Email
PrintComments
And here’s the obligatory swipe at the Cliff Lee trade:
Perhaps it isn’t the price that top flight starters used to command, but when viewed in today’s market, this is a pretty decent deal for Atlanta. This is a significantly better return than what Philadelphia got for Cliff Lee, for instance.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Dec 22, 2009 12:03 PM EST reply actions
Actually scratch that. It was a swipe at the Phillies Cliff Lee trade. Though to be fair they did get Halladay in return…
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Dec 22, 2009 12:06 PM EST up reply actions
And the sad truth is that the Yankees are one of only a handful of teams who can overpay, whether in trades or contracts, pretty much with impunity and few consequences.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Dec 22, 2009 12:59 PM EST up reply actions
How? They lost a good prospect and Melky Cabrera, but gained someone who was a top 5 starter in the NL last year. Prospects just don’t matter that much to the Yankees.
Another good trade for them, they are going to be tough to beat next year.
As opposed to what? This year? He’s a pretty good bet going forward. Anytime you can get a really good pitcher and only give up a pitching prospect, I think you should do it. Especially if you are the Yankees and don’t really care too much about payroll.
Last year was essentially a flash in the pan for Vazquez at the age of 32. What, exactly, are you expecting from him now?
I can’t wait until they tear down the old stadium and set up the Harlem River jet stream. Pop flies end up in the sixth row.
I read or heard somewhere (can’t find a link right now) that it’s believed tearing down the old stadium will help tamp down the number of HRs.
by JulioBernazard on Dec 23, 2009 11:26 AM EST up reply actions
I don’t understand the thinking here. The Yankees gave up a very young pitching prospect and a 4th outfielder in return for one of the best starters in the NL who isn’t all that old and strikes out lots of people. Now he’s not going to be great and Yankee stadium will hurt his numbers, but it’s still a good trade for the Yankees.
Vazquez was good for one year and that at age 32. He has every chance of being a massive, massive flameout.
Every chance? At his worst he’s been about average and is one of the most durable pitchers in baseball. The freely available Chone projections have him slotted as the Yankees 2nd best starting pitcher.
While Vazquez was lights out last year Jay is right, they overpaid. Vazquez may have been an ace for Atlanta last year but his AL numbers have never been near that level. His ERA in the AL has only been under 4.42 once in his 4 years there. His ERA+ for those years are 92, 98, 126, 98. Giving up a veteran 25 year old CF and a good pitching prospect is just a little too much for that.
is not correct.
A 25 year old 4th outfielder and a pitching prospect for a not old starting pitcher who strikes guys out and was one of the best starters in the NL is not overpaying.
Melky Cabrera is 25, pre peak, consistently improving, and showing signs of some nice power. The Yankees also parted with their third best prospect (as per BA). In return, they got Javi Vazquez, a journeyman pitcher with a career OPS+ of 107, limited success in the AL and near career highs in everything. The Braves sold high, the Yankees overpaid because they can. How is this so hard to understand?
No one, he is making fun of me because I’m not toeing the company line that the Yankees overpaid in this trade.
Yeah, that’s it, I have a limited understanding of baseball.
No, try the Yankees are getting a pitcher who was pretty good last year. Melky Cabrera, while having some upside hasn’t really shown he will be much more than a 4th outfielder or an average to below starter. The other name in the trade is an A-ball pitcher who kicked butt last year but is still pretty far away from making an impact. And he’s a pitching prospect which makes it pretty unlikely that he’ll ever amount to much.
But you are right, it’s because I only look at fantasy baseball type stats or baseball cards that I don’t think the Yankees overpaid.
you are still looking at immediate return, ‘name’, and past performance, not control or future total value.
Who cares about controlling a 4th outfielder or a 19 year old A ball pitcher when you got back a top 5 starter from last year? Even if it is only for one year and he becomes just a league average starter this year, it is still worth it for them. Look where they are, they don’t need a 19 year old prospect right now, they are built to win now.
Player control and cost matters, but not if the players you are controlling aren’t very good.
when you got back a top 5 starter from last year
This perspective simply is not relevant.
What is relevant is what he can be expected to be this year.
Yes, the first thing (his great last season) figures significantly into the second thing (his projection for next season), but by focusing on the first thing, you are basically botching the second thing. If you have a clear-eyed view of the second-thing, the deal looks much different.
I would emphasize, if you are already considering the second thing, the first thing becomes TOTALLY irrelevant, because it’s already incorporated into the second thing. It’s not two different, interesting perspectives.
In sum, there is no point at all considering how he did last year, except on the way to estimating how he’ll do next year. The Yankees will reap no reward at all for his 2009 season. The reward they will reap will be for his 2010 season, nothing more and nothing less.
Look where they are
this is exactly what i’m talking about. this is plugging names into next year alone – like a fantasy lineup – like the yankees can do. that doesn’t mean the deal should be looked at in their vacuum.
the mariners needed eduardo perez more than asdrubal cabrera at the time, too.
Why shouldn’t this deal be looked at in their vacuum? It’s their set of circumstances. If you are the Yankees you make this trade every time. If you are the Indians and you are coming off of a good year and need a starting pitcher to strengthen your team for contention for the next year I think you do it as well.
And yes Eduardo Perez for Cabrera was a dumb move by the Mariners. But I’m not sure what this has to do with the trade we are now talking about.
i think it doesn’t need to be stated that both the yankees and braves made this move with their motivations in mind.
sitting outside that vacuum, the deal can be looked at from the perspective of dealt player vaule. like one can do with perez-for-asdrubal which you had no problem declaring dumb. with your logic, the m’s “won” the trade because it was worth it to them at the time.
Huh? I think the problem here is you want to put me in a “dumb fan” category where all I’m looking at is prospect for MLB player and saying that the team that got the major leaguer won the deal.
It is possible to not think the Yankees gave up too much and still be an intelligent baseball fan.
So the Les Expositions won the Bartolo Colon for Sizemore, Lee, Phillips deal if the team that got the better major leaguer (Lee Stevens notwithstanding)?
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Dec 23, 2009 5:55 PM EST up reply actions
No. What he’s saying is that the Yankees have unique circumstances that allow them to acquire and not grow starting pitching staffs. The Yankees get to avoid TINSTAAP altogether.
Ah, yes, this is the Asdrubal Cabrera argument. “We don’t need him anyway, because we have Yuniesky Betancourt.” Funny how things turn out.
The point is that even if your team doesn’t have an optimal use for him, he still has a certain value that you can exploit in trades. So in a way, whether your team needs him or not is beside the point. You simply shouldn’t undersell your own asset on the way to overpaying for another one.
Let’s say the Braves said include that pitcher or we won’t deal you Vasquez.
The Yankees say OK.
This is not overpaying. This is just paying.
by Cols714 on Dec 25, 2009 3:54 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It may or may not be overpaying, but certainly not for the reason you’re offering here.
What if the Braves say, throw in this dude AND Phil Hughes, or we won’t deal you Vazquez. Still “just paying” at that point? I think not.
My point is just that getting an ultimatum doesn’t mean that you didn’t get ripped off. Vazquez was not the only available pitcher.
It is possible to not think the Yankees gave up too much and still be an intelligent baseball fan.
I agree. The counterargument goes like this:
- Androys’ present-day value is something close to nothing due to exceptionally high attrition of young pitching prospects.
- Melky’s breakout season was largely a product of a new-stadium-inflated ISO, for which standard park effects adjustments haven’t fully accounted. He’s already a mediocre defender and on the "wrong side of 25" in terms of range. Scouting suggests he’s going to end up more like a role player than an everyday player, and at arbitration dollars, this too is a Shoppach-like asset on the balance sheet, i.e., worth less as an asset than his apparent usefulness would suggest.
- Boone Logan for Michael Dunn may be an upgrade, but just how much value are we going to assign to a going-on-25 relief prospect with all of 79 IP above the low minors? Isn’t he basically just Andrew Brown, circa five years ago?
- Even given the much tougher environment, Vazquez projects as a Top 20 starter in the AL. He’s started 32 games for ten seasons consecutively, averaging solidly 200+ IP, making him (a) less risky than the typical pitcher, and (b) a great acquisition in terms of insuring against an IP shortage. He was worth five marginal wins per season with the White Sox — this is not even counting his 6.6 WAR last season — so given his durability you have to pencil him in for four marginal wins, don’t you?
Have I convinced anyone?
My point wasn’t about Hughes though. I am talking about a 19 year old pitcher being used to acquire an actual current Major Leaguer. The likelihood that the Yankees even have the ability to develop their own pitching prospect into a starter is virtually nil. They should make a trade just like this every time.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 25, 2009 10:06 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Do me a favor, go find all the 4th outfielders who had a 99 OPS+ last year, essentially league average. I’ll wait.
Granted, Melky had a career year last year just like Vazquez did. The difference is, Melky had it at 25, not 32, not to mention he’s a hitter, which makes him inherently less risky than a pitcher in terms of injury.
So you tell me, which one of these guys is more likely to sustain his last-season performance, and which one is likely to suffer a big drop?
Melky is also under club control for three years, vs. Vazquez for one year. I will grant that Vazquez is a nice bargain for that one year. It isn’t at all clear that, once you adjust for strength of schedule, Vazquez was more than one or two wins better than Melky last season. As others have noted, Vazquez has not been the same pitcher in the AL.
The Braves might also get one or two or six seasons out of that other guy, a reliever who throws in the high 90s.
Are you saying that you would rather have Cabrera than Vasqeuz going forward? If so, that’s fine. I’d rather the good starter than the marginal outfielder.
And yes even if it is only for one year, I still think the yankees did pretty well here. That is, I don’t think they overpaid.
Extremely polished for a teenage pitcher, Vizcaino sits at 90-94 mph with his fastball and regularly runs it up to 96. His best pitch is a hammer curveball that he throws with solid command. Club officials say his curve is second only to A.J. Burnett’s in the organization. He has a sturdy, durable body. Vizcaino’s changeup has improved but still grades as below-average. He’s raw and has plenty of work to do on subtle skills such as setting up hitters, fielding his position and holding runners.
This dude just turned 19 last month.
And yet you would move him and a 25 year old OF who has gotten better each year for a 32 year old starting pitcher coming off an unprecedented career year and entering a league in which he has struggled?
The improvement may be slight but its there. Considerably less of a stretch than cols contending that the Yankees just got a top flight starter with a career era of 4.19 and era+ of 107.
by The Grimace on Dec 24, 2009 12:57 AM EST up reply actions
That isn’t the point, and never has been. And you are still failing to see the big picture here. The Yankees traded Cabrera (2010 salary around 2.5 due to arbitration eligibilty of which he still has three years left if I am reading it correctly), Matt Dunn (minor leaguer) and Arodys Vizcaino (top prospect) for one year of Javier Vazquez (career era 4.19, 4.52 in the AL and an 11.5 price tag) Boone Logan (fringe reliever that isn’t very good) plus the Yankees kick .5 million. Now let us see if you can follow what I am about to type…the value for the Braves is that they now have more money available to spend, they have another young controllable OF (possible trade chip seeing as they have 3 CF now), a young top flight prospect, a bullpen arm that may be more in line with minor league depth, and 500k. Oh, and they can afford to trade Vazquez because they have these kids Hanson and Jurrjens. The Yankees get a 32 year old fly ball pitcher coming off a career year, his 11.5 salary, and the possibility of a serviceable bullpen arm. Vazquez, outside of one year, has struggled in the AL to match his NL performance. He is a fly ball pitcher in a homer happy bandbox. Yes, the Yankees can afford to eat his salary, trade away Cabrera, and even trade away a top pitching prospect for Vazquez. But that in no way means they didn’t overpay for him, or that the Braves also didn’t come out of this deal nicely.
by The Grimace on Dec 24, 2009 12:26 PM EST up reply actions
Giving up a veteran 25 year old CF and a good pitching prospect is just a little too much for that
Trevor Crowe is 25, too.
He said the Braves got the better of the deal because they got a 25 yo outfielder. I’m only saying that age without context means nothing at all.
veteran 25 year old CF
This is not Trevor Crowe. Cabrera has already played in 569 major league games. Crowe will probably never reach that number.
"I'm a baseball lifer. It's what I do." —Manny Acta
Vazquez outperformed his expectations with Atlanta last season. Maybe he’s getting better as he ages, but he certainly underwhelmed me in both his go-round with the White Sox and his previous stint in the Bronx.
Wait 'til next millennium!
check out his FIPs though. (sidenote. What the hell happend to THT’s stats page, have they merged with fangraphs…yuck.). So anyways, I guess you can go look up the FIPs over at Fangraphs, but the point being he’s consistently put up good FIPs but poor results, so much so that he’s a known outlier or well a known point for people to argue over statistically. He’s a good pitcher, but his numbers seem to slant toward the park he pitches in more so than other pitchers.
I think there is still a crowd out there that is in denial about the economy and how the Yankees are exploiting the financial struggles of other teams to acquire some of the better assets available for trade. Both this and the Granderson trade make this clear to me. While the Tigers would like to have dumped someone like Willis or Ordonez, and the Braves probably would have liked to have traded Lowe instead, they were forced to move some of their better players just to get any sort of financial relief. The Yankees obviously were in the best position to swoop in.
A 19 year old prospect is meaningless to the Yankees. They can restock the minors by taking more risks in the draft by paying over slot, and can always just fill a hole by targeting one of the better free agent options on the market. The current economic situation is only enhancing the competitive disadvantage, almost drastically so. Baseball needs to act quickly before it gets even worse.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 22, 2009 2:13 PM EST reply actions 4 recs
Worse for “Baseball” or worse for the 30-odd really rich dudes who own baseball teams and get to make all the decisions?
Well, obviously. My admittedly glib point was only this: the owners’ definition of “worse for baseball” and the fans’ definition of “worse for baseball” are not the same, so the suffering will continue. I think, however, that there is a tipping point and baseball will eventually reach it.
What will happen then? Will baseball restructure its revenue sharing? If there is a tipping point and it hasn’t yet been reached, how will it be expressed? Will fans of the Royals take up pitchforks and march on Park Avenue? Will protestors build a shanty town in Anacostia Flats and demand satisfaction from their congressmen?
If baseball is broken—which it probably is—how can it realistically be changed? Maybe the feds can threaten to rescind the antitrust exemption, but the government doesn’t have the time or inclination to get involved in a business that is making millions of dollars.
I’m not trying to be glib here. I really don’t see a way to fix it, tipping point or not.
Never mind. ESPN.com doesn’t have Arodys Vizcaino in the write-up. Not that I know who he is but, seriously, ESPN?
The point I was trying to make though is that the Yankees should have no qualms trading away 19 year old prospects given the current make-up of baseball. We all know about the low attrition rate for a young pitcher, so the Yankees can stockpile guys like this and move them without thinking twice.
ESPN showed the 6 starters they now have (5 from last year + Vazquez) – Sabathia, Burnett, Pettitte, Vazquez, Chamberlain, Hughes.
What I wonder is, are the Yankees committed to putting Joba back in the bullpen, do they keep Hughes in the bullpen, or are they willing to trade either Joba or Hughes?
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
Hughes will be kept in the pen. Joba will be given one last chance as a starter. They won’t trade either.
Hughes and Chamberlain — and Kennedy, I guess — also demonstrate New York’s advantage. When the Indians’ next wave of starters fizzles, the club shrugs, trades its veterans, hits reset. When the Yankees’ (much-ballyhooed) next wave fizzles, they dump them in the bullpen and drop $64MM/year on free agent starters.
Then the big sports media writers praise the Yanks’ improved relief pitching.
Anyway, I’m with Dorn here. Whatever leverage the other clubs once had to extract either Hughes or Chamberlain by trade has evaporated. Which is why I’m expecting we’ll move Westbrook, Peralta, and Wood for the veteran Jack Squat in 2010.
by fleerdon on Dec 26, 2009 1:11 PM EST up reply actions
FYI… http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl/player_search.cgi?search=Jack+Squat
There has never been a Jack Squat in the MLB. I’m actually a little surprised.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
