|
Post by inger on Nov 14, 2017 23:47:26 GMT -5
And he fills the DH spot too! [img src="//storage.proboards.com/6828121/images/GQenTev0hfkprTOBBlGu.gif" class="smile" alt=" "] I hope he wants to be a Yankee! If he does sign in NY, I hope he actually gets a bit of time playing in the field as well. I believe it would be a waste of talent if he doesn't keep himself sharp enough in the field to provide some additional roster flexibility...Heck, if he was any more flexible he could be the team "Gumby"... So, from what I gather, we have been incorrectly referring to the man as Otani from the beginning and the actual name is Ohtani...If Giancarlo Stanton started out as Mike Stanton, and Tony Oliva was really Pedro Oliva all those years...why not???Not to mention all those years we called Nancy Drew "J.D. Drew". What a hoot that was...
|
|
|
Post by chsdawolf on Nov 16, 2017 11:05:23 GMT -5
I'm fine with dumping guys like Wade, etc. Torres, Andujar, Adams, Sheffield, etc should be untouchable for the time being.
|
|
|
Post by inger on Nov 16, 2017 15:07:16 GMT -5
I'm fine with dumping guys like Wade, etc. Torres, Andujar, Adams, Sheffield, etc should be untouchable for the time being. Patrick's spiel was based on his belief that the timing is right for the Yankees to trade from the wealth at the top of the prospect food chain to acquire a superstar or two. So, let's just say that the target is Mike Trout. Obviously, we have to up the ante if that's the case. So...do we want Mike Trout? If not, why not? Imagine him in CF instead of Ellsbury or Cashman's Guy and what that would do for our lineup. Now, imagine that the ONLY way we can get him from the Angels is to deal Torres and Sheffield or Adams along with say a Tyler...either Austin or Wade...First of all, is that enough to get Trout? Second, would you give that up? More? And I don't even want to read the nonsense that maybe the Angels would take Ellsbury if we paid his salary. They need young stock. That's the kind of deal that Patrick was suggesting, and I'd have to say that I would make the trade. In fact, I'd be inclined to consider giving up even a bit more. Keep in mind that Trout will only be 26 years old, that he has a lifetime split of .306/.410/.566, still has 30-stolen base capability, has won 2 MVP awards and has finished 2nd three times in his five complete seasons (and may finish as high as third in 2017 in spite of missing 48 games). He's a great all-around player that plays CF very well... What if the Target was Robbie Ray? Would you give up that same package of players? I would. Robbie Ray has already arrived and appears to have a fantastic future ahead of him...(I don't think the D-Backs are giving up Robbie Ray for anything, but...just...what if)???
|
|
|
Post by sierchio on Nov 16, 2017 18:13:42 GMT -5
I'd give up Torres, Sheffield, Adams, Wade, and Austin for Trout... but I STILL don't think that's close enough...
|
|
|
Post by sierchio on Nov 16, 2017 18:14:37 GMT -5
I think you'd need a package like that and include one of Judge, Sanchez, Bird, or Sevy..
|
|
|
Post by inger on Nov 16, 2017 19:57:51 GMT -5
I think you'd need a package like that and include one of Judge, Sanchez, Bird, or Sevy.. When you put any one of those four into the mix, it makes it much harder to pull the trigger, doesn't it? Really, do you even want to deal Judge for Trout even-up? Sanchez for Trout even-up? I'm not doing those. So that leaves Bird or Severino. And you know what? I'm thinking it over...Just might happen...Might live to regret it, but it might happen...I'm going to talk to my "baseball people" and do some thinking... LOL...
|
|
|
Post by greatfatness on Nov 17, 2017 13:40:57 GMT -5
I'm all for dealing prospects and consider absolutely nobody to be untradable.
That said, I think the model of acquiring a player that will command a long-term contract at very high AAV is dead. As great as Stanton and Trout are, I include them in that equation.
There's a sweet spot between dealing for guys like that which will cost you $30m a year for 10 years and which will carry well beyond their peak. Cashman's been great at this in recent years, dealing talent for young players with above average value who are not blue chip superstars. Knowing that at some point we will want to pay some of our own developed talent to retain them through arbitration and free agency, that's the strategy.
I know it is a different sport and everyone who isn't a Pats fan hates the Pats, but that's the approach they've taken for a decade now which has resulted in almost no top free agents signed and multiple moves to let valuable players walk before their prime was over so they could pay several people instead of just one. And as a result, they've been competitive every year for almost two decades, and that's what we're looking for. Even in a non-salary cap league the strategy makes sense.
So yes to dealing prospects and no to Trout and Stanton.
|
|
|
Post by rizzuto on Nov 17, 2017 17:43:45 GMT -5
No to Stanton. Outrageous contracts for five tool players, perhaps. But, he's not a five tooler. Machado...something odd about that guy...can't put a finger on it...seems he could be a head case. Trout...I just can't see him in Pinstripes. Harper may not want the media circus of New York, but he might like the upper deck in right field.
|
|
|
Post by sierchio on Nov 17, 2017 18:48:42 GMT -5
I'm all for dealing prospects and consider absolutely nobody to be untradable. That said, I think the model of acquiring a player that will command a long-term contract at very high AAV is dead. As great as Stanton and Trout are, I include them in that equation. There's a sweet spot between dealing for guys like that which will cost you $30m a year for 10 years and which will carry well beyond their peak. Cashman's been great at this in recent years, dealing talent for young players with above average value who are not blue chip superstars. Knowing that at some point we will want to pay some of our own developed talent to retain them through arbitration and free agency, that's the strategy. I know it is a different sport and everyone who isn't a Pats fan hates the Pats, but that's the approach they've taken for a decade now which has resulted in almost no top free agents signed and multiple moves to let valuable players walk before their prime was over so they could pay several people instead of just one. And as a result, they've been competitive every year for almost two decades, and that's what we're looking for. Even in a non-salary cap league the strategy makes sense. So yes to dealing prospects and no to Trout and Stanton. I gotta agree with you. And also, you don't need a "super star," type player to have a successful team. Look at the Yankees most recent "dynasty" they didn't have any "super stars" (I don't consider Jeter one) They just had a nice core of above average players. I always wished for a Griffey JR on our team as a kid.. but I didn't know as much about baseball then... That being said, this new crop of players, seem to have some home grown super stars with Judge and Sanchez... They seem to be perennial MVP candidates.. which is what I consider a super star... Maybe we'll have the best of both worlds... having a top team with top players...
|
|
|
Post by inger on Nov 17, 2017 20:49:54 GMT -5
The funny thing is that the Yankees appear to be so strong that it's hard find a big name player that fits anywhere that would improve the team more than the existing players or players who are on the cusp of reaching MLB. That said, we've been quite fortunate to have Judge and Sanchez, not to mention Severino and a couple of relievers emerge as quickly as they have...and to see some youngsters fill in (like Frazier, Austin and some relievers) that have shown so much promise that there is an unmistakable confidence in the player and the fans behind him...
|
|
|
Post by chiyankee on Nov 18, 2017 17:38:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by inger on Nov 19, 2017 1:30:04 GMT -5
Probably a good deal. The kids we got seem to have upside, and Rumbelow will be missed...but we needed the roster space...
|
|
|
Post by sierchio on Nov 19, 2017 9:45:42 GMT -5
Missed by who? His mom?
|
|
|
Post by inger on Nov 19, 2017 13:54:59 GMT -5
Well, since he's still alive I would assume his mom will still get to see him on occasion. There is really no reason for me to think that he's not going to be a successful reliever. He may not ever become a star, but he's capable of having a fine career...Probably a lot sooner since he's been moved to Seattle...There's more room at the top level there than there is in NY. Sometimes it's as much about opportunity as it is talent...
|
|