the years.

flymick24
01-29-10, 10:06 AM
Who knows, Gardner might get on base 37% of the time and become a monster table setter.

if that happens, i'll eat a bushel of THEBOSS's pubes

flymick24
01-29-10, 10:06 AM
Crawford gets pimped a lot on here.

I don't see him worth the cash or the years.

he'd lose his legs (and thus, his value) midway through the contract

sjb23
01-29-10, 10:07 AM
I'm sure The Yankees hope Crawford gets to free agency, so they can simply pay top dollar and buy his services.

Since this could be inevitable, the Rays would be smart to get a package from the Yanks in July (if they're out of contention) consisting of Gardner and a couple of high level pitching prospects. The Yanks can negotiate a time window to get Crawford signed long-term.

Gardner & pitching prospects > draft picks?
I

delv
01-29-10, 10:17 AM
I wouldn't wanna sign him even if he hits FA. I can't see him aging well.

8 years of those knees banging on that turf? Yep...



I'm sure The Yankees hope Crawford gets to free agency, so they can simply pay top dollar and buy his services.

Since this could be inevitable, the Rays would be smart to get a package from the Yanks in July (if they're out of contention) consisting of Gardner and a couple of high level pitching prospects. The Yanks can negotiate a time window to get Crawford signed long-term.

Gardner & pitching prospects > draft picks?
I

To be honest, I don't know why the Rays would want pitching prospects. They have almost too many as is. They have future holes at 1B and Catcher, so expect Montero/Romine/the younger guys to be in the ransom note.

In any case, I'd be more interested in seeing if BG can become Carl Crawford (more OBP, less SLG) without the unwillingness to play CF and leadoff.

THEBOSS84
01-29-10, 10:19 AM
He will be an option as a free agent ( if he explores it ) but it is not set in stone like Sabathia and Burnett were when they approach free agency.

Who knows, Gardner might get on base 37% of the time and become a monster table setter.

Good point re: Gardner. If Gardner puts up that line, the Yankees will be saving a ton of money.

Sixty one
01-29-10, 10:20 AM
Get Crawford at the end of the year for bundles of money and see how this year unfolds with what the Yanks will have this year in the outfield.

THEBOSS84
01-29-10, 10:20 AM
if that happens, i'll eat a bushel of THEBOSS's pubes

I just became the biggest Gardner fan. No coincidence his last name will assisst in getting you that bushel.

teknetic
01-29-10, 10:21 AM
I'm sure The Yankees hope Crawford gets to free agency, so they can simply pay top dollar and buy his services.

Since this could be inevitable, the Rays would be smart to get a package from the Yanks in July (if they're out of contention) consisting of Gardner and a couple of high level pitching prospects. The Yanks can negotiate a time window to get Crawford signed long-term.

Gardner & pitching prospects > draft picks?
I

I'm not sure why you'd wanna pay top dollar for Crawford.

NYYRules#1
01-29-10, 10:22 AM
First, I doubt the Rays will be out of it at the deadline this year. At least not the the point where they'd be sellers.

Second, I'd be surprised if Cashman gives up the necessary prospects unless he has a window where he can sign Crawford to an extension. However, I'd even be surprised at that, for a few reasons:

I don't think we'll be in serious need of a LF at the deadline, and I don't think Cash will be willing to part with prospects to et a guy we can get after the season. I'm also not sure if Cash is going to want to commit money to Crawford before the FA season begins, since that would cut out some funds for a potential Lee or Mauer (or Beckett) signing. There should be no question, IMO, that any one of those 3 should take precedence, in terms of importance, over a potential Crawford signing.

JohnnyDamonfan
01-29-10, 10:28 AM
We do need a Left Fielder for 2011. Truthfully I don't have a lot of faith in Gardner being an every day Left Fielder. Maybe not Crawford but we need someone.

Blazer
01-29-10, 10:44 AM
A seldom referenced split for CC

Grass: .287/.326/.416/.742

Turf: .302/.342/.454/.795

ANSKYcm
01-29-10, 10:56 AM
No. Soon Mo will retire as a pitcher and play CF for the Yanks. We're keeping that spot open for him.

sjb23
01-29-10, 10:57 AM
We do need a Left Fielder for 2011. Truthfully I don't have a lot of faith in Gardner being an every day Left Fielder.

I think this sums up the reason I started this thread. I think Cashman would have gladly paid Damon on a one year deal, but I think Cashman thinks Damon will be a liability in 2011. Crawford easily fits the need as a top-of-the-order lefty swinger with speed and a little bit of power who happens to play above-average defense.

Brett Gardner can't possibly be looked at by management as a long-term fixture, can he?

Wouldn't Crawford be preferred over either Damon or Gardner?

delv
01-29-10, 10:59 AM
I think this sums up the reason I started this thread. I think Cashman would have gladly paid Damon on a one year deal, but I think Cashman thinks Damon will be a liability in 2011. Crawford easily fits the need as a top-of-the-order lefty swinger with speed and a little bit of power who happens to play above-average defense.

Brett Gardner can't possibly be looked at by management as a long-term fixture, can he?

Wouldn't Crawford be preferred over either Damon or Gardner?

Possibly.

OldYankeeFan
01-29-10, 10:59 AM
I just don't see the Yankees spending mega bucks on a long term contract for a LF, especially one of Crawford's skill set. I think they will keep the corner OF positions and DH on short term contracts until the long term positions of Montero and Jeter are resolved.

sjb23
01-29-10, 11:03 AM
I think they will keep the corner OF positions and DH on short term contracts until the long term positions of Montero and Jeter are resolved.

This is a very good point. I think you're right.

Cancel this thread. You've answered the question in my mind ! :)

JohnnyDamonfan
01-29-10, 11:05 AM
Is Jeter playing to Outfield a really good idea?

sjb23
01-29-10, 11:08 AM
Is Jeter playing to Outfield a really good idea?

Where else do you see him, if not at SS? 3B & 1B will be covered for a while, and if he goes to 2B he might as well stay @ SS

ShaneTravis
01-29-10, 11:09 AM
With Damon not coming back and Melky traded now is the time for Gardner.

It's make it as a ML'r outfielder or be destined as a 4th/bench role.

If he can't beat Winn for the starting job....

montrealer
01-29-10, 11:09 AM
if that happens, i'll eat a bushel of THEBOSS's pubes
I`d pay to see this.....

OldYankeeFan
01-29-10, 11:10 AM
Is Jeter playing to Outfield a really good idea?Certainly not in the next couple of years. After that it's a possibility.

Matsui55
01-29-10, 11:10 AM
Ok folks, lets go with FACTS over name value.

Here are Carl Crawford's CAREER stats:

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/6870/career;_ylt=Ap1R6ova56EeBBCov0hhb12FCLcF

Here are Gardner's career stats:

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/8289/career;_ylt=Ap1R6ova56EeBBCov0hhb12FCLcF

When we look at both hitters, several things jump out.

One, neither is really a good OBP guy, which is VITAL to a speed player. In fact, Crawford just posted his career high, .364, last season, which was a substantial improvement over any other season in his career- blip or trend?

Two- both K a LOT, which is not a good top of the order trend. Granted, Jeter does strike out a good bit too, but Jeter's game isn't predicated on getting on base to steal bases.

Three- Crawford has some power- not a lot, but some. Gardner has none- note that he had at least one inside the park HR last season.

This leaves two important questions for the Yanks this off-season.

One- do you spend a minimum of 6 years $90M to sign Crawford, who turns 30 next August, or do you keep what you have in House?

Two- Jeter will need to move off SS (assuming he comes back in 2011) no later than 3 years from now. DH is not a likely option for him because his bat doesn't play well there- and ARod might need to be the DH in 3 years. So, if you want to keep Jeter a Yankee, it appears that LF or CF are his options. Granderson is likely to keep one of those spots.

That means that if you sign Crawford, you are likely going to have to let Jeter go. I don't think that's wise. As they age, I suspect that Jeter's tool set will be (and already is) better in the mid-late 30's than Crawford's will be.

effdamets
01-29-10, 11:12 AM
Ok folks, lets go with FACTS over name value.

Here are Carl Crawford's CAREER stats:

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/6870/career;_ylt=Ap1R6ova56EeBBCov0hhb12FCLcF

Here are Gardner's career stats:

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/8289/career;_ylt=Ap1R6ova56EeBBCov0hhb12FCLcF

When we look at both hitters, several things jump out.

One, neither is really a good OBP guy, which is VITAL to a speed player. In fact, Crawford just posted his career high, .364, last season, which was a substantial improvement over any other season in his career- blip or trend?

Two- both K a LOT, which is not a good top of the order trend. Granted, Jeter does strike out a good bit too, but Jeter's game isn't predicated on getting on base to steal bases.

Three- Crawford has some power- not a lot, but some. Gardner has none- note that he had at least one inside the park HR last season.

This leaves two important questions for the Yanks this off-season.

One- do you spend a minimum of 6 years $90M to sign Crawford, who turns 30 next August, or do you keep what you have in House?

Two- Jeter will need to move off SS (assuming he comes back in 2011) no later than 3 years from now. DH is not a likely option for him because his bat doesn't play well there- and ARod might need to be the DH in 3 years. So, if you want to keep Jeter a Yankee, it appears that LF or CF are his options. Granderson is likely to keep one of those spots.

That means that if you sign Crawford, you are likely going to have to let Jeter go. I don't think that's wise. As they age, I suspect that Jeter's tool set will be (and already is) better in the mid-late 30's than Crawford's will be.
Nice analysis!

delv
01-29-10, 11:15 AM
Ok folks, lets go with FACTS over name value.

Here are Carl Crawford's CAREER stats:

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/6870/career;_ylt=Ap1R6ova56EeBBCov0hhb12FCLcF

Here are Gardner's career stats:

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/8289/career;_ylt=Ap1R6ova56EeBBCov0hhb12FCLcF

When we look at both hitters, several things jump out.

One, neither is really a good OBP guy, which is VITAL to a speed player. In fact, Crawford just posted his career high, .364, last season, which was a substantial improvement over any other season in his career- blip or trend?


Use this instead:

BG:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=gardne001bre (minors)

CC:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/crawfca02.shtml (majors)
http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=crawfo001car (minors)


Gardner has a history of good OBP, much better than CC has ever had.

Yankee Fan in Boston
01-29-10, 11:18 AM
Ok folks, lets go with FACTS over name value.

Here are Carl Crawford's CAREER stats:

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/6870/career;_ylt=Ap1R6ova56EeBBCov0hhb12FCLcF

Here are Gardner's career stats:

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/8289/career;_ylt=Ap1R6ova56EeBBCov0hhb12FCLcF

When we look at both hitters, several things jump out.

One, neither is really a good OBP guy, which is VITAL to a speed player. In fact, Crawford just posted his career high, .364, last season, which was a substantial improvement over any other season in his career- blip or trend?

Two- both K a LOT, which is not a good top of the order trend. Granted, Jeter does strike out a good bit too, but Jeter's game isn't predicated on getting on base to steal bases.

Three- Crawford has some power- not a lot, but some. Gardner has none- note that he had at least one inside the park HR last season.

This leaves two important questions for the Yanks this off-season.

One- do you spend a minimum of 6 years $90M to sign Crawford, who turns 30 next August, or do you keep what you have in House?

Two- Jeter will need to move off SS (assuming he comes back in 2011) no later than 3 years from now. DH is not a likely option for him because his bat doesn't play well there- and ARod might need to be the DH in 3 years. So, if you want to keep Jeter a Yankee, it appears that LF or CF are his options. Granderson is likely to keep one of those spots.

That means that if you sign Crawford, you are likely going to have to let Jeter go. I don't think that's wise. As they age, I suspect that Jeter's tool set will be (and already is) better in the mid-late 30's than Crawford's will be.

Lots of sense in here. I'd add that there is the chance Gardner will improve his OBP this year and make himself more valuable, while you'd have to figure Crawford is going to decline over the course of a long term contract.

Crawford is a fine player, but overrated on this board. I don't think he's the type of player the Yankees are going to make a long-term commitment to. These also aren't going to be our only two options -- I think the Yankees will let the season play out and see where they stand.

Blazer
01-29-10, 11:23 AM
I also think Crawford is overrated. IMO a 3 year deal with Jason Werth would be a far better investment for the Yanks.

delv
01-29-10, 11:28 AM
I also think Crawford is overrated. IMO a 3 year deal with Jason Werth would be a far better investment for the Yanks.

Newsflash: Jason Werth will be 32 in the Spring of 2011. Not that that would make him ancient, but it's highly overlooked.

Matsui55
01-29-10, 11:29 AM
Use this instead:

BG:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=gardne001bre (minors)

CC:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/crawfca02.shtml (majors)
http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=crawfo001car (minors)


Gardner has a history of good OBP, much better than CC has ever had.

I agree that Gardner has a history of good OBP in the minors, but I tend to discount minor league OBP as a predictor of ML OBP. Gardner's second half last year gives pause- as he needs to demonstrate in 2010 that he learned from that and will try to work walks rather than trying to hit his way on ala Ichirco.

Blazer
01-29-10, 11:31 AM
Newsflash: Jason Werth will be 32 in the Spring of 2011. Not that that would make him ancient, but it's highly overlooked.

That's why I would put a 3 year cap on any deal to him.

delv
01-29-10, 11:33 AM
I agree that Gardner has a history of good OBP in the minors, but I tend to discount minor league OBP as a predictor of ML OBP. Gardner's second half last year gives pause- as he needs to demonstrate in 2010 that he learned from that and will try to work walks rather than trying to hit his way on ala Ichirco.

He already OBP'd at a better rate in his short time in the majors (I mean 09, a SSS admittedly) than Melky did in 4 years. Damon also had ugly numbers in his first 3 years.

wileedog
01-29-10, 11:33 AM
I agree that Gardner has a history of good OBP in the minors, but I tend to discount minor league OBP as a predictor of ML OBP. Gardner's second half last year gives pause- as he needs to demonstrate in 2010 that he learned from that and will try to work walks rather than trying to hit his way on ala Ichirco.

He's going to have trouble keeping a high walk rate as the #9 hitter in this lineup. No pitcher on the planet is going to nibble at the edges with him with the Murderer's Row coming up behind him.

I think he needs to bunt more, but most importantly prove he can drive the ball in the gaps when someone throws him a meatball.

OldYankeeFan
01-29-10, 11:36 AM
I also think Crawford is overrated. IMO a 3 year deal with Jason Werth would be a far better investment for the Yanks. I agree about Crawford being overrated but I don't see the Yankees giving Werth a long term mega deal either. With Tex, Alex, Posada, Montero and Cano available for middle of the lineup duty we really won't need another middle of the lineup bat and I would therefore rather see that money spent on another starter while keeping the corner spots flexible for an eventual move by Jeter or Montero.

Blazer
01-29-10, 11:39 AM
I agree about Crawford being overrated but I don't see the Yankees giving Werth a long term mega deal either. With Tex, Alex, Posada, Montero and Cano available for middle of the lineup duty we really won't need another middle of the lineup bat and I would therefore rather see that money spent on another starter while keeping the corner spots flexible for an eventual move by Jeter or Montero.

No doubt an ace has to be the priority unless Mauer is available.

ShaneTravis
01-29-10, 11:55 AM
He's going to have trouble keeping a high walk rate as the #9 hitter in this lineup. No pitcher on the planet is going to nibble at the edges with him with the Murderer's Row coming up behind him.

I think he needs to bunt more, but most importantly prove he can drive the ball in the gaps when someone throws him a meatball.

I could not agree more. It's the very reason I don't take much stock in the War, Chone, Win Method being thrown around here in telling me how valuable Brett will be.

I hope he does well, but playing full time means he sees Lester,Josh,Lackey for a 3 game set while fighting for first place.

500 at bats while playing in the AL East can be brutal.

frostdude1
01-29-10, 12:02 PM
I really hope Carl is available when Free Agency comes around next offseason. No doubt that this team will sign him up

THEBOSS84
01-29-10, 12:05 PM
I hope they spend the $ on Cliff Lee instead of Crawford.

Yankee Fan in Boston
01-29-10, 12:09 PM
I really hope Carl is available when Free Agency comes around next offseason. No doubt that this team will sign him up

I have huge doubts.

Yankee Fan in Boston
01-29-10, 12:10 PM
I hope they spend the $ on Cliff Lee instead of Crawford.

I'd guess that's the more likely path... I wonder if there are any other Indians we can sign?

Blazer
01-29-10, 12:10 PM
I really hope Carl is available when Free Agency comes around next offseason. No doubt that this team will sign him up

I would avoid Crawford like the plague.

JohnnyDamonfan
01-29-10, 12:15 PM
I'd guess that's the more likely path... I wonder if there are any other Indians we can sign?

How about Grady Sizemore? Hey, a man can dream can't he?

Anyway, I think we may have to settle with Beckett/ Lee and maybe Mauer if we're really lucky. We got to get Jeter and Mariano back as well. So ya gotta put that into account. If anything we'll probably trade for a Left Fielder next off season or at the deadline.

Jumpboyjr
01-29-10, 12:22 PM
I hope they spend the $ on Cliff Lee instead of Crawford.

I agree with this. My problem with shelling out big money to Crawford or Werth is that eventually the contracts of position players will add up and put the Yankees in over their heads. With Jeter and Mo coming off contracts, as well as Teixeira, A-Rod, Sabathia, Burnett, and Cano totalling about $100 million, if they continue to sign big contracts for position players at every spot, 1. more people will hate them for their seemingly unlimited payroll and 2. it will come to pass that the Yankees will need to cut back cause they're approaching $300 million and just down-right can't afford it.

Pitchers are of monumental importance and they top off at about $20 million per year at the absolute best. Also, both Vazquez and Pettitte will be off contracts next year as well, and I honestly don't see either returning. If they can really find the financial space, Werth or Crawford might be worth a few years, but I'd put Cliff Lee above both on the priority list.

Rocketbooster
01-29-10, 12:33 PM
I agree with this. My problem with shelling out big money to Crawford or Werth is that eventually the contracts of position players will add up and put the Yankees in over their heads. With Jeter and Mo coming off contracts, as well as Teixeira, A-Rod, Sabathia, Burnett, and Cano totalling about $100 million, if they continue to sign big contracts for position players at every spot, 1. more people will hate them for their seemingly unlimited payroll and 2. it will come to pass that the Yankees will need to cut back cause they're approaching $300 million and just down-right can't afford it.

Pitchers are of monumental importance and they top off at about $20 million per year at the absolute best. Also, both Vazquez and Pettitte will be off contracts next year as well, and I honestly don't see either returning. If they can really find the financial space, Werth or Crawford might be worth a few years, but I'd put Cliff Lee above both on the priority list.

Your #1 reason would be at the bottom of my list of reasons not to sign Crawford/Werth/whomever.

Jumpboyjr
01-29-10, 12:37 PM
Your #1 reason would be at the bottom of my list of reasons not to sign Crawford/Werth/whomever.

It's not realistic to think that the Yankees can maintain an all-star line-up with every single player signed to a monster contract. They've shot themselves in the foot enough by starting the 'big money' trend, and from here on out, unless the system changes soon or their payroll skyrockets, it's not feasable that they can sign both Crawford/Werth and Cliff Lee, and I personally believe Lee is more important.

That's really all I'm saying.

Think about what people would have said/what their payroll would be like if the Yankees signed Holliday this off-season. That's what would be happening next year. Little money is coming off the books in an area where they 'wouldn't' need to find a replacement with that same money (pitching for example).

Rocketbooster
01-29-10, 12:42 PM
It's not realistic to think that the Yankees can maintain an all-star line-up with every single player signed to a monster contract. They've shot themselves in the foot enough by starting the 'big money' trend, and from here on out, unless the system changes soon or their payroll skyrockets, it's not feasable that they can sign both Crawford/Werth and Cliff Lee, and I personally believe Lee is more important.

That's really all I'm saying.

Think about what people would have said/what their payroll would be like if the Yankees signed Holliday this off-season. That's what would be happening next year. Little money is coming off the books in an area where they 'wouldn't' need to find a replacement with that same money (pitching for example).

You said that teams would hate the Yankees if they signed big FA. I don't care what other teams think about them.

Jumpboyjr
01-29-10, 12:43 PM
You said that teams would hate the Yankees if they signed big FA. I don't care what other teams think about them.

Not teams, fans. I personally don't care either, I live in NY, but it's definitely likely to happen. And the more people complain, the more likely MLB is to institute some kind of 'payroll restriction.' As a fan, I'd love to see a roster that includes current players, Crawford, Lee, Mauer, and so on, but if the Yankees abuse their payroll, they're making a mistake. Current numbers are a stretch to begin with. Let's be honest.

Rocketbooster
01-29-10, 12:48 PM
Not teams, fans. I personally don't care either, I live in NY, but it's definitely likely to happen. And the more people complain, the more likely MLB is to institute some kind of 'payroll restriction.' As a fan, I'd love to see a roster that includes current players, Crawford, Lee, Mauer, and so on, but if the Yankees abuse their payroll, they're making a mistake. Current numbers are a stretch to begin with. Let's be honest.

I don't even want Crawford. A 2-3 year deal? Fine. Longer term? No thanks

Blazer
01-29-10, 12:52 PM
Not teams, fans. I personally don't care either, I live in NY, but it's definitely likely to happen. And the more people complain, the more likely MLB is to institute some kind of 'payroll restriction.' As a fan, I'd love to see a roster that includes current players, Crawford, Lee, Mauer, and so on, but if the Yankees abuse their payroll, they're making a mistake. Current numbers are a stretch to begin with. Let's be honest.

It's just my opinion, but I feel the threat of some future 'payroll restriction' may be one factor in the Yanks absence from this year's FA market.

Iknowcool
01-29-10, 12:53 PM
I'd rather have Jayson Werth

Jumpboyjr
01-29-10, 12:56 PM
It's just my opinion, but I feel the threat of some future 'payroll restriction' may be one factor in the Yanks absence from this year's FA market.

Absolutely agree. There's no way the Yankees just 'didn't have the money' to spend on Damon, Holliday, etc. Whether it's simply Steinbrenner attempting to demonstrate some sort of fiscal discretion or an attempt to cut down the talk of Yankee payroll extremes, I think it was a good move. Still hoping nothing is instituted by MLB, but there's definitely a chance, now more than ever.

wileedog
01-29-10, 01:01 PM
Still hoping nothing is instituted by MLB, but there's definitely a chance, now more than ever.

Agree as well. If the Yanks win again this year especially the cries will get louder.

That said, many of the smaller team owners might not want a cap of any sort. It will invariably come with some form of salary floor as well, and it will take away their excuse "We can't compete with the Yankee $$$ so we couldn't sign that player all you fans wanted."

ThePinStripes
01-29-10, 01:02 PM
We have a ton of money coming off the books in the next two years and a lot potential big name free agents. We're going to use that money to sign free agents.

This is nothing new. Nothing is going to change. So long as we keep making deals like we've been making (less Winn), we'll be fine.

This has been going on for a long time. It gives the media something to talk about, adds drama to MLB and gives smaller teams money. Nothing is going to change. MLB isn't going to strike again- not after seeing what it did to them last time and more recently, the NHL.

Jumpboyjr
01-29-10, 01:04 PM
We have a ton of money coming off the books in the next two years

What money are you referring to exactly? Not challenging, just curious how you see so much of a surplus to spend over the next 2 years.

ThePinStripes
01-29-10, 01:06 PM
Absolutely agree. There's no way the Yankees just 'didn't have the money' to spend on Damon, Holliday, etc. Whether it's simply Steinbrenner attempting to demonstrate some sort of fiscal discretion or an attempt to cut down the talk of Yankee payroll extremes, I think it was a good move. Still hoping nothing is instituted by MLB, but there's definitely a chance, now more than ever.
or to bring some semblance of order to the front office. They signed Teix, CC and Burnett last year. He's not trying to appease his foes.

He realized it was a mess. We had way more payroll than everyone else, but we didn't have much of an advantage because we were over paying so much.

Jumpboyjr
01-29-10, 01:11 PM
We had way more payroll than everyone else, but we didn't have much of an advantage because we were over paying so much.

You really think the front office was bothered by 'over-paying so much'? Is it really 'over-paying' when you look at their revenue? To other teams, the payroll # itself is over-paying, but I have complete confidence that the Yankees can afford it, and then some, without breaking a sweat.

flymick24
01-29-10, 01:14 PM
if they're gonna go out and sign crawford next year, that begs the question: why didn't they just go for broke and get holliday this off-season? the money will be comparable and holliday is a better player by quite a large margin

ThePinStripes
01-29-10, 01:21 PM
What money are you referring to exactly? Not challenging, just curious how you see so much of a surplus to spend over the next 2 years.

Next 2 years:

Jeter pay cut ~5-6M
Mo pay cut/retirement: 2-3M
Posada retirement -$12M (?)
Pettitte retirement -12M
Vazquez potentially leaving- $12M
Igawa cash disposal device gone -$4M

That' $48M/year for 2 pitchers, a closer or $60M for 2 SP, Closer and a SS. That assumes NO ONE from the farm or new guys works out (Gardner, Joba, Hughes, Jesus, Romie, etc).

Here is the most likely circumstance, IMO:
We have 4 spots to fill, at worst.
We have Joba, Hughes, Jesus, Garner and Romie. I think it's very safe to say 3 spots will get get filled between the 5 of them.
EX: One of Joba or Hughes = SP, other fails into closer. Between Romie, Jesus and Gardner, we get ONE good starter, whether it be through trade or them actually panning out.

It's hard to say who will or won't pan out in which position, but I think it's reasonable to assume it will all shake out to filling out 3 out of the 4 holes. Two at worst absolute worst.

And then we still have $60M/year to work with. Obviously some will go to filling holes with injuries and some will be spent in the trade of the above mentioned guys and some will be spent on pay raises (which shouldn't count because this is based on AAV). To give you an idea of what that is- Teix, CC and Burnett don't make $60M/year TOTAL.

If we keep making doing what we've been doing in the off season with regard to free agents, our future is blindingly bright.

ThePinStripes
01-29-10, 01:22 PM
You really think the front office was bothered by 'over-paying so much'? Is it really 'over-paying' when you look at their revenue? To other teams, the payroll # itself is over-paying, but I have complete confidence that the Yankees can afford it, and then some, without breaking a sweat.

It's over paying because of the Yankee Tax. I'm not saying they are spending too much, total. They are spending too much for what they get- especially when you factor in the value of prospects that we were burning to get pitchers in their late 30s.

Hellsing
01-29-10, 01:26 PM
He has a career .772 OPS. I don't get the hype.

He's fast? So is Usain Bolt.

Maybe the Yankees should sign Usain Bolt to play the ENTIRE outfield? Hell...give him 20 million per year! It will still be cheaper than fielding 3 guys and with his world class speed, he's sure to track down every ball hit to the OF!

Just think of his potential UZR rating!!!!11!!!!

R.V.47
01-29-10, 01:28 PM
Next 2 years:

Jeter pay cut ~5-6M
Mo pay cut/retirement: 2-3M
Posada retirement -$12M (?)
Pettitte retirement -12M
Vazquez potentially leaving- $12M
Igawa cash disposal device gone -$4M

That' $48M/year for 2 pitchers, a closer or $60M for 2 SP, Closer and a SS. That assumes NO ONE from the farm or new guys works out (Gardner, Joba, Hughes, Jesus, Romie, etc).

Here is the most likely circumstance, IMO:
We have 4 spots to fill, at worst.
We have Joba, Hughes, Jesus, Garner and Romie. I think it's very safe to say 3 spots will get get filled between the 5 of them.
EX: One of Joba or Hughes = SP, other fails into closer. Between Romie, Jesus and Gardner, we get ONE good starter, whether it be through trade or them actually panning out.

It's hard to say who will or won't pan out in which position, but I think it's reasonable to assume it will all shake out to filling out 3 out of the 4 holes. Two at worst absolute worst.

And then we still have $60M/year to work with. Obviously some will go to filling holes with injuries and some will be spent in the trade of the above mentioned guys and some will be spent on pay raises (which shouldn't count because this is based on AAV). To give you an idea of what that is- Teix, CC and Burnett don't make $60M/year TOTAL.

If we keep making doing what we've been doing in the off season with regard to free agents, our future is blindingly bright.

I dont think Jeter or Rivera take pay cuts or are even offered pay cuts. It would be nice to see one of these guys give us a hometown discount and theyve made more than enough money in their careers to take a pay cut in their last few but theyve never done it before and I dont see it happening especially with those 2. They have the entire fan base behind them and are to important not just to the team but to the brand of the yankees for the FO to even play with the idea of setting a value and letting them walk.

Jumpboyjr
01-29-10, 01:37 PM
I dont think Jeter or Rivera take pay cuts or are even offered pay cuts. It would be nice to see one of these guys give us a hometown discount and theyve made more than enough money in their careers to take a pay cut in their last few but theyve never done it before and I dont see it happening especially with those 2. They have the entire fan base behind them and are to important not just to the team but to the brand of the yankees for the FO to even play with the idea of setting a value and letting them walk.

I was gonna say... I think Jeter's salary goes up and I think Mo's stays the same or 'barely' drops. Pettitte and Vazquez money will go toward another pitcher (preferably Cliff Lee), and it's feasable that a pitcher of that caliber will command that full total.

We'll see what happens with the rest.

Blazer
01-29-10, 01:41 PM
I dont think Jeter or Rivera take pay cuts or are even offered pay cuts. It would be nice to see one of these guys give us a hometown discount and theyve made more than enough money in their careers to take a pay cut in their last few but theyve never done it before and I dont see it happening especially with those 2. They have the entire fan base behind them and are to important not just to the team but to the brand of the yankees for the FO to even play with the idea of setting a value and letting them walk.

Jeter is currently the 4th highest paid player ever and is almost a lock to reach #2. After 2010 Mo will be within $14 million of the top 10.

I sure hope those guys will cut the Yanks a home team discount.

BronxYanks45
01-29-10, 01:46 PM
the LF platoon is just a hold over til Crawford is available.

the real question is who do you tackle 1st in the 2010 offseason:

Jeter
Mo
Girardi
Pettitte (assuming he wants to comeback)
Crawford
NJ
Vazquez

Yankee Fan in Boston
01-29-10, 01:47 PM
or to bring some semblance of order to the front office. They signed Teix, CC and Burnett last year. He's not trying to appease his foes.

He realized it was a mess. We had way more payroll than everyone else, but we didn't have much of an advantage because we were over paying so much.

No, but his "foes" can make his life worse in the next CBA -- they did last time with the luxury tax. It makes sense for Hal to try to keep the budget relatively flat when a lot of teams are struggling.

Yankee Fan in Boston
01-29-10, 01:48 PM
He has a career .772 OPS. I don't get the hype.

He's fast? So is Usain Bolt.

Maybe the Yankees should sign Usain Bolt to play the ENTIRE outfield? Hell...give him 20 million per year! It will still be cheaper than fielding 3 guys and with his world class speed, he's sure to track down every ball hit to the OF!

Just think of his potential UZR rating!!!!11!!!!

Crawford??

If so, yeah. It's amazing how overrated he is on this board.

fredgmuggs
01-29-10, 01:48 PM
Jeter is currently the 4th highest paid player ever and is almost a lock to reach #2. After 2010 Mo will be within $14 million of the top 10.

I sure hope those guys will cut the Yanks a home team discount.
Players are funny about that, though. To us normal people who live in the real world we wonder what's the difference between being stinking rich and filthy rich... but ballplayers are competitive people and that seems to be true in contract negotiations, too.

Blazer
01-29-10, 01:53 PM
Players are funny about that, though. To us normal people who live in the real world we wonder what's the difference between being stinking rich and filthy rich... but ballplayers are competitive people and that seems to be true in contract negotiations, too.

Agreed... and they (Yankee players) have a good idea how much the Yanks make.

Multimillionaires v. Billionaires

grizy
01-29-10, 02:05 PM
No FO is going to try to make Mo or Jeter, barring injuries and precipitous declines, take a paycut and risk a potential PR disaster.

ThePinStripes
01-29-10, 02:09 PM
I dont think Jeter or Rivera take pay cuts or are even offered pay cuts. It would be nice to see one of these guys give us a hometown discount and theyve made more than enough money in their careers to take a pay cut in their last few but theyve never done it before and I dont see it happening especially with those 2. They have the entire fan base behind them and are to important not just to the team but to the brand of the yankees for the FO to even play with the idea of setting a value and letting them walk.

Jeter certainly has the Yankee fan base behind them, but it will turn on him VERY quickly if he turns down $15M/year for 3 years to go play for some other team. If the Yankees offereed him $9M, it would be a different story.

It's a bit of a strange stand-off type situation because both sides have a lot of leverage on the other but neither side can walk away. Jeter is Jeter and he's the only one who can be Jeter for the Yankees. On the other hand, the front office knows he's only Jeter if he plays for the Yankees and no one is going to pay him being Jeter outside the Yankees to any sort of comparable degree. Neither side can do business with someone else without shooting themselves in the foot.

This is where your agent earns his money.

Unless Mo goes year to year like Pettitte, he's not getting another 2 or 3 year deal at $15M/year.

In the end, I don't see Jeter holding the Yankees hostage. Mariano might (and has), but I don't think he gets more than $12M/yr if it's a multi year deal.

JL25and3
01-29-10, 02:14 PM
Crawford??

If so, yeah. It's amazing how overrated he is on this board.Agreed. Crawford's a nice player, but not a standout. If the Yankees really avoided Holliday and juggled payroll with an eye to signing Crawford - as many seem to think - I'm going to be very disappointed.

However, I'll say again: the idea that players with great speed don't age well is just wrong.

gold23
01-29-10, 02:27 PM
Players are funny about that, though. To us normal people who live in the real world we wonder what's the difference between being stinking rich and filthy rich... but ballplayers are competitive people and that seems to be true in contract negotiations, too.

The "x" factor in this all is that the union is unbelievably strong in the process. It's easy to say "I'm going to take a discount to stay here or go there", but the MLBPA makes a truly compelling case. After all, these people are members of a tremendously strong union, and that union is the reason they are wealthy beyond comprehension. And while accepting less helps that player and his family, there is a modicum of truth that accepting below market value hurts a lot of your peers.

ThePinStripes
01-29-10, 02:30 PM
No one is saying below market value. The union isn't going to gripe about a 37 year old short stop making $15 million dollars, especially when it's someone as unique as Jeter. No one is basing contracts on Derek Jeter.

I'm A Wenner!
01-29-10, 02:31 PM
However, I'll say again: the idea that players with great speed don't age well is just wrong.

A player with good speed and athleticism will age better than one without, but a player whose game is based around speed will age very poorly.

flymick24
01-29-10, 02:34 PM
i predict that carl crawford will become randy winn by the time he hits the middle of his next contract

NYYRules#1
01-29-10, 02:35 PM
I'm not a fan of signing Crawford, personally. He's going to be on the wrong side of 30, he's a thoroughly mediocre hitter, and while he's a good player overall, I'd much rather have Lee, Mauer, or Beckett. Don't waste the funds that could go to one of them on Crawford.

fredgmuggs
01-29-10, 02:39 PM
The "x" factor in this all is that the union is unbelievably strong in the process. It's easy to say "I'm going to take a discount to stay here or go there", but the MLBPA makes a truly compelling case. After all, these people are members of a tremendously strong union, and that union is the reason they are wealthy beyond comprehension. And while accepting less helps that player and his family, there is a modicum of truth that accepting below market value hurts a lot of your peers.
That makes a lot of sense.

OldYankeeFan
01-29-10, 02:39 PM
It's just my opinion, but I feel the threat of some future 'payroll restriction' may be one factor in the Yanks absence from this year's FA market.I agree, which is why they didn't even sniff at Holliday.

We are able to get away with up to a 200M payroll because we had it for a few years while losing, so no one really complained much, while we helped enrich MLB with the lux tax. So now they really can't object too much that we won while having the same payroll. However, as WS champs if we expanded our Payroll once again there is a good chance enough pissed off owners would band together and pass an onerous rule that could be very detrimental to us. It's just not worth the risk so we now have a self imposed budget cap of approx 200M.

gold23
01-29-10, 02:42 PM
No one is saying below market value. The union isn't going to gripe about a 37 year old short stop making $15 million dollars, especially when it's someone as unique as Jeter. No one is basing contracts on Derek Jeter.

I agree with the first part, vehemently disagree with the second. As long as someone takes what is "market value", or perceived to be market value, there is no issue. But everybody is basing contracts on Derek Jeter. The top players set the bar, and Jeter's signing will set the market for players at his stage in careers. If Jeter settled for less than he would on the open market, it hurts other FA at the time and likely in the future.

Matsui55
01-29-10, 02:43 PM
No FO is going to try to make Mo or Jeter, barring injuries and precipitous declines, take a paycut and risk a potential PR disaster.

Yeah, no FO is going to tell Bernie Williams that there's no job for him and risk a potential PR disaster.....oh, wait....

ThePinStripes
01-29-10, 02:44 PM
Most owners don't care. They would much rather have more profit than a world series thing. They are more than happy to take Yankee money, especially in this economy.

Boston wouldn't know what to do with themselves if they couldn't call us the evil empire, complain about our payroll and tout themselves off as mighty underdogs.

And the player's union would be in arms.

It's obviously not a good idea to up the payroll to $250M, but it's same crap, new day otherwise.

ThePinStripes
01-29-10, 02:46 PM
I agree with the first part, vehemently disagree with the second. As long as someone takes what is "market value", or perceived to be market value, there is no issue. But everybody is basing contracts on Derek Jeter. The top players set the bar, and Jeter's signing will set the market for players at his stage in careers. If Jeter settled for less than he would on the open market, it hurts other FA at the time and likely in the future.
Well, first off, you created a self fulfilling prophecy. No one can be paid less than market value because market value is what they accept.

Anyway, let to clarify. No one is looking basing a contract on what Jeter gets this time around to play baseball at age 37.

Matsui55
01-29-10, 02:52 PM
Jeter certainly has the Yankee fan base behind them, but it will turn on him VERY quickly if he turns down $15M/year for 3 years to go play for some other team. If the Yankees offereed him $9M, it would be a different story.

It's a bit of a strange stand-off type situation because both sides have a lot of leverage on the other but neither side can walk away. Jeter is Jeter and he's the only one who can be Jeter for the Yankees. On the other hand, the front office knows he's only Jeter if he plays for the Yankees and no one is going to pay him being Jeter outside the Yankees to any sort of comparable degree. Neither side can do business with someone else without shooting themselves in the foot.

This is where your agent earns his money.

Unless Mo goes year to year like Pettitte, he's not getting another 2 or 3 year deal at $15M/year.

In the end, I don't see Jeter holding the Yankees hostage. Mariano might (and has), but I don't think he gets more than $12M/yr if it's a multi year deal.

I can see the Yanks offering both arbitration before they even open negotiations to find their intentions, particularly in Mo's case- he might be thinking year-to-year at this point.

Jeter can't justify a pay raise at his age and the fact that he WILL move off SS in the near future. His salary is tied to the fact that he is a top 5 SS. If he's not a SS, his bat doesn't play up to top 5 at other positions, at which point, you are paying for sentimentality, which is bad.

I suspect you are right and that the Yanks hold firm at no more than $15m for Jeter (though they certainly could try a lower number at first and work to compromise). If he can't or won't play for that, you thank him and wish him well, and ask that he come back for Old Timers Day when he retires.

Cashman realizes that his budget will get tighter going forward, since Tex, ARod, CC and AJ are fixed costs for the next 4 years at around $90M for the 4 of them. That means that if the budget cap is around $200-205M, you can't pay Jeter and Mo on sentimentality, or even give them raises.

At least with Mo, the Yanks do have some leverage, as they can threaten to use Joba (or less likely, Hughes) as the closer. With Jeter, it is trickier, as there is no legitimate in-house option. Still, I think common sense prevails, as Jeter will realize there is more to gain by still getting very good money (just less of it) and staying in NY as an icon than trying to reinvent himself elsewhere.

gold23
01-29-10, 02:56 PM
I can see the Yanks offering both arbitration before they even open negotiations to find their intentions, particularly in Mo's case- he might be thinking year-to-year at this point.

Jeter can't justify a pay raise at his age and the fact that he WILL move off SS in the near future. His salary is tied to the fact that he is a top 5 SS. If he's not a SS, his bat doesn't play up to top 5 at other positions, at which point, you are paying for sentimentality, which is bad.

I suspect you are right and that the Yanks hold firm at no more than $15m for Jeter (though they certainly could try a lower number at first and work to compromise). If he can't or won't play for that, you thank him and wish him well, and ask that he come back for Old Timers Day when he retires.

Cashman realizes that his budget will get tighter going forward, since Tex, ARod, CC and AJ are fixed costs for the next 4 years at around $90M for the 4 of them. That means that if the budget cap is around $200-205M, you can't pay Jeter and Mo on sentimentality, or even give them raises.

At least with Mo, the Yanks do have some leverage, as they can threaten to use Joba (or less likely, Hughes) as the closer. With Jeter, it is trickier, as there is no legitimate in-house option. Still, I think common sense prevails, as Jeter will realize there is more to gain by still getting very good money (just less of it) and staying in NY as an icon than trying to reinvent himself elsewhere.

I don't think you will need to pay him $15 million. I don't think any other team would commit that money to him.

ThePinStripes
01-29-10, 02:57 PM
Ideally we'll win another world series, Pettitte decides to retire on top and Jeter and Mo follow suit :D

nnysiny
01-29-10, 02:58 PM
Crawford is so overrated, its almost criminal

Sheffield
01-29-10, 03:00 PM
if that happens, i'll eat a bushel of THEBOSS's pubes

You shouldn't say things like that... bc if Gardner does have a monster season, ppl won't forget...

sweet_lou_14
01-29-10, 09:19 PM
Crawford gets pimped a lot on here.

I don't see him worth the cash or the years.

I agree. Crawford is very overrated.

sweet_lou_14
01-29-10, 09:20 PM
Ideally we'll win another world series, Pettitte decides to retire on top and Jeter and Mo follow suit :D

Yeah. That would be really ideal.

SLURPEE
01-31-10, 07:17 AM
I'm a fan of Crawford. I like his defense. Since some of you feel he's overrated, do you know if there's anyone else (FA) that has speed and a left-fielder who can bat at the top of a lineup?

I don't know who the potential FA outfielders are. Maybe they can get away with signing him for only 4 yrs?
Would you be opposed to that? He's 28/29 by contracts end he will be 32/33 so his lost of speed wouldn't kill the Yankees long term.

This would be a sick 2011 lineup though:

ss jeter
lf crawford
1b teixeira
3b rodriguez
dh posada
2b cano
c montero
cf granderson
rf swisher

nnysiny
01-31-10, 08:27 AM
I'm a fan of Crawford. I like his defense. Since some of you feel he's overrated, do you know if there's anyone else (FA) that has speed and a left-fielder who can bat at the top of a lineup? Crawford's mediocre OBP doesn't put him in the top of a Yankees lineup, not to mention he would be yet another left-handed OF. Jason Werth is very good defensively, steals bases, and his right-handed bat dwarfs Crawford's. Crawford is a distant plan C behind Cliff Lee and Werth, and even lower if you want to count Beckett or even Mauer

ajra21
01-31-10, 09:03 AM
i like crawford a lot but trading for him is not a good idea. i also do not want to sign him to long, big contract. we have enough of those.

ajra21
01-31-10, 09:40 AM
The "x" factor in this all is that the union is unbelievably strong in the process. It's easy to say "I'm going to take a discount to stay here or go there", but the MLBPA makes a truly compelling case. After all, these people are members of a tremendously strong union, and that union is the reason they are wealthy beyond comprehension. And while accepting less helps that player and his family, there is a modicum of truth that accepting below market value hurts a lot of your peers.

which is one of the reasons i find the MLBPA union to be one of the biggest problems in baseball.

ppa79
01-31-10, 09:42 AM
I wouldn't overpay for the guy. His career OPS+ is 103.

ajra21
01-31-10, 09:45 AM
I wouldn't overpay for the guy. His career OPS+ is 103.

i agree. i really like the guy but his is gonna probably get far more than he should.

AlbanyColonieYankee
01-31-10, 09:53 AM
In order to make it worth their while to trade him in the division, they would want the Yankees to give up twice as much as anyone else. I don't see it happening.

Martini6196
01-31-10, 03:41 PM
Is it a lock that Mauer is gonna resign with Minnesota? I get the feeling all of this money saving is so that the Yanks can throw a ton of money at Mauer not Crawford.

SLURPEE
01-31-10, 04:31 PM
Is it a lock that Mauer is gonna resign with Minnesota? I get the feeling all of this money saving is so that the Yanks can throw a ton of money at Mauer not Crawford.

Not sure. Most assume that he will. But they haven't re-signed him yet. Which is surprising. Have they even offered him a contract yet?
But I think he stays.

Can you imagine how much money he would make in the open market? He would have the Yankees, Mets and Red Sox throwing themselves at him.

Jumpboyjr
01-31-10, 04:33 PM
Is it a lock that Mauer is gonna resign with Minnesota? I get the feeling all of this money saving is so that the Yanks can throw a ton of money at Mauer not Crawford.

I don't think Mauer is going anywhere. That said, if he 'does' go anywhere else, I'd say it's 100% that he ends up in pinstripes. Unfortunately for us though, I think he'll sign an extension before the year is out.

ThePinStripes
01-31-10, 05:48 PM
Is it a lock that Mauer is gonna resign with Minnesota? I get the feeling all of this money saving is so that the Yanks can throw a ton of money at Mauer not Crawford.

What money saving?

JL25and3
01-31-10, 06:00 PM
Is it a lock that Mauer is gonna resign with Minnesota? I get the feeling all of this money saving is so that the Yanks can throw a ton of money at Mauer not Crawford.I've said in the past that if Mauer stays in Minnesota, he won't just be a star, he'll be a god. Well, I just got back from a week in Minneapolis, and I have to correct that. By Wednesday, the local TV stations started leading their sports reports with Joe Mauer stories. He's a god already.

He'd be a fool to leave, and I think he knows that.

dabomb2045
01-31-10, 06:26 PM
Why do so many people think Crawford is elite? He isnt....at all. Giving this guy a long term deal at big money would be an unbelievable mistake.

Yankee Fan in Boston
01-31-10, 06:37 PM
Why do so many people think Crawford is elite? He isnt....at all. Giving this guy a long term deal at big money would be an unbelievable mistake.

The Carl Crawford love on this board is unbelievable. He's not a bad player but, yeah, he's not worth the contract he is going to ask for as a FA

False1
01-31-10, 06:37 PM
I don't think Mauer is going anywhere. That said, if he 'does' go anywhere else, I'd say it's 100% that he ends up in pinstripes. Unfortunately for us though, I think he'll sign an extension before the year is out.I think (and hope) that Mauer stays in Minnesota. But if he gets out there in the open market, I think you're incredibly wrong. No way Boston doesn't push all it's chips in for a player like Mauer. Plus, that once-in-a-generation type player always brings dark horses that think they're one key peice away from a championship out of the woodwork. Minnesota better be doing two things right now... saving every dang dollar it can and praying that Mauer is willing to take a hometeam discount.

False1
01-31-10, 06:38 PM
The Carl Crawford love on this board is unbelievable. He's not a bad player but, yeah, he's not worth the contract he is going to ask for as a FAPrecisely... he'd be a nice player to have, but he'll be the best FA OF on the market next season and someone's going to overpay for him. I hope it's not us.

ThePinStripes
01-31-10, 06:42 PM
Get pitchers next off season

(or Pujols/Mauer if available)

offense is fine.

Norge
01-31-10, 07:03 PM
If Mauer or Pujols leaves his team, I might stop watching baseball.

ajra21
02-01-10, 02:37 PM
Get pitchers next off season

(or Pujols/Mauer if available)

offense is fine.

how does pujols leave st louis? they'll re-sign him.

ThePinStripes
02-01-10, 02:55 PM
how does pujols leave st louis? they'll re-sign him.

I hope so. I'm all about "good" but not "OMFG" players like Teix and CC becoming free agents.
Guys like Pujols and Mauer need to stay put. If Lincecum keeps doing anything remotely close to what he's been doing, he needs to stay in San Fran.

SLURPEE
02-01-10, 03:00 PM
I hope so. I'm all about "good" but not "OMFG" players like Teix and CC becoming free agents.
Guys like Pujols and Mauer need to stay put. If Lincecum keeps doing anything remotely close to what he's been doing, he needs to stay in San Fran.

I get the feeling he's going to end up leaving San Fran.

Mr. Mxylsplk
02-01-10, 03:04 PM
I get the feeling he's going to end up leaving San Fran.
I don't know, it's about as easy a place as he could be to find the supply he's looking for.

yankee82093
02-01-10, 03:04 PM
I'd wager the chances of both Mauer and Pujols staying with their respective teams is over 70%. I think I'd actually rather both remain with their current teams then they become Yankees.

Mastermind
02-01-10, 03:13 PM
I'd wager the chances of both Mauer and Pujols staying with their respective teams is over 70%. I think I'd actually rather both remain with their current teams then they become Yankees.

Mauer it seems is about to sign a 10 year deal

Bozidar
02-01-10, 03:32 PM
Mauer it seems is about to sign a 10 year dealThat'd be a shame.. we could really use that kid.

kan_t
02-01-10, 03:34 PM
That'd be a shame.. we could really use that kid.
Shame? Really?

VinnyTheMick
02-01-10, 04:27 PM
As long as Boston doesn't get either Mauer or Puljols then I am happy. We don't need EVERY stud player in the game on the Yankees.

gadvfreak99
02-01-10, 04:45 PM
No, It means Werth is coming.

Matsui55
02-01-10, 07:44 PM
which is one of the reasons i find the MLBPA union to be one of the biggest problems in baseball.

This is wrong.

The job of a union in professional sports is to push the best players to take the highest salary so that the "grunt" players can make an argument that they should get better pay as well.

Keep this in mind when you criticize the unions- where would that money go otherwise? In the owner's pockets. Take a look at the Marlins, for example- the union has been after then for years because it was no secret that they got tens of millions in revenue sharing, in addition to the money they get from ticket sales, etc.- but they ran payrolls WELL below the amount they took in. In short, the Marlins owners were pocketing the difference, rather than reinvesting in the team. Finally, the other owners apparently got tired of this and MLB had to order them to spend.

Think about it, many complain that the price of tickets is a result of player salaries- but did the Marlins cut their ticket prices when they didn't pay players? No. In short, they charge whatever they can get away with. The player salaries are a convenient red herring for owners who want more profit from their teams. Its the same in any sport.

Watch what happens in the NFL this year with no cap. A couple teams will try to spend their way to a title- but I strongly suspect that you will see a number of teams cut payroll dramatically, but you won't see them drop ticket prices or return shared revenue.

In the end, player salaries are merely the end result of millionaires haggling with billionaires over how to divide profits.

Instead of blaming players, owners or unions, just cheer for the laundry- that's the only way it makes any sense.

I'm A Wenner!
02-01-10, 08:15 PM
It has been statistically proven that ticket prices are a function of supply and demand, and are not correlated to player salaries.

JeffWeaverFan
02-01-10, 09:33 PM
Lets think about this rationally. Jeter's a FA next year too. He'll be 37 in 2011. Lets say we sign him to a 4 year deal, taking him through the age of 40. Where is he going to play? 1B? Nope. 3B? Nope. DH? Nope - Montero will be there, if not A-Rod at some point. Pretty much he's going to have to end up in LF or become an extremely expensive role player, because he's not going to be a SS for the next 5 seasons.

My guess is the Yankees re-sign Jeter to a deal that is close to triple what any other team is willing to give him, keep Jeter at SS for the season, keep LF cheap, and move Jeter there pretty soon after.

ThePinStripes
02-01-10, 09:49 PM
It has been statistically proven that ticket prices are a function of supply and demand, and are not correlated to player salaries.

It's also been proven through economics, common sense and a million other examples in our daily lives, but it still doesn't seem to sink in.

You own a widget.

Hypothetical situation A: People are will pay as much as $500 for the widget. It cost you $1 to make that widget. How much do you sell it for?

Hypothetical situation B: People are will pay as much as $500 for the widget. It cost you $499 to make that widget. How much do you sell it for?

I'm A Wenner!
02-01-10, 09:50 PM
No way, man. I ................ing hate widgets.

ThePinStripes
02-01-10, 10:00 PM
This is wrong.

The job of a union in professional sports is to push the best players to take the highest salary so that the "grunt" players can make an argument that they should get better pay as well.

Keep this in mind when you criticize the unions- where would that money go otherwise? In the owner's pockets. Take a look at the Marlins, for example- the union has been after then for years because it was no secret that they got tens of millions in revenue sharing, in addition to the money they get from ticket sales, etc.- but they ran payrolls WELL below the amount they took in. In short, the Marlins owners were pocketing the difference, rather than reinvesting in the team. Finally, the other owners apparently got tired of this and MLB had to order them to spend.

Think about it, many complain that the price of tickets is a result of player salaries- but did the Marlins cut their ticket prices when they didn't pay players? No. In short, they charge whatever they can get away with. The player salaries are a convenient red herring for owners who want more profit from their teams. Its the same in any sport.

Watch what happens in the NFL this year with no cap. A couple teams will try to spend their way to a title- but I strongly suspect that you will see a number of teams cut payroll dramatically, but you won't see them drop ticket prices or return shared revenue.

In the end, player salaries are merely the end result of millionaires haggling with billionaires over how to divide profits.

Instead of blaming players, owners or unions, just cheer for the laundry- that's the only way it makes any sense.

My gripe with unions as a whole (not just in baseball) is 1) it's an inherently unfair system and 2) it kills a lot of options players and teams have

1) It's ridiculous that employees can all get together to try and set prices, when it's illegal for employers to do the same. It's inherently unfair.

2) Unions, by their nature, tie hands and create red tape. It's just the nature of the beast. If one employee is doing a good job, he can't get a raise unless everyone gets a raise.

Then they set rules that tie hands and generally only protect those who shouldn't be protected. In MLB, they don't allow performance contracts. Those who would get should rewarded for exceeding expectations don't get anything. In effect, the money they would have gotten is given to those who didn't perform. At it's worst, there is the guaranteed money for injuries. Carl Pavano took money that would have otherwise went to someone busting their ass.

There are other deals that they don't allow as well (both MLB and normal jobs). I'm willing to work for this much money and under these terms. They are willing to hire me to work for that much money and under those terms. But we're not allowed to strike a deal. Often, the response becomes "I wish we could, but we can't and it's really worth it for us to do it like that. Sorry." Everyone loses (although, sometimes those already in the union don't lose).

delv
02-01-10, 10:16 PM
My gripe with unions as a whole (not just in baseball) is 1) it's an inherently unfair system and 2) it kills a lot of options players and teams have

1) It's ridiculous that employees can all get together to try and set prices, when it's illegal for employers to do the same. It's inherently unfair.

2) Unions, by their nature, tie hands and create red tape. It's just the nature of the beast. If one employee is doing a good job, he can't get a raise unless everyone gets a raise.

Then they set rules that tie hands and generally only protect those who shouldn't be protected. In MLB, they don't allow performance contracts. Those who would get should rewarded for exceeding expectations don't get anything. In effect, the money they would have gotten is given to those who didn't perform. At it's worst, there is the guaranteed money for injuries. Carl Pavano took money that would have otherwise went to someone busting their ass.

There are other deals that they don't allow as well (both MLB and normal jobs). I'm willing to work for this much money and under these terms. They are willing to hire me to work for that much money and under those terms. But we're not allowed to strike a deal. Often, the response becomes "I wish we could, but we can't and it's really worth it for us to do it like that. Sorry." Everyone loses (although, sometimes those already in the union don't lose).


Concerning your second point: if not for unions, employers could choose to never give a raise to anyone, and would have little to no incentive to do so. There are always more people people in the general population than employment positions, so employers always have the upper hand and would prefer to fire you than give you a raise. People work because they have to (because they are, in our contemporary society, disenfranchised from the land), and employers take advantage of that fact.

Concerning your first point: business is not meant to be fair. "Business" is composed of the dynamic between different groups trying to get the most that they can of what they want as [legally] possible.

ThePinStripes
02-02-10, 12:40 AM
Concerning your second point: if not for unions, employers could choose to never give a raise to anyone, and would have little to no incentive to do so. There are always more people people in the general population than employment positions, so employers always have the upper hand and would prefer to fire you than give you a raise. People work because they have to (because they are, in our contemporary society, disenfranchised from the land), and employers take advantage of that fact.

Concerning your first point: business is not meant to be fair. "Business" is composed of the dynamic between different groups trying to get the most that they can of what they want as [legally] possible.
Or employees would leave and go to another employee. By your assumptions, they could just choose not to pay anyone above minimum wage all together.

So long as employers don't get together to set prices, that's not an issue. We don't allow them to do that for just that reason. Likewise, we shouldn't let employees conspire against an employer. At the end of the day, you're paid what you're worth to an employer. If you're worth $10 more than your average replacement, an employer would rather give you an raise (provided it's less than $10) than to hire someone else who will make him $10 less.

Business is actually meant to be fair. I don't know where you got that idea from. I guess it depends on your definition of fair, but I never thought "equal profit" was a requisite of "fair."

delv
02-02-10, 01:02 AM
(1)Or employees would leave and go to another employee. By your assumptions, they could just choose not to pay anyone above minimum wage all together.

(2) So long as employers don't get together to set prices, that's not an issue. We don't allow them to do that for just that reason. Likewise, we shouldn't let employees conspire against an employer. At the end of the day, you're paid what you're worth to an employer. If you're worth $10 more than your average replacement, an employer would rather give you an raise (provided it's less than $10) than to hire someone else who will make him $10 less.

(3) Business is actually meant to be fair. I don't know where you got that idea from. I guess it depends on your definition of fair, but I never thought "equal profit" was a requisite of "fair."

(1) I assume you meant "employees would leave and go to another employer." That's simply very often not an option in places where singular corporations become the singular source for employment---this may be why some of the strongest union traditions have been in places with large singular corporations inextricably tied to specific communities (eg. the car companies).
Also, I hope you realize that the minimum wage wouldn't exist without union lobbyists and worker protests. Minimum wage wasn't made up by the government as a "nice idea."

(2) Much of what you say here is filled with flawed thinking. Employers don't pay you what you're worth---they pay what they can get away with. If they paid you what you were worth, then, by definition, the company would make zero profit. Right? Necessarily, employees are always paid LESS than they are worth. Otherwise, there would be no point in hiring them.
Also, concerning collusion among employers,... organization is not necessary for employers to suppress wages. You simply have to pay the same as the other guy and you're guaranteed to be doing yourself and other employers a favor.
Last of all, a side point that is actual important in this discussion: the issue of employee skill level is largely moot in the context in which unions arose in this country: under mechanization/industrialization/mass production.

(3) I dunno what to say man. I disagree with you to such a degree that I'm not sure where to start. We can try to discuss this, but let's first define business. Do you mean a market economy or do you mean capitalism (sold labor power)?

ThePinStripes
02-02-10, 01:33 AM
It's late but

1) Yes, I do know, and it was a horrible idea. We made it illegal to pay Americans $4/hr so now we have undocumented immigrants doing it instead. Come to think of it, what industry is unionized and doing well? Airlines? Auto? Steel? Teaching? Lol!

2) Yes, I realize they pay employees less than what they earn for the employee. They pay what they are worth on the market of employees, like anything else.
"Just don't raise the wages and no one will" doesn't work. Supply, demand, etc come into play. When you're worth more than the average bear, employers will compete over you. As far as employee skills- I firmly disagree, at least today. I'm only talking about the present effect of unions, for clarification.

3) I was thinking more along the lines of the system of rules governing how people doing business with each other.

mjdlight
02-02-10, 07:50 AM
2) Yes, I realize they pay employees less than what they earn for the employee. They pay what they are worth on the market of employees, like anything else.
"Just don't raise the wages and no one will" doesn't work. Supply, demand, etc come into play. When you're worth more than the average bear, employers will compete over you. As far as employee skills- I firmly disagree, at least today. I'm only talking about the present effect of unions, for clarification.
Baseball is a unique industry/instution though, granted a special anti-trust exemption by the Supreme Court and unchallenged (to date) by Congress. Its not truly a free labor market when one entity is allowed a protected monopoly. If there were multiple leagues at the major league level of salary competing for players, the need for a union would be lessened.

Bozidar
02-02-10, 12:25 PM
Shame? Really?Yes. IMO, it would (and maybe by now is) a shame for any non-twins fan. This kid seems to be a pretty special guy on the field, a great talent. Why wouldn't any baseball fan want him on their team and lament him being locked up in the icebox and is Minnesota instead?

Bozidar
02-02-10, 12:30 PM
Come to think of it, what industry is unionized and doing well? Airlines? Auto? Steel? Teaching? Lol! MLB for one.

delv
02-02-10, 05:12 PM
It's late but

1) Yes, I do know, and it was a horrible idea. We made it illegal to pay Americans $4/hr so now we have undocumented immigrants doing it instead. Come to think of it, what industry is unionized and doing well? Airlines? Auto? Steel? Teaching? Lol!

2) Yes, I realize they pay employees less than what they earn for the employee. They pay what they are worth on the market of employees, like anything else.
"Just don't raise the wages and no one will" doesn't work. Supply, demand, etc come into play. When you're worth more than the average bear, employers will compete over you. As far as employee skills- I firmly disagree, at least today. I'm only talking about the present effect of unions, for clarification.

3) I was thinking more along the lines of the system of rules governing how people doing business with each other.

I kinda don't wanna discuss this stuff on a baseball forum, so this may be my last post on the topic (unless you say something especially interesting), but:

1) Concerning undocumented immigrants, I actually wonder what history says on this. We've had "undocumented immigrants" for the length of our history as a country, but "documentation" wasn't a big deal back then, so people got licenses and government funding (eg. suburban housing growth) and patronage from urban political machines and benefits and paid taxes anyways. If they didn't, it was because of racism, but not because of discrimination against legal/illegal status. I mean, a large portion of African Americans in the South were born outside of hospitals and accordingly lacked birth certificates, and so were in the same boat. You also have Mexican Americans who populated parts of the Southwest that became annexed or conquered by the U.S. and presumably they were assimilated logistically in one way or another. So, again, I wonder if history would tell us that minimum wage is only now being applied in a selective way towards "documented" individuals when it might have been more universal before (or, on the other hand, not even applied to all documented individuals at all, given the lack of recourse to precedent that they might have had). Obviously our society has become more and more "record-heavy" and bureaucratic.
As far as unionized industries go..., there are a lot of successful industries with unions. Electronics (U.S.-based), media, software companies, pharmaceuticals and the medical industry, energy, etc... Most industries have unions so I'm not quite sure what you mean. The industries w/ unions aren't just the teachers/auto/steel, despite what CNN/FOX would have to believe. If there are wholesale industries that are struggling it's likely because they have failed to adapt to globalization.
Also, I dunno that I would consider teaching an industry in the same way as so much of it is government controlled and there isn't "profit" generated in the same way in education.

2) I agree that the discussion of employee skills is a fishy one, given that so much of "employee skill" nowadays actually comes from education and not craft. So I'll concede on this and say that I don't know what to say about things, since, really, much of this employee market is still developing and finding its own identity. It may be that the employee gains more power in this dynamic, but I would hesitate to make that conclusion at this point in history. It may just be that contemporary post-graduate education becomes highly commodified and takes the place of old trade schools.

3) Ok... so why would these (government) rules be made toward the end of establishing "fairness"? I would say that it's obvious that they're made to benefit whatever group lobbies hardest and is most in bed with the members of the government, be it a union leader, a corporate CEO, or the head of a South American drug cartel.

kan_t
02-02-10, 05:24 PM
Yes. IMO, it would (and maybe by now is) a shame for any non-twins fan. This kid seems to be a pretty special guy on the field, a great talent. Why wouldn't any baseball fan want him on their team and lament him being locked up in the icebox and is Minnesota instead?
No offense. I just feel a little bit strange when I saw that. It's like saying it's a shame for Yankees to lock up a 27 years old Jeter.

I'm A Wenner!
02-02-10, 09:54 PM
Minnesota =! New York.

Matsui55
02-02-10, 11:19 PM
My gripe with unions as a whole (not just in baseball) is 1) it's an inherently unfair system and 2) it kills a lot of options players and teams have

1) It's ridiculous that employees can all get together to try and set prices, when it's illegal for employers to do the same. It's inherently unfair.

2) Unions, by their nature, tie hands and create red tape. It's just the nature of the beast. If one employee is doing a good job, he can't get a raise unless everyone gets a raise.

Then they set rules that tie hands and generally only protect those who shouldn't be protected. In MLB, they don't allow performance contracts. Those who would get should rewarded for exceeding expectations don't get anything. In effect, the money they would have gotten is given to those who didn't perform. At it's worst, there is the guaranteed money for injuries. Carl Pavano took money that would have otherwise went to someone busting their ass.

There are other deals that they don't allow as well (both MLB and normal jobs). I'm willing to work for this much money and under these terms. They are willing to hire me to work for that much money and under those terms. But we're not allowed to strike a deal. Often, the response becomes "I wish we could, but we can't and it's really worth it for us to do it like that. Sorry." Everyone loses (although, sometimes those already in the union don't lose).

You REALLY need to read up on why Marvin Miller negotiated arbitration and how many years it takes to reach FA. It will clear up a great number of your misconceptions.

ArodEra
02-04-10, 01:27 PM
Why am I thinking that Damon stays with the Yanks, that he pulls an Arod, "breaks away" from Boras (ha) and comes running to Cashman and they work out a 1 year, $5 mil or so contract plus incentives?

Mr. Mxylsplk
02-04-10, 02:12 PM
Why am I thinking that Damon stays with the Yanks, that he pulls an Arod, "breaks away" from Boras (ha) and comes running to Cashman and they work out a 1 year, $5 mil or so contract plus incentives?
Obviously I don't know why you're thinking that, but it probably has something to do with a misconception of Damon's intentions.

ArodEra
02-04-10, 03:11 PM
Obviously I don't know why you're thinking that, but it probably has something to do with a misconception of Damon's intentions.

Considering that he totally misread the market, he knows that he screwed up and at the end of the day would prefer to stay in NY. Obviously, he thought the Yanks would cave in, or at least be open to more negotiating, and now that his options are narrowed, he just might take a lesser offer from the Yanks for one year, if he's willing to suck up his pride.

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibilities. I alos think that Cashman can somehow "find" another $5 million or so to strengthen the team for 2010.

yankee82093
02-04-10, 05:32 PM
Why am I thinking that Damon stays with the Yanks, that he pulls an Arod, "breaks away" from Boras (ha) and comes running to Cashman and they work out a 1 year, $5 mil or so contract plus incentives?

It's not going to happen. Damon personally called the Yankees like a week ago before the Winn signing and Cash offered 6 mil and he rejected it. It's over. No more Damon.

Mr. Mxylsplk
02-05-10, 07:48 AM
Considering that he totally misread the market, he knows that he screwed up and at the end of the day would prefer to stay in NY. Obviously, he thought the Yanks would cave in, or at least be open to more negotiating, and now that his options are narrowed, he just might take a lesser offer from the Yanks for one year, if he's willing to suck up his pride.

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibilities. I alos think that Cashman can somehow "find" another $5 million or so to strengthen the team for 2010.

I actually think $5 million from the yanks is out of the question at this point. Prior to the Winn signing, I figured they'd go at least that high, if not a touch above, and it sounds like they even told him as much. And he turned them down. Now the ship has sailed. I suppose there's some small figure they'd still be willing to pay him if he truly came crawling back for peanuts, but someone will be willing to pay more. And he'll take whatever more he can get. That's what he's in it for. (I don't say that to be critical of him, I think it's perfectly reasonable to pursue the absolute last dollar. But that's the reason a last minute return to pinstripes isn't going to happen).

ajra21
02-05-10, 03:53 PM
damon is not returning to the yankees.

mexicanyank
02-05-10, 07:15 PM
I was having a discussion with a friend regarding who is a greater liability on the field (defensively), Abreu or Damon. I would like to know some of your opinions.

ThePinStripes
02-05-10, 07:22 PM
I was having a discussion with a friend regarding who is a greater liability on the field (defensively), Abreu or Damon. I would like to know some of your opinions.

Damon, by far. Not even close or debatable.

mexicanyank
02-05-10, 07:32 PM
Damon, by far. Not even close or debatable.

Both had a UZR/150 of -12.1 in 2009. Plus, Damon was an above-average LF in 2007 & 2008, while Abreu has always been a below-average RF since his Gold-Glove season in 2003. I don't understand how this is not debatable.

ThePinStripes
02-05-10, 07:41 PM
Both had a UZR/150 of -12.1 in 2009. Plus, Damon was an above-average LF in 2007 & 2008, while Abreu has always been a below-average RF since his Gold-Glove season in 2003. I don't understand how this is not debatable.

Watch a game.

And Abreu can throw a baseball further than he can kick it.

mexicanyank
02-05-10, 07:45 PM
Watch a game.

And Abreu can throw a baseball further than he can kick it.

I watch about 100-120 Yankee games annually, and those that I don't I check out the highlights.
And arm strength is not the only important characteristic of a good OFer. In fact, I would argue it is one of the least.

THEBOSS84
02-05-10, 07:53 PM
I say Abreu is worse and it's not particularly close.

flymick24
02-05-10, 10:41 PM
pick your poison, but damon's arm makes him that much more of a liability... then again, that's probably on par with abreu's wall shyness

I'm A Wenner!
02-05-10, 11:19 PM
I say Abreu is worse and it's not particularly close.

Agreed. He's ranked poorly for years.

ThePinStripes
02-05-10, 11:37 PM
I guess it depends on how you look at it- I was thinking of replacing one with the other

Both in RF: Abreu by a mile
Both in LF: Closer, but I still think Abreu. Maybe a tie.

I'm also basing this off Damon 2009, fwiw.

Matsui55
02-06-10, 02:32 AM
Watch a game.

And Abreu can throw a baseball further than he can kick it.

Throwing the ball has NOTHING to do with being a good defensive OF. Vlad for years has had one of the best arms going, but was considered an average to below defensive OF because he was not good at tracking balls, getting balls out of the corners, or even hitting his cut-off man.

Abreu is overrated because he's afraid of the wall- really doesn't go all-out for tough plays and is not that great at playing balls off the ground.

yankee82093
02-06-10, 02:13 PM
Throwing the ball has NOTHING to do with being a good defensive OF. Vlad for years has had one of the best arms going, but was considered an average to below defensive OF because he was not good at tracking balls, getting balls out of the corners, or even hitting his cut-off man.

Abreu is overrated because he's afraid of the wall- really doesn't go all-out for tough plays and is not that great at playing balls off the ground.

Throwing the ball definitely has to do with being a good defensive OF. Is it as important as some people think? No. But it's certainly a factor.

ThePinStripes
02-06-10, 02:17 PM
Throwing the ball has NOTHING to do with being a good defensive OF. Vlad for years has had one of the best arms going, but was considered an average to below defensive OF because he was not good at tracking balls, getting balls out of the corners, or even hitting his cut-off man.

Abreu is overrated because he's afraid of the wall- really doesn't go all-out for tough plays and is not that great at playing balls off the ground.

Thank God you're not a baseball analyst for the Yankees.

flymick24
02-06-10, 02:17 PM
having a good arm doesn't make one a good fielder, but to be a good fielder, one must have a good arm

yankee82093
02-06-10, 02:22 PM
having a good arm doesn't make one a good fielder, but to be a good fielder, one must have a good arm

Not true either. Case and point: Grady Sizemore. There are tons of other examples too. Gardner doesn't have a good arm (at least by the traditional sense), but is definitely a good fielder.

mexicanyank
02-06-10, 02:24 PM
Not true either. Case and point: Grady Sizemore. There are tons of other examples too. Gardner doesn't have a good arm (at least by the traditional sense), but is definitely a good fielder.

I agree. I would say that speed, taking good routes, positioning, and arm accuracy are more important than arm strength.

ThePinStripes
02-06-10, 02:29 PM
Not true either. Case and point: Grady Sizemore. There are tons of other examples too. Gardner doesn't have a good arm (at least by the traditional sense), but is definitely a good fielder.

Gardner has a pretty good arm, IMO. It's not anything super powerful, but it's a fairly strong arm. I guess we'd have to define "traditional sense" and "good" first though.

Jasbro
02-06-10, 03:49 PM
My eyes tell me Gardner doesn't take particularly good routes -- he seems to use his outstanding speed to make up for his bad routes. He also is a bit too aggressive in the field, choosing to go for the spectacular play instead of the smart, safer play.

I'm A Wenner!
02-06-10, 04:08 PM
My eyes tell me Gardner doesn't take particularly good routes -- he seems to use his outstanding speed to make up for his bad routes. He also is a bit too aggressive in the field, choosing to go for the spectacular play instead of the smart, safer play.

My eyes allow me to read defensive statistics, that suggest that Gardner is an elite fielder. Since you're not a scout, one of these things has evaluative value.

THEBOSS84
02-06-10, 04:31 PM
You can both be right, FYI. Gardner can take poor routes and still be an elite fielder (which he has shown us he can be).

delv
02-06-10, 06:16 PM
what he said^

Blazer
02-06-10, 06:22 PM
You can both be right, FYI. Gardner can take poor routes and still be an elite fielder (which he has shown us he can be).

The one thing they can't teach OF in the minors is the third deck. I suspect Gardner's routes will improve with experience.

ThePinStripes
02-06-10, 06:43 PM
My eyes tell me Gardner doesn't take particularly good routes -- he seems to use his outstanding speed to make up for his bad routes. He also is a bit too aggressive in the field, choosing to go for the spectacular play instead of the smart, safer play.

I've noticed that faster outfielders tend to take worse routes.

Likewise, relative to their speed, faster runners tend to be worse base stealers. For example, it seems like Gardner has closer calls when he tries to steal a base than Jeter. In terms of pure running speed, Gardner should beat Jeter there by 2 or 3 steps, yet it's almost as close of a play at the bag every time, if not closer for Gardner.

In both instances, I think it's because they've never had to get good at it. They could just make up for it with speed. Kind of like that really smart kids in school had the worst study habits. They never needed to develop good study habits because they were so damn smart.

Blazer
02-06-10, 06:47 PM
I've noticed that faster outfielders tend to take worse routes.

Likewise, relative to their speed, faster runners tend to be worse base stealers. For example, it seems like Gardner has closer calls when he tries to steal a base than Jeter. In terms of pure running speed, Gardner should beat Jeter there by 2 or 3 steps, yet it's almost as close of a play at the bag every time, if not closer for Gardner.

In both instances, I think it's because they've never had to get good at it. They could just make up for it with speed. Kind of like that really smart kids in school had the worst study habits. They never needed to develop good study habits because they were so damn smart.

Yes, but the really dumb kids in school also had bad study habits.
Take me for example...http://www.blackfootstudios.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/dunce.gif

Cool Papa B.
02-06-10, 07:19 PM
IMO if the Yankees don't get next year Crawford, they will go after Jayson Worth.
Oh BTW....happy birthday to the greatest baseball player ever.....

The Babe
The Man
The Bambino
The Home Run King
The Circuit Smasher
Herman the Great
Homeric Herman
The Bulky Monarch
The King of Clout
The Sultan of Swat
The Colossus of Clout
The Wali of Wallop
The Wazir of Wham
The Maharajah of Mash
The Rahaj of Rap
The Caliph of Clout
The Behemoth of Bust

And on, and on, and on........

grizy
02-07-10, 03:44 AM
Gardner's routes were better in 2009 than in 2008. I don't know what he did, but he got better.

He wad amazing range even with lousy routes. He'll only get better till he hits that magical 30 and his speed begins to decrease.

ajra21
02-07-10, 10:56 AM
i suspect that given enough time in centre, gardner could well become one of the very best defensive players in the game.

OldYankeeFan
02-07-10, 11:43 AM
Gardner has a pretty good arm, IMO. It's not anything super powerful, but it's a fairly strong arm. I guess we'd have to define "traditional sense" and "good" first though.Gardner is a good case in point in how ones eyes don't tell the whole story. My eyes told me Gardner does not have a very strong arm (he is accurate though) but the metrics said differently. The difference it seems (I read this somewhere but can't recall where) is that Gardner, because of his speed gets to the ball sooner than most and as a result balls hit to certain areas of the field are retrieved more quickly and thrown in sooner to a base, thereby holding a runner better than an average fielder (in getting to a ball) with a rocket arm.

We always seemed to give Melky kudos for holding runners because of his strong arm, but gardner was actually better at it because of his superior speed in getting to the ball sooner. Obviously a high fly ball that is waited on negates some of the speed advantage, but overall it makes enough of a difference to give Gardner an advantage at keeping a runner from advancing.

ajra21
02-07-10, 12:49 PM
Gardner is a good case in point in how ones eyes don't tell the whole story. My eyes told me Gardner does not have a very strong arm (he is accurate though) but the metrics said differently. The difference it seems (I read this somewhere but can't recall where) is that Gardner, because of his speed gets to the ball sooner than most and as a result balls hit to certain areas of the field are retrieved more quickly and thrown in sooner to a base, thereby holding a runner better than an average fielder (in getting to a ball) with a rocket arm.

We always seemed to give Melky kudos for holding runners because of his strong arm, but gardner was actually better at it because of his superior speed in getting to the ball sooner. Obviously a high fly ball that is waited on negates some of the speed advantage, but overall it makes enough of a difference to give Gardner an advantage at keeping a runner from advancing.

i would say that my eyes have noticed this. melky's arm was not anywhere near as effective last season. he seemed to be trying too hard.

mexicanyank
02-07-10, 12:56 PM
i would say that my eyes have noticed this. melky's arm was not anywhere near as effective last season. he seemed to be trying too hard.

I noticed the same thing. Last season, Melky tried to live up to his reputation of nailing down runners all over the place, and sometimes threw the ball way off target or even made throws when not needed.

Matsui55
02-07-10, 01:34 PM
i suspect that given enough time in centre, gardner could well become one of the very best defensive players in the game.

Nice Canadian spelling of center.

My only question with Gardner in CF is how shallow he plays. While his speed and reads are excellent, allowing him to get to more balls, I saw at least 2 times last season where a rocket was hit to deep center, and because he was so shallow, he had no chance to get back and ended up just chasing the ball around.

I have no idea of whether the metrics show that you make more outs playing shallow with the occasional drive over your head, or whether playing a little deeper is better. Anyone know which one the numbers show leads to more outs?

Matsui55
02-07-10, 01:35 PM
I've noticed that faster outfielders tend to take worse routes.

Likewise, relative to their speed, faster runners tend to be worse base stealers. For example, it seems like Gardner has closer calls when he tries to steal a base than Jeter. In terms of pure running speed, Gardner should beat Jeter there by 2 or 3 steps, yet it's almost as close of a play at the bag every time, if not closer for Gardner.

In both instances, I think it's because they've never had to get good at it. They could just make up for it with speed. Kind of like that really smart kids in school had the worst study habits. They never needed to develop good study habits because they were so damn smart.

Young Bernie Williams had great speed in the OF, but was a TERRIBLE basestealer because he couldn't read the pitcher. Anyone else remember when he was tried out as the leadoff hitter, thinking they could take advantage of his speed?

rajah
02-07-10, 01:52 PM
Nice Canadian spelling of center.

My only question with Gardner in CF is how shallow he plays. While his speed and reads are excellent, allowing him to get to more balls, I saw at least 2 times last season where a rocket was hit to deep center, and because he was so shallow, he had no chance to get back and ended up just chasing the ball around.

I have no idea of whether the metrics show that you make more outs playing shallow with the occasional drive over your head, or whether playing a little deeper is better. Anyone know which one the numbers show leads to more outs?

The conventional wisdom is that the CFers who can play shallow, like a young Andruw Jones and Paul Blair, are the best. As Damon declined, he kept moving back, making his arm more of an issue. Gardner's shallow play to me suggests his confidence and probably helps his defensive ratings.

Matsui55
02-07-10, 02:50 PM
Thank God you're not a baseball analyst for the Yankees.

Nice try to make yourself look like the smart one.

YOU are the one who took the ridiculous position that arm strength makes one a good OF. I came up with examples to prove your error, and instead you throw insults.

This has become a long and tiring pattern with you. You throw mud at other posters, then when someone shows your idea to either be unsupported, or outright wrong, you resort to insults- you do not find evidence or proof of your points.

If you are incapable of engaging in reasoned argument, I suggest you should consider a new hobby.

yankee82093
02-07-10, 03:05 PM
Take it to PM.

ThePinStripes
02-07-10, 04:56 PM
Nice try to make yourself look like the smart one.

YOU are the one who took the ridiculous position that arm strength makes one a good OF. I came up with examples to prove your error, and instead you throw insults.

This has become a long and tiring pattern with you. You throw mud at other posters, then when someone shows your idea to either be unsupported, or outright wrong, you resort to insults- you do not find evidence or proof of your points.

If you are incapable of engaging in reasoned argument, I suggest you should consider a new hobby.No, just you :P

In a normal stadium, RF is a harder OF position to play. It's more valuable than LF. To put them on equal grounds, I compared them in RF. Either in center is a disaster, but Abreu would be less of a disaster. Damon in RF would be a joke.
Alternatively, you could compare them both in CF, where they'd both be absolute disasters. LF isn't really fair because it's the weakest of the 3 OF requirements, and it can cover up deficiencies.

That's why I said what I did, and it's an opinion. You're more than welcome to disagree.

What you said was simply incorrect, factually. That's why you deserved to be mocked :P

yankee82093
02-07-10, 05:14 PM
No, just you :P

In a normal stadium, RF is a harder OF position to play. It's more valuable than LF. To put them on equal grounds, I compared them in RF. Either in center is a disaster, but Abreu would be less of a disaster. Damon in RF would be a joke.
Alternatively, you could compare them both in CF, where they'd both be absolute disasters. LF isn't really fair because it's the weakest of the 3 OF requirements, and it can cover up deficiencies.

That's why I said what I did, and it's an opinion. You're more than welcome to disagree.

What you said was simply incorrect, factually. That's why you deserved to be mocked :P

LF and RF are equally hard to play in a normal stadium, and if not, the difference is negligible. And an argument can be made that LF is harder to play than RF in YS because it's much larger. And Abreu is a worse fielder than Damon, but they're both terrible.

ThePinStripes
02-07-10, 05:22 PM
Arm strength is much more important in RF than LF. YS is obviously a bit of a different beast.

In YS, Damon plays LF better than Abreu would and Abreu plays RF better than Damon. That's why I just put them both in RF, where Damon's arm would turn every double into a triple.

yankee82093
02-07-10, 10:38 PM
Arm strength is much more important in RF than LF. YS is obviously a bit of a different beast.

In YS, Damon plays LF better than Abreu would and Abreu plays RF better than Damon. That's why I just put them both in RF, where Damon's arm would turn every double into a triple.

But your reasoning is inherently flawed in the context it is being discussed. The question is: "who is the better outfielder?", not "who is the better RF."

Your reasoning answers only one of these.

Joe159
02-07-10, 10:39 PM
Arm strength is much more important in RF than LF. YS is obviously a bit of a different beast.

In YS, Damon plays LF better than Abreu would and Abreu plays RF better than Damon. That's why I just put them both in RF, where Damon's arm would turn every double into a triple.
If they each play one of the OF positions better, then picking the one where Abreu is better is arbitrary. Damon has more range, allowing him to play a better LF where his noodle arm isn't as much of a liability. Abreu has the range of a small statue, so the smaller RF in YS helps hide that.

To say Abreu > Damon in RF so therefore Abreu > Damon as an outfielder is cherrypicking. You admit they both have different abilities and then say you're basing your argument off of a non-existent scenario that plays to Abreu's strengths. Can't do that and not look silly.

ThePinStripes
02-07-10, 10:53 PM
But your reasoning is inherently flawed in the context it is being discussed. The question is: "who is the better outfielder?", not "who is the better RF."

Your reasoning answers only one of these.

I see the argument from the Damon side, which is why I didn't really rebut their argument. Perfectly valid argument.

Like I said, I just picked RF because they are essentially the same position, except LF conceals a weakness in the OFer's arm.

I only said something to Matsui, because he said an OFer's arm has NO bearing on their defensive capabilities.

mexicanyank
02-07-10, 11:35 PM
If they each play one of the OF positions better, then picking the one where Abreu is better is arbitrary. Damon has more range, allowing him to play a better LF where his noodle arm isn't as much of a liability. Abreu has the range of a small statue, so the smaller RF in YS helps hide that.

To say Abreu > Damon in RF so therefore Abreu > Damon as an outfielder is cherrypicking. You admit they both have different abilities and then say you're basing your argument off of a non-existent scenario that plays to Abreu's strengths. Can't do that and not look silly.

Yep. Exactly.
Now my original question was: who is a greater liability on the field? That means that Damon, being a LFer, must be evaluated as such; while Abreu, being a RFer, must be evaluated as such, and in the end decide who affects their team more due to their defensive shortcomings.

Matsui55
02-08-10, 01:46 AM
No, just you :P

In a normal stadium, RF is a harder OF position to play. It's more valuable than LF. To put them on equal grounds, I compared them in RF. Either in center is a disaster, but Abreu would be less of a disaster. Damon in RF would be a joke.
Alternatively, you could compare them both in CF, where they'd both be absolute disasters. LF isn't really fair because it's the weakest of the 3 OF requirements, and it can cover up deficiencies.

That's why I said what I did, and it's an opinion. You're more than welcome to disagree.

What you said was simply incorrect, factually. That's why you deserved to be mocked :P

Next time, when you are wrong, just admit it and move on. Goodbye.

Mr. Mxylsplk
02-08-10, 08:25 AM
The unintentional comedy is really ratcheting up.

flymick24
02-08-10, 09:46 AM
M55's ignore list is bordering on telephone book thickness

ajra21
02-08-10, 12:09 PM
looks like fun is being had in here ...

rajah
02-08-10, 05:14 PM
Query: Does Damon really have better range than even the aging Abreu at this point? Even apart from his dismal arm, he has looked pretty bad to me getting to balls recently. Just asking.

ThePinStripes
02-08-10, 07:34 PM
Yep. Exactly.
Now my original question was: who is a greater liability on the field? That means that Damon, being a LFer, must be evaluated as such; while Abreu, being a RFer, must be evaluated as such, and in the end decide who affects their team more due to their defensive shortcomings.

fair 'nough.


Query: Does Damon really have better range than even the aging Abreu at this point? Even apart from his dismal arm, he has looked pretty bad to me getting to balls recently. Just asking.
Based on 2009 alone? I'd still venture to say yes, but the gap isn't as big as was in the past, IMO.

yankee82093
02-08-10, 08:15 PM
Query: Does Damon really have better range than even the aging Abreu at this point? Even apart from his dismal arm, he has looked pretty bad to me getting to balls recently. Just asking.

yes he does

ajra21
02-09-10, 11:47 AM
the drop off in damon's D was quick.

rajah
02-10-10, 07:38 AM
People have given me opinions on Damon's range relative to that of Abreu's, but no one has given me any evidence to contradict what my eyes told me last year: Damon is a bad outfielder at this point, and not just because of his arm. Abreu, we all know, shies away from walls and from diving for balls as well. But I am unconvinced that Damon now covers more ground. Obviously Abreu has a superior arm. Abreu certainly is going to have a much better contract for the next two years. That tells you something right there about what GMs around the league think about Damon's defensive liabilities.

I am not convinced that Cashman is at all unhappy about losing Damon. I think he is very pleased about how the off season worked out. The decision to make a good offer to Damon was to have him in the 2 hole. The signing of NJ obviated that, and made Damon's defensive liabilities seem as worrisome as any uncertainty about Gardner's offense.

rajah
02-10-10, 07:43 AM
the drop off in damon's D was quick.

Not that quick -- it was obvious in CF by the end of 2007. It became much worse even in 2008, regardless of what any ratings show against the generally bad OFers who play LF around the leagues. I watched Damon's routes and how he started playing deeper. He was a negative in CF for the Yankees after his first year of the contract, and was a big liability by the end of 2008 when the Yankees played him there at the end of the year in desperation to make the playoffs. His decline, in other words, was masked by his shift to LF.

budstinks
02-11-10, 07:52 AM
LF and RF are equally hard to play in a normal stadium, and if not, the difference is negligible. And an argument can be made that LF is harder to play than RF in YS because it's much larger. And Abreu is a worse fielder than Damon, but they're both terrible.

I know in youth leagues, LF is harder basically because more balls are hit to LF than RF.

I've never seen a stat for MLB about number of balls hit to LF and RF.

My perception is skewed a bit because I only watch the Yanks who tend to load up on leftie hitting players due to the short porch in right. But I would think 60% of hitters in the bigs are RH (that's a guess, could be higher) and most would pull the ball more than not.

So I would GUESS that LF is harder to play in MLB as well. (Just because you want a better player there to run down the on average greater number of balls hit).

As teams normally play their really bad OF'ers in RF would back up that perception.

Just my uninformed opinion.

delv
02-11-10, 08:24 AM
I know in youth leagues, LF is harder basically because more balls are hit to LF than RF.

I've never seen a stat for MLB about number of balls hit to LF and RF.

My perception is skewed a bit because I only watch the Yanks who tend to load up on leftie hitting players due to the short porch in right. But I would think 60% of hitters in the bigs are RH (that's a guess, could be higher) and most would pull the ball more than not.

So I would GUESS that LF is harder to play in MLB as well. (Just because you want a better player there to run down the on average greater number of balls hit).

As teams normally play their really bad OF'ers in RF would back up that perception.

Just my uninformed opinion.

25% of all MLB players (hitters and pitchers) are lefties.

33% of hitters are lefties.

47% of HOF hitters are lefties.

(and if you're curious, about 10% of the general population is lefty)

ThePinStripes
02-11-10, 09:02 AM
I know in youth leagues, LF is harder basically because more balls are hit to LF than RF.

I've never seen a stat for MLB about number of balls hit to LF and RF.

My perception is skewed a bit because I only watch the Yanks who tend to load up on leftie hitting players due to the short porch in right. But I would think 60% of hitters in the bigs are RH (that's a guess, could be higher) and most would pull the ball more than not.

So I would GUESS that LF is harder to play in MLB as well. (Just because you want a better player there to run down the on average greater number of balls hit).

As teams normally play their really bad OF'ers in RF would back up that perception.

Just my uninformed opinion.

That doesn't make LF harder to play. It just makes it more important.

budstinks
02-11-10, 09:27 AM
That doesn't make LF harder to play. It just makes it more important.

:2thumbs: Whatever you say chief.

JL25and3
02-11-10, 09:30 AM
I know in youth leagues, LF is harder basically because more balls are hit to LF than RF.

I've never seen a stat for MLB about number of balls hit to LF and RF.

My perception is skewed a bit because I only watch the Yanks who tend to load up on leftie hitting players due to the short porch in right. But I would think 60% of hitters in the bigs are RH (that's a guess, could be higher) and most would pull the ball more than not.

So I would GUESS that LF is harder to play in MLB as well. (Just because you want a better player there to run down the on average greater number of balls hit).

As teams normally play their really bad OF'ers in RF would back up that perception.

Just my uninformed opinion.I don't think that's true.

It is true that there are more left fielders with great range than right fielders, but that's not because left field is harder to play. It's because a guy with so-so range and a good arm will be put in right, where a guy with good range and a suspect arm will be put in left.

But the truly awful fielders are more often put out in left field. Traditionally, it's where guys like Harmon Killebrew and Greg Luzinski played; more recently, it's where teams have tried to hide Adam Dunn and Pat Burrell.

ArodMVP217
02-11-10, 09:52 AM
Abreu defense > Damon defense

That aside, I'd rather we'd sign Werth than Crawford. Unless Crawdaddy ups his obp to ~380

I'm A Wenner!
02-11-10, 09:54 AM
Damon is a better defender than Abreu. The fact that Abreu makes his poor throws with more force doesn't overcome the fact that he has much less range than Damon.

mexicanyank
02-11-10, 11:21 AM
Your opinions seem very divided. Some say Abreu is definitely better, while others think Damon is clearly less of a liability. I can understand the difference in perception. I think that Damon is still a better fielder based on not only stats (indicating last year as his first below-average left field) but also because I think 2009 was kind of a "fluke". I believe he had some problems adjusting to the new stadium and how the ball traveled. Meanwhile, Abreu has for years been well below-average and this fact has been generally accepted. While Damon certainly has declined, in my opinion there were other factors that affected his horrible fielding last year.

ajra21
02-11-10, 02:03 PM
Abreu defense > Damon defense

... eh?

jeets31
02-11-10, 03:21 PM
please please please

ThePinStripes
02-11-10, 03:50 PM
:2thumbs: Whatever you say chief.

No, really. Your inability to differentiate between quality and quantity doesn't change this.

rajah
02-11-10, 04:55 PM
Damon is a better defender than Abreu. The fact that Abreu makes his poor throws with more force doesn't overcome the fact that he has much less range than Damon.

That is not what my eyes tell me. Is there some good evidence to convince me? Assertions that Damon still has superior range, even to Abreu, do not convince me. I think he is a pretty bad OFer right now, a big defensive liability. And I think his contract, relative to that of Abreu's, will help confirm that.

I'm A Wenner!
02-11-10, 05:57 PM
That is not what my eyes tell me. Is there some good evidence to convince me? Assertions that Damon still has superior range, even to Abreu, do not convince me. I think he is a pretty bad OFer right now, a big defensive liability. And I think his contract, relative to that of Abreu's, will help confirm that.

UZR is the most accurate metric for outfield defense, and it can most effectively evaluate defensive ability if you use three years of data. Over the last three years, Abreu is at -39.6 runs over the last three years, while Damon is 5 runs above average in LF over that same stretch. I don't know nor do I care what your eyes say. Abreu is an inferior fielder to Damon.

JL25and3
02-11-10, 06:12 PM
UZR is the most accurate metric for outfield defenseHow do we know that? Is there anything to measure its accuracy against?

I'm A Wenner!
02-11-10, 06:17 PM
How do we know that? Is there anything to measure its accuracy against?

It has the most sound methodology.

Jasbro
02-11-10, 06:37 PM
It has the most sound methodology.

That's not really saying much, though. Unless something has changed recently, it's still a very, very flawed stat. Until defensive stats can account for positioning and how the fielded ball was hit, they will always have a very large component that is subjective.

That being said, Damon is clearly a better LF than Abreu is a RF, in my opinion.

I'm A Wenner!
02-11-10, 06:44 PM
UZR does account for batted balls. It's a stat that uses PBP data.

And I'm not sure you're using "subjective" correctly.

JL25and3
02-11-10, 06:57 PM
It has the most sound methodology.OK, let me change that. Perhaps it is the most accurate, but we have absolutely no way of knowing how accurate that is.

And yes, it does have a significant subjective component, and the process isn't transparent, and there are more assumptions made - and error introduced - in converting the PBP data into runs.

I'm A Wenner!
02-11-10, 07:05 PM
How are defensive statistics subjective?

yankee82093
02-11-10, 09:07 PM
OK, let me change that. Perhaps it is the most accurate, but we have absolutely no way of knowing how accurate that is.

And yes, it does have a significant subjective component, and the process isn't transparent, and there are more assumptions made - and error introduced - in converting the PBP data into runs.

I hope you're not one of those people that decries UZR because it's unfamiliar.

Right now I doubt you know what you're talking about. How much about UZR do you actually know? I doubt your mathematical skills and analysis of UZR are superior to that of Tom Tango, Dave Cameron, and Micheal Lichtman.

There are legitimate reasons to distrust UZR, but nothing you have said thus far is one of them.

parkerstrong
02-11-10, 09:11 PM
I find it interesting that the talk is Damon is getting a 2yr/14mil contract offer from Detriot.....same offer the Yankees gave him. Obviously he made a mistake and should have taken the deal......

sweet_lou_14
02-11-10, 10:30 PM
25% of all MLB players (hitters and pitchers) are lefties.

33% of hitters are lefties.

47% of HOF hitters are lefties.

(and if you're curious, about 10% of the general population is lefty)

Those are cool stats, though the delta between 10% and 33% (or 47%) is a little misleading. Many lefty hitters in MLB would be considered righties in every other aspect of their lives, including notable HOFers like George Brett and Wade Boggs. (I'm assuming just about all of the lefty hitters who throw righty also write with their right hand, etc.)

Flip-wise, I can think of two HOFers (only two?) who threw lefty but batted righty. Hint: one is a recent inductee, one is not yet in there but a lock to get in, and both played for the Yankees.

ace
02-11-10, 10:46 PM
Flip-wise, I can think of two HOFers (only two?) who threw lefty but batted righty. Hint: one is a recent inductee, one is not yet in there but a lock to get in, and both played for the Yankees.

My guesses are Rickey Henderson and Randy Johnson?

delv
02-11-10, 11:10 PM
My guesses are Rickey Henderson and Randy Johnson?

Rickey's natural leftiness gave him unusual strength in his left-leg which he used for his great push-off move and quick acceleration when attempting to steal a base.

nnysiny
02-12-10, 07:25 AM
I find it interesting that the talk is Damon is getting a 2yr/14mil contract offer from Detriot.....same offer the Yankees gave him. Obviously he made a mistake and should have taken the deal......
i think the 2/14 thing is BS and was Boras' last attempt to make up for not taking the Yankees offer. if this offer is true, why isnt Damon a Tiger right now?

sweet_lou_14
02-12-10, 07:33 AM
My guesses are Rickey Henderson and Randy Johnson?

Bingo!

rajah
02-12-10, 07:48 AM
UZR is the most accurate metric for outfield defense, and it can most effectively evaluate defensive ability if you use three years of data. Over the last three years, Abreu is at -39.6 runs over the last three years, while Damon is 5 runs above average in LF over that same stretch. I don't know nor do I care what your eyes say. Abreu is an inferior fielder to Damon.

1) Thanks. This is what I wanted: the statistics. And I am convinced, by the Abreu number primarily. I am suspicious of the Damon number over three years because I think there has been a decline for him. I assume his last year's number, for instance, is worse than the other two. I still cannot believe that he is better than even the average guy who plays LF in the majors at this point, even though he may have been 2 or 3 years ago.

2) Based on this, I assume you think Abreu is being way overpaid by the Angels.

3) Finally, I would point out that your tone of "I don't know nor do I care" was unnecessary. Most people do not care what most other people post here. It does not need to be said. I do not know or care why you have a chip on your shoulder. I was just asking for some statistics to balance what I see. Some folks here answer questions or correct others without a contentious tone. I think you are a knowledgable, intelligent guy and I respect your posts. I would respect them more without the edge they sometimes have.

I'm A Wenner!
02-12-10, 03:12 PM
I come with edge or not at all. I'm like a premade salad that gets shipped to the restaurant. No, you can't have me without walnuts.

roblyo33
02-12-10, 03:25 PM
I see a potential midseason RO on the horizon!!

I'm A Wenner!
02-12-10, 03:26 PM
I see a potential midseason RO on the horizon!!

You're creeping me out, what with this following me around the board thing. I don't remember what obnoxious thing I said to make you so angry, but I'm certain it was completely called for.

roblyo33
02-12-10, 03:29 PM
You're creeping me out, what with this following me around the board thing. I don't remember what obnoxious thing I said to make you so angry, but I'm certain it was completely called for.

It's impossible not to follow you around. You have a post and an opinion in every thread on this site. Most of them are rude and disingenuous and I'm not the only one who has commented about it.

I'm A Wenner!
02-12-10, 03:31 PM
It's impossible not to follow you around. You have a post and an opinion in every thread on this site. Most of them are rude and disingenuous and I'm not the only one who has commented about it.

None of my posts are disingenuous.

roblyo33
02-12-10, 03:32 PM
None of my posts are disingenuous.

That's your opinion.

delv
02-12-10, 03:33 PM
:uhh: buh?

yankee82093
02-12-10, 03:33 PM
I was under the impression that we were supposed to talk about baseball in this thread.

ace
02-12-10, 03:33 PM
Bingo!

Nice. I actually knew RJ was, but Rickey was a guess.

I'm A Wenner!
02-12-10, 03:37 PM
That's your opinion.

Not for nothing, but if my opinion is that all of my posts represent my true opinion, doesn't that, by definition, mean they aren't disingenuous?

ThePinStripes
02-12-10, 10:15 PM
Not for nothing, but if my opinion is that all of my posts represent my true opinion, doesn't that, by definition, mean they aren't disingenuous?

Huh? I think he means:

Ingenuity requires an intent to be misleading. If he thinks (opinion) that his statements are not disingenuous, then he can't intentionally be misleading anyone. That means they are, in fact, not disingenuous. To be disingenuous, you'd have to be of the opinion that what you're saying is misleading.

Analogy:

When you shot that person in your house, you thought it was your mother in law.
No I didn't. I thought it was a burglar.
That's just your opinion.

Of course it's his opinion. If his opinion was "burglar" then he obviously didn't think it was his mother in law.

Unless, of course, he's bat................ crazy and his opinion of what he was doing is incorrect. Multiple personality disorder or something.

I'm A Wenner!
02-12-10, 10:42 PM
Huh? I think he means:

Ingenuity requires an intent to be misleading. If he thinks (opinion) that his statements are not disingenuous, then he can't intentionally be misleading anyone. That means they are, in fact, not disingenuous. To be disingenuous, you'd have to be of the opinion that what you're saying is misleading.

Analogy:

When you shot that person in your house, you thought it was your mother in law.
No I didn't. I thought it was a burglar.
That's just your opinion.

Of course it's his opinion. If his opinion was "burglar" then he obviously didn't think it was his sister's boyfriend.

Unless, of course, he's bat................ crazy and his opinion of what he was doing is incorrect. Multiple personality disorder or something.

This is what I meant, but it comes with the advantage of an example where I shoot my mother-in-law.

teknetic
02-13-10, 12:33 AM
I was under the impression that we were supposed to talk about baseball in this thread.

It's a bad idea and therefore derail worthy. Yes.

ThePinStripes
02-13-10, 12:38 AM
This is what I meant, but it comes with the advantage of an example where I shoot my mother-in-law.
Happy to help :P

ajra21
02-14-10, 04:31 AM
I see a potential midseason RO on the horizon!!

i was thinking that the other day.

as for damon's contract with the tigers, there is no way they give him two years and $14m. dombrowski has traded jackson and granderson to cut payroll.

BronxYanks45
02-14-10, 09:49 PM
what i totally dont understand is if the 2yr/$14 rumors from the tigers is correct why isnt Damon taking???

ThePinStripes
02-14-10, 10:29 PM
probably because it's another boras phantom offer.

I think he's had more offers than there are MLB teams now.

Matsui55
02-14-10, 10:33 PM
what i totally dont understand is if the 2yr/$14 rumors from the tigers is correct why isnt Damon taking???

Was it Olney who said in his blog the other day that he knew some baseball person who was told to spread that rumor to help the Damon market? If I read that right, I would say that Olney was calling BS on the rumor, while leaving himself some wiggle room .

ajra21
02-15-10, 04:43 AM
what i totally dont understand is if the 2yr/$14 rumors from the tigers is correct why isnt Damon taking???

it's crap. if they had that offer (now) he'd have already signed. no one is offering that money and those years. the yankees were the only ones to have that sort of deal on the table. they turned it down. now they'll have to take an abreu deal circa 2009.

nnysiny
02-15-10, 07:25 AM
what i totally dont understand is if the 2yr/$14 rumors from the tigers is correct why isnt Damon taking???
because there never was a 2/14 offer from the Tigers. Boras would have to be the worst agent on earth to blow two 2/14 offers for the same player in the same offseason