Again, though, I’m really not an expert at how this metric is calculated. It would be cool if someone with more knowledge/experience could help out.

Because you continually say there’s nothing wrong with saying you want to trade Cano for something more valuable, then continually try to make the case that saying you want to trade Cano for something more valuable is wrong. You don’t want to admit you were wrong, and I get that, it’s a normal reaction. But it’s a stubborn and obtuse reaction.

“I honestly do not think any GM will trade someone like Kemp (or anyone with more value, or at least currently has more value because we cant project the future) for Cano, especially when there are several stop-gap solutions in the market.”

That’s not an answer to the question though, it’s a tangent. You’re evading the actual question. The question was whether you stand by your statement that it would be idiotic for someone to trade for Cano and give up more value than he received, a statement made with the intent to tell Don that it’s stupid to want to trade Cano because it’s theoretically, let alone realistically, impossible to get the wanted-return for him. I think the vast majority of trades that have occurred in MLB history have resulted in one team acquiring more value than the other team, so I don’t think it’s fair to criticize the idea of trading Cano by saying it’s impossible for the Yankees to do so and receive more value than they lose.

“And honestly, you keep going off on tangents. I was arguing why I disagree with him mostly and his reasoning (while agreeing, or at least not disagreeing, that Cano CAN be traded) and how no one in that thread really bashed him. You keep asking that one question which is irrelevant to what I’m saying.”

So I keep going off on tangents… by asking the same question and discussing the same topic in every single one of my comments in this thread!? I’m sorry, but that doesn’t make any sense at all. You keep going to tangents because you don’t want to look at your own statements critically, which is understandable if not unfortunate, but I keep sticking to the same discrete issue. I’m sorry, but if you think I’m going off on tangents then I don’t think you understand the meaning of that term.

“I guess maybe you and I probably disagree on what is being said in that question.”

Perhaps, but seeing as how I’ve touched on this issue in every one of my comments in this particular conversation and asked the question different ways in order to get you to answer it, and seeing as how you’re a pretty intelligent person, I think my intent is pretty clear to you. You know what I’m asking and you could answer the question I’m asking if you wanted to, you just don’t want to.

“I will say this though. I dont agree with my statement a complete 100%. It’s more like 99% because it IS possible some GM will make a dumb trade like that but not probable.”

If you need to hedge your answer that much in order to finally, honestly evaluate your own statements and answer the question… i’ll take it.

Thank you for finally answering, in the most hedged manner possible, my non-tangential question. Good grief that was like pulling teeth.

(If I might be so bold – and this is a general statement as opposed to a statement intended for one commenter… The idea is what is important, not the person stating the idea. We shouldn’t be so slow to evaluate the things we say, there’s way too much pride-of-authorship around here that gets in the way of the progress of the discourse. And with that, I look forward to burying this conversation… How freaking tedious is this? ::shoots self in head with finger-gun::)

You do realize he’s almost 32, right? And most definitely NOT on the improving end of his career.

You take your .283/.357/.417 2B with Kemp, I’ll take Cano and Gardbrera/Jackson (who will be CHEAPER and most likely BETTER than Orlando Hudson).

This would mean that if you had the BEST shortstop in the league, he would account for – by virtue of defense alone – 25 runs for your team, or about 5 games worth of offense. If you have an average SS, you save about 1-2 games worth of offense per year over a replacement player.

For offense, runs created for AL SSs ranged from 122 (Jeter) to 37 (Betancourt) among guys who played close to a full season. The average was 77. If a replacement player is, say 40 (possibly it’s worse, but I’ll go with Betancourt’s numbers to err on the side against offense), the BEST shortstop in the league accounts for 80 runs better than replacement, or about 16 games worth of offense. An average guy, compared to replacement level, is 37 runs, or about 7 games worth of offense.

Summarizing:

Value of average defense v. replacement level defense: 1-2 games worth of offense.
Value of best defense v. replacement level defense: 5 games worth of offense.

Value of average offense v. replacement level offense: 7 games worth of offense.
Value of best offense v. replacement level offense: 16 games worth of offense.

Defense is worth probably a bit more than I would have guessed, but it is not even close to the importance of offense. If you were to choose the league’s best defensive SS, and could get average defense out of him, you would have a player that was about 9 games worth of offense BETTER than a replacement player.

On the other hand, if you had the league’s worst defensive SS, but got league BEST offense from him, you would have a player that is about 14 games worth of offense BETTER than a replacement player.

When you consider that Jeter was the best in MLB among SS for runs created, and his UZR saved the Yankees 8 runs above replacement, there is absolutely no doubt he should remain the Yankees SS as long as his legs will carry him.

I’m guessing if you looked at the Yankees position by position and did this kind of analysis, you’d find that Jeter outperformed his counterparts on other teams by more than any other player on the team.

You can make an argument from these data that Jeter should be the MVP. Best offensive SS in baseball, above average defense, team leader, on the WS winner.