It's a business. Doesn't make it easier, but that's reality.

This makes no sense unless they get Scherzer.

We want to compare this to Wetteland-Mo, but in case that does happen down the line, how does Robertson compare to Wetteland, favorably, even or less?

Sorta OT but I note this with guarded approval:

http://www.pinstripealley.com/yankees-rumors-offseason-hot-stove/2014/12/5/7339299/yankees-coaching-staff-hitting-coach-marcus-thames-willie-randolph

For Thames, hitting the first MLB pitch you ever see out of Randy Johnson's hand and into the stands = permanent benefit of the doubt. How will he contribute as a (not the) hitting coach? I dunno. But the offense needs the shakeup that a new face can bring.

And where Willie's concerned, I'd pay him just to sit there and be. As a commenter to the article above said, "If you dont like Willie Randolph you must be a bad person and loaded into a rocket and blasted into space."

Hell, give him a shot at 2B, the way things are going.

First Cano, now the Hammer... I'm still not used to the Yankees letting free agents walk while they're still productive. I understand why the FO is changing their approach and it is (hopefully) for the best, but part of me misses the old way.

[5] I do/will miss them both but there's a subjective line between "letting them walk" and "not getting held up."

I don't feel the decision against re-signing either of those guys, on the terms they demanded, was head-slappingly dumb the way some other decisions have been.

I hope Willie ends up back in the fold. Otherwise, hitting coaches are important, but good hitters are important too. And right now our best hitters are past their prime.

I'm thinking of an old phrase to describe Banters' reaction to losing David Robertson - "The silence is deafening."

Oh, I'll miss him. But it didn't make sense to re-sign him after the Andrew Miller signing. (Not that I'm against the Yankees spending more money than makes sense, I just mean it's understandable and the right move.)

[9] That was my thought too. I didn't feel like we had to have the hamma back. Though obviously i'm partial to the guys we groom. I forget how we got him exactly but he feels home grown having come into his own as a Yankee.

I'm curious about this tandem batting coach approach; it seems practical on the surface but how has it worked so far in other places? I ask because if it's a trend as the article states, then it's fair to review the results to this point.

[10] He's homegrown all right. The Yankees drafted him in 2006.

[11] it's a trend I completely missed. I guess that's not shocking. But I imagine one is a primary and one a secondary? I mean, i'm all for consensus whatever, but I can imagine conflicts occurring if the co-hitting coaches aren't on the same page.

I think the days of watching players spend their whole careers with one team, might be a thing of the past. At least as far as the Yanks go. The Big Stein would never have let Cano go last year. He might not have had the patience to let him develop into the player he has become and traded him before he produced, but Steinbrenner would overpay for his homegrown Yanks. (Jeter, Williams, Mo).

I almost understood the Cano move last year until they signed Beltran and Ellsbury to those deals. Cano is a star, but Beltran and Ellsbury will not put up Cano's numbers going forward. I like Ellsbury, but Cano is a monster, and to replace him at 2nd base is impossible. The Yanks could have Gardner playing center and find 2 corner outfielders with the salary they are paying Ellsbury.

Just a thought.

I wonder who the next big signing for the Yanks will be this year? Headley and McCarthy would be welcome news, or perhaps they break the bank again for Mad Max? After Lester signs, Max will get another 30 mil and 2 more years than Lester

[14] When I think about it, the underlying reason that Cashman and the yanks did not retain Robbie was because he wasn't Jeter's heir in many respects. What the Yanks wanted for Robbie not only to be productive, but to also be a leader as Jeter was about to say good-bye and Robbie being the senior of the clubhouse (in terms of years with the team), they would have if not anointed him the next captain, at least implied that he was the one ready to lead the team into the next generation.

But Cano isn't Jeter, plus or minus. The things that Robbie got banged over the head about from his rookie year to his last year with the Yanks was that he didn't hustle a lot (true or not true, that was the knock); at first they blamed his closeness to Melky (who was perceived as a bad influence) and sent Melky down for a while to separate him from Cano, to which Robbie responded with a lot of outward hustle and improved production, so the message from above was clear. Yet Cano, for all his ability, did not exude the effort and commitment that someone like Jeter displayed every day, which is what the Yanks wanted from Robbie (unfair, but that's what it was). But hey, when the chips were down and Robbie became the de facto leader on the roster, he did not live up to the expectations that were placed on him. He was the most productive player by far, but there was an element missing that did not justify his demand for ten years starting at age 31 for over $300 million. The Yanks have obviously spent big money very badly, but that doesn't mean they should continue doing so. I think eight years would have been fair either way; just because you can afford it doesn't mean you have to spend that kind of money knowing that the end result will be ridiculously far less value, but not knowing how soon that end result could be.

On the other hand, Robbie was not as expendable as the Yanks made him out to be as they had no one to take his place, and that's what Robbie's agents likely seized on and exploited. The changing of the guard in the minor league development part of the team likely had a lot to do with this alone. So really, this is not a good guy/bad guy situation, but a confluence of market dynamics that smacked the Yankees more deliberately than Cano (since he got the years he wanted), however much value that Robbie put into playing for the Yanks only he knows.

I'm of the opinion Robbie and his agency priced him out of his preferred market and his agent was smart enough to find a buyer to save face. Yet if the Yanks had started exercising this kind of caution less than ten years ago, they likely wouldn't have been facing the dilemma they created with him. That's neither here nor there, and for the Yanks better late than never. If they stick to targeting talent to supplement a home base instead of acquiring free agents to BE the home base, we might forget about this in a few years and enjoy another run of contention.

I miss Robbie, but not for what he would have cost the team in the near future; unless we would have been fine with one-and-dones for the next five or six years. For what he was asking for, he really needed to be the next Jeter (and there likely isn't going to be one of those anytime soon).

(15) Thanks! I don't disagree with a word that you wrote. Unfortunately, the Yanks are always going to pay more for players than they should. It is in their DNA, and the price of doing business in NY. There is a reason that you get a bagel in NY, and need to take out a 2nd mortgage on your home.

What I liked best about Cano was that he was a 2nd baseman, who did all this. He is and will likely be one of the best at his position for the next 5 years. (At least in terms of offensive production, even in spacious Safeco for 1/2 his games). He is flashy, and while he didn't always hustle, at least he was on the field when the bell rings. It is aggravating to see someone with so much talent, not get everything out of that talent, but he is joyful, and fun to watch. Certainly not a leader like Jeter. Not saying that the Yanks offer was unfair, disrespectful etc. Just that I think George Steinbrenner would have cashed that check. I think the Yanks have to change one way that they do business, and that is to take care of their own before the reach free agency. They would save money on outside free agents, save money on their home grown players, and make for less contentious years with the threat of arbitration. It would have been risky to give Robertson a multi-year deal last year, but at the worst they could have had a high priced setup man if Robertson couldn't handle closing and gotten another closer. I liked that they signed Gardner to a multi-year deal, and it looks like a bargain comparing him to Ellsbury. They don't do that enough. They might have signed Cano to the deal they wanted if they negotiated with him earlier.