On Thursday, the Yankees thought they were going to have to hit against Cliff Lee Friday night. Friday afternoon, they thought they’d be welcoming Lee as a new addition to their rotation. By the time Friday night’s game finally rolled around, neither of those things happened. Instead, Lee was on his way to Texas, and journeyman right-hander David Pauley was on the mound for the M’s.
Pauley did his best Lee impression for five innings, allowing only a Mark Teixeira solo homer in the first and setting down 13 Yankees in a row after Alex Rodriguez’s subsequent single. That streak was broken when Brett Gardner worked a walk to start the sixth and Jose Lopez booted a hard grounder from Derek Jeter to put men on first and second with none out.
That’s where Lee’s absence finally reared it’s head, as Pauley was hooked after just 82 pitches. Former Nationals closer Chad Cordero replaced him and threw gasoline on those little sparks. After Nick Swisher bunted the runners up, Mark Teixeira walked, Alex Rodriguez plated Gardner with a deep sac fly, Robinson Cano cleared the bases with a triple, Jorge Posada walked, and Curtis Granderson singled home Cano.
That made it 5-0 Yankees thanks to a strong outing from Phil Hughes, who said he and Dave Eiland had corrected his arm angle after his last start in which he allowed five runs and three home runs in six innings against the Blue Jays. Hughes protected that early 1-0 lead for five innings then coughed up a lone run in the bottom of the sixth once he had the room to do so. He then held the line there, going seven strong while striking out five and walking no one.
Mark Teixeira added a right-handed home run off Luke French in the ninth for good measure, and David Robertson and Chan Ho Park wrapped up the tidy 6-1 win, a small consolation prize for having lost Lee made all the more satisfying by a strong outing from the Yankee starter who had been struggling most of late as well as the knowledge that Jesus Montero remains a future Yankee.
great case scenario:
- yanks win the serious
- we get draft picks for javy
- andy re-ups (!!!)
- we sign cliff lee
I think we're going to wind up missing the proposed Werth trade more than Lee. Girardi has doubled down on the rotating DH, and I really think that its only so long that making sure the likes of Colin Curtis or Ramiro Pena get in every single game won't come back to bite us.
{0} tip o the cap on the title
/fetchez la vache
[3] Perfect!
Are you sure he's already got one?
Oh yes, and it's very nice!
[0] Cliff - you have your days confused. Last night was Friday.
Great title Cliff. So happy to see Phil back on track.
Will Cliff Lee sign with the Rangers? I don't think he'll be very keen...
2) I agree with you here, though I do think the Yankees will add an Eric Henske type before the deadline. Now, whether that is a good thing...
[5] thanks, fixed
No sour grapes, as our own personal Jesus continues to ripen on the Yankee vine - but here's hoping the Yankees do not leave Seattle without taking whatever's left of the Mariners dignity. A sweep is very much in order.
Is Dave Eiland the 1st half MVP (liberal definition on the "p")?
[1] Hey, thelarmis. I went to bed after my last comment and didn't see your question until this morning (and I responded on the other thread) I'll definitely holler at you the next time I head to Hot-lanta. Hopefully the next time we meet up it will be on a crisp late October night at Turner Field where the Yanks are about to sweep the Braves.
[1] All I want is for us to stop dealing with Seattle and for Smoak to have a locker next to Milton Bradley (who I now admit is clubhouse ebola).
[2] It's not like it's hurting them now. While it would be nice to have a dedicated DH, I'm ok with them using the position to give players a rest.
13) i would argue that it is is hurting them now, because it results in a crappy player starting at at least one position every game. That the team has overcome this does not negate the fact that the Yankees are playing with a black hole on the roster.
Wouldn't it make more sense to acquire a more or less dedicated DH, but still rest players? I don't see how adding more offensive options can hurt.
[14] There is nothing wrong with letting Pena, Curtis or Russo start a game every so often, the problem starts when they become full time starters. Sure it makes sense to acquire more or less a dedicated DH, but it isn't a pressing need.
[14] a full time DH means when you rest the other players you start pena, curtis or russo anyhow. And you take their bat out of the lineup that not completely.
16) of course, but then at least you have the option of a real DH for the days when you do not rest a player, or when you need another PH. Again, there is no reason to carry fewer offensive options, ESPECIALLY in a league with the DH.
15) I agree almost entirely. The fact is that the dregs are starting dar more than they should be if the team had another bat. I don't know whether it is a pressing need or not, but it does strike me that the team has only two obvious areas that need improving: shoring up the BP with maybe one more relaiable arm, and getting an OF/DH. So, pressing or not, it should be near the top not the bottom of the yankees priority list.
[14] Of course it hurts.... it's always better to swap a better player for a lesser one. But the question is HOW MUCH does it hurt, and what are the benefits. We have the best record and Run Diff in MLB. What is hurting us is not the scrubs, but underproduction from Jeter, ARod and Teix. Between those three, we are losing over 300 OPS pts over their norm.
I hear next year's draft has some good stock. It would be nice to get a couple of good picks for Javy, and not trade them away. We can't forget that the dynasty, while having a fair share of high end FAs, was built on the back of the farm.... Jeter, Bernie, Po, Mo and Andy.
That's why I'm REALLY glad we still have Jesus. Cano was offered many times. It's just dumb luck he's still a Yankee, and he might end up being our best hitter for the next 5 years (especially if ARod is degraing due to his hip/age).
There are tasty FAs every year. They are just a matter of $$$, which we have plenty of. But developing young talent, and saving a ton of money at the same time, is difficult... especially when you have a team that only gets bottom of the barrel picks every year.
Hughes, Cano and Jesus could make a very nice core. Maybe Gritner and Joba can join that group. Remember... we could have Santana instead of Sabathia, Hughes and 1/2 of Javy (via Melkdud). While drafts picks are always a long shot, you simply HAVE to make the investment.
I'm surprised that so many 'thoughtful' fans are so ready to trade the Farm for the newest shiny object. I won't even talk about the Joy of seeing our kids develop into special players. While I understand the Grandy/AJax trade, I wish we still had AJax.
And in general, I believe Cashman feels the same way I do (or rather I believe the same thing Cashman does). The Lee for Jesus et al made me think George was back driving the bus. As ARod, CC and Teix (and well as Jeter for a few years more) age and possibly decline, young, cheap players become crucial to our economic balance.
[19] What is hurting us is not the scrubs, but underproduction from Jeter, ARod and Teix.
Both factors are hurting the team. But the organization is pretty much stuck with the latter three players door the rest of the year and, the case of two of them, beyond. The scrubs, however, can easily be improved upon, and there is no reason not try to make those improvements...especially given the underperformance of the stars, as you point out.
For the record, I am not talking about trading Montero for RyaN Howard or the like. But surely the team can...and I predict will..find a more legitimate OF/DH option than Colin Curtis or Kevin Russo, or at least a solid platoon partner for Thames.
20) ...players FOR the rest of the year...
[19] I was very much against the AJax-Granderson trade, and very much for the Montero-Lee trade. AJax projected to be a younger cheaper and maybe even better Granderson. Made more sense to me to keep him.
No question Montero was a potentially a huge price to pay for Lee, but southpaw Cy Young caliber aces in their prime do not come cheaply. Acquiring Lee now via trade would have meant we would not have to lose the first round draft pick we will surrender if/when we purchase him as a free agent. Now the Rangers get that pick. Blech.
No question it's nice to still have Montero, but Lee would have made this team pretty much a sure thing to win a championship this year. I think Lee, and that championship would have been worth the price of Montero. Cashman thought so too. Didn't happen, wasn't meant to be. We move on with Montero on the farm, and the best looking team in the bigs. It's all good in Yankeeland.
[19-20] their overall numbers are down, but I completely disagree with the assessment that Jeter, ARod and Tex are "hurting the team." This team would not be in first place without their contributions. Tex and ARod's RBI count for a lot more than their OPS points, as I look at it
23) hurting is perhaps too strong, but looking beyond t he semantics it is hard to argue that these three have not greatly underperformed relative to their career numbers, let alone what they did last season.
Whether that equates to hurting the team or not is besides the point. OYF suggested, implicitly, that the Yankees should look to underperforming stars to improve the offense. My point, and i stand by it, is that the easiest and most obvious place to improve the offense, an offense that has in fact scuffled since the end of May, is to upgrade the DH position (in this case, that meanes, effectively, finding a DH/OF/platoon type guy).
[24] I'm not opposed to your DH upgrade, and suspect Cashman's on it. But back to Tex and ARod's RBI at this point. Their totals are on very much on-target careerwise. Is that meaningless?
Jeter's runs and RBI are also on track if not better than his career norms. I wouldn't say him and the corner infielders are greatly underperforming, or weakening the team in any way.
I don't think runs and especially RBI are particularly good okays to measure offensive performance.
[27] I don’t think runs and especially RBI are particularly good okays to measure offensive performance.
There.... fixed.
runs and RBI are certainly tangible evidence of contribution, no disputing that.
29) yes, they measure some aspect of contribution, but they are relatively unimportant when it comes to evaluating offensive performance. This position is so widely accepted among the more Bill Jamesian baseball world that there is no real disputing it.
Jeter getting on base at a lower rate..that is, making more outs...is hurting this team relative to his career levels, even if his ground outs happen to drive in Brett Gardner.
28) thanks.
[30] oh, I understand the thinking in the Bill Jamesian world, and not all of it is nonsense, and not all of it is truth. Sometimes fans in the more Bill Jamesian world need to be reminded that in the real world, runs and RBI are what win baseball games, you see, the goal is to score more runs than your opponent does This position is so widely accepted there is no disputing it. The team that gets on base at the higher rate doesn't always win. Doesn't always score.
Jeter, ARod, and Tex, despite their diminished OPS percentages, are still very much helping (not hurting) the team win games by scoring, and driving in runs at a rate that is roughly consistent with their career rates. I'll happily and thankfully accept the year they're having in the real world, but feel free to criticize and devalue their performance in the more Bill Jamesian world.