Resizing the market for Danks and Gonzalez

Repeating History With Yu Darvish
No surprises here: Yankees will not non-tender anyone

As the Yankees scour the market for upgrades to the starting rotation, two names appear more frequently than the rest: John Danks and Gio Gonzalez. Both are reportedly available, and both fit well into the Yankees rotation. The major obstacle, as is the case in all trade negotiations, is the price. The White Sox reportedly want Jesus Montero and Manny Banuelos for Danks, and the A’s want young, high-end outfielders for Gonzalez. The Yankees don’t want to surrender one of Montero and Banuelos for Danks, and they don’t have young, high-end outfielders to trade for Gonzalez. This might seemingly rule them out on both, but a recent trade might have changed the market a bit.

This weekend the A’s moved one pitcher out of their rotation, sending Trevor Cahill to the Diamondbacks. In return they received prospects Jarrod Parker, Collin Cowgill, and Ryan Cook. Despite the void Cahill leaves in the A’s rotation, it’s reported that they’ll continue listening to offers for Gonzalez. The equation has changed a bit, given the return they got for Cahill. While that in some ways might benefit the Yankees’ pursuit of Gonzalez, or even Danks, it hurts it in other ways.

The A’s Needs

As Mike mentioned last week, the A’s desire for young, high-end outfielders complicates things for the Yanks from the get-go. They really have none in the high levels of the system. If the A’s wouldn’t settle for other high-end prospects, the Yankees would need a third team to facilitate a trade. That adds another level of complexity, which decreases the chances of a deal happening. That is, the more moving parts the harder it is to find a match that works for everyone.

The A’s did acquire an outfielder in the Cahill deal, but he’s not exactly high-end or even that young. Cowgill turns 26 in May, and his minor league track record isn’t overly impressive. He did hit .354/.430/.554 last season, but that was as a 25-year-old in the hitters’ haven known as the Pacific Coast League. My favorite example to put the PCL in perspective: Bubba Crosby hit .361/.410/.635 in the PCL before the Yankees acquired him in 2003. That is, he’s more of a throw-in than anything. That leaves the A’s still seeking outfielders, which continues to hurt the Yankees’ chances of acquiring Gonzalez.

Comparing Cahill and Gonzalez

Even though the the Yankees, as far as we know, were never in on Cahill, we can still look to this deal as a guide. First, let’s take a look at Gonzalez and Cahill. Both have over 500 major league innings, and they have nearly identical ERAs in that span (3.93 for Gonzalez, 3.91 for Cahill). Yet this is where their similarities end. They’re quite different pitchers in style, in age, and in contract.

Cahill is more of a ground ball guy, with a 53.3 percent career ground ball rate. He doesn’t strike out many, though he did in the minors and his numbers are rising. There’s still some projectability with Cahill, since he’ll turn just 24 years old in March. At the same time, he’s already locked up through 2015 at least, for a total of $30.5 million. That includes his first year of free agency eligibility for $12 million, and then two options, for $13 and $13.5 million, after that. That gets him through his age-29 season for $56.2 million, with the option to cut it short at $30.5 million if he gets hurt. It is, in other words, an incredibly team-friendly deal.

Gonzalez is more of a strikeout guy, fanning 8.59 per nine in his major league career. He also generates a decent number of ground balls, a 47.5 percent career rate. Yet when it comes to age and contract he’s a bit less valuable than Cahill. He just turned 26, and is a Super Two this off-season, meaning he’ll go through the arbitration process four times. While that can be a blessing in some cases, for a team acquiring him it can be a burden. MLB Trade Rumors estimates Gonzalez’s first-year arbitration number at $3.6 million, which is right in line with Cahill’s salary. But unlike Cahill’s salary, Gonzalez’s is not controlled. With quality performance she could perhaps beat the numbers on Cahill for the following three years: $5.5, $7.7, and $12 million.

To a team such as the Yankees this might not matter, but to other teams it does. That is to say that Cahill is quite a bit more valuable than Gonzalez. The cost-controlled aspect helps, as does Cahill’s age. For $56.2 million a team potentially gets him for his best seasons. Look at it this way, then. On Saturday Mike looked at a comparable Yankees package for Cahill. It included Manny Banuelos, Brandon Laird, and George Kontos. If that’s what the A’s got for Cahill, more or less, then they can’t really expect that for Gonzalez. Perhaps, then, there is a deal to be made here after all.

(Though, again, the A’s desire for, and the Yankees lack of, outfield prospects could mean there’s no match between them.)

Back to Danks

With the A’s needs hindering their chances of trading Gonzalez to the Yankees, our attention turns back to Danks. In his most recent update, CBS’s Jon Heyman notes an amended asking price: two of Banuelos, Montero, and Dellin Betances. Of course, this hardly changes things from before. It merely allows the Yankees to swap Betances for one of Montero or Banuelos. As before, there is zero doubt that the Yankees have rejected this idea out of hand. But that doesn’t mean the price will always remain this high.

The Cahill trade does give us some idea of the trade market, though it isn’t a precise barometer. That is, the White Sox aren’t necessarily influenced by Oakland’s return for Cahill. It does, however, set a bit of precedent. The White Sox asking price for Danks is surely better than what the A’s got for Cahill. If the Yankees wanted to add a starter and were willing to pay that price, why wouldn’t they have just turned to Oakland and their younger, more valuable starter?

As mentioned last week, the Yankees won’t give up Montero or Banuelos in a trade for Danks. The Cahill trade just reinforces that. The A’s got one blue chip pitching prospect back for their proven, young, and cheap starter. The White Sox cannot expect anything remotely comparable for their relatively expensive starter who hits free agency after the 2012 season. Even Betances might seem a stretch. After all, he was just 10 spots behind Parker in the 2011 Baseball America Top 100, and they had comparable seasons (both ending in the bigs).

Where this leaves the Yankees

This is where Brian Cashman‘s discretion comes into play. He talks about how the rotation doesn’t need help, or only needs help at the back end. While it’s nice to speak so highly of his players, to stick with the current guys is a difficult proposition. It assumes a rebound from Phil Hughes and that Freddy Garcia can continue fooling opponents with an array of junk. The Yankees would certainly do well to add a starter by any means possible.

Chances are, however, that not much will happen this week. Bids on Yu Darvish are due on Wednesday, and we won’t learn the winner until Sunday or Monday. The Yankees likely won’t make a move until they know where they stand on Darvish. After that, they’ll likely refocus on Hiroki Kuroda, who is reportedly seeking a one-year deal for $12 or $13 million. After that, Danks and Gonzalez become possibilities again. But given their current asking prices, it’s not hard to understand why they might have moved down the priority list for the moment.

Repeating History With Yu Darvish
No surprises here: Yankees will not non-tender anyone
  • CS Yankee

    err, should read…

    Run with the big dogs on this one Cash or we’ll think your stuck on the porch peeing like a pup.

    • CS Yankee

      err (on RAB part)…

      this was added to my post on the previous article.

    • http://yesnet tendollarcard


  • Granderslam

    If the Yankees build a package around Betances for Danks, I would think that they would have to be getting more than just Danks in return.

    • FIPster Doofus

      I’d say you’re overvaluing Betances, then.

      • Granderslam

        I don’t think so. A package with Betances and others is already a lot to give up for Danks. I think a secondary piece, while not highly significant, would be a suitable returns for giving up a top prospect and more.

        • Ted Nelson

          I disagree. The White Sox can just as easily tell you to pound salt as trade you Danks.

      • Monteroisdinero

        This. Betances has a long way to go before he is not an erratic thrower as opposed to a consistent pitcher.

        • Jumpin’ Jack Swisher

          And the upside with him, however not a sure thing it may be, is enough that it is worth it to risk crashing and burning. There’s plenty of other ways to shore up the pitching staff. To me, he’s a keeper.

          • Soriano Is A Liar

            Mike makes a good point about Betances being close to Parker in the BA list too. You can’t measure him against some idea of an ideal player, but against other similar players/prospects. He’s not a surefire ace, but neither is Parker, or really any prospect that young. If they were, teams wouldn’t consider trading them, they’d lock them up to Matt Moore deals.

            • Soriano Is A Liar

              Whoops, that subtweet is about me, sorry Joe! Mike writes about prospects so much I just reverted to his name on a BA top 100 reference!

          • Monteroisdinero

            Fair enough but I still think he is, right now, a poor man’s AJ. Great stuff but more erratic with implosion probability. He is young and cheap and lots of room to mature as a pitcher but he is, by far, the least valuable of the Banuelos/Betances/Montero trilogy.

  • Bill

    I think the asking prices are too high for a walk happy pitcher or someone who can leave after a year. This isn’t CC to the Brewers territory. Banuelos or Betances may be mid-year call ups or break with the team depending on injury/performance issues.

    As for Kuroda, I like the suggestion of going after him if Darvish doesn’t work but don’t forget Edwin Jackson is sitting out there. I don’t know what the market value is for him but an offer should be made to Kuroda and Jackson.

    • Craig Maduro

      Jackson still intrigues me as a possible target for the Yankees. If it comes down to it, I’d rather the Yanks just sign a No. 3 starter (Jackson) instead of building a package around Betances and trading for one.

  • Gonzo

    Frozen lobsters Kenny? A man that buys frozen lobsters can’t expect to be treated seriously.

  • http://- JFish

    If the Yanks surely have no desire to land Darvish, I think the best bet is Kuroda for 1 year. This gives Banuelos/Betances another year to hone their skills.

  • Ted Nelson

    I think the return Oakland got for Cahill hurts the Yankees, because I don’t think he’s any good. I don’t think his deal is that team friendly with that $12 million salary looming. I would trade him for Parker any day of the week.

    I grant you he’s decent and could mature. However, his home/road splits are ridiculous. What MLB GM doesn’t know enough to look at home/road splits for a guy pitching in a pitchers haven? I don’t think Cahill has much to do with the return for good starters. He’s a career 4.7 ERA and FIP guy on the road. His 2011 road ERA was over 5. He gives up twice as many HR/9 on the road.

    Cahill isn’t more valuable, because you’re probably going to be getting crap results outside of the Coliseum. He cheaper, but an ’83 Volvo wagon is cheaper than a luxury car too.

    Gio is aided by the Coliseum himself, but his numbers outside of ERA are fairly constant on the road. Not giving up twice as many HRs and his career road ERA is 4.3 rather than 4.7.

    Danks is up and down, but has performed. He’s probably going to make a whole lot more than Cahill, and he’ll deserve it.

    • Gonzo

      Do you think Danks will cost more than the Cahill package?

      • Ted Nelson

        I think it depends largely on the White Sox urgency to trade him. Can’t see if being much lower.

        • Gonzo

          So it could be lower, higher, or similar?

          • Ted Nelson

            Well, yeah, it could be anything Kenny Williams/ownership accept.

            I think more, because I don’t see the White Sox rushing to give away their young starter since they play in the 3rd largest market in the country and just let EJax and Buehrle go within the last several months.

            I think Billy Beane made a smart move to trade Cahill, because he offers little value. He’s a 5 ERA pitcher masquerading as more in that park. Put Burnett in that park for 1/2 his starts and I imagine he’d be a quality starter. Even if Parker doesn’t reach his potential, I see it as he only has to stay healthy to match Cahill pitching in Oakland.

            I said I don’t think it will be lower… but if they’re way out of contention at the deadline and have no designs of re-signing Danks and he’s struggling again, maybe it will be.

            • Gonzo

              Ok, I think if he is traded this offseason it will be for a lesser “star” pospect according to the rankings. That’s just my opinion.

              It’s obvious that you are not high on Cahill, but that’s another topic altogether because it only matters what value the GM’s (those in the trade and those using him as a barometer) have him pegged at. I’ll take 2.5 fWAR from a 23 year old any day of the week. Or 2.2 fWAR from a 22 year old for that matter.

              • Ted Nelson

                Do you not think different ballparks play differently?

                My contention is that Cahill is only a 2.5 fWAR pitcher because of his ballpark. At the aggregate of the other ballparks he’s played at… he’s AJ Burnett.

                • Gonzo

                  I gotta run, but Cahill’s away stats for the past 3 years:

                  Away FIP/xFIP
                  2009 5.12/5.22
                  2010 4.79/4.15
                  2011 4.33/3.79

                  Obviously no metric is perfect, but he just finished the last season at 23.

                  • Ted Nelson

                    I’m not sure that a home/road K split is nearly as sustainable/meaningful as a home/road HR-rate split. In fact, research suggests more calls go the home team’s way. Cahill’s FIP improving on the road because he struck more guys out on the road than at home by 0.8 per 9 IP… though he’s still not a K guy by any means.

                    He also had an unsustainable BABIP in 2010 which led to the illusion of overall success.

                    He can certainly improve. He can be aided by moving to the NL… and the West where the parks are pretty big. He can have more lucky or skillful (or both) BABIP seasons where he wins 18 games. I just think he’s a pitch to contact guy who gets away with it in a big park, but will not have nearly as much success at a HR/9 rate over 1.

                    This is not some intangible “he can’t pitch in the AL East” but I pulled out of my ass. Guy has major performance issues in ballparks that are not the Oakland Coliseum.

                    • Gonzo

                      I don’t even know what you are trying to say with those first few sentences. I am not trying to be a jerk, I just have no clue which way you’re going with that.

                      I mentioned FIP and xFIP for his last three years, and you throw his BABIP in 2010 at me? That seems like a red herring to me. Illusion of success? I hope you don’t think I, or Kevin Towers, are fooled by W’s and ERA.

                      He is a pitch to contact guy. He’s a sinkerball, groundball pitcher!

                      Then with the BABIP again and then the W’s. W’s? Now you’re totally messing with me.

                      His HR/9 rate is a little wacky, but inhis first year it was reversed; it was worse at home than on the road. Could just be fluky at the moment. I don’t think it’s as definitive as you seem to think.

                      Things I see: HR rates that were 2 years worse on the road than at home in 3 years. A K/9 rate that was worse on the road 2 years out of 3. That doesn’t seem like anything out of the ordinary.

                      Finally, 3 years of improving FIP and xFIP on the road. That’s not disputable. You can chalk it up to a HR/9 and K/9 rate that really isn’t that abnormal, but I won’t and I don’t think Kevin Towers did either.

                      Do you still stick by this:
                      He’s a 5 ERA pitcher masquerading as more in that park.

                    • Ted Nelson

                      How do you not see where I’m going? I don’t think that makes you come off as a jerk… It just seems pretty obvious to me.

                      FIP is based on Ks, BB, and HRs. You can improve it by raising Ks, lowering BBs, or lowering HRs. When looking at home/road FIP slits, you’d expect K and BB rates to remain constant by ballpark, maybe slightly better at home where umps are shown to give you more calls. You’d expect HRs to vary more by park. Cahill didn’t much improve his HOUR rate on the road. He still gives up quite a few, which I see as a problem for a pitch to contact guy going from a pitcher’s park to a hitter’s park. He improved his K rate at home vs. on the road by almost a full k per 9. Maybe he took a different approach at the Coliseum knowing he could pitch to contact more, but I think it’s more likely just random. I don’t think he’s 0.8 K/9 better outside the Coliseum than at it… But I do think he’s over 1 HR/9 outside it.
                      One split is sustainable, one doesn’t seem to be.

                      The 2010 BABIP was just a random thought. He had a good year that year due to a low BABIP. Not necessarily luck, but he couldn’t repeat it in 2011.

                      He’s a groundball pitcher who gives up a lot of HRs outside Oakland. A lot of men getting on, and then a lot of HRs means a lot of runs.

                      His HOUR rate wasn’t worse on the road… It’s twice as high. That’s very normal for a big homepark, but it means he’s more likely to stick to the road #s overall in his new hitter’s home park.

                      Yes, absolutely. He is literally a 4.7 ERA pitcher otside that park with a 5+ ERA last season. He’s going to a hitter’s park.

                    • Gonzo

                      I’m just looking at his road stats, and thinking that a 23 year old, a full year plus younger than Nova, is not going to be a 5 ERA pitcher going forward. Last three years 178, 196, 207 IP, respectively.

                      AWAY STATS
                      GB% K% BB% FIP
                      2009 54.2% 10.4% 11.6% 5.12
                      2010 54.6% 14.4% 8.0% 4.79
                      2011 54.7% 17.3% 7.9% 4.33

                      At age 23, with 580+IP under his belt? I definitely don’t see a 5 ERA pitcher going forward. I’ll side with Kevin Towers that he didn’t just trade a stud prospect for a 5 ERA pitcher. Is it possible that his best years of his career were at ages 22, or 23? Sure, anything is possible, but I wouldn’t bet on it. Is he moving to a tough park? Sure, but like you said he should get some more calls too.

                    • Gonzo

                      Yes, absolutely. He is literally a 4.7 ERA pitcher otside that park with a 5+ ERA last season. He’s going to a hitter’s park.

                      I hate to point out the obvious, but you are sticking to ERA as the end all and be all for Cahill. He was a sub 4 ERA pitcher outside that park in 2010. BABIP you say? Well, I am trying to show metrics that account for BABIP, but you keep pointing to ERA, so I take it that’s all that matters.

                    • Ted Nelson

                      FIP does not account for BABIP. It ignores it. Pretends no ball put in play exists.

                      Guy is a ground baller who can’t keep it in a normal sized park. Good luck.

                      Cahill could get better. I’ve agreed from jump. Parker can get better to and he’ll make way less money doing it.

                    • Gonzo

                      Whoa, I never took a side on the trade. No red herrings for you.

                      He’s a 5 ERA pitcher masquerading as more in that park.

                      That’s what I have issue with. I think I pointed out, quite well, that there is no way you can be so definitive with Cahill.

                      FIP does not account for BABIP. It ignores it. Pretends no ball put in play exists.

                      Exactly, it doesn’t account for his good BABIP years or bad BABIP years. Meaning it’s BABIP neutral, right?

                      Guy is a ground baller who can’t keep it in a normal sized park. Good luck.

                      So know pitcher in his early 20’s could ever improve on his HR rates?

                      AWAY HR/9
                      2009 0.87
                      2010 1.25
                      2011 1.10

                      That’s definitive, right? No way he could go under 1 in age 24, 25, 26, or 27. I don’t know why you are being so adamant here.

                    • Ted Nelson

                      4.7 ERA, 4.5 ERA, 5 ERA… I don’t really care. My point is that the guy is not good. What shade of not good he is doesn’t really matter to me. The Diamondbacks gave up a top prospect and a decent chunk of salary to a guy who is not good.

                      I am discussing Cahill in terms of the opportunity cost, and don’t see any reason to discuss him in any other way. If the Yankees had drafted Cahill and he was in their rotation I wouldn’t say “cut him.” I’d just say “seriously consider trading him for Parker.”

                      “Exactly, it doesn’t account for his good BABIP years or bad BABIP years. Meaning it’s BABIP neutral, right?”

                      No. It assumes BABIP is luck. It’s not. Some hard hit balls are more likely to be hits (and XBHs) than softer hit balls of the same variety (grounder, line drive, fly ball).

                      “So know pitcher in his early 20?s could ever improve on his HR rates?”

                      Are you really accusing me of red herrings? I have literally said SEVERAL times that he can improve. Any player can improve. Again, though, Cahill has to be considered in terms of what the Diamondbacks gave to get him/the As for instead of him… the opportunity cost of Cahill. This is why Parker is TOTALLY RELEVANT and not a red herring. Parker can improve, just like Cahill can improve. The As can give the money they save on Cahill to someone (or several guys) who can improve too (and the DBacks could have done the same had they not traded for him).

                    • Gonzo

                      This is all about this:
                      He’s a 5 ERA pitcher masquerading as more in that park.

                      I don’t know how this is relevant to Jarrod Parker? If you want to flip this into a discussion about the trade, this is over. I do consider this a red herring.

                      I think I am absolutely right, and I showed why. You think Cahill is a 5 ERA pitcher because of his road performances, and I don’t think he is because of his road performances. You haven’t pointed out anything to make me consider changing my mind.

                      Some people even believe that FIP undersells groundball pitchers.

    • Craig Maduro

      You touched on Gio a little bit. The numbers suggest to me that his home/road splits are mental – or at least not necessarily due to the friendliness of the Coliseum.

      He racks up plenty of strikeouts and grounders to begin, but over his career he also allows virtually the same amount of HR/FB on the road (10.3%) as he does at home (10.4%).

      My guess is that the home/road discrepancy will fade as he continues to mature.

  • mike

    Both Danks and Gio will be available in July – along with Greinke, Markum, Liriano and a whole bunch of other pitchers whose teams have thrown in the towel already.

    if they dont land Yu, there will be competition for those players services, but with Anaheim maxed out (and figuring either Texas, Yanks or Sox hget him and fill their need/screw your payroll) there aren’t too many places on a contender for these guys to land – it might be like musical chairs with more sellers than buyers at the trade deadline

    • 28 this year

      well also remember that more teams are in contention with the new wild card so you will probably have more teams who dellude themselves into thinking they are contenders. So honestly, you might see small market teams willing to make a deal for someone like Danks or another pending free agent with their eyes set on a playoff run.

    • Ted Nelson

      I’m fine with the patience, but I wouldn’t assume there will be more sellers than buyers. Those teams could easily content and teams could take them on without huge salary commitments. Contending is also easier with two WC spots.

      The White Sox were still somewhat in it this season at the deadline with 3 line-up spots below replacement. Could certainly contend in the Central with a few bounce-back seasons.

      A’s have years before they feel much pressure to deal Gio or before he’s too expensive for mid-market teams.

      Brewers won their division by 6 games with Weeks missing a large chunk and McGhee stinking. They can lose Fielder and 50 games of Braun and still possibly contend.

      Liriano stinks.

      • mike

        Of course the White Sox can contend, but its just as likely they will lose 88 games and their financial situation is a mess.

        I am looking at it from a practical standpoint as well, as Yu and Kuroda and Jackson still have to land somewhere, taking up payroll and roster places.

        I am planning on Yu soaking up alot of Texas / Toronto budget, and figuring the halos are likely tapped out. Additionally, rumors are that Boston has financial constraints, and that’s without a RF or a closer and hoping everything breaks right for them with Youk/Papi/Crawford.

        Nationals getting Yu??….then Jackson goes to Texas and Kuroda is a Yankee etc.

        At that point, IMO there are few teams who will give up young talent for star pitchers even if they are in contention, especially since those pitchers will be FA and will cost a boatload to sign. That is asking alot for teams with limited budgets yet playoff potential (ie atlanta, arizona, colorado, marlins) to spend on rental players knowing they will lose them in a few months.

        Therefore, i am expecting alot of tire-kickers but few real buyers at the deadline for these top-tier pitchers, allowing the Yanks to wait, piecemeal a rotation together, try alot of guys at AAA and even the B’s to see if someone sticke- then be really aggressive on a quality arm.

        • Ted Nelson

          Again, it’s possible… but it’s one situation unfolding out of all the possible situations.

          Most likely I think it will be somewhere in between where some of those teams are contenders and some are not. Some teams are still looking to buy, and some teams aren’t. The Cleveland Indians outbid the Yankees for Ubaldo. Some of those guys are impending free agents, but not all. Gio is not. A contender might get a impending FA The Brewers have gone to the bitter end with CC and Prince knowing they’d probably lose them, so it’s very possible they do the same with Greinke.

  • Rich in NJ

    They can’t afford to trade Montero for a pitcher, and I don’t see any reason to overpay at this point. So if Hughes doesn’t re-establish himself at a level approximating his first half of 2010, and Noesi or some other prospect hasn’t stepped up (assuming Nova hasn’t regressed), they can re-visit the issue some time during the season.

    • Brooklyn Ed

      The only way I see Cashman trading Montero for a high caliber pitcher, is if he have a deal with Fielder in place.

      • Rich in NJ

        Which won’t happen.

        • Brooklyn Ed

          Yep, affirmative!

  • Bronx Byte

    Go with Kuroda on a one year deal. There’s still the deadline at the end of July if Cashman feels the need to deal some prospects.

  • Jose M. Vazquez..

    Betances is just 22 and a very tall guy. We have discussed here that these taller individuals can sometimes take longer to find their slot. This could also occur in one game or maybe 20. So we should just be patient with him. I remember when they traded Al Leiter because he was erratic. He turned out to be a pretty good pitcher. Barfield was not such a success and did not last very long with the Yankees. Of course that was not a pitcher for pitcher trade. We must always remember that many players do well with other teams then fail under the pressure of NY. That is why a homegrown product is likelier to succeed than an import.

    • Dave203

      The key here is flipping a prospect for someone who is already mature. We have a lot of prospect pitchers right now and some on the cusp of becoming quality ML level pitchers. You can’t wait for everyone to mature.

      Trading for Danks still leaves us with Hughes, Nova, Noesi and ManBam to base our future on. That doesn’t even account for someone like Darvish or Hammels which are true possibilities still.

      Trading Betances now would be a calculated risk to get from a pitcher who is likely 2 solid years from being at the ML level into someone who is a ML level #3 pitcher right now and still young. That is a great upgrade without killing your farm depth.

      • Ted Nelson

        “You can’t wait for everyone to mature.”

        Why not? There’s an argument for making the trade, but there’s also an argument against it.

        “a pitcher who is likely 2 solid years from being at the ML level”

        You talking about Brett Marshall? Betances is going to be 24 next season in AAA with a September call-up under his belt. He’s far from a sure thing, but the normal expectation would be a 2013 arrival date if things go pretty well. 1 year, not 2.

        • Dave203

          “Why not?”
          Well if they are well staggered, that you have some options. However, I really don’t see the need for taking the risk on Betances being a quality ML pitcher with who else we have in the farm. Waiting for everyone to mature carries A LOT of risk. Keep in mind, there is a possibility that he will get to the ML level and not be able to cut it. That is a common graveyard for prospects.

          “2013 arrival date”
          I just don’t believe he will be a full productive force at the ML level by 2013. I think he will split time, our #6 man, at best. Again, just my opinion. If I’m right, I’d rather have Danks. He can be an asset now (2012) and likely still be more productive then Betances well into 2014.

          If he was our only pitching prospect, I’d feel differently. However, when you have pitching prospects including Nova, Noesi and ManBam, along with CC, Hughes, and whoever else we obtain (Darvish, Hammels, who knows), there isn’t always room for every single prospect to play on your own squad. Knowing when to trade someone is half the battle in the trade game. I just think now is the time trade in some pieces for an upgrade without giving up your big two.

          • Ted Nelson

            “Waiting for everyone to mature carries A LOT of risk. Keep in mind, there is a possibility that he will get to the ML level and not be able to cut it. That is a common graveyard for prospects.”

            The idea of having a lot of prospects is exactly to spread your risk. Don’t put your eggs in the Banuelos basket, in case it’s Betances that works out. You might trade Betances and he’s the one who works out as a front-end starter while Nova, Hughes, Noesi, Banuelos, Phelps, and Warren yield only a few BP guys and a couple of back-end starter types.

            Now you’ve got Danks, and are paying $15 mill+ per season for the privilege.

            And no MLB pitcher is risk free. It’s a matter of degree. You can trade for a Johan Santana or Mark Mulder or Javy Vazquez at the top of the top… only to watch him blow out his arm or stink. Not as risky as prospects, but a real risk that can cost your team a lot.

            “I just don’t believe he will be a full productive force at the ML level by 2013.”

            You seem to have a low opinion of Betances. There’s a lot of risk with any prospect , but he projects to be MLB ready by 2013 if he works out. The Yankees have gone with guys like Chad Gaudin and Dustin Moseley in their rotation… so I have to feel like Betances does not project to be their #6 start in 2013.

            “If he was our only pitching prospect, I’d feel differently.”

            Again… I don’t buy this argument. He’s got the same value regardless.

            “there isn’t always room for every single prospect to play on your own squad.”

            And you don’t have to trade for every $15 million+ pitcher who comes along. It works both ways.

            “without giving up your big two.”

            How much better than Betances is Banuelos? Some people think he’s worse.

            • Ted Nelson

              I think there’s definitely an argument for trading Betances and more for Danks… I just think there’s a counter-argument you’re ignoring.

              • Dave203

                I’m not ignoring it, I just disagree. You have have a counter argument for just about anything.

                • Ted Nelson

                  Luckily Cashman seems to weigh the pros and cons a bit more carefully.

  • Rod

    Nakajima + Darvish + Kuroda = Talent + foreign $$$

    • Mike Axisa

      Nakajima doesn’t have any trade value. Every team in the league just had a crack at him, and only one thought he was worth $2.5M.

      • Rod

        Well, what I’m saying is that if the Yankees land Darvish and sign Kuroda and Nakajima, they will have a nice haul of pitchers AND a ‘Yankee communiity’ that will have common interests and a huge Japanese following (which can mean $$$).

        • Tom Klein

          We have no idea whether Darvish can compete in the AL East. And Kuroda? I would bet you his ERA would be a full 1 – 1.5 runs per game higher than it is now. He’d get shelled by AL East hitters. A Japanese AJ Burnett saying ‘Sayonara’ to another ball heading over the fence.

  • CMP

    I still think if you’re gonna include Montero, Banuelos or Betances, you better be getting back a sure fire number 2 starter minimum.

    For middle of the rotation starters like Gonzalez and Danks, I would be willing to give up some combination of guys like Romine, Phelps, Warren, Noesi, etc but not the Yankees upper echelon prospects.

    • Ted Nelson

      What do you consider “a sure fire number 2 starter minimum.”

      • Craig Maduro

        The question wasn’t directed to me, but I’ll throw my two cents in anyway since I’m always talking about not trading any blue chips unless a “legit No. 2” is coming back.

        I consider Cole Hamels and Zack Greinke (among others) “legit No. 2 starters”. I’d PROBABLY throw Mat Latos in there too and I think Gio Gonzalez is a No. 3 knocking on the door of becoming a No. 2. I’d just want a guy who has electric stuff and a dominant track record that proves he can harness it.

        I’m not saying I want the Yankees to necessarily package a Killer B or Montero for those guys, but its just an idea of the caliber of player I want the Yankees acquiring if any studs are being moved.

        • Craig Maduro

          Josh Johnson was covered when I said “among others”, but he also deserves to be listed by name.

    • Dave203

      As good as Betances is PROJECTED to be, he is still a prospect and not worthy of a “sure fire number 2 starter” in return. The only market comparison would be someone like Hammels or Cain which you are not getting for just Betances. Perhaps you really like him, but I think you are overvaluing Betances for what he has done so far.

      • CS Yankee

        Keep Dellin, forget Danks.

        Sign Yu, Yo & Ku and make several songs and puns while our young guns continue to bake in AAA.

        Danks is a #3 & the NYY have like eight #3-5 slot SP. If Yu is the Ace that the hype brings him, break the bank for him. Otherwise, buy the FA (Kurdora) &/or see how another year of development does for the other six (Hughes, Nova, Noesi, ManBan, DealinDellin, & Warren).

  • Tom Klein

    If Cashman had pulled the trigger on Halladay or Lee when he had the chance, we wouldn’t be in this mess now. This is the guy that let two of the best pitchers in baseball slip right through his fingers while signing bad pitchers like Kevin Brown and Javy Vasquez, not to mention the other losers to his credit. What do the Mariners need the King for? Their team sucks. Go get him, Cashman, and give up Montero, Banuelos and Betances for him. Do something right for a change.

  • Tom Klein

    Oh, and something else for our brilliant GM. Cashman has told everyone it’s all about pitching. Well, with our second-rate staff, we lost to Detroit because of lousy HITTING. ARod, Tex and Swisher tanked again. Thanks, guys! And what the hell is Swisher doing in a Yankee uniform? What does this guy bring to the table besides being a sure out in the playoffs? We need pitching, but we need a solid hitter when the pressure is on. I mean to say, I’d rather have Bernie Williams or Paul O’Neill even now in the lineup during a playoff game compared to Swisher — Mr. .120 or whatever anemic playoff average he has. Please, just get rid of this guy. He’s an embarrassment.

    • G

      He brings somewhere between 3 and 4 WAR to the table. I’d say that’s pretty damn good value for $10 million/year.

      I guess this is just what you see when all you watch is the post-season…

      No way in hell would I give up Montero+ for Lee in hindsight. He would have been a half-season rental, and we’d be in the same mess we are now. A Halladay trade might’ve been more logical, but talks never got as far as you seem to think. Believe it or not, not every trade slips through Cashman’s fingers. Other teams are looking to make the trades too, and if they offer a more attractive package, ten times out of ten, that team gets them.

      • Tom Klein

        A half-season rental? Do you seriously think Cashman would not have signed Lee for five years??? If we had Lee, as we should have had Lee, the pitching staff wouldn’t need any help. The fact of the matter is that Cashman is an overrated GM, unable to do anything of import now that George is gone.

        • http://yesnet tendollarcard

          i guess you should apply for the job. just tell them you are a better Gm.

          • Tom Klein

            That wouldn’t be hard. Here’s another glittering Cashman signing for you: AJ Burnett. Add that loser to Kevin Brown, Javy Vasquez and Nick Swisher. How many other HORRENDOUS signings do you have to have before you realize Cashman is a lousy judge of talent??? Geez, we could have had Halladay, Lee or both. If George were still alive, the Yankees would be a better team now than they are under Cashman’s ‘guiding genius.’ Instead, we have Colon and Garcia. Way to go, Cashman! Who’re ya gonna sign next? That talentless bum, Danks, whose ERA is so high you need binoculars to see it? If I were running this team, we’d have one of the following: Hernandez, Gio or Shields. With Cashman, we’re going to end up with the same team as this year…one that clearly proved it’s a one and done group.

        • Clint Holzner

          How do you know he would have extended? Maybe the Yankees don’t win the World Series, Lee still wants to be in Philadelphia and now they don’t have Montero. That would be much worse.

          • Tom Klein

            Because they wouldn’t have traded for him if he were not willing to sign long-term.

  • fuster

    Darvish would be a great addition and far better than waiting a year and hoping that they can get by with this rotation this coming season.

    Getting Darvish now increases the Yankee’s advantage over the Sox and puts them ahead of texas, the other likely bidders,

    It also is better than losing Montero in a trade for a pitcher and preferable than “wait till next year” because we count count on much more than this year from Jeter and not too many more elite seasons from A-Rod.
    We’ve the best-hitting lineup in the game and retaining Montero insures that it’s likely to remain the best.
    We’ve no real needs beyond one more high-quality starter and we have the coaching staff (and catcher) to manage Darvish’s transition

    • http://yesnet tendollarcard

      i agree with 98% of what you wrote,but if darvish didnt exist, id trade montero in a ny-minite. his value is high right now. in august we may wonder why we didnt use him for trade-bait. thanx for reading.