"But Lackey showed chutzpah and struck out Mark Teixeira on a full count curbe ball."

Yankees saw a lot of curbe balls this weekend, what with them getting kicked to the curb.

Great headline, Alex.

[1] i saw the "curbe" ball, also.

it's also "Kendry" Morales, not Jose.

but, at this point, who gives a fuck. we sucked in LA. bitter taste in the mouth going into the break, gotta think of something sweet...

You have got to be kidding..three in a row to the Angels before the ASB is not acceptable! For all the positives, our record against the Sox and Angels does not inspire confidence about the playoffs..and now no baseball for 4 days?!?!

We’ll see if they’ve got it in ‘em to do something about it.

I feel like we've said this at least a couple times already - they've had chances to do something about it and shown that they don't, in fact, have it in them.

Also, I think Sabathia was horrible in the context of this game, this series, this point in the season, and the role he's supposed to play on the team.

Everybody Wang Chung tonight!

I wonder why we waste our lives here
When we could run away to paradise
But I am held in some invisible vice
And I can't get away
To live and die in LA

PJ's First Half Yankees Haiku

Bad storms here right now.
Wash away mailing it in!
My fandom awaits...

i hate the shit sox
yankees can't beat the halos
i love the baseball

find new ways to lose
9 pitches or less for hughes
i rhyme my haikus

"i rhyme my haikus" -- good stuff

Chicken Little says,
"The sky is falling, run! duck!
Wait. Sun's out? We're saved!"

Wang can sink no more
Joba, where is the control?
still Wild Card is ours

The team is still less than the sum of its parts. A $60 million payroll advantage should yield a better result in the regular season. OTOH, maybe the payroll hurts more than it helps because it fosters a complacent decision making process.

To that end I fear that they are going to burn too much of their future for Hallady. I would 't trade Hughes or Montero for anyone over 27.

"The team is still less than the sum of its parts"
That is 100% correct. I guess the good news is all they have to do is play up to their potential and we could still have a very good year.

"OTOH, maybe the payroll hurts more than it helps because it fosters a complacent decision making process"
Maybe. I HAVE to think it also raises the pressure. We ALWAYS play with the highest expectations. I don't think that makes life easier.

"To that end I fear that they are going to burn too much of their future for Hallady. I would ‘t trade Hughes or Montero for anyone over 27."
Frankly, I think it's insane to go after Halliday. He's a great pitcher, but we have a huge payroll and little flexibility. The idea of trading our prime youth for a better shot at the PS this and next year, makes me sick. I can't believe Cashman will do it. Having Doc in the NL is reward enough.

While coming back in games only to come SOOOOOOOOO close and then losing is frustration, it is certainly better then never having a chance. I see a big run for the 2nd half!

maybe the payroll hurts more than it helps because it fosters a complacent decision making process.

I dunno, signing Teix, Jeter, Posada, Rivera, Sabathia, Rodriguez, etc seems like no brainers to me.

For all the positives, our record against the Sox and Angels does not inspire confidence about the playoffs

c n p from WW, Yanks record vs playoff teams

2008
BOS 9-9
TBR 11-7
CHW 5-2
LAA 3-7

2007
BOS 10-8
CLE 6-0
LAA 3-6

2006
MIN 3-3
OAK 3-6
DET 5-2

2005
BOS 10-9
LAA 4-6
CHW 3-3

2004
BOS 8-11
OAK 7-2
MIN 4-2

[14] I dunno, signing Teix, Jeter, Posada, Rivera, Sabathia, Rodriguez, etc seems like no brainers to me.

My point isn't that at least some of those players shouldn't have been signed. It's that when you have a $60 million payroll advantage, your team should be able to dominate in the regular season and maybe win some playoff rounds. A major reason why they haven't done that in recent seasons is that their 25 man roster is top heavy, in part because their mL system isn't producing enough quality players. It is because of that failure that they need to sign big money free agents.

It was only a year or two ago that Cashman said they would no longer need to sign top free agent pitchers because they were developing so many. Yet they signed two during this past offseason. Their payroll advantage tends to obscure their failure to meet the standard they set for themselves.

Recall what Cashman saiid after the 2005 season when he signed a contract that finally gave him more autonomy:

"We have the most money, there's no secret about that," Cashman said. "If you combine that with the best decision-making process on a consistent basis, then God help the rest of baseball."

To date, the rest of baseball hasn't suffered all that much.

[9] Genius

It is because of that failure that they need to sign big money free agents.

Not necessarily. Nick Johnson was ready, but they signed Giambi anyway. Nick Swisher was going to be the full time 1bman when Teix was signed. Ted Lily was starting when he was moved for Jeff Weaver, the Yanks had a full rotation when they signed Duque, Contreras & Irabu. They won 114 games in 1998, and they still went out and acquired Roger Clemens. They had Sparky Lyle in the bullpen in 1977 coming off a Cy Young Award winning year, they still went out and got Gossage... So on and so forth.

It was only a year or two ago that Cashman said they would no longer need to sign top free agent pitchers because they were developing so many. Yet they signed two during this past offseason.

And they still have those pitchers that they're developing. Two of them are currently on the staff, with a third currently on the shelf thanks to injury. Not sure where you want to slot Aceves, but he's right there in the mix as well. The other guys (McAllister, Betances, Heredia, Brackman, etc) are still in the minors at various stages of development.

To date, the rest of baseball hasn’t suffered all that much

Which isn't surprising, considering that baseball wasn't suffering to begin with. WRT contenders, the AL East has it's usual suspects but now includes the Rays. The AL Central has always been a mosh pit of CHI, CLE, MIN & DET, with KC being written off before the season starts. The AL West is usually some sort of race between LAA & OAK.

[17] thanks man!!! : )

[18] The sentence in my post prior to the one you quoted was:

A major reason why they haven’t done that in recent seasons is that their 25 man roster is top heavy, in part because their mL system isn’t producing enough quality players.

Nick Johnson was the only drafted position player of any real quality (since the book on Gardner is still open) since Jeter. Cano is the only undrafted homegrown player of any real quality. Joba and Hughes are still question marks for various reasons.

I think by naming Nick Johnson you have strengthened rather than rebutted my point.

Neither Swisher nor Lilly are homegrown.

Again, as I said: My point isn’t that at least some of those players shouldn’t have been signed.

The reason the teams you cited won so many games is that Stick developed a quality homegrown core of Jeter, Bernie, Posada, Mo, and Pettitte. Since Cashman became the GM over ten years ago, the organization has failed to develop a comparable homegrown core, which is precisely why they over rely on free agents. But for the ridiculous payroll advantage, their player developmental failures would likely have imposed more deleterious consequences on the decision makers. That is exactly why I believe the payroll advantage obscures their inefficiency, which is the reason I made the statement that you quoted in an earlier post:

maybe the payroll hurts more than it helps because it fosters a complacent decision making process.

Two of them may be on the staff, but the point remains that they invested about $250 million in CC and AJ despite what Cashman said. With regard to those two, Joba has significantly regressed and Hughes has yet to establish himself as a quality starter. Because of CC and AJ's contracts, most, if not all, of the mL starters you listed will be blocked if Joba and Hughes become quality ML starters. In any event Cashman's statement that "they would no longer need to sign top free agent pitcher" has proven to be false.

As a further point, Hughes and Lester were often the subject of numerous comparison while they were in the mLs. Hughes was often considered to have a higher ceiling because of his superior command. Yet to this point, not only has Lester surpassed him, but the RS pitching coach has been able to vastly improve his command, which is not an easy thing to accomplish.

In contrast, Eiland has presided over Joba's regression, and he can't get Melancon and Robertson to pitch effectively on a consistent basis in the MLs.

Maybe it's time for a change?

The Yankees currently possess $60 million advantage. Are you really arguing that they use that advantage wisely? Seriously?

The point was that there were established players at whatever position available, yet they went out and acquired players anyway, which I pointed out in the rest of my paragraph, referring to Duque, Contreras, etc.

Having homegrown players is overrated, anyway. There have been teams that have won without a homegrown core (Yanks of the 70's, Jays of the 90's, Sox of the 00's), there have been teams that won with them (Yanks of the 90's)

Whether they sign big or little $$ FA isn't particularly relevant WRT the roster. They had several middle infielders in the system and on the roster when they signed Spike Owen. They had several pitchers on the staff when Orlando Hernandez was added. So on and so forth.

Player development is but one way to acquire a player.

Since Cashman became the GM over ten years ago, the organization has failed to develop a comparable homegrown core, which is precisely why they over rely on free agents.

But the problem hasn't been developing a core. A situation presents itself where the team can upgrade, the team has done it

Moose > Cone
Giambi > Tino
Rodriguez > Boone
Clemens > Wells
Sheffield > Mondesi/Garcia & Co.

So on and so forth. Having homegrown talent makes for a good story, but the reason the Yanks haven't won isn't because of lack of homegrown talent.

Because of CC and AJ’s contracts, most, if not all, of the mL starters you listed will be blocked if Joba and Hughes become quality ML starters.

That isn't necessarily true. Injury and ineffectiveness have a way of sorting things out. Players are moved. If a player in the minors has game, an organization will find a way to get them in the lineup or on the mound.

In any event Cashman’s statement that “they would no longer need to sign top free agent pitcher” has proven to be false.

As was the statement that Bubba Crosby would be the starting CF in 2006. I wouldn't take anything Cashman says at face value.

The Yankees currently possess $60 million advantage. Are you really arguing that they use that advantage wisely? Seriously?

Sure. Who's catching for the Yanks? Who's playing short? Third base? Closing out the games? Most other organizations, Jeter, Rivera, Posada don't stick around as long as they have. The Rodriguez/Soriano trade isn't possible without that financial advantage.

[21]

I don't know where that point came from. My original point was that the payroll has often spawned an inefficient decision making process. I don't understand how your assertion rebuts that.

Having homegrown players is overrated, anyway,

There are exceptions to every rule, but that doesn't mean that the rule has been disproved. I would argue that a homegrown core is more important in NY than any other market for the simple reason that many players who have succeeded in other markets don't reach the same level of success in NY. They often come to NY only for the money. Homegrown players, otoh, have only known one way of doing things, they have players who have succeeded in NY as their role models, and they take pride in wearing the pinstripes. As a result, it becomes more likely that playing in NY becomes a natural, unself-conscious experience.

But the problem hasn’t been developing a core. A situation presents itself where the team can upgrade, the team has done it.

I think your verb tense is in error.

The problem wasn't developing a core because Stick had developed one. Most of the players you listed only own rings because they merely had to supplement the core.

So on and so forth. Having homegrown talent makes for a good story, but the reason the Yanks haven’t won isn’t because of lack of homegrown talent.

I really don't understand how you can argue the point.

Let's review:

The Yankees developed a homegrown core.

That homegrown core formed the foundation of teams that won four rings.

As a consequence of that homegrown core, they had the luxury of bringing in Cone, Tino, Wells, Clemens, and others that could supplement the core.

The problem is that as the homegrown core aged, they were unable to replace them with a new wave of homegrown core players.

There is no young Jeter, or Bernie, or Posada, or Rivera, or to date, even a Pettitte, and they have been unable to fill the void from the outside.

Another point that you are overlooking is that having a young core in place is cost effective because they are relatively cheap in their first few years. That leaves even more money to pursue players from other teams to supplement them, which has become even more important as the luxury tax becomes ever more onerous.

Also, don't forget that most baseball players peak by 27. So when you grow your own you are getting their most productive years at an economical price. Obviously, the converse is true when you sign other team's free agents.

That isn’t necessarily true. Injury and ineffectiveness have a way of sorting things out. Players are moved. If a player in the minors has game, an organization will find a way to get them in the lineup or on the mound.

True, depth is nice, but that doesn't rebut anything I have argued.

As I continue to point out, if they weren't so poor at developing their own players they wouldn't need to sign other team's free agents.

As was the statement that Bubba Crosby would be the starting CF in 2006. I wouldn’t take anything Cashman says at face value.

Although I think it's easy to distinguish strategic puffery from a declaration about organizational philosophy, this is probably the first point on which we agree. I would hope that Cashman's recent statement that Girardi is doing an "exceptional job" is one that shouldn't be taken at "face value."

Sure. Who’s catching for the Yanks? Who’s playing short? Third base? Closing out the games? Most other organizations, Jeter, Rivera, Posada don’t stick around as long as they have. The Rodriguez/Soriano trade isn’t possible without that financial advantage.

Raf, The SS, the C, and the closer are all part of that homegrown core that you think is so unimportant.

My point continues to be: Where is the next Jeter, Posada, and Rivera? They all came up 15 years ago. They haven't developed ONE comparable players since.

There is nothing else that needs to be said.

My original point was that the payroll has often spawned an inefficient decision making process. I don’t understand how your assertion rebuts that.

My point is that regardless of payroll, the decision process has pretty much been the same since Steinbrenner bought the team. They didn't have to sign the free agents, but they went out and did it anyway.

I would argue that a homegrown core is more important in NY than any other market for the simple reason that many players who have succeeded in other markets don’t reach the same level of success in NY.

Name them. I'd be willing to wager that these players failed for reasons other than "the big stage" of playing for the NYY

The problem wasn’t developing a core because Stick had developed one. Most of the players you listed only own rings because they merely had to supplement the core.

My point is that the lack of success in the postseason from 2004 on has little to do with the core.

That homegrown core formed the foundation of teams that won four rings.

As a consequence of that homegrown core, they had the luxury of bringing in Cone, Tino, Wells, Clemens, and others that could supplement the core.

Now, I'm a bit confused. According to your timeline, your homegrown core is Bernie and Gerald Williams. Jeter didn't become a full time starter until 96. Posada didn't become a full time starter until 98. Rivera & Pettitte came up in the 95 season. Cone came to NY in 95, Tino came after the 95 season, Wells after the 96 season, Clemens after the 1998 season.

Another point that you are overlooking is that having a young core in place is cost effective because they are relatively cheap in their first few years.

I haven't overlooked it. I didn't thing it was worth mentioning. Unless the Yanks are having problems making payroll, I don't think it's an issue. Not to say that the Yanks haven't dumped salary, they have, but given their history, having relatively cheap players isn't really much of an issue with the Yanks.

True, depth is nice, but that doesn’t rebut anything I have argued.

I was talking more to your point of pitchers being blocked. If guys are lights out in the minors, the Yanks will find a way to work them into the staff.

As I continue to point out, if they weren’t so poor at developing their own players they wouldn’t need to sign other team’s free agents.

And as I continue to mention even if they developed their own players, it will not stop them from going outside the organization to get a player. Because that's what they have done, that's what they've always done.

Raf, The SS, the C, and the closer are all part of that homegrown core that you think is so unimportant.

The point is that those players would leave via free agency (who knows, maybe for the Yanks), if they worked for another organization. That they're part of a "core" isn't particularly relevant.

My point continues to be: Where is the next Jeter, Posada, and Rivera? They all came up 15 years ago. They haven’t developed ONE comparable players since.

We'll wait and see. But it's a bit difficult to replace 2 hall of fame caliber players in Jeter and Rivera, as well as a possible borderline in Posada. Heck, before Jeter, I'm having a hard time remembering when they had a full time starter at short that came from within. Andre Robertson? Catcher? I'm drawing a blank as well; Munson? Closer is easy having watched Rags all those years.

Regardless, when the time comes, they will be replaced, be it through free agency, trade, international market, or the draft. Which is what the Yanks always have done.

[23] My point is that regardless of payroll, the decision process has pretty much been the same since Steinbrenner bought the team. They didn’t have to sign the free agents, but they went out and did it anyway.

There have been two periods during the Steinbrenner era when championships were won: 1) when he first bought the team and overwhelmed baseball with the resources he spent on free agents, supplemented by some shrewd trades by Gabe Paul and two homegrown mega stars in Thurman and Guidry; and 2) when Stick assembled a homegrown core when George was suspended.

Every other era has been characterized by overspending that yielded no rings.

Name them. I’d be willing to wager that these players failed for reasons other than “the big stage” of playing for the NYY

Dave Collins (108 OPS+ in the year before he came to NY, 80 OPS+ in his first year in NY), Jack Clark (176 OPS+ in the year before he came to NY, 130 OPS+ in his first year in NY), Steve Kemp (122 OPS+ in the year before he came to NY, 100 OPS+ in his first year in NY), Javy Vazquez (139 ERA+ in the year before he came to NY, 92 ERA+ in his first year in NY), Randy Johnson (177 ERA+ in the year before he came to NY, 112 ERA+ in his first year in NY).

Then there are players who declined but rebounded over time:

Roger Clemens (174 ERA+ in the year before he came to NY, 103 ERA+ in his first year in NY), Tino Martinez (135 OPS+ in the year before he came to NY, 108 OPS+ in his first year in NY).

My point is that the lack of success in the postseason from 2004 on has little to do with the core.

How could not developing homegrown top tier players be beneficial to the team's postseason chances?

Now, I’m a bit confused. According to your timeline, your homegrown core is Bernie and Gerald Williams. Jeter didn’t become a full time starter until 96. Posada didn’t become a full time starter until 98. Rivera & Pettitte came up in the 95 season. Cone came to NY in 95, Tino came after the 95 season, Wells after the 96 season, Clemens after the 1998 season.

Gerald? I'm talking about stars.

When they began winning WS in '96, Jeter, Bernie, Rivera, and Pettitte were major contributors. Posada contributed more in subsequent seasons. That core provided the foundation for the championship teams. What don't you understand?

I haven’t overlooked it. I didn’t thing it was worth mentioning. Unless the Yanks are having problems making payroll, I don’t think it’s an issue. Not to say that the Yanks haven’t dumped salary, they have, but given their history, having relatively cheap players isn’t really much of an issue with the Yanks.

Do you think Ransom and Tomko would be on the roster if they could bring the payroll to $250 or $300 million? Do you think they might have a better CF if their payroll was unlimited? The luxury tax has brought the Yankees back to the pack because of their inability to develop homegrown stars.

I was talking more to your point of pitchers being blocked. If guys are lights out in the minors, the Yanks will find a way to work them into the staff.

That assumes that they will develop into quality pitchers. We are told that Melancon and Robertson are talented, yet they have gotten very little out of them. So the pattern of poor talent development continues.

And as I continue to mention even if they developed their own players, it will not stop them from going outside the organization to get a player. Because that’s what they have done, that’s what they’ve always done.

I have never said that they should stop signing free agents. What I have said is that they over rely on outside talent because they haven't developed from within. If they were better at developing players, the players that they could add from the outside would make Cashman's statement that "God help the rest of baseball" prophetically true, rather than pathetically untrue.

The point is that those players would leave via free agency (who knows, maybe for the Yanks), if they worked for another organization. That they’re part of a “core” isn’t particularly relevant.

Again, I have never argued that they shouldn't spend money. As i said at [16]: My point isn’t that at least some of those players shouldn’t have been signed.

What is relevant is that they haven't developed the next Jeter, Posada, and Rivera.

We’ll wait and see. But it’s a bit difficult to replace 2 hall of fame caliber players in Jeter and Rivera, as well as a possible borderline in Posada. Heck, before Jeter, I’m having a hard time remembering when they had a full time starter at short that came from within. Andre Robertson? Catcher? I’m drawing a blank as well; Munson? Closer is easy having watched Rags all those years.

Regardless, when the time comes, they will be replaced, be it through free agency, trade, international market, or the draft. Which is what the Yanks always have done.

That is exactly the point I made in response to your first point in this post.

Stick built a homegrown core while George was suspended. Prior to that period, George was unable to grasp the importance of a homegrown core in winning championships (he traded Fred McGriff for Dale Murray...Dale Murray!!!). Stick's model should have been emulated from the early '90s without interruption because it worked.

They need to tap every source of talent, not just the talent from other teams.

That again, has been my point.

Every other era has been characterized by overspending that yielded no rings.

Rings or not, every era had a degree of spending. The Yankees of the 80's had a core of players in Henderson, Randolph, Mattingly, Winfield and Guidry.

Dave Collins (108 OPS+ in the year before he came to NY, 80 OPS+ in his first year in NY), Jack Clark (176 OPS+ in the year before he came to NY, 130 OPS+ in his first year in NY), Steve Kemp (122 OPS+ in the year before he came to NY, 100 OPS+ in his first year in NY), Javy Vazquez (139 ERA+ in the year before he came to NY, 92 ERA+ in his first year in NY), Randy Johnson (177 ERA+ in the year before he came to NY, 112 ERA+ in his first year in NY).

Collins posted several years of 80 OPS's in Toronto. Also, it should be noted that for some reason in 82, that he could not hit on the road; he posted a H/R OPS split of (104/56)

Clark had a career year in '87, it would be unrealistic to expect him to replicate his 87 season, much as it was unrealistic to expect Danny Tartabull to replicate his 1991 season.

Steve Kemp suffered a shoulder injury in NY

Randy Johnson had a career year in 2004, that would've been unrealistic for him to replicate.

When they began winning WS in ‘96, Jeter, Bernie, Rivera, and Pettitte were major contributors. Posada contributed more in subsequent seasons. That core provided the foundation for the championship teams. What don’t you understand?

Your definition of core and foundation as well as their effect. When the Yanks went on their run, Bernie and Pettitte were the only full time starters that figured into the plans, with Rivera in the pen. It could be argued that Nelson was acquired to be the primary setup man. Wickman was already there in the pen as well. Jeter wasn't supposed to come on board until 97, Tony Fernandez's injury opened the door for him. Posada wasn't a full time catcher until 98, Girardi was the starter until then.

Do you think Ransom and Tomko would be on the roster if they could bring the payroll to $250 or $300 million?

Of course. Look around baseball. Look at the history of the Yanks. They have always had cheap guys as the 25th man on the roster. Ransom and Tomko are no different from DAle Sveum, Curtis Pride, Scott Pose, Andy Fox, Wally Whitehurst, Bobby Ojeda, etc, etc, etc, etc.

What I have said is that they over rely on outside talent because they haven’t developed from within.

And my contention is that it has always been that way. Look at the rosters from 95 on. You'll see a mix of homegrown, and players acquired from outside the organization.

Prior to that period, George was unable to grasp the importance of a homegrown core in winning championships (he traded Fred McGriff for Dale Murray…Dale Murray!!!)

They already had Mattingly, Randolph, Henderson, Winfield, Righetti & Guidry. You don't think that could be a solid foundation of a championship team?

Having a homegrown core was the least of the Yanks' problems during the 80's

They need to tap every source of talent, not just the talent from other teams.

Which is what they have always been doing as far back as Celerino Sanchez.

[25] Rings or not, every era had a degree of spending. The Yankees of the 80’s had a core of players in Henderson, Randolph, Mattingly, Winfield and Guidry.

Two points:

1) So what? I thought the goal was to win championships.

2) Exactly! They won nothing in the '80s because they never developed their own pitching and top FAs like Langston didn't want to play in NY.

Collins posted several years of 80 OPS’s in Toronto. Also, it should be noted that for some reason in 82, that he could not hit on the road; he posted a H/R OPS split of (104/56)
Clark had a career year in ‘87, it would be unrealistic to expect him to replicate his 87 season, much as it was unrealistic to expect Danny Tartabull to replicate his 1991 season.
Steve Kemp suffered a shoulder injury in NY
Randy Johnson had a career year in 2004, that would’ve been unrealistic for him to replicate.

Dave Collins had three consecutive seasons of an OPS+ of > 100 before his 80 OPS+ in his season as a Yankee. He couldn't handle the expectations.

A failure to replicate does not explain the precipitous decline that Clark and Randy Johnson experienced.

What about Vazquez? What about the seasons of adjustment that Tino and Clemens experienced?

Your definition of core and foundation as well as their effect. When the Yanks went on their run, Bernie and Pettitte were the only full time starters that figured into the plans, with Rivera in the pen. It could be argued that Nelson was acquired to be the primary setup man. Wickman was already there in the pen as well. Jeter wasn’t supposed to come on board until 97, Tony Fernandez’s injury opened the door for him. Posada wasn’t a full time catcher until 98, Girardi was the starter until then.

So what? But for the contributions of the homegrown core, a ring does not become a run.

Of course. Look around baseball. Look at the history of the Yanks. They have always had cheap guys as the 25th man on the roster. Ransom and Tomko are no different from DAle Sveum, Curtis Pride, Scott Pose, Andy Fox, Wally Whitehurst, Bobby Ojeda, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Because their payroll has never been unlimited. So it's prudent to grow your own quality cost controlled players to save money so that you don't have to sign cheap guys who often suck. You continue to make my point for me.

And my contention is that it has always been that way. Look at the rosters from 95 on. You’ll see a mix of homegrown, and players acquired from outside the organization.

That's my point! The young, homegrown players produced their peak seasons as a group until the early '00s so they were in a better position to win championships. Since then they haven't produced any championships and as a result they are weaker relative to the rest of the MLB, which has been exacerbated by the ever more onerous luxury tax, which makes growing your own even more important. How many times do I have to say it? The next Jeter, Bernie, Posada, Rivera, and to date, Pettitte were not produced. during a 10 to 15 year period.

They already had Mattingly, Randolph, Henderson, Winfield, Righetti & Guidry. You don’t think that could be a solid foundation of a championship team?

Yes, if they has developed a starting rotation. For much of the '80s, the owners engaged in collusion to depress salary inflation so it was harder to sign top free agent pitchers, which made it more important to develop your own. As I said, George never understood that. So Having a homegrown core was the least of the Yanks’ problems during the 80’s is not accurate.

The luxury tax has had a similar effect in recent seasons.

Which is what they have always been doing as far back as Celerino Sanchez.

Really? Then why was Jeter the only drafted player to become a starter until Gardner (who is not really a full-time starter)? Why was Pettitte the only homegrown starter until Wang?

Because they have done a pretty poor job of exploiting the draft.

Two points:

2) Exactly! They won nothing in the ’80s because they never developed their own pitching and top FAs like Langston didn’t want to play in NY.

The point has always been to win championships. The methods to do so haven't changed. It has been the same story over and over again.

Dave Collins had three consecutive seasons of an OPS+ of > 100 before his 80 OPS+ in his season as a Yankee. He couldn’t handle the expectations.

Dave Collins posted a 104 OPS+ at home, 56 on the road. For whatever reason, he couldn't handle being a Yankee on the road? He posted similar numbers in stops in Toronto, Oakland and Detroit. He couldn't handle the expectations there?

A failure to replicate does not explain the precipitous decline that Clark and Randy Johnson experienced.

Really? After everyone was talking about the "rabbit ball" in 1987, there wasn't a precipitous decline expected? The league itself went from 3258 HR's in 84 to 3602 in 85 to 3602 in 86 to 4458 in 87 to 3188 in 88, and 3083 in 89.

Look at Clark's career numbers. 1987 was an outlier.

After Johnson had an all-world season in 2004, I don't think that at 41 anyone was expecting him to replicate it, especially going to a tougher division in a tougher league. Especially with his back and knee problems. Even with all that, he still led the 2005 squad in FIP (fielding independent pitching)

As for Tino, his 96 season seems pretty similar to his 1994 season, which is similar to his 1999 season. Looking @ Fangraph's wOBA, it appears that 95 & 97 were spikes in his career.

Clemens, once again, look at his numbers. His Toronto days were clearly an outlier to his career. His K/9 rate in 99 is awful similar to his rates from 91-93, without the BB/9 rate to back him up.

So it’s prudent to grow your own quality cost controlled players to save money so that you don’t have to sign cheap guys who often suck. You continue to make my point for me.

The players I mentioned were fringe players. Tomko and Ransom are fringe players. 25th men on the roster. There is no point to be made, the last guys on the bench, the last men out the pen aren't going to be all-stars. Having "quality cost controlled players" has little to nothing to do with it.

The next Jeter, Bernie, Posada, Rivera, and to date, Pettitte were not produced. during a 10 to 15 year period.

And how many times do I have to say that it doesn't or hasn't mattered. What's the difference if the production is replicated by a player acquired by free agency, drafted or traded? Look at the rosters beforehand, you'll see the same thing.

For much of the ’80s, the owners engaged in collusion to depress salary inflation so it was harder to sign top free agent pitchers, which made it more important to develop your own

And yet, the Yanks were able to sign pitchers like Phil Niekro, Tommy John, Ed Whitson (who never was that good to begin with), and the like.

The problem with the Yanks their was their inability to assess pitching. They had shown that they'd go the FA route, signing Niekro, Shirley, Whitson, etc. They showed they'd go the trade route, acquiring Bystrom, Hudson, Allen, etc. They showed they'd go the internal route with Guidry, Tewksbury, DeShaies, Rijo, etc.

The luxury tax has had a similar effect in recent seasons.

Given the Yanks' spending ways, I say it hasn't

Because they have done a pretty poor job of exploiting the draft.

Which hasn't been a problem. I do not understand why you want to give extra credit for a player that has been drafted. In the end, it doesn't matter if you get production from a player that was developed in house or from another organization.

[27]

The point has always been to win championships. The methods to do so haven’t changed. It has been the same story over and over again.

This is getting repetitive, and you are ignoring what I have said, in prior posts, but once again, if the point is to win championships as I said at [24]:

There have been two periods during the Steinbrenner era when championships were won: 1) when he first bought the team and overwhelmed baseball with the resources he spent on free agents, supplemented by some shrewd trades by Gabe Paul and two homegrown mega stars in Thurman and Guidry; and 2) when Stick assembled a homegrown core when George was suspended.

Every other era has been characterized by overspending that yielded no rings.

No other paradigm has yielded rings. So you're mistaken. The methods have changed. The proof is that those two periods were sui generis.

Dave Collins posted a 104 OPS+ at home, 56 on the road. For whatever reason, he couldn’t handle being a Yankee on the road? He posted similar numbers in stops in Toronto, Oakland and Detroit. He couldn’t handle the expectations there?

I think you are confusing park factors with pressure. The scrutiny is the same from the NY press no matter what the venue is, but your point has some merit.

Really? After everyone was talking about the “rabbit ball” in 1987, there wasn’t a precipitous decline expected? The league itself went from 3258 HR’s in 84 to 3602 in 85 to 3602 in 86 to 4458 in 87 to 3188 in 88, and 3083 in 89.

Clemens, once again, look at his numbers. His Toronto days were clearly an outlier to his career. His K/9 rate in 99 is awful similar to his rates from 91-93, without the BB/9 rate to back him up.

The point about Jack Clark is your best one by far. So when you're right, I will acknowledge it and give you credit. Good job.

So they agreed to pay RJ $16 million over three years to be a starter who was 12% above league average? You can't actually believe that. His ERA+ the following season was 90. Call me crazy, but I think they expected him to be an ace. That's why they paid him like one.

Tino was awful in April of 1996:

.244 .327 .389 .716

And worse in Sept/Oct:

.227 .327 .352 .679

And bad in the postseason:

.222 .333 .444 .778

Consequently, it's reasonable to conclude that the pressure got to him.

Even if Clemens's seasons in Toronto were outliers, it doesn't mean that his 1999 season was within context. That can be seen in his subsequent seasons:

ERA+

1999: 103
2000: 130
2001:128

So again, it's reasonable to conclude that after a period of adjustment to the pressure of playing in NY, Clemens returned to pitching closer to his career mean.

The players I mentioned were fringe players. Tomko and Ransom are fringe players. 25th men on the roster. There is no point to be made, the last guys on the bench, the last men out the pen aren’t going to be all-stars. Having “quality cost controlled players” has little to nothing to do with it.

Huh? They are fringe players because they suck. They weren't signed because they suck. They were signed because they were cheap and because they weren't producing their own mL depth to fill that role. Do you think it would be nice to have a ML ready prospect who could have filled in for A-Rod for six weeks and put up an OPS+ of > 100 while he was on the DL? I do. Do you think the Yankees could use a better reliever than Tomko? I do. I think most people would agree. The reason they don't have better players to fill out their bench is because of the failure to produce mL options (eg., like Daniel Bard) and because their payroll isn't unlimited. That is an inescapable conclusion.

btw, CF?

And how many times do I have to say that it doesn’t or hasn’t mattered. What’s the difference if the production is replicated by a player acquired by free agency, drafted or traded? Look at the rosters beforehand, you’ll see the same thing.

Say it all you want, it's not factual. Homegrown players are cost controllled for three to six years. If they are good, you are getting production that is disproportionate to their salary. That in turn enables a team to spend their resources elsewhere, for example, on a reliever better than Tomko, a CFer better than Melky or Gardner, and a BUI better than Ransom.

So to answer your question: What’s the difference if the production is replicated by a player acquired by free agency, drafted or traded?

The difference is cost and value given that they don't have an unlimited payroll.

And yet, the Yanks were able to sign pitchers like Phil Niekro, Tommy John, Ed Whitson (who never was that good to begin with), and the like.

They weren't top tier pitchers at that point. Two names stand out that could have helped them win championships in the '80s: Doug Drabek, who George traded for Rick Rhoden because he didn't understand that prospects aren't fungible, and Jack Morris, who George didn't even make an offer to as a FA because of collusion.

The first example demonstrates the importance of growing your own. The second example demonstrates how collusion made growing your own even more important. Both are points that I have repeatedly made.

The problem with the Yanks their was their inability to assess pitching. They had shown that they’d go the FA route, signing Niekro, Shirley, Whitson, etc. They showed they’d go the trade route, acquiring Bystrom, Hudson, Allen, etc. They showed they’d go the internal route with Guidry, Tewksbury, DeShaies, Rijo, etc.

They traded Rijo for Rickey Henderson in 1984 (which was defensible unlike every other similar move).

They traded DeShaies for Joe Nekro in 1985.

They traded Tewksbury in 1987 for Steve Trout.

How was that going the internal route?

Given the Yanks’ spending ways, I say it hasn’t

Seriously? The Yankees have not been in the WS since 2003. During that time parity has increased as the luxury tax has gone up. A large reason for that drought has been the starting pitching. The luxury tax has enabled more teams to keep their best young players longer. The Yankees have failed to grow their own. So they scrambled to compensate for that failure by acquiring Kevin Brown (another pitcher who couldn't handle NY), Weaver, Vazquez, and Pavano (yet another pitcher who couldn't handle NY). So they spent money unwisely to compensate for their failures in player development, but because of the tax their choices were limited. So my point remains unrebutted.

Which hasn’t been a problem. I do not understand why you want to give extra credit for a player that has been drafted. In the end, it doesn’t matter if you get production from a player that was developed in house or from another organization.

Here's a question: If Joba, Hughes, Robertson, Melancon, Kennedy, and Brackman all become at least very good pitchers, would it benefit the Yankees and would it save them money that could then be spent to fill other needs?

The methods have changed.

The methods have not changed. Look at how the teams were built. Whether the player was Jackson, Gossage, Winfield, Candelaria, Pascual Perez, Dave LaPoint, Andy Hawkins, Danny Tartabull, etc, etc, etc, the Yanks were players in the free agent market. Too many trades to list were made to bring players in. Players like Mattingly, Pags, Guidry, Rassmussen, Kelly, Velarde, among others were called up from the farm. The results may have changed, but the process and methods hadn't.

So they agreed to pay RJ $16 million over three years to be a starter who was 12% above league average? You can’t actually believe that. His ERA+ the following season was 90. Call me crazy, but I think they expected him to be an ace. That’s why they paid him like one.

Johnson's value to the 2005 Yanks was $15.7M. His salary? $16M. Looking at the numbers, he was the ace of the 2005 staff. 2006, he was having back problems, which may explain his poor numbers.

Tino was awful in April of 1996:

Consequently, it’s reasonable to conclude that the pressure got to him.

Tino,
April 1994
.200 .288 .300 .588

April 1993
.160 .308 .360 .668

Not much to offer in the way of Sept/October stats in his time with the M's. It should be noted that his postseason career has been uneven. He was hot in the 1995 ALDS, but cold during the ALCS. During his tenure with the Yanks, he has had good series, he has had bad series.

Even if Clemens’s seasons in Toronto were outliers, it doesn’t mean that his 1999 season was within context. That can be seen in his subsequent seasons:

So again, it’s reasonable to conclude that after a period of adjustment to the pressure of playing in NY, Clemens returned to pitching closer to his career mean.

Then how do you explain the 102 ERA+ in 2002?

Huh? They are fringe players because they suck. They weren’t signed because they suck. They were signed because they were cheap and because they weren’t producing their own mL depth to fill that role.

One has nothing to do with the other. How many other teams are running players picked up off the scrap heap? The Sox have Nick Green manning shortstop while Lowrie and Lugo are out. Career 75 OPS+ Nick Green. Every team goes through fringe players over the course of the season.

That in turn enables a team to spend their resources elsewhere, for example, on a reliever better than Tomko, a CFer better than Melky or Gardner, and a BUI better than Ransom.

Like Mike Buddie? Luis Sojo? Andy Fox?

Two names stand out that could have helped them win championships in the ’80s: Doug Drabek, who George traded for Rick Rhoden because he didn’t understand that prospects aren’t fungible, and Jack Morris, who George didn’t even make an offer to as a FA because of collusion.

ERA+ in 1987
RR: 115
DD: 105

1988
RR: 93
DD: 110

So I see your point. No arguing that it was a dumb trade. Having said that, given the other questionable moves the Yanks have made during the time, Drabek wouldn't have made much of a difference had he stayed. A pearl before swine, if you will, given many of the moves the Yanks made from 1987 on.

As for Jack Morris, I find it hard to believe that Steinbrenner was willing to sign Clark away from the Cardinals, but not Morris from the Tigers. Collusion or not, Steinbrenner still wound up with Whitson, Niekro, Tommy John and any other pending FA that was traded to him. Guidry and Randolph were kept in the fold too due to collusion.

How was that going the internal route?

Point was, they gave guys from the minors shots. Substitute Righetti or Rassmussen or Cowley or whomever.

Seriously? The Yankees have not been in the WS since 2003

Due to the randomness of the postseason. No one expects the greatest closer ever to blow saves in games 4 & 5. No one expects the league MVP to GIDP with KRod on the ropes, no one expects that RJ gets an epidural a few hours before his ALDS starts, as well as not going to Wang on short rest. No one expects Wang to get hammered twice in the 07 ALDS, and the one other game they were positioned to win they were hit with a plague.

So they scrambled to compensate for that failure by acquiring Kevin Brown (another pitcher who couldn’t handle NY), Weaver, Vazquez, and Pavano (yet another pitcher who couldn’t handle NY).

Brown was doing fine in NY right up (110 ERA+) until he took on the dugout wall. Also in 2005 he posted a 3.61 FIP. It's a myth that he couldn't handle NY

Weaver was acquired during the 2002 season, not sure what you mean by scrambling as the 2002 squad was set with Clemens, Mussina, Duque, Wells and Pettitte.

Both Weaver and Vazquez were younger cost controlled arms that were signed to favorable deals, their arbirtation years were bought out. Both trades were reasonable given the information at the time.

The Yanks should have gone nowhere near Pavano, this much we're in agreement of. Pavano's problem wasn't that he couldn't handle NY it's that he was never really that good to begin with.

I don't see how the tax figures into these moves made. The Dodgers unloaded Brown, the Tigers were having problems with Weaver, and Montreal was behaving like they always did. The Yanks always spent, bringing Sheffield, Johnson, Rodriguez, Damon, Matsui, Abreu, etc on board.

Here’s a question: If Joba, Hughes, Robertson, Melancon, Kennedy, and Brackman all become at least very good pitchers, would it benefit the Yankees and would it save them money that could then be spent to fill other needs?

It will benefit the Yanks, but it's not about saving money. They will spend if they see the need for it. That's the way it has always been. There have been more times the Yanks haven't been "fiscally responsible" than they have.