Comments on: Yankees off-season behavior will change with the year

By: Market Watch: Matt Holliday | Bird Land | STLtoday

Market Watch: Matt Holliday | Bird Land | STLtoday — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:20:35 +0000

[...] Jeter’s contract, and River Avenue Blues — a blog covering the Yankees — makes the interesting point that last year’s frenetic spending has already committed $92.9 million t…That’s before Jeter’s next deal, and that, the blog speculates, may make the Yankees [...]

By: Count Zero

Count Zero — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:12:45 +0000

I don’t know — in Bo’s defense here, I could call Joba a question mark. He’s not saying, “he sucks” or “he will never be a starter” — he’s saying he is a question mark in the rotation.

Objectively, Joba now has a career 1.374 WHIP in the show. 9.1 K/9 is awesome, but 3.9 BB/9 — not so much. Compound that by the fact that last year was worse — 1.544 WHIP, 7.6 K/9, 4.3 BB/9 and an ERA+ of 90…so let’s not trip over ourselves to call him an anchor in the rotation.

I agree that Joba breaks camp in the rotation because his ceiling (which he has shown to be realistic at times) far exceeds that of 90% of MLB pitchers and he’s still a kid. But I think it’s fair to question what we will get. Will he be the dominant Joba we have seen at times, or are his increasing BBs and reduced Ks a sign that the league has figured out how to hit against him? Is the velocity decrease real or just a function of increased innings? Can he really command three pitches, or is he strictly FB/SL?

This will be a “show-me” year for Joba — whichever way it goes, that will be how we evaluate Joba as a long-term piece of the Yankees. Question mark is fair.

By: Keanu Reeves

Keanu Reeves — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:47:22 +0000

Joba is a starter until he proves beyond reasonable doubt that he cannot succeed in that role. You don’t just take a kid with his talent, give him two years as a starter and decide that he can’t do it.

By: Keanu Reeves

Keanu Reeves — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:45:08 +0000

How about the Yankees just try to win every year? I think that’s okay too.

By: theyankeewarrior

theyankeewarrior — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:23:21 +0000

I like where some people are going with the whole “we have A-Rod and Jeter etc. now so lets win NOW” philosophy. But I think the 1 yr. stop-gap notion actually plays into that idea a bit. The Yankees may agree that Matt Holiday is a good fit for them, but even the Yankees have budgets. We don’t know what they are, but they do exist. They may have to choose between Holliday this year and a potential Cliff Lee/Roy Halladay deal next season. If signing 1yr deals this winter allows them to free up enough cash to sign Crawford and Lee next winter, then that’s what they should do.

When Cashman says “this will be a long, drawn-out winter”, I believe him. He is going to sit back and see how much money he can save on 1yr deals before he puts big-time money down. In an ideal world, he gets 2 or 3 of Damon, Mastui and Cameron for 2010 and saves up big cash for 2011 when the large mouth bass will be hungry.

Keep in mind that we still have an outside chance at nabbing Mauer, who would be the best player on our team come 2011.

By: Riddering

Riddering — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:11:07 +0000

All of these statements are false and mystifying, bro.

By: theyankeewarrior

theyankeewarrior — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:10:46 +0000

I see that side of the argument, but (and I’m assuming the Yankees do their HW and know more about this than we do) Carl Crawford seems more like an “athlete” than Holliday, who seems more like a bulky, power hitter than may lose his ability to run more quickly. As long as CC can still run, he will be the same player for a long time. 33 isn’t as old as it used to be, and even Damon still had league average OF legs at 33. Crawford has some of the best wheels in baseball. My point is that Holliday fits the description of an aging, DH-type whereas Crawford seems to be the kind of player that can delay his athletic decline until he’s on the wrong side of 35. Although it’s a SSS, I see the Matsui DH/PH argument. But it might take 2yrs to nab Damon and only 1 for Godzilla.

By: Matt ACTY/BBD

Matt ACTY/BBD — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:26:18 +0000

No, he wasn’t. He struggled in away games, that’s it.

By: Tubby

Tubby — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:24:44 +0000

My reply was aimed at the comment that Holliday was awful in Oakland. I used Crawford as a comp because he seems to be the most commonly mentioned alternative. I’ll concede that OPS+ doesn’t tell the whole story, but my main point was that Holliday wasn’t as bad in Oakland as many people seem to think.

By: tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:12:16 +0000

I think they would certainly qualify as question marks.

You’d be wrong.