PDA

View Full Version : Damon signs with Yanks...



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12

wileedog
12-22-05, 09:24 AM
I think YS will help him. The RF porch is tailor made to his line drive pulls (which could translate to more HRs), and the bigger gap in left center will net him more doubles that were singles off the monstah in Fenway, as well as the fact that the LF having to play deeper at YS netting him more singles to shallow left.
In 155 ABs in YS over the past 4 years Damon has 3 HRs. The short porch hasn't helped him before. WHile that might improve somewhat playing half his games here, he's not going to turn into A-Rod.

Furthermore, a lot of those singles of the monster might become doubles, and a lot more of them might be caught by decent fielders too with the expanded real estate. Again in those same 155 ABs Damon has all of 3 doubles, and a whopping .365 or so SLG.

This is pure speculation based more upon wishful thinking than any sort of evidence.



I would point out that calling anyone a "complete douchebag" isn't a good idea, let alone when that person is a Yankee.
This guy walks off the field of the Redsox final playoff loss - a series in which he hit .231/.286/.308 - and ten minutes later is telling reporters about how much money he is going to make in the offseason.

He then tells everyone in Boston he would never play for the Yankees and he doesn't care about money, and a month later he takes the biggest offer from the New York Yankees.

What would you like me to call him? And why does the uniform he is wearing change what he is?



It's FOUR years. Not 6 or 7. Four. And the contract wouldn't make Damon unmovable. If he's successful, then the Yankees wouldn't want to trade him, and if he's not successful, nobody would want him regardless of how much money he was making, so it's not this contract that would make him unmovable. Either way, he's not 36 years old, folks. He's 32. He'll be 35 when the contract ends. With today's training methods, it's highly unlikely that a player of Damon's durability would fall off the table before the age of 35.
From age 33 to 34 Bernie dropped off dramatically, despte "today's training methods".

Now granted he has had shoulder and knee problems, but those are things that happen more frequently to aging players. Furthermore he also was dropping off from a much higher level than Damon. If Damon loses a mere .50 or .70 off of his OPS he becomes pretty darned average.

Now Damon may or may not drop off, and I've never said this signing was completely inane. Just that I'm not as excited about it as some others.


I didn't "want" Johnny Damon. I don't think he's spectacular in any particluar facet of the game. Like I said, however, I do particularly like his "pain in the ass" factor on opposing teams. Given the alternatives, (including trading for Reed or Michaels), this turns a big black hole into at the very least a nice smooth surface.
Just feels like more of the same. Another guy we get to speculate every offseason how much he is going to drop off, instead of how much we think he can improve or develop, and wonder if he will be worth the millions, or who on the farm he is blocking.

Meh, Welcome to NY Johnny.

Douche.

;)

Hitman23
12-22-05, 09:25 AM
Thats what happens when you give Pavano $40mil and Wright $30mil. Having Brown on the team didn't stop us from overpaying for 2 awful pitchersI really don't think it had anything to do with what the Yanks could do, it was only an issue of Beltran just not being worth the money he wanted. I agree, two pitchers were grossly overpaid. But the priority at the time was pitching and the Yanks overpaying to get it is expected.

CTSoxFan
12-22-05, 09:26 AM
Also.....

That "other" board got Damon suddenly with a torn cuff. It's amazing the lengths some fans go through; it's an obvious defense mechanism. 99% of Sox fans are sick to their stomachs losing their CF/leadoff man and watching their team having to struggle and overpay to replace him. Bank on that

LOL...this reminds me of the guys in Tampa (I think) spreading the rumor that Andy Marte had his elbow blown out, and would likely miss a year sometime in the near future due to the surgery needed to correct it. Riiiiight...you miss out on the guy, and suddenly he's damaged goods! Denial ain't just a river...

Dooley Womack
12-22-05, 09:26 AM
We knew coming into last season we didn't have a centerfielder. We also knew Brown, like everyother year wouldn't be healthy. We didn't make anymoves last offseason to fix it, and moves clearly could've been made within the boundaries of of roster (Beltran)

I'm of the belief that the Yanks really didn't want Beltran or think he was worth the $. Does anyone truly believe that they would allow the phantom "budget" to stop them from getting a player they want and ESPECIALLY lose him to the Mets?! That was the Yanks way of saying, "Thanks but no thanks" to Beltran and Boros.

Fabien Brandy
12-22-05, 09:26 AM
I think its true that nobody wants the team to openly 'waste' money, but you could argue that if its a player that is a perfect fit like Damon is, the difference between what you'd like to pay him and the 'extra' is not likely the problem. It's a few million here or there, but Damon isn't likely to be a total loss like Kevin Brown.

The bean-counters here should really be attacking Jeter and Giambi and Mussina, who are grossly overpaid. Giving Damon $13M a year instead of $9 or $10M is really immaterial when Jeter will be making $20M+.

JDPNYY
12-22-05, 09:27 AM
I am eagerly anticipating the discussion on Posada's contract next year.

Little Big Sheff
12-22-05, 09:28 AM
No. Kevin Brown at 15 per or Bernie at 12 per did not hurt the Yankees! The fact that they did not do their job hurt them. Whether you are paying a guy a dollar or 20 million, if they don't do their job, that is what hurts the team.

If the Yankees would have won the World Series the last two seasons, would the 15 per or 12 per have hurt them?

This is ridiculous.

Jasbro
12-22-05, 09:28 AM
Thats what happens when you give Pavano $40mil and Wright $30mil. Having Brown on the team didn't stop us from overpaying for 2 awful pitchers


Why you are mourning our "loss" of Beltran's .266 BA, and .744 OPS? Not spending that $90mm to $105mm was the best non-move in recent years by the Yankees.

I think there is a very good chance that Damon outperforms Beltran over the course of both of their current contracts, while costing us about $40mm less in the process...

effdamets
12-22-05, 09:28 AM
Kevin Brown at 15 million and Bernie at 12 more did indeed hurt the Yankees in 2005. It stopped the Yankees from making other deals that may have helped the Yankees go further in the playoffs.
It doesn't have anything to do with their salary, it has to do with performance. The Yankees wouldn't have needed to "make other deals" if Bernie and Brownie did what they were supposed to do. Again, whether you paid them 20 million or minimum wage.

nycdoc999
12-22-05, 09:28 AM
With the luxury tax factored in (and it has to be, since the Yanks are over it and any subsequent signing will cost them tax dollars in addition to the salary paid to the player), Johnny Damon will cost us approximately $18.2M per year for the length of the contract.....

When you think about it that way, it's a TERRIBLY expensive signing. Not sure trading Pavano +/- prospect for Reed would not have been a better way to go. Reed's impact on payroll would have been negligible and offset by trading Pavano and his 3y/30M contract. Of course, I am assuming they could have done that deal - and that may be an incorrect assumption. If it were that easy and Cash actually has control on player/personnel decisions, he would have done it I think....

We'll see if the Sox can pry Reed away from the M's. If they can - and do something like Clement for Reed, I'll be pissed since I think the Pavano/Reed swap could have been done. Even if the M's didn't love Pavano, kickin in Sean Henn would likely have gotten it done.

Little Big Sheff
12-22-05, 09:30 AM
Lots of people on this forum wouldn't have said a thing because it would've been a Red Sox issue and not a Yankee one.

So how comes weakening the Sox is cited as a good side of this deal?

Dooley Womack
12-22-05, 09:31 AM
LOL...this reminds me of the guys in Tampa (I think) spreading the rumor that Andy Marte had his elbow blown out, and would likely miss a year sometime in the near future due to the surgery needed to correct it. Riiiiight...you miss out on the guy, and suddenly he's damaged goods! Denial ain't just a river...

I agree, it works both ways and like I said it's a natural defense mechanism for some.

RhodeyYankee2638
12-22-05, 09:32 AM
Why you are mourning our "loss" of Beltran's .266 BA, and .744 OPS? Not spending that $90mm to $105mm was the best non-move in recent years by the Yankees.

I think there is a very good chance that Damon outperforms Beltran over the course of both of their current contracts, while costing us about $40mm less in the process...

We spent $70mil on pitchers who combined didn't pitch 100 innings last year. Neither looks too good, at least Beltran played a solid outfield. I agree overpaid and overrated. At least he played

CTSoxFan
12-22-05, 09:32 AM
So how comes weakening the Sox is cited as a good side of this deal?

Because they're the (direct) competition. Assume Damon is worth a modest total of two wins over the course of a season, all by himself. Signing him away from Boston not only gives YOU those two wins, but takes the wins away from the Sox (pending how they replace him, of course). So now it's a four-game swing.

Little Big Sheff
12-22-05, 09:33 AM
Thats what happens when you give Pavano $40mil and Wright $30mil. Having Brown on the team didn't stop us from overpaying for 2 awful pitchers

You take this the wrong way.

Having Brown on the team forced us to sign other pitchers.

There is no way Brown at 15 per is the same burden than Brown's production for league minimum. No way. This is an argument that cannot be defended rationally.

HomeBrewRSFan
12-22-05, 09:33 AM
LOL...this reminds me of the guys in Tampa (I think) spreading the rumor that Andy Marte had his elbow blown out, and would likely miss a year sometime in the near future due to the surgery needed to correct it. Riiiiight...you miss out on the guy, and suddenly he's damaged goods! Denial ain't just a river...
First off, it was one guy that was speculating that was a rotator cuff injury. Second, those were posts that were made close to a month ago.

Originally I was having fun discussing this deal with some Yankee fans, especially bantering back and forth with guys like Tifoso and others last night, much like I will enjoy talking about it with my Yankee Fan Mother in law.

But a lot of you guys see "Red Sox Fan" and automatically assume we are trying to bait or discredit the yankees for what they have done rather than having an open and honest discussion about what is going on between the two teams. I only brought up the other board because it was proof that I have held these beliefs about Damon for awhile now, not to show how GD smart I was or anything else.

CTSoxFan
12-22-05, 09:34 AM
I agree, it works both ways and like I said it's a natural defense mechanism for some.

The only time I've ever invoked it (and felt justified) was when Clemens signed with the Blue Jays in '96. (And if you look at what the Texas Con Man did to/for the Red Sox in the preceding four years, you'll understand why.) Needless to say, that worked out spectacularly well. :)

Little Big Sheff
12-22-05, 09:36 AM
The bean-counters here should really be attacking Jeter and Giambi and Mussina, who are grossly overpaid. Giving Damon $13M a year instead of $9 or $10M is really immaterial when Jeter will be making $20M+.

Very good point. But when you adjust for market conditions, I am not sure Damon for 13 per is that far off.

Little Big Sheff
12-22-05, 09:39 AM
Because they're the (direct) competition. Assume Damon is worth a modest total of two wins over the course of a season, all by himself. Signing him away from Boston not only gives YOU those two wins, but takes the wins away from the Sox (pending how they replace him, of course). So now it's a four-game swing.

My post was in response to the people saying we wouldn't have criticized the Sox for a 4/52 signing of Damon, because that would have been a Sox matter.

I agree with you, Sox matters are obviously Yankees matters.

hobokenfish
12-22-05, 09:40 AM
Very good point. But when you adjust for market conditions, I am not sure Damon for 13 per is that far off.

I really don't think it is, given the contracts signed this off-season. He got the same deal as Matsui. And I'd rather have Damon for 4/52 than BJ Ryan or AJ Burnett for what they are getting paid.

BronxByTheBay
12-22-05, 09:41 AM
Just feels like more of the same. Another guy we get to speculate every offseason how much he is going to drop off, instead of how much we think he can improve or develop, and wonder if he will be worth the millions, or who on the farm he is blocking.

Meh, Welcome to NY Johnny.

Douche.

;)

Except the folks doing that speculation are those who don't like the deal. What's this "we" stuff, white man? ;)

We need a CFer desperately. There virtually was no CF market. So we overpaid in money for a guy who by all accounts will at the very least be "okay" to "good", which is a huge improvement on the situation from the last couple of seasons. I don't quite get the teeth-gnashing over this.

As for the "greedy ballplayer" stuff, well, welcome to MLB in 2005, Wile. I'm not going to begrudge baseball players for wanting as much money as they can possibly make. Perhaps guys like Damon are simply more honest than most (sure, the "I'll never play for the Yankees" comment was just stupid...but what do you expect, he is a self-proclaimed idiot. It's the media and fans who decided the term was a goof. I bet Damon meant it.)

If you want to spend the off-season obsessing over how much "decline" this guy or that will be in, you must be in pain every off-season because most ballplayers not named Barry Bonds decline. I think the word "decline" is used too much around these parts, and for the most part misused.

effdamets
12-22-05, 09:44 AM
You take this the wrong way.

Having Brown on the team forced us to sign other pitchers.

There is no way Brown at 15 per is the same burden than Brown's production for league minimum. No way. This is an argument that cannot be defended rationally.
Rationally? We wouldn't have needed other pitchers if Brown would have done what he was supposed to do!

MisterNovember
12-22-05, 09:45 AM
Sorry if this has been asked already, but has a press conference been scheduled yet?

Little Big Sheff
12-22-05, 09:45 AM
I really don't think it is, given the contracts signed this off-season. He got the same deal as Matsui. And I'd rather have Damon for 4/52 than BJ Ryan or AJ Burnett for what they are getting paid.

Other people signed the same contracts as Jeter and Moose. And I'd rather have Jeter or Moose for 18-19 per than Darren Dreifort or Chan Ho Park for what they are getting paid.

Dooley Womack
12-22-05, 09:47 AM
First off, it was one guy that was speculating that was a rotator cuff injury. Second, those were posts that were made close to a month ago.



If you're talking about Damon, I suggest you go to SoSH and read the last few pages of the Damon thread. A whole lot more than one person are saying that they believe he has a torn cuff and this wasn't a month ago; it's since Damon signed with the Yanks 2 days ago.

Little Big Sheff
12-22-05, 09:48 AM
Rationally? We wouldn't have needed other pitchers if Brown would have done what he was supposed to do!

Wang, Chacon and Cano have awesome value because they give us league average or above league average production for minimal salary, allowing us to allocate our resources to other needs (pen, CF, etc ... )

Brown, Bernie 03-05 and others are albatrosses because they are sunk, unmoveable costs, AND we need even more resources to replace them.

It's that simple

wileedog
12-22-05, 09:49 AM
Except the folks doing that speculation are those who don't like the deal. What's this "we" stuff, white man? ;)

We need a CFer desperately. There virtually was no CF market. So we overpaid in money for a guy who by all accounts will at the very least be "okay" to "good", which is a huge improvement on the situation from the last couple of seasons. I don't quite get the teeth-gnashing over this.

As for the "greedy ballplayer" stuff, well, welcome to MLB in 2005, Wile. I'm not going to begrudge baseball players for wanting as much money as they can possibly make. Perhaps guys like Damon are simply more honest than most (sure, the "I'll never play for the Yankees" comment was just stupid...but what do you expect, he is a self-proclaimed idiot. It's the media and fans who decided the term was a goof. I bet Damon meant it.)

If you want to spend the off-season obsessing over how much "decline" this guy or that will be in, you must be in pain every off-season because most ballplayers not named Barry Bonds decline. I think the word "decline" is used too much around these parts, and for the most part misused.

I know, and I've warmed to the whole thing since I wrote the original post that bakntime quoted.

Just was hoping we could find a more creative solution, one that preferrably didn't include Damon.

I'll get over it.

RhodeyYankee2638
12-22-05, 09:51 AM
Have you watched Michales play regularly or are you just hearing his name for the first time the past month or so? What can you share about him? You seem very determined about getting him so I'm just wondering.

I have Extra Innings and watch the Phils about 40 times a year, I've seen Michaels play 10 or 15 times.

effdamets
12-22-05, 09:51 AM
Wang, Chacon and Cano have awesome value because they give us league average or above league average production for minimal salary, allowing us to allocate our resources to other needs (pen, CF, etc ... )

Brown, Bernie 03-05 and others are albatrosses because they are sunk, unmoveable costs, AND we need even more resources to replace them.

It's that simple

If Brown and Bernie did what they were supposed to do in 03-05, there would not be a reason to move them or replace them.

nycdoc999
12-22-05, 09:52 AM
There are not too many players with AAV contracts in the $18M+ range:


A Rod $25M
Bonds $22M
Manny $20M
Jeter $19M

Giambi $17M

All of the above - with the exception of Giambi, maybe - are game-changing players. Whether their salaries are "fair" or deserved is another issue. The market will pay what the market will pay....

That being said - vlad's 5y/70M deal and Ortiz's deal are the steals of the bunch, I would think.

Little Big Sheff
12-22-05, 09:54 AM
If Brown and Bernie did what they were supposed to do in 03-05, there would not be a reason to move them or replace them.

You still don't understand my point.
IF Bernie and Brown were cheaper players, we could have moved them, or let them rot on the bench and bring a replacement. Instead, they stunk AND swallowed nearly 30 million per over the last two years.

How much a player costs IS important?

bostonyankeefan
12-22-05, 09:56 AM
So how comes weakening the Sox is cited as a good side of this deal?

Because they are (or were) or primary competition for the Division and in the playoffs for the past several years. Far more important for us is filling the hole in center field.

chanman7483
12-22-05, 09:59 AM
an e-mail I got from a coworker..

...the week before Christmas
and all across MLB
a couple of AL East teams were looking
at a shaggy haired signee.

He played centerfield
and a good one at that,
with quick legs, a good eye,
and some pop in his bat.

Sure he looks a bit like Jesus
and he throws a little like a girl,
"But, it's Christmas!" the Boss shouted,
so Cashman gave it a whirl.

"A traitor!" Beantown screamed
into the frosty New England air,
but those howls fell unheard
as Damon will soon cut his hair.

The Yanks are no Idiots
and they patiently waited,
for the Sawx lack of pursuit
to agent Boras it must surely have grated.

Well, all that matters now
is that Damon will toast the NY town
Leading the Evil Empire once again
to its 9th consecutive AL East crown.

You snooze, you lose Boston. Our GM is celebrating this Chanukah with a job, what's yours doing? The buses and subways in NYC may not be working, but the Yanks never sleep. You reached the summit once on a fluke, but the incompetence that plagues all six states in N.E. is coming through once again.

Warm X-Mas wishes,

Manhattan Marathon Maresca

Little Big Sheff
12-22-05, 09:59 AM
Because they are (or were) or primary competition for the Division and in the playoffs for the past several years. Far more important for us is filling the hole in center field.

I know. That was my point actually.

RhodeyYankee2638
12-22-05, 10:02 AM
You still don't understand my point.
IF Bernie and Brown were cheaper players, we could have moved them, or let them rot on the bench and bring a replacement. Instead, they stunk AND swallowed nearly 30 million per over the last two years.

How much a player costs IS important?



Well we couldn't move Brown cause you can't trade a player on the DL. We did bring in replacements (Wang, Chacon, Small) who did outstanding. I guess I dont understand your point. No way we would move Bernie, no matter what his price tag was.

Jasbro
12-22-05, 10:03 AM
If Brown and Bernie did what they were supposed to do in 03-05, there would not be a reason to move them or replace them.

Huh? Brown is at the end of his contract. Whether or not he "did what he was supposed to do" he was not going to return. We would have to replace him this year regardless of how he performed.

And Bernie earned every penny of his contract while here. His last year was clearly a disaster, but he earned his paychecks -- and then some -- over the course of his contract. Bernie in '03 and '04 actually had better years than Beltran had last year. '05 was the price we paid for signing him to a long term contract. I have little doubt that the Mets will pay a similiar price for their ridiculous Beltran contract -- if they have not already started to....

Anyone who thinks Bernie's contract was an albatross either has only been watching baseball for 2 years, or has a very, very short memory.

hobokenfish
12-22-05, 10:03 AM
Other people signed the same contracts as Jeter and Moose. And I'd rather have Jeter or Moose for 18-19 per than Darren Dreifort or Chan Ho Park for what they are getting paid.

Exactly. Not to mention the Mike Hampton and Denny Nagle contracts that sucked the life out of Colorado.

yankeebot
12-22-05, 10:05 AM
And Bernie earned every penny of his contract while here. His last year was clearly a disaster, but he earned his paychecks -- and then some -- over the course of his contract. Bernie in '03 and '04 actually had better years than Beltran had last year. '05 was the price we paid for signing him to a long term contract. I have little doubt that the Mets will pay a similiar price for their ridiculous Beltran contract -- if they have not already started to....

Anyone who thinks Bernie's contract was an albatross either has only been watching baseball for 2 years, or has a very, very short memory.Not to mention if we had not given Bernie that contract he would have been playing for Boston.

HomeBrewRSFan
12-22-05, 10:06 AM
If you're talking about Damon, I suggest you go to SoSH and read the last few pages of the Damon thread. A whole lot more than one person are saying that they believe he has a torn cuff and this wasn't a month ago; it's since Damon signed with the Yanks 2 days ago.If we are talking SoSH then all bets are off, there are some serious idiots over there now and I haven't read that board for awhile.

CalYankeeFan
12-22-05, 10:07 AM
:lol:
Curse of the Dambino! :roflmao:

http://www.nydailynews.com/ips_rich_content/837-BACK_BIG.jpg

CalYankeeFan
12-22-05, 10:08 AM
If we are talking SoSH then all bets are off, there are some serious idiots over there now and I haven't read that board for awhile.

there now?

Dooley Womack
12-22-05, 10:09 AM
I have Extra Innings and watch the Phils about 40 times a year, I've seen Michaels play 10 or 15 times.

From the little you've seen of him would you ever take him over Damon?

Dooley Womack
12-22-05, 10:10 AM
If we are talking SoSH then all bets are off, there are some serious idiots over there now and I haven't read that board for awhile.

Things they are saying are mind-blowing. Usually it's 1-2 idiots repeating themselves, but now it seems like the majority are losing their minds.

Fabien Brandy
12-22-05, 10:11 AM
The more a player is owed makes it worse when they are terrible (Brown paid $15M but 'worth' nothing) but I think people go too far in criticizing contracts when its a matter of a little too much per year for a guy who otherwise fills a need and doesn't need to be replaced. If the Yankees had Brown under contract for $1M instead of $15M in 2005, would they have been able to spend more on pitching instead of just the contracts to Randy Johnson, Carl Pavano and Jaret Wright?

effdamets
12-22-05, 10:12 AM
You still don't understand my point.
IF Bernie and Brown were cheaper players, we could have moved them, or let them rot on the bench and bring a replacement. Instead, they stunk AND swallowed nearly 30 million per over the last two years.

How much a player costs IS important?


I don't think you understand my point....

If Brown was winning 17 games a season, would you wanted to have moved him? If they player is performing, there is no need to move him. Therefore, the factor of moving him depends on his performance, whether or not he is being paid handsomely or not. You are assuming that all players need to be moved because they will perform poorly, so why sign anyone? To me, that is not how you build a winning team. If you give a guy 15 million, you have to expect that he will perform to that level. If he doesn't you've made a mistake and will have to live with the consequences.

ShaneTravis
12-22-05, 10:12 AM
LOL...this reminds me of the guys in Tampa (I think) spreading the rumor that Andy Marte had his elbow blown out, and would likely miss a year sometime in the near future due to the surgery needed to correct it. Riiiiight...you miss out on the guy, and suddenly he's damaged goods! Denial ain't just a river...

Rotoworld and Boston Herald were the only sources I heard on that matter.

http://fantasybaseball.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_previousnews.asp?sport=MLB&leaguenum=&id=7291

Dec. 16, 2005 - 3:17 am et

Agent Don Mitchell said reports of Andy Marte having a damaged UCL in his right elbow were completely false.
It was reported last week that a team that had interest in acquiring Marte before he was dealt to Boston turned away because the Braves acknowledged he had a torn ulnar collateral ligament. "There have been no doctor visits, no surgeries, no sore elbow, no anything," Mitchell said. "He’s been playing in the Dominican, he’s been hitting, he’s been throwing and he’s been having no physical problems whatsoever."
Source: Boston Herald

Dec. 9, 2005 - 4:28 am et

A source told the Boston Herald another team that was interested in Andy Marte turned away after the Braves acknowledged the player had a tear in the ulnar collateral ligament of an elbow.
A Red Sox official said the team reviewed his medical file and declared him healthy. If Marte has a tear in his UCL, he might someday need Tommy John surgery. It's not as big of a concern for him as it would be for a pitcher, but it could leave the Red Sox without his services for a year.
Source: Boston Herald

RhodeyYankee2638
12-22-05, 10:13 AM
From the little you've seen of him would you ever take him over Damon?

I'm not a scout, I really did't see anything special. He doesn't play, no way to know how he will do in a full season

Dooley Womack
12-22-05, 10:15 AM
I'm not a scout, I really did't see anything special. He doesn't play, no way to know how he will do in a full season

That'll be your assignment for the coming season. Not only scouting Michaels, but the entire NL.

PeteRFNY
12-22-05, 10:17 AM
I came up with a brilliant idea…when the Yankees have the press conferences to inroduce Damon they should have a barber come out and cut his hair while he takes questions from the media!

Where's Bill Veeck when you need him?

RhodeyYankee2638
12-22-05, 10:19 AM
That'll be your assignment for the coming season. Not only scouting Michaels, but the entire NL.

I hear Brad Wilkerson wont cost us Wang or Cano cause the Nats dont want him. We should trade for him

RhodeyYankee2638
12-22-05, 10:20 AM
I came up with a brilliant idea…when the Yankees have the press conferences to inroduce Damon they should have a barber come out and cut his hair while he takes questions from the media!

Where's Bill Veeck when you need him?

I'd love to see him walk in completely bald with a Don Mattingly mustache. Hilarious!

Dooley Womack
12-22-05, 10:22 AM
I hear Brad Wilkerson wont cost us Wang or Cano cause the Nats dont want him. We should trade for him

Then get on him, man. Maybe we can then trade Damon back to the Sox for Jonathan Paperboy and 12 million in cash.

RhodeyYankee2638
12-22-05, 10:23 AM
Then get on him, man. Maybe we can then trade Damon back to the Sox for Jonathan Paperboy and 12 million in cash.

Oh wait, sorry, Soriano was traded for him. I thought from all the talk on this board he would come for Aaron Small or Scott Proctor.

Sam18
12-22-05, 10:25 AM
What's wrong with getting Michaels?

RhodeyYankee2638
12-22-05, 10:25 AM
What's wrong with getting Michaels?

Nothing wrong if he is going to be our backup outfielder or RF'er, or wont cost the farm

Fabien Brandy
12-22-05, 10:27 AM
Oh wait, sorry, Soriano was traded for him. I thought from all the talk on this board he would come for Aaron Small or Scott Proctor.
More like Aaron Small and Scott Proctor. Bowden hated Wilkerson so, so much.

RhodeyYankee2638
12-22-05, 10:28 AM
More like Aaron Small and Scott Proctor. Bowden hated Wilkerson so, so much.

Oh boy, Aaron Small ANNNNND SCOTT PROCTOR!!!! He better send Soriano back

Sam18
12-22-05, 10:32 AM
Nothing wrong if he is going to be our backup outfielder or RF'er, or wont cost the farm

Isn't the asking price like Melky and Henn?

RhodeyYankee2638
12-22-05, 10:32 AM
Isn't the asking price like Melky and Henn?

If that is the asking price, Cashman would be an idiot not to accept. Henn can throw batting practice to the Phils

Sam18
12-22-05, 10:38 AM
If that is the asking price, Cashman would be an idiot not to accept. Henn can throw batting practice to the Phils

For some reason we think very highly of Henn.

Little Big Sheff
12-22-05, 10:45 AM
I don't think you understand my point....

If Brown was winning 17 games a season, would you wanted to have moved him? If they player is performing, there is no need to move him. Therefore, the factor of moving him depends on his performance, whether or not he is being paid handsomely or not. You are assuming that all players need to be moved because they will perform poorly, so why sign anyone? To me, that is not how you build a winning team. If you give a guy 15 million, you have to expect that he will perform to that level. If he doesn't you've made a mistake and will have to live with the consequences.

The first point I was replying to was the one saying that stat geeks only talk about production / value ratios, as if this was a bad thing.

When you say "If you give a guy 15 million, you have to expect that he will perform to that level" I couldn't disagree more. It should work the other way around : you should evaluate whether the guy has a good chance of performing to the tune of 15 per, and only then you give him that money.

Had Brown performed and won 17 games, of course I wouldn't have moved him. My main point is that the opportunity cost of Brown not performing, or on the DL, is not the same as the opportunity cost of Chacon not performing, or on the DL.

Little Big Sheff
12-22-05, 10:47 AM
Well we couldn't move Brown cause you can't trade a player on the DL. We did bring in replacements (Wang, Chacon, Small) who did outstanding. I guess I dont understand your point. No way we would move Bernie, no matter what his price tag was.

Even then, Brown on the DL matters more to the Yankees than say, Wang on the DL.
That's where the expression "money coming off the books" comes from : you are happy because you can re-allocate resources elsewhere.

Dooley Womack
12-22-05, 10:52 AM
I'd love to see him walk in completely bald with a Don Mattingly mustache. Hilarious!
................

RhodeyYankee2638
12-22-05, 10:54 AM
................

Dooley, you make Picasso look like a freakin 3 year old

Dooley Womack
12-22-05, 10:54 AM
Dooley, you make Picasso look like a freakin 3 year old

To my two?

IncredibleByNature
12-22-05, 10:56 AM
A belated welcome aboard to Johnny (it's even weird to call him that). It's gonna take me some time to get used to this, but I wish you lots of success as a Yank. :gulp:

Dooley Womack
12-22-05, 10:57 AM
A belated welcome aboard to Johnny (it's even weird to call him that). It's gonna take me some time to get used to this, but I wish you lots of success as a Yank. :gulp:

'Tis about time you chimed in! ;)

Hitman23
12-22-05, 10:59 AM
A belated welcome aboard to Johnny (it's even weird to call him that). It's gonna take me some time to get used to this, but I wish you lots of success as a Yank. :gulp:You should be used to ex Sox becoming Yanks by now.

RhodeyYankee2638
12-22-05, 11:00 AM
A belated welcome aboard to Johnny (it's even weird to call him that). It's gonna take me some time to get used to this, but I wish you lots of success as a Yank. :gulp:

I think his name in Yankee Stadium should be anounced as "Jonathan Damon"

Dooley Womack
12-22-05, 11:01 AM
I think his name in Yankee Stadium should be anounced as "Jonathan Damon"

And ask the crowd for complete silence before Jonathan is announced.

RhodeyYankee2638
12-22-05, 11:02 AM
And ask the crowd for complete silence before Jonathan is announced.

he will bat in a silk tuxedo

IncredibleByNature
12-22-05, 11:03 AM
You should be used to ex Sox becoming Yanks by now.

I guess so, but it just feels...weirder w/ Damon for some reason. It was weird w/ Bellhorn too, but not as weird as this. I can't really explain it. :lol:

Dools- :D I just don't think it has truly hit me yet that he is a Yankee now.

Rhodey- Some fans would be like "Jonathan Damon? Who's that?" then they'd go "Oooooooooh, Johnny Damon."

Dooley Womack
12-22-05, 11:05 AM
he will bat in a silk tuxedo

And use his walking stick as a bat.

Dooley Womack
12-22-05, 11:07 AM
I guess so, but it just feels...weirder w/ Damon for some reason. It was weird w/ Bellhorn too, but not as weird as this. I can't really explain it. :lol:


Rhodey- Some fans would be like "Jonathan Damon? Who's that?" then they'd go "Oooooooooh, Johnny Damon, formally of the Boston Red Stockings."

..........

IncredibleByNature
12-22-05, 11:10 AM
..........

Took me a few seconds till I realized you edited my post. :lol:

Hitman23
12-22-05, 11:11 AM
I guess so, but it just feels...weirder w/ Damon for some reason. It was weird w/ Bellhorn too, but not as weird as this. I can't really explain it. :lol:Bellhorn was a mole. He was responsible for the defeat. Somehow.

I don't think it's weird. He was a FA. Doesn't matter where he came from.

IncredibleByNature
12-22-05, 11:18 AM
Bellhorn was a mole. He was responsible for the defeat. Somehow.

I don't think it's weird. He was a FA. Doesn't matter where he came from.

It's weird for me b/c I spent so many years rooting against the guy (and fearing him to an extent), not just as a Red Sox, but back when he was on the A's as well. I was against the signing at first (and it had nothing to do w/ the fact he was a Red Sox, but b/c of the type of contract/$$$ he'd demand), but I've warmed up to it and completely welcome and support him now.

Dooley Womack
12-22-05, 11:21 AM
Took me a few seconds till I realized you edited my post. :lol:

:lol: If you're like me and haven't gone to sleep (off this week) since our early morn PM I can't blame you one bit.

IncredibleByNature
12-22-05, 11:22 AM
:lol: If you're like me and haven't gone to sleep (off this week) since our early morn PM I can't blame you one bit.

I actually haven't slept a wink. I laid down in bed for awhile, but I dunno, I didn't feel like sleeping. :lol:

PittsburghYankeeFan
12-22-05, 11:31 AM
Man--I go off this board for a few hours to work, and wow...

Can I ask a few questions without getting flamed?

(1) To the "RSHomeBoy" and whatever your names are (sorry if I don't get them right): why come on a Yankee message board and try to justify how bad Damon is going to become? It simply reinforces the impression (screaming across the media right now) that Boston Sox fans are broken up about this (as they should be). If you are so broken up and angry about it, it reinforces the belief of some of us that there is some real value to Damon (at least in the short term). If he was bad (ie like Bellhorn) you wouldn't care.

(2) To the rest of us (worried about the long term of Damon): One thing that nobody has talked about is the expiration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement next December. Once the CBA expires, all bets are off--everything. Who knows what the business landscape will look like? Salary cap and cuttable contracts (like the NFL)? One year lockout (like the NHL)? Who the heck knows? So all of this talk of long term declines, and paying too much for four years, really has to be evaluated in these terms.

You do everything to win in 2006, and worry about 2007 and beyond when the new CBA is agreed to. In this sense, the Damon signing was perfect.

Sam18
12-22-05, 11:38 AM
Man--I go off this board for a few hours to work, and wow...

Can I ask a few questions without getting flamed?

(1) To the "RSHomeBoy" and whatever your names are (sorry if I don't get them right): why come on a Yankee message board and try to justify how bad Damon is going to become? It simply reinforces the impression (screaming across the media right now) that Boston Sox fans are broken up about this (as they should be). If you are so broken up and angry about it, it reinforces the belief of some of us that there is some real value to Damon (at least in the short term). If he was bad (ie like Bellhorn) you wouldn't care.

(2) To the rest of us (worried about the long term of Damon): One thing that nobody has talked about is the expiration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement next December. Once the CBA expires, all bets are off--everything. Who knows what the business landscape will look like? Salary cap and cuttable contracts (like the NFL)? One year lockout (like the NHL)? Who the heck knows? So all of this talk of long term declines, and paying too much for four years, really has to be evaluated in these terms.

You do everything to win in 2006, and worry about 2007 and beyond when the new CBA is agreed to. In this sense, the Damon signing was perfect.

I can answer #1 for you. SOSH didn't take him.

effdamets
12-22-05, 11:39 AM
The first point I was replying to was the one saying that stat geeks only talk about production / value ratios, as if this was a bad thing.

When you say "If you give a guy 15 million, you have to expect that he will perform to that level" I couldn't disagree more. It should work the other way around : you should evaluate whether the guy has a good chance of performing to the tune of 15 per, and only then you give him that money.

Had Brown performed and won 17 games, of course I wouldn't have moved him. My main point is that the opportunity cost of Brown not performing, or on the DL, is not the same as the opportunity cost of Chacon not performing, or on the DL.
I have never said anything about stat geeks or production / value ratios.

The original point was "did Kevin Brown at 15 mil per year hurt the Yankees and 13 mil a year for Bernie hurt the Yankees". My objection is, that it was their performance that hurt them, not the money

It’s easy to say “the Yankees should have - but couldn’t move them” now, in hindsight, because these players did not perform well. But had they performed well, we are not having this conversation.

Also, the Yankees had already given out the money, so it's obvious that they thought those players should perform to a certain 15 million dollar level (whatever the heck that is).

This doesn't have anything to do with the disabled list either. Bringing Kevin Brown on board is an injury risk. That is the chance you take. And agreeing to pay him 15 million on top of that is a double risk, in my mind. But again, this is not what hurt the Yankees the last couple of seasons. Their performances have hurt them. And I think the stat people will back me on this one. If the Yankees had hit better with men in scoring position, would they have faired better against the Angels? Probably. And that is a performance issue, not a money issue or an injury issue.

That is all I am saying.

38Special
12-22-05, 11:48 AM
GUYS GUYS....his numbers were worse away from home!


We're Doomed!

If only we had talented center fielders waiting in the wings like Adam Stern and Justin Sherrod


le sigh

jcan411
12-22-05, 11:51 AM
This sums up how I feel...

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5188220

When you look at Damon's numbers there really is nothing worth 13 mil a year. There are really a ton of other guys that can play as well, for much less money. Am I glad we have him? maybe. But, it sure seems that he was aproduct more of fenway park than a great hitter. His line is going to be .280/.345/.450 I bet and thats really sub-par. I hate this signing, I really do. Just because we can afford to sign these players does not mean we should.

YankeeFan1
12-22-05, 11:52 AM
I just saw this article in the Boston Globe gives a better sense of the Damon negotiations.

"According to industry sources with direct knowledge of the negotiations, that's not quite how it went down: The Yankees made Boras a take-it-or-leave-it offer, and gave him until yesterday to respond. The proposal was never for more than four years, guaranteed. Technically, Boras was not fibbing when he told the Sox that he had a five-year, $65 million offer -- he insisted yesterday that Damon didn't take the highest offer, suggesting a third team was involved (perhaps Baltimore, though that could not be confirmed) but if it was the Yankees' offer to which he was referring, he never made it clear the fifth year was a club option, and that the guaranteed money was the same in a four-year or five-year proposal.

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2005/12/22/no_need_for_it_to_end_like_this/

Mr. Mxylsplk
12-22-05, 11:54 AM
But, it sure seems that he was aproduct more of fenway park than a great hitter.
2 of his 3 best seasons were before he came to Boston.

jcan411
12-22-05, 11:54 AM
Man--I go off this board for a few hours to work, and wow...

Can I ask a few questions without getting flamed?

(1) To the "RSHomeBoy" and whatever your names are (sorry if I don't get them right): why come on a Yankee message board and try to justify how bad Damon is going to become? It simply reinforces the impression (screaming across the media right now) that Boston Sox fans are broken up about this (as they should be). If you are so broken up and angry about it, it reinforces the belief of some of us that there is some real value to Damon (at least in the short term). If he was bad (ie like Bellhorn) you wouldn't care.

(2) To the rest of us (worried about the long term of Damon): One thing that nobody has talked about is the expiration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement next December. Once the CBA expires, all bets are off--everything. Who knows what the business landscape will look like? Salary cap and cuttable contracts (like the NFL)? One year lockout (like the NHL)? Who the heck knows? So all of this talk of long term declines, and paying too much for four years, really has to be evaluated in these terms.

You do everything to win in 2006, and worry about 2007 and beyond when the new CBA is agreed to. In this sense, the Damon signing was perfect.

I'm sure glad your not the GM of the yankees. Doing a contract with the hope that the new bargaining agreement will make it more 'moveable' has got to be one of the worst ideas, not to mention unrealistic, you could have as a GM. Thats like structuring your business with the hope of a governmental regualtion change in a year. There is absolutely no way that that had anything to do with Damon's contract, and if it did, cashman should be fired...

jcan411
12-22-05, 11:56 AM
2 of his 3 best seasons were before he came to Boston.

When he was also under 28....he's 32 now. Most players have better numbers 26-32.

YankeeFan1
12-22-05, 11:56 AM
This sums up how I feel...

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5188220

When you look at Damon's numbers there really is nothing worth 13 mil a year. There are really a ton of other guys that can play as well, for much less money. Am I glad we have him? maybe. But, it sure seems that he was aproduct more of fenway park than a great hitter. His line is going to be .280/.345/.450 I bet and thats really sub-par. I hate this signing, I really do. Just because we can afford to sign these players does not mean we should. I'm not thrilled with the Yankees signing Damon either, but I'm not buying all the doom and gloom about his suddenly decline from Red Sox fans in the media and on the Internet. Until Damon hits next season, none of us really know squat about what will happen to his performance and that includes bitter Red Sox fans like Hench.

jcan411
12-22-05, 11:59 AM
I'm not thrilled with the Yankees signing Damon either, but I'm not buying all the doom and gloom about his suddenly decline from Red Sox fans in the media and on the Internet. Until Damon hits next season, none of us really know squat about what will happen to his performance and that includes bitter Red Sox fans like Hench.

I'm not even really talking about a decline. I am talking more about the status quo. Status quo Damon is not that great. and for 13 million you should be getting a great player. I would bet yuou almost anything his numbers next year will be heavily duplicated by CF making much less, who were available...

Jasbro
12-22-05, 12:05 PM
I'm not even really talking about a decline. I am talking more about the status quo. Status quo Damon is not that great. and for 13 million you should be getting a great player. I would bet yuou almost anything his numbers next year will be heavily duplicated by CF making much less, who were available...

Perhaps, but they would have also cost bodies. The Yankees have plenty of cash, and want and need to conserve bodies. The savings in prospects or roster players more than outweighs the cost in cash. And none of the other options have been vulcanized in the pressure cooker of the AL East like Damon has.

Add to this the fact that we also significantly weaken the Sox in the process, and you have a pretty decent value -- even while overpaying a little bit.

YankeeFan1
12-22-05, 12:05 PM
I'm not even really talking about a decline. I am talking more about the status quo. Status quo Damon is not that great. and for 13 million you should be getting a great player. I would bet yuou almost anything his numbers next year will be heavily duplicated by CF making much less, who were available... Fair enough. Right now, I don't see anyone who is available to the Yankees with their limited trading chips or anyone who has been non-tendered who comes close to Damon, but if you do, name the CF players who are available to the Yankees now so this comparison can be done at the end of next season. I wanted an inexpensive solid defensive centerfielder myself, but I never believed for a second that they could produce offensively anything close to Damon even if he had this dramatic decline being predicted.

PittsburghYankeeFan
12-22-05, 12:06 PM
I'm sure glad your not the GM of the yankees. Doing a contract with the hope that the new bargaining agreement will make it more 'moveable' has got to be one of the worst ideas, not to mention unrealistic, you could have as a GM. Thats like structuring your business with the hope of a governmental regualtion change in a year. There is absolutely no way that that had anything to do with Damon's contract, and if it did, cashman should be fired...

Who said Damon's contract was structured to be movable before or after the CBA? My point is that beyond 2006 there is no telling what the business landscape will look like. When we speculate on the market in 2007 and beyond (to compare to Damon's decline or not, and how tradable he will be or not) we need to take into account that the new CBA may completely change that market. I for one am fine with the contract as it is, even if the CBA remains the same.

PittsburghYankeeFan
12-22-05, 12:09 PM
Rotoworld and Boston Herald were the only sources I heard on that matter.

http://fantasybaseball.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_previousnews.asp?sport=MLB&leaguenum=&id=7291

Dec. 16, 2005 - 3:17 am et

Agent Don Mitchell said reports of Andy Marte having a damaged UCL in his right elbow were completely false.
It was reported last week that a team that had interest in acquiring Marte before he was dealt to Boston turned away because the Braves acknowledged he had a torn ulnar collateral ligament. "There have been no doctor visits, no surgeries, no sore elbow, no anything," Mitchell said. "He’s been playing in the Dominican, he’s been hitting, he’s been throwing and he’s been having no physical problems whatsoever."
Source: Boston Herald

Dec. 9, 2005 - 4:28 am et

A source told the Boston Herald another team that was interested in Andy Marte turned away after the Braves acknowledged the player had a tear in the ulnar collateral ligament of an elbow.
A Red Sox official said the team reviewed his medical file and declared him healthy. If Marte has a tear in his UCL, he might someday need Tommy John surgery. It's not as big of a concern for him as it would be for a pitcher, but it could leave the Red Sox without his services for a year.
Source: Boston Herald

I know Boston is the center of American medicine and all, but does it concern anyone that the same crew that did the "operation" on Schilling's ankle is declaring the shoulder of Beckett and the elbow of Marte OK?

Mr. Mxylsplk
12-22-05, 12:13 PM
When he was also under 28....he's 32 now. Most players have better numbers 26-32.
Who said anything about now? You said Fenway was responsible for him looking like a good hitter. The facts suggest otherwise.

yankswn23
12-22-05, 12:22 PM
You say that based on what? I've heard this "Jeter is more comfortable blah blah", but there's no statistical evidence to back it up. If you know him personally and he's said that to you, then please share that with us. Otherwise, tell me how and why you think that way.

Think this guy knows him pretty well...

Giambi excited: Jason Giambi, who played with Damon in Oakland, helped recruit the center fielder.

"Johnny and I spoke a few times over the last week and I strongly encouraged him to sign with the Yankees," Giambi said through his agent, Arn Tellem. "It is good to know that our lineup next year will include a natural leadoff hitter whose presence allows Jeter and A-Rod to return to their preferred places in the batting order. Johnny is a good friend and a great guy to have in the clubhouse. I am very excited about having him as a teammate again."

Minime
12-22-05, 12:32 PM
When Jeter first became the leadoff hitter, i remember him saying that even though he had much better career stats as a leadoff hitter at the time (I'm pretty sure he was batting over .400), he liked being the number 2 hitter better. While I'm sure he feels alienated by both A-Rod and Damon saying that Damon is a better leadoff hitter than Jeter, I'm also sure he'll enjoy having Damon on the basepaths distracting the pitchers while he's up, just like Knoblauch. Besides, I think everyone realizes (or at least I hope they do) that Jeter is a better overall hitter than Damon. Also, they finally get a lefty at the top of the lineup other than Cano, who can move down and strengthen what would have been a very weak 7-8-9: Posada, Williams/Phillips, and Bubba. As much as I completely can't (or couldn't) stand Johnny Damon like many others here, we have to see that this was a nessecary and helpful move.

JDPNYY
12-22-05, 12:35 PM
Maybe the Yankees will trade for Ichiro and then will have a leadoff hitter runoffathon this spring.

jcan411
12-22-05, 12:36 PM
Who said anything about now? You said Fenway was responsible for him looking like a good hitter. The facts suggest otherwise.

the facts suggest age 28-32 that he was a much better hitter in fenway then on the road. My point is that that trend will cause decline in numbers at age 32. When a good hitter is 26,27 most times they can hit anywhere..

jcan411
12-22-05, 12:37 PM
Who said Damon's contract was structured to be movable before or after the CBA? My point is that beyond 2006 there is no telling what the business landscape will look like. When we speculate on the market in 2007 and beyond (to compare to Damon's decline or not, and how tradable he will be or not) we need to take into account that the new CBA may completely change that market. I for one am fine with the contract as it is, even if the CBA remains the same.

whatever the landscape change will be, i would bet it would lean towards smaller contracts and more ability to move them, which would make Damon's current contract even worse in the future...

YankeeFan1
12-22-05, 12:40 PM
whatever the landscape change will be, i would bet it would lean towards smaller contracts and more ability to move them, which would make Damon's current contract even worse in the future... Really, why didn't contract decline even further from last year then? You keep betting on things that are very hard to predict. The fact is that from year to year, it is hard to predict the market unless the owners are engaged in collusion.

jcan411
12-22-05, 12:40 PM
Perhaps, but they would have also cost bodies. The Yankees have plenty of cash, and want and need to conserve bodies. The savings in prospects or roster players more than outweighs the cost in cash. And none of the other options have been vulcanized in the pressure cooker of the AL East like Damon has.

Add to this the fact that we also significantly weaken the Sox in the process, and you have a pretty decent value -- even while overpaying a little bit.

I think we are overpaying by a lot...2007 this contract will be a major albatrose. I like what it does for 2006, but I won't like our declining old team in 2007 that has to face ortiz, manny, pedroia, marte, youkilis, beckett, lester, and papelbon, and whoever else the sox get as we are frozen to our aging vets. Yes, next year we will pound the sox to powder, but the future does not look bright my friends....

JDPNYY
12-22-05, 12:41 PM
whatever the landscape change will be, i would bet it would lean towards smaller contracts and more ability to move them, which would make Damon's current contract even worse in the future...

Let's not bring the Ground's Crew into this. Those people work their asses off.

jcan411
12-22-05, 12:43 PM
Really, why didn't contract decline even further from last year then? You keep betting on things that are very hard to predict. The fact is that from year to year, it is hard to predict the market unless the owners are engaged in collusion.

i agree, but even in this market 13 million for a 32 year old, somewhat broken dwon centrer fielder, that has never had an arm is too much....We could have gotten another starter (millwood), for that money (11 mil.) and traded for a better value centerfielder for much less (wilkerson, micheals, Reed), and still have a mil or so left over... and gotten better overall production

grabick_luca
12-22-05, 12:44 PM
I think we are overpaying by a lot...2007 this contract will be a major albatrose. I like what it does for 2006, but I won't like our declining old team in 2007 that has to face ortiz, manny, pedroia, marte, youkilis, beckett, lester, and papelbon, and whoever else the sox get as we are frozen to our aging vets. Yes, next year we will pound the sox to powder, but the future does not look bright my friends....


cause i'm sure pedroia, marte, lester, youkilis, and papelbon are all gonna be future all-stars :uhh:

jcan411
12-22-05, 12:48 PM
Fair enough. Right now, I don't see anyone who is available to the Yankees with their limited trading chips or anyone who has been non-tendered who comes close to Damon, but if you do, name the CF players who are available to the Yankees now so this comparison can be done at the end of next season. I wanted an inexpensive solid defensive centerfielder myself, but I never believed for a second that they could produce offensively anything close to Damon even if he had this dramatic decline being predicted.

Jason micheals - 822 career OPS
Wilkerson - 817 career OPS

Damon - 784 career OPS

Both would be cheaper and Micheals plays significantly better defense. Trade a SP (Wang) for him. Sign Millwood at 11 million and you have less money for the two players and millwood is an upgrade to Wang.

Martini6196
12-22-05, 12:49 PM
Easy. You watch the guy play the game of baseball. You evaluate his talent level. If you had to pick a player to play for you do you pick Damon or Jason Michaels?

Right now, for one season without regard to salary. Who do you pick?

You are citing production. I am concerned with talent. I want a talent, not a productive numbers compiler.

No one in there right mind would go after Jeremy Reed, Micahels etc. over Damon. We all know a superior baseball player when we see it.

It is undeniable that some players have a tremendous affect on the game that doesn't neccesarily show up in the stats. In sole stat language, Mark Loretta is a better player than Derek Jeter. We all know that is untrue. Or do we?

The one big problem with all the stats people is they don't take into account the actual talent level of the player. It is all about production/salary.

It is too scientific. It takes out talent judgement and intangibles away from the player.

I was reading SOSH, and there are people who think Loretta is better than Damon because of his stats. Ridiculous.

Loretta has nowhere near the effect on the game that Damon has. Is anyone going to argue with me? You can't measure the talent level of Damon. All you are doing is comparing stats of players.

Damon is a better CF than many of the players he is behind on the outfield ratings. The guy can go catch the ball with anyone.

I can't stand the stat geeks arguements. Most of them are logical and make sense, but they dont work practically. These saber stat people end up with lineups like Jason Giambi leading off.

How many want Giambi to lead off, or bat in the No. 2 hole? It makes sense statistically for Giambi to lead off. But we know that how the game is played that it would be a lineup disaster. Over 162 games, the numbers would be tremendous with Giambi in the No. 1 spot and his numbers would justify his being there. Giambi has a high OBP guy would get on base the most because that it was leadoff hitter are supposed to do.

When you actually go to make out a lineup you see how absurd that stat based reasoning is. Giambi doesn't fit what you need in the No. 1 spot. It is the same with Damon. Numbers don't mean anything.

Another example: The closer fallacy.

Stats say that anyone can close. Boston tried this several years ago, a closer by committe. Saber Stats tell us this doesn't matter and that closers are overated.

Now Yankee fans, do we really believe Mariano Rivera's affect is overrated?

This shows the fallacy in stats. I can name off many other instances where people can make statistical arguements that make sense, but are ridiculous practically.

Damon has the ability to wreck a game offensively. He can be a pest and go out there and just supercharge an offense. Mark Loretta can't do that. Micahels or Jeremy Reed can't do that.

Damon is just flat out more talented then those guys. It is not all about stats. What he brings to the team is something that no one else available can do.

Will he decline? Yes. But so what. That hasn't stopped us before. We'll just go out there and get an upgrade.


One of the better posts I've seen in awhile.

38Special
12-22-05, 12:49 PM
Jason micheals - 822 career OPS
Wilkerson - 817 career OPS

Damon - 784 career OPS

Both would be cheaper and Micheals plays significantly better defense. Trade a SP (Wang) for him. Sign Millwood at 11 million and you have less money for the two players and millwood is an upgrade to Wang.
Michaels does not play significantly or even better defense than Damon. Have you actually seen him in center?

And for someone whos been crowing about home and away splits, you pick a platoon player who plays half his games in that "Pitchers Park" in Philly Jeez.

jcan411
12-22-05, 12:51 PM
Michaels does not play significantly or even better defense than Damon. Have you actually seen him in center?

His range is comparable, and Damon has the worst outfield arm in baseball. not to mention Damon is on the wrong side of 30 so his range will decline..

ReggieBar
12-22-05, 12:53 PM
I think we are overpaying by a lot...2007 this contract will be a major albatrose. I like what it does for 2006, but I won't like our declining old team in 2007 that has to face ortiz, manny, pedroia, marte, youkilis, beckett, lester, and papelbon, and whoever else the sox get as we are frozen to our aging vets. Yes, next year we will pound the sox to powder, but the future does not look bright my friends....

We overpayed, yes. The future is not bright? I disagree. In 2 years we will have had Moose, Randy and Sheff all off the books. Giambi to follow. At the same time we have great talent in the low minors which will be at the AA and AAA levels and we will have very good flexability to trade or develop these players.

Year four of Damons deal (2009) allows us to move him to LF if it is neccessary and Matsui can DH. BTW, Damon will NEVER play RF.

jcan411
12-22-05, 12:53 PM
cause i'm sure pedroia, marte, lester, youkilis, and papelbon are all gonna be future all-stars :uhh:

How many guys on our team are "future" all-stars, and don't say Cano 'cause he's not...

38Special
12-22-05, 12:53 PM
His range is comparable, and Damon has the worst outfield arm in baseball. not to mention Damon is on the wrong side of 30 so his range will decline..
Michaels is two baseball years younger than Damon and has yet to have 300 ABs in a season. Not to mention, Michaels has a pretty mediocre outfield arm himself.


Once again I have to ask, have you seen Michaels play the outfield?

jcan411
12-22-05, 12:55 PM
We overpayed, yes. The future is not bright? I disagree. In 2 years we will have had Moose, Randy and Sheff all off the books. Giambi to follow. At the same time we have great talent in the low minors which will be at the AA and AAA levels and we will have very good flexability to trade or develop these players.

Year four of Damons deal (2009) allows us to move him to LF if it is neccessary and Matsui can DH. BTW, Damon will NEVER play RF.

Name one high impact guy on the yanks other than cano thats under 30. You can't...hoping to get FA in the future is not a great way to run a baseball team. We will be right back to aging declining players in 3 years all over again and still no WS ring.

IncredibleByNature
12-22-05, 12:57 PM
How many guys on our team are "future" all-stars, and don't say Cano 'cause he's not...

How do you know Cano isn't going to be a future all-star?

38Special
12-22-05, 12:57 PM
Name one high impact guy on the yanks other than cano thats under 30. You can't...hoping to get FA in the future is not a great way to run a baseball team. We will be right back to aging declining players in 3 years all over again and still no WS ring.
How many of their guys have actually done something in the majors?

Papelbon...then what? If you're going to throw out names like Pedroia and Lester I can give you names too, but that doesnt mean anything

OH ................ YOUKILIS HAS A 400 OBP 79 ABS THEY SEE RIGHT THROUGH ME

jcan411
12-22-05, 12:57 PM
Michaels is two baseball years younger than Damon and has yet to have 300 ABs in a season. Not to mention, Michaels has a pretty mediocre outfield arm himself.


Once again I have to ask, have you seen Michaels play the outfield?

Its a lesser of two evils scenario. Our offense is fine. But micheals is still better (and i did see him only once on TV - he seemed fine) defensively (his fielding stats are better), and his offense (while less AB;s) still lend me to believe he would have better numbers..

BronxByTheBay
12-22-05, 12:57 PM
I think we are overpaying by a lot...2007 this contract will be a major albatrose. I like what it does for 2006, but I won't like our declining old team in 2007 that has to face ortiz, manny, pedroia, marte, youkilis, beckett, lester, and papelbon, and whoever else the sox get as we are frozen to our aging vets. Yes, next year we will pound the sox to powder, but the future does not look bright my friends....

So THAT'S why the Sox didn't match the offer...they already have their dynasty set.

Tifoso
12-22-05, 12:58 PM
Name one high impact guy on the yanks other than cano thats under 30. You can't...hoping to get FA in the future is not a great way to run a baseball team. We will be right back to aging declining players in 3 years all over again and still no WS ring.


Not meant to be in your face, but I gotta ask

what would you rather have?

1. A team full of low cost players developed here and no WS in the next 5 years or

2.this team, and 1 WS in the next 5 years?

Serious question.

ReggieBar
12-22-05, 12:59 PM
Name one high impact guy on the yanks other than cano thats under 30. You can't...hoping to get FA in the future is not a great way to run a baseball team. We will be right back to aging declining players in 3 years all over again and still no WS ring.

I never mentioned filling the team back up with FA's, although we will, as always, fill holes with them if we need to.

The point on the farm system is that we don't need to develop everyone of our better prospects to play for the Yanks. As an example of trading farm players for an established player under 30 just look at the Mulder, Hudson and Beckett deals.

If we had no talent in the minors, I'd agree with you.

jcan411
12-22-05, 01:00 PM
How many of their guys have actually done something in the majors?

Papelbon...then what? If you're going to throw out names like Pedroia and Lester I can give you names too, but that doesnt mean anything

OH ................ YOUKILIS HAS A 400 OBP 79 ABS THEY SEE RIGHT THROUGH ME

Its not just papelbon - look at beckett, and arroyo, and marte, and lester (who is ranked above any Yankee), and hansen (who looked very good at the end of the season), and, yes, youkilis, they have more young talent right now, can you not see that? Do you honsetly think we have young talent to match?

PittsburghYankeeFan
12-22-05, 01:01 PM
How many guys on our team are "future" all-stars, and don't say Cano 'cause he's not...

You are kidding, right? Do you mean all of the present players, or just the rookies/2nd years?

BronxByTheBay
12-22-05, 01:01 PM
Its not just papelbon - look at beckett, and arroyo, and marte, and lester (who is ranked above any Yankee), and hansen (who looked very good at the end of the season), and, yes, youkilis, they have more young talent right now, can you not see that? Do you honsetly think we have young talent to match?

Brandon Arroyo? Oh boy...

jcan411
12-22-05, 01:04 PM
Not meant to be in your face, but I gotta ask

what would you rather have?

1. A team full of low cost players developed here and no WS in the next 5 years or

2.this team, and 1 WS in the next 5 years?

Serious question.

I would rather have a mix. instead of almost all over 30 players past their primes I would like to give legit shots for more players like cano, and more trades for younger guys that have upside. Not everything is a sure thing, but those would be better deals than an over the hill Damon for 13 MILLION DOLLARS. We could do much more with that money... Then we could have a little more continuity and hopefully try for a WS in 5 years. Thats what the marlins did in 2003. And in large partts the sox in 2004. Thats team had a bunch of guys right around 30 that were not superstars that had great years (mueller, arroyo, lowe, nixon, O cab, bellhorn) why do we need to pay over 10 million for all our position players, and still not have a WS in the last 5 years?

38Special
12-22-05, 01:05 PM
But micheals is still better (and i did see him only once on TV - he seemed fine)

I saw Bernie Williams make a diving catch once



defensively (his fielding stats are better)


Fielding Stats? Oh, how I love fielding stats. How they don't explain their data, how they always seem to conflict with each other. Damon was +19 in CF from 2000-2003 according to UZR, and MGL (although not releasing his exact numbers), has stated that he is still a well above average defender. Meanwhile, Kotsay has turned into a -40 this year or something insane like that.

FIELDING STATS, saving the dolphins and sperm whales since 2005



, and his offense (while less AB;s) still lend me to believe he would have better numbers..

Bubba Crosby is going to hit .276 over the course of a full season right?



Its not just papelbon - look at beckett, and arroyo, and marte, and lester (who is ranked above any Yankee), and hansen (who looked very good at the end of the season), and, yes, youkilis, they have more young talent right now, can you not see that? Do you honsetly think we have young talent to match?

Arroyo puts me to shame, i concede defeat

jcan411
12-22-05, 01:05 PM
You are kidding, right? Do you mean all of the present players, or just the rookies/2nd years?

Of course I mean rookies and and 2nd years...

jcan411
12-22-05, 01:07 PM
I saw Bernie Williams make a diving catch once



Fielding Stats? Oh, how I love fielding stats. How they don't explain their data, how they always seem to conflict with each other. Damon was +19 in CF from 2000-2003 according to UZR, and MGL (although not releasing his exact numbers), has stated that he is still a well above average defender. Meanwhile, Kotsay has turned into a -40 this year or something insane like that.

FIELDING STATS, saving the dolphins and sperm whales since 2005



Bubba Crosby is going to hit .276 over the course of a full season right?




Arroyo puts me to shame, i concede defeat

Listen is damon a better player? yes. But my point is that he is not 12 million dollars better than Micheals. Do you think he is 12 times better than him? If we had gotten Damon for 3 million I would be doing cartwheels right now...

BomberBrian
12-22-05, 01:11 PM
I bet you 90% of this board had never heard of Jason Michaels before 6 weeks ago.

jcan411
12-22-05, 01:11 PM
I saw Bernie Williams make a diving catch once



Fielding Stats? Oh, how I love fielding stats. How they don't explain their data, how they always seem to conflict with each other. Damon was +19 in CF from 2000-2003 according to UZR, and MGL (although not releasing his exact numbers), has stated that he is still a well above average defender. Meanwhile, Kotsay has turned into a -40 this year or something insane like that.

FIELDING STATS, saving the dolphins and sperm whales since 2005



Bubba Crosby is going to hit .276 over the course of a full season right?




Arroyo puts me to shame, i concede defeat

For those crapping on Arroyo

Arroyo 205 innings, 100 SO, 4.51 ERa
Moose 179 innings, 142 SO, 4.41 ERA

He's a great value and workhorse pitcher and still only 28 years old. He's very valuable

38Special
12-22-05, 01:14 PM
I'm going to throw out two ESPN scouting reports and then the Damon one from Newsday today, I need to go get a playstation controller from Best Buy. Please prepare your best defensive statistics, I challenge you to a duel! :ga-ga: :ga-ga: :ga-ga: :smokin: :goody: :boring:


EXCELLENT - top of the league
GOOD - high quality; just below the top of the league
PLUS - above par
AVERAGE - PLUS-slightly above par
AVERAGE-average
AVERAGE-MINUS - slightly below par
MINUS - below par
POOR - well below average
TERRIBLE - among the worst in the league

Michaels


Offensive Outfielder

Hitting, Baserunning & Defense

Michaels is a fastball hitter who likes to look for a pitch up in the strike zone. He handles righthanders almost as well as lefties. He's a free swinger who strikes out too much (80 times in 299 at-bats last season), but some of that could be due to lack of regular playing time. Michaels has decent range in the outfield but doesn't always make the play once he gets to the ball. He's an aggressive baserunner with slightly above-average speed.

Competitiveness: PLUS
Intelligence: AVERAGE

Arm Accuracy
Rating: AVERAGE - PLUS
Notes: N/A

Arm Strength
Rating: MINUS
Notes: Does Have A Quick Release. Charges The Ball In The Outfield To Compensate

Base Running
Rating: PLUS
Notes: Smart Runner; Good Judgement On The Bases With Surprising Speed--but Not A Base Stealer

Bunt
Rating: AVERAGE
Notes: N/A

Hands
Rating: GOOD
Notes: N/A

Range
Rating: AVERAGE - PLUS
Notes: N/A

Speed
Rating: AVERAGE
Notes: Has A Good Stride


Damon


Marches To A Different Drummer. Has A Great Knack For Fouling Off Pitches And Elevating A Pitch Count

Baserunning & Defense

After consecutive 30-steal seasons in Boston, Damon swiped only 19 bags last season in 27 attempts. In the postseason, though, he demonstrated the klepto's touch, with five steals in 14 games. With the wheels Damon possesses, he covers plenty of ground in center field and usually gets a good jump on the ball. Damon is a risk-taker. He will go all-out after a shallow liner, sometimes producing a great catch, but sometimes letting the ball get by him. Damon's throwing arm is below average, but accurate.

Competitiveness: EXCELLENT
Likes To Play And Never Quits

Intelligence: GOOD
Good Overall Know How And Instincts

Arm Accuracy
Rating: MINUS
Notes: Arm Is Better When He Charges The Ball

Arm Strength
Rating: AVERAGE - MINUS
Notes: N/A

Base Running
Rating: GOOD
Notes: Not Afraid To Take The Extra Base; Will Steal In The Clutch

Bunt
Rating: GOOD
Notes: Will Do It

Hands
Rating: GOOD
Notes: N/A

Range
Rating: PLUS
Notes: Can Cover The Outfield 'like The Morning Dew'

Speed
Rating: PLUS
Notes: Drags And Pushes Bunts; Good Baserunner And Stealer

effdamets
12-22-05, 01:14 PM
I bet you 90% of this board had never heard of Jason Michaels before 6 weeks ago.
I never did.... However, I am not saying that he is better than Damon either. I'll take the player with proven talent over the "he might be good" player all day, everyday!

effdamets
12-22-05, 01:15 PM
For those crapping on Arroyo

Arroyo 205 innings, 100 SO, 4.51 ERa
Moose 179 innings, 142 SO, 4.41 ERA

He's a great value and workhorse pitcher and still only 28 years old. He's very valuable
Oh my... You're kidding, right?

StaceyRosie
12-22-05, 01:15 PM
How do you know Cano isn't going to be a future all-star?

Yeah I want to know too...

BronxByTheBay
12-22-05, 01:16 PM
For those crapping on Arroyo

Arroyo 205 innings, 100 SO, 4.51 ERa
Moose 179 innings, 142 SO, 4.41 ERA

He's a great value and workhorse pitcher and still only 28 years old. He's very valuable

Wonderful - so the 28 year old Arroyo is as good as the 37 year old Mike Mussina. Woohoo.

jcan411
12-22-05, 01:17 PM
I'm going to throw out two ESPN scouting reports and then the Damon one from Newsday today, I need to go get a playstation controller from Best Buy. Please prepare your best defensive statistics, I challenge you to a duel! :ga-ga: :ga-ga: :ga-ga: :smokin: :goody: :boring:



Michaels


Damon

One repsonse to this - it does not say anywhere that damon produces 12 times better than Micheals. In fact they look very similar by this. He is paid 12 times more though.....

38Special
12-22-05, 01:17 PM
http://www.newsday.com/mynews/ny-2dex4561763dec22,0,5992218.story


An American League scout breaks down Johnny Damon's game:

At the plate: "Damon is probably the most prolific threat at the top pf the order in baseball. He hits for average, but he has power, too, and he's great at fouling balls off. He just keeps flicking his bat, making you throw more pitches, until a guy makes a mistake or walks him. He's such an impact player, and you don't see the home run coming. He's a Pete Rose type of player, a real pain in the - - -player."

In the field: "He couldn't throw me out. But no centerfielders can throw people out these days. He cut balls off well and prevents guys going from first to third. He's a complete ballplayer. He may not be a five-tool guy, like a Carlos Beltran, but he fits right into the mold there."

On the bases: "He's still quick. He has quick feet and he's smart. He reads pitchers very well."

On what to expect in 2006: " He'll score his 100 runs, and hit more than 15 homers playing in Yankee Stadium. He's not a guy teams want to see coming up there leading by a run in the ninth. Once he gets on, there they go."

jcan411
12-22-05, 01:18 PM
Wonderful - so the 28 year old Arroyo is as good as the 37 year old Mike Mussina. Woohoo.

Acutally its more the mulitimillion dollar suposed #2 is as good as the cheap #5. Not much to woohoo there buddy

38Special
12-22-05, 01:18 PM
One repsonse to this - it does not say anywhere that damon produces 12 times better than Micheals. In fact they look very similar by this. He is paid 12 times more though.....
If Michaels ever played a full season and made it to free agency i'm sure he'd make more than 12 times less than Damon. And we aren't getting Michaels for free, despite what esteemed journalists like George King write.

Henn and Sturtze for Pierre hehe yeah okay

ReggieBar
12-22-05, 01:19 PM
Listen is damon a better player? yes. But my point is that he is not 12 million dollars better than Micheals. Do you think he is 12 times better than him? If we had gotten Damon for 3 million I would be doing cartwheels right now...


Your point is well taken in that regard. But, the Damon deal doesn't lock us into some finacial trap we can't maneuver around in. Our payroll went down a few mil this off season and BIG contracts will continue to fall of the books in 06 (Moose, Sheff if we dont pick up his option), 07 (R-JO, Sheff if he stays) and 08 (Giambi.)

I am sure that over that time the Yankees will a) Look internally to replace these players b) See what is available through trades or c) see what is on the FA market at that time.

The first, like I have said, depends on how our farm develops. And, despite the Damon deal, there is an obvious sea change in the organization.

I know the Damon deal may appear like we are going backwards, but everything is relative to it's time and the paticular situation. In this situation we don't have the a) minor leaguer ready to play CF, b) we don't have the depth yet in the system to trade a Cano or Wang and c) We signed Damon.

JeterRodriguezSheff
12-22-05, 01:19 PM
I just realized that we have the best 1-2 punch at the top of a line up in baseball with Damon and Jeter. Now that I think about it we have the best 1-2-3-4-5 punch if Giambi plays how he did last season.

jcan411
12-22-05, 01:20 PM
http://www.newsday.com/mynews/ny-2dex4561763dec22,0,5992218.story

Newsday huh - very unbiased. I already posted the srticle claiming the complete opposite in terms of what to expect -


http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5188220

Tifoso
12-22-05, 01:22 PM
http://www.newsday.com/mynews/ny-2dex4561763dec22,0,5992218.story


Thanks for posting this. :)

BronxByTheBay
12-22-05, 01:23 PM
Acutally its more the mulitimillion dollar suposed #2 is as good as the cheap #5. Not much to woohoo there buddy

I'm sorry - you are aware that Mike Mussina pitched for us prior to last season, correct? Are you arguing that Arroyo will have comparable value over the next few years that Moose had at the same age?

This fixation with money isn't aiding you.

jcan411
12-22-05, 01:23 PM
Your point is well taken in that regard. But, the Damon deal doesn't lock us into some finacial trap we can't maneuver around in. Our payroll went down a few mil this off season and BIG contracts will continue to fall of the books in 06 (Moose, Sheff if we dont pick up his option), 07 (R-JO, Sheff if he stays) and 08 (Giambi.)

I am sure that over that time the Yankees will a) Look internally to replace these players b) See what is available through trades or c) see what is on the FA market at that time.

The first, like I have said, depends on how our farm develops. And, despite the Damon deal, there is an obvious sea change in the organization.

I know the Damon deal may appear like we are going backwards, but everything is relative to it's time and the paticular situation. In this situation we don't have the a) minor leaguer ready to play CF, b) we don't have the depth yet in the system to trade a Cano or Wang and c) We signed Damon.

My point is our offense is already great. Why not get a defensive CF and use the money saved either now or next year, or the year after, or the year after, to get a great center fielder instead of a declining 32 year old. Is that so difficult?

38Special
12-22-05, 01:24 PM
Newsday huh - very unbiased. I already posted the srticle claiming the complete opposite in terms of what to expect -


http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5188220

Kevin Hench, writer for the Adam Carolla show, and his distinct eye for baseball talent, has showed me the light.

Thank you good sir.

http://tinypic.com/iz0wms.jpg

jcan411
12-22-05, 01:25 PM
I'm sorry - you are aware that Mike Mussina pitched for us prior to last season, correct? Are you arguing that Arroyo will have comparable value over the next few years that Moose had at the same age?

This fixation with money isn't aiding you.

i was only soing arroyo's value right now in terms of how is is paid and how he produces. He is paid much less than many that perform below him..he is not a great pitcher, but we are hard prssed to find a player on our roster that compares..that was my point. Of course I would take the 28 year old mussina every day of the week...

ReggieBar
12-22-05, 01:25 PM
My point is our offense is already great. Why not get a defensive CF and use the money saved either now or next year, or the year after, or the year after, to get a great center fielder instead of a declining 32 year old. Is that so difficult?


What's difficult is to find or develop a GREAT centerfielder.

jcan411
12-22-05, 01:26 PM
Kevin Hench, writer for the Adam Carolla show, and his distinct eye for baseball talent, has showed me the light.

Thank you good sir.

http://tinypic.com/iz0wms.jpg

you should also have caught the BP guy on ESPNEWS yeaterday, syaing Damon projected to a .280 BA and a .345 OBP. Thats monster numbers for a 13 million dollar guy that SUCKS in the field...

BronxByTheBay
12-22-05, 01:26 PM
i was only soing arroyo's value right now in terms of how is is paid and how he produces. He is paid much less than many that perform below him..he is not a great pitcher, but we are hard prssed to find a player on our roster that compares..that was my point.

You mean other than Wang and Chacon?

whalers
12-22-05, 01:28 PM
One repsonse to this - it does not say anywhere that damon produces 12 times better than Micheals. In fact they look very similar by this. He is paid 12 times more though.....

Sure he is paid twelve times more but of the Yankees wanted to acquire Michaels or any other CF'er via trade they woudl have had to give up Cano and/or Wang and/or prospects (Duncan, Hughes, etc) The Yankees gave up cash and a draft pick for Damon. So the question should be what is better for the Yankees a team with Damon and the youngsters or any other CF'er minus any of those youngsters. I'd have to argue that signing Damon was a better move than trading cano or wang at this point.

Tifoso
12-22-05, 01:28 PM
Kevin Hench, writer for the Adam Carolla show, and his distinct eye for baseball talent, has showed me the light.

Thank you good sir.

http://tinypic.com/iz0wms.jpg


bit over the top, amico mio. :(

Just sayin....

jcan411
12-22-05, 01:28 PM
You mean other than Wang and Chacon?

Numbers on Wang not even close since only 116 innings and he is already 26. Chacon might be close...

jcan411
12-22-05, 01:30 PM
Sure he is paid twelve times more but of the Yankees wanted to acquire Michaels or any other CF'er via trade they woudl have had to give up Cano and/or Wang and/or prospects (Duncan, Hughes, etc) The Yankees gave up cash and a draft pick for Damon. So the question should be what is better for the Yankees a team with Damon and the youngsters or any other CF'er minus any of those youngsters. I'd have to argue that signing Damon was a better move than trading cano or wang at this point.

I wish to god we would trade Wang becasue evryone here has the biggest hard-on for him. He's not that great and he has injury problems....

IMHO Millwood (11million) Micheals/Reed (1 million) is greater than Wang (million) and Damon (13 million)

wileedog
12-22-05, 01:32 PM
Kevin Hench, writer for the Adam Carolla show, and his distinct eye for baseball talent, has showed me the light.

Thank you good sir.

http://tinypic.com/iz0wms.jpg

Hey look, its the first photo from the Damon press conference!

ReggieBar
12-22-05, 01:35 PM
I wish to god we would trade Wang becasue evryone here has the biggest hard-on for him. He's not that great and he has injury problems....

IMHO Millwood (11million) Micheals/Reed (1 million) is greater than Wang (million) and Damon (13 million)


For a guy who doesn't want to waste money, you have a nice hard-on for Millwood. Millwood at 11mil for what? 4-5 years is so much worse than the Damon deal. Esp. since we don't need another overpriced average pitcher.

BronxByTheBay
12-22-05, 01:36 PM
Numbers on Wang not even close since only 116 innings and he is already 26.

Ah, I see - so in the case of Wang we look at exact innings pitched, no projection allowed. In Micheals case, we project to our heart's content and decide there's no difference between he and Damon.

Gotcha.

Oooo - so THAT'S what the top of my skull looks like from the inside of my head...

jcan411
12-22-05, 01:37 PM
For a guy who doesn't want to waste money, you have a nice hard-on for Millwood. Millwood at 11mil for what? 4-5 years is so much worse than the Damon deal. Esp. since we don't need another overpriced average pitcher.

...as opposed to an overpriced average CF whose 2 years older and can't hrow

Tifoso
12-22-05, 01:37 PM
Nice article

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15799110&BRD=1713&PAG=461&dept_id=24490&rfi=6


The Sox will lose one of the premier leadoff hitters in the game, a legitimate MVP candidate into August of last season, a tough, gritty player who has never been to the disabled list in 10-plus big-league seasons and, in many ways, the face (and hair) of the franchise.

38Special
12-22-05, 01:37 PM
I wish to god we would trade Wang becasue evryone here has the biggest hard-on for him. He's not that great and he has injury problems....

IMHO Millwood (11million) Micheals/Reed (1 million) is greater than Wang (million) and Damon (13 million)

The contradictions that keep coming up with each post you make are funnier and funnier

effdamets
12-22-05, 01:37 PM
Ah, I see - so in the case of Wang we look at exact innings pitched, no projection allowed. In Micheals case, we project to our heart's content and decide there's no difference between he and Damon.

Gotcha.

Oooo - so THAT'S what the top of my skull looks like from the inside of my head...
That's a good one!!!! (the whole post that is)

YankeeFan1
12-22-05, 01:38 PM
Jason micheals - 822 career OPS
Wilkerson - 817 career OPS

Damon - 784 career OPS

Both would be cheaper and Micheals plays significantly better defense. Trade a SP (Wang) for him. Sign Millwood at 11 million and you have less money for the two players and millwood is an upgrade to Wang. In other words, you have no one because neither of these guys are available to the Yankees at a price Cashman was willing to pay. I'm ignoring your fantasy GM moves because they are just that, fantasy. You have no idea if the Phillies or the Nationals even want Wang. Plus who trades a young starting pitcher for a part-time outfielder like Micheals in real life? Only stupid would do that anyway. However, I have no problem comparing their numbers to Damon at the end of next season.

whalers
12-22-05, 01:39 PM
I wish to god we would trade Wang becasue evryone here has the biggest hard-on for him. He's not that great and he has injury problems....

IMHO Millwood (11million) Micheals/Reed (1 million) is greater than Wang (million) and Damon (13 million)

The cost of Reed would undoubtedly be higher than just Wang IMO. Why do you put price tags on these things. There is no hard cap so there is no reason to be worried about cost in terms of $. Even if you were worried about $ from what I have read in the pages of this thread is that even with these new acquisitions the Yankees payroll has gone down while maintaining its younger players.

ReggieBar
12-22-05, 01:39 PM
...as opposed to an overpriced average CF whose 2 years older and can't hrow

Well we needed a CFer, no? No ones gonna argue with you that Damon isn't worth 13mil., but to save the money and give it to Millwood doesn't make any sense.

jcan411
12-22-05, 01:40 PM
Ah, I see - so in the case of Wang we look at exact innings pitched, no projection allowed. In Micheals case, we project to our heart's content and decide there's no difference between he and Damon.

Gotcha.

Oooo - so THAT'S what the top of my skull looks like from the inside of my head...

Wang 2006 ZIPS 141 innings, 4.41 ERA, 79 SO - wow we should really keep this guy!!!! Oh, and thats IF he's 100% this year and IF he does not hurt himslef again.

38Special
12-22-05, 01:40 PM
Let's get this straight,

we either...

Keep all our prospects and Wang/Cano and get Damon for 4 years at 13 mil

or

Trade away prospects and Wang for Michaels/Reed and give Millwood, who came off as big of a career year as any, one year removed from season ending elbow inflammation, a 5 year contract

Right?

38Special
12-22-05, 01:41 PM
Wang 2006 ZIPS 141 innings, 4.41 ERA, 79 SO - wow we should really keep this guy!!!! Oh, and thats IF he's 100% this year and IF he does not hurt himslef again.

http://forums.nyyfans.com/showthread.php?t=91509&highlight=zips

Look mom, all players regress at an exact age and regress to their career numbers and below!

Prickly Pete
12-22-05, 01:41 PM
The contradictions that keep coming up with each post you make are funnier and funnier
Sorry, I haven't read all 50 pages of this thread, but when did you do this complete about-face on Damon?

10/31/05 (http://www.nyyfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2857036&postcount=788)


At this point in time, my wishlist goes in this order

Wilkerson
Baldelli
Bradley
Hunter
Crosby
Jones
Pierre
Damon

whalers
12-22-05, 01:43 PM
Let's get this straight,

we either...

Keep all our prospects and Wang/Cano and get Damon for 4 years at 13 mil

or

Trade away prospects and Wang for Michaels/Reed and give Millwood, who came off as big of a career year as any, one year removed from season ending elbow inflammation, a 5 year contract

Right?

Dead on. I dont know why this is so hard to understand.

38Special
12-22-05, 01:43 PM
Sorry, I haven't read all 50 pages of this thread, but when did you do this complete about-face on Damon?

10/31/05 (http://www.nyyfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2857036&postcount=788)

I wrote that when the asking price was 7 million and 84 million or whatever it was. I could care less about the money, but 7 years seemed like suicide to me.

ReggieBar
12-22-05, 01:43 PM
Let's get this straight,

we either...

Keep all our prospects and Wang/Cano and get Damon for 4 years at 13 mil

or

Trade away prospects and Wang for Michaels/Reed and give Millwood, who came off as big of a career year as any, one year removed from season ending elbow inflammation, a 5 year contract

Right?


I think thats the idea. But I also thought he didn't want an all over 30 team in a few years. Oh well.

Spiker101
12-22-05, 01:45 PM
I just realized that we have the best 1-2 punch at the top of a line up in baseball with Damon and Jeter. Now that I think about it we have the best 1-2-3-4-5 punch if Giambi plays how he did last season.

And there is a better number six hitter than Matsui where? Given the assumption that Giambi is back to where he was in the last two-thirds of last season, the Yanks just might have the best one through six since the Cincy Reds of '75-'76, and that's the best since the end of WWII.

PS: And should Cano be the real deal (and we should know better after this season) you just might have one through seven.

jcan411
12-22-05, 01:45 PM
Well we needed a CFer, no? No ones gonna argue with you that Damon isn't worth 13mil., but to save the money and give it to Millwood doesn't make any sense.

Thats just a possible scenario. My point is more that the money (i said this a few posts back), could be better spent either now or in the future. thats all....We will see how Damon is this year...

Micheals ZIPS 2006
.295 Average, .393 OBP

Damon ZIPS 2006
.297 Average, .363 OBP

HMMMMMMMM......

Enoch
12-22-05, 01:46 PM
guys just go to yankees.com I LOVE this signing even though Damon was a BO SOX player is gonna be AWESOME for our team. Every time he came up i was cringing becaus he can hit the ball really well now we have that power for us. Damon and Jeter will be the dynamic Duo this year im telling you. Ive been wanting Damon to sign ever since we lost the offseason began when we go all the way this year everyone will be happy we signed damon.

ReggieBar
12-22-05, 01:46 PM
And there is a better number six hitter than Matsui where? Given the assumption that Giambi is back to where he was in the last two-thirds of last season, the Yanks just might have the best one through six since the Cincy Reds of '75-'76, and that's the best since the end of WWII.

And don't forget that Posada and Cano could both be among the top 5 offensively at their positions.

jcan411
12-22-05, 01:47 PM
Let's get this straight,

we either...

Keep all our prospects and Wang/Cano and get Damon for 4 years at 13 mil

or

Trade away prospects and Wang for Michaels/Reed and give Millwood, who came off as big of a career year as any, one year removed from season ending elbow inflammation, a 5 year contract

Right?

Its funny how everyone is quick to say that other prospects will not pan out, but think that with 100% certainty Wang and Cano will be above average players for many years. They could both suck just like any young players, but get unconditional love from all of you...

YankeeFan1
12-22-05, 01:47 PM
Thats just a possible scenario. My point is more that the money (i said this a few posts back), could be better spent either now or in the future. thats all....We will see how Damon is this year...

Micheals ZIPS 2006
.295 Average, .393 OBP

Damon ZIPS 2006
.297 Average, .363 OBP

HMMMMMMMM...... Michaels' numbers are deceptive when flung out there on their own. Michaels is a part-time player who wasn't good enough to start for his own team so they traded for Rowand.

ReggieBar
12-22-05, 01:49 PM
Thats just a possible scenario. My point is more that the money (i said this a few posts back), could be better spent either now or in the future. thats all....We will see how Damon is this year...

Micheals ZIPS 2006
.295 Average, .393 OBP

Damon ZIPS 2006
.297 Average, .363 OBP

HMMMMMMMM......

It's a little more complex than that I think.

Yankees1962
12-22-05, 01:50 PM
Michaels' number are deceptive when flung out there on their own. Michaels is a part-time player who wasn't good enough to start for his own team so they traded for Rowand.
That's always been my problem with Michaels, if he was so good why did the Phillies trade for another CF? I'm sure the White Sox could've substituted another player in the Thome trade or involved another team to do so.

whalers
12-22-05, 01:51 PM
Its funny how everyone is quick to say that other prospects will not pan out, but think that with 100% certainty Wang and Cano will be above average players for many years. They could both suck just like any young players, but get unconditional love from all of you...

They get love because they performed well when they were given the chance.

27IsNext
12-22-05, 01:51 PM
That "Curse of the Dambino" cover is my facebook picture now.

effdamets
12-22-05, 01:53 PM
Thats just a possible scenario. My point is more that the money (i said this a few posts back), could be better spent either now or in the future. thats all....We will see how Damon is this year...

Micheals ZIPS 2006
.295 Average, .393 OBP

Damon ZIPS 2006
.297 Average, .363 OBP

HMMMMMMMM......
The future? Projections? Don't you think if we could predict what is actually going to happen in the future, we'd ALL be stock brokers?

JeterRodriguezSheff
12-22-05, 01:56 PM
Michaels numbers are inflated because he is a platoon player he doesnt have to face righties who he hit 278 .361 .411 .772 the last 3 years and he is only average on defense and isnt fast. He would have been a great back up plan and I would still like to get him for a back up position or platoon at a reasonable price but lets be honest here Damon is a much better player.

RI Dawg
12-22-05, 01:57 PM
Has the press conference been announced yet?

mr. baskums
12-22-05, 01:57 PM
I can't believe this is still being debated 55 pages later :lol:

ReggieBar
12-22-05, 01:58 PM
Has the press conference been announced yet?


Not announced, but heavely suspected to go down tomorrow. Just in time for George's Christmas party.

JeterRodriguezSheff
12-22-05, 01:59 PM
Oh yeah lets not forget Michaels plays in Phillie which is a hitters park, and he would be a righty in Yankee stadium while Damon is a lefty in Yankee stadium. Damon is essentially Matsui with more speed.

Spiker101
12-22-05, 02:02 PM
Thats just a possible scenario. My point is more that the money (i said this a few posts back), could be better spent either now or in the future. thats all....We will see how Damon is this year...

Micheals ZIPS 2006
.295 Average, .393 OBP

Damon ZIPS 2006
.297 Average, .363 OBP

HMMMMMMMM......

Even if Michaels, who's been spotted to enchance his productivity, performed as predicted by this latest contraption from the numerologists, a straight up comparison is bogus. You have to factor in the performance of the player the Yanks would have to give up, in this case probably Wang, as against the production and the cost of the player the Yanks acquire to replace Wang, as against the cost of the player the Yanks could have had if hadn't had to replace, etc, etc, etc. This kind of discussion is the equivalent of a man sitting on bed staring into a mirror, looking at a man sitting on a bed staring into the mirror ... ad infiinitum. It's pointless in other words.

38Special
12-22-05, 02:03 PM
Damon is essentially Matsui with more speed.
and less power

Dooley Womack
12-22-05, 02:04 PM
and less power
and smaller ears

38Special
12-22-05, 02:04 PM
The shirts are on the way

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/2720/untitled3copy1ay.png

JDPNYY
12-22-05, 02:06 PM
and smaller ears

...and a smaller porn collection (unconfirmed).

Dooley Womack
12-22-05, 02:07 PM
...and a smaller porn collection (unconfirmed).

:roflmao: :roflmao:

yankswn23
12-22-05, 02:08 PM
So THAT'S why the Sox didn't match the offer...they already have their dynasty set.
In 2007 I think johnny moves to left, matsui to right and hunter in center.

jcan411
12-22-05, 02:11 PM
That's always been my problem with Michaels, if he was so good why did the Phillies trade for another CF? I'm sure the White Sox could've substituted another player in the Thome trade or involved another team to do so.

As I have said many times. Is he as good as damon? NO. But, I don't want Damon and his 13 million year 3 and 4. Its just not worth it....We already have a great line-up. Damon makes it better, but only marginally. He would drastically improve a weak line-up, but lets say he generates 40 more runs a year than a average CF (and thats generaous considering his defense added liability). Thats .25 runs a game difference. How many extra wins will that get us - 3 maybe 4. Is that worth 13 million dollars. My point is the money could be better spent elsewhere year 1,2,3, and 4.

jcan411
12-22-05, 02:13 PM
Even if Michaels, who's been spotted to enchance his productivity, performed as predicted by this latest contraption from the numerologists, a straight up comparison is bogus. You have to factor in the performance of the player the Yanks would have to give up, in this case probably Wang, as against the production and the cost of the player the Yanks acquire to replace Wang, as against the cost of the player the Yanks could have had if hadn't had to replace, etc, etc, etc. This kind of discussion is the equivalent of a man sitting on bed staring into a mirror, looking at a man sitting on a bed staring into the mirror ... ad infiinitum. It's pointless in other words.

And also add the players gained with the Damon money. Its not pointless. Pointless is giving Damon 13 million dollars a year for 4 years to play below average centerfield, and be an average hitter.

ReggieBar
12-22-05, 02:15 PM
And also add the players gained with the Damon money. Its not pointless. Pointless is giving Damon 13 million dollars a year for 4 years to play below average centerfield, and be an average hitter.


Many people would agrue that Damon is an average fielder and an above average hitter.

jcan411
12-22-05, 02:17 PM
Many people would agrue that Damon is an average fielder and an above average hitter.

He will be niether in two years, but will still be getting paid like he is more...

YankeePride1967
12-22-05, 02:17 PM
Easy. You watch the guy play the game of baseball. You evaluate his talent level. If you had to pick a player to play for you do you pick Damon or Jason Michaels?

Right now, for one season without regard to salary. Who do you pick?

You are citing production. I am concerned with talent. I want a talent, not a productive numbers compiler.

No one in there right mind would go after Jeremy Reed, Micahels etc. over Damon. We all know a superior baseball player when we see it.

It is undeniable that some players have a tremendous affect on the game that doesn't neccesarily show up in the stats. In sole stat language, Mark Loretta is a better player than Derek Jeter. We all know that is untrue. Or do we?

The one big problem with all the stats people is they don't take into account the actual talent level of the player. It is all about production/salary.

It is too scientific. It takes out talent judgement and intangibles away from the player.

I was reading SOSH, and there are people who think Loretta is better than Damon because of his stats. Ridiculous.

Loretta has nowhere near the effect on the game that Damon has. Is anyone going to argue with me? You can't measure the talent level of Damon. All you are doing is comparing stats of players.

Damon is a better CF than many of the players he is behind on the outfield ratings. The guy can go catch the ball with anyone.

I can't stand the stat geeks arguements. Most of them are logical and make sense, but they dont work practically. These saber stat people end up with lineups like Jason Giambi leading off.

How many want Giambi to lead off, or bat in the No. 2 hole? It makes sense statistically for Giambi to lead off. But we know that how the game is played that it would be a lineup disaster. Over 162 games, the numbers would be tremendous with Giambi in the No. 1 spot and his numbers would justify his being there. Giambi has a high OBP guy would get on base the most because that it was leadoff hitter are supposed to do.

When you actually go to make out a lineup you see how absurd that stat based reasoning is. Giambi doesn't fit what you need in the No. 1 spot. It is the same with Damon. Numbers don't mean anything.

Another example: The closer fallacy.

Stats say that anyone can close. Boston tried this several years ago, a closer by committe. Saber Stats tell us this doesn't matter and that closers are overated.

Now Yankee fans, do we really believe Mariano Rivera's affect is overrated?

This shows the fallacy in stats. I can name off many other instances where people can make statistical arguements that make sense, but are ridiculous practically.

Damon has the ability to wreck a game offensively. He can be a pest and go out there and just supercharge an offense. Mark Loretta can't do that. Micahels or Jeremy Reed can't do that.

Damon is just flat out more talented then those guys. It is not all about stats. What he brings to the team is something that no one else available can do.

Will he decline? Yes. But so what. That hasn't stopped us before. We'll just go out there and get an upgrade.

Using your eyes only works if you give all players equal time.

Tifoso
12-22-05, 02:18 PM
He will be niether in two years, but will still be getting paid like he is more...

Which stocks do I buy?
What are the winning lotto numbers? :)

Little Big Sheff
12-22-05, 02:21 PM
I have never said anything about stat geeks or production / value ratios. The original point was "did Kevin Brown at 15 mil per year hurt the Yankees and 13 mil a year for Bernie hurt the Yankees". My objection is, that it was their performance that hurt them, not the money

I didn't say YOU said it. I said that was my original point (http://forums.nyyfans.com/showpost.php?p=2971134&postcount=2168)



This doesn't have anything to do with the disabled list either. Bringing Kevin Brown on board is an injury risk. That is the chance you take. And agreeing to pay him 15 million on top of that is a double risk, in my mind. But again, this is not what hurt the Yankees the last couple of seasons. Their performances have hurt them. And I think the stat people will back me on this one. If the Yankees had hit better with men in scoring position, would they have faired better against the Angels? Probably. And that is a performance issue, not a money issue or an injury issue.

That is all I am saying.

So if we had had 15 millions more to spend on pitching last year, it wouldn't have affected the 2005 team? Having Kevin Brown and Bernie Williams coming off the books doesn't change our current offseason?

Yes, the performances hurt us, but what I am saying is that huge amounts of money invested in bad signings hurt us too, because they are here to stay, and represent money that 1) doesn't bring dividends and that 2) you cannot invest any more.

If Jason Michaels (just an example here) bombs, he is fungible. If Damon does, he is not.

jcan411
12-22-05, 02:21 PM
Which stocks do I buy?
What are the winning lotto numbers? :)

If you honestly think he will be (and buck almost every trend that ball players have been through in the hostory of the game), then I do have a bridge to sell you....

MTYankee23
12-22-05, 02:21 PM
And also add the players gained with the Damon money. Its not pointless. Pointless is giving Damon 13 million dollars a year for 4 years to play below average centerfield, and be an average hitter.

Pointless would have been giving up Cano, Wang, Duncan, and/or Hughes to fill the same hole. There's also no one that i've read about becoming available at the end of this season, so that's 2 years, at which time Damon will be playing an above-avarage centerfield.

In the last 2 years of the deal, hopefully a few things will have happened, some of our lower level prospects will have developed into much more useful commodities, and some more high priced contracts will have come off the books.

If we win a WS in the next 2 seasons, I'm not sure many people here will have a problem with Damon getting 13 million for 2 years to play a slightly below average left field.

jcan411
12-22-05, 02:26 PM
Pointless would have been giving up Cano, Wang, Duncan, and/or Hughes to fill the same hole. There's also no one that i've read about becoming available at the end of this season, so that's 2 years, at which time Damon will be playing an above-avarage centerfield.

In the last 2 years of the deal, hopefully a few things will have happened, some of our lower level prospects will have developed into much more useful commodities, and some more high priced contracts will have come off the books.

If we win a WS in the next 2 seasons, I'm not sure many people here will have a problem with Damon getting 13 million for 2 years to play a slightly below average left field.

Another point -

We have almost all unmoveable players in the field

Posada
Damon
Sheff
AROD
Jeter
Giambi
Matsui
RJ
MOOSE
Wright

No one would trade for these guys. We are locked into them no matter what. If you look at the world series recent history it has been a bunch of superstars and then lesser players that have big roles that are paid little. That is what we had when we won it, and that is what we need. As I showed before I bet damon add 3 to 4 wins per season over a replacement CF. that is not that great and there is no reason to pay 13 million for it.

grabick_luca
12-22-05, 02:26 PM
How many guys on our team are "future" all-stars, and don't say Cano 'cause he's not...


Thats not the point i was making, sure the young players on the sox have some promise but it is very unlikely that even a few of them will be good mlb players let alone be deemed acceptable on the sox.

A. we don't really need future all-stars at this point on the yankees because our team is basically full of them. If our youngsters don't pan out we trade them or find player via-free agengy as we have always done. Cano is a very good player and of course i don't know if he is gonna be a future all-star because he only had a seasons worth of play, so we'll find out in the year to come.

B. I think this thread has gotten under your skin and you seem to be a very angry person because of it.

jcan411
12-22-05, 02:28 PM
Thats not the point i was making, sure the young players on the sox have some promise but it is very unlikely that even a few of them will be good mlb players let alone be deemed acceptable on the sox.

A. we don't really need future all-stars at this point on the yankees because our team is basically full of them. If our youngsters don't pan out we trade them or find player via-free agengy as we have always done. Cano is a very good player and of course i don't know if he is gonna be a future all-star because he only had a seasons worth of play, so we'll find out in the year to come.

B. I think this thread has gotten under your skin and you seem to be a very angry person because of it.

Not angry - I just hate damon and am waiting for a meeting at work. Oh, I hate Wang too...

Little Big Sheff
12-22-05, 02:28 PM
"It is good to know that our lineup next year will include a natural leadoff hitter whose presence allows Jeter and A-Rod to return to their preferred places in the batting order. "

This must stop.

Prickly Pete
12-22-05, 02:28 PM
I wrote that when the asking price was 7 million and 84 million or whatever it was. I could care less about the money, but 7 years seemed like suicide to me.
The first report of Damon asking for 7 years was on Nov. 16 (http://www.newsday.com/sports/printedition/ny-spyanks164514987nov16,0,3933460.story?coll=ny-sports-print), which was two weeks after you listed Damon as a worse option for the Yankees than Juan Pierre, Rocco Baldelli and Bubba Crosby, among others.

I don't care that you changed your mind, I'm just curious why.

38Special
12-22-05, 02:30 PM
Another point -

We have almost all unmoveable players in the field

Posada
Damon
Sheff
AROD
Jeter
Giambi
Matsui
RJ
MOOSE
Wright

No one would trade for these guys. We are locked into them no matter what. If you look at the world series recent history it has been a bunch of superstars and then lesser players that have big roles that are paid little. That is what we had when we won it, and that is what we need. As I showed before I bet damon add 3 to 4 wins per season over a replacement CF. that is not that great and there is no reason to pay 13 million for it.

Unfortunately for you, 2 years from now, Wright, Moose, RJ, Sheff, and Posada will be gone. The only pitcher under contract from now will be Pavano with 1 year left. Better yet, we could have a 35 year old Millwood 4 years from now. That would be better right?


Not angry - I just hate damon and am waiting for a meeting at work. Oh, I hate Wang too...

At least write this out front so I wouldnt waste my time arguing with you

JDPNYY
12-22-05, 02:31 PM
In 2007 I think johnny moves to left, matsui to right and hunter in center.


Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

ReggieBar
12-22-05, 02:33 PM
Unfortunately for you, 2 years from now, Wright, Moose, RJ, Sheff, and Posada will be gone. The only pitcher under contract from now will be Pavano with 1 year left. Better yet, we could have a 35 year old Millwood 4 years from now. That would be better right?


I tried making this point. Good luck though.

ReggieBar
12-22-05, 02:35 PM
Oh, I hate Wang too...

So now we have an offical "I Hate Wang"!?

Little Big Sheff
12-22-05, 02:35 PM
and less power

I think there will be something around a 50 points difference in OPS between Matsui and Damon.

YankeeFan1
12-22-05, 02:35 PM
At least write this out front so I wouldnt waste my time arguing with you Yep, that would have been definitely helpful in understanding some of the irrational baseball statements.

Maynerd
12-22-05, 02:35 PM
As I showed before I bet damon add 3 to 4 wins per season over a replacement CF. that is not that great and there is no reason to pay 13 million for it.
I don't know. If just one of those wins happens in October..........

Picture Game 7, ALCS, 2004. Who was that guy who hit the Grand Slam for the Sox? What would have happened if he had been wearing pinstripes?

People were paying a king's ransom for set-up men for their bullpens this winter. Is Damon worth the same money as Matsui? He just might be.

jcan411
12-22-05, 02:36 PM
Unfortunately for you, 2 years from now, Wright, Moose, RJ, Sheff, and Posada will be gone. The only pitcher under contract from now will be Pavano with 1 year left. Better yet, we could have a 35 year old Millwood 4 years from now. That would be better right?



At least write this out front so I wouldnt waste my time arguing with you

For the last time. The millwood post was making a point. As I said before in my posts -

- damon would add probably around 3 to 4 wins over a REPLACEMENT CF (ie Bubba et al.) and thats just probably this year and next.
- He will not be CF (mark my words) at year 3-4 of the contract which will greatly diminish his value.
- We would have an exta 13 million to spend for 4 years.
- He will be unmoveable.
- He really sucks in the field, and not just with his throwing which is close to the worst in baseball.
- He's a jerk.

That is my arguement and my opinion. I hope I am wrong, trust me.....

jcan411
12-22-05, 02:37 PM
So now we have an offical "I Hate Wang"!?

I hate him because he is an okay player that everyone here thinks is a future hall of famer...

JDPNYY
12-22-05, 02:38 PM
I hate him because he is an okay player that everyone here thinks is a future hall of famer...

That sounds like a good reason to hate a guy.

jcan411
12-22-05, 02:40 PM
That sounds like a good reason to hate a guy.

I have other reasons too..

38Special
12-22-05, 02:41 PM
The first report of Damon asking for 7 years was on Nov. 16 (http://www.newsday.com/sports/printedition/ny-spyanks164514987nov16,0,3933460.story?coll=ny-sports-print), which was two weeks after you listed Damon as a worse option for the Yankees than Juan Pierre, Rocco Baldelli and Bubba Crosby, among others.

I don't care that you changed your mind, I'm just curious why.



Wilkerson
Baldelli
Bradley
Hunter
Crosby
Jones
Pierre
Damon


Since then i've softened up alot on my positivity regarding Crosby, also I had no idea what the market was for Pierre and Hunter. From a talent and free agent years perspective, I would have taken Hunter and Pierre over Damon, even now. Even though that report didnt come out till after I said that, I had a feeling that he'd be getting more than a 4 year deal, and given the other alternatives in the market like Wilkerson, Baldelli, and Bradley...i prefered them.

Now, with the options being Reed and Michaels, with what we'd have to give in return...i'm firmly in favor of Damon.

ReggieBar
12-22-05, 02:42 PM
I hate him because he is an okay player that everyone here thinks is a future hall of famer...

Well I don't think he's going to the MLB HOF, but I think that he is a good, young, cost efficent pitcher. Isn't that what you want the team to be made up of?

NYYBombshell
12-22-05, 02:43 PM
I have other reasons too..


Does he drink milk from the carton and then put it back in the fridge?

38Special
12-22-05, 02:43 PM
Well I don't think he's going to the MLB HOF, but I think that he is a good, young, cost effient pitcher. Isn't that what you want the team to be made up of?

He wants a team full of Kevin Millwoods ;)

jcan411
12-22-05, 02:43 PM
Since then i've softened up alot on my positivity regarding Crosby, also I had no idea what the market was for Pierre and Hunter. From a talent and free agent years perspective, I would have taken Hunter and Pierre over Damon, even now. Even though that report didnt come out till after I said that, I had a feeling that he'd be getting more than a 4 year deal, and given the other alternatives in the market like Wilkerson, Baldelli, and Bradley...i prefered them.

Now, with the options being Reed and Michaels, with what we'd have to give in return...i'm firmly in favor of Damon.

Interesting - why have you softened on crosby. is it that hes probably only a little worse than damon?

effdamets
12-22-05, 02:43 PM
I didn't say YOU said it. I said that was my original point (http://forums.nyyfans.com/showpost.php?p=2971134&postcount=2168)



So if we had had 15 millions more to spend on pitching last year, it wouldn't have affected the 2005 team? Having Kevin Brown and Bernie Williams coming off the books doesn't change our current offseason?

Yes, the performances hurt us, but what I am saying is that huge amounts of money invested in bad signings hurt us too, because they are here to stay, and represent money that 1) doesn't bring dividends and that 2) you cannot invest any more.

If Jason Michaels (just an example here) bombs, he is fungible. If Damon does, he is not.
I agree. Bad signings hurt. But that is not what the initial discussion was about. But you don't know that until after the fact.

The players were already signed - good, bad, indifferent - their performance hurt us, not the money. If they would have performed well, again, we are not having this discussion.

Let's put it this way. There are many members of this board saying that the 3rd and 4th years of Damon's new contract are going to be an anchor and bring the team down. Maybe. If he performs badly. If he goes out there and has the seasons that Rickey Henderson had when he was 34 and 35 years old, then it's OK. You won't be able to tell if the signing is bad until it's nearly over. And you can't really tell me that he won't have those types of sesaons because no one can predict the future. And truthfully, I don't take too much stock in what the contract will look like in 4 years, because I could be dead by then. All I know is that Johnny Damon makes this team better, by a decent enough margin, that I condone this free agent signing. There is a reason that Manny and Ortiz drove in the runs they drove in, for the last few seasons. The guys hitting in front of them were on base and one of those guys was Johnny Damon.

Look for Alex Rodriguez to have 150 RBI's this season and both Damon and Jeter to score 120+ runs each!

I also happen to believe that Cashman and his crew know a little something about baseball. I'll trust their judgement on this one. If it was going to be so bad, they wouldn't have done it. In my opinion.

I guess this discussion could go on forever, but, you (the Yankees) need to take a little risk when signing free agents otherwise, they become the Expos. Too conservative never won any championships....

jcan411
12-22-05, 02:44 PM
He wants a team full of Kevin Millwoods ;)

Better than a team full of johnny damons...

Prickly Pete
12-22-05, 02:45 PM
Since then i've softened up alot on my positivity regarding Crosby...
Good, I was getting worried about you.


Now, with the options being Reed and Michaels, with what we'd have to give in return...i'm firmly in favor of Damon.
I agree completely. Signing Damon was a great move for the Yankees. It's an upgrade over Bernie/Bubba, the money is irrelevant and it hurts the Red Sox. That's why I was surprised to see Damon at the bottom of your list a few weeks ago, because all those things were true then, too. But you've explained it, sort of. Thanks.

StaceyRosie
12-22-05, 02:46 PM
Good, I was getting worried about you.

I agree completely. Signing Damon was a great move for the Yankees. It's an upgrade over Bernie/Bubba, the money is irrelevant and it hurts the Red Sox. That's why I was surprised to see Damon at the bottom of your list a few weeks ago, because all those things were true then, too. But you've explained it, sort of. Thanks.

How are you holding up boo boo? :D

BronxByTheBay
12-22-05, 02:52 PM
He will be niether in two years, but will still be getting paid like he is more...

You have absolutely no means of knowing this other than guessing.

38Special
12-22-05, 02:54 PM
Interesting - why have you softened on crosby. is it that hes probably only a little worse than damon?
Because I convinced myself that Crosby was an amazing defender who could hit .300 like he had in September if given the chance. Let's just say I was more than attached to our prospects at that point and would have had a fit if we traded Scott Proctor.

Times do change.

Saying that hes only a little worse than Damon makes you look like a fool, i'm sorry to say (not really)

jcan411
12-22-05, 02:54 PM
You have absolutely no means of knowing this other than guessing.

niether do you...

JDPNYY
12-22-05, 02:54 PM
I have other reasons too..

Looking forward to reading about them as well.

ReggieBar
12-22-05, 02:56 PM
niether do you...


So does your predicition not bold well for Derek Jeter since he and Damon are the same age?

wileedog
12-22-05, 02:56 PM
In 2007 I think johnny moves to left, matsui to right and hunter in center.

Can we dispense with this whole Damon in LF thing?

If he does decline even a little he will be a below average LFer. His numbers last year would put him in smack in the middle of all ML LFers, and they probably won't get a whole lot better.

Sure he'd be ok defensively (sans arm), but who cares about defense in LF?

Damon's only value is in CF, and he needs to be there for 4 years (or at the very least 3) to justify $52M. And for 3 there better be a WS ring involved.

Prickly Pete
12-22-05, 02:57 PM
How are you holding up boo boo? :D
At first I was heartbroken, but then I shaved my beard, ripped out my hair extensions, burned my pink Johnny Damon tank top, urinated on my autographed copy of "Idiot" and punched the Baby Jesus at a local nativity scene.

Now I feel pretty good about things.

StaceyRosie
12-22-05, 02:58 PM
At first I was heartbroken, but then I shaved my beard, ripped out my hair extensions, burned my pink Johnny Damon tank top, urinated on my autographed copy of "Idiot" and punched the Baby Jesus at a local nativity scene.

Now I feel pretty good about things.

:roflmao:

KLJ
12-22-05, 02:59 PM
there seems to be a lot of people concerned with damon's defense this year and in the future..

compared to williams, damon will look like mays out there with a clemente arm..

jcan411
12-22-05, 02:59 PM
So does your predicition not bold well for Derek Jeter since he and Damon are the same age?

That makes no sense....

StaceyRosie
12-22-05, 03:00 PM
I'm concerned about his defense.

NYYBombshell
12-22-05, 03:00 PM
At first I was heartbroken, but then I shaved my beard, ripped out my hair extensions, burned my pink Johnny Damon tank top, urinated on my autographed copy of "Idiot" and punched the Baby Jesus at a local nativity scene.

Now I feel pretty good about things.


:lol:


I'm glad that you're feeling better.

RobRiv
12-22-05, 03:01 PM
there seems to be a lot of people concerned with damon's defense this year and in the future..

compared to williams, damon will look like mays out there withe a clemente arm..

Compared to Bernie in his prime, Damon will look like Bubba at the plate.

JDPNYY
12-22-05, 03:02 PM
there seems to be a lot of people concerned with damon's defense this year and in the future..

compared to williams, damon will look like mays out there withe a clemente arm..

I think you may be overestimating the arm thing. I think Johnny may be jealous of Bernie's throwing arm.

KLJ
12-22-05, 03:02 PM
Compared to Bernie in his prime, Damon will look like Bubba at the plate.
unless you have a time machine, bernie in his prime is not an option

RobRiv
12-22-05, 03:03 PM
unless you have a time machine, bernie in his prime is not an option

neither are Mays or Clemente... just saying....

ring403
12-22-05, 03:04 PM
Compared to Bernie in his prime, Damon will look like Bubba at the plate.What does Bernie's hitting in his prime have to do with the price of tea in China? It's completely irrelevent to the 2006 season.

ReggieBar
12-22-05, 03:06 PM
That makes no sense....

Why not? Jeter is 31, Damon is 32. Both play demanding positions. What gives? Why won't Jeter's production decline in 2 years?

KLJ
12-22-05, 03:07 PM
neither are Mays or Clemente... just saying....
what you are saying doesn't have anything to do with what i am talking about.. i thought it was a simple point but obviously not..

damon is a major upgrade on defense from last year.. (an upgrade on offense as well to be sure) people shouldn't be worried about what he will give us in the field..

RobRiv
12-22-05, 03:07 PM
What does Bernie's hitting in his prime have to do with the price of tea in China? It's completely irrelevent to the 2006 season.


It was my response to a comment that Damon will look like Mays or Clemente compared to Bernie in the field. Are Mays or Clemente relevant to 2006?

KLJ
12-22-05, 03:09 PM
Why not? Jeter is 31, Damon is 32. Both play demanding positions. What gives? Why won't Jeter's production decline in 2 years?
to tell you the truth i still don't understand this assumption that damon will drop off the planet both on offense and defense before the contract is over.. i can only assume it's because that's basically what happened with our last cf..

goin for 27
12-22-05, 03:10 PM
people shouldn't be worried about what he will give us in the field..

This is absurd. He will be an upgrade on defense, and that is extremely important.

ring403
12-22-05, 03:12 PM
It was my response to a comment that Damon will look like Mays or Clemente compared to Bernie in the field. Are Mays or Clemente relevant to 2006?His point was that the Yankees have significantly upgraded CF over Bernie and company from last season. He was comparing Bernie today with Damon today. You compared Bernie's offense from the late 90's to Damon's offense today.

KLJ
12-22-05, 03:12 PM
This is absurd. He will be an upgrade on defense, and that is extremely important.
i think we are in agreement..:dunno:

what is absurd