Mailbag: Trevor Cahill and Craig Breslow


(Ronald Martinez/Getty Images)

J.R. asks: Looking at what the A’s got in return for Trevor Cahill and Craig Breslow, could you speculate what the Yankees would had to have given to match the package?

In case you missed it yesterday, the Athletics traded Cahill and Breslow to the Diamondbacks for Jarrod Parker, Collin Cowgill, and Ryan Cook. None of you Gio Gonzalez fans need to worry, Ken Rosenthal says he’s still on the trade block even after Oakland dealt one of their starters. I will miss the regular poundings the Yankees gave Cahill, he was good for two or three wins a year.

Anyway, the real prize for the Athletics is the 24-year-old Parker, the ninth overall pick in 2007. He missed the entire 2010 season due to Tommy John surgery, but made his big league debut this September and threw 5.2 shutout innings in his only start. The right-hander has been on Baseball America’s top 100 prospects list in each of the last four years, ranking between 29th and 36th the last three years. Kevin Goldstein told Joe last night that Parker is a better prospect than Dellin Betances because he has a better chance to remain a starter long-term.

Cowgill also made his big league debut this year, hitting .239/.300/.304 with one homer and four steals in exactly 100 plate appearances. Baseball America considered him Arizona’s 18th best prospect before the season, saying he profiles best as a fourth outfielder because he “probably won’t have enough bat for an outfield corner or enough speed to play center field every day.” They mention that the 25-year-old gets the occasional comparison to Cody Ross.

Cook is another guy that debuted in 2011, throwing 7.2 disaster innings (11 hits, eight walks, seven strikeouts, six runs). The 24-year-old righty didn’t appear in Arizona’s top 30 prospects list this year, and he didn’t even make the team’s depth chart in Baseball America’s Prospect Handbook. In his trade write-up (Insider req’d), Keith Law says he’s “90-95 with a hard-diving slider in the low 80s, but doesn’t command either pitch and has a wicked hook in his delivery as well as a lot of effort; he could peak as a setup guy, could be a middle guy, could spend years bouncing up and down.”

Matching that trade package player-for-player is a little tough for the Yankees, just because of Cowgill. Manny Banuelos steps in for Parker and someone like George Kontos, Ryan Pope, or Craig Heyer is your Cook replacement. The Yankees don’t have an outfielder like Cowgill though, he’s better than the Colin Curtis/Chris Dickerson/Justin Maxwell trio. He’s similar to Brandon Laird offensively, but Laird is an infielder that can fake left field on occasion while Cowgill can handle all three outfield spots if needed. Austin Romine is too much, plus he doesn’t do anything to help Oakland’s outfield situation.

So if we’re speculating that it would have been Banuelos, Laird, and Kontos for Cahill and Breslow, would you do it? I say no, mostly because I’m pretty high on Banuelos and not the biggest Cahill fan in the world. He could turn into top flight starter, he has that ability, but boy he sure does leave a lot of sinkers up for a ground ball guy. Maybe my opinion of him is clouded by how the Yankees have crushed him over the last few years. He’d definitely help their rotation both now and for the next four years (signed through 2015 with two club options after that), there’s no doubt about that, but I wouldn’t give up three MLB ready (or very close to MLB ready) pieces to get him. What about you?

Would you have traded a package of Banuelos, Laird, and Kontos for Cahill and Breslow?
View Results
Categories : Mailbag


  1. William says:

    Definitely. Cahill has his struggle against the Yanks, but he has ML success. Banuelos doesn’t. Basically, you’re trading an unproven piece for a proven starter with considerable upside. I’m in.

    • Mister Delaware says:

      Do you want to go to Wendy’s, where you’ve eaten before so you know the food is edible, or the new restaurant down the street that’s getting great reviews?

  2. William says:

    Okay, here’s the scenario. You get your choice of a pitcher to build your franchise around, and they are:
    1) Matt Moore
    2) Stephen Strasburg
    3) Julio Teheran
    4) Yu Darvish
    5) Manny Banuelos

    What’s your choice?

  3. ChooChoo says:

    Great to see that Gonzalez is still out there. Here’s hoping we can acquire him for a package of Gardner and Romine.
    Also great to hear that Kuroda was not offered anything by the Yankees. Who in hell would want 3/5ths of their starting staff to have a cumulative age of about 110? Foolishness.

    • KyleLitke says:

      I care more about effectiveness than age.

      • ChooChoo says:

        I care more about ability going forward. That’s also why it’s also prudent to get rid of Gardner

        • Mike Axisa says:

          And why would you trade for Gio then? Do you think he’s magically going to fix the walk problems that have plagued him since high school?

          • Kosmo says:

            walk problems sometimes are alleviated by maturity. Gio is all of 26 yrs old. I can list any number of pitchers who conquered the walk problem. Banuelos has difficulty getting the ball over the plate. I don´t see anyone being hyper-critical .

          • ChooChoo says:

            What in hell difference does it make if you walk people and then they don’t score? Gio has been effective in limiting runs–very effective.
            Last I checked–that’s what they keep track of on the scoreboard.

            • Mike Axisa says:

              You’re right, one has nothing to do with the other. I assume he’ll be just as good at limiting runs in a smaller park and not facing the Mariners six times a season.

              • ChooChoo says:

                Gio Gonzalez faced the Mariners 3 times in 2011. The only team in baseball that he faced more than three times in 2011 was the Angels. He faced no team 6 times. In 2010, Gonzalez faced the Angels 4 times.
                Try to embellish your point much?

            • Guns of the Navarone says:

              Are you serious? It’s not sustainable. He may have had success in a GIGANTIC ballpark in Oakland but I wouldn’t expect him to have anywhere near the success pitching to patient lineups like the Red Sox and pitching in the AL East ballparks. His road ERA (since runs are what they keep track of on the scoreboard) has been about a full run higher over the last two seasons.

              You may have something resembling an intelligent point if he had command that could be described as “inconsistent.” But Gio Gonzalez has walked 183 batters over the past two seasons. It’s kind of a big deal.

              • ChooChoo says:

                No need here to get derogatory and personal. You can only generate the numbers you do against the teams you are penciled in to face and at the places the games are played. Anything else is purely speculation.
                Gonzalez is young and has a great arm. He strikes out a ton of people, including when men are on base. His ERA is low and he wins games for a less than stellar team. My speculative view is that all of this is sustainable–anywhere.

                • Freddy Garcia's 86 mph Heat says:

                  His ERA is low and he wins games for a less than stellar team.

                  Because he faces bad offenses more. If he walks 6 Mariners in a game, he might only give up one run because the Mariners offense is dreadful and they both play in giant stadiums. On the other hand, if he walks 6 Red Sox in a game, he’d probably give up 6 or 7 runs, because Fenway and YS3 is are launching pads, and the Red Sox have a very good offense.

                • Ted Nelson says:

                  His ERA is about a run higher on the road both on his career and for 2011.

            • Jumpin' Jack Swisher says:

              ….because putting more people on base than the other guy is never a good thing in general.

            • nycsportzfan says:

              Gio would be a incredible additon! I’ve argued that the entire time hes been foolishly talked in a negative light on here! THe guys 25 and got a bit better from one season to the next over the past couple yrs and if a lefty and can strike guys out So what a 25yr old BB’s a few guys? Hes shown nothing to think hes not gonna get better again this yr and possibly one more time before entering his prime seasons I don’t get why everyone takes everything mike says like its the bible or something(no offense mike! your awesome!)

    • Jesse says:

      Whoa, I thought Brett Gardner sucked. Wouldn’t the A’s want a much bigger package then???

      • ChooChoo says:

        If Brett Gardner EVERhad a season where he:
        Had an OPS of .800+
        Hit 18 homers
        Had 200+ hits
        Scored 100+ runs
        Had 87 rbi’s
        Had 44 doubles
        Batted .300+
        Some of you guys, including you Jesse, wouldn’t be able to restrain yourself. The guy they traded instead of trading him just did all of that this past year. You know what you can do with that silly 13th ranking fWAR, generated mostly by a flawed and ridiculous UZR number.

        • Jesse says:

          That’s exactly my point. You say he sucks so wouldn’t the A’s want more for a sucky player? You never answered my question in the first place ChooChoo.

          • ChooChoo says:

            Did you not see Romine in there as part of the trade? Considered by many to be a future starting catcher who is likely to improve offensively. Gio for a starting catcher on the cheap and a utility outfielder who has the baseball instincts of an indoor cat on a four lane highway during rush hour should be fair.

            • Jesse says:

              I did see it, and it still won’t get the deal done. Again, Brett Gardner sucks, you’ve said that over and over. Romine isn’t all that great. It’s gonna take a lot more since Brett Gardner sucks.

        • Ted Nelson says:

          Gardner is a better offensive player than Melky too. Nice try, though.

          • ChooChoo says:

            Your opinion, toally unsupported by the facts. Gardner has never had more 132 hits in a season, has never had an OPS of even .760. has never had more than 7 homers in a season, and has never hit for an average of .275 and has never driven in 50 runs. What a dynamo.
            Bottom line–no power, anemic average, marginal OBP who strikes out a ton.

            • Ted Nelson says:

              Career wOBA: .337 vs. .320.
              Career high wOBA: .358 vs. .349

              • ChooChoo says:

                2011 OPS .718
                2011 OPS .810

                • Mike Axisa says:

                  You’re very good at cherry-picking. I’m glad this one year for Melky completely erases his previous five years from your memory. He’ll need the help if he wants people to remember him more than anything as a fourth outfielder with a cool name.

                  • Preston says:

                    Even if I were to concede that Melky was a better “hitter”, do walks, baserunning and defense not count? Even with Melky’s superior average he doesn’t approach Brett’s OBP. And I don’t care what “flawed” stats you don’t believe in. Gardner’s baserunning and defense are vastly better than Melky. That’s an objective fact.

          • DM says:

            Not last year. Gardner will never put together the season that Melky just had. Gardner has his legs that give him more range and more steals — but Melky is better in every other area except walks. Gardner minus his speed=not much.

            • Mike Axisa says:

              Gardner will never put together the season that Melky just had.

              That’s fine, because Melky definitely isn’t doing that again either. It’s too bad he got traded to the Giants, now everyone will just blame the ballpark when he turns back into the garbage hitter he’s always been.

              • DM says:

                We’ll see. I think “garbage hitter” is a bit harsh. Especially when Cabrera has a .275 career ave while Gardner’s is .264 even with the benefit of his cue shot dribbler leg hits. I’d like to know what’s Gardner’s “well struck ball” rate. He’s gotten a little better — but he still looks like he’s hitting the ball with a rolled up newspaper. Melky is a better pure hitter without question and has twice the track record despite being younger than Brett.

                • Ted Nelson says:

                  What track record does Melky have? He’s a career .320 wOBA hitter even with his 2011 success. Regardless of how good or bad Gardner is, Melky has not been good on his career to date.

                  • DM says:

                    I didn’t say he was good. I was just pointing out that he’s a better pure hitter (meaning striking the ball with the bat) than Gardner. He was in the minors as well — while being younger at every level. If you have eyes and call Melky a garbage hitter what must you see when Gardner swings a bat — or leaves it on his shoulder to take yet another called strike 3 b/c he knows he has better chance that way than trying to hit the ball squarely? For the little amount of extra-base hit damage he does, his KO rate is grotesque.

                    • Ted Nelson says:

                      Baseball games are not batting practice. Melky might be better in batting practice than Gardner, but he’s worse in games.

                    • Mike Axisa says:

                      I didn’t say he was good. I was just pointing out that he’s a better pure hitter (meaning striking the ball with the bat) than Gardner.

                      Career contact rates….

                      Melky: 88.3%
                      Gardner: 90.4%

                      Career strikeout rates…

                      Melky: 12.0%
                      Gardner: 16.7%

                      The strikeout thing is the result of Gardner not swinging at every pitch he sees. He draws walks, which means he also works deep count. You’re going to strike out when you work deep counts, it’s the nature of the beast. Judging by his OBP, Melky should give it a try once in a while.

                • Mike Axisa says:

                  I’d like to know what’s Gardner’s “well struck ball” rate.

                  Their line drive rates are almost identical: 18.7% and 19.4%. It’s not worth arguing the difference between the data isn’t perfect.

                  Melky is a better pure hitter without question and has twice the track record despite being younger than Brett.

                  Before his “breakout” .339 OBP season, Melky was a .267/.328/.379 hitter. Gardner is a career .264/.353/.368 hitter.

                  “Better pure hitter” apparently means one more double every 200 at-bats, which is the difference in SLG. Of course the difference in OBP is so substantial, so those three extra doubles per season are meaningless.

                  • DM says:

                    So we leave out Melky’s breakout season from the stat analysis?? The word on Melky (from A-Rod) was that he re-committed himself to the game — and got in great shape over the winter. A-Rod begged them to bring him back. And at his age wouldn’t this be his prime? Can we throw out Gardner’s best season too? Or how bout with throw out Melky’s worst season along with his best? You count everything except a 28 yr old’s most recent season? When he got more ABs than ever before??? How does that work exactly?

                    • Mike Axisa says:

                      Really? Melky’s a .275/.331/.398 career hitter including last year. That’s a 93 OPS+. Gardner, as a I said, is a .264/.353/.368 career hitter, which is a 91 OPS+. They’re basically the exact same hitter in terms of production, except Melky makes outs more often and will hit a handful of more homers.

                    • DM says:

                      “They’re basically the exact same hitter in terms of production, except Melky makes outs more often and will hit a handful of more homers.”

                      So they’re both “garbage hitters” — got it.

                    • Mike Axisa says:

                      Never said Gardner wasn’t. But he also provides some value with his stolen bases and a ton of value with his defense, which is a lot more than you can say for Melky.

            • Brian S. says:

              Gardner in 2010: 120 wRC+, elite defense regardless of metric.

              Melky in 2011: 118 wRC+, bad defense regardless of metric.


              • Brian S. says:

                And even this last year Gardner was more valuable because his defense and baserunning. Melky was overall the better hitter this last year I admit, but I would be surprised if that continued considering their track records.

  4. Steve (different one) says:

    Seriously? Not even close

  5. i wouldnt give banuelos alone for trevor freaking cahill

  6. Steve (different one) says:

    Why do Yankee fans consider Nova a question mark, but want to move real assets for Cahill? What is the difference between Cahill and Nova? I would be irate if they made that trade.

    • matt s says:

      Cahill has a two year track record as an effective starter, Nova only 1/2. But I was surprised to see that their final numbers were extremely similar last year.

      I think it’s Cahill rookie season with a sub 3. ERA that sticks out for most people, even though his FIP was 4.19.

      • Steve (different one) says:

        Agreed on the track record, but it’s not like Cahill’s second year was so great that Nova couldn’t do that next year. Esp if he was pitching in Oakland…

      • Andy In Sunny Daytona says:

        I don’t think Cahill’s 2nd half of last year counts as effective….so, I’ll give you both halves of 2010 and the first half of 2011 and we agree that neither half of 2009, so that makes it 1.5 year of effectiveness for Cahill to go with your .5 year of effectiveness for Nova (assuming that you only consider part 2 of 2011 effective{even though his first half of 2011 was pretty effective, which would then make the talley 1.5 to 1}) Right?

    • Jumpin' Jack Swisher says:

      …..because the grass is always greener…..

  7. matt s says:

    I think we are all in love with the upside of Banuelos. I’d say his upside is higher then Cahill’s.

  8. Steve (different one) says:

    If Cahill was currently a Yankee, Mike would be fielding mailbag questions every week asking if the Yankees should try to sell high on him because his era is lower than his FIP….

  9. Alfredo says:

    cashman said this today: “I am ready to rock and roll” and
    “The Yankees are open for business”.
    what do u guys think this means?

  10. Rey22 says:

    Switch Betances for Banuelos, and give up a slight better piece instead of Kontos (DJ Mitchell or something) to make up for the difference and I’d seriously have to consider it.

    • DM says:

      100% agree. Betances-Phelps or Mitchell-and some 2nd tier position player? I do it in a second. They’re overrating Parker. This deal is a steal for Arizona. And Cahill will be better in the NL.

      • Ted Nelson says:

        I think there’s a good chance Cahill will be worse anywhere outside of the Coliseum given his home/road splits.

        • DM says:

          There’s better chance that Parker will never have the success that Cahill has already had. And to disregard the AL/NL difference as a factor defies logic.

          • Ted Nelson says:

            “There’s better chance that Parker will never have the success that Cahill has already had.”

            I disagree. Cahill is below league average.

            “And to disregard the AL/NL difference as a factor defies logic.”

            I did not disregard it. I said that I think his home ballpark is a bigger factor. He’s not very good on the road and is now going to be in an extreme hitter’s park for about 1/2 his starts.

            • DM says:

              Was he below league average in 2010? What are the chances that any prospect (and Parker isn’t a Moore or Strasburg or Price level prospect) is a success? And Cahill is the same age — durable and big league proven — while Parker has 5 innings above AA and new elbow.

              And Cahill is 7-3 with 2.85 in Inter-league — and a .210 BA against.

              • Ted Nelson says:

                In 2010 his ERA at the Oakland Coliseum was 2.18 and on the road it was 3.86. His FIP on the road was 4.79… so yeah, he was below average.

                Parker isn’t Matt Moore, but he’s been a BA top 50 prospect for four years in a row. I know for sure that Cahill is not a good pitcher outside of the Oakland Coliseum, but I’d give Parker a 50% shot at being decent.

                That’s a meaningless sample.

                • DM says:

                  “but I’d give Parker a 50% shot at being decent.”

                  After 5 innings? That’s a meaningless sample.
                  And no TJ surgery concerns with less than dominant stats that end at AA? I’m sure Brackman was on few lists for a while too — but nothing counts like doing it on the big league level — and that’s what Cahill has already done. I have more confidence in a bona fide MLB pitcher at age 23 with an 18 win/sub 3 era season under his belt than any prospect. You might have a debate at a Top 5 BA prospect — but Top 50 is waaay too inclusive.

                  And your statement is a bit vague. Is that like giving him a 50/50 chance of being “not bad”? And you don’t give Cahill a 50% shot at being decent with AZ? Do you think he’ll pitch 200 innings? And a 2010 road ERA in the AL of 3.86 is cause for concern?

                  • Ted Nelson says:

                    We disagree, get over it. There’s no right answer here. If you really want to rely on wins and overall ERA as independent measures of pitcher’s performance… that’s your choice.

                    I think Cahill is a mediocre SP based on the fact that he gets lit up outside his pitcher friendly home park, so I’d rather take a shot with a high upside top prospect like Parker.

                    Cahill is just north of bad, and I give Parker a 50% shot of being as good as or better than Cahill.
                    His career ERA on the road is 4.7, not 3.86. That was one season.

                    • DM says:

                      “and I give Parker a 50% shot of being as good as or better than Cahill.”

                      You quote stats out the wazoo to diminish Cahill. What supporting stats do you have for Parker? He pitched to 3.79 in AA as a 22 yr old. Cahill pitched to 2.97 in the big leagues at the same age. As far as getting over it goes — I didn’t start this. You did, with a bizarre certainty that Cahill will be worse outside of Oakland — when the year before he pitched to 3.86 outside of Oakland. But of course, his good stats against NL teams are “meaningless” — yet I think you would’ve quoted them if they were bad.

                    • Ted Nelson says:

                      Again, there is no right answer. Different ppl can have different opinions. We are reaching different conclusions because we are using differenpremises

            • nycsportzfan says:

              cahill is below league averege? What? Hes shown enough in his first 2yrs in what are supposed to be learning yrs working toward prime to think hes poised for a really solid season this yr Its not like he still didn’t have his moments of brilliance last yr

              i’d of gave them Betances and Romine and heathcott Then i’d love watching Cahill get his 15wins in pinstripes next yr

              • Ted Nelson says:

                He’s been good in the Coliseum, which is a pitcher’s park. Outside that park he’s been a 4.7 era and dip pitcher with well over 1 HR per 9. Or basically AJ Burnett

  11. Andrew Brotherton says:

    Why is everyone so crazy about Gio? I still think we need to kick the tires on Danks one more time. Danks, Darvish, Cespedes, and take a chance on Rivero.

    • Craig Maduro says:

      Gio is better than Danks. Maybe not a better trade target considering Danks will probably be cheaper (I imagine at least), but all things equal I’m taking Gio over Danks without hesitation.

      • Preston says:

        Danks is only 5 months older and has two more years of big league experience. His career K/BB ratio is 2.94, Gio’s is 1.94, Gio does have a slight edge in FIP 4.06, to Dank’s 4.14, but given the league and ball-park and lack of experience by Gio, I like Dank’s chances of succeeding in the AL East in Yankee stadium much better. The only reason to like Gio is the more years of team control. And we will pay for those years dearly in prospects.

        • Preston says:

          Sorry I meant Division not league.

        • Craig Maduro says:

          His K/9 and GB% are higher than Danks’ and I like the fact that his numbers were better in 2011 despite the less experience.

          • Preston says:

            It’s easy to love his K’s but the BB’s are worrisome. And like I said he’s only five months younger than Danks. So it’s not like he’s super young and going to all of a sudden have pin-point control. Could he have a miraculous turnaround and become Sandy Koufax, I guess anything is possible. But it’s probably most likely that he stay the same, and there is also a large probability he get’s worse (especially if he moves to the AL East and a more hitter friendly stadium) and becomes Oliver Perez. Remember when Boras marketed Perez as the next Sandy Koufax? How’d that work out. Look at Perez’s 2004 and I think you’ll realize the value of Danks experience.

            • Craig Maduro says:

              Well, let’s leave Oliver Perez out of this because he simply sucks ass and doesn’t have anything to do with either guy. If I wanted to play that game though I could counter with Randy Johnson and point out how he went from 6+ BB/9 in ’91 and ’92 and then never issued more than 3.8 BB/9 for the rest of his career. Unfortunately, it just doesn’t work like that.

              Danks’ experience isn’t worth a penny in this argument if someone thinks Gio is a better pitcher. In fact, Gio’s relative inexperience makes him that much more attractive than Danks. All other things still being equal.

          • Mister Delaware says:

            There’s a long list of pitchers with lower SO/9 and GB% than Gonzalez that I’d rather have. Those BBs are more bad than the SOs and GBs are good.

            (Its probably atleast worth noting that when you go from SO/9 to SO%, Gio drops from 4th among AL pitchers w/ 100 innings to 10th. Not that 10th is bad by any means, but it steps him back from the upper-upper echelon. His BB% and BB/9 is 66th out of 70 ahead of only Danny Duffy, Tyler Chatwood, Jake Arrieta and Francisco Liriano.)

            • Preston says:

              Agreed, the benefit of K’s are that you don’t put as many balls in play. I’d rather a guy who puts the ball in play more, but gives free passes less. K/BB is probably the most beneficial stat. But there is a K/9 rate where you are no longer a viable starter no matter how much you limit your walks (Mark Beuhrle straddles that line). Likewise there is an amount of free passes that no matter how many K’s you get you are not a viable starter. Gio is not over that line, but he’s close. If his K/9 dips or his BB/9 increase, he falls off of a cliff.

              • Craig Maduro says:

                His BB/9 have decreased (albeit modestly from ’10-’11) over the past three seasons. While it could still go either way at this point, I think it is reasonably safe to expect that number to continue trending down rather than up.

            • Craig Maduro says:

              Well, hell yea, I could a put a long list together too.

              We’re just talking Danks vs. Gio though. Danks is the safer option, but Gonzalez offers more upside. If Gonzalez trims his walk rate (a hurdle that young pitchers overcome fairly frequently) you’re looking at a guy who may be an elite starter. While Danks’ floor is higher, I just don’t see an elite starter there. Roll the dice.

              • Preston says:

                If you want to roll the dice, keep Manny and Dellin. The reason to trade high end prospects is to get a safer return, that’s Danks. He’s a number two right now, and has been for four straight seasons.

                • Craig Maduro says:

                  A). Rolling the dice on the top-top prospects is what the Yanks would do if it was up to me so maybe we agree there to an extent.

                  B). To say that Danks is currently a No. 2 is a stretch, but to say that he’s been a No. 2 for four years…that’s a pulled hamstring.

                  • Preston says:

                    Over the last four years John Danks is 17th in WAR. Everybody ahead of him on the list is arguably a number one.
                    2008- 5.2 WAR
                    2009- 2.9 WAR
                    2010- 4.3 WAR
                    2011- 3.2 WAR

                    I don’t know what you define as a number two, but that would have been a number two for us in three out of four of those years.

                    • Craig Maduro says:

                      I don’t like the WAR argument in this case. Maybe its because I don’t fully understand everything that goes into yet, but I prefer looking at the numbers individually. IP, FIP, K/9, GB%, etc. And when I look at Danks I just see a very good No. 3 starter – which, yes, would have equaled the Yanks’ No. 2 over that span.

                      When it comes to trading our top prospects, I define a No. 2 starter as a second ace. Those types aren’t exactly littering the trading block, but if someone along the lines of Hamels or Greinke can’t be acquired, I’d rather just keep the blue chips.

      • Ted Nelson says:

        Gio is a significantly worse pitcher outside of the Coliseum than he is at the Coliseum.

        • Craig Maduro says:

          It’s hard to deny the positive impact of starting half of your games in a pitcher’s park, but at some point I still think you have to go with the guy – whether its Gio or Danks in this case – that you feel has the highest upside moving forward.

          As far as the home/road splits are concerned, the numbers suggest to me that it isn’t the “friendliness” of the Coliseum that’s been aiding Gio. Not only does he get plenty of K’s and GB to begin with, but his HR/FB has been virtually identical over his career (10.3% on the road, 10.4% at home). My guess is that the home/road discrepancy will fade as he continues to mature.

      • nycsportzfan says:

        you’d have to be crazy to not like Gio as a pitcher Shoot Jair Jurrjiens is a better pitcher then danks! I actually think Kuroda is better then Danks! And Danks is better then Floyd Floyd reminds me of Phil Hughes and i expect him to have some yrs like Phil with ERA at 480 or whatever and then a bounceback or something I seen Floyd beat up to often! Hes still solid but way down on whats out there! I’d simply pay Kuroda what he wants on a 2yr deal and then u can slowley get Banuelos and Betances and Noesi involved before there totally ready and expierenced in a couple yrs

    • Mike HC says:

      I prefer Danks as well. And I would assume it better to deal with Kenny Williams than Billy Beane.

  12. Bronx Byte says:

    Addition by subtraction. Burnett is like a large pothole in the Yankee starting rotation.

  13. Craig Maduro says:

    Not a chance in HELL I do that trade if I’m the Yankees. Montero, ManBan and Betances may still just be prospects for the most part, but if traded they need to bring back an ace (a.k.a. our “No. 2 starter”) – not a No. 3.

  14. Steve (different one) says:

    If the above package is what it would take for Cahill, everyone should forget about Gio.

    • Kosmo says:

      I don´t understand ? Cahill was traded for Parker, a legit prospect a fourth OF and a reliever. Breslow was a throw-in to the D-backs. So they traded relievers and got a top prospect and a 4th OF. Yanks can do something along those lines with an additional player. Banuelos, Gardner and one other .

  15. Steve (different one) says:

    Right, throwing in Gardner is just a bit more. No problem, right?

  16. Andrew Brotherton says:

    Why is anyone discussing getting rid of Gardner? A cost controlled very good young outfielder plus one of the top 15 prospects in the game in Banuelos for Gio Gonzalez? I think it is crazy.

  17. Cy Pettitte says:

    from the brief glimpses we get of Manny I wouldn’t flip him for Cahill. I loved what he showed in ST and how many potential lefty aces will you come across? With the monetary resources they have, in the case of a prospect like Manny I think I’d always prefer they just sign someone in free agency rather than flip him unless were talking about a guy like Halladay or Fellix, which Cahill is not. He is better than anyone not named CC though.

    • Cy Pettitte says:

      but really, what needs to happen is they hold onto Manny and get Cole. CC/Hamels/Manny could an insane top 3. Just gotta be a little patient.

      • infernoscurse says:

        i completely agree, worst case scenario he extends but the talent pool next year is better than this years so you are going to be able to plug a starter at abetter price cause of the amount of talent available

        • Ted Nelson says:

          I don’t necessarily think you’ll get a better price. The supply may be greater (it also may not be if a bunch ink extensions), but the demand should also be greater.

      • Craig Maduro says:

        Can we stop talking about next year’s free agent class like it’s a forgone conclusion that they hit the market?

        • Jumpin' Jack Swisher says:

          It is not a forgone conclusion that any of those pitchers will the market.

          It is not a forgone conclusion that any of Banuelos/Betances/Phelps/Warren will ready to be quality contributors next year.

          It is also not a forgone conclusion that acquiring Cahill/Gio/Danks would automatically lead to rainbows, ponies, and multiple World Series.

          In other words, can we stop worrying about things not being absolutes?

          • Craig Maduro says:

            You wasted your time replying to me as if I wasn’t aware of the obvious.

            Anyway, it’s not that I’m worrying about something that isn’t an absolute. I just read a lot of comments – and not just here – where fans want to sit back this offseason and “go all in” for next year’s free agent class. It’s just not a sound idea.

            With all of that said, I would place a reasonable bet on Zack Greinke hitting the market, but he’s not exactly a fan favorite around these parts.

        • Mike Axisa says:

          Of course some of those guys will sign extensions. I’m almost certain Cain will. But the sheer volume of quality pitchers leads me to believe at least a few will become free agents.

          • Jose M. Vazquez.. says:

            I think some pitchers will be available but not Hamels or Cain. I believe both will be signed to long term contracts by their current teams.

            • Ted Nelson says:

              The Marlins’ recent spending spree probably changes the outlook on Anibal a little too, and Chicago isn’t a small market. I think there’s a decent chance that next off-season’s FA pitching market ends up worse than this off-season’s.

          • Craig Maduro says:

            Who’s in this vaunted FA class again? Cole Hamels, Matt Cain, John Danks, Francisco Liriano, Zack Greinke and Anibal Sanchez. Am I missing anybody?

  18. infernoscurse says:

    sign darvish and trade him for king felix! :D

  19. nsalem says:

    I wouldn’t trade Gio for Gardner for Manny or Gardner one on one. I know it’s a very SSS but he hasn’t done well in the AL East especially in AL East ballparks.

  20. Ted Nelson says:

    Cahill’s road ERA in 2011: 5.23. Road FIP: 4.33.

    Career 4.7 ERA and FIP on the road.

    • Steve (different one) says:

      Yup, the thing about Oakland is the foul territory. Pitchers prob get an extra out or 2 (admittedly pulling this out of my arse) per start because of balls that land in the seats everywhere else…

  21. Jumpin' Jack Swisher says:

    The Yankees do not have to be in on every pitcher on the trading block. They, again, will be in on what makes most sense to them in terms of fit with the team and value. If that means going into the season with a rotation that’s going to have to claw its way a bit, then so be it.

    I like Cahill. I liked watching the Yanks hand him ass consistently. Are either he or Gio worth what the A’s were/are asking? Goodness no. This is why I like Kuroda for a year and rolling the big-money dice with Darvish, then re-evaluating next year.

  22. Jose M. Vazquez.. says:

    I have read all of the above comments. After digesting all of them, I still think that we should not trade any of our top prospects for the pitchers all of you have mentioned. If control is the problem with our 2 main prospects, they should send them early to to ST so that Prof. Rothschild can work with them individually. I say again, all we need is to sign Darvish and we are set. Unfortunately, I read today an article that claimed the Yankees will not have money for Darvish and Cespedes because they are near the 200M mark. It may have been in Yahoo or MLB trade rumors. Too many things in my head to remember.

    • nsalem says:

      If it was in Yahoo or MLTBR it must be definitely true then.

      • Jose M. Vazquez.. says:

        I assure you I did not invent this report. I went back and could not find the source. I read so many that sometimes recalling which is difficult. I’m sorry.

        • Ted Nelson says:

          Rumors aren’t always true… especially when related to the finances of private companies. I don’t think nsalem was implying you made it up, but that it’s not reliable information.

          • Jose M. Vazquez.. says:

            Thanks Ted. I know nsalem is a decent person. lso the rumor may have been disseminated so that others think the Yankees are not bidding.

            • nsalem says:

              Jose I was making fun of MLTBR and Yahoo not you. Just an attempt at humour. I wasn’t implying that you made it up. Sorry if it was read anyway different.

  23. Mike HC says:

    If we were to trade Banuelos, I would hope to get a better pitcher than Cahill. I think Cahill is more valuable to a team like Arizona than he is on the Yanks.

  24. mike says:

    wow..none of you have watched Gio pitch and have no idea how good he is.

Leave a Reply

You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

If this is your first time commenting on River Ave. Blues, please review the RAB Commenter Guidelines. Login for commenting features. Register for RAB.