PDA

View Full Version : Why does everyone want Giles?/ Yanks interested in Giles



Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8

I Love Wang
11-19-05, 05:05 PM
BINGO. There WAS poor offensive production in CF last year. No question. But, how did this affect the team as a whole? It appeared that hiding Bubba in the 9 hole, or Bernie in the 6, though not ideal, didn't stop this team from scoring 6-7 runs. The problem was stopping the other team from scoring that many or more with our pitching AND poor OF defense.

Please answer: why are runs allowed on defense more valuable than runs produced on offense?

Jace
11-19-05, 05:05 PM
It seems to me that the most pressing need of the Yankees is to win more games. If that can be done more effectively by way of offense than defense through a particular player, then I am all for it.

Dooley Womack
11-19-05, 05:05 PM
Please answer: why are runs allowed on defense more valuable than runs produced on offense?

6 runs should be sufficient to win a majority of games. The Yanks have done this, often with ease. Preventing the other team from scoring that many is the key.

Or would you rather want to rely on the Yanks getting that 7th run because they have Giles?

Jace
11-19-05, 05:06 PM
Or would you rather want to rely on the Yanks getting that 7th run because they have Giles?

Why not?

I Love Wang
11-19-05, 05:07 PM
6 runs should be sufficient to win a majority of games. The Yanks have done this, often with ease. Preventing the other team from scoring that many is the key.

Or would you rather want to rely on the Yanks getting that 7th run because they have Giles?

In the games we lost last year, couldn't all of them been won by scoring more runs?

Dooley Womack
11-19-05, 05:07 PM
Please answer: why are runs allowed on defense more valuable than runs produced on offense?

It seems to me that the most pressing need of the Yankees is to win more games. If that can be done more effectively by way of offense than defense through a particular player, then I am all for it.

Pitching and defense seems to be the formula to go all the way, ESPECIALLY in the playoffs. The Yanks will score runs with or without Giles. Do they need the added pressure, in the playoffs, of a runner taking an extra base or be afraid that a ball might be hit in the gap?

Dooley Womack
11-19-05, 05:08 PM
In the games we lost last year, couldn't all of them been won by scoring more runs?

If you're a proponent of 13-12 wins, then go for it. Unfortunately, those teams rarey win in the playoffs or WS.

Dooley Womack
11-19-05, 05:09 PM
Why not?

It's not winning baseball.

I Love Wang
11-19-05, 05:10 PM
Pitching and defense seems to be the formula to go all the way, ESPECIALLY in the playoffs.

This has been proven to not be true. The White Sox won because they regularly outscored their opponents. The Red Sox did the same thing last year.


The Yanks will score runs with or without Giles. Do they need the added pressure, in the playoffs, of a runner taking an extra base or be afraid that a ball might be hit in the gap?

The Yankees pitching staff will get outs with our without Giles. Do they need the added pressure, in the playoffs, of our CFer going 0-5 with 3 K's and a GDP?

I Love Wang
11-19-05, 05:11 PM
It's not winning baseball.

Winning baseball amounts to playing better in the playoffs than anyone else. The best way to try to ensure this is to put the best team on the field. The best team is the one that has the highest postive margin between their runs scored and runs allowed. My system won't guarantee a WS championship, but it gives us a better chance at one than yours does.

Dooley Womack
11-19-05, 05:14 PM
In the games we lost last year, couldn't all of them been won by scoring more runs?

Isn't this almost like saying, "Why go after a relief pitcher if we get Giles. His run production will make up for the runs Sturtze and Proctor give up?"

Dooley Womack
11-19-05, 05:14 PM
Winning baseball amounts to playing better in the playoffs than anyone else. The best way to try to ensure this is to put the best team on the field. The best team is the one that has the highest postive margin between their runs scored and runs allowed. My system won't guarantee a WS championship, but it gives us a better chance at one than yours does.

Defense and pitching stops good hitting. It IS that basic.

I Love Wang
11-19-05, 05:17 PM
Defense and pitching stops good hitting. It IS that basic.

Why do people continue to say this, when it has been proven to not be true?

Dooley Womack
11-19-05, 05:19 PM
This has been proven to not be true. The White Sox won because they regularly outscored their opponents. The Red Sox did the same thing last year.

I seem to remember some pretty close games in the White Sox series, including a long extra inning game where defense and pitching were key.

The Sox/Cards is a poor example, because the Cards folded, as teams with a bad streak seem to do, like the Yanks in the preceding ALCS. Can you show me where it's been proven that a good hitting team has a better chance of winning it all over a team with better pitching and d?




The Yankees pitching staff will get outs with our without Giles. Do they need the added pressure, in the playoffs, of our CFer going 0-5 with 3 K's and a GDP?

Worked well for the past 2 years, didn't it? Unfortunately, 11-9 games have a short shelf life and come back to bite you when you lack in defense and pitching. The Yanks offense is not the problem.

I Love Wang
11-19-05, 05:19 PM
Isn't this almost like saying, "Why go after a relief pitcher if we get Giles. His run production will make up for the runs Sturtze and Proctor give up?"

Wrong. The point of getting Giles is that his production provides the most value of any available CFer. Better relief pitching will also have the effect of producing value, in that it will prevent runs that would be scored against inferior relievers. The problem here is that you can't accept that your old-school baseball ideas are honky, and that my plan, which is to acquire the best player available, would create a better team than would be created by acquiring an inferior player, like Torii Hunter.

Dooley Womack
11-19-05, 05:19 PM
Why do people continue to say this, when it has been proven to not be true?

Proven by whom? The A-Rod Texas Rangers?

I Love Wang
11-19-05, 05:21 PM
The Sox/Cards is a poor example, because the Cards folded, as teams with a bad streak seem to do, like the Yanks in the preceding ALCS. Can you show me where it's been proven that a good hitting team has a better chance of winning it all over a team with better pitching and d?

It isn't good hitting that wins. Its outscoring the other team. You outscore the other team with a combination of scoring runs and preventing runs. I am willing to bet that in the history of the baseball postseason, the teams that are the best at scoring more runs than the opposition win more often than those who aren't as good.

Dooley Womack
11-19-05, 05:23 PM
Wrong. The point of getting Giles is that his production provides the most value of any available CFer. Better relief pitching will also have the effect of producing value, in that it will prevent runs that would be scored against inferior relievers. The problem here is that you can't accept that your old-school baseball ideas are honky, and that my plan, which is to acquire the best player available, would create a better team than would be created by acquiring an inferior player, like Torii Hunter.

Your "plan" will only provide better results in arena football and on your Sony PlayStation (if you had cheat sheets).

I Love Wang
11-19-05, 05:23 PM
Proven by whom? The A-Rod Texas Rangers?

I'm tired of explaining this over and over again. If you want to think that preventing runs is worth more than creating them, then go ahead and think that. I have better things to do with my saturday night than argue with someone too stubborn to think rationally.

Dooley Womack
11-19-05, 05:24 PM
It isn't good hitting that wins. Its outscoring the other team. You outscore the other team with a combination of scoring runs and preventing runs. I am willing to bet that in the history of the baseball postseason, the teams that are the best at scoring more runs than the opposition win more often than those who aren't as good.

Teams scoring 2-1 or 17-15 games win. A team that can score 5-6 runs, with better pitching and defense stands to win more than a team that scores 7 runs with poor pitching and poor defense.

Dooley Womack
11-19-05, 05:26 PM
I'm tired of explaining this over and over again. If you want to think that preventing runs is worth more than creating them, then go ahead and think that. I have better things to do with my saturday night than argue with someone too stubborn to think rationally.

And you argument is rational? That a team with enough offense, but poor defense and pitching needs even more offense?

I am wasting my time as well here and my time is equally as valuable (or more) than yours. Later.

I Love Wang
11-19-05, 05:27 PM
Dooley, I've tried to be rational here. Everything I've said has been completely logical, without varying from the idea that you win baseball games by scoring more runs than the opposition. You have yet to refute that. Brian Giles is the most effective weapon for creating more runs than you give up available to play CF. All you've done to argue is to spout nonsense cliches, insult me, and make up ludicrous examples that don't apply, like the A-Rod Texas Rangers, who were a very bad team because they were so extraordinarily bad at preventing runs, and they weren't good enough at scoring them to overcome it. So, as a result, I'm going to save myself the aggravation by putting you on my ignore list, and never talking to you again.

Dooley Womack
11-19-05, 05:35 PM
Dooley, I've tried to be rational here. Everything I've said has been completely logical, without varying from the idea that you win baseball games by scoring more runs than the opposition. You have yet to refute that. Brian Giles is the most effective weapon for creating more runs than you give up available to play CF. All you've done to argue is to spout nonsense cliches, insult me, and make up ludicrous examples that don't apply, like the A-Rod Texas Rangers, who were a very bad team because they were so extraordinarily bad at preventing runs, and they weren't good enough at scoring them to overcome it. So, as a result, I'm going to save myself the aggravation by putting you on my ignore list, and never talking to you again.

The ignore list. Hmmm. I've never been so taken aback by even the most ludicrous of posts to put a person on ignore. I've always wondered what kind of overwhelming emotion would overcome a person and prompt them to do that. I suppose that some have higher tolerances than others.

I don't think I've been any more insulting to you than you have been to me (actually I've been less); as a matter of fact my tone to you is a direct result of yours to me and other posters that you disagree with. This appears to be consistent with your history in your very short time here.

If you could read this before I go on your ignore list, adios. Also, try to chill. It's only baseball, not your manhood we are discussing here.

Zimmers' Helmet
11-19-05, 05:58 PM
So Dools, does that mean you want Giles? :D

Dooley Womack
11-19-05, 06:00 PM
So Dools, does that mean you want Giles? :D

:lol:

Actually, YES. As a corner OF/DH but not for CF.

27IsNext
11-19-05, 06:06 PM
:lol:

Actually, YES. As a corner OF/DH but not for CF.

Have fun when he signs with the As, or re-ups with the Padres.

ring403
11-19-05, 06:06 PM
I hope the personal bickering is, in fact, done.

Zimmers' Helmet
11-19-05, 06:09 PM
:lol:

Actually, YES. As a corner OF/DH but not for CF.

Agreed, but do you believe that there is a possibilty that a Giles signing could mean that Sheffield becomes trade bait for a true centerfielder?

27IsNext
11-19-05, 06:11 PM
In defense of I Love Wang, if we cannot acquire a CFer via trade for a reasonable price, I wouldn't mind an outfield of Matsui, Giles, and Sheffield. We got to the postseason with a Bernie that was no longer effective in any phase of the game for crying out loud.

Again, it's all a moot point, because Giles is using us to drive up his price.

Dooley Womack
11-19-05, 06:11 PM
Have fun when he signs with the As, or re-ups with the Padres.
I don't expect him to come to the Yanks. I wouldn't mind his bat here, and have him play RF/DH, but the Yanks have more pressing needs, namely the pen and CF.

BJG
11-19-05, 06:12 PM
As I said to Sam, balls will still be hit to the OF's and there ARE other pitchers on this team other than the two I named. As for his offense overcoming any shortcomings on the field, have you not seen his production decline over the past few years? I don't care if he's playing in SD, it's dramatic. If you want to use SD as an example, he's even hit 8 fewer homers in 2005 than he did in 2004. He's not going to get any better. That said, YES, I'd still want him - as a DH/corner OF.

That's like saying that Jeter's bat is worthless because he hasn't repeated 1999. Giles' last 3 OPS+s were 148, 126, 148. I'm not sure how much he's really declining if that's his trend. If you are referring to the notion that he has decline from 173 OPS+ he put up in 2001, I'd say sure, but what did he decline from and what did he decline to? One of the better seasons ever to being merely great with no indication that he is going to fall off a cliff?

BTW, Sheffield actually is trending down: 167, 143, 132.


If the Yanks had a CF with above avg range, Matsui and Sheff can play within themselves. The playing field they need to cover becomes that much shorter, hence creating the *illusion* that there is a better OF all around (if we go along the lines that they don't actually improve). The bottom line is more balls will be caught with a Hunter or EVEN a Jones (one of your suggestions that I'm starting to like better) than it will with Giles there.

Play within themselves? What does this mean? Get to even fewer balls within their zone than they do now? Balls that no cf anywhere is going to catch?

In addition, I'm not sure I buy your basic premise. I'll go with Lichtman's analysis that Giles will be average to above average in CF for one year. No offense, but given that we're just speculationg, I'll side with the guy does get paid by a major league team to make such kind of analysis. I'm not sure I thought Jones would be any better in CF, all Hunter is slighlty above average, and Hunter is coming off a leg injury.


Bernie is faster afoot. There's no question. Giles gets a better jump and has a better arm. It's almost a wash to me, which isn't saying much.

I can say without any doubt in my mind that this is just patently untrue. You may well disagree with the accuraccy of statistical measures, but the gap between the two is so great, on all of these, that It is certainly real. Itg may not be quantifiable down to the run, but it's there.

Oh, and I'm not sure if multiple knee injury Bernie is even faster.

27IsNext
11-19-05, 06:14 PM
Agreed, but do you believe that there is a possibilty that a Giles signing could mean that Sheffield becomes trade bait for a true centerfielder?

I would try to trade Sheffield regardless of what happens with Giles.

I still think we could acquire Wilkerson or even Milton Bradley without giving up the moon.

Dooley Womack
11-19-05, 06:14 PM
Agreed, but do you believe that there is a possibilty that a Giles signing could mean that Sheffield becomes trade bait for a true centerfielder?

I wouldn't swap the two simply because Sheff provides much more with his bat. Who knows what Giles will do in NY at his age and how much his production drop can be attributed to playing in SD?

JavyVazquezIsSick
11-19-05, 06:23 PM
I wouldn't swap the two simply because Sheff provides much more with his bat. Who knows what Giles will do in NY at his age and how much his production drop can be attributed to playing in SD?

He really doesn't provide much more with his bat, they have the same career OPS+ of 146 and last year Giles OPS+ was 148 while Sheffield's was 132...

Zimmers' Helmet
11-19-05, 06:25 PM
I wouldn't swap the two simply because Sheff provides much more with his bat. Who knows what Giles will do in NY at his age and how much his production drop can be attributed to playing in SD?

This is where I would have to disagree. The irony is that Giles is actually two years younger than Sheffield; and better defensively.

25 HR, an OBP. of .400+, and superior defense in RF would be an improvement over Sheffield; and the return on a Sheffield trade would improve this team even more so.

Dooley Womack
11-19-05, 06:35 PM
That's like saying that Jeter's bat is worthless because he hasn't repeated 1999. Giles' last 3 OPS+s were 148, 126, 148. I'm not sure how much he's really declining if that's his trend. If you are referring to the notion that he has decline from 173 OPS+ he put up in 2001, I'd say sure, but what did he decline from and what did he decline to? One of the better seasons ever to being merely great with no indication that he is going to fall off a cliff?

There is no guranty that using OPS+ to make park adjustments would mean that a player hitting 15 homers playing half his games in SD will hit 30 if he played for another team or 20 for that matter. A player who has warning track power might be affected more than a player who can smoke it out of any park. Like I said earlier, would Bonds or A-Rod go from 40 to 15-20 homers simply because they played in SD? It's highly doubtful.

I'm referring as well to his age and that he is past his prime. Chances are, if he signed a 3 yr. contract, we wont see a better player. More than likely he'll worsen. Not too many players not named Bonds seem to get better or equal their output of younger years as they near 40.



Play within themselves? What does this mean? Get to even fewer balls within their zone than they do now? Balls that no cf anywhere is going to catch?

What I am saying is that they'd be able to play within their limitations without concerning themselves with compensating for another player who is limited and who is playing to their left or right.



Oh, and I'm not sure if multiple knee injury Bernie is even faster.

If you're not sure then it's safe to say that you don't have much confidence in Giles's speed as well.

Dooley Womack
11-19-05, 06:44 PM
This is where I would have to disagree. The irony is that Giles is actually two years younger than Sheffield; and better defensively.

25 HR, an OBP. of .400+, and superior defense in RF would be an improvement over Sheffield; and the return on a Sheffield trade would improve this team even more so.

Like I said earlier, if his strike zone changes going from the NL (where the umps are familiar with him) to the AL, his OBP drops considerably. I'm not so sure he has 25 hr power anymore either, even taking into account the park adjustments. Maybe, maybe not.

Still, I always saw Sheff as having one of the more dangerous bats in the game, regardless of stats. His defense *is * pretty bad though I've seen worse out there.

BJG
11-19-05, 06:55 PM
There is no guranty that using OPS+ to make park adjustments would guaranty that a player hitting 15 homers playing half his games in SD will hit 30 if he played for another team or 20 for that matter. A player who has warning track power might be affected more than a player who can smoke it out of any park. Like I said earlier, would Bonds or A-Rod go from 40 to 15-20 homers simply because they played in SD? It's highly doubtful.

While there is certainly no gaurentees of anything in life, there are basic premises and the odds that go with them. I'll play the odds that say that Giles has been hurt by his home park. Is it possible that the less likely is true? Sure. But I don't see any evidence to support that. That isn't to say I expect a return to his power peak, just that he would likely get a few homeruns back. This relates to the next response.


I'm referring as well to his age and that he is past his prime. Chances are, if he signed a 3 yr. contract, we wont see a better player. More than likely he'll worsen. Not too many players not named Bonds seem to get better or equal their output of younger years as they near 40.

Again, you have to ask what is he going to decline from? What's a normal decline rate for a player of his skill set? Of course he is likely to be worse in the last year of a 3 year deal than he would in the first, but that doesn't mean that he still won't be amont the elite players in the game. He's got a high plateau to decline from. He has a skill set that ages well.


What I am saying is that they'd be able to play within their limitations without concerning themselves with compensating for another player who is limited on the field

But that doesn't mean anything. They aren't good enough to get to those balls anyway. Even if they were trying to, it wasn't happening, and frankly, I have no problem with going as hard as the risk/situation entails after any ball until you are appropriately called off. I certainly wouldn't preach that you try to 'play within yourself', which might very well imply to a player that they be less agressive.


If you're not sure then it's safe to say that you don't have much confidence in Giles's speed as well.

You said that Bernie is faster than Giles. I replied that I'm not sure if that is true. While it certainly was true a number of years ago, Bernie's tools have been more adversely effected by injuries than Giles' have.

Mattpat11
11-19-05, 06:56 PM
Like I said earlier, if his strike zone changes going from the NL (where the umps are familiar with him) to the AL,. They still have league specific umps?

BJG
11-19-05, 06:56 PM
Like I said earlier, if his strike zone changes going from the NL (where the umps are familiar with him) to the AL, his OBP drops considerably. I'm not so sure he has 25 hr power anymore either, even taking into account the park adjustments. Maybe, maybe not.

Still, I always saw Sheff as having one of the more dangerous bats in the game, regardless of stats. His defense *is * pretty bad though I've seen worse out there.

It has been quite a few years since there were just NL and just AL umpries. There is only one pool of umpires, and they work both leagues.

Dooley Womack
11-19-05, 06:59 PM
They still have league specific umps?

It has been quite a few years since there were just NL and just AL umpries. There is only one pool of umpires, and they work both leagues.

Point taken.

Dooley Womack
11-19-05, 07:02 PM
BJG, without countering you point by point (because I agree with some of what you're saying), I will say that his "decline" in power continued at SD from 23 to 15. That doesn't mean he's through, or that he couldn't hit 25 next year in SD, but considering his age, there isn't very much room for improvement over the next 3 years.

I think you may have the impression that I'd rather not have Giles. That's not true. I'll take him but I also want to shore up the OF (CF) defense, and if that means playing Giles in the corner and as part time DH, I'm all for it. I've always liked him as a player.

BJG
11-19-05, 07:12 PM
BJG, without countering you point by point (because I agree with some of what you're saying), I will say that his "decline" in power continued at SD from 23 to 15. That doesn't mean he's through, or that he couldn't hit 25 next year in SD, but considering his age, there isn't very much room for improvement over the next 3 years.

I think you may have the impression that I'd rather not have Giles. That's not true. I'll take him but I also want to shore up the OF (CF) defense, and if that means playing Giles in the corner and as part time DH, I'm all for it. I've always liked him as a player.

Yes, but he actually hasn't declined as an overall hitter the last 3 years. Homeruns aren't the only offensive skill, and Giles has made up for it in other areas. This is hardly surprising, as he has a skill set that ages gracefully. Different isn't necessarily worse.

Oh, and in terms of risk, Sheffield probably is a bigger one than Giles. He's older, he has been trending down for 2 straight years, he isn't nearly the defender, has often been hurt (though he played through it) in each of the last 3 seasons, etc.

Anyway, if the Yankees signed Giles, he would immediately be their best outfielder. There would be no reason to ever DH him unless he was hurt or he needed the odd day off from the field. If, as Lichtman believes, he would be average to above average in CF, I'm not sure there's a pressing need to get another CF. You could get an average RF for a year, which would be much, much easier, and move Sheff to DH/1B that way.

Wang's Groundballs
11-19-05, 08:24 PM
Let's compare Giles to a player we are familiar with to get a better understanding. Matsui has a .894 ZR compared to Giles's .878 in center, which is scary in itself. Compare that to a Torii Hunter, a natural CF whose ZR is .901.

It's also no secret that Giles isn't a speedster, so how can that help him with liners hit to the gap, even if he does get a good jump on the ball? Let's not forget his advancing years. He's only going to get slower.

Ummm, if you want your data to actually show anything of...you know, value, you may want to compare those numbers to what the average CF would have done. And just so you know, comparing ZR from players in different leagues is worthless without showing what the average ZR at that position for each league is.

Giles was an above average OF in 2005. He was an above average CF in the past. MGL, who knows far more about defense than either of us, has already said he would likely be an above average defensive CF in 2006. It sounds to me like you're basing your opinion on...well, nothing.

noneckwilliams
11-19-05, 08:25 PM
[QUOTE=I Love Wang]Wrong. The point of getting Giles is that his production provides the most value of any available CFer. QUOTE]

The reality of the situation is that 35 year old Brian Giles is not even a center fielder. He was a fulltime CFer for about 1 1/2 seasons 7 or 8 years ago. If he is asked to play 140 games in CF he will be no better defensively than Bernie.

ring403
11-19-05, 08:34 PM
If he is asked to play 140 games in CF he will be no better defensively than Bernie.
That's a bold statement. Is it based on any factual or statistical evidence, or is it merely a personal opinion?

Wang's Groundballs
11-19-05, 08:39 PM
Here are Giles' numbers adjusted for park (a modest adjustment too since there are only 2 years worth of data for PETCO, which means that since I'm using heavy regression it likely isn't quite as harsh as Petco truly is for hitters):

545 AB, 169 H, 106 1B, 40 2B, 7 3B, 17 HR, 119 BB, 2 HBP, 8 SF, 0 SH, 63 SO, 290 OB, 273 TB, 384 O, 674 PA, .310 AVG, .431 OBP, .500 SLG, 97 RC, 65 RD, 32 RCAA.

noneckwilliams
11-19-05, 08:45 PM
That's a bold statement. Is it based on any factual or statistical evidence, or is it merely a personal opinion?

Obviously it's an opinion - but is there any reliable evidence to the contrary? Defensive stats are pretty unreliable to begin with and how can you really measure Giles who has averaged 13 games a season in CF the last 4 seasons? Now we expect him change leagues, change ballparks and play CF everyday at an age when many OFers are not being asked to play a more demanding position - but heading to DH or 1B. Bernie at least had experience playing CF in the Stadium and other AL ballparks.

I don't really think it's in any way being pessimistic to see that an OF of Giles, Matsui and Shef in 2006 will be worse defensively than last year's OF.

bostonyankeefan
11-19-05, 08:48 PM
[QUOTE=I Love Wang]This has been proven to not be true. The White Sox won because they regularly outscored their opponents. The Red Sox did the same thing last year.

I disagree about the White Sox. They won with very good starting pitching, defense and a closer tossing 99-100 mph. The Red Sox slugged their way through the regular season, then got swept in a short series because good pitching usually beats good hitting in the postseason.

noneckwilliams
11-19-05, 08:51 PM
Here are Giles' numbers adjusted for park (a modest adjustment too since there are only 2 years worth of data for PETCO, which means that since I'm using heavy regression it likely isn't quite as harsh as Petco truly is for hitters):

545 AB, 169 H, 106 1B, 40 2B, 7 3B, 17 HR, 119 BB, 2 HBP, 8 SF, 0 SH, 63 SO, 290 OB, 273 TB, 384 O, 674 PA, .310 AVG, .431 OBP, .500 SLG, 97 RC, 65 RD, 32 RCAA.

We all acknowledge that BG would be a siginificant upgrade over what was produced by the CF position last year (although I think his superstar status with all these peripheral numbers is too heavily dependent on his walk total).

Given my druthers I'd rather have Aaron Rowand. I bet Randy Johnson would too.

Rich
11-19-05, 09:20 PM
We all acknowledge that BG would be a siginificant upgrade over what was produced by the CF position last year (although I think his superstar status with all these peripheral numbers is too heavily dependent on his walk total).

Given my druthers I'd rather have Aaron Rowand. I bet Randy Johnson would too.

Plate discipline is a relatively stable trait that tends to improve with age. What you see as a negative is really a positive.

JimEdmonds15
11-19-05, 09:20 PM
Really? Even though the Cards called him and said they're focusing on pitching right now?

I'm new here but a Cardinals fan so I wanted to let ya know what's going on with this..

Giles agent was on KMOX last night. Said the Cards are working on pitching (Burnett and Dotel are a couple names!) RIGHT NOW but when they are finished Brian should still be around. McLaughlin asked if the Cards taking their time to get pitching would keep them from getting Giles he said no.

Dont count them outta it yet.. They are focused on pitching right now but never know.. I dont think the Cards will get him cuz I think the Yanks will!

JavyVazquezIsSick
11-19-05, 09:22 PM
If, as Lichtman believes, he would be average to above average in CF, I'm not sure there's a pressing need to get another CF. You could get an average RF for a year, which would be much, much easier, and move Sheff to DH/1B that way.

When did Lichtman say this?

highheat2014
11-19-05, 09:23 PM
I hope the personal bickering is, in fact, done.

Was that intentional?

Sam18
11-19-05, 09:23 PM
I'm new here but a Cardinals fan so I wanted to let ya know what's going on with this..

Giles agent was on KMOX last night. Said the Cards are working on pitching (Burnett and Dotel are a couple names!) RIGHT NOW but when they are finished Brian should still be around. McLaughlin asked if the Cards taking their time to get pitching would keep them from getting Giles he said no.

Dont count them outta it yet.. They are focused on pitching right now but never know.. I dont think the Cards will get him cuz I think the Yanks will!

Welcome JE15! This Giles stuff is getting really interesting. Hopefully the Yankees can take advantage of this situation and sign Giles while the Cards are after pitching.

Rich
11-19-05, 09:26 PM
When did Lichtman say this?

http://forums.nyyfans.com/showthread.php?p=2897999&highlight=Lichtman#post2897999

highheat2014
11-19-05, 09:26 PM
The Yanks can make all of you happy by signing Giles to play RF vs. RHP and CF/LF vs. LHP.

Edit: changed R to L

Rich
11-19-05, 09:29 PM
The Yanks can make all of you happy by signing Giles to play RF vs. RHP and CF/LF vs. RHP.

That would definitely save the Yankees a ton of money.

JavyVazquezIsSick
11-19-05, 09:31 PM
http://forums.nyyfans.com/showthread.php?p=2897999&highlight=Lichtman#post2897999

Yeah, but where was this noted? Did he tell BJG in an email or something or is it posted on baseball think factory?

Rich
11-19-05, 09:31 PM
Yeah, but where was this noted? Did he tell BJG in an email or something or is it posted on baseball think factory?

I'm almost certain it was the later.

27IsNext
11-19-05, 09:38 PM
I'm new here but a Cardinals fan so I wanted to let ya know what's going on with this..

Giles agent was on KMOX last night. Said the Cards are working on pitching (Burnett and Dotel are a couple names!) RIGHT NOW but when they are finished Brian should still be around. McLaughlin asked if the Cards taking their time to get pitching would keep them from getting Giles he said no.

Dont count them outta it yet.. They are focused on pitching right now but never know.. I dont think the Cards will get him cuz I think the Yanks will!

JE15,

Welcome. Let me assure you, Giles will not be a Yankee next season. Not necessarily saying he'll be a Cardinal, but he definately won't be a Yankee.

Up until free agency hit, Giles wanted no part of the Yankees, hence the NTC to New York in his most previous contract. Now, all of a sudden, he's open to playing in New York? I'm calling bull. He and his agent are just doing the smart thing--using the Yankees to drive up his price.

Dooley Womack
11-19-05, 09:45 PM
Ummm, if you want your data to actually show anything of...you know, value, you may want to compare those numbers to what the average CF would have done. And just so you know, comparing ZR from players in different leagues is worthless without showing what the average ZR at that position for each league is.

Giles was an above average OF in 2005. He was an above average CF in the past. MGL, who knows far more about defense than either of us, has already said he would likely be an above average defensive CF in 2006. It sounds to me like you're basing your opinion on...well, nothing.

Umm, well, uhhh, if those ZR arenít relative and.... you know, "worthless", because they play in different leagues, then how can you know how Giles play (in the NL since 1999) will translate, seven years later, to the ummm, AL, at age 35 and against, you know, different players than when he last roamed those fields? Sounds to me like you're basing your opinion on, well, nothing, even if you think you have, well, something.

Rich
11-19-05, 10:33 PM
Umm, well, uhhh, if those ZR arenít relative and.... you know, "worthless", because they play in different leagues, then how can you know how Giles play (in the NL since 1999) will translate, seven years later, to the ummm, AL, at age 35 and against, you know, different players than when he last roamed those fields? Sounds to me like you're basing your opinion on, well, nothing, even if you think you have, well, something.

Because whether you play in the NL or AL, you still gotta pretty much just run and catch the baseball.

His point is valid, and is merely a statistical one.

Dooley Womack
11-19-05, 10:35 PM
Because whether you play in the NL or AL, you still gotta pretty much just run and catch the baseball.

His point is valid, and is merely a statistical one.

He was responding to a post I made where I provided the ZR ratings of both Matsui and Giles in CF, and showed that Matsui's career ZR in CF happened to be higher, which I thought was rather scary.

Rich
11-19-05, 10:43 PM
He was responding to a post I made where I provided the ZR ratings of both Matsui and Giles in CF, and showed that Matsui's career ZR in CF happened to be higher, which I thought was rather scary.

Yes, I know, but his point that meaningful comparisons are derived by comparing the ZR of each player to the average ZR for each league at a particular position, not AL Player A to NL Player B.

Dooley Womack
11-19-05, 10:46 PM
Yes, I know, but his point that meaningful comparisons are derived by comparing the ZR of each player to the average ZR for each league at a particular position, not AL Player A to NL Player B.

That much I did understand, but I guess I was focusing more on the sarcastic, condescending nature of his reply.

Rich
11-19-05, 10:51 PM
That much I did understand, but I guess I was focusing more on the sarcastic, condescending nature of his reply.

Oh, I don't know the guy.

Dooley Womack
11-19-05, 10:52 PM
Yes, I know, but his point that meaningful comparisons are derived by comparing the ZR of each player to the average ZR for each league at a particular position, not AL Player A to NL Player B.

Here's the thing. I honestly don't know how those small samples translate from one league to the other, and I'm not quite sure if anyone does.

What we do know is that Giles is sure-handed but has limited speed and that this one liability could be a hindrance in CF and he might be better suited for the corner.

Rich
11-19-05, 11:06 PM
Here's the thing. I honestly don't know how those small samples translate from one league to the other, and I'm not quite sure if anyone does.

What we do know is that Giles is sure-handed but has limited speed and that this one liability could be a hindrance in CF and he might be better suited for the corner.

I defer to MGL on this one.

StatenIslandYankee
11-19-05, 11:11 PM
So what's the latest on Giles?

Dooley Womack
11-19-05, 11:18 PM
I defer to MGL on this one.

Here's where I get into trouble with those who put more weight on stats and formulas than I (not that I don't respect those stats, just that I prefer a more balanced, common sense/statistical analysis approach).

How does one put numbers on a 35 year old player's legs, one who isn't a speedster to begin with, and make a prediction on how he'd play (CF no less), in a new league with different parks? That's what I don't understand, and I don't mean to be ornery or sarcastic if it sounds that way.

Wang's Groundballs
11-19-05, 11:50 PM
Umm, well, uhhh, if those ZR arenít relative and.... you know, "worthless", because they play in different leagues, then how can you know how Giles play (in the NL since 1999) will translate, seven years later, to the ummm, AL, at age 35 and against, you know, different players than when he last roamed those fields? Sounds to me like you're basing your opinion on, well, nothing, even if you think you have, well, something.

Maybe because you can use his ZR above the average NL ZR at his position, translate that to moving to a more difficult position (something MGL has done extensive work with), and figure out how much he's likely to decline or improve (obviously the former is more likely).

But just posting stats without context doesn't show anything.

Just because Matsui has a higher ZR doesn't really mean much, at least on it's own. He could be the better defender there, but unless you know the context that it was put up under it's pretty useless.

Like here's an example:

Player A hit .320/.450/.600
Player B hit .300/.420/.550

Who was the better hitter? Obviously at first glance it would be player A. But what if I told you Player A played for the Rockies in 2002 while Player B was on the Dodgers in 1984?

That's the same thing with just using ZR between players in different leagues and different seasons.

I've done some work with ZR for 2005, and I can tell you that AL OF as a whole have a much higher ZR than NL ones do. Maybe it's a fluke (or talent discrepency, much less likely) but much more likely it has to do with the difference in types of balls that are hit in the two leagues.

Sorry about the sarcastic tone in the last post, but I've been sick the last week and am just frustrated that people are missing what is, IMO, something obvious.

porsche986
11-19-05, 11:58 PM
Here's where I get into trouble with those who put more weight on stats and formulas than I (not that I don't respect those stats, just that I prefer a more balanced, common sense/statistical analysis approach).

How does one put numbers on a 35 year old player's legs, one who isn't a speedster to begin with, and make a prediction on how he'd play (CF no less), in a new league with different parks? That's what I don't understand, and I don't mean to be ornery or sarcastic.

For the most part I agree with everything you have said. Let's not forget a few things. For one, the Red Sox scored the most runs in 2004 but mid-season they noticed a serious flaw, that beeing defense. It is at that point they aquired Cabrera, Roberts and Minkalphabetsoup. This past year, the Red Sox again scored the most runs, but were seriously plagued by bad defense which hurt them multiple times in the playoffs. Eric Van, Red Sox stat guru, recently showed how defense could have lowered Clement's ERA from 4.57 to around 3.80.

As far as Giles is concerned, his .423 OBP is largely due to the fact that he has guys like Klesko, Nevin and the like batting behind him so pitchers are more likely to pitch around him (he led the ML in walks).

There are many defensive stats out there, but everyone I look (FRAA, FRAR, Rate2, RAA) from <a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/gilesbr02.shtml">Baseball Prospectus' Website</a> suggest he is a below average Right Fielder and worse in the games he has played in center. In fact, <a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/sheffga01.shtml">Gary Sheffield actually fared better in the field</a>.

He is 35, and on the downside of his career. Giles is a great player, but to me he just doesn't seem to fit what the Yankees need, especially since it seems likely it will cost at leats 3 years and perhaps more than $33M. If Bradley weren't such a headcase, he'd be an excellent choice. Even guys like Rowand and Wilkerson would be, in my opinion, a better alternative.

Rich
11-20-05, 12:14 AM
Some of want to get Giles AND a CFer, which is probably the Yankees' plan.

Wang's Groundballs
11-20-05, 12:26 AM
Eric Van, Red Sox stat guru, recently showed how defense could have lowered Clement's ERA from 4.57 to around 3.80.

No offense, but I wouldn't trust Eric Van to provide objective statistical analysis when it comes to the Red Sox.

Clement had a 4.08 FIP, which is obviously quite a bit lower than his 4.57 ERA, but he also gave up more (not a whole lot, though) line drives than the average pitcher, yet had a lower BABIP than the AL average pitcher. Maybe if you put Eric Chavez at 3B, Carl Crawford in CF, and Aaron Rowand in CF it would have went down to 3.80, but I don't see that happening otherwise.


As far as Giles is concerned, his .423 OBP is largely due to the fact that he has guys like Klesko, Nevin and the like batting behind him so pitchers are more likely to pitch around him (he led the ML in walks).

Then explain why he has a career OBP of .413. You don't put up those numbers because of the guys behind you; you put up those numbers because you have a great eye and are an excellent hitter. If pitchers decide to pitch to him "more" because A-Rod, Giambi, and Sheff are behind him, that's fine by me. I'll enjoy watching balls soar out to the bleacher creatures.


There are many defensive stats out there, but everyone I look (FRAA, FRAR, Rate2, RAA) from <a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/gilesbr02.shtml">Baseball Prospectus' Website</a> suggest he is a below average Right Fielder and worse in the games he has played in center. In fact, <a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/sheffga01.shtml">Gary Sheffield actually fared better in the field</a>.

Those metrics have much bigger flaws than ZR or UZR, especially.

They're not based on what actually happened. They're based on the premise that each player will see the same percentage of FB (for outfielders) that are catchable as everybody else.

Now for the large part this can be pretty accurate, but it's far less accurate than using ZR or UZR which both use PBP data, thus, are based on what actually happened; and that is: there were X number of balls hit to that player's zone while he was in the field and he caught X percentage of those balls. Of course ZR especially has one serious flaw, and that is a player is almost penalized for catching a ball out of his zone. I say almost because it still improves their ZR to catch that ball, but even though catching that ball has as much value as catching a ball in their zone (maybe even more in some cases) the value is less because of how ZR is calculated:

(OIZ (outs in zone) + OOZ (outs out of zone)) / (BIZ (balls in zone) + OOZ)


He is 35, and on the downside of his career. Giles is a great player, but to me he just doesn't seem to fit what the Yankees need, especially since it seems likely it will cost at leats 3 years and perhaps more than $33M. If Bradley weren't such a headcase, he'd be an excellent choice. Even guys like Rowand and Wilkerson would be, in my opinion, a better alternative.

I would much prefer having one of them in CF to Giles...but only if Giles is in RF. He's a better hitter, a better fielder, and a much better overall player than Sheff at this point. Maybe he doesn't fill our biggest "need", but a run is a run is a run and an elite player always helps you win if he's better than the replacement.

Dooley Womack
11-20-05, 12:58 AM
Sorry about the sarcastic tone in the last post, but I've been sick the last week and am just frustrated that people are missing what is, IMO, something obvious.

No problem, WG. You've always seemed decent as well as informative, and I actually was agreeing with much of what you said, so it took me by surprise. I apologize for being such a baby in retaliation. Feel better. :)

Vin
11-20-05, 01:24 AM
Eric Van, Red Sox stat guru, recently showed how defense could have lowered Clement's ERA from 4.57 to around 3.80.


I've seen some of his postings in other message boards; and he seems reasonably smart. But appears to lack formal training in statistics, so none of the numbers he cites are any more sophisticated than conditional sample means. He has a lot of these numbers at his fingertips, and that seems to impress the average layperson. He also has a tendency to bend the numbers to suit his biases.

Bill James is the only stat guru you can trust. He has a thorough knowledge of baseball and it's history but is able to put the statistic part of it in perspective. The numbers only play a minor role in his articles.

Dooley Womack
11-20-05, 01:27 AM
Maybe because you can use his ZR above the average NL ZR at his position, translate that to moving to a more difficult position (something MGL has done extensive work with), and figure out how much he's likely to decline or improve (obviously the former is more likely).

But just posting stats without context doesn't show anything.

Just because Matsui has a higher ZR doesn't really mean much, at least on it's own. He could be the better defender there, but unless you know the context that it was put up under it's pretty useless.

Like here's an example:

Player A hit .320/.450/.600
Player B hit .300/.420/.550

Who was the better hitter? Obviously at first glance it would be player A. But what if I told you Player A played for the Rockies in 2002 while Player B was on the Dodgers in 1984?

That's the same thing with just using ZR between players in different leagues and different seasons.

I've done some work with ZR for 2005, and I can tell you that AL OF as a whole have a much higher ZR than NL ones do. Maybe it's a fluke (or talent discrepency, much less likely) but much more likely it has to do with the difference in types of balls that are hit in the two leagues.

Sorry about the sarcastic tone in the last post, but I've been sick the last week and am just frustrated that people are missing what is, IMO, something obvious.

Also, thanks for taking all the time to show an in-depth and interesting analysis to explain your position. I'm sold that my Matsui/Giles comparison, using their respective ZR's, carries little or no weight.

Dooley Womack
11-20-05, 01:33 AM
Some of want to get Giles AND a CFer, which is probably the Yankees' plan.

My guess is if the Yanks get Giles that they wont give up the store for an elite "name" CF, but get one who is defensively sound and an upgrade to Bubba for insurance purposes. All that is fine by me.

porsche986
11-20-05, 01:41 AM
No offense, but I wouldn't trust Eric Van to provide objective statistical analysis when it comes to the Red Sox.

Clement had a 4.08 FIP, which is obviously quite a bit lower than his 4.57 ERA, ...

Your not offending me. I don't need to defend him as his highly reguarded reputation speaks for itself. It seems to me he is pointing out exactly what you have already shown, that defense could have helped out quite a bit.


Then explain why he has a career OBP of .413. You don't put up those numbers because of the guys behind you; you put up those numbers because you have a great eye and are an excellent hitter.

You don't? I don't disagree that he is a great hitter, but that is in direct correlation to why he walks so much. Those weren't exatly powerhouse lineups in SD and PIT.


Those metrics have much bigger flaws than ZR or UZR, especially.

So now we get to the crux of the matter. It seems we can get an accurate assement of a playes offensive contributions yet not so much when it comes to defense.


Maybe he doesn't fill our biggest "need", but a run is a run is a run and an elite player always helps you win if he's better than the replacement.

Except when you are allowing runs which negates the runs you score. For a long time, people used to use BA as the panacea of offensive production until one Billy Beane helped change that perception. Now everyone wants to compare OPS (or OPS+ etc) to evaluate a players performance while neglecting defence. Unfortunately I don't know the answer. However, I do know that Theo saw poor defense as the reason behind the Red Sox mediocre play in the first half of the month despite having one of the best offenses in the game. Would the outcome be the same had he picked up better offensive players than the ones they replaced? I don't know, but it obviously couldn't be any better.

I Love Wang
11-20-05, 01:45 AM
Except when you are allowing runs which negates the runs you score. For a long time, people used to use BA as the panacea of offensive production until one Billy Beane helped change that perception. Now everyone wants to compare OPS (or OPS+ etc) to evaluate a players performance while neglecting defence. Unfortunately I don't know the answer. However, I do know that Theo saw poor defense as the reason behind the Red Sox mediocre play in the first half of the month despite having one of the best offenses in the game. Would the outcome be the same had he picked up better offensive players than the ones they replaced? I don't know, but it obviously couldn't be any better.

Here's the thing though. We can reasonably reliably measure how many runs he's worth offensively, and how many he'll cost defensively. Maximizing that margin is how to make the best baseball team. Giles is the best player available at maximizing that margin. Though, I'd like to sign Giles, and then look in to acquiring Brad Wilkerson or Dave Roberts.

ieddyi
11-20-05, 07:51 AM
Eric Van, Red Sox stat guru, recently showed how defense could have lowered Clement's ERA from 4.57 to around 3.80.

As far as Giles is concerned, his .423 OBP is largely due to the fact that he has guys like Klesko, Nevin and the like batting behind him so pitchers are more likely to pitch around him (he led the ML in walks).



Ditto on the Eric Van "analysis' A birhgt guy, but his fanboyism gets in the way of his thinking. If you read his post, it was hypothetical on type of hypotheticals desinged to justify his already formed conclusion that Clement is a stud pitcher, in spite of the fact that he sucked the second half- and according to BP was one of the luckiest pitchers in the first half- something left out of Van's post

"s far as Giles is concerned, his .423 OBP is largely due to the fact that he has guys like Klesko, Nevin and the like batting behind him so pitchers are more likely to pitch around him (he led the ML in walks)

OF course if we get him,,he wouldn't do as well- having Jeter, Sheffield, Amtsui, Arod and Giambi would be nowhere as scary as being backed up by Klesco and Nevin

Sheesh

38Special
11-20-05, 08:29 AM
Eric Van is being taken seriously someone call the police

highheat2014
11-20-05, 08:39 AM
As far as Giles is concerned, his .423 OBP is largely due to the fact that he has guys like Klesko, Nevin and the like batting behind him so pitchers are more likely to pitch around him (he led the ML in walks).

There are many defensive stats out there, but everyone I look (FRAA, FRAR, Rate2, RAA) from Baseball Prospectus' Website (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/gilesbr02.shtml) suggest he is a below average Right Fielder and worse in the games he has played in center. In fact, Gary Sheffield actually fared better in the field (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/sheffga01.shtml).

He is 35, and on the downside of his career. Giles is a great player, but to me he just doesn't seem to fit what the Yankees need, especially since it seems likely it will cost at leats 3 years and perhaps more than $33M. If Bradley weren't such a headcase, he'd be an excellent choice. Even guys like Rowand and Wilkerson would be, in my opinion, a better alternative.

Nevin and Klesko aren't exactly protection. Nevin hit .256/.301/.399 with the Padres and then tried to be Tony Womack with the Rangers, posting a .573 OPS. Klesko hit .248/.358/.418, most likely below average for a corner OF.

Regarding Sheffield vs. Giles, I think this is due to the fact Sheffield has much less ground to cover in his home park. This kills Manny, even though he's an awful defender wherever he plays, but his extremely-low ZR is due to the Monster.

The Yankees should push hard for Giles, but only to possibly play CF for ~50 games, although I think Matsui is a better fit there.

27IsNext
11-20-05, 09:43 AM
From the "CF Possibilities for 2006" thread:


Here is a link and a snippet from and article by Johnny Heneyman (making fun) of Newsday.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/yankees/ny-spflash20xx4521494nov20,0,4117448.column?coll=ny-yankees-print

Brian Giles, who's avoided New York forever with no-trade contract stipulations, is said to be "playing phone tag" with Joe Torre - a very bad sign - after the Yankees floated $33 million for three years. Giles is a West Coast guy, but if he ventures east of the Rockies, he'll likely go to St. Louis. That's really no great loss, as one AL scout said, "He's no centerfielder."

The Yankees finally broke down and called agent Scott Boras about Johnny Damon, and as Newsday reported, Boras seeks $84 million and seven years. The Yankees like Damon, but for four years and at half that price.

Cashman is said to be "dead set against" the volatile Milton Bradley. And with Cashman's newfound power holding through three weeks, Bradley appears out, too

Yeah, he's obviously interested.

yanksphan
11-20-05, 09:50 AM
I'm new here but a Cardinals fan so I wanted to let ya know what's going on with this..

Giles agent was on KMOX last night. Said the Cards are working on pitching (Burnett and Dotel are a couple names!) RIGHT NOW but when they are finished Brian should still be around. McLaughlin asked if the Cards taking their time to get pitching would keep them from getting Giles he said no.

What's interesting here is that Bick was quoted earlier in the week saying talks between the Yankees and Giles were progressing, and that if interested teams wait until the winter meetings in December, they will be too late.

I wonder if that was just a warning shot directed to the Cards, a team most believe Giles is interested in playing for.

ieddyi
11-20-05, 09:52 AM
Eric Van is being taken seriously someone call the police

Hey, the sawx are paying him with real (not monopoly) money

JimEdmonds15
11-20-05, 10:01 AM
What's interesting here is that Bick was quoted earlier in the week saying talks between the Yankees and Giles were progressing, and that if interested teams wait until the winter meetings in December, they will be too late.

I wonder if that was just a warning shot directed to the Cards, a team most believe Giles is interested in playing for.

Could very well be but if the Cards land say, Burnett I think his interest in joining the Cards goes up even more. The Cards have been interested in him for a long time. They even tried to trade for him earlier this year but the Padres didnt want Marquis and prospects. From what I've been hearing he's very interested in the Cardinals and they appear to be one of his top 3 teams he'd wanna go to.. He wants to win. With that said, if the Cards take forever trying to get pitching he probably wont be there when we come up empty on pitching. Who knows?

Fabien Brandy
11-20-05, 10:16 AM
Hey, the sawx are paying him with real (not monopoly) money
I heard they were paying him in Pogs.

Right now I doubt the Yankees can sign Giles but will be happy if they do.

Boricua21
11-20-05, 11:14 AM
Giles will not become a Yank. Adamantly opposes New York. Just not his speed here.

NelsonMuntz
11-20-05, 11:35 AM
http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/yankees/ny-spflash20xx4521494nov20,0,4117448.column?coll=ny-yankees-print

Brian Giles, who's avoided New York forever with no-trade contract stipulations, is said to be "playing phone tag" with Joe Torre - a very bad sign - after the Yankees floated $33 million for three years. Giles is a West Coast guy, but if he ventures east of the Rockies, he'll likely go to St. Louis. That's really no great loss, as one AL scout said, "He's no centerfielder."
I realize this article was posted earlier but can someone explain to me how Torre and Giles playing phone tag is a "very bad sign"? I would perceive it to be negative if Giles was flat out not returning Joe's phone calls but the fact that he's at least trying to get in touch with Torre would indicate to me that he is, at a minimum, entertaining the idea of coming to New York. Maybe I'm missing something? :dunno:

Boricua21
11-20-05, 11:42 AM
http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/yankees/ny-spflash20xx4521494nov20,0,4117448.column?coll=ny-yankees-print

I realize this article was posted earlier but can someone explain to me how Torre and Giles playing phone tag is a &quot;very bad sign&quot;? I would perceive it to be negative if Giles was flat out not returning Joe's phone calls but the fact that he's at least trying to get in touch with Torre would indicate to me that he is, at a minimum, entertaining the idea of coming to New York. Maybe I'm missing something? :dunno:

Because maybe, IMO, if it meant that much to Giles, he would have his cell phone on and ready to receive that call? It's just like us in real life. When we're expecting a call, we get that call. Who knows. He's not coming here anyways.

I Love Wang
11-20-05, 11:44 AM
The no-trade thing has been addressed several times. Players like no-trade clauses so they can get expensive extensions as a stipulation for allowing themselves to be traded. A no-trade clause to the teams most likely to be able to pay that kind of money is common. That is likely the reason NY was on his no-trade list, not because he is somehow adamantly opposed to playing here.

Boricua21
11-20-05, 11:50 AM
The no-trade thing has been addressed several times. Players like no-trade clauses so they can get expensive extensions as a stipulation for allowing themselves to be traded. A no-trade clause to the teams most likely to be able to pay that kind of money is common. That is likely the reason NY was on his no-trade list, not because he is somehow adamantly opposed to playing here.

Agreed. There's no way he ends up in the Bronx.

I Love Wang
11-20-05, 11:51 AM
Agreed. There's no way he ends up in the Bronx.

Re-read my post.

Boricua21
11-20-05, 11:54 AM
Re-read my post.

Oops. I read wrong, but I still think he won't come here. I don't think he likes NY. Don't you think we should focus on a younger CFer like Rowand? Even Damon in a 4yr deal would be ok. What about Bubba in CF and Ichiro in right allowing Sheff to DH full time?

Grape Ape
11-20-05, 12:06 PM
Oops. I read wrong, but I still think he won't come here. I don't think he likes NY. Don't you think we should focus on a younger CFer like Rowand? Even Damon in a 4yr deal would be ok. What about Bubba in CF and Ichiro in right allowing Sheff to DH full time?

Damon in a 4yr deal would not be OK. I'd rather play a rookie.

Wang's Groundballs
11-20-05, 01:03 PM
Okay, here are 2005 rankings of RFers using ZR and A per Ball in Zone (arm rating):

FULL NAME TEAM(S) G RUNS ZR+ A RUNS ARM+ TOTAL RUNS
Rios, Alex TOR 117.5 10 142 0 102 10
Kearns, Austin CIN 98.9 8 137 1 105 10
Burnitz, Jeromy CHC 151.2 10 133 -3 90 7
Jenkins, Geoff MIL 137.9 7 125 1 104 9
Blake, Casey CLE 132.2 6 122 -4 86 2
Cameron, Mike NYM 65.9 3 121 -2 88 1
Giles, Brian SD 135.6 6 120 -2 93 4
Guillen, Jose WAS 132.3 6 119 1 104 7
Francoeur, Jeff ATL 65.4 2 118 8 155 10
Green, Shawn ARI 114.6 4 118 -4 83 0
Dye, Jermaine CWS 137.3 4 117 2 106 6
Encarnacion, J. FLO 123.7 3 115 -2 91 1
Guerrero, Vlad LAA 115.6 2 106 1 104 3
Monroe, Craig DET 70.3 1 106 0 102 1
Nixon, Trot BOS 103.9 0 101 2 108 2
Brown, Emil KC 121.9 0 101 0 100 0
Hidalgo, Rich TEX 77.9 0 101 -2 91 -2
Swisher, Nick OAK 114.1 -1 96 0 102 -1
Ordonez, Magg DET 74.7 -1 95 1 106 0
Suzuki, Ichiro SEA 154.3 -2 95 -1 99 -3
Jones, Jacque MIN 120.0 -3 92 2 105 -1
Abreu, Bobby PHI 151.6 -5 83 -1 97 -5
Huff, Aubrey TB 87.5 -4 80 0 101 -4
Walker, Larry STL 72.2 -3 77 1 113 -1
Lawton, Matt PIT/CHC 95.6 -8 62 -2 91 -10
Diaz, Victor NYM 72.5 -6 59 -2 86 -9
Lane, Jason HOU 124.1 -12 50 -2 90 -14
Hawpe, Brad COL 77.0 -9 46 5 132 -4
Sheffield, Gary NYY 122.1 -13 46 -2 93 -15
Tucker, Michael PHI/SF 49.0 -7 33 2 118 -5

These are sorted by ZR+ (Player's ZR * 1000) - (Average ZR * 1000) + 100 so that you can see what each player's range is like. I'm using only the 14 players in the AL with the most innings logged at RF and the 16 most in the NL.

As you can see, Giles comes in 7th out of 30th, just barely behind Mike Cameron and behind other should-be CFers such as Alex Rios, Austin Kearns, and Geoff Jenkins.

His biggest weakness in RF, his arm, would likely become at least average in CF. I have almost no doubt that he would be, barring injury, at least an average defensive CF. And once you throw in hitting, I can see only Jim Edmonds being more valuable.

NelsonMuntz
11-20-05, 01:34 PM
Okay, here are 2005 rankings of RFers using ZR and A per Ball in Zone (arm rating):
Admittedly I'm not overly-familiar with defensive metrics, but are these stats actually suggesting that Jeromy Burnitz has better range than Ichiro and Jacque Jones? That seems very hard to believe.

Wang's Groundballs
11-20-05, 01:40 PM
Admittedly I'm not overly-familiar with defensive metrics, but are these stats actually suggesting that Jeromy Burnitz has better range than Ichiro and Jacque Jones? That seems very hard to believe.

The strange thing is Jeromy Burnitz seems to go from being a great corner OF to a poor one every other year.

These don't necessarily measure range, but it does measure how many balls in the zone that player actually got to. I know that kind of seems contradictory, but there are reasons that even someone with great range could score poorly on ZR and to a lesser extent, UZR. I believe Ichiro! has always ranked somewhat mediocre to average on ZR and UZR, but that could be because he's always had great CF playing next to him, so maybe he's just allowing them to get more balls, which could hurt his ZR.

Also, positioning could have an impact on this as well, and I'm hoping I'll be able to get access to some data so I can address my concerns with that. IIRC, Jacque Jones had the highest UZR among RF in 2005, so I wouldn't be surprised if he is positioned differently than most RF.

NelsonMuntz
11-20-05, 01:44 PM
The strange thing is Jeromy Burnitz seems to go from being a great corner OF to a poor one every other year.

These don't necessarily measure range, but it does measure how many balls in the zone that player actually got to. I know that kind of seems contradictory, but there are reasons that even someone with great range could score poorly on ZR and to a lesser extent, UZR. I believe Ichiro! has always ranked somewhat mediocre to average on ZR and UZR, but that could be because he's always had great CF playing next to him, so maybe he's just allowing them to get more balls, which could hurt his ZR.

Also, positioning could have an impact on this as well, and I'm hoping I'll be able to get access to some data so I can address my concerns with that. IIRC, Jacque Jones had the highest UZR among RF in 2005, so I wouldn't be surprised if he is positioned differently than most RF.
Also, do these stats take into consideration park factor? I would imagine that since Burnitz plays in tiny Wrigley field compared to the much bigger Safeco and Metrodome, Burnitz would have a better chance of getting to more balls in play.

Wang's Groundballs
11-20-05, 01:52 PM
Also, do these stats take into consideration park factor? I would imagine that since Burnitz plays in tiny Wrigley field compared to the much bigger Safeco and Metrodome, Burnitz would have a better chance of getting to more balls in play.

Not that I know of, no. At least in some cases though (Fenway especially in LF) having a small park can actually "hurt" you more than it helps since you can't get to balls that other fielders can. I'm not sure how big of a problem this would be in Wrigley though, since deep balls would be HR instead of balls in play. So Burnitz probably should be docked somewhat for playing in Wrigley (this is just a guess, though), which means Giles should be rewarded even more!

Another factor, which I don't believe ZR includes but UZR does, is type of ball hit. If a fielder has a disproportionate number of LD hit to them they're likely to have a lower ZR than others although those players wouldn't have gotten to as many balls either.

Little Big Sheff
11-20-05, 03:22 PM
As far as Giles is concerned, his .423 OBP is largely due to the fact that he has guys like Klesko, Nevin and the like batting behind him so pitchers are more likely to pitch around him (he led the ML in walks).



Career number is .413

Kulish29
11-20-05, 07:14 PM
Cashman is said to be "dead set against" the volatile Milton Bradley. And with Cashman's newfound power holding through three weeks, Bradley appears out, too

That's just stupid.

Sam18
11-20-05, 07:30 PM
That's just stupid.

Agreed. Even he was against Bradley he should've kept it quiet so the other teams don't take advantage of the Yankees.

Yankyfan
11-20-05, 08:18 PM
K 29 I feel its smart move to ignor MILTON.

Jace
11-20-05, 08:23 PM
Because maybe, IMO, if it meant that much to Giles, he would have his cell phone on and ready to receive that call? It's just like us in real life. When we're expecting a call, we get that call. Who knows. He's not coming here anyways.

I think they were calling each others' homes, so its very possible that noone was there to pick the call up. The fact that its phone tag instead of a conversation may not be a bad sign and may mean absolutely nothing, but yeah its probably not good. I'll look up Torre's cell phone's ZR and FRAA anyway just in case.

Kulish29
11-20-05, 09:32 PM
K 29 I feel its smart move to ignor MILTON.

I dont. He's miles better than any option they have for CF currently. If he's non-tendered on Dec. 20th, he should be signed.

JDPNYY
11-20-05, 10:24 PM
Enough of this. I want Giles to sign with the Yankees tomorrow. Press Conference on Tuesday.

NewEraYanks2527
11-20-05, 11:36 PM
Enough of this. I want Giles to sign with the Yankees tomorrow. Press Conference on Tuesday.
Ya know JDPNYY I almost think you are cutting and pasting your posts and just changing the names ;)

MiamiKat
11-20-05, 11:55 PM
Enough of this. I want Giles to sign with the Yankees tomorrow. Press Conference on Tuesday.
I like the way you think.

Yankees1962
11-21-05, 02:50 AM
Agreed. Even he was against Bradley he should've kept it quiet so the other teams don't take advantage of the Yankees.
Excuse me, but when did Cashman announce to the world which quotes him directly that he's against getting Bradley? We need to stop taking what these newspaper articles say as gospel if they don't have direct quotes. Didn't Heyman write a column about 10 days ago lambasting the Yankees about their interest in Bradley? If so then call me cynical for not believing his latest column as the absolute truth in what the Yankees might do in the future.

mbn007
11-21-05, 05:57 AM
I can't see the Yankees really interested in Bradley. He is an explosion waiting to happen, and the media crush in NY will only increase the likelihood of that explosion happenning sooner than later.

I would love Giles, and then a play for Andruw Jones after 2006, when Moose and Sheff come off the books. But we shall see.

aeromac76
11-21-05, 06:55 AM
I like the way you think.

Me too, lets do it, I will be the chauffeur and pick Brian up at the airport..

yanksphan
11-21-05, 09:27 AM
http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/padres/20051121-9999-1s21padres.html


Towers says Giles may take discount

Padres General Manager Kevin Towers said yesterday he believes Brian Giles would return to the team for a "little" less money than he could get from another club. But the Padres still will have to inflate their three-year, $25.5 million offer if they are to sign the right fielder, who reportedly can get a three-year guarantee of $30 million to $33 million from the New York Yankees and perhaps elsewhere.

"I believe they would give us a little bit of a discount," Towers said. "A little one."

The player's agent, Joe Bick, said he recently built a "significant" discount into a proposal to the Padres.

"We feel like we cut the proposal to the bone," Bick said. "I explained to Kevin: 'Here's a deal that we will do.' Just based on what else we're hearing from other people, we won't do less. Obviously, we hope they'll do it."

Bick said he has offers from "multiple clubs" beyond San Diego.


Wow. If Towers can't get this done, then he really IS a moron. Looks like the Yankees got used...

Wang's Groundballs
11-21-05, 09:34 AM
http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/padres/20051121-9999-1s21padres.html
Wow. If Towers can't get this done, then he really IS a moron. Looks like the Yankees got used...

Players always talk about giving their former team a discount. I'll believe it when I see it.

yanksphan
11-21-05, 09:37 AM
Players always talk about giving their former team a discount. I'll believe it when I see it.

It says in the article that Bick gave Towers a proposal. Later in the article it mentions Giles saying he would take an average of $10mil per year to play for the Padres earlier this summer.

Rich
11-21-05, 09:38 AM
After the Yankees make their last offer, the difference won't be a "little" less money.

Sam18
11-21-05, 09:45 AM
Excuse me, but when did Cashman announce to the world which quotes him directly that he's against getting Bradley? We need to stop taking what these newspaper articles say as gospel if they don't have direct quotes. Didn't Heyman write a column about 10 days ago lambasting the Yankees about their interest in Bradley? If so then call me cynical for not believing his latest column as the absolute truth in what the Yankees might do in the future.

"dead set against", I took those to be Cashman's words.

Rich
11-21-05, 09:56 AM
"dead set against", I took those to be Cashman's words.

It was an anonymous source's assertion, as told to Heyman, which is not necessarily reliable because it's double hearsay:

http://www.newsday.com/sports/columnists/ny-spflash20xx4521494nov20,0,530186.column?coll=ny-sports-columnists

[...]

Cashman is said to be "dead set against" the volatile Milton Bradley. And with Cashman's newfound power holding through three weeks, Bradley appears out, too.

Sam18
11-21-05, 10:00 AM
It was an anonymous source's assertion, as told to Heyman, which is not necessarily reliable because it's double hearsay:

http://www.newsday.com/sports/columnists/ny-spflash20xx4521494nov20,0,530186.column?coll=ny-sports-columnists (&quot;http://www.newsday.com/sports/columnists/ny-spflash20xx4521494nov20,0,530186.column?coll=ny-sports-columnists&quot;)

[...]

Cashman is said to be &quot;dead set against&quot; the volatile Milton Bradley. And with Cashman's newfound power holding through three weeks, Bradley appears out, too.

Ahh, thanks Rich.

BJG
11-21-05, 10:27 AM
Ahh, thanks Rich.

I would also point out that, if the Yankees are hoping that Bradley simply gets non-tendered, it would make sense to advertise their disinterest.

Sam18
11-21-05, 10:32 AM
I would also point out that, if the Yankees are hoping that Bradley simply gets non-tendered, it would make sense to advertise their disinterest.

Good point.

gold23
11-21-05, 11:06 AM
If Bradley gets non-tendered, I could see the Yanks tip-toeing into the water. Not sure what the market would be for Bradley, but I would be extremely surprised if the Yanks took ANY type of financial gamble on the guy.

If they could sign him to a deal where it would not be a fiscal disaster if they needed to cut bait, I wouldn't be surprised if they signed him. But the dollars would need to work out- if Bradley garnered interest from a few other clubs, I bet the Yanks would lose interest quickly. He's really that bad of a guy.

27IsNext
11-21-05, 12:03 PM
http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/padres/20051121-9999-1s21padres.html




Wow. If Towers can't get this done, then he really IS a moron. Looks like the Yankees got used...

And this is exactly what I've been saying for several days now. I feel for those who actually thought we had a chance to get this guy. :(

yanksphan
11-21-05, 12:51 PM
I DID NOT HEAR THIS MYSELF - READ IT ON A PADRES MESSAGE BOARD

Apparently, AM 1090 (the Padres radio station here in San Diego) is reporting that a Giles deal is as good as done. They are working out a few details, one being a limited no-trade clause vs full no-trade clause. The money obstacle is no longer an issue.

We'll see I suppose...

EDIT: Removed speculation.

EDIT II: Please read post #890 (http://forums.nyyfans.com/showthread.php?p=2902186#post2902186) below. The above was a misunderstanding on my part.

ppa79
11-21-05, 12:53 PM
Recent improvements to the team have caused Brian to rethink his "allegiances".




What improvements?? Getting Cameron?

yanksphan
11-21-05, 12:54 PM
What improvements?? Getting Cameron?

Sorry, I too realized that was just speculation and removed it from my post. But yes, that's what the poster implied (and Castillo as well).

BJG
11-21-05, 12:57 PM
What improvements?? Getting Cameron?

Towers turning down Boston. Getting Cameron. An apparently imminent trade for David Wells. He might be good friends with Blum and Young.

aeromac76
11-21-05, 01:10 PM
Ahh well, there goes that idea it seems..
I am dissapointed, but cannot say I am surprised

yankeesrule2000
11-21-05, 01:15 PM
No surprise, he was using us for leverage.

Ghost of Dan Pasqua
11-21-05, 01:21 PM
The phone tag thing with Torre was worrysome. IMO, I think that the Yankees try to make up the offense and trade for Delgado to 1B/DH and sign/trade for a lower cost/defensive option like Endy Chavez, Tike Redman, etc.

NewEraYanks2527
11-21-05, 01:34 PM
Well there goes that idea. Maybe we should sign Jacque Jones for center and get Delgado to make up the offense as others have suggested. Personally I dont have a problem with Jones, he shouldnt cost that much and maybe he will not be that bad offensively if surrounded by good hitters.

yanksphan
11-21-05, 01:38 PM
Lets not take this as gospel yet. I listen to 1090 all the time, and I haven't heard any mention of this. Just some guy on a newsgroup saying he heard it. I will say the guy isn't some fanboy/troll - usually a poster with substance - but nothing is official yet.

23and2
11-21-05, 01:41 PM
*Sigh* Well, if that's true about Giles then this off season gets longer by the minute. At this rate, we'll have to sign Kenny Lofton at CF, Tony Womack as a leadoff hitter and maybe Kevin Brown as a RP. Sorry, wrong off season.

Sam18
11-21-05, 01:45 PM
Lets not take this as gospel yet. I listen to 1090 all the time, and I haven't heard any mention of this. Just some guy on a newsgroup saying he heard it. I will say the guy isn't some fanboy/troll - usually a poster with substance - but nothing is official yet.

Can you put a percentage on it?

yanksphan
11-21-05, 01:49 PM
Can you put a percentage on it?

Like I said - I didn't hear it for myself, so no. Odd thing is, nobody else has commented on it ("good as done") in the thread...

Sam18
11-21-05, 01:54 PM
Like I said - I didn't hear it for myself, so no. Odd thing is, nobody else has commented on it (&quot;good as done&quot;) in the thread...

Oh. I'm guessing he does go back to SD.

27IsNext
11-21-05, 02:57 PM
Next.

yanksphan
11-21-05, 03:14 PM
Great news. I was a bit miffed at how nobody was replying to the poster who claimed the radio station announced the deal as "good as done" - so I asked when it was said, and who said it.

Here's the reply from the original poster:


Quite some time ago. There was a whole thread dedicated to it. It proved not be true in the sense that it was about to be signed. But my theory was predicated on the thought that the contract could be agreed to in-principle with the stipulation from Giles' camp that KT "improve" the team. Not sure how that would be defined or interpreted. And that would help explain the flurry of activity we have seen from SD so far this off-season.

So it looks like Giles is still fair game!

panicfan
11-21-05, 03:19 PM
I'm curious why you guys think we need more offense? We have such a potent lineup from Shef, A-Rod, Giambi, Matsui, etc. Don't you think that defense is more important?

Well there goes that idea. Maybe we should sign Jacque Jones for center and get Delgado to make up the offense as others have suggested. Personally I dont have a problem with Jones, he shouldnt cost that much and maybe he will not be that bad offensively if surrounded by good hitters.

BJG
11-21-05, 03:29 PM
I'm curious why you guys think we need more offense? We have such a potent lineup from Shef, A-Rod, Giambi, Matsui, etc. Don't you think that defense is more important?

Mr. Lichtman believes that Giles would actually be average to above average in CF for a year. That likely makes him one of the better defensive options in CF on the free agent market. In addition, if the Yankees proceed to trade for a more elite defensive CF, it allows them to push Sheffield out of RF, where Giles is a better defender. Either scenario is good for the defense.

If you add in the offense, it only gets better, but that doesn't mean that there aren't defensive considerations here.

Saxmania
11-21-05, 03:52 PM
I'm curious why you guys think we need more offense? We have such a potent lineup from Shef, A-Rod, Giambi, Matsui, etc. Don't you think that defense is more important?

1) The team should be made better if the opportunity arises. Given the appalling offense the Yankees got from CF and non-Giambi DHs last year, there's a great deal of room for improvement. The Yankees scored fewer runs in 2005 than 2004, so obviously there are weaknesses.

2) The Yankees might have to trade offense for defense. I personally belief that Gary Sheffield is the best candidate for trade for numerous reasons, but we might also move Posada or Cano. In that case, additional offense would be incredibly useful.

3) Brian Giles is better than Sheffield and Bernie Williams defensively, and may be better than Matsui.

4) We can expect to see age-related declines in offense from Posada, Sheffield, and others in the near future. The same players in 2006 will not put up identical lines to what they did in 2005.

5) Signing Giles doesn't rule out improving our defense with other moves.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

gold23
11-21-05, 04:06 PM
1) The team should be made better if the opportunity arises. Given the appalling offense the Yankees got from CF and non-Giambi DHs last year, there's a great deal of room for improvement. The Yankees scored fewer runs in 2005 than 2004, so obviously there are weaknesses.

2) The Yankees might have to trade offense for defense. I personally belief that Gary Sheffield is the best candidate for trade for numerous reasons, but we might also move Posada or Cano. In that case, additional offense would be incredibly useful.

3) Brian Giles is better than Sheffield and Bernie Williams defensively, and may be better than Matsui.

4) We can expect to see age-related declines in offense from Posada, Sheffield, and others in the near future. The same players in 2006 will not put up identical lines to what they did in 2005.

5) Signing Giles doesn't rule out improving our defense with other moves.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania


Am I one of the only people who think Sheffield might actually benefit slightly from a little age? Only when on the field, of course, as I believe he'll probably break down more as he gets older. But he is one player who could use his bat slowing down a tick. :)

My theory on Posada is that he is a drag on the offense. He's been a truly horrific postseason performer in his career, and even though he is superior offensively to most catchers in the league, he turns the bat to sawdust in pressure spots. He has some of the worst at bats of his season in spots where he needs to get the job done.

ieddyi
11-21-05, 04:23 PM
Great news. I was a bit miffed at how nobody was replying to the poster who claimed the radio station announced the deal as "good as done" - so I asked when it was said, and who said it.

Here's the reply from the original poster:



So it looks like Giles is still fair game!

UNless he loves SD enough to sacrifice 3-4M/year to play there, he is still fair game. I think ideally her wants to stay there, but he has also stated he wants to go to a winner.
I assume he meant more than being a contender in that horrible division and wants some post season success

Stupid Flanders
11-21-05, 05:06 PM
1090 also reported David Wells re-signed with the Padres in 2004.

Saxmania
11-21-05, 05:09 PM
Am I one of the only people who think Sheffield might actually benefit slightly from a little age? Only when on the field, of course, as I believe he'll probably break down more as he gets older. But he is one player who could use his bat slowing down a tick. :)


Much as I like Sheffield as a ballplayer (and I was in favor of signing him over Vlad), I think his perceived value as a trade chip is greater than his production for the Yankees in 2006 IF Giles can be had. Sheffield posted a very impressive 132 OPS+ in 2005, but that was down from 143 in 2004 and 167 in 2003. Injuries are clearly an increasing concern, he's not shy about negotiating for contract extensions in the media, and he's almost certainly leaving after next year anyway.

Given the poor free agent market this year, we should be looking to trades to correct what's wrong with the Yankees. Sheffield should yield a couple of very good prospects at the least, and maybe a major-league ready player. If we could sign Giles and turn Sheffield into Wilkerson - or even Rowand - plus prospects or younger players, this team would improve all around. However, if Giles isn't available, it makes significantly less sense.

The Yankees are not 'fine' offensively, everyone. We were 2nd in the AL in runs scored, but some of our best hitters are near the end of the line, and Jeter, A-Rod, and Matsui aren't likely to improve enough to cover that. If Cano and Wang hadn't emerged this year, this team would have been a mess.

Fun fact - in 2005, the 'offensive juggernaut' of the Yankees scored 886 runs, and limped to a first-round exit in the playoffs. That's fewer than in 1998 or 1999. This lineup isn't all that good, which is why we can't afford holes of the shape of a Bubba Crosby or a Juan Pierre making outs for fun.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

Stupid Flanders
11-21-05, 05:13 PM
Am I one of the only people who think Sheffield might actually benefit slightly from a little age? Only when on the field, of course, as I believe he'll probably break down more as he gets older. But he is one player who could use his bat slowing down a tick. :)

My theory on Posada is that he is a drag on the offense. He's been a truly horrific postseason performer in his career, and even though he is superior offensively to most catchers in the league, he turns the bat to sawdust in pressure spots. He has some of the worst at bats of his season in spots where he needs to get the job done.
Career regular season OPS: 782
Career post seaon OPS: 702

However, I don't think that's as much a result of pressure as it is catching so many games all season catching up with him.
Career wise, September is by far his worst month. I don't think that's pressure.

YankeePride1967
11-21-05, 05:29 PM
http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/padres/20051121-9999-1s21padres.html




Wow. If Towers can't get this done, then he really IS a moron. Looks like the Yankees got used...

But wait, despite this and the fact the Yanks were one of 8 teams on his very limited no-trade clause, I thought Giles really wanted to play for the Yanks? :P

buntsalot2
11-21-05, 05:47 PM
But wait, despite this and the fact the Yanks were one of 8 teams on his very limited no-trade clause, I thought Giles really wanted to play for the Yanks? :P

(sound of error buzzing)eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh! wrong! thankyou for playing. Giles really has no intention of leaving SD. It was all a big bluff to fluff... his own ego. :D

ICEBERG18
11-21-05, 10:57 PM
Giles, 34, seemed an imperfect fit for the Yankees' centerfield void, given the team's stated declaration to get younger, cheaper and better defensively. But Joe Torre called Giles last week to express his interest in the accomplished hitter. Giles missed Torre's call, and Torre subsequently missed Giles' return call.

There was no such communication attempt yesterday, according to Giles' agent, Joe Bick, and Bick had no conversations with Yankees general manager Brian Cashman.

The Yankees' interest seems to be shifting away from Giles, according to an American League official with knowledge of the situation, and there is still some attraction to free agent Johnny Damon if his price drops significantly.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/yankees/ny-spyanks1122,0,4383162.story?coll=ny-sports-headlines

YankeeFan1
11-21-05, 11:07 PM
I wish the Yankees would focus on trying to find a young solid player. I would hate for them to sign Giles or Damon unless they have no choice.

Dooley Womack
11-21-05, 11:07 PM
Giles, 34, seemed an imperfect fit for the Yankees' centerfield void, given the team's stated declaration to get younger, cheaper and better defensively. But Joe Torre called Giles last week to express his interest in the accomplished hitter. Giles missed Torre's call, and Torre subsequently missed Giles' return call.

There was no such communication attempt yesterday, according to Giles' agent, Joe Bick, and Bick had no conversations with Yankees general manager Brian Cashman.

The Yankees' interest seems to be shifting away from Giles, according to an American League official with knowledge of the situation, and there is still some attraction to free agent Johnny Damon if his price drops significantly.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/yankees/ny-spyanks1122,0,4383162.story?coll=ny-sports-headlines

On the surface, the Yanks seem like a mess and don't know which direction they want to go in. I'm very concerned.

27IsNext
11-21-05, 11:11 PM
On the surface, the Yanks seem like a mess and don't know which direction they want to go in. I'm very concerned.

When are you people going to get it through your head that Giles wants no business playing in NY? This somehow indicates we have no direction? Please.

panicfan
11-21-05, 11:13 PM
Its very early, and its a very weak market. Be patient! Its a long offseason. Would you rather the Yanks throw money at Damon, or stand pat until something comes along? I can live with Bubba in centerfield if we can keep our prospects and not get ripped off. The bullpen is another story.

On the surface, the Yanks seem like a mess and don't know which direction they want to go in. I'm very concerned.

Dooley Womack
11-21-05, 11:17 PM
When are you people going to get it through your head that Giles wants no business playing in NY? This somehow indicates we have no direction? Please.

It's not about Giles! Not at all. It's about the Yankee's indecisiveness, lack of planning and poor skills at evaluating players. Stick needs to get involved. I think some people are way over their heads in the FO and too much autonomy isn't necessarily a good thing if given the wrong person.

27IsNext
11-21-05, 11:23 PM
It's not about Giles! Not at all. It's about the Yankee's indecisiveness, lack of planning and poor skills at evaluating players. Stick needs to get involved. I think some people are way over their heads in the FO and too much autonomy isn't necessarily a good thing if given the wrong person.

Are you privy to some sort of insider information that we aren't? By all accounts, Stick is involved.

Cashman can't hold a gun to Brian Giles, B.J. Ryan, and every good free agent relief pitcher out there, and demand that they start liking the Yankees. He also can't do much other than turn down these ridiculous offers and wait until better and fair ones come along, if ever.

JavyVazquezIsSick
11-21-05, 11:23 PM
Giles, 34, seemed an imperfect fit for the Yankees' centerfield void, given the team's stated declaration to get younger, cheaper and better defensively. But Joe Torre called Giles last week to express his interest in the accomplished hitter. Giles missed Torre's call, and Torre subsequently missed Giles' return call.

There was no such communication attempt yesterday, according to Giles' agent, Joe Bick, and Bick had no conversations with Yankees general manager Brian Cashman.

The Yankees' interest seems to be shifting away from Giles, according to an American League official with knowledge of the situation, and there is still some attraction to free agent Johnny Damon if his price drops significantly.



http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/yankees/ny-spyanks1122,0,4383162.story?coll=ny-sports-headlines

They'd get better offensively and defensively, signing Damon would most likely cost much more than signing Giles...

ICEBERG18
11-21-05, 11:23 PM
The Yankees' interest seems to be shifting away from Giles, according to an American League official with knowledge of the situation, and there is still some attraction to free agent Johnny Damon if his price drops significantly.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/yankees/ny-spyanks1122,0,4383162.story?coll=ny-sports-headlines


"Boras, who said he hoped the Yankees would become involved in the pursuit of Damon."

-NY TIMES-

Dooley Womack
11-21-05, 11:30 PM
Are you privy to some sort of insider information that we aren't? By all accounts, Stick is involved.

Cashman can't hold a gun to Brian Giles, B.J. Ryan, and every good free agent relief pitcher out there, and demand that they start liking the Yankees. He also can't do much other than turn down these ridiculous offers and wait until better and fair ones come along, if ever.

I'm not privy to anything but so far the Yanks have looked pretty damn foolish and pathetic this off-season.

Where is the salesmanship?

27IsNext
11-21-05, 11:31 PM
If "pretty damn foolish and pathetic" means not overpaying for bad players, guys who don't want to be here, etc. and not trading the farm for Torii Hunter or Juan Pierre, then I'm thrilled personally.

YankeeFan1
11-21-05, 11:40 PM
I'm not privy to anything but so far the Yanks have looked pretty damn foolish and pathetic this off-season.

Where is the salesmanship? We get it. You don't like Cashman in charge. No need to make baseless statements about the Yankee off season moves.

panicfan
11-21-05, 11:43 PM
Seriously,

If players don't want to come here, we can't force them. If anything that's George's fault, not Cashman.

We get it. You don't like Cashman in charge. No need to make baseless statements about the Yankee off season moves.

Dooley Womack
11-21-05, 11:48 PM
We get it. You don't like Cashman in charge. No need to make baseless statements about the Yankee off season moves.

Frankly it doesn't matter what you get. My statements are based on what I perceive to be facts, just as you probably base your opinions.

Dooley Womack
11-21-05, 11:50 PM
Seriously,

If players don't want to come here, we can't force them. If anything that's George's fault, not Cashman.

Why is it George's fault, might I ask? As far as I can tell the old geezer has been pretty damn quiet the past few years.

JeffWeaverFan
11-21-05, 11:54 PM
Why is it George's fault, might I ask? As far as I can tell the old geezer has been pretty damn quiet the past few years.
I don't think it is either George or Cash's fault.

Giles is from the West Coast and had previously had the Yankees on his short no-trade list. Obviously, he doesn't want to live in the East Coast. BJ Ryan is a closer and wants to close. You can't change things like that.

Cash can still do a good job this offseason but he can't make the moves that he wanted to make most - and those moves were the right ones so I can't blame him.

We need a CFer, 2 relief pitchers, a DH type and we can't trade away the prospect. Jacque Jones/Milton Bradley for CF. Farnsworth and Howry for the relief. And some sort of DH type player. I really wanted Giles though...

MiamiKat
11-21-05, 11:56 PM
I'm not privy to anything but so far the Yanks have looked pretty damn foolish and pathetic this off-season.
Examples please.

StatenIslandYankee
11-21-05, 11:58 PM
Why is it George's fault, might I ask? As far as I can tell the old geezer has been pretty damn quiet the past few years.
It's not anyone's fault.

StatenIslandYankee
11-21-05, 11:59 PM
I wish the Yankees would focus on trying to find a young solid player. I would hate for them to sign Giles or Damon unless they have no choice.
Right, because there are better options on the FA market or available for the right cost.

YankeeFan1
11-22-05, 12:02 AM
Frankly it doesn't matter what you get. My statements are based on what I perceive to be facts, just as you probably base your opinions. Like I said, "we get it." We really do. Even as the Yankees try to carefully put the pieces together as they best they can, you slam them because you have baseless complaints. A player doesn't want to come to the East Coast, it is "salesmanship." There are no quality relievers or centerfielders on the markets, the Yankees "are looking damn foolish and pathetic."

Dooley Womack
11-22-05, 12:02 AM
I don't think it is either George or Cash's fault.

Giles is from the West Coast and had previously had the Yankees on his short no-trade list. Obviously, he doesn't want to live in the East Coast. BJ Ryan is a closer and wants to close. You can't change things like that.

Cash can still do a good job this offseason but he can't make the moves that he wanted to make most - and those moves were the right ones so I can't blame him.

We need a CFer, 2 relief pitchers, a DH type and we can't trade away the prospect. Jacque Jones/Milton Bradley for CF. Farnsworth and Howry for the relief. And some sort of DH type player. I really wanted Giles though...

I wanted Giles too - for the corner. What I don't get is all the publicity about Joe and Giles trading phone messages - KNOWING he had a no trade to NY clause, and NOW the Yanks suddenly realize he doesn't want to play here? Why not be consistent and put a few calls into BJ as well?

If the Yanks don't address the pen-ideally re-sign Gordon (there's nothing better right now) as set-up and Farnsworth as middle, and IF they go into the season with Sturtze and Proctor, somebody didn't do their job. This is the Yankees, with Yankee payroll. If a GM can't do his job with THAT edge, I'd hate to see what he'd be able to do in Kansas City.

I'll try to sit tight after this post and see if he can prove me wrong. But I guess I have so little expectation from him with his new "autonomy" that I'm almost expecting him to fail.

Nuff about that.

YankeeFan1
11-22-05, 12:04 AM
Right, because there are better options on the FA market or available for the right cost. As far as I am concerned the Yankees should consider Giles and Damon should be signings of the last resort.

Dooley Womack
11-22-05, 12:05 AM
Like I said, "we get it." We really do. Even as the Yankees try to carefully put the pieces together as they best they can, you slam them because you have baseless complaints. A player doesn't want to come to the East Coast, it is "salesmanship." There are no quality relievers or centerfielders on the markets, the Yankees "are looking damn foolish and pathetic."

Hey, sorry for the rant. I know it's not pleasant to read. I just have so little confidence in his ability to evaluate needs and talent that it pisses me off. I'll stop- at least for the night. ;)

BronxBaumer
11-22-05, 12:14 AM
Hey, sorry for the rant. I know it's not pleasant to read. I just have so little confidence in his ability to evaluate needs and talent that it pisses me off. I'll stop- at least for the night. ;)

What has made you lose this faith in his ability in the past? Ten examples.

JDPNYY
11-22-05, 12:17 AM
As far as I am concerned the Yankees should consider Giles and Damon should be signings of the last resort.

I would rather the Yankees take a step backwards for a year, not make the playoffs and do a bit of rebuilding rather than sign Damon or trade for Pierre or Hunter.

BronxByTheBay
11-22-05, 12:30 AM
Frankly it doesn't matter what you get. My statements are based on what I perceive to be facts, just as you probably base your opinions.

I dunno, Dools. It looks like we've just been snake-bit thus far. Giles is a WC wussy and Ryan doesn't want to be perceived as Mo's waterboy (just because we know setting up for Mo is the second-most glamorous relief gig in baseball doesn't mean everyone else is privy to that fact ;) ).

As you've stated the FA situation sucks and it's a sellers market on the trading front. Because of the money the Yankees have flooded into other owners pockets, more teams have flexibility and don't need to trade their best players for salary-relief or because they're going to lose them in a year or so to FA.

Basically we have a Perfect Sh*t Storm converging on our off-season. I don't see how Cash can be blamed. He can try and get as creative as he wants but you still need other teams willing to give you the pieces you're getting creative over.

Dooley Womack
11-22-05, 12:31 AM
What has made you lose this faith in his ability in the past? Ten examples.

Ok....I'll take the bait...then it's my last Cashman post for now, nor do I want to discuss the ten items listed. Actually, wouldn't even three or five bad moves have been enough? Ask DePo. But, I'll give you 10.

These have been attributed to him:

1) Weaver for Lily, JUST as Lily was thriving and throwing gems. Lily, the Sox-killer, I might add.
2) Brown for Weaver.
3) Allowing Joe to keep Mel. He and Joe were Mel's only proponents.
4) Trading for Loaiza.
5) Stating that he was adamant about not trading for Beltran in 2004 prior to his becoming a free agent, even before any players were being discussed. Did he have a crystal ball?
6) Trading for Javy and giving up NJ and Rivera. Colon, the better pitcher, could have been had without giving up anyone. Tampa and George fought for Colon. Cashman won.
7) Going into the 2004 season, one that should have been won, without a left hander. Cashman claimed that it was overrated, ignoring the fact that the likes of Ortiz were eating up righties and sucked against lefties up until that time.
8) The awful bench and role players over the past few years, admittedly his responsibility. Do you think GS concerns himself with a bench player? Nah.
9) Jon Lieber
10) Trading away Lofton for F-Rod. Loften, a George pick and a player Cashman was pissed was even on the team. Kenny sure would have looked good in CF in 2005.
10a) (For good measure) His inability to land, good, cheap relievers - the ones George doesn't involve himself in - the same ones that the Sox have thrived on the past few years. Cashman doesn't know pitching.
10b) Passing on Ortiz even though GS wanted him. I don't care who was on 1B or DHing at the time. GM's pay for mistakes like that.

JDPNYY
11-22-05, 12:43 AM
Ok....I'll take the bait...then it's my last Cashman post for now, nor do I want to discuss the ten items listed. Actually, wouldn't even three or five bad moves have been enough? Ask DePo. But, I'll give you 10.

These have been attributed to him:

1) Weaver for Lily, JUST as Lily was thriving and throwing gems. Lily, the Sox-killer, I might add.
2) Brown for Weaver.
3) Allowing Joe to keep Mel. He and Joe were Mel's only proponents.
4) Trading for Loaiza.
5) Stating that he was adamant about not trading for Beltran in 2004 prior to his becoming a free agent, even before any players were being discussed. Did he have a crystal ball?
6) Trading for Javy and giving up NJ and Rivera. Colon, the better pitcher, could have been had without giving up anyone. Tampa and George fought for Colon. Cashman won.
7) Going into the 2004 season, one that should have been won, without a left hander. Cashman claimed that it was overrated, ignoring the fact that the likes of Ortiz were eating up righties and sucked against lefties up until that time.
8) The awful bench and role players over the past few years, admittedly his responsibility. Do you think GS concerns himself with a bench player? Nah.
9) Jon Lieber
10) Trading away Lofton for F-Rod. Loften, a George pick and a player Cashman was pissed was even on the team. Kenny sure would have looked good in CF in 2005.
10a) (For good measure) His inability to land, good, cheap relievers - the ones George doesn't involve himself in - the same ones that the Sox have thrived on the past few years. Cashman doesn't know pitching.
10b) Passing on Ortiz even though GS wanted him. I don't care who was on 1B or DHing at the time. GM's pay for mistakes like that.

You seemed to think the Javy trade was a good one at the time:

http://forums.nyyfans.com/showthread.php?t=55062

StatenIslandYankee
11-22-05, 12:44 AM
So where do we go from here?

:(

BronxBaumer
11-22-05, 12:47 AM
Brown for Weaver? People on this board were about to jump up and fellate Cashman for that "brilliant" trade at the time. I'd be hardpressed to find if you were one of the people against it at that time. These are all based on hindsight views. Colon sucked it up big time in Anaheim last year, and Vazquez actually pitched a better season in 2004 (and had pitched a better season in 2003 as well).

JDPNYY
11-22-05, 12:48 AM
Ok....I'll take the bait...then it's my last Cashman post for now, nor do I want to discuss the ten items listed. Actually, wouldn't even three or five bad moves have been enough? Ask DePo. But, I'll give you 10.

These have been attributed to him:

1) Weaver for Lily, JUST as Lily was thriving and throwing gems. Lily, the Sox-killer, I might add.
2) Brown for Weaver.
3) Allowing Joe to keep Mel. He and Joe were Mel's only proponents.
4) Trading for Loaiza.
5) Stating that he was adamant about not trading for Beltran in 2004 prior to his becoming a free agent, even before any players were being discussed. Did he have a crystal ball?
6) Trading for Javy and giving up NJ and Rivera. Colon, the better pitcher, could have been had without giving up anyone. Tampa and George fought for Colon. Cashman won.
7) Going into the 2004 season, one that should have been won, without a left hander. Cashman claimed that it was overrated, ignoring the fact that the likes of Ortiz were eating up righties and sucked against lefties up until that time.
8) The awful bench and role players over the past few years, admittedly his responsibility. Do you think GS concerns himself with a bench player? Nah.
9) Jon Lieber
10) Trading away Lofton for F-Rod. Loften, a George pick and a player Cashman was pissed was even on the team. Kenny sure would have looked good in CF in 2005.
10a) (For good measure) His inability to land, good, cheap relievers - the ones George doesn't involve himself in - the same ones that the Sox have thrived on the past few years. Cashman doesn't know pitching.
10b) Passing on Ortiz even though GS wanted him. I don't care who was on 1B or DHing at the time. GM's pay for mistakes like that.

You called the Loaiza deal a win/win:

http://forums.nyyfans.com/showpost.php?p=1466434&postcount=7

NYDCYankee
11-22-05, 12:49 AM
9) Jon Lieber

Lieber was not that good last year.

MiamiKat
11-22-05, 12:51 AM
Ah, the benefit of hindsight...

BronxBaumer
11-22-05, 12:53 AM
Hindsight is 20-20...I can't blame Cashman for moves that I thought would be good ones. I thought signing Colon would have been a heinous mistake, and considering he may have one the cy young this year, he was in no way the best pitcher in the AL...in any way shape or form.

Dooley Womack
11-22-05, 12:55 AM
Basically we have a Perfect Sh*t Storm converging on our off-season. I don't see how Cash can be blamed. He can try and get as creative as he wants but you still need other teams willing to give you the pieces you're getting creative over.

Everyone is judged by their performance. Whoís to say that another GM wouldn't have the ability to make moves that Cashman isn't able to? Granted, it's possible that they might not be able to either, but there are no free passes in the business world. You and I are expected to perform the occasional miracle at our jobs. If our performance isn't satisfactory and doesn't meet expectations we are surely dispensable. After we are given our pink slips, there will be new candidates expected to perform those miracles. Whether they are able to is a determining factor as to whether they keep their jobs. In a high-pressure, high-demanding vocation, those are the ugly facts, regardless if itís palatable to us or not.

Cashman has not expanded on or improved upon the job of his predecessor.

Dooley Womack
11-22-05, 12:58 AM
Hindsight is 20-20...I can't blame Cashman for moves that I thought would be good ones. I thought signing Colon would have been a heinous mistake, and considering he may have one the cy young this year, he was in no way the best pitcher in the AL...in any way shape or form.

Can most of us tell that to our bosses that hindsight is 20-20 if our choices turned out to be failures, regardless of how those choices looked at the time? It's why GM's and civilians get fired.

Dooley Womack
11-22-05, 01:00 AM
Lieber was not that good last year.

Cashman admitted it was a huge mistake. Lieber pitched quite well in NY and under pressure. It left the Yanks scrambling.

BronxBaumer
11-22-05, 01:01 AM
Hell, if Cashman signed Colon in 2004 and he pitched to the clip of a 5.01 ERA with a 1.37 WHIP, I'd have called for his firing. If you want him fired, fine...but what you are saying is practically ridiculous.

Dooley Womack
11-22-05, 01:10 AM
Hell, if Cashman signed Colon in 2004 and he pitched to the clip of a 5.01 ERA with a 1.37 WHIP, I'd have called for his firing. If you want him fired, fine...but what you are saying is practically ridiculous.

Oh, so you'd fire him over Colon but not Javy, Brown, Loaiza, etc., etc? How ridiculous.

No ones getting fired or calling for him to be fired. If he impresses you, fine. Enjoy him.

MiamiKat
11-22-05, 01:10 AM
Everyone is judged by their performance. Whoís to say that another GM wouldn't have the ability to make moves that Cashman isn't able to? Granted, it's possible that they might not be able to either, but there are no free passes in the business world. You and I are expected to perform the occasional miracle at our jobs. If our performance isn't satisfactory and doesn't meet expectations we are surely dispensable. After we are given our pink slips, there will be new candidates expected to perform those miracles. Whether they are able to is a determining factor as to whether they keep their jobs. In a high-pressure, high-demanding vocation, those are the ugly facts, regardless if itís palatable to us or not.

Cashman has not expanded on or improved upon the job of his predecessor.99.9999999% of workers at management level in Corporate America have far more control over the variables that will determine their success or failure than Cashman has.

And what you're labeling as "unsatisfactory performance" by Cashman is actually just the opposite. He's been a success. The Yankees have made the playoffs every season since he's been GM. We might expect the Yankees to get to or even win the WS year in & year out, and that might even be Steinbrenner's way of doing things, but it's an unreasonable goal particularly now that revenue sharing $$$ are flowing out to other teams.

No GM will be able to live up to that standard. I think even Steinbrenner realizes that by now.

Dooley Womack
11-22-05, 01:23 AM
99.9999999% of workers at management level in Corporate America have far more control over the variables that will determine their success or failure than Cashman has.

And what you're labeling as "unsatisfactory performance" by Cashman is actually just the opposite. He's been a success. The Yankees have made the playoffs every season since he's been GM. We might expect the Yankees to get to or even win the WS year in & year out, and that might even be Steinbrenner's way of doing things, but it's an unreasonable goal particularly now that revenue sharing $$$ are flowing out to other teams.

No GM will be able to live up to that standard. I think even Steinbrenner realizes that by now.

You say he's been a success, I say he hasn't. We obviously have a difference of opinion as to who was responsible for the players that were already in place by the time he became GM and how (un)successfully he replaced departing players. That's all I'll say.

As to your take on corporate America, thank but no thanks for the lesson. It's too profound a topic and you're too far off-base in your over-simplification that it doesn't make sense to discuss it any further and open up yet another can of worms. Actually, I'm too tired to expound.

NYDCYankee
11-22-05, 01:24 AM
Cashman admitted it was a huge mistake. Lieber pitched quite well in NY and under pressure. It left the Yanks scrambling.

At the time we all thought it was. But in hindsight I don't think it looks that way.

JeffWeaverFan
11-22-05, 01:25 AM
I wanted Giles too - for the corner. What I don't get is all the publicity about Joe and Giles trading phone messages - KNOWING he had a no trade to NY clause, and NOW the Yanks suddenly realize he doesn't want to play here? Why not be consistent and put a few calls into BJ as well?

If the Yanks don't address the pen-ideally re-sign Gordon (there's nothing better right now) as set-up and Farnsworth as middle, and IF they go into the season with Sturtze and Proctor, somebody didn't do their job. This is the Yankees, with Yankee payroll. If a GM can't do his job with THAT edge, I'd hate to see what he'd be able to do in Kansas City.

I'll try to sit tight after this post and see if he can prove me wrong. But I guess I have so little expectation from him with his new "autonomy" that I'm almost expecting him to fail.

Nuff about that.
Because they really wanted Giles and the indications were that he would play in NYC because he wanted to win. They didn't put in any more phonecalls for BJ because it became very obvious that he had absolutely not interest in coming here.

I wouldn't give Gordon a 3rd year no matter what and it sounds like neither will Cashman.

MiamiKat
11-22-05, 01:33 AM
You say he's been a success, I say he hasn't. We obviously have a difference of opinion as to who was responsible for the players that were already in place by the time he became GM and how successfully he replaced departing players. That's all I'll say.

As to your take on corporate America, thank but no thanks for the lesson. It's too profound a topic and you're too far off-base in your over-simplification that it doesn't make sense to discuss it any further and open up yet another can of worms. Actually, I'm too tired to expound.
In other words, you don't have a point aside from blaming everything that didn't work out absolutely ideally on Cashman without giving him any credit for any of the successes.

And I notice you've also contradicted statements you previously made on various trades you pointed to as being duds.

OK. You're right. No need to continue the discussion then.

Dooley Womack
11-22-05, 01:40 AM
In other words, you don't have a point aside from blaming everything that didn't work out absolutely ideally on Cashman without giving him any credit for any of the successes.

And I notice you've also contradicted statements you previously made on various trades you pointed to as being duds.

OK. You're right. No need to continue the discussion then.

Do you come to a forum to win? ;) Goodnight

MiamiKat
11-22-05, 01:43 AM
Do you come to a forum to win? ;)No, but I disagree with your point of view on this issue and you threw out a few fighting words as well.

Dooley Womack
11-22-05, 02:26 AM
No, but I disagree with your point of view on this issue and you threw out a few fighting words as well.

Peace, then. :)

mbn007
11-22-05, 06:04 AM
I'm not privy to anything but so far the Yanks have looked pretty damn foolish and pathetic this off-season.

Where is the salesmanship?
So, in your opinion, every team is foolish so far, as almost no one has signed anyone, except the Cubbies.

Yeah, right. :uhh:

Come back after the moves are made, and then see how the team stands.

NYDCYankee
11-22-05, 06:19 AM
So, in your opinion, every team is foolish so far, as almost no one has signed anyone, except the Cubbies.

Yeah, right. :uhh:

Come back after the moves are made, and then see how the team stands.


I think he might be stirred up because of the Beckett thing.

Yankees1962
11-22-05, 06:28 AM
I think he might be stirred up because of the Beckett thing.
It goes beyond the Beckett thing. If you read his prior posts, you will get the impression that he doesn't think much of Cashman.

JDPNYY
11-22-05, 06:31 AM
It goes beyond the Beckett thing. If you read his prior posts, you will get the impression that he doesn't think much of Cashman.

It's kinda like after you walk into a wall you realize there's a wall there.

rightfielder21
11-22-05, 06:46 AM
I'm still waiting to hear how this offseason, which is a few weeks old, has been "damn foolish and pathetic"... :)

ring403
11-22-05, 06:58 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/22/sports/baseball/22yanks.html?pagewanted=all
The Padres have offered Giles three years and $25.5 million, according to The San Diego Union-Tribune, but it may take more to keep him. The Yankees could outbid the Padres with an offer of roughly three years and $30 million, but Giles is from San Diego and may take less to stay there.

In any case, it seems as if Giles will sign relatively quickly. The Padres have acted decisively this winter, making trades for Vinny Castilla, Mike Cameron and Bobby Hill and signing the free agent Geoff Blum. Giles and Bick would prefer a quick resolution.

"I think we would both be very happy to have something done before the winter meetings," Bick said. "We would have no problem with that whatsoever."

The winter meetings are Dec. 5-8 in Dallas.

Bick would not reveal how many offers Giles had, or if the Yankees had made one formally. He said he did not speak with Yankees General Manager Brian Cashman over the weekend, but added, "I'm sure we're going to continue to talk."

The St. Louis Cardinals reportedly had been a leading suitor for Giles, and although Bick said he had spoken with them, he added, "Right now, they're more focused on pitching issues."

ring403
11-22-05, 07:02 AM
http://www.nypost.com/sports/yankees/31699.htm
"He has not spoken to either one of them," Bick said, noting that Torre and O'Neill had left messages for Giles and vice versa. Bick said he believed Giles had tried calling Torre at some point on Friday or Saturday.

Bick was O'Neill's agent as a player, and O'Neill was one of the Yankee stalwarts for their four-championship run from 1996-2000.

Reached yesterday, O'Neill explained he was calling to try to help Giles with his decision by telling him the benefits of playing in New York.

"I think when you're a free agent, I think that you want to know as much as you can about the cities you're interested in," O'Neill said.

"If there's something I can say to make him understand how neat it is to compete in New York, I want him to know that so he can make that decision."

Added Bick, "I think the purpose of [the call] was just to kind of give him a little insight about the good things that happened for Paul when he was playing in New York."

Bick said Giles has to have at least a three-year deal with his new contract.

Asked what he is looking for ó length of contract, a no-trade clause, geography, a commitment to winning ó Bick indicated everything was going to factor in.

"I think there are elements of all of that involved," Bick said.

RhodeyYankee2638
11-22-05, 07:27 AM
[quote]Asked what he is looking for ó length of contract, a no-trade clause, geography, a commitment to winning ó Bick indicated everything was going to factor in.[/img]


Has Gile ever heard of the Yankees? They basically throw that stuff at anyone who is decent

rajah
11-22-05, 07:42 AM
It's not about Giles! Not at all. It's about the Yankee's indecisiveness, lack of planning and poor skills at evaluating players. Stick needs to get involved. I think some people are way over their heads in the FO and too much autonomy isn't necessarily a good thing if given the wrong person.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You are commenting as usual out of sheer ignorance of how the Yankees have developed a strategy, a strategy that might have to change given the realities of humans making decisions. The Y's operate in a real world where humans make independent decisions, not in your fantasy baseball world. Do you really think that you could do a better job than Cashman?

rightfielder21
11-22-05, 07:48 AM
You have no idea what you are talking about. You are commenting as usual out of sheer ignorance of how the Yankees have developed a strategy, a strategy that might have to change given the realities of humans making decisions. The Y's operate in a real world where humans make independent decisions, not in your fantasy baseball world. Do you really think that you could do a better job than Cashman?

I'm still not sure what the Yankees could have done dramatically different this offseason so far... I have a feeling we won't get an answer either...

JimEdmonds15
11-22-05, 09:32 AM
Has Gile ever heard of the Yankees? They basically throw that stuff at anyone who is decent

Exactly.. I'm starting to think St. Louis is a logical choice here though. Dont ask why, I dont really know. They have 2 outfield slots open, they'd give him a 3 year deal or so, the pressure wont be on him in St. Louis as much as New York, and also the Cards have about a 2 year window for another championship run because the NL is so weak right now.

whalers
11-22-05, 09:46 AM
Exactly.. I'm starting to think St. Louis is a logical choice here though. Dont ask why, I dont really know.

I think your user name explains why you think that.

JimEdmonds15
11-22-05, 09:51 AM
I think your user name explains why you think that.

But what I really think is the Cardinals dont get him.. It just seems like a logicial place for him to go throughout this whole thing here.. ;)

StatenIslandYankee
11-22-05, 09:56 AM
http://www.nypost.com/sports/yankees/31699.htm
Keyword: geography

whalers
11-22-05, 10:06 AM
I just wish this whole saga would end one way or the other so the Yankees can move on with their offseason plans.

Stupid Flanders
11-22-05, 10:22 AM
I wish the Yankees would focus on trying to find a young solid player. I would hate for them to sign Giles or Damon unless they have no choice.Yeah, they should pursue Miguel Cabrera. Maybe get Pujols to back up Giambi.

Dooley Womack
11-22-05, 11:20 AM
I'm still waiting to hear how this offseason, which is a few weeks old, has been "damn foolish and pathetic"... :)


http://www.nypost.com/sports/yankees/31699.htm



The Yankees obviously need relief pitching, and they have interest in free agent Kyle Farnsworth. But according to agent Barry Meister, there is no meeting set up with the Yankees yet, nor is there an offer from the team.
Maybe the Yanks can get Tony Womack to call Farnsworth this time....or perhaps a pre-recorded message from Joe DiMaggio. How about Guidry, Kerrigan and Torre fly out to Kyle's home and sing Christmas carols to him and his family outside their door?

Or..... here's a novel idea that just came to me: How about the Yankees GM gives Farnsworth's agent a call and sets up a meeting just like other teams who want his services have?! You know...get a jump on things in an area that is the team's biggest flaw? I know it sounds silly, but who knows, it just might work! :)

NewEraYanks2527
11-22-05, 11:21 AM
Giles isn't coming here. I think that it is becoming increasingly obvious that he really never wanted to come here.

YankeeFan1
11-22-05, 11:37 AM
But it is the Yankees' fault, oops make that Cashman's fault, that Giles doesn't want to play on the East Coast in a position that he hasn't played on a regular basis for years. Sometimes there just isn't a fit. I don't think that Giles is a good signing anyway at his age. On occasion, the best move is the one that doesn't work out.

Also, maybe the Yankees won't finding a centerfielder or a reliever in the off season, maybe they will have wait for Spring Training for someone unexpected to become available or until the All Star break. Even more shocking, maybe they won't be to fill these needs due to circumstances and just play the season out.

YankeeFan1
11-22-05, 11:39 AM
Yeah, they should pursue Miguel Cabrera. Maybe get Pujols to back up Giambi. I can only hope that the Yankees are more creative that you give them credit for. At least, they took the time according to the media to ask about Kotsay. Good to know that they are considering all possibilities which apparently you don't think they should do before giving out longer contracts to older players.

NewEraYanks2527
11-22-05, 11:49 AM
I can only hope that the Yankees are more creative that you give them credit for. At least, they took the time according to the media to ask about Kotsay. Good to know that they are considering all possibilities which apparently you don't think they should do before giving out longer contracts to older players.
Now I want the headline "Yankees inquire about Wilkerson, get receptive response" thats what I want today, right now.

whalers
11-22-05, 11:51 AM
Now I want the headline "Yankees inquire about Wilkerson, get receptive response" thats what I want today, right now.

I'd take that. I wouldnt mind seeing that same headline just switch Wilkerson with Gathright.

I Love Wang
11-22-05, 11:55 AM
I'd take that. I wouldnt mind seeing that same headline just switch Wilkerson with Gathright.

Wilkerson is a better player.

YankeeFan1
11-22-05, 11:56 AM
Now I want the headline "Yankees inquire about Wilkerson, get receptive response" thats what I want today, right now. Wilkerson would be a nice trade. I think that he is a nice solid player. I doubt that Bowden does anything until the ownership situation is worked out, but the Yankees can wait. There is just no need to rush into yet more bad contracts with older players which I'm convinced that Giles and Damon would be.

whalers
11-22-05, 11:57 AM
Wilkerson is a better player.

I agree but the way the D-Rays roster looks right now there is an even bigger surplus of OF'ers on that team so Joey might come cheaper and he's younger.

I Love Wang
11-22-05, 11:59 AM
I agree but the way the D-Rays roster looks right now there is an even bigger surplus of OF'ers on that team so Joey might come cheaper and he's younger.

The Nationals don't intend to start Wilkerson.

YankeeFan1
11-22-05, 12:00 PM
I agree but the way the D-Rays roster looks right now there is an even bigger surplus of OF'ers on that team so Joey might come cheaper and he's younger. Gathright would be good as well. I've seen him play. He is okay. There is always the chance that he may develop a bit more. The D'Rays new owners maybe reluctant to trade him though.

JeffWeaverFan
11-22-05, 12:01 PM
I still say Jacque Jones should be looked at to play CF. He doesn't cost anything in terms of prospects.

YankeeFan1
11-22-05, 12:03 PM
Is Jacque Jones a free agent? He maybe able to play center. He might be a possibility.

whalers
11-22-05, 12:05 PM
The Nationals don't intend to start Wilkerson.

The last I read Gathright wasnt either. Here is a projected starting lineup from the d-rays website.


1. Julio Lugo, shortstop
2. Carl Crawford, left field
3. Jorge Cantu, second base
4. Aubrey Huff, first base
5. Jonny Gomes, designated hitter
6. Rocco Baldelli, center field
7. Damon Hollins, right field/Delmon Young (with a monster spring)
8. Toby Hall, catcher
9. Nick Green, third base

http://tampabay.devilrays.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20051119&content_id=1270656&vkey=news_tb&fext=.jsp&c_id=tb

MTYankee23
11-22-05, 12:20 PM
I still say Jacque Jones should be looked at to play CF. He doesn't cost anything in terms of prospects.

But could potentially cost draft picks, does anyone know what Free Agent Type he is?

I Love Wang
11-22-05, 12:21 PM
The last I read Gathright wasnt either. Here is a projected starting lineup from the d-rays website.


1. Julio Lugo, shortstop
2. Carl Crawford, left field
3. Jorge Cantu, second base
4. Aubrey Huff, first base
5. Jonny Gomes, designated hitter
6. Rocco Baldelli, center field
7. Damon Hollins, right field/Delmon Young (with a monster spring)
8. Toby Hall, catcher
9. Nick Green, third base

http://tampabay.devilrays.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20051119&content_id=1270656&vkey=news_tb&fext=.jsp&c_id=tb

Wilkerson is still the better player.

whalers
11-22-05, 12:21 PM
Wilkerson is still the better player.

Better hitter yes. Fielding I'm not as convinced.

panicfan
11-22-05, 12:26 PM
Who thought Loaiza for Contreras was a bad deal at the time? Nobody!

Ok....I'll take the bait...then it's my last Cashman post for now, nor do I want to discuss the ten items listed. Actually, wouldn't even three or five bad moves have been enough? Ask DePo. But, I'll give you 10.

These have been attributed to him:

1) Weaver for Lily, JUST as Lily was thriving and throwing gems. Lily, the Sox-killer, I might add.
2) Brown for Weaver.
3) Allowing Joe to keep Mel. He and Joe were Mel's only proponents.
4) Trading for Loaiza.
5) Stating that he was adamant about not trading for Beltran in 2004 prior to his becoming a free agent, even before any players were being discussed. Did he have a crystal ball?
6) Trading for Javy and giving up NJ and Rivera. Colon, the better pitcher, could have been had without giving up anyone. Tampa and George fought for Colon. Cashman won.
7) Going into the 2004 season, one that should have been won, without a left hander. Cashman claimed that it was overrated, ignoring the fact that the likes of Ortiz were eating up righties and sucked against lefties up until that time.
8) The awful bench and role players over the past few years, admittedly his responsibility. Do you think GS concerns himself with a bench player? Nah.
9) Jon Lieber
10) Trading away Lofton for F-Rod. Loften, a George pick and a player Cashman was pissed was even on the team. Kenny sure would have looked good in CF in 2005.
10a) (For good measure) His inability to land, good, cheap relievers - the ones George doesn't involve himself in - the same ones that the Sox have thrived on the past few years. Cashman doesn't know pitching.
10b) Passing on Ortiz even though GS wanted him. I don't care who was on 1B or DHing at the time. GM's pay for mistakes like that.

JeffWeaverFan
11-22-05, 12:28 PM
But could potentially cost draft picks, does anyone know what Free Agent Type he is?
We don't know what type he is. And, I'm not sure if they will offer him arbitration.

JeffWeaverFan
11-22-05, 12:29 PM
Who thought Loaiza for Contreras was a bad deal at the time? Nobody!
Not true. There were some people that didn't like the trade at the time that were on this board. If I remember correctly, people weren't as upset about giving up Jose, it was more that we got Loaiza back instead of prospects.

Dooley Womack
11-22-05, 12:34 PM
Who thought Loaiza for Contreras was a bad deal at the time? Nobody!

Only about 97% of the members here did.

Anyway, a GM, or any manager is judged on results and the ramifications of their actions, not how things looked at the time.

I Love Wang
11-22-05, 01:20 PM
Anyway, a GM, or any manager is judged on results and the ramifications of their actions, not how things looked at the time.

The results are a lot of playoff appearances.

YankeeFan1
11-22-05, 01:27 PM
The results are a lot of playoff appearances.Not in Dooley's World where playoff appearances don't mean much.

BJG
11-22-05, 01:28 PM
Anyway, a GM, or any manager is judged on results and the ramifications of their actions, not how things looked at the time.

I couldn't disagree more. You can only work with the data you have at the time of the deal. If it's a good deal the day you make it, it's always a good deal and vice versa.

gold23
11-22-05, 01:30 PM
Not true. There were some people that didn't like the trade at the time that were on this board. If I remember correctly, people weren't as upset about giving up Jose, it was more that we got Loaiza back instead of prospects.


Shoulda kept Loaiza.....

Saxmania
11-22-05, 01:40 PM
Anyway, a GM, or any manager is judged on results and the ramifications of their actions, not how things looked at the time.

I know that's not true. In fact, in the business in which I work, millions of dollars can be gained or lost in the space of a few minutes, but the actions of our biggest risk-takers are judged on whether their move was correct based upon the information they had at the time, not the final outcome.

That's how you get good outcomes on a regular basis. That's not to say that Cashman is necessarily a good GM, but your statement above is simply factually incorrect. Would you say that bringing in Rivera to close out game 7 of the 2001 World Series was a mistake? I mean, it must have been, right? We lost, after all.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

Fabien Brandy
11-22-05, 02:53 PM
I couldn't disagree more. You can only work with the data you have at the time of the deal. If it's a good deal the day you make it, it's always a good deal and vice versa.
I couldn't disagree more. If you have a system that tells you deals are good but they still keep turning out badly, you don't shrug your shoulders and say 'it was a good deal when I made it'. You look into what might be wrong with your model. Executives or managers in any context have to always reflect on how they can improve their decision making. Assuming you made a good deal but were a victim of bad luck makes for pretty awkward meetings with your supervisors.

I Love Wang
11-22-05, 02:56 PM
I couldn't disagree more. If you have a system that tells you deals are good but they still keep turning out badly, you don't shrug your shoulders and say 'it was a good deal when I made it'. You look into what might be wrong with your model. Executives or managers in any context have to always reflect on how they can improve their decision making. Assuming you made a good deal but were a victim of bad luck makes for pretty awkward meetings with your supervisors.

Thats precisely what he's saying. Making deals involving human beings involves a great deal of luck. But you concern yourself with process, not outcome. Obviously, if you're doing the same thing for a long time, and you keep getting crappy outcomes, your process probably sucks. But when you find a process that is proven to work, you stick with it.

BJG
11-22-05, 03:06 PM
I couldn't disagree more. If you have a system that tells you deals are good but they still keep turning out badly, you don't shrug your shoulders and say 'it was a good deal when I made it'. You look into what might be wrong with your model. Executives or managers in any context have to always reflect on how they can improve their decision making. Assuming you made a good deal but were a victim of bad luck makes for pretty awkward meetings with your supervisors.

Oh, I agree with that, I just think that there's more to it, so maybe I was focusing on the other aspects too much. Moves have different levels of risk. The question you have to ask is if the risk can be absorbed if it happens. The better situated I am to absorb a risk, the more likely I am to push the odds. In other words, I could do something that I think only has a small chance of success if I think I'm positioned to absorb it and the upside is high enough. As such, it makes it very difficult to judge things in hindsight. Maybe I was trying to be too all encompassing, so let's put it this way...assuming the validity of the model, a good move on the day of the deal is always a good move.

anyway, what do I have to worry about. My model rulz!

Fabien Brandy
11-22-05, 03:07 PM
I understand what you're saying - just think GMs have to be held to a high standard for the outcomes of deals even if they look good at the time.

BJG
11-22-05, 03:17 PM
I understand what you're saying - just think GMs have to be held to a high standard for the outcomes of deals even if they look good at the time.

I agree, as long as we don't assume that every deal is entered into with the belief that it is (or is close to) a slam dunk.

Tony53
11-22-05, 03:22 PM
Now I want the headline "Yankees inquire about Wilkerson, get receptive response" thats what I want today, right now.

Don't forget to add "Nationals demand Franklin straight up, Yanks considering the offer, thinking they must be trying to trick us."

YankeePride1967
11-22-05, 05:00 PM
There seems to be Sierra Mist/RJ hatred thing going on in here with Brian Cashman. The offseason will be deemed a success/failure when we take the field, not two days before Thanksgiving.

Jasbro
11-22-05, 08:19 PM
I think it is becoming increasingly clear that the Yankees have never really been an option for Giles. If a player is willing to leave upwards of $5mm - $8mm on the table to stay home, there was never anything we could have done to woo him away.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/padres/20051121-9999-1s21padres.html


Padres General Manager Kevin Towers said yesterday he believes Brian Giles would return to the team for a "little" less money than he could get from another club.

But the Padres still will have to inflate their three-year, $25.5 million offer if they are to sign the right fielder, who reportedly can get a three-year guarantee of $30 million to $33 million from the New York Yankees and perhaps elsewhere.

"I believe they would give us a little bit of a discount," Towers said. "A little one."

The player's agent, Joe Bick, said he recently built a "significant" discount into a proposal to the Padres.

YankeePride1967
11-22-05, 08:21 PM
Time to move on, if we have to severely overpay to get someone to come here, let him go elsewhere.

ring403
11-22-05, 09:42 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5106080
Good news for the Cardinals, Mariners, Dodgers, Yankees and any other clubs pursuing free-agent right fielder Brian Giles: Barring a last-minute reversal, Giles seems destined to leave the Padres.

Giles recently gave the club his final proposal, believed to be in the range of $30 million over three years. The Padres almost certainly won't invest that much in one player; they also need to replace free-agent catcher Ramon Hernandez, upgrade their starting pitching and fortify their bullpen, given the likely departure of free-agent closer Trevor Hoffman.

I Love Wang
11-22-05, 09:58 PM
I'm aroused.