2012 Hot Stove/ Trade Rumors...

[Yankee Tripper]

This is kind of all I was presenting in this conversation. Using Burnett and Vazquez as examples was only to show that pressures in NY actually can exist. There is a certain expectation as a player on the Yankees you need to live up to. They pay people a lot of money and are expected to perform based on that. If you do not perform you have issues. Either from media, fans, or management. The media and fans were brutal to Vazquez and Burnett. Then they leave and go on to have great seasons. Burnett is having a fantastic season this year. To say that playing in NY has no affect on anyone is silly. Some people can deal with it right out of the gate, some people can't at all, and some people have to endure the pressures and if given the time they succeed. But it does have an impact. Am I wrong? This is something that has been talked about on this board since I signed up in 2002. All of a sudden it's not a factor? Come on.

I get what you are saying but a 3 month rental to see if he can handle NYC is bit different giving him a big money long term deal to find out.

[Hitman23]

I get what you are saying but a 3 month rental to see if he can handle NYC is bit different giving him a big money long term deal to find out.

So the plan is for a rental? I figure if they are going to be trading anyone they will have to be pretty valuable to get a guy like Grienke and I would imagine an extension would be in order. No?

[False1]

I get what you are saying but a 3 month rental to see if he can handle NYC is bit different giving him a big money long term deal to find out.

May be an interesting test of the $189MM goal. If they're serious about getting under $189MM, I don't see how they'd trade their best prospects that have a shot at adding some cost-controlled value soon for a guy that will offer a few months of service and need to be replaced. However, if they were to trade/extend a guy like Hamels/Greinke, clearly they're giving up on the $189MM.

[Yankee Tripper]

So the plan is for a rental? I figure if they are going to be trading anyone they will have to be pretty valuable to get a guy like Grienke and I would imagine an extension would be in order. No?

I don't really know what the plan would be. Sure I'd want to extend if we brought in an ace but the ace may have other ideas.

But as you so eloquently pointed out a while back - farm systems can be rebuilt - flags fly forever!

[d32123]

So the plan is for a rental? I figure if they are going to be trading anyone they will have to be pretty valuable to get a guy like Grienke and I would imagine an extension would be in order. No?

No way we give him the money he'll want in an extension. We would possibly bring him back but only after he tests free agent waters first. The guy is an elite pitcher and will want elite CC level money.

[JL25and3]

May be an interesting test of the $189MM goal. If they're serious about getting under $189MM, I don't see how they'd trade their best prospects that have a shot at adding some cost-controlled value soon for a guy that will offer a few months of service and need to be replaced. However, if they were to trade/extend a guy like Hamels/Greinke, clearly they're giving up on the $189MM.

I'm a little confused by the discussion of the compulsion to get under $189M for 2014. It's true, that if they don't meet that threshold, they'll pay a luxury tax of 50%, and if they do they can raise payroll the following year at 17.5%.

But the exact same thing will be true if they go over $178M next year. And if they don't make the threshold in 2014, they can go for the same reset in 2015 instead.

The Tax Threshold shall be $178 Million in the 2012 Contract Year, $178 Million in the 2013 Contract Year, $189 Million in the 2014 Contract Year, $189 million in the 2015 Contract Year and $189 Million in the 2016 Contract Year...

For a Club that has an Actual Club Payroll above the Tax Threshold in the 2013, 2014, 2015, or 2016 Contract Year, the applicable Competitive Balance Tax rate shall be:
(i) 17.5% if the Club did not exceed the Tax Threshold in the preceding Contract Year;
(ii) 30% if the Club’s Competitive Balance Tax rate in the preceding Contract Year was 17.5% or 20%;
(iii) 40% if the Club’s Competitive Balance Tax rate in the preceding Contract Year was 30%; and
(iv) 50% if the Club’s Competitive Balance Tax rate in the preceding Contract Year was 40, 42.5%, or 50%.

CBA, Article XXIII, Sections B(2) and B(3b)

[False1]

I'm a little confused by the discussion of the compulsion to get under $189M for 2014. It's true, that if they don't meet that threshold, they'll pay a luxury tax of 50%, and if they do they can raise payroll the following year at 17.5%.

But the exact same thing will be true if they go over $178M next year. And if they don't make the threshold in 2014, they can go for the same reset in 2015 instead.


CBA, Article XXIII, Sections B(2) and B(3b)

I don't disagree at all, and have fact have said numerous times I think if they see any risk of the team becoming a non-routine playoff contender they'll blow that $189MM out of the water without hesitation.

I think the discussion is alive because apparently there have been public comments stating that is is an organizational goal to be under $189MM by '14.

[Yankee Fan in Boston]

I'm a little confused by the discussion of the compulsion to get under $189M for 2014. It's true, that if they don't meet that threshold, they'll pay a luxury tax of 50%, and if they do they can raise payroll the following year at 17.5%.

But the exact same thing will be true if they go over $178M next year. And if they don't make the threshold in 2014, they can go for the same reset in 2015 instead.


CBA, Article XXIII, Sections B(2) and B(3b)

It's Hal's stated goal. I suspect he picked it because he saw the difficulty of doing $178, but that with a bit more time and slightly higher threshold it might be possible. We'll see if they actually stick to it.

[Hitman23]

I don't really know what the plan would be. Sure I'd want to extend if we brought in an ace but the ace may have other ideas.

But as you so eloquently pointed out a while back - farm systems can be rebuilt - flags fly forever!

True. But I don;t know how Yankee management feels about my position in the matter.

[Yankee Fan in Boston]

May be an interesting test of the $189MM goal. If they're serious about getting under $189MM, I don't see how they'd trade their best prospects that have a shot at adding some cost-controlled value soon for a guy that will offer a few months of service and need to be replaced. However, if they were to trade/extend a guy like Hamels/Greinke, clearly they're giving up on the $189MM.

I'm not sure they've clearly given up, but I agree it's puts them in a tougher place. I'd be surprised if they gave up a bunch of chips for a rental; I think it would be more likely that Cashman would trade them for other cost-controlled players if he were going to deal them

[d32123]

I'm not sure they've clearly given up, but I agree it's puts them in a tougher place. I'd be surprised if they gave up a bunch of chips for a rental; I think it would be more likely that Cashman would trade them for other cost-controlled players if he were going to deal them

So Chase Headley instead of Zack Greinke?

[Yankee Tripper]

True. But I don;t know how Yankee management feels about my position in the matter.

I think it's been their position for the better part of 30 years.

[Yankee Fan in Boston]

So Chase Headley instead of Zack Greinke?

Exactly. All they have to do is teach him to pitch. How hard can that be?

[Carsten Charles]

Because I mentioned a fact, Grienke has anxiety issues and him coming here was a huge concern. You blew that up as if I think he'll have some sort of episode on the field, which I don't believe and never said. I cited two players that obviously couldn't handle it here as reasons to think some people just can't do it. You can call it a decline in whatever but the proof is there. Vazquez came here and sucked, he left and was the guy he was again. Burnett came here and was completely erratic, left for a no pressure situation and somehow found his stuff again. I'm sorry I don't buy that it was just some loss in velocity or declining skills. Both examples prove that some people just can't cut it yet you're dismissing it and calling me an armchair psychologist. I'm not evaluating them and trying to predict the future. I'm citing facts. I don't know why this is being dismissed. They are facts. These things happened. You can witness it with Burnett's current season.

Completely and utterly 100% wrong. Vazquez wasn't close to being as good as he was in 2003 until 2009. Then in 2010, you could clearly see his curveball disappeared and he lost significant velocity on his fastball.

[teknetic]

The Vazquez trade was lauded by most scouts/analysts because the guy had stellar peripherals. No one expected the velocity decline and the subsequent sucking.*


*and, no, he didn't suck because he can't handle New York.

[d32123]

The Vazquez trade was lauded by most scouts/analysts because the guy had stellar peripherals. No one expected the velocity decline and the subsequent sucking.*


*and, no, he didn't suck because he can't handle New York.

Exactly. It was an excellent trade by Cashman and it's not his fault it didn't work out.

[philleotardo]

I would say since Melky was mediocre in ATL and Boone Logan has been good here, Cashman still made a good trade.

[Jace]

I would say since Melky was mediocre in ATL and Boone Logan has been good here, Cashman still made a good trade.

Mediocre is being pretty nice to him, he was a corner OF with an 83 OPS+. No way he finishes the year with the Yankees if he didnt get traded. He was almost out of baseball

[Black Sabbathia]

Javier Vazquez "losing his stuff" pitching for the Yankees is not a coincidence. The guy could not handle pitching in NY, and trying to argue otherwise in spite of the evidence is ridiculous.

I believe in measurables and statistics, but that's not all there is to the game. "He was bad because he lost a couple MPH on his heater and his curve wasn't breaking as well" completely ignores the point. Great year in Atlanta, terrible year in NY (in his second tour), good year in Florida. I'm supposed to believe that that's just a coincidence and if we'd had him in 2009 or 2011 he would have been great/good? Sorry, that's complete bs

[Hitman23]

Completely and utterly 100% wrong. Vazquez wasn't close to being as good as he was in 2003 until 2009. Then in 2010, you could clearly see his curveball disappeared and he lost significant velocity on his fastball.

You're completely and utterly 100% wrong.

[just-blaze]

Javier Vazquez "losing his stuff" pitching for the Yankees is not a coincidence. The guy could not handle pitching in NY, and trying to argue otherwise in spite of the evidence is ridiculous.

I believe in measurables and statistics, but that's not all there is to the game. "He was bad because he lost a couple MPH on his heater and his curve wasn't breaking as well" completely ignores the point. Great year in Atlanta, terrible year in NY (in his second tour), good year in Florida. I'm supposed to believe that that's just a coincidence and if we'd had him in 2009 or 2011 he would have been great/good? Sorry, that's complete bs

When he went back to Florida the next year he didn't regain the FB that he had lost.

Sounds silly to say pitching in NY shook him so bad that his FB lost a couple of ticks.

[Hitman23]

Javier Vazquez "losing his stuff" pitching for the Yankees is not a coincidence. The guy could not handle pitching in NY, and trying to argue otherwise in spite of the evidence is ridiculous.

I believe in measurables and statistics, but that's not all there is to the game. "He was bad because he lost a couple MPH on his heater and his curve wasn't breaking as well" completely ignores the point. Great year in Atlanta, terrible year in NY (in his second tour), good year in Florida. I'm supposed to believe that that's just a coincidence and if we'd had him in 2009 or 2011 he would have been great/good? Sorry, that's complete bs

I'm glad someone finally stood up to back me here. Thank you.

[Hitman23]

When he went back to Florida the next year he didn't regain the FB that he had lost.

Sounds silly to say pitching in NY shook him so bad that his FB lost a couple of ticks.

It's not all about the velocity. He just wasn't good, at all. When he first came over he had a decent run I believe in the beginning. That I'll give him. But when he lost it he was done. He left, went on to do quite well, and then came back and had the same results. I'm sorry I can't ignore it. There is some mental issues mixed in with a possible decline in velocity. The velocity issue was only part of the problem.

[d32123]

It's not all about the velocity. He just wasn't good, at all. When he first came over he had a decent run I believe in the beginning. That I'll give him. But when he lost it he was done. He left, went on to do quite well, and then came back and had the same results. I'm sorry I can't ignore it. There is some mental issues mixed in with a possible decline in velocity. The velocity issue was only part of the problem.

Possible decline in velocity?

It was not a mental issue at all. It was 100% about the decline of his stuff.

[Hitman23]

Possible decline in velocity?

It was not a mental issue at all. It was 100% about the decline of his stuff.

How can you claim this with such absolute certainty?