How to properly evaluate a trade

Open Thread: A ceiling, a floor or something in between
Report: Everyone too expensive for Yanks' LF hole

Twice this winter Brian Cashman has traded prospects for big leaguers. This is standard fare for the Yankees. The key to these trades is balancing immediate needs with those for the future. It’s far too easy to tip the scales in one direction, and we saw the Yankees blunder in this way over the past decade. This time around, however, it appears the Yankees managed their resources a bit better. They traded useful young players, but in return they received players who can help them in 2010 and beyond.

Despite widespread praise for the Yankees moves, a number of fans and analysts (more of the former than the latter) don’t like Brian Cashman’s dealings. They claim that he gave up too much for too little in return. But by which standard are they judging these moves? Are the detractors evaluating these moves by rigorous standards, or are they reacting emotionally to a business decision?

On The Book blog, Tom Tango notes two points upon which we should evaluate trades:

#1: What is the most outstanding player or package you can get back for a player or package?
#2: Are you better off keeping your player/package than the best outstanding offer on the table?

He then goes on to use the Javier Vazquez trade as an example.

Let’s take Javy Vazquez for Melky Cabrera + good-not-great prospect. If you are the Braves, is this the best you can get back? If not, you try to keep shopping. If it is, then you have to decide: am I better off trading?

If you are the Yanks and you want someone of Javy’s quality, is this the least you can give up? If not, you try to keep shopping. If this is the minimum you have to give up, then decide if you are still better off with the trade?

Looking at the Yankees situation, it seems that this was the least they could give up for a player of Vazquez’s ability. They pushed for Cliff Lee, but found the price too high. So they acquired a comparable pitcher for what we can presume a lower price. Would any other team trade the Yankees a pitcher of Vazquez’s ability for a similar package? We don’t know for sure, but it seems unlikely. The two teams matched up well because Atlanta sought to shed a starting pitcher, and the Yankees were in a position to absorb Vazquez’s salary.

The problem in evaluating trades, or even free agent signings, this way is that we’re not always privy to the unaccepted offers. Because of widespread rumor proliferation we learn more about these unaccepted offers than we ever have, but even now plenty of information never finds its way to us. That makes answering the first point difficult. If we do not know of other offers, then we can only answer the second part. Was the team better off keeping its players?

Most debate about trades centers on the second question because we assume that the package accepted was the best available. So we’re back to the beginning. Everyone will express an opinion on the matter, and we’ll see views of all different types. Which ones should we buy, then, and which should we disregard? The good arguments will look something like Dave Cameron’s comment on the post regarding the Brandon Morrow trade (spurred by his initial comment and Tango’s follow-up). The bad ones will usually consist of a sentence or two that focus on one or two aspects while disregarding other, possibly more important, points.

(Another aspect Tango emphasizes naming possible alternatives. “If you think your team could have gotten more, or given up less, then list out the players. It makes no sense to have an opinion that your team could have gotten more or given up less, unless you actually say what they could have gotten more or what less they could have given up.” To an extent I agree, but since your trade proposal sucks, I do offer a note of dissent. Many times, the naming of names adds no value to the conversation.)

Dissenting opinions are, as always, welcome. Didn’t like the Vazquez trade because you don’t think Vazquez won’t perform in New York? Why do you think that? What, other than an aberrant second half of the season five years ago, suggests that Vazquez can’t handle the city? That’s the kind of discussion that we promote at RAB. Some might not agree with you, but if you lay it out in these terms we can at least respect that you made a coherent, well thought out argument.

Open Thread: A ceiling, a floor or something in between
Report: Everyone too expensive for Yanks' LF hole
  • Jamal G.

    What, other than an aberrant second half of the season five years ago, suggests that Vazquez can’t handle the city?

    SG of Replacement Level Yankees Weblog:

    There is one key point about the pitching projections. Projection systems don’t understand that player skill/talent is static and never changes. They incorrectly assume that a weighted average of the most recent seasons adjusted for context such as league, park and defense combined with regression towards the mean and adjusting for aging tells us more about a player than what that player may have done five or six years ago for a team. So even though Javier Vazquez projects to put up a nice 3.52 ERA, we know for a fact that he is going to have a 4.91 ERA in 2010 because that’s what he did in 2004 for the same exact Yankee team in the same exact stadium against the same exact opposition he faced back then with the same exact pitching coach and the same exact defense behind him.

    I laughed.

    • Rockdog

      Totally agree.

    • ecksodia

      To even assume that his performance then and now would be identical holding ONLY what he mentioned constant is lunacy; the fact that the factors he stated have changed makes the argument sound even crazier.

      • JMK THE OVERSHARE’s Glenn Beck Complex

        Why don’t you sit the next one out, eh?

    • Lawrence From Plattekill

      Know what would be cool? Vazquez beating the White Sox in game 5 of the 2010 Division Series.

  • JMK THE OVERSHARE’s Glenn Beck Complex

    I think it’s also worth noting that in Vazquez’s case, there’s a very good chance you get back players with higher ceilings or are close to as developed than the ones given up, assuming he’s offered arbitration, declines it and signs with another team.

    • Mike Bk

      not to overthink it but how much of it could also be looking ahead knowing they will do something that costs our pick for the following draft and now we have a player who should keep us in the 1st round and get a supp 1st as well.

      • Mike Bk

        not skipping his actual on field value next year of course.

      • OldYanksFan

        You ONLY get picks IF you offer Arb. With Arb, Javy would get around $13+m, so it ain’t happening unless he has an excellent year.

        The current Arb system does NOT work in a weak economy. We have seen this 2 years in a row.

        • The Three Amigos

          Pitchers are much different then hitters. We have seen older corner outfielders not offered arbitration when they were going to get much over market 1 year deals. 1 yr for 13 million of a 34 year old Vazquez, you absolutely offer arbitration.

          Pitching is always needed by some team and some NL team at the least will offer him a longer term deal. I mean, Billy Wagner off of 2 injury free months got a 7.5 M contract.

          • OldYanksFan

            You may be correct but…. lets say Javy has an above average year in 2010… 4.20 ERA. He could get closer to $14m/yr. So, you offer Arb and he accepts. In 2011, he posts a 4.2 ERA. If you offer Arb, he gets $16m. Now what. Again, whether he accepts Arb in either year depends on market conditions, but it’s not a no-brainer that he turns it down… especially on a WS bound team.

            As long as Arb rewards players significantly higher then the current market, it doesn’t work. The problem is Arb has a max. reduction of 20%, and a player must absolutely, totally suck for that to happen. So while players ‘values’ have dropped significantly recently, it is RARE to get a paycut through Arb.

            For young players who are cheap, it’s not as bad. But once a player is salaried in 5 digits, it’s difficult.
            Look at Abreu. Look at JD. These guys are getting 60% of their former salary. Glaus?

            However, I would need to look at all the SPs (making serious money) over the last 2 years to see how this has played out.

            If Javy posts a 6.5 ERA, we could get him through Arb for $9.5m to $11.5m, but he’s probably worth less on the market.

            Again, in principal, what you say has value, and it depends how weak the market is next year. But getting picks for Javy is not a no-brainer. My guess is Pettitte is gone in 2011 and Javy may be his replacement at $13m+. What happens the year after is guesswork.

            • Jordan – Cashman Has No Equal

              If he accepts, you work out a deal so you don’t go into an arb after arb year case.

  • BklynJT

    “Let’s take Javy Vazquez for Melky Cabrera + good-not-great prospect”

    “good-not-great” must be referring to Dunn, totally left out Vizcaino.

    • whozat

      I don’t think so. Prospect value is not only about upside. This kid is 3-4 years from his big-league debut, and a lot of bad things can happen in that time. If he was in AA putting up those numbers at 21, he’d be a great prospect. Still being in short-season ball, even with his numbers…well, that makes him a good prospect, not a great one.

    • RollingWave

      no, it’s the other way around, Dunn is meh-not-good prospect, a guy who at best might be a solid LHP reliever is hardly anything special.

  • Salty Buggah

    The point in the last paragraph is really important. I hate it when people just simply say that Vazquez will struggle because he struggled in 2004. Many people who didn’t like the trade was because of 2004 and because they had an emotional attachment to fan-favorite Melky, which I don’t really think are good reasons considering the trade made the Yanks better (hopefully) for next year.

    Also, I found it funny how so many people were unhappy with trading Arody Vizcaino despite never ever hearing about him before. Most of us at RAB knew him yet were able to accept losing him (it was hard at first for me because he was my favorite pitching prospect but I got over it). But when I read other blogs or saw the reactions for some people on Twitter, some people were not happy about trading him. In the news articles it was said how Arodys was recently named one of the top prospects in BA so people, despite never hearing about him before the trade, hated giving him up.

    • whozat

      They’re just trying to justify their initial, emotion-based reaction. The REAL reason is that they still hate Vazquez from 2004, but this gives them something else to say.

    • Raf

      i dont even want to think back to the day of the Vasquez trade and the long text message convo i was having with a buddy where his argument against Javy consisted of: “he sucks, he cant handle NY” and “you cant trust him in the playoffs, he gave up the Damon GS!”. completely emotional based on one year and nothing else.

    • Bo

      How can you blame people for questioning him? Not like he lit it up the first time here. You cant say he doesnt have a lot to prove.

  • Bill Style

    Interesting post and comments so far, of course it’s always easier to evaluate a trade in hindsight, and no one that I know has a crystal ball to look into the future to see if Javy will self-implode in the second half again, or if someone such as Vizcaino will be a stud in 4-5 years

    • whozat

      The point is you CAN’T really evaluate the quality of a trade in hindsight. You can evaluate how well a move turned out, but you can’t judge whether it was a good move or not.

      • JMK THE OVERSHARE’s Glenn Beck Complex

        Exactly. If as a crazy hypothetical, tomorrow you trade Z-Mac for Josh Johnson. Johnson ends up blowing out his arm in the 4th game of the season and never pitches again, while Z-Mac becomes a reliable, good 3rd starter for a championship-quality club. HINDSIGHT doesn’t make much difference.

        It would still have been a move you should have made every single time.

        • Salty Buggah


          Take the Nady/Marte trade for example. It was a good trade for the Yanks. In hindsight, some will say it was bad (and perhaps rightfully so) but I’d give up starters that couldn’t make in the AL East and a troubled and struggling prospect with potential for a good corner OFer and an elite lefty, which were needed to make a playoff push at the time, everyday.

          • JMK aka The Overshare’s Excessive Back Hair Complex

            To expand the argument further, to use a more likely (though still somewhat unlikely) hypothetical, say it’s Joba+Montero+DeLeon+Manban for Uggla and Johnson. If three players traded flourish and Johnson and Uggla merely become good players, people will say “Oh, that’s a terrible trade. Look what they gave up!” But that assumes if the players weren’t traded, due to roster construction, opportunity for playing time, instruction, cost and all sorts of other circumstances, that they would have flourished in New York, too.

            While it may still ultimately prove to be a poor trade, it’s faulty logic to assume they’d pan out under completely different environments. Jose Tabata is a prime example.

            This seems to be more art than science, even with so-called benefits of hindsight.

          • steve (different one)

            but then in double-secret-reverse hindsight, Marte single handedly re-won the trade for the Yankees by morphing into Grahem Lloydv2.0 running through the lefty heart of the Phillies’ order like a hot knife through butter.

            the key is to use whatever view helps your side of the argument the most.

            crap, i’ve said too much.

  • Jay Dee

    There are additional facets that should be considered here too. The most important being whether a comparable player can be signed as a free agent for comparable money. If a comparable player can be obtained, then there is no need to make a trade.

    An example may be Ben Sheets, who would seems to have a higher upside then Javy Vazquez. Whether he is truly comparable because of potential for new injuries is a question, but I am really trying to make is that a trade cannot simply be evaluated based upon talent given up and received, but also whether a free agent talent can be obtained so as to make a trade unnecessary.

    • OldYanksFan

      With trades, you also need to look at a teams immediate and near term goals. Also in the equation is: How badly do we need Position X of quality Y and effect Z on the team. Did we need a SP of #4 or better quality, and does his addition make a difference to our specific needs (winning in 2010)?

      For instance, I like the NJ trade, However, a DH need wasn’t our biggest need at the moment, and there were other solutions (albeit maybe not as good). So I think the NJ trade must get the highest scutany.

      Certainly, with Granderson, we needed to upgrade our OF, and he does meet our immediate and near future goals.

      The age and the contract terms of the guys we got, all fit into our goal of getting younger, and future payroll flexibility… unlike some trades we made in the past.

      The Yankees need to develop and keep at least ONE average-to-above kid a year. Over an 8 year cycle, this means 8 cheap-to-modestly priced ‘kids’ on the team at all times. This is essential in order for us to be able to afford to continue to purchase expensive, hi impact FAs.

      Melky is now gone and Cano is now off that list (9m+ going forward) but Phil, Joba, Montero, Gardner and the BP keeps the balance.

      I think what makes losing the guys we lost reasonable, is we still have Phil, Joba, Montero and Romine. These are the guys with the best chance of making/sticking with the Yankees and being 1 of the magic 8. It’s also what made losing AJax tougher then the other loses.

      • jsbrendog

        nick johnson was not traded. he was signed as a free agent and therefore this makes no sense. scrutiny.

        • OldYanksFan

          But in terms of deal-making, my point was our current NEED is part of the equation.
          In looking at the Javy deal, how badly we needed him speaks to what was ‘reasonable’ to give up.

          But…. YA GOT ME!

  • Patrick T

    On another topic in this post, while I agree with the sentiment behind “your trade proposal sucks,” I think there are two key points missed in Joe’s original description.

    1. The example cited involves probably the worst front office in the American League. I mean, I like Mellinger well enough, but for all we know his trade proposal was Teahen for Theriot and a marginal prospect and the Royals executives reason for saying no was that they had a killer deal lined up for defensive whiz Yuniesky Betancourt. I know it sounds like I’m taking the piss, but don’t sell short just how dumb the Royals front office is.

    2. The reason your trade proposal sucks is because overwhelmingly likely you didn’t do the research Mellinger did in his example. More likely you said something like Melky + IPK for Pujols. Your trade proposal sucks because you didn’t think it through, and you don’t know what’s going on in each specific Major League teams front office. These days we know more than ever about team’s budgets and player evaluation strategies, and yet, I’m pretty sure Granderson for AJax, IPK and Coke would have gotten laughed off the board before we knew Granderson was being shopped, and maybe even after. I don’t doubt Vazquez & Logan for Melky, Vizcaino and Dunn would have gotten a similar reaction.

    I think the ultimate question here is what are you evaluating. If you’re using the trade to evaluate your front office’s ability as it relates to player evaluation then you can only make those decisions immediately, after the trade, before the players post-trade performance is a factor. In this instance, Tom Tango’s post is extremely relevant. I also think we can assess that in both deals the Yankees did fairly well, but that neither was an out and out steal.

    Down the road, its probably a safe bet that one or two of the prospects the Yanks dealt will turn out, and how well they turn out may have a lot to say about how we grade these trades in say, 2014. Just as relevant, in the postscript, will be what the Yanks end up doing next offseason by making decisions that maintained the competitiveness of the 2010 squad while leaving payroll flexibility to invest in the 2010 offseason market. Because if they didn’t acquire Granderson and Vazquez, they likely would have to spent dollars in this FA market, probably Damon and Lackey. Those moves tie up enough money that they can’t do the same things next year that the actual deals allow them to do.

    • JMK aka The Overshare’s Excessive Back Hair Complex

      I know you think it’s hip to use well-reasoned arguments and a broad spectrum to evaluate different aspects of trades, but I’m pretty happy with our memes and dick and fart jokes. This whole critical thinking section gives me tired eyes.

      So let’s be mindful of that next time we have the inclination to throw these posts around, okay?

      But seriously, while point one is relevant and the Royals appear to be a poorly run franchise, they may have had other deals proposed that were shut down, and foolishly overvalued Betancourt if they felt a pressing need and he was their best option (as crazy as that sounds). As you said, we unfortunately do not know the internal discussions or the deals that aren’t publicized; ultimately, because we’re not privy to such information, we invariably use faulty logic through the prism of what we believe is feasible.

      Regarding the second, larger point, much of this is due to the position the team would have found itself in by not pulling the trigger on these trades. It’s isn’t as cut and dried as players A,B,C for players X,Y,Z if it greatly impacts how the team does business in one year.

      Beyond that, we must also be cognizant that our traded prospects “making it” in another franchise as being the measuring stick for evaluation may prove faulty as well. We’d be operating under the assumption they’d have done just as well on our team, with our roster construction, playing time, instruction, etc. I wrote it above as a response to Salty Buggah.

      Anyway, tired eyes…

      • jsbrendog

        ::fart joke::

    • jsbrendog

      I’m pretty sure Granderson for AJax, IPK and Coke would have gotten laughed off the board before we knew Granderson was being shopped, and maybe even after.

      except that wasnt the trade. that tradew would have never happened.

      it was ajax coke scherzer and the other pitcher with an s from zona. there is no way det wouldve taken ipk, ajax, and coke, which s why ziona was brought in

  • Januz

    The way to evaluate moves is by looking at the entire picture not just a trade or a signing on a stand alone basis. Here is one little example: It is a near given that the rules for the draft and for International Free Agency will be changing (Players from the Dominican Republic, Venezuela etc will be part of the draft. The Players Association has acknowledged this fact). Because of this, you could see the Yankees rebuild the farm system by signing most of the top IFA’s and be very aggressive in the draft (They were not because of the amount they spent on CC, AJ & Tex). Speaking of Tex, Cashman has admitted he talked ownership into signing Tex, partially because there were no free agents close to him in the 2010 class. This has been proven correct (At least for now) because of 1: The price teams were willing to pay for him (As opposed to Holliday, Bay, etc). 2: The fact they WON the World Series. 3: The fact that Tex led the league in RBI’s, tied in HR’s, and won the Gold Glove. Here is the kicker: Tex cost them a THIRD ROUND draft pick. Keep in mind, the first and second rounders were gone (CC’s & AJ’s signings). So essentially they lost a third rounder for him. If they would have waited, and say signed Holliday this year, they would have LOST the 2011 FIRST ROUND pick (Because of his Elias Ranking). There is no doubt that Cashman was aware of this fact.
    I think it is fair to say that this move, may go down as one of the greatest free-agent signings in Yankee History (It has the potential to be even better if they win Multiple Championships during Tex’s stay here (As BOTH Scott Boras and Michael Kay have talked about), and (or) their saved first-round pick pans out). The Tex signing essentially helped them in 2009 and because of the draft pick issue, quite likely in the future. A brilliant move.

    • jsbrendog

      aj burnett cost them a 3rd round pick. draft pick compensation goes by quality of player.

      therefore i believe teixeira cost the first round pick, cc the second, and aj the 3rd.

      • The Honorable Congressman Mondesi

        Eh… Tex signed last, so really he cost the Yanks their third round pick. The team that lost Tex got the Yankees first round pick, sure… But from the Yankees’ POV, look at it this way… The day before signing Tex, the Yanks had already lost their first and second round picks, but had their third round pick. The day after signing Tex, the Yanks had lost all three of their first, second, and third round picks.

        Whatever, it’s a minor point… But what he said, while not technically accurate, is actually accurate when looking at the practical effects (on the Yanks’ draft board) of the Tex signing.

  • Jake H

    I think you have to look at the players in the trade. Looking at Vazquez trade you traded
    1. Your starting fielder that most people think is a 4th OF. Atlanta appears to not be that so they value Melky more than other teams.

    2. You have Mike Dunn. At best he was a middle reliever, could turn into a lefty specialist and at worst his control problems make it so he never is anything.

    3. You have the one piece that hurt the most. Arodys has legit #2 starter in the majors. Why that is his ceiling no one knows if he is going to get there. He will be 19 in Low A next year which is just like a HS signee. He might be able to go to High A this year by the end if he keeps pitching well. Probably starts High A as a 20 year old regardless if he dominates or just pitches well. 21 starting in AA and might make the majors in 3-4 years.

    Now lets look at the rotation in 4 years. So would have AJ and CC in the rotation. You probably will have Joba or Phil in the rotation by then. Let’s assume one of them. So that is 3 spots already tied up. The Yanks appear as if they are going to go after Lee, Felix, Beckett or another SP by that time. So there would be 1 spot in the rotation. 1 spot that might go to Arodys but also might go to another SP that is in the minors.

    I think you have to look at what you gave up and look at if the prospect turns into an average player if they would have room on the roster if they take a normal path to the majors.

    • Jordan – Cashman Has No Equal

      There are so many arms in the minors, giving up Arodys hurts, but that one spot you cited could be replaced by say McAllister, Banuelos, Brackman (YAY!), Mitchell, etc.

    • steve (different one)

      the Yankees will likely net 2 draft picks from Vazquez. that should help offset the loss of Vizcaino.

  • Tank Foster

    It’s easy for us to understand that smaller payroll teams will make trades in which salary is the primary motivator, but some people can’t believe that the Yankees might make a deal because of salary considerations.

    I think Cashman is looking toward the next offseason, where he might be envisioning a battle with Boston for Joe Mauer. Trading Melky (and not signing Damon or Matsui) allows the team to potentially save enough to cover the first year or two of a long term deal for a megastar like Mauer…similarly, Vazquez may be a very economical pitcher, in terms of innings pitched relative to salary.

    I think the Yankees are moving their chess pieces around and may be sacrificing a bishop this year in order to get the other team’s Queen next year.

    • Matt Imbrogno

      It’s easy for us to understand that smaller payroll teams will make trades in which salary is the primary motivator, but some people can’t believe that the Yankees might make a deal because of salary considerations.

      If Wang didn’t get hurt last year–or wasn’t just all around awful–I think the Yankees would’ve been looking to trade him for salary reasons.

    • OldYanksFan

      Man…. Everyone Loves Raymond Mauer… but our Org is stacked with MLB potential Catchers… not to mention Montero. Wouldn’t it be best to use our FA dollars to sign positions where we have no possible farmhand in sight?

      • Matt Imbrogno

        Even taking Montero into consideration, you go for Mauer. I don’t think he’ll be available, but if he is, the Yankees will most definitely be in on him.

        • OldYanksFan

          IMHO I disagee. We already have ARod… and his contract. Catchers age faster then other players. 7 Years of Mauer at $20m+, along with ARod and CC (over $70m for THREE players) makes 2016 and 2017 downsight scary.

          A ‘Holliday’ + Montero > then Mauer + Gardner
          and significantly cheaper and more flexible.

          But time will tell.

      • Bo

        When you have a shot at a once in a generation player you go for it.

        No matter whos in the system. if that happens you can trade those system guys for needs.

        • steve (different one)

          i feel dirty for saying this, but i agree with Bo.

      • Tank Foster

        Good point, but I think you use your free agent dollars to sign the players that will improve your team the most. Montero can be a DH, he can possibly play LF. Or, if he’s a decent catcher, you can talk to Mauer about moving to OF or 3b or whatever. Mauer is the best player available next year, probably the 2nd best player in baseball, and you can bet the Yankees will be gunning for him, if MN doesn’t lock him up first.

  • Bo

    You cant blame anyone for not thinking Vazquez isnt tough enough for NY after what happened 5 yrs ago and after what Ozzie said. But he’s a mid rotation starter. He’s not being brought in here to be a frontline starter. And it was about time they sold high on Melky.

    • jsbrendog

      You cant blame anyone for not thinking Vazquez isnt tough enough for NY after what happened 5 yrs ago

      yes, you can. it was 5 years ago. ciome up with a valid reason and then said people cannot be blamed

    • Raf

      i dont know, him going out there every 5th day with either an injury or his mechanics out of whack shows me that he has some toughness. he wanted the ball to give his team a chance to win.

    • Colombo

      Yes, because Ozzie Guillen is my one-stop shop for all things baseball.

      Also, Javy was hurt for the second half of ’04. He admitted it himself. He kept pitching when he should have been resting. This was the cause of his “blowup”. You seem to be ignoring the great first half he had.

  • Tank Foster

    The reason is that he failed in NY before. So, if you are the sort of person who believes in the idea that there is some inner quality, which people either have or do not have, that is required for successful athletic performance on NY team, then it is perfectly valid to think Vazquez will fail again in NY…or in the AL East, etc.

    You can debate whether that is a “valid” reason, but Bo didn’t comment on the validity of peoples’ beliefs. He was just saying that you can understand why (some) people believe as they do. And I think he’s right.

  • Tank Foster

    Dang forgot the stupid reply button…that was a reply to your question, Mr. Brendog…

    I have a cousin who thinks this way about Vazquez, saying he “failed” before and will “fold in the playoffs.”

    Of course, in Javy’s defense, he hurt his shoulder in the second half of ’03 and was hurt in the playoffs. Up to that point, there was nothing to suggest he couldn’t hack playing in NY.

    But anyway…I know what Bo is saying and I agree.

    • jsbrendog

      his point was you can’t “blame” them

      yes you can. what happened 5 years ago for 81 games is not something you can use to judge negatively about someone when the following 5×162 games have been well above average.

      you can most certainly blame someone for writing off a player based on such a small sample size form 5 yr ago while also ignoring the small smaple size from 5 yrs ago where he was an allstar and one of the best pitchers in the al.

      so yes, you can blame them for not being rational or logical.

      • jsbrendog

        not to mention he also came out and said that he had an issue with his arm at that time as well but kept soldiering on to try and do the right thing for the team.

        yiou know, like pettitte did in 08? and he is a soldier, team player, great guy.

      • Tampa Yankee

        ::fart joke::

        • jsbrendog

          did i just get served?

          oh, it’s on.

          • Tampa Yankee

            Look, I don’t come here for the rational thoughts/comments so keep those to yourself. I come here for the meme’s and dick and fart jokes.


  • Dillon

    If we don’t get 2 draft picks for Javy the following year this is a bad trade. Considering he’ll make $13mill if he goes to arb, the yanks might not offer. I could be wrong, but to me you NEVER EVER give up a pitching prospect with #1 potential, which is what we did. It’s the most valuable asset in the game. Vizcaino is young and you never know how he’ll advance, but to give up him and dunn for one year of Javy is dumb. I agree with a lot of what cashmans done lately, but the chance of this trade coming back to haunt us in a major way is way to high to make it.