RSS Twitter Facebook YouTube
Expand Menu

And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Talk about the Cleveland Indians, Major League Baseball, and other sports.

And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby Jake Taylor » Tue Dec 23, 2008 4:45 pm

Teixeira to the Yankees at a reported 8 years, over 170 million.

Manny still expected to receive an offer from the Yankees, as well.

SALARY CAP!!!!! I can't believe I'm saying this, but the NBA might be the only league to get it right.
Jake Taylor
Rookie Baller
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:19 pm

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby JP_Frost » Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:41 pm

400 million for 3 players.

btw ... if the Yankees keep this up, they'll have their first draft pick in the 16th round. So much for rebuilding from within.
User avatar
JP_Frost
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby Jake Taylor » Tue Dec 23, 2008 6:18 pm

Officially 8 years, 180 million. Their starting lineup is just sick, and the pitching staff isn't far behind.

Well, at least the fans that hang around these parts love to know that there is indeed a minor league system in baseball.
Jake Taylor
Rookie Baller
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:19 pm

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby TheWord » Tue Dec 23, 2008 6:19 pm

I have no problem canceling an MLB season for the good of the sport.

Arena Football League style, this situation needs to be remedied...NOW!
TheWord
Rookie Baller
 
Posts: 319
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 7:06 pm

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby dazindiansfanuk » Tue Dec 23, 2008 6:29 pm

Is it just me that doesn't really care that much??

They signed CC.... OK that's a big improvement.

They signed Burnett..... a 4.00+ERA pitcher with injury problems...... he's a downgrade from Mussina.

And they signed Tex.... an improvement over Giambi true, but enough to win them that division??

If you ask me.... I say go for it Yankees, spend all your money.... all you're going to continue to do, in my opinion, is continue to prove that free agency is an inefficient and ineffective way to win in MLB. It may make them a better team next year and the year after, but they will undoubtedly toil through disappointment in the waining years of these contracts just as they've done recently.
dazindiansfanuk
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 12:51 pm

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby TonyIBI » Tue Dec 23, 2008 6:57 pm

dazindiansfanuk wrote:Is it just me that doesn't really care that much??

They signed CC.... OK that's a big improvement.

They signed Burnett..... a 4.00+ERA pitcher with injury problems...... he's a downgrade from Mussina.

And they signed Tex.... an improvement over Giambi true, but enough to win them that division??

If you ask me.... I say go for it Yankees, spend all your money.... all you're going to continue to do, in my opinion, is continue to prove that free agency is an inefficient and ineffective way to win in MLB. It may make them a better team next year and the year after, but they will undoubtedly toil through disappointment in the waining years of these contracts just as they've done recently.


+1

I actually enjoy seeing them spend like this. Makes all the more fun watching them implode in-season or in October. Ever since they have stopped with the chemistry of good, solid players like Tino and O'Neil and stopped adding the young influx of talent like Jeter, Posada, Rivero, etc, they haven't won squat.

I'd be a lot more worried if we were in the East.....but to me this is more a direct problem for Boston, Tampa, Toronto and Baltimore. We only have to worry about Detroit, Chicago, KC and Minnesota, which to me levels the playing field a ton for us, and then come playoffs I'll take my chances against Choker Sabathia and A-Rod tanking again in the playoffs.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5059
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby cardiackidz » Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:37 pm

i completely agree with tony. this is still not a good offense, and their defense infield and outfield is bad. if tex is your go to guy, your in trouble. i could really see him melt like a-rod does when the big lights come on and the presure gets high.
cardiackidz
Rookie Baller
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:25 pm

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby GhostofTedCox » Tue Dec 23, 2008 10:25 pm

If you remember last year at this time, the Tigers were supposed to be unbeatable. Why even play the games? Well, you know what happened. That's the beauty of baseball. It's not a fantasy league played on paper, it's played on grass, (or at least plastic).

Tony sounded a bit harsh in his evaluation, but there is truth in what he said. The Yanks should make the playoffs, but that's a long way from WS champs. Anything short of that will have them labeled as losers. :s_bomb
User avatar
GhostofTedCox
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:24 pm

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby cardiackidz » Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:05 am

they have way better piching then the tigers ever dreamed of.
cardiackidz
Rookie Baller
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:25 pm

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby TheWord » Wed Dec 24, 2008 1:19 am

Sabathia and Verlander were just about on par before last season.

Bonderman and Burnett could probably be thought of as similar.

Pitchers are so up and down anymore it's ridiculous. Anything can happen, especially when people are expecting 120 wins.
TheWord
Rookie Baller
 
Posts: 319
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 7:06 pm

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:57 am

The NBA has it right? I disagree there.....any sport that loses players to Europe has major problems....


Baseball does NOT need a salary cap. The cap has sorta ruined football for me (though not enough to ever get me to stop watching and going to Browns games). Teams in the NFL are forced to cut guys all the time and can't sign certain guys do to cap restraints....yeah it makes for a lot of parity in the game.....but this is PRO sports....leave the parity to the middle school kids.


One thing I think baseball could use is some form of the 'Franchise Player' rule that the NFL has. It'd be nice to see a team be able to pick 1 or 2 'franchise players' and be able to keep them for the fans and the good of the team/city. The 1year deal that the NFL gives out for it wouldn't fly in baseball.....but something along a 4year deal and in the top 5-10% salary wise for the position could work. Indians would have been able to get CC for 4yr around $80M (we offered $74ish reportedly). Second guy could be Grady down the line for example.....

Not happening (at least not any time in the next 20years).....but an idea....and one that would be MUCH more likely to fly than a salary cap. Many owners don't want a cap....and you know players don't. Players wouldn't be a fan of the Franchise tag.....but it's far better than a cap.

But again...just an idea I came up with.....




Also, is anyone else laughing at the Tex signing? I recall Brewers fans bragging about how great the CC trade was for them (which in a way it was and still is) because they were guranteeing themselves at worst 2 extra first round draft picks on top of the 2 they'd get from Sheets and their own.....so 5 first round picks.......

Ha, now that the Yanks signed Tex they've been bumped back to the 2nd round from the Yanks.....and with Sheets looking like he could very well be heading to Texas (who's 1st rounder is protected)....they may very well only end up with 2 sandwich picks for those two guys.....lol

:s_rofl
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby JP_Frost » Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:22 pm

that shows you that trading CC was the right move by Shapiro. I'd much rather have LaPorta, Brantley and Bryson (even injured) then getting a 2nd round pick. I can imagine Brewers fans being pretty upset that their CC pick has become a 2nd rounder just because the Yankees are spending like madmen.
User avatar
JP_Frost
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby MadThinker88 » Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:35 pm

Where has it been reported that the Angels get the Yanks #1 instead of the Brewers??
I thought CC was the top free agent in the class of 2009.
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby npc29 » Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:41 pm

No one is going to be happy, cap or no cap.. People will still be clamoring for one or the other.

I don't think the Yankees making these moves gives them even a division title, but what kind of message does it send to the fans of some of the lower teams like KC and Pittsburgh. Give up now, it's going to be another five years before you can even think of competing and if you fail at that shot, it's another rebuilding process. What if this is enough to knock Tampa out of the playoffs? It may not win the World Series, but it's holding another team that does it right down.
npc29
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: Kent, OH

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby JP_Frost » Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:59 pm

MadThinker88 wrote:Where has it been reported that the Angels get the Yanks #1 instead of the Brewers??
I thought CC was the top free agent in the class of 2009.


from Olney's blog:

"The Brewers. Part of their rationale in making the blockbuster trade for Sabathia was that at season's end, they could recoup the value of the lefty, in part, by receiving a first-round draft pick from the team that signed him. Well, because the Yankees signed Teixeira, the Brewers will now get the Yankees' pick in the second round.

Doug Melvin, the Brewers' general manager, believes the draft compensation system needs to be revamped, as he explained in an e-mail this morning:

"The Angels had a better record than us and the Blue Jays, and the Brewers and the Blue Jays got shoved down the food chain. The Elias rankings have never been changed, and there are so many smart statistical gurus -- Bill James, etc. -- that could create a fair model for both players and teams, who should be compensated fairly according to the value of each player to that team. Last year, Geoff Jenkins, who had a nice career with us and was arguably one of our better players, was not even ranked last year, and Tony Graffanino, a part-time player, was ranked. We have dropped 46 slots in the 2009 draft, and we willl be dropping even more because there are so many compensation picks. The second round will be almost the third round, in the way that it will develop."

"The Yankees will lose some draft picks, but they can draft unsignable players in fourth and fifth rounds, and pay over-slot, as they did with Andrew Brackman (The Yankees' No. 1 pick in 2007).

"The Draft Elias rankings and compensation needs to be changed. I do not want to sound like I'm whining, but teams who have to build with draft picks get frustrated. I had interest in Juan Cruz, and because I thought we had extra first-round picks for CC and for Ben Sheets, I had considered a Type A signing. Now I have to reconsider."

"We will keep having fun with scouting and player development, and finding our role players. Brian [Cashman] has to do what his owners and market asks him to do."
User avatar
JP_Frost
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby MadThinker88 » Wed Dec 24, 2008 1:06 pm

Thanks Frost.
I won't pay for the espn insider content because real 'news' and public information should remain free IMHO.
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby TheWord » Wed Dec 24, 2008 1:30 pm

The NBA has it right? I disagree there.....any sport that loses players to Europe has major problems....



Major League Baseball loses players to Japan.


The NBA system is BY FAR the best in all of sports, it has slotted spots for rookies coming in which prevents those awful signing bonuses for 18 year old kids, while at the same time promoting longevity with your original team by having a 10.5 percent pay increase from your current team as opposed to the 8.5 percent other teams can offer.

If the MLB ends up with ANYTHING like the NBA, it won't only be good for MLB, but college baseball and the overall good of the sport.

I can only dream.

If Josh Childress wants to go play in Europe, let him...he's not lessening the overall value of the game.
TheWord
Rookie Baller
 
Posts: 319
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 7:06 pm

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Dec 24, 2008 1:55 pm

TheWord wrote:Major League Baseball loses players to Japan.


The NBA system is BY FAR the best in all of sports, it has slotted spots for rookies coming in which prevents those awful signing bonuses for 18 year old kids, while at the same time promoting longevity with your original team by having a 10.5 percent pay increase from your current team as opposed to the 8.5 percent other teams can offer.

If the MLB ends up with ANYTHING like the NBA, it won't only be good for MLB, but college baseball and the overall good of the sport.

I can only dream.

If Josh Childress wants to go play in Europe, let him...he's not lessening the overall value of the game.


Who do we lose to Japan?? We 'sell' players to Japan a lot, but the only players that go over their voluntarily are the ones that are stuck in AAA and can't make it with a ML team.

Are you serious? the NBA system stinks. The cap puts WAY too much strain on some teams to get better. You make one bad move and it can cripple your team (see the Marbury deal in NY).

The NFL has a MUCH better system than the NBA. I'll give you that the NBA has a better system when it comes to paying draft picks....but that's another story than here.

Baseball already has draft pick slottings for signing bonus and whatnot. The beauty of baseball is teams can go over their slot, which really helps some clubs.

And how will doing what the NBA does be good for college? Are you saying you want baseball players to be forced to go to college?? I sure hope not. It's way different since baseball has the minor leagues which act as a college system for those kids. Plus there's still FAR more foreign kids coming up through the latin american countries.....you'd be putting American born players at a HUGE disadvantage here by making them go to college. Won't (and shouldn't) ever happen.


Baseball still has the best system. This is AMERICA, some some Socialist country. If a team wants to pay someone way more than their worth then fine. Baseball could use a few tweaks in how it works....but no cap and no forcing teams to only offer a certain amount to draft picks. Those are two terrible ideas that will never fly.....unless of course you want to see another strike and this one would last even longer.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby JP_Frost » Wed Dec 24, 2008 2:16 pm

MadThinker88 wrote:Thanks Frost.
I won't pay for the espn insider content because real 'news' and public information should remain free IMHO.


I don't pay for it either. It was linked on MLBTR, so I guess it's free content.
User avatar
JP_Frost
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby TheWord » Wed Dec 24, 2008 2:31 pm

Hermie13 wrote:
TheWord wrote:Major League Baseball loses players to Japan.


The NBA system is BY FAR the best in all of sports, it has slotted spots for rookies coming in which prevents those awful signing bonuses for 18 year old kids, while at the same time promoting longevity with your original team by having a 10.5 percent pay increase from your current team as opposed to the 8.5 percent other teams can offer.

If the MLB ends up with ANYTHING like the NBA, it won't only be good for MLB, but college baseball and the overall good of the sport.

I can only dream.

If Josh Childress wants to go play in Europe, let him...he's not lessening the overall value of the game.


Who do we lose to Japan?? We 'sell' players to Japan a lot, but the only players that go over their voluntarily are the ones that are stuck in AAA and can't make it with a ML team.

Are you serious? the NBA system stinks. The cap puts WAY too much strain on some teams to get better. You make one bad move and it can cripple your team (see the Marbury deal in NY).

The NFL has a MUCH better system than the NBA. I'll give you that the NBA has a better system when it comes to paying draft picks....but that's another story than here.

Baseball already has draft pick slottings for signing bonus and whatnot. The beauty of baseball is teams can go over their slot, which really helps some clubs.

And how will doing what the NBA does be good for college? Are you saying you want baseball players to be forced to go to college?? I sure hope not. It's way different since baseball has the minor leagues which act as a college system for those kids. Plus there's still FAR more foreign kids coming up through the latin american countries.....you'd be putting American born players at a HUGE disadvantage here by making them go to college. Won't (and shouldn't) ever happen.


Baseball still has the best system. This is AMERICA, some some Socialist country. If a team wants to pay someone way more than their worth then fine. Baseball could use a few tweaks in how it works....but no cap and no forcing teams to only offer a certain amount to draft picks. Those are two terrible ideas that will never fly.....unless of course you want to see another strike and this one would last even longer.




Who does the NBA lose to Europe? You said baseball sells minor leaguers who can't make it in the pros, what do you think NBA Europe takes? People like Kris Lang from UNC and Anthony Parker before he came back over were superstars over in Europe. Kevin Mench is no more important to baseball than Josh Childress is to basketball, losing players to Europe has yet to become any more of an issue than Japan has on baseball.

Are you really going to put the Knicks problems on Marbury? Like one contract killed their cap, give me a break.

How about signing Jerome James to a max deal? Eddy Curry? Allan Houston? Steve Francis? You've said a ton of out there things on this board but my God this one is just flat out indefensible.

The system would not be "forcing" players to go to college, it would set up a system of reasonable prices which are the same across the board. If you're the number 1 pick out of high school, you're still going to get yourself a great contract which is more than the guy drafted next.

You're going to tell me Scott Boras asking for 4 million dollars for a 3rd or 4th round pick isn't hurting this game either?

http://www.mynbadraft.com/nba-rookie-sa ... e-2008/101

Look at that and tell me it isn't fair for kids and it's forcing them to go to college. Even the 30th player overall makes enough money for about 7 or 8 ivy league scholarships.

It's not forcing them to do anything, it's stopping Scott Boras from getting Rick Porcello more money at 29 than the number 1 overall selection.

It's about the overall good of the game. Guess what, sports for the most part are already socialist. Does the worst team every year get the first pick in the next draft? That's socialism at it's purest.

I hope there is a strike, because in truest American fashion democracy and freedom to do whatever you want only lies with the people who have the means to do so. Also in true American fashion, the pure good nature of a game as innocent as baseball has been overtaken by corporate greed and immorality. Unless you want every team to move to Philadelphia, New York or California, changes need to be made. New York is completely monopolizing the free agent market and THAT is not the definition of "America" as is SHOULD BE.
TheWord
Rookie Baller
 
Posts: 319
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 7:06 pm

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby MadThinker88 » Wed Dec 24, 2008 2:53 pm

I wish we would lose Scott Boras to Europe...... :s_bye

One can wish can't he????
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:17 pm

TheWord wrote:Who does the NBA lose to Europe? You said baseball sells minor leaguers who can't make it in the pros, what do you think NBA Europe takes? People like Kris Lang from UNC and Anthony Parker before he came back over were superstars over in Europe. Kevin Mench is no more important to baseball than Josh Childress is to basketball, losing players to Europe has yet to become any more of an issue than Japan has on baseball.

Are you really going to put the Knicks problems on Marbury? Like one contract killed their cap, give me a break.

How about signing Jerome James to a max deal? Eddy Curry? Allan Houston? Steve Francis? You've said a ton of out there things on this board but my God this one is just flat out indefensible.

The system would not be "forcing" players to go to college, it would set up a system of reasonable prices which are the same across the board. If you're the number 1 pick out of high school, you're still going to get yourself a great contract which is more than the guy drafted next.

You're going to tell me Scott Boras asking for 4 million dollars for a 3rd or 4th round pick isn't hurting this game either?

http://www.mynbadraft.com/nba-rookie-sa ... e-2008/101

Look at that and tell me it isn't fair for kids and it's forcing them to go to college. Even the 30th player overall makes enough money for about 7 or 8 ivy league scholarships.

It's not forcing them to do anything, it's stopping Scott Boras from getting Rick Porcello more money at 29 than the number 1 overall selection.

It's about the overall good of the game. Guess what, sports for the most part are already socialist. Does the worst team every year get the first pick in the next draft? That's socialism at it's purest.

I hope there is a strike, because in truest American fashion democracy and freedom to do whatever you want only lies with the people who have the means to do so. Also in true American fashion, the pure good nature of a game as innocent as baseball has been overtaken by corporate greed and immorality. Unless you want every team to move to Philadelphia, New York or California, changes need to be made. New York is completely monopolizing the free agent market and THAT is not the definition of "America" as is SHOULD BE.


Some high school kids are already going over seas to play instead of going to college....they aren't going over for one year. Granted the ones that have done this so far aren't that great, but it's gonna become an issue soon.

Not saying Childress was anything special....but more important to a team than Mench.


And hate to break it to you, but by LAW baseball can have a monopoly......you can thank the federal government for that one.

The reason Porcello fell to 27th (not 29th) was because teams were afraid of Boras, not because he was the 29th best talent in the draft. From the moment he was drafted he was rated higher than nearly everyone drafted higher than him.....he's also backed it up thus far. Not a good example at all.

And no, Boras asking for $4M for a 3rd-4th round pick is not hurting the game at all. Teams can easily say no and move on.


Some out there things? riiiiight. Knicks have made a lot of dumb moves (funny when you think that Cleveland actually has the better Dolan owner, lol), but the Marbury one was the worst; without him they have plenty of room to make stuff happen, that was the point. Eddie Curry was also traded for, not signed....same with Steve Francis. With or without a cap, you can't stop teams from making dumb trades, lol.

Salary caps don't make things better. Dumb teams still will get screwed (case and point, the Knicks.....and Lions....who I just recently found out actually still have a football team, lol).


Do you honestly believe baseball would be better with a salary cap? Look at the teams that have made the playoffs in the last few years. All (except maybe the Red Sox) would have been under the a 'cap'. Smaller teams can still win, and teams that spend money tend to not.

And where do you put this cap? $100M? $120M? $80M? It won't work in baseball. Too many players involved with the minors leagues and international players.

The revenue sharing they have is the way to go right now (Yankees have to pay over $26M in it). Now maybe a bit of a revamp to the way the revenue sharing works should be in order....

But definately no salary cap.



Plus, why is everyone getting their panties in a bunch over the Yankees? They have actually LOWERED their payroll from last year. Not to mention they're really not that much better when you look at what they've added and who those guys are replacing.


CC is replacing Mussina in their rotaiton. Mussina had 20 wins last year with a 3.37 ERA and over 200 innings. Will CC do better than that in 2009?? It's possible....but he's never won 20 games before and in his Cy Young season his ERA was right around 3.3. no, the season Mussina just put up is about what you should expect from CC. So really, they didn't improve the club at all here....just kept it about the same as last.

Burnett is replacing Pettitte (unless he comes back, which depending on who you read/listen to is or isn't happening). Pettitte won 14 games with a 4.54 ERA in 204 innings...which were the fewest he'd thrown since 2004. Burnett won 18 games with a 4.07 ERA in 221 innings (the most he's thrown ever). So you do get a bit of an improvement here....IF Burnett breaks form and stays healthy for a second consecutive season (something he's never done before in his career).

Only real improvement to their rotation will be from Wang being healthy....and that's if he comes back strong. Joba will also have to stay healthy....something he's yet to show.

They added Swisher.....who if the season started right now would either be on the bench or starting in CF over Cabrera. You get a bit of a better bat but your OF defense would be attrocious then.

Teixeira was a nice add....but he's replacing Giambi at 1B. Tex is MUCH better defensively (obviously no arguement there from anyone)....but how much better offensively will Tex be in 2009 than Giambi was in 2008? Giambi hit .247/.373/.502/.875 with 32 HRs and 96 RBIs. Tex hit .308/.410/.552/.962 with 33 HRs and 121 RBIs. Tex is definately better offensively.....but is it really that much of an improvement offensively?

Yanks still have big infield issues up the middle...defensively they're terrible. Offensively they've got an aging Jeter and a guy in Cano that really needs to rebound. OF defense is pretty bad as well depending on who's in CF. Damon is getting older but can handle LF. Nady is ok in RF, but nothing special. Matsui at DH needs to prove he's healthy. Same with Posada behind the dish.


This team isn't looking very special to me......so what if they overspent on free agents, doesn't mean baseball needs a salary cap.

They're giving up their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks (though have a comp one coming for not signing their pick last year).


All i can say is, please, PLEASE don't mess with baseball and screw it up anymore by adding a salary cap (though not too worried of it ever happening).
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby dnosco » Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:19 pm

JP_Frost wrote:
MadThinker88 wrote:Where has it been reported that the Angels get the Yanks #1 instead of the Brewers??
I thought CC was the top free agent in the class of 2009.


from Olney's blog:

"The Brewers. Part of their rationale in making the blockbuster trade for Sabathia was that at season's end, they could recoup the value of the lefty, in part, by receiving a first-round draft pick from the team that signed him. Well, because the Yankees signed Teixeira, the Brewers will now get the Yankees' pick in the second round.

Doug Melvin, the Brewers' general manager, believes the draft compensation system needs to be revamped, as he explained in an e-mail this morning:

"The Angels had a better record than us and the Blue Jays, and the Brewers and the Blue Jays got shoved down the food chain. The Elias rankings have never been changed, and there are so many smart statistical gurus -- Bill James, etc. -- that could create a fair model for both players and teams, who should be compensated fairly according to the value of each player to that team. Last year, Geoff Jenkins, who had a nice career with us and was arguably one of our better players, was not even ranked last year, and Tony Graffanino, a part-time player, was ranked. We have dropped 46 slots in the 2009 draft, and we willl be dropping even more because there are so many compensation picks. The second round will be almost the third round, in the way that it will develop."

"The Yankees will lose some draft picks, but they can draft unsignable players in fourth and fifth rounds, and pay over-slot, as they did with Andrew Brackman (The Yankees' No. 1 pick in 2007).

"The Draft Elias rankings and compensation needs to be changed. I do not want to sound like I'm whining, but teams who have to build with draft picks get frustrated. I had interest in Juan Cruz, and because I thought we had extra first-round picks for CC and for Ben Sheets, I had considered a Type A signing. Now I have to reconsider."

"We will keep having fun with scouting and player development, and finding our role players. Brian [Cashman] has to do what his owners and market asks him to do."


Melvin is a whiner and I am glad the Brewers got screwed. They deserve it. The whole thing about the deal with the Indians for CC was favoring Milwaukee: had to make the deal at that moment, PTBNL tied to whether they made the playoffs, and, of course, although people rip on me about being upset about it, the way they totally abused CC down the stretch.

Too bad the Yankees can't sign another FA ranked higher than CC. Then the Brewers could get stuck with a 3rd round pick. Bunch of whiners.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby JP_Frost » Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:27 pm

what are you talking about? Melvin has every reason to be upset about this, and he's right that the compensation rule is flawed. In fact, those elias rankings are a complete joke.
User avatar
JP_Frost
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:39 pm

I agree he can be upset...but not so much against the rankings.


Tex should be ranked higher than CC. CC pitches once every 5 days....Tex plays everyday. Over the last couple years, Tex has been the better 'player'.....so he deserved to be ranked higher than CC, IMO.


I don't think the whole CC trade favored the Brewers at the time though. Don't act like Shapiro was forced into adding the 'playoff' stipulation into the trade. He could have easily gone somewhere else or just hung on to CC. He really wanted LaPorta and got him....also really wanted Bryson and got him (though the arm injury definately sets that back some).

Tribe got as much raw talent as the Twins got for Santana....we couldn't have asked for much more really.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby dnosco » Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:48 pm

JP_Frost wrote:what are you talking about? Melvin has every reason to be upset about this, and he's right that the compensation rule is flawed. In fact, those elias rankings are a complete joke.


He's a whiner. Everyone knows these are the rules. It's not even like this changed much with the collective bargaining agreement update. He has no right to get upset. I guarantee you the SOB would not have been upset if Tex had been his free agent and CC had been someone else's.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby MadThinker88 » Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:52 pm

The Brewers entered the off-season with a nice strategic plan (try for CC and Ben, fallback is 4 1st round picks) and they are getting screwed over by some sort of system that is convuluted and out-of-date.

I can't believe this is the 1st time a team like the Yanks has signed multiple top end free agents in a season and I would be pissed if Cleveland was in Milwaukee's position with relation to CC (and you would be just as ticked off Dennis).

Toronto and Milwaukee should get a 3rd pick and/or 4th pick in the compensation for losing a FA and being unable to get the signing team's #1st round pick (the further down the compensation pick is, the greater the number of picks you get).

I'm not trying to make it a hinderance to sign free agents but in this case both the Brewers and Blue Jays got screwed by Tex signing in NY instead of Boston or other team that still could lose its 1st round selection.
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby JP_Frost » Wed Dec 24, 2008 4:03 pm

MadThinker88 wrote:The Brewers entered the off-season with a nice strategic plan (try for CC and Ben, fallback is 4 1st round picks) and they are getting screwed over by some sort of system that is convuluted and out-of-date.

I can't believe this is the 1st time a team like the Yanks has signed multiple top end free agents in a season and I would be pissed if Cleveland was in Milwaukee's position with relation to CC (and you would be just as ticked off Dennis).

Toronto and Milwaukee should get a 3rd pick and/or 4th pick in the compensation for losing a FA and being unable to get the signing team's #1st round pick (the further down the compensation pick is, the greater the number of picks you get).

I'm not trying to make it a hinderance to sign free agents but in this case both the Brewers and Blue Jays got screwed by Tex signing in NY instead of Boston or other team that still could lose its 1st round selection.


Exactly. The whole compensation system should be based on teams atleast getting something back for not being able to re-sign expensive players. The Elias rankings continue to be absolutely awful. There are far better and more advanced ways to value players and their free agent rankings. However, this is the main drawback in baseball -- too many people cling to old-fashioned and out of date traditions. Luckily most front offices are open minded about new and better ways to get data, but as long as the fat cats makings the rules keep their eyes closed we'll see this kind of stupidity.
User avatar
JP_Frost
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Dec 24, 2008 4:04 pm

It's not the first time it's happened....but bet it's the first time it's happened to Melvin.


I'm sure Melvin is ticked and rightfully so.....but he shouldn't be ticked at the system. It's not a whole lot different than if a team that had a protected 1st round pick like say the Indians or Rangers had signed CC. They'd still have only gotten a 2nd round pick then (plus the sandwich 1st rounder). Yeah, it'd be a bit higher in the 2nd round than the Yankees, but still a 2nd round pick.

The rules didn't change since the time of the CC trade, and most analysts felt that Tex would indeed be ranked as the highest free agent going into the offseason. There was always the distinct possiblility of the Yanks getting both guys.

Heck going into the final 1-2 weeks of the season there was a great chance of the Dodgers having a protected first round pick and that pick being #16 (would of been 15th, but there's a comp pick in there too from this past year). Now I know the Dodgers didn't get CC....but you have to wonder if not losing a draft pick would of got them a bit more motivated for him.....


I actually like this rule. Teams shouldn't make trades and not put up good offers for players (though I know in the Brewers case they tried) just to land 2 picks the next draft.

I mean, the Tribe took a risk by trading CC that the players we got would pan out and stay healthy.....are the Brewers gonna compensate us for Bryson getting hurt?

The Brewers got a bit screwed....but by the Yankees, not ML baseball.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby dnosco » Wed Dec 24, 2008 4:07 pm

"I don't think the whole CC trade favored the Brewers at the time though. Don't act like Shapiro was forced into adding the 'playoff' stipulation into the trade. He could have easily gone somewhere else or just hung on to CC. He really wanted LaPorta and got him....also really wanted Bryson and got him (though the arm injury definately sets that back some).

Tribe got as much raw talent as the Twins got for Santana....we couldn't have asked for much more really."

We all know my opinion on this trade in terms of the return. Shapiro has been quoted as saying Jackson and Bryson were just depth guys in the trade so his posturing is not exactly like he really wanted Bryson. If he did, then he is an idiot. How many low class A relievers who are not even closers amount to much in the major leagues and, even if you can find one or two, what percentage do they represent?

I also question your Johan Santana comparison. Guerra was the Mets #2, Gomez was their #3, Mulvey was their #4 and Humber was their #7.

LaPorta was Milwaukee's #1, Bryson was their #11, Brantley was their #24 and Jackson didn't even make the top 40 or so, based on BA's book at the beginning of 2008. Now you can argue that those ratings changed as a result of 2008 but a lot of things changed since then, including Matt LaPorta's 4 months of horrible baseball since the trade. Bottom line, to me, is that it isn't even close. The Twins made out much better, especially considering Gomez was major-league ready and LaPorta will need at least 1/2 a year until he will be ready, if then. I think, player for player, the players the Twins got were much more ML ready than the ones the Indians got.

Regarding "we couldn't have asked for much more" the answer there is LaPorta and Gamel, the exact answer that I gave at the time. Also, when you compare the Blake trade the guys we got for CC are not that much better, frankly, so the trade deadline overpaying also comes into play as does the early time we traded CC without reaping extra benefits for the extra time we gave Milwaukee with CC. Don't want to turn this into another CC debate but it isn't even close to what the market would bear for CC. There is so much evidence not just last year but in past years to show that it seemed at the time and now a weak excuse.

Now, if you want to say that Shapiro wanted LaPorta so much that he was willing to forego better overall value for CC (probably from the Dodgers) then I will grant you that is probably true. That being said, then what is REALLY being said is that we took less overall value for CC BECAUSE Shapiro wanted LaPorta. I mean, very few if ANY Brewers' fans were even upset over what they had to give up for CC. That should tell you something right there.

Let's see where that decision by Shapiro looks, say, by this coming October.

Regarding the playoff qualification thing, we were trading the reigning, freankin' Cy Young Award winner for gosh sakes. Who do YOU think should have had the upper hand in a trade deadline deal, the guy who forced that clause down our throats or the guy with multiple suitors for CC? This is clearly on Shapiro and if you want to lump this plus having to complete the trade WHEN Melvin said it had to be completed by JUST to get LaPorta then I am willing to add that to Shapiro's desire for LaPorta and let the cards fall where they may.

Problem is, if LaPorta tanks, or is 2 years away instead of two months, people will find other excuses for this trade.

Sorry, I guess I did turn this into another CC rant when I could have just as well lumped it with my laughter at Melvin and the Milwaukee Brewers for getting screwed by a system they should have known.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby npc29 » Wed Dec 24, 2008 4:33 pm

I don't see what's fair about giving the better team the draft pick... Why do they do the draft in reverse order in the first place? Shouldn't the worst team get the best draft pick in that situation, regardless of ridiculous rankings that are made up?

We got a set in stone tiebreaker and it's called team record.
npc29
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: Kent, OH

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Dec 24, 2008 4:37 pm

dnosco wrote:We all know my opinion on this trade in terms of the return. Shapiro has been quoted as saying Jackson and Bryson were just depth guys in the trade so his posturing is not exactly like he really wanted Bryson. If he did, then he is an idiot. How many low class A relievers who are not even closers amount to much in the major leagues and, even if you can find one or two, what percentage do they represent?

I also question your Johan Santana comparison. Guerra was the Mets #2, Gomez was their #3, Mulvey was their #4 and Humber was their #7.

LaPorta was Milwaukee's #1, Bryson was their #11, Brantley was their #24 and Jackson didn't even make the top 40 or so, based on BA's book at the beginning of 2008. Now you can argue that those ratings changed as a result of 2008 but a lot of things changed since then, including Matt LaPorta's 4 months of horrible baseball since the trade. Bottom line, to me, is that it isn't even close. The Twins made out much better, especially considering Gomez was major-league ready and LaPorta will need at least 1/2 a year until he will be ready, if then. I think, player for player, the players the Twins got were much more ML ready than the ones the Indians got.

Regarding "we couldn't have asked for much more" the answer there is LaPorta and Gamel, the exact answer that I gave at the time. Also, when you compare the Blake trade the guys we got for CC are not that much better, frankly, so the trade deadline overpaying also comes into play as does the early time we traded CC without reaping extra benefits for the extra time we gave Milwaukee with CC. Don't want to turn this into another CC debate but it isn't even close to what the market would bear for CC. There is so much evidence not just last year but in past years to show that it seemed at the time and now a weak excuse.

Now, if you want to say that Shapiro wanted LaPorta so much that he was willing to forego better overall value for CC (probably from the Dodgers) then I will grant you that is probably true. That being said, then what is REALLY being said is that we took less overall value for CC BECAUSE Shapiro wanted LaPorta. I mean, very few if ANY Brewers' fans were even upset over what they had to give up for CC. That should tell you something right there.

Let's see where that decision by Shapiro looks, say, by this coming October.

Regarding the playoff qualification thing, we were trading the reigning, freankin' Cy Young Award winner for gosh sakes. Who do YOU think should have had the upper hand in a trade deadline deal, the guy who forced that clause down our throats or the guy with multiple suitors for CC? This is clearly on Shapiro and if you want to lump this plus having to complete the trade WHEN Melvin said it had to be completed by JUST to get LaPorta then I am willing to add that to Shapiro's desire for LaPorta and let the cards fall where they may.

Problem is, if LaPorta tanks, or is 2 years away instead of two months, people will find other excuses for this trade.

Sorry, I guess I did turn this into another CC rant when I could have just as well lumped it with my laughter at Melvin and the Milwaukee Brewers for getting screwed by a system they should have known.


Where did Shapiro say Bryson was a 'depth guy'. No one ranked as high as Bryson was (was top 10 by Baseball Prospectus) is a depth guy. What I recall reading (though admit don't have the link at the moment) had Shapiro saying he loved Bryson's stuff and was the opposite of a depth guy.


The Mets farm sytem was FAR weaker than the Brewers as well. Jackson was borderline whether still a prospect or not (though think he 'technically' qualified).


I'd argue the opposite. Twins go no one that projects as a star at the ML level, whereas the Tribe got LaPorta who despite his struggles (and 4 months isn't the best way to put it....it's been 17 games with Akron, a handful in winter ball, and the Olympics) is still a great prospect (better than anything the Twins got). LaPorta has played for 4 teams in the last few months. That'll be hard on anyone.

The Twins players are more ML ready?? 3 of the Tribe's 4 players will have seen ML playing time less than 2 years after the deal (Jackson, LaPorta, and Brantley). Sounds pretty ML ready to me :s_dunno

Heck, Brantley argueably may be more talented than anyone the Twins got. It's kinda hard to compare the two since they went pitching heavy and we went with offense.....but I still like what we got better......and CC only had half a year left, whereas Santana had a full year PLUS signed an extension before any trade was made. The Twins SHOULD have gotten WAY more than the Indians.....but they didn't. Was a great trade for the Tribe, better than anything else out there (I don't think the Dodgers would have given up Kemp but maybe they would have). Unless the Dodgers included Kemp, we weren't getting a better deal from them than what we got from the Brewers.

Tribe DID ask for LaPorta and Gamel but Melvin said no way.....Shapiro actually asked for LaPorta AND Escobar but were shot down as well.


CC may have been the 'freakin' reigning Cy Young winner but he was HORRIBLE to start the year. That really hurt his value. Yeah he was coming around a lot and pitching much better.....but it definately hurt his trade value some.


And we really didn't have as many suitors for CC as you think. Phillies said they weren't giving up Carrasco (and have stood by that even now). Without him they had nothing to offer really. Unless the Dodgers gave up Kemp, they weren't offering anything close to worth it.

Who else was in really? Yankees maybe....but what did they have? Cardinals never really got involved...though would have been an intriguing match.

the problem was there WEREN'T that many CC suitors in July. Teams didn't want to part with talent for a guy who had been struggling, was a free agent, and struggled in the postseason the year before.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby MadThinker88 » Wed Dec 24, 2008 4:43 pm

dnosco wrote: when I could have just as well lumped it with my laughter at Melvin and the Milwaukee Brewers for getting screwed by a system they should have known.


I was serious before: you and I would both be pissed off is Shapiro had gotten 'played by the system' in the manner of Melvin. I am pretty sure you would be calling for Shapiro's job because (I assume) Mark should have known better.

The only way changes end up being made to a broken process/ system is for the problems to be highlighted and noted by many so that loopholes are closed before they are abused.

I realize baseball is far from perfect and this sort of draft pick 'bumping' might have happened before, but I (and I think others) were blissfully unaware of the problem prior to this week. Now is the time to get the problem pointed out, discussed, solved and corrected before it is magnifed to the unbalanced benefit of the deep-pocket ball clubs.
MadThinker88
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:48 am
Location: Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby JP_Frost » Wed Dec 24, 2008 5:14 pm

dnosco wrote:We all know my opinion on this trade in terms of the return. Shapiro has been quoted as saying Jackson and Bryson were just depth guys in the trade so his posturing is not exactly like he really wanted Bryson. If he did, then he is an idiot. How many low class A relievers who are not even closers amount to much in the major leagues and, even if you can find one or two, what percentage do they represent?

I also question your Johan Santana comparison. Guerra was the Mets #2, Gomez was their #3, Mulvey was their #4 and Humber was their #7.

LaPorta was Milwaukee's #1, Bryson was their #11, Brantley was their #24 and Jackson didn't even make the top 40 or so, based on BA's book at the beginning of 2008. Now you can argue that those ratings changed as a result of 2008 but a lot of things changed since then, including Matt LaPorta's 4 months of horrible baseball since the trade. Bottom line, to me, is that it isn't even close. The Twins made out much better, especially considering Gomez was major-league ready and LaPorta will need at least 1/2 a year until he will be ready, if then. I think, player for player, the players the Twins got were much more ML ready than the ones the Indians got.

Regarding "we couldn't have asked for much more" the answer there is LaPorta and Gamel, the exact answer that I gave at the time. Also, when you compare the Blake trade the guys we got for CC are not that much better, frankly, so the trade deadline overpaying also comes into play as does the early time we traded CC without reaping extra benefits for the extra time we gave Milwaukee with CC. Don't want to turn this into another CC debate but it isn't even close to what the market would bear for CC. There is so much evidence not just last year but in past years to show that it seemed at the time and now a weak excuse.

Now, if you want to say that Shapiro wanted LaPorta so much that he was willing to forego better overall value for CC (probably from the Dodgers) then I will grant you that is probably true. That being said, then what is REALLY being said is that we took less overall value for CC BECAUSE Shapiro wanted LaPorta. I mean, very few if ANY Brewers' fans were even upset over what they had to give up for CC. That should tell you something right there.

Let's see where that decision by Shapiro looks, say, by this coming October.

Regarding the playoff qualification thing, we were trading the reigning, freankin' Cy Young Award winner for gosh sakes. Who do YOU think should have had the upper hand in a trade deadline deal, the guy who forced that clause down our throats or the guy with multiple suitors for CC? This is clearly on Shapiro and if you want to lump this plus having to complete the trade WHEN Melvin said it had to be completed by JUST to get LaPorta then I am willing to add that to Shapiro's desire for LaPorta and let the cards fall where they may.

Problem is, if LaPorta tanks, or is 2 years away instead of two months, people will find other excuses for this trade.

Sorry, I guess I did turn this into another CC rant when I could have just as well lumped it with my laughter at Melvin and the Milwaukee Brewers for getting screwed by a system they should have known.


Where to start.

Bryson

Your classification of Bryson being just a low A reliever is completely off base. This kid has a very special (and now injured) arm. You can't just say "well he didn't close, so he can't amount to anything". Minor league teams have the same dynamics as major league teams, but what sets them apart is that they largely function as a place where promising future ML'ers can work on things. Maybe Bryson wasn't the closer so he could pitch more innings instead of being stuck in a pre-defined role. He started a handful of games with Milwaukee's A ball team, but also finished 10 games while recording 5 saves. That shows you that they were using him in different roles to perhaps have him work on his secondary stuff or build up his arm strength. If you want to downplay an acquisition, please be sure to do your homework first Nosco.

The rest of the return for CC

I don't know why you continue to bring up BA's top 10 lists. By doing so you clearly show a misunderstanding of how they work. First of all, you can't just say because team A traded their #2 prospect that he's by definition better than team B's #3 prospect. The Mets system was and is weaker than ours. Gomez is generally considered a lesser prospect than LaPorta. Besides, they're both completely different players. Guerra is all projection right now, also not comparable to anything we received, and alot of scouts have mixed opinions about him. Humber is actually much like Jackson in that both of them were fringe prospects to begin with and likely #4 or #5 pitchers close to the majors. I also don't think Humber and Brantley are that different in terms of value, because Brantley really made a name for himself this past season, so you can't just go on his ranking the previous year. Secondly, you have bashed BA's top 10's regularly on this site, especially when it concerned the Indians. Now you use it as some sort of bible to back your argument. I've seen you do this before as well, so you either admit that you bashed Ben Badler's Indians top 10, just to be your usually annoying self or that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

CC and Blake's return

It was clear that Milwaukee didn't want to trade BOTH LaPorta and Gamel. It was one or the other, so even though you said that Shapiro should've gotten them, that's just ignorance on your part. Heck, they wouldn't even include Alcides Escobar, so you know for sure that Gamel was off the table. I also see another contradiction, which further proves that you willingly bash the Indians whenever you see fit. First you questioned whether Santana was that good, because we "only" gave up Blake for him, and now you're comparing him to the package we got for CC. Your reasoning is so flawed, it's not even funny anymore. Both were completely different trades. Milwaukee didn't overpay for CC, they gave up what they felt was fair and Shapiro agreed with that, but that doesn't mean that the Dodgers didn't overpay for Blake. These are different organizations with different needs, different GM's and different baseball philosophies. Colletti has been known for his mishandling of prospects and putting too much value in veterans. That is just one indication about why he traded Santana for Blake. There are alot of other factors that have been explained to you already by me and other people on this site, so I don't feel like repeating them.

One more thing you continue to bring up is that Shapiro could've gotten better value for CC than what we eventually received. From what we, as outsiders, can tell, teams weren't exactly lining up to trade for him. Maybe because they wanted to hold onto their prospects or because the felt that 3 months of CC just wasn't worth it. I don't really remember the exact Dodgers package, but I do remember that they didn't want to trade Kemp for Sabathia and that the centerpiece of the deal would've been James McDonald, who is definately not as good a prospect as LaPorta. There also were some rumors about CC, Blake and Carroll for Kemp and others, but not much is known about the truth to that rumor at all (though I did read that the Dodgers owner, McCourt, nixed the deal because he felt that the players didn't match up). The reason Brewers fans weren't upset by what they gave up for CC is because they knew that LaPorta had no future with the big league team. Braun in left, Fielder at 1st and Hart in right (if LaPorta is even able to play RF), but maybe more importantly -- they hadn't been to the playoffs for 26 freaking years!!! Let's use the fans of a playoffs deprived ballclub to gauge if we received fair value.

LaPorta's future

We'll see if he pans out. Most scouts don't seem worried by his play after the trade, so I don't think we should panic. Even if he fails to live up to expectations, that's a risk you have to take. At the time of the trade it made sense for both parties involved and both teams received the players they wanted. That's no excuse to justify the trade, it's the plain and simple truth.

Nosco, I can't seem to get on the same page as you, and sadly it's in my nature to respond to people who I feel say the wrong thing, but I have rarely come across someone as pessimistic and narrow minded as you. And that's too bad, because I think you're a pretty smart guy, but you either dumb it down on purpose or you're just the type of kid that would say Superman was the strongest comic book character untill your friends said "Yeah I think so too" ... then Superman turned into a sack of s*** and Batman was the ultimate badass.
User avatar
JP_Frost
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby jellis » Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:35 pm

I am just amused how much he bashes us for using BA rankings then he turns around and uses them here.

CC netted us 3 legit prospects. Yes Laprota had a down year but its hard to say its all on him when you look at the travel, change, and loss in his family

Bryson got hurt but there was a reason he was the 11th spec in one of the deepest systems in baseball, and Brantly continued to look better

This deal was A LOT better than the mets deal. Gomez is a plus plus defender with excelletn speed but failed to prove he can actually hit the ball, yes at worst yo have endy Chavez but his bat seems way behind. The other two pitchers did nothing this year, only one made the twins top ten. Right after him was a MR with one pitch a sinker who was converted to SP and generally considered the worst 1st rounder this year

The Indians got the best they could and now the deal is even better, because if they had sat pat they would not have gained a first rounder for him

No idea how anyone can complain when it is obvious no one was willing to step up for CC. Only 3 teams had offers and we took the MIl deal with LAD backed out. Phi wouldnt even put carrasco in there deal and there secondary parts couldnt match what mil gave us
jellis
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby TheWord » Thu Dec 25, 2008 2:58 am

Some high school kids are already going over seas to play instead of going to college....they aren't going over for one year. Granted the ones that have done this so far aren't that great, but it's gonna become an issue soon.

Not saying Childress was anything special....but more important to a team than Mench.


And hate to break it to you, but by LAW baseball can have a monopoly......you can thank the federal government for that one.

The reason Porcello fell to 27th (not 29th) was because teams were afraid of Boras, not because he was the 29th best talent in the draft. From the moment he was drafted he was rated higher than nearly everyone drafted higher than him.....he's also backed it up thus far. Not a good example at all.

And no, Boras asking for $4M for a 3rd-4th round pick is not hurting the game at all. Teams can easily say no and move on.


Some out there things? riiiiight. Knicks have made a lot of dumb moves (funny when you think that Cleveland actually has the better Dolan owner, lol), but the Marbury one was the worst; without him they have plenty of room to make stuff happen, that was the point. Eddie Curry was also traded for, not signed....same with Steve Francis. With or without a cap, you can't stop teams from making dumb trades, lol.

Salary caps don't make things better. Dumb teams still will get screwed (case and point, the Knicks.....and Lions....who I just recently found out actually still have a football team, lol).


Do you honestly believe baseball would be better with a salary cap? Look at the teams that have made the playoffs in the last few years. All (except maybe the Red Sox) would have been under the a 'cap'. Smaller teams can still win, and teams that spend money tend to not.

And where do you put this cap? $100M? $120M? $80M? It won't work in baseball. Too many players involved with the minors leagues and international players.

The revenue sharing they have is the way to go right now (Yankees have to pay over $26M in it). Now maybe a bit of a revamp to the way the revenue sharing works should be in order....

But definately no salary cap.



If by "some" high school kids you mean Brandon Jennings, an academic NON QUALIFIER who is basically on a 1 year deal because he couldn't get in to freaking Arizona, then yea...SOME high schoolers are already going overseas. By the way, he's been less than enthused playing in hot small gyms in front of no fans and seeing limited playing time, quite an example kids are expected to follow...

Childress is a role player, at best, much like Mench is. Either way, you're splitting hairs saying Mench is more important than Childress. Is a 15-20 HR guy with a .270 career avg more important than a 10 point scorer off the bench in the NBA? Give me a freaking break...

Apparently you completely missed the point, I KNOW Porcello fell because of his agent. A rookie slotting system eliminates that, and actually ensures that the best players in the draft are taken near the top of the draft where they should be. Not only are they going to monopolize the FA market, now they're going to monopolize the draft too because they can wait as long as they want to take a guy knowing they can offer more than anyone else too? Capitalism at it's finest right there, more like survival of the fittest.

Back to the Knicks, you say Eddy Curry and Francis don't count because they were traded for. HELLO! Marbury wasn't signed as a free agent either, he was traded for as well! I mean I have no idea what you're trying to say...was this trade worse than all the others? Are you completely off topic and missing the point that it takes MORE than one bad deal to kill a salary cap? I'm guessing the latter, one bad trade or deal does NOT kill a salary cap.

Bad teams will always get screwed...again, you do realize the Knicks were a force in the 90s when there was a salary cap in place? Apparently not, but if you have idiots running your organization, then yes...you will lose. It actually forces an organization to employ...GASP....good decision making to be successful! Parish the thought....teams just can't buy players because they screwed up so much other shit they need to make up for the embarassment?

The luxury tax thing is really working out thus far, it really makes for a competitive balance among teams...WHAT FREAKING PLANET ARE YOU ON?

Wake up man, the current system is a joke, and if it weren't for the fact the Yanks choke consistently in October year after year so idiots can keep justifying this nonsense...this would have been fixed a long time ago.

Unfortunately, at this point the players union has become one of the most powerful unions in all of America and it will take an NHL or AFL style lockout to remedy this problem.

Certainly something I could live with if it is for the betterment of the game.
TheWord
Rookie Baller
 
Posts: 319
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 7:06 pm

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby Hermie13 » Fri Dec 26, 2008 10:44 am

yeah, but even the 'smaller market' and 'cheaper' teams spend as much money as the Yanks and Red Sox in the draft many years. Draft slotting isn't what baseball needs (now the NFL? they definatley do). MLB has slot recommendations, it's up to the teams to decide if they think the player they drafted is worth it. they can easily just move on (much like the Nats and Yanks did this year with their 1st rounders). Nats are getting an extra top 10 pick in this upcoming year's draft for it (Yanks also get another 1st rounder, that's protected and they won't lose for all the free agents they're signing).

The way the draft is set up now in baseball, players AND teams have choices, unlike in other sports where you declare and enter the draft you have to play or go to another country (can't go back to college). Baseball does it the right way, plain and simple.

You're right about Marbury...so the Knicks weren't the best of examples, but the point still stands. And I do relize the Knicks were pretty good in the 90s.....but that just makes my point even clearer. Teams come and go SOOO much more in sports that have caps. It's bad for the sport. Parity is for lil kids, not major professional sports!

A salary cap is NOT needed in baseball. You say the Yanks choke, I say they just sign bad, old, and overpriced players. Kinda hard to choke in October when you don't even make it either....

I'm on planet Earth....what planet are you on? The luxury tax money has helped teams like the Rays sign the #1 overall pick in the draft in back to back seasons.....not to mention guys like Longoria. Would have been nearly impossible had they not gotten money from the Yanks......seems to have worked out well for them considering they went to the WS this past year.

Like i SAID, the luxury tax format could use some tweaking, but it's got the right idea.

Another thing to consider if you put in a salary cap....do you force teams to get up to it? The Marlins are just as bad with putting up a ridiculously low payroll. They take the money from the Yanks yet hardly spend it. That is even worse than what the Yanks are doing IMO.

How is a lockout what baseball needs? They're making MORE money than ever. Makes no sense at all.....not to mention that teams like hte Rays, Brewers, Indians, and Rockies keep making the playoffs with payrolls well under $100M (and the Twins are always there as well). Until that stops happening, talk about a salary cap is pointless.

Adding a third team to the NY area would be even better for baseball than a salary cap (not gonna happen though). Would take money from the Yanks (and Mets) plus pump even more money into baseball.



Yanks can spend all the money they want....they've signed 3 guys.....and are barely better than they were last year....yeah, that SCREAMS that we need a salary cap....good grief
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby dnosco » Fri Dec 26, 2008 1:30 pm

Where did Shapiro say Bryson was a 'depth guy'. No one ranked as high as Bryson was (was top 10 by Baseball Prospectus) is a depth guy. What I recall reading (though admit don't have the link at the moment) had Shapiro saying he loved Bryson's stuff and was the opposite of a depth guy.


"The Mets farm sytem was FAR weaker than the Brewers as well. Jackson was borderline whether still a prospect or not (though think he 'technically' qualified)."

The Mets system was ranked 17th in baseball. The Brewers was ranked 21st. I am thinking your statement is inaccurate.

"I'd argue the opposite. Twins go no one that projects as a star at the ML level, whereas the Tribe got LaPorta who despite his struggles (and 4 months isn't the best way to put it....it's been 17 games with Akron, a handful in winter ball, and the Olympics) is still a great prospect (better than anything the Twins got). LaPorta has played for 4 teams in the last few months. That'll be hard on anyone."

I'll argue LaPorta is a one trick pony. I think he will hit for power but so does Russell Branyan and he hasn't found a regular job yet, even with his increased walk rate in recent years.

"The Twins players are more ML ready?? 3 of the Tribe's 4 players will have seen ML playing time less than 2 years after the deal (Jackson, LaPorta, and Brantley). Sounds pretty ML ready to me."

Please, when you have to throw in Jackson your argument loses all of its steam right there. Gomez is IN the majors. Humber and Mulvey spent the entire year at AAA. Guerra was at high A. LaPorta and Brantley were at AA, Bryson was at low A. How you can, with a straight face, make the statement above is beyond my comprehension.

"Heck, Brantley argueably may be more talented than anyone the Twins got. It's kinda hard to compare the two since they went pitching heavy and we went with offense.....but I still like what we got better......and CC only had half a year left, whereas Santana had a full year PLUS signed an extension before any trade was made. The Twins SHOULD have gotten WAY more than the Indians.....but they didn't. Was a great trade for the Tribe, better than anything else out there (I don't think the Dodgers would have given up Kemp but maybe they would have). Unless the Dodgers included Kemp, we weren't getting a better deal from them than what we got from the Brewers."

Brantley is a bad outfielder with a weak arm who doesn't walk at a great rate. His BB/K ratio is good because he is a slap hitter which I have already proven with a detailed, game-by-game analysis of where his hits go.

"Tribe DID ask for LaPorta and Gamel but Melvin said no way.....Shapiro actually asked for LaPorta AND Escobar but were shot down as well."

Then walk away. We had plenty of time to deal CC and get a better deal for him. Looking at what LA paid for Blake, you're me telling me we couldn't have worked them for a better deal then we got from Milwaukee? Please! LaPorta and Gamel, as I said at the time in my article, was the LEAST we should have expected.

"CC may have been the 'freakin' reigning Cy Young winner but he was HORRIBLE to start the year. That really hurt his value. Yeah he was coming around a lot and pitching much better.....but it definately hurt his trade value some."

That is just bunk. He had a 2.44 ERA in May and was at 1.88 in June. This is just another hollow excuse trying to spin a reason for the level of our return on CC, one of, if not THE most talented trade deadline acquistions in baseball history. That's right, in baseball history!


"And we really didn't have as many suitors for CC as you think. Phillies said they weren't giving up Carrasco (and have stood by that even now). Without him they had nothing to offer really. Unless the Dodgers gave up Kemp, they weren't offering anything close to worth it."

Again, Shapiro thought by trading early that he would have an advantage. The Blake trade showed how wrong he was.

"the problem was there WEREN'T that many CC suitors in July. Teams didn't want to part with talent for a guy who had been struggling, was a free agent, and struggled in the postseason the year before."

We never allowed the market to play out. More suitors and a higher bidding war would have ensued, guaranteed. You see, I can make hollow unsubstantiable claims just like you can.

"Your classification of Bryson being just a low A reliever is completely off base. This kid has a very special (and now injured) arm. You can't just say "well he didn't close, so he can't amount to anything". Minor league teams have the same dynamics as major league teams, but what sets them apart is that they largely function as a place where promising future ML'ers can work on things. Maybe Bryson wasn't the closer so he could pitch more innings instead of being stuck in a pre-defined role. He started a handful of games with Milwaukee's A ball team, but also finished 10 games while recording 5 saves. That shows you that they were using him in different roles to perhaps have him work on his secondary stuff or build up his arm strength. If you want to downplay an acquisition, please be sure to do your homework first Nosco."

Please, a reliever who is not a closer in low A is almost a non-prospect. Regarding homework, looking at the 2002 minor league stats I estimate there were 5 relievers who fit Bryson's stat line (about 30 games or more, 5 or less starts and 5 or less saves) who were in low A who made the majors. That is like 5 out of 120. It is an estimate because I actually found only three: Blaine Boyer, Ryan Speier and Charlie Zink, none of whom remind me of Rafael Betancourt in his prime.

"Humber is actually much like Jackson in that both of them were fringe prospects to begin with"

That has to be one of the most comical statements I have ever heard in prospectdom and totally shoots your credibility.

"It was clear that Milwaukee didn't want to trade BOTH LaPorta and Gamel."

Ya think?!? And we should only deal with teams who feel comfortable giving us the players they want to give us? Please! As I have said repeatedly I could not find a single Brewers fan at the time who were not pleased with this trade and, at a minimum, the overwhelming majority of Brewers fans were not sweating what they gave up. Plus, we are talking about the 21st ranked farm system in baseball here.

"CC netted us 3 legit prospects. Yes Laprota had a down year but its hard to say its all on him when you look at the travel, change, and loss in his family"

It is amazing to me how people will gloss over the facts when they don't fit their logic.

"Bryson got hurt but there was a reason he was the 11th spec in one of the deepest systems in baseball, and Brantly continued to look better"

The problem here is your characterization of the Brewers system as deep belies the fact that it was the 21st ranked system in baseball and so was probably deep with organizational players, not true prospects.

"This deal was A LOT better than the mets deal. Gomez is a plus plus defender with excelletn speed but failed to prove he can actually hit the ball, yes at worst yo have endy Chavez but his bat seems way behind. The other two pitchers did nothing this year, only one made the twins top ten. Right after him was a MR with one pitch a sinker who was converted to SP and generally considered the worst 1st rounder this year"

Again, just bunk. Gomez was a 22 year old starting in the majors after 140 AAA at bats. When you consider that Grady Sizemore hit .246 in his ML debut after 418 AAA at bats it kinda puts in perspective how hollow your argument is. I have already debunked the "A LOT better" statement you made. That is total BS.

"The Indians got the best they could and now the deal is even better, because if they had sat pat they would not have gained a first rounder for him

No idea how anyone can complain when it is obvious no one was willing to step up for CC. Only 3 teams had offers and we took the MIl deal with LAD backed out. Phi wouldnt even put carrasco in there deal and there secondary parts couldnt match what mil gave us."

Don't know, jumped early. Again, the Blake trade shows what happens towards the deadline. Heck, history shows it for lesser players than CC who, as I said above, was one of the most talented players EVER traded at the trading deadline. EVER.

Again, this thread turned because of what I said about the CC deal. Sorry but the conversation turned and I went with it.

I still say that Melvin is a whining baby and nothing gives me more pleasure, at least in this situation, then seeing the whining baby get screwed. I can only hope his second round pick AND his compensation pick get worse as free agent season wears on. It would serve him right.

As far as the system, I think what solves this is two things:

1) A pay scale should be assigned along with the Elias rankings. That is, a 100 ranking nets your $2 million for your guy in addition to draft choices

2) The Type As should then be split into two groups. The top half nets you a first and second round pick as well as a compensation pick and the bottom half nets you just a first round pick and a compensation pick. The signing team forfeits their pick or picks but the losing team doesn't inherit them. Instead they get a pick commensurate with the player's ability.

3) One thing I will give you about the Elias rankings is that how they are applied by MLB is seriously flawed. No way a mediocre hitting catcher is worth as many draft choices as CC or even, potentially, a more quality pick. There should be one list and draft choices should be doled out based on where a player is ranked overall. Thus, for example, CC nets you the 17th pick in the draft and Tex nets you the 16th in addition to a compensation pick at the top of the compensation round.

So, the system is flawed. Anyone who doesn't think so explain to me how in the world Rick Dempsey was worth a first round pick back in the day when we got him. That was a travesty, one that has been repeated over the years.

As far as Melvin goes, he is the ultimate whiner. He gets a great trade for CC, one that contains a VERY embarassing clause for the Indians and thus heavily favors the Brewers, and he still whines because the system that he knew about is screwing him. I can only laugh!
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby TheWord » Fri Dec 26, 2008 1:44 pm

For the most part I understand where Denny is coming from here.

Biggest issue I have is that saying the Mets system was better because it was ranked 17th LAST YEAR doesn't really mean much. I'd rather see where the rankings fall this year, as the Brewers had more than a few prospects rise up the rankings and will probably overtake the Mets this season.
TheWord
Rookie Baller
 
Posts: 319
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 7:06 pm

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby Hermie13 » Fri Dec 26, 2008 2:03 pm

first off, I totally hate how you quote...makes it nearly impossible to read and decypher what you're saying or trying to say.


It's pretty common knowledge around baseball that the Brewers had a better overall top 10 than almost anyone in the league (Rays obviously are/were better) at the time of the trade. And I'll repeat what was said, how do you diss the rankings then use them for your argument? Mets had 3 guys in the BA top 100....Brewers had 2 (BEFORE the season). One of the brewers came to Cleveland....2 went to the Twins....and neither of the Twins were in the top 30 like the Tribe's was.

And you also have to take into account the strength of the Brewers system AT THE TIME OF THE DEAL. LaPorta was playing even better....Brantley was definately higher than a 24th prospect (some places had him top 10 in their sytem). Bryson was pitching very well (had 5 saves and WAS closing out games for his team). Jackson wasn't doing anything special though. LaPorta had a higher ceiling than anyone the Mets got period. At the time of the deal, the Brewers also had TWO guys ranked in the top 20 (both higher than Martinez, the Mets top prospect)! So YES, the Brewers had the better farm system at the time of the CC trade, vs the Mets farm system at the time of the Santana trade.


And the blake and CC trades are tottally different. Tribe would have gotten more had we agreed to pay ALL of CC's remaining salary like we did with Blake. No way do we get both Santana and Meloan if we don't. We traded money along with Blake basically.


And how was the playoff clause that bad? There were 4 guys on the list...NONE of which were bad prospects. Heck, it's very likely that the Brewers would have picked Brantley to go anyways (though likely it'd have been LuCroy....which still wouldn't have been bad AT ALL).

That clause was FAR from 'embarrassing'.

Was it 'embarrassing' that the Twins gave the Mets more time to get a deal done with Santana? Was it embarrassing that they got less than us when Santana had a FULL year left as opposed to half a year?



And I'm done. Tribe got the better deal at the time (obviously could turn out worse in the long run, impossible to know yet), and definately couldn't have done better, even if they'd have waited.

Moving on.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby indianinkslinger » Fri Dec 26, 2008 5:39 pm

Hermie13 wrote:first off, I totally hate how you quote...makes it nearly impossible to read and decypher what you're saying or trying to say.


It's pretty common knowledge around baseball that the Brewers had a better overall top 10 than almost anyone in the league (Rays obviously are/were better) at the time of the trade. And I'll repeat what was said, how do you diss the rankings then use them for your argument? Mets had 3 guys in the BA top 100....Brewers had 2 (BEFORE the season). One of the brewers came to Cleveland....2 went to the Twins....and neither of the Twins were in the top 30 like the Tribe's was.

And you also have to take into account the strength of the Brewers system AT THE TIME OF THE DEAL. LaPorta was playing even better....Brantley was definately higher than a 24th prospect (some places had him top 10 in their sytem). Bryson was pitching very well (had 5 saves and WAS closing out games for his team). Jackson wasn't doing anything special though. LaPorta had a higher ceiling than anyone the Mets got period. At the time of the deal, the Brewers also had TWO guys ranked in the top 20 (both higher than Martinez, the Mets top prospect)! So YES, the Brewers had the better farm system at the time of the CC trade, vs the Mets farm system at the time of the Santana trade.


And the blake and CC trades are tottally different. Tribe would have gotten more had we agreed to pay ALL of CC's remaining salary like we did with Blake. No way do we get both Santana and Meloan if we don't. We traded money along with Blake basically.


And how was the playoff clause that bad? There were 4 guys on the list...NONE of which were bad prospects. Heck, it's very likely that the Brewers would have picked Brantley to go anyways (though likely it'd have been LuCroy....which still wouldn't have been bad AT ALL).

That clause was FAR from 'embarrassing'.

Was it 'embarrassing' that the Twins gave the Mets more time to get a deal done with Santana? Was it embarrassing that they got less than us when Santana had a FULL year left as opposed to half a year?



And I'm done. Tribe got the better deal at the time (obviously could turn out worse in the long run, impossible to know yet), and definately couldn't have done better, even if they'd have waited.

Moving on.


You know what I hate! I hate someone who is so arrogant to correct spelling and grammar in someone else's post yet cannot spell worth a shit in his own posts.

The word is decipher. Definitely. Totally. It is bad enough we are subjected to your argumentative bullshit endlessly but at least learn to spell common words correctly or using words you have no idea of how to spell. :s_laughat
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby indianinkslinger » Fri Dec 26, 2008 6:19 pm

Consigliere wrote:
dazindiansfanuk wrote:Is it just me that doesn't really care that much??

They signed CC.... OK that's a big improvement.

They signed Burnett..... a 4.00+ERA pitcher with injury problems...... he's a downgrade from Mussina.

And they signed Tex.... an improvement over Giambi true, but enough to win them that division??

If you ask me.... I say go for it Yankees, spend all your money.... all you're going to continue to do, in my opinion, is continue to prove that free agency is an inefficient and ineffective way to win in MLB. It may make them a better team next year and the year after, but they will undoubtedly toil through disappointment in the waining years of these contracts just as they've done recently.


+1

I actually enjoy seeing them spend like this. Makes all the more fun watching them implode in-season or in October. Ever since they have stopped with the chemistry of good, solid players like Tino and O'Neil and stopped adding the young influx of talent like Jeter, Posada, Rivero, etc, they haven't won squat.

I'd be a lot more worried if we were in the East.....but to me this is more a direct problem for Boston, Tampa, Toronto and Baltimore. We only have to worry about Detroit, Chicago, KC and Minnesota, which to me levels the playing field a ton for us, and then come playoffs I'll take my chances against Choker Sabathia and A-Rod tanking again in the playoffs.


+2

Let them lock in these players for long terms. This approach has not worked since Yankee careers were extended using PEDs last decade. It may work early in the contract but begins to get problematic as players get older. It is common for players to become more injury prone and/or decline in performance as they age. There will be exceptions like Mariano Rivera but the declines of Jeter, Matsui, Damon and Posada are not unusual. The Yankees have roster positions for these players locked in for years just like the ones they just signed. It took years for them to get rid of the deadwood on their roster this year and now they go out and do the same thing again. Might work for one year but as a long term strategy, it appears flawed. :s_drinks
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby TonyIBI » Sat Dec 27, 2008 12:17 am

dnosco wrote:The Mets system was ranked 17th in baseball. The Brewers was ranked 21st. I am thinking your statement is inaccurate.


I've mentioned this before, but when it comes to midseason trades, the organizational rankings are really not relevant. A team ranked #17 and another ranked #21 before the season started is usually not the case come midseason. Prospects stock declines/increases by the season's midpoint once all pro scouts have usually seen their teams by midseason and done evals of those players for that season.

I mean, as an example, look at Nick Weglarz in 2007. Going into the 2007 he was not ranked or considered for virtually any prospect list.....but by midseason he was a Top 10-20 guy. Guys also fall too.

Point is, I don't put a lot of stock of where the Brewers or whoever were ranked for 2008 once we got to the trade deadline. It was outdated and irrelevant for the most part.....and for shits and giggles, by midseason the Brewers had jumped a lot according to scouts and BA staffers I talked to around the Sabathia trade.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5059
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby Hermie13 » Mon Dec 29, 2008 10:25 am

indianinkslinger wrote:You know what I hate! I hate someone who is so arrogant to correct spelling and grammar in someone else's post yet cannot spell worth a shit in his own posts.

The word is decipher. Definitely. Totally. It is bad enough we are subjected to your argumentative bullshit endlessly but at least learn to spell common words correctly or using words you have no idea of how to spell. :s_laughat


wow.....someone's got their panties all in a bunch..... :s_empathy
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby dnosco » Mon Dec 29, 2008 10:10 pm

Consigliere wrote:
dnosco wrote:The Mets system was ranked 17th in baseball. The Brewers was ranked 21st. I am thinking your statement is inaccurate.


I've mentioned this before, but when it comes to midseason trades, the organizational rankings are really not relevant. A team ranked #17 and another ranked #21 before the season started is usually not the case come midseason. Prospects stock declines/increases by the season's midpoint once all pro scouts have usually seen their teams by midseason and done evals of those players for that season.

I mean, as an example, look at Nick Weglarz in 2007. Going into the 2007 he was not ranked or considered for virtually any prospect list.....but by midseason he was a Top 10-20 guy. Guys also fall too.

Point is, I don't put a lot of stock of where the Brewers or whoever were ranked for 2008 once we got to the trade deadline. It was outdated and irrelevant for the most part.....and for shits and giggles, by midseason the Brewers had jumped a lot according to scouts and BA staffers I talked to around the Sabathia trade.


I think your Weglarz argument is flawed. He was hurt all of 2006 and so there was no data to rate him. He played a full year in 2007 and so people had a chance to look at him and rate him. Who would put a guy like that on a prospect list? All he needed was to play. If a guy has played and performed poorly previously that is a lot different than if he was hurt. Not saying guys don't change in their prospect status, just saying the Weglarz example is not a good one. Regarding the Brewers' ranking, just don't believe it. First, they lose Parra (their #2) as a prospect as he is in the majors, Jeffress gets suspended again (their #4 before the season). No way they change much from where they were even with Salome, Gamel and LaPorta and, to some extent, Brantley, though my data seems to show that he isn't that much better than before. Although I may be wrong or missing a few the rest just seemed to on track to continue their prospect status and some, like Brent Brewer, for example, didn't improve at all and may have regressed. So, don't see the upgrade, overall, that this system had. I guess it's just a matter of taste because, as far as I can see, it is not a matter of fact.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby TheWord » Mon Dec 29, 2008 10:37 pm

Edit: never mind
TheWord
Rookie Baller
 
Posts: 319
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 7:06 pm

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby Hermie13 » Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:46 am

dnosco wrote:I think your Weglarz argument is flawed. He was hurt all of 2006 and so there was no data to rate him. He played a full year in 2007 and so people had a chance to look at him and rate him. Who would put a guy like that on a prospect list? All he needed was to play. If a guy has played and performed poorly previously that is a lot different than if he was hurt. Not saying guys don't change in their prospect status, just saying the Weglarz example is not a good one. Regarding the Brewers' ranking, just don't believe it. First, they lose Parra (their #2) as a prospect as he is in the majors, Jeffress gets suspended again (their #4 before the season). No way they change much from where they were even with Salome, Gamel and LaPorta and, to some extent, Brantley, though my data seems to show that he isn't that much better than before. Although I may be wrong or missing a few the rest just seemed to on track to continue their prospect status and some, like Brent Brewer, for example, didn't improve at all and may have regressed. So, don't see the upgrade, overall, that this system had. I guess it's just a matter of taste because, as far as I can see, it is not a matter of fact.


how is his Weglarz statement inaccurate? It doesn't matter what the reason for him not being ranked high before 2007. It still helped the Tribe farm system ranking by him having a breakout year.

And you're definately forgetting Escobar who is a top prospect in all of baseball (and was at the time of the deal). And Jeffress wasn't suspended at the time of the deal, was pitching pretty well in fact and was still VERY highly rated. He pitched in the AFL as well, though struggled there.

Also had guys like Lorenzo Cain who greatly improved (and was already very highly though of.....wish he was the guy we got, but Brantley was a nice addition nevertheless). Was ranked in the Brewers top 10 after posting an OPS of only .682 in 2007....posted one over .800 this year even after moving up a level midseason.


You are right, nothing we're truly saying is 'fact'......nothing said about a prospect's worth or potential is 'fact'.....it's all speculation......but most people feel/felt the Brewers had a much better system at the time of the CC deal than the Mets had at the time of the Santana deal.....
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby indianinkslinger » Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:15 pm

Hermie13 wrote:
indianinkslinger wrote:You know what I hate! I hate someone who is so arrogant to correct spelling and grammar in someone else's post yet cannot spell worth a shit in his own posts.

The word is decipher. Definitely. Totally. It is bad enough we are subjected to your argumentative bullshit endlessly but at least learn to spell common words correctly or using words you have no idea of how to spell. :s_laughat


wow.....someone's got their panties all in a bunch..... :s_empathy


Poor Hermie, did the mean boys in gym class pick on you again? Stifle those tears and remember, there's no crying in baseball! :s_laughat
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby dnosco » Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:32 am

Hermie13 wrote:
dnosco wrote:I think your Weglarz argument is flawed. He was hurt all of 2006 and so there was no data to rate him. He played a full year in 2007 and so people had a chance to look at him and rate him. Who would put a guy like that on a prospect list? All he needed was to play. If a guy has played and performed poorly previously that is a lot different than if he was hurt. Not saying guys don't change in their prospect status, just saying the Weglarz example is not a good one. Regarding the Brewers' ranking, just don't believe it. First, they lose Parra (their #2) as a prospect as he is in the majors, Jeffress gets suspended again (their #4 before the season). No way they change much from where they were even with Salome, Gamel and LaPorta and, to some extent, Brantley, though my data seems to show that he isn't that much better than before. Although I may be wrong or missing a few the rest just seemed to on track to continue their prospect status and some, like Brent Brewer, for example, didn't improve at all and may have regressed. So, don't see the upgrade, overall, that this system had. I guess it's just a matter of taste because, as far as I can see, it is not a matter of fact.


how is his Weglarz statement inaccurate? It doesn't matter what the reason for him not being ranked high before 2007. It still helped the Tribe farm system ranking by him having a breakout year.

And you're definately forgetting Escobar who is a top prospect in all of baseball (and was at the time of the deal). And Jeffress wasn't suspended at the time of the deal, was pitching pretty well in fact and was still VERY highly rated. He pitched in the AFL as well, though struggled there.

Also had guys like Lorenzo Cain who greatly improved (and was already very highly though of.....wish he was the guy we got, but Brantley was a nice addition nevertheless). Was ranked in the Brewers top 10 after posting an OPS of only .682 in 2007....posted one over .800 this year even after moving up a level midseason.


You are right, nothing we're truly saying is 'fact'......nothing said about a prospect's worth or potential is 'fact'.....it's all speculation......but most people feel/felt the Brewers had a much better system at the time of the CC deal than the Mets had at the time of the Santana deal.....


The use of Weglarz as an example was flawed. He was our 27th ranked prospect after his draft year hitting about .200 at Burlington. He essentially didn't play the next year. That is INCREDIBLY different from a prospect having a breakout year after having played before but not been as good. Weglarz was ranked higher because he actually PLAYED baseball in 2007. Had he played in 2006 and put up any kind of numbers (even south of his 2007 numbers) he would have been ranked based on his 2006 ranking. The argument is flawed. Anyone who knows the situation has to know that.

Regarding Cain you are stretching it. His stock may have marginally improved but I covered that in my statement. Regarding Escobar, yeah, I forgot him, but his performance before 2008 was great so his 2008 numbers didn't change his ranking THAT much, in my opinion and, even if you sucessfully argue it did, you are talking about a guy who was already highly ranked being any large part at all of a farm system going from 21st to top 10 in baseball. Ridiculous.

Again, this "most people" stuff is pretty interesting, though unsubstantiable. The only way the CC trade looks good is if you invoke this which I consider highly questionable and unsubstantiable given the data. The fact that we have to invoke flawed examples like Weglarz just goes further to show that.
dnosco
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2448
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: And... the Yankees Sign Tex

Postby jhonny » Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:10 am

Facts: No other team had a prospect like Laporta on the table. There was no reason to believe teams were bluffing. Milwaukee's offer was expiring. Milwaukee ended up getting a late second round pick instead of a first round one.

I'm unclear what the commotion is about. Dnosco, are you just saying the Indians should have dealt CC in the offseason at the same time as Santana? And you would have expected a similar return to what the Mets got even though the Yankees and Red Sox both turned that sort of deal down?

I'm just confused with your argument.
jhonny
Undrafted Free Agent
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 3:38 pm

Next

Return to Beyond The Minors

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron