Fan Confidence Poll: May 7th, 2012


Record Last Week: 3-4 (23 RS, 28 RA)
Season Record: 15-13 (141 RS, 129 RA, 15-13 pythag. record), 4.0 games back in AL East
Opponents This Week: Mon. OFF, vs. Rays (three games, Tues. to Thurs.), vs. Mariners (three games, Fri. to Sun.)

Top stories from last week:

Please take a second to answer the poll below and give us an idea of how confident you are in the team. You can view the interactive Fan Confidence Graph anytime via the nav bar above, or by clicking here. Thanks in advance for voting.

Given the team's current roster construction, farm system, management, etc., how confident are you in the Yankees' overall future?
View Results
Categories : Polls


  1. Tm21 says:

    Down to a 6. Losing Rivera places more pressure on our starters. I feel confident in our 1-3 but after that there are just too many question marks. Hopefully Hughes rights himself or Phelps continues to perform acceptably and Petite returns in a few weeks. Cano will recover and A Rod will be adequate but Teixera is a real problem right now. For his performance we could have a number of 1st basemen paying 1/4 the price.

  2. TLVP says:

    Down to 7 from 8 purely out of respect for Mo…

  3. Bonnie Parker says:

    Short term – Up to 7 from 6 with the return of Swisher. Nick coming back is key because the team has looked lifeless over the past week. When Mo went down the team lost its soul. They’re going to have to find it again if they want to win the division. And it’s never to early to say a series is big. This upcoming series with the Rays is BIG. All division series are big this year.

    • Jimmy McNulty says:

      I’m not sure that the team lost its soul when Rivera left, and I agree Nick Swisher need to be playing for this team to have a WS shot, and I also agree that the Rays series is big. The team may not have lost its soul, but a few fans definitely lost the will to live when Mo went down.


  4. Jimmy McNulty says:

    Hughes is starting to encourage me…though this was a long and arduous path before. If he’s serviceable then this team can do some stuff. In a month and a half or so time for Joba to reclaim his spot as the heir to Mo.

    (No, I wasn’t a B-Jobber)

  5. Bonnie Parker says:

    Long term – 4. Long term we have a problem-

    Tampa – Have been out developing us for years. Does just as much as we do with a much smaller budget.

    Os – Will become the new Tampa when they develop their pitchers. Their every day lineup is younger and quicker than ours.

    Blue Jays – They’ve also been out developing us lately. They will be good for years to come, just like the Os.

    Teams like Boston and New York will fall into oblivion if they can’t develop. Think of our dynasty and how we developed players and brought them up to the major league club. We don’t do that much anymore. Cano, Robertson, Nova, Gardner. Other than that we just try to buy our way to the World Series and that won’t get it done.

    • Robinson Tilapia says:

      You had me until “oblivion.”

      How do you decide whether you’re “Bonnie” or “Clyde” on any given post? Do you just flip a coin?

    • Sweet Dick Willie says:

      Why do you leave off Granderson, Swisher, & Alex? They were all acquired via trades, which usually involve giving up players the team developed.

      Trading has always been, and will continue to be, an integral part of the game.

      The major problem w/ acquiring players via free agency is that the service time required to reach free agency usually ensures that the acquiring team will be paying for the free agent’s declining years.

      The exception is when the player reaches the majors at a young age, such as CC Sabathia, whose 1st full years in the bigs was at age 20. (Anecdotedly, this will also be the case w/ Bryce Harper if he doesn’t sign an extension).

    • Reggie C. says:

      Mediocrity more like “oblivion.” Mediocre teams that with some luck can just get into the playoffs and get bumped in the first round. Yankee dollars can at least ensure against falling into the baseball draft lottery.

      Each AL East rival appears to have an interesting mix of younger players. I wont go through the pertinent names on the Jays, Orioles, and Rays roster, but dont count us or the RS out yet.

    • “Tampa – Have been out developing us for years. Does just as much as we do with a much smaller budget.” – They haven’t done “just as much”. Where’s their WS title?

      “Os – Will become the new Tampa when they develop their pitchers. Their every day lineup is younger and quicker than ours.” – And that lineup has produced less runs.

      “Blue Jays – They’ve also been out developing us lately. They will be good for years to come, just like the Os.” – Outdeveloping? They’ve produced Lawrie and Romero. It’s not like they’re pumping out homegrown talent like crazy.

      “Think of our dynasty and how we developed players and brought them up to the major league club.” – Like Tino, O’Neill, Cone, Wells, Clemens, Knoblauch, and Brosius? Those teams included big pieces from other places as well.

    • pat says:

      This is all really original and riveting stuff.

    • Erica says:

      Bonnie Parker is my favorite troll! A Treasure Troll! With the tall neon hair and a gem for a belly button!

      ANYWAY – “we just try to buy your way to the World Series” – are you sent here from Over The Monster?

      • Robinson Tilapia says:

        Not a troll. A troll makes some provocative comment that goes against the grain, then disappears while everyone works themselves into a nice, close-shave-like lather.

        Once these folks start yearning to be taken seriously as commenters, they cease becoming trolls and just become annoying commenters. That’s the problem – they actually care as to what the rest of us think.

        • Erica says:


          Like, it’s the Intarwebs, people. Stop catering to an audience you’ll never meet.

          • Robinson Tilapia says:

            ….but they do that because it IS the internet. Every possible community you could join has arguments like these. I guarantee you there’s a Rainbow Connection on a Daila Lama forum somewhere.

            • jjyank says:

              Haha that last sentence gave me a real nice image.

            • Plank says:

              I can’t figure out Rainbow Connection’s deal. Is he a troll? He reminds me of Chauncey Gardener from Being There. He says odd things that are sometimes poignant but mostly nonsense.

              • jjyank says:

                I can’t either. I wouldn’t go as far as troll, because he doesn’t always make troll comments. But he does a lot. I’m guessing he’s just an unhappy person.

                • Robinson Tilapia says:

                  I actually think Teddy is a good troll. He’s stops in every now and then, drops a “fuck tah giradri,” always draws a comment from me, then goes away. These other folks spend way too much trying to convince us they’re right to be trolls.

                  • Cris Pengiucci says:

                    No, Teddy, while he can be quite persistent, at least pushes each of us to prove our point with something more than “this is what I think.”. He’s usually asking us to back up what we say with analysis and fact. He’s also seemed to have mellowed just a bit over the past month or so.

                    Part of the draw of this site is the differing personalities. While some comments clearly are entered just to annoy us (or the commentor is just off the wall), I do enjoy reading other people’s opinions for the most part.

                    • jsbrendog says:

                      other people’s opinions are what make the world go round. the frustrating thing is when their opinions are made in opposition to facts. i feel like some of the opinions expressed here sometimes are the equivalent of someone trying to tell me don mattingly never wore #23…when i have a picture of him wearing it…on 100 baseball cards….and video…

            • Erica says:

              Oh I know. I used to be a regular poster at Metal Sludge and it had thrice the amount of trolls there. Charming fellows.

              • Robinson Tilapia says:

                Metal Sludge? Please tell me more. That totally sounds like the kind of place I’d post on, in listserv form, back in the day.

                • Erica says:

                  Literally a forum/website dedicated to hair metal music. Not only was there a section for people to babble about music, but there was a section for groupies to discuss their conquests.

                  If EVER you’re bored/Yankee’d out, check it out. You might have to sign up to read the forums but it’s worth every second you spend creating a username.

                  • Robinson Tilapia says:

                    I think I like you even more now, Erica. I still listen to way too much hair metal for my own good.

                    I’m very, very married to a very, very successful and good-looking woman, so take that as it’s meant.

                    • Erica says:

                      Hahaha! I hope your wife appreciates your love of hair metal. There is nothing wrong with turning up LA Guns to 11 because their debut album is just too good to be played at a respectable volume.

                    • Plank says:

                      Isn’t marriage a binary thing?

                  • Robinson Tilapia says:

                    I actually totally remember Metal Sludge now. Used to go there for album reviews.

                    • Robinson Tilapia says:

                      Was always more of a “Cocked and Loaded” and “Hollywood Vampires” kind of guy. The glammier, the better.

                      And, no, she hates the metal part. She can take the non-metal glam just fine, though.

    • jjyank says:

      I think everyone above me already made the valid counterpoints needed, but I’d just like to add something about your assertion about the O’s.

      …really? As far as I can tell, the O’s get heaped with criticism about how they can’t develop players and how even when they have good prospects they just plateau when they get to the big leagues. If you really think the O’s will be the next Tampa Bay, then I’m not really sure what to say.

    • Ted Nelson says:

      They’ve “only” developed two star up-the-middle players, a solid starter, and one of the best relievers in baseball… Not to mention the pieces to trade for another star up-the-middle player and other supporting players, or the crop coming up right now, or the other potential star up-the-middle player they traded for a potential star P.

      • jjyank says:

        The trade thing is a good point. When people say that thee Yankees can’t develop anyone, I think the guys that have been traded are often forgotten. If the Yankees hadn’t developed IPK and A-Jax at least semi-competently, we wouldn’t have Granderson.

        I would say the same about Swisher, but I think that was more Cashman getting Kenny Williams really drunk one night and robbing him blind.

        • jsbrendog says:

          cashman’s swisher deal is a close second to alex a’s wells deal where he not only got a good player but convinced the angels to pay his entire salary. my god. and he deserves a lot of credit for cutting bait on alex rios too. you want him? PEACE, take him, please!!! all our alex rios iz yourz!

    • jsbrendog says:

      Tampa – Have been out developing us for years. Does just as much as we do with a much smaller budget and top 10 draft picks for a decade because they sucked so horribly bad, most of which are now coming to fruition at the ml level

      Os – Will become the new Tampa when they develop their pitchers of which matusz, tillman, and guthrie have all sucked ass and been wastes of talent but they’re GONNA DEVELOP!!!!. Their every day lineup is younger and quicker than ours but can’t hit as well as the yankees everyday lineup

      Blue Jays – They’ve also been out developing us lately. They will be good for years to come, just like the Os because of hig draft picks from sucking so horrendously bad for so long and trading away their BEST PLAYER, Roy Halladay, for a couple of those great young players. other than that Alex A (not even going to try to spell his name) is the best gm in baseball hands down

      there, i fixed that mindless, uninformed, poorly thought out drivel for you. anyone can draft david price and evan longoria and have them fill right in. the o’s big three is doing even worse than the yankees big 3 soooo. do you follow baseball?

      • Bo Knows says:

        Most of Tampa’s current players weren’t 1st rounders

        • Ted Nelson says:

          No one is saying “most” of their players (it’s one round), but a huge portion of their production. Longoria, Price, Upton, and Niemann were all top 5 picks. Not first rounders… top 5 picks that any team would have loved to have. If you replace those guys with late 1st rounders it’s really unlikely the Rays are over .500.

          The Yankees have their own huge advantages… just that Tampa does rely heavily on top 5 picks.

        • CS Yankee says:

          Most of Tampa’s current players wern’t 1st rounders, but most of KC’s are 1st rounders.

          So, does that mean Tampa develops better or that KC does a better job in drafting in the first round? It could be spun either way, maybe KC has trouble finding the gem in the later rounds whereas the Rays have a better system in place to draft or develop.

          The Yankees have done really well, less a few SP, over the last 15+ years in both drafting and developing players. Tampa, likely has done better but they also had much higher picks and have seldom traded them…plus when they have traded them, they seem to get more prospects in return.

  6. steve s says:

    As painful as last week was (not just Mo but those losses to the O’s and Royals were basically unwatchable) I am looking forward to seeing how the Yanks (including the front office) handles adversity and not being the prohibitive favorites for the rest of the season. A little gutty/gritty underdog Yanks may be fun to root for this year. On a player note has Grandy lost a step? He’s looked pretty slow on his steal attempts and Francoeur (great arm no doubt) threw him out by a mile.

  7. Reggie C. says:

    Will go from a 7 to 6.

    With all respect to the great Rivera, starting pitching remains my concern. I have all the confidence in the world in David Robertson. He’s ready to assume the mantle. Pencil him in for 30 saves should Joe G do the predictable move and make Robertson the closer. Given that Robertson is young, its reasonable to guess that Joe G will use Robertson in 4-5 out save situations on occasion.

    Kuroda’s poor start in KC worries me. I’m glad Hughes pitched well last night, but Kuroda needs to find firmer ground. Nova also didnt pitch well. Starting pitching needs improvement but since all these guys are healthy, all we can do is wait.

    Teixeira sucks.

    • Andy in Sunny Daytona says:

      Wish we had Gonzalez or Pujols because those guys are beasts who always play well…

      • CS Yankee says:

        Like the sarcasm, made me wonder which I’m more surprised of;

        1) Agon batting like .260, goes 0-8 against the O’s and gets K’ed by a position player.
        2) Albert batting about the Mendoza-line and takes 111 AB’s to get his first dinger, putting him on a 5 HR pace season.

  8. Erica says:

    I voted a 7 purely based on starting pitching. I’d love to see another great start from Phil Hughes and I fully believe he can get it done.

  9. Robinson Tilapia says:

    Still at 7. I can’t imagine going lower, even with multiple concerns becoming more pronounced.

    I believe Girardi will find the right piece on the back end of the bullpen which has become a tinge exposed when everyone had to move up one slot to make up for Mo’s absence.

    I believe in David Robertson. I believe in him in super-large buckets.

    I believe the superstars that are supposed to perform like superstars will revert back to form soon enough. They’re too good not to.

    I believe in this franchise’s ability to put their mistakes away and continue to work their damndest to improve this team in the short and long term. That doesn’t waver easily over here.

    I believe in 2013 Mariano Rivera.

    I believe in Andy Pettitte. I don’t, however, necessarily believe in 2012 Andy Pettitte.

    I don’t believe in our starting rotation, especially entering 2013. CC and Nova sem like the only two solids for me. Kuroda, great starts and all, has had a woefully inconsistent start to his Yankee career. Phil Hughes will break my heart again, that she-devil. It is way too early to think much of anything of David Phelps. This is just talking 2012 here. They are literally going to have to pull three starters out of their ass in 2013.

    I don’t believe Nunez and Martin are who they look like right now, but I also don’t believe they’re who we wish they would be.

    I don’t believe the sky is falling, but I believe this is the biggest transition period the team has experienced since, at least, the middle of the previous decade. I agree with Bonnie/Clyde that it’s made more difficult this time around by better competition.

    That makes my 7. If I ever had to vote less than a 5 on this franchise, I’d shoot myself. I don’t think I would have voted less than a 5 in ’92. I’d just tell myself Brien Taylor would save the day.

    • Erica says:

      “I believe in Andy Pettitte. I don’t, however, necessarily believe in 2012 Andy Pettitte.”

      Expand on this, please!

      Otherwise, this is a great post and I agree with all points. I do believe D-Rob can get it done. It’s the power of the High Socks. :)

      • Robinson Tilapia says:

        I just worry that we’re not going to like what we see when he comes up. This comeback is more difficult than we think.

        I understand rehab starts are just that, and that you make the kind of decisions you’d make in Spring Training and damn the final numbers. While I haven’t physically seen him pitch, what I read on here as to how he’s doing, whether reasonably or not, has given me reason to pause a bit.

        • Erica says:

          Yeah, I absolutely agree about Andy. I think a lot of people are placing all their eggs in his basket. So how many rehab starts will it take for him to get back to form? Keep in mind, he’s playing with a bunch of error-prone Nunez’s behind him and certainly his final line doesn’t tell the entire story.

          Then again, he’ll know when he’s ready. And he has said he feels ready, right? At this point I guess we have nothing to lose. I mean, it can’t get worse than Sweaty Freddy, can it?

          • Plank says:

            For me the issue is that most 40 year olds never get back to form. Especially after sitting out a year instead of exercising 5 hours a day.

          • Robinson Tilapia says:

            I get that, say, there’s a 3-1 count and guys on second a third on a rehab start, and that you may throw a pitch in that situation you wouldn’t throw in an MLB game because you want to see where it is at that point. That’s why they’re rehab starts. You have to take that into account when looking at the final line. As he gets closer to his first start, you want to see that he’s getting these MiLB guys out without much tinkering, though. You want to see that lights-out start that shows you “I’m ready.” It’s not there yet. Perhaps you give him the benefit of the doubt because of who he is. I’m still damn cautious, and I think we all should be.

            • Erica says:

              I think I’m just still a little starry-eyed that Andy’s coming back and probably hoping more than I should that he’s ready now because of our pitching.

              • jjyank says:

                I’m in that boat as well. I just can’t bring myself to worry about Andy, because, well…it’s Andy! That’s not rational, I know, but I just can’t help but feel anything but awesome about Andy coming back.

              • Robinson Tilapia says:

                It’s never wrong to hope, Erica.

  10. BK2ATL says:

    Sticking with my 8. While Mariano is a legend, if there were anywhere on this team that we could afford a major injury, it’s the bullpen. It really sucks to lose Mariano, but we have 2 potential true closers available to cover Mo’s absence. Plus Aardsma and Joba on the way, later this year.

    CC is back on his ace game. Hughes appears to be turning it around some. We need Kuroda to be more consistent, but I have a feeling that it’s on the way. Nova continues to provide stability (at least 6 innings of quality work). We finally brought up a couple of OFs to cover for Gardner and Hughes, and they held their own. Phelps and Mitchell have been contributors. Now it seems like we’re finally seeing signs of life from Tex, A-Rod and Cano.

    We might be on the way to one of those 7-8 game winning streaks, and 13 wins in 16 games runs.

    Banuelos appears back on his control and command game. Williams and others continue to impress. Not sure what’s up with Campos, but hope it’s nothing. Overall, I think we’re fine.

    • Cris Pengiucci says:

      Here, Here!! I’m aslo at an 8. It’s so early in the season. I don’t usually worry about standings until about the All-Star Break, as long as the team is within about 7 games.

      It sucks losing Rivera, but the bullpen is a strength and I trust they’ll do better than get by. They’ll continue as a strength. I think the SP will come around. If necessary and the right opportunity presents itself, the team may make a trade near the trade deadline just to be sure they’ve got the 5 they need. I believe that we’ll see the full benefits of Swisher and Gardner over the course of the next couple of weeks. We lost 2 of our 3 starting oufielders, both of whom contributed greatley to the offense as well. While the results weren’t exactly pretty. the team got by due to depth. Time to go on a roll very soon.

      I’m still hopefull the minor’s will produce some useful pieces going forward, especially among the pitchers. Maybe not an ace but that’s still possible. Happy to see Wise come up and contribute. Maybe he gets a longer look. He maight be a worthy bench piece in some capacity.

      The season is long. I believe they’ll come around this year. I think they’ll continue to be a powerhouse for years to come and will find a way to do that within whatever budget limitations they set.

  11. ThatstheMelkyMesaWaysa says:

    We got a guy with Adonis DNA? We’re set!

  12. Plank says:

    I used to get scathing remarks for voting 7. Now I’m an optimist. If it was revealed that Pineda would never be the same, I would drop down to a 6, which was where I was for most of the offseason until the Friday the 13th moves.

    Losing Mo for the year hurts this year, but not as much as it would seem since the bullpen will still be a strength and he didn’t figure into the long term plans for the club.

    Adding Pineda and Kuroda bumped me up to a 7 (mostly from Pineda) since it meant a clear path to contention using cost controlled young players. Losing Pineda hurts, but he’ll be back.

    I drop them one point each for the aging long term contracts, the new CBA hampering their ability to get new talent, and the plan to slash payroll in 2014 and beyond.

  13. jjyank says:

    I’ll put myself at a 7. I’m usually around an 8, but losing Rivera hurts and I’m really only truly confident in CC. I do think Nova and Kuroda will be fine, but I’ll need to see more out of Hughes before I believe he can be a capable starter.

    I have a good feeling about Phelps though. Just something in my gut, I dunno. I don’t think he’s a front end guy, obviously, but I have a good feeling about him giving the Yanks a shot to win most of the time he pitches.

    D-Rob is a beast. I know there’s plenty of disagreement about what his role should be, but if we pretend for a moment that in a vacuum, the team’s closer should be the best pitcher, then that’s D-Rob. I’m not saying that he should be the closer, but I think he has emerged as one of the best relievers in the game right now. He’s a lot of fun to watch.

    And Jeter’s resurgence is awesome to watch. Also hoping that the grandslam yesterday gets Cano going, that will go a long way to making the offense elite again.

    • Robinson Tilapia says:

      Phelps certainly has never looked overmatched to me. That’s for sure. My only question is what he will look like, at his best, and whether that should make us feel better about filling a rotation moving forward. It’s too early to tell there.

      Oh yes, I believe in Derek Jeter’s ability to hit a baseball in his late 30′s. You never saw me doubt him when he was sucking it up either.

      • jjyank says:

        I know there is a mountain of evidence about middle infielders falling off cliffs at that age, but some guys are just meant to buck the trend. Derek Jeter is a legend, a hall of famer, and I believe that he is as well equipped as anyone to beat the odds.

        • Robinson Tilapia says:

          If Posada’s retirement and Mariano’s injury show us anything, it’s that everyone will be ordinary and mortal one day. I’m not convinced he’s there yet for good.

          • jjyank says:

            Of course, Jeter will eventually come back down to Earth like everyone. I am at least encouraged that there is some tangible evidence (working with his old hitting coach) and the sample size is larger than simply a hot start to 2012.

    • Erica says:

      I agree with you about Jeter. He’s in it to win it and on the days when the offense has been less than stellar, Jeter’s right there doing anything he can to get that W.

  14. Manny's BanWagon says:

    5 for this year and the future unless they disregard that $189 payroll limit BS for 2014.

    As much as it hurt to lose Mo, the starting pitching continues to be the biggest problem with Kuroda mediocre and totally inconsistent, Nova terrible recently, Garcia morphing into the 2012 version of Burnett, Pineda out for the year, Hughes only recently showing some small signs of being decent and Pettitte getting knocked around in AAA.

    What makes things worse is I don’t know how anyone can have confidence in this organization developing young starters so unless they go out and get a Cole Hamels next year, I’m really concerned about the starting rotation.

  15. jjyank says:

    Am I the only one who doesn’t count the $189 budget as a negative? It may hurt for a year or two, but I really feel like this will benefit the team in the long run. Not saying that not spending money is good, but I think having a set budget will give the team pause before making unwise free agent signings for big money that will hamper the team down the road.

    Spending money is fine, but there’s nothing wrong with trying to spend it smarter. $189 mil is still more than anyone else, and I’m sure once they get to that point it won’t be so set in stone. Meaning, if a key free agent is out there that will put them at $192 mil, I don’t think they’ll necessarily pass.

    • Plank says:

      But free agents help the team win. If the Yankees hadn’t signed Teix, who would their 1B have been? Shelley Duncan then Jorge Vazquez?

      Free agency is the Yankees biggest weapon.

      I would rather have Teix.

      • Robinson Tilapia says:

        Swisher was acquired to play 1B initially, then became Nady’s platoon partner, then became the man we know him as today.

      • jjyank says:

        Oh, no doubt it is necessary. But $189 mil is still the largest payroll in the game. It’s not like free agents disappear.

        Like I said, it might hurt for a couple of years because we have all these monster contracts that were signed without knowledge of the new CBA, but in the long run I don’t see a problem with trying to avoid albatross contracts and spending those free agent dollars a little smarter.

        • Plank says:

          Wanting to spend money in free agency smarter has nothing to do with the 189 plan. Every team wants to spend smartly every year.

          They will spend less money and have the same success rate overall, leading to a worse team.

          • jjyank says:

            I think not having a budget was part of the reason the Yankees just bought up whoever was the most shiny free agent toy for so many years. I agree that they might have a worse team for a couple of years because the Yankees are already hampered by several big contracts, but like I said, $189 mil is still the largest budget in baseball. They should be able to be plenty competitive. Who knows, maybe having a budget means more resources poured into scouting and player development. Nobody said the Yankees will stop spending money entirely.

            • Robinson Tilapia says:

              A spending limit makes for harder decision, but I’ve not once mentioned it as a potential crutch or excuse. Still the largest payroll in baseball. Everyone has a limit. It’s just more explicitly stated now. Get to work.

              Speaking of getting to work, yes, there is a correlation between the frequency of my comments and what I’m procrastinating on. Powerpoint presentation, if you must know.

              • jjyank says:

                Agreed. And I’m in a similar procrastination boat. I have the last paper of my academic life due tomorrow afternoon, and I am about as motivated to write it as Bartolo Colon attempting to go on a diet.

                • Robinson Tilapia says:

                  Congrats again, dude. You’ll get through it.

                  Always be nice to your professors at the end of the semester. Their brains are fried as well.

            • Plank says:

              Those free agents helped them win an astonishing number of WS championships and go on an epic playoff run. Without signing those players, the Yankees would have been atrocious.

              • jjyank says:

                Just to be clear, I’m not even really supporting the budget. I just don’t see it as a very big deal. $189 mil still leaves plenty of room for free agents. I agree that for a couple of years it will be hard because we already handed out several monster contracts without the knowledge of the budget, but in the future I don’t think its so bad.

          • Ted Nelson says:

            “They will spend less money and have the same success rate overall, leading to a worse team.”

            You keep saying that over-and-over-and-over Plank, but it’s not true.

            They will cut out the marginal spending. The spending that they saw as least valuable to begin with. That will mean, for sure, no Soriano. We know for a fact that a large contingent of the front office did not want to sign him. The reasonable thing to expect going forward is that contingent will win out. They’ll sign a $4 mill per set-up guy or sign 5 Corey Wades hoping one works out. They won’t sign the AJ Burnett. It was very clear at the time that CC was the Batman and Burnett was the Robin. Not every guy they sign will work out, but they’ll cut out the marginal guy. They won’t just randomly cut. That’s not logical. It’s not the way humans behave.

            Not to mention… they don’t have that many holes to fill going forward. They have a core already under contract. Most of what they’ve been doing the last couple years has been supplementing that core with fairly cheap guys. They’ll probably keep two or three of Cano, Granderson, Martin, Swisher… and replace the other(s) cheaper, which might very well be what they’d have done anyway. They’ll probably have one or two rotation spots to deal with as well… otherwise they don’t have big money needs.

            • Plank says:

              Key free agents don’t pan out too. Your assuming the signings the Yankees make if they are at 189 will all be beneficial to them. That’s faulty logic.

              • jjyank says:

                I mentioned this below, but what if the Yankees take all that saved money and throw it into scouting and player development? Sure, all key signings won’t work out, that’s just life. But if they double their scouting departments, maybe that helps the percentage. Or maybe not, but its an idea.

                • Plank says:

                  what if the Yankees take all that saved money and throw it into scouting and player development?

                  Do you think that is what will happen? I don’t.

                  Throwing money at development and scouting can only go so far anyway.

                  • jjyank says:

                    That’s fair, but there’s about as much evidence for that as for your assertion that they’re just going to pocket the savings. It’s just speculation.

                    • Plank says:

                      I don’t know what to say to that.

                      I think it’s clear they are trying to make more money for themselves. They own a business and are slashing payroll. It’s not exactly an original idea and it leads to bigger profits (temporarily at least). I think it’s clear it will most likely hurt the team’s chances of winning in order for them to make more money.

                      People can reach their own conclusions.

                    • Ted Nelson says:

                      Plank knows everything about everything, so he clearly knows how the Yankees spend their money. He has even claimed to know how much profit their private corporation makes in the past. He is all knowing.

                      Plank: They are not trying to make more profits… they’re trying to avoid losing profits. This was not their independent decision. It was a reaction to a rule change that would have slashed the profits they were making.

                    • jjyank says:

                      Or maybe they’re tired of watching their revenue sharing money used to extend other teams young phenoms. I’m sure profit has plenty to do with it, but you’re speculating just as much as I am.

                    • Plank says:

                      Revenue sharing isn’t going to stop. The only teams that will stop getting money under the new CBA are Washington and Toronto I believe. That’s from memory, please correct me if I’m mistaken. They will only get the money back if they are under the threshold in multiple years. How much is that from the Yankees currently? A few million? Doesn’t seem worth it to me.

                    • jjyank says:

                      I think paying less into that pool is a good thing. I’m just not all that worked up about $189 mil. That’s not such an insanely low number, it will still be the highest in baseball. The 2012 Yankees would be pretty close to that without Soriano. I don’t see it as a huge issue.

                    • Plank says:

                      Free agents are going to get more expensive by 2014 and other teams payrolls are going to get higher. I assume the Red Sox for one will be at 189 as well. I wouldn’t be shocked if a team or two was above the threshold.

                      189 now isn’t the same as 189 in 2014. It seems like it’s very near, but baseball inflation isn’t the same as real inflation. Salary typically goes up very fast. Other than a few years in the mid 2000s, payrolls ly up year after year.

                    • Ted Nelson says:

                      What a joke. What team other than the Yankees is going to cross that threshold? There’s a HUGE disincentive in place.

                      And salary inflation has not been on that kind of trajectory. That’s just false. In 2009 you had 9 teams over $100 million. In 2012 you have 9 teams over $100 million. It’s very unlikely that teams suddenly accelerate at that sort of rate, just to pay a huge penalty when they do.

                    • Plank says:

                      Number of 9 digit payroll teams by year is clearly the best measure of salary growth.

                    • Ted Nelson says:

                      Clearly I was using it as such.

                      I offered a quick stat to illustrate my point. What stat did you offer?

                      You are wrong. It’s that simple. I didn’t get into it because it’s as simple as looking at the year-to-year league wide payrolls.

                    • Plank says:

                      I offered a quick intentionally misleading stat to illustrate my point.

                      I corrected your typo.

              • Ted Nelson says:

                No, I am not doing that. I have not said that at all. You’re assuming that incorrectly rather than actually reading my points and trying to understand them.

                I have said that they will not sign the marginal guys. That doesn’t mean all the guys they sign will work out. Tex has not really worked out relative to his $. It’s just to say that they will prioritize what they consider better uses of their money. They won’t just throw a dart at the board when deciding whether to sign CC or Burnett. Or re-sign Soriano vs. Cano.

                • Plank says:

                  I have said that they will not sign the marginal guys.

                  How do you know what they will do? How do you know who the marginal guys are? You claimed they wouldn’t have signed AJ Burnett. Is he marginal? You seemed to indicate they wouldn’t sign a Carl Crawford like deal with anyone. Is he marginal?

                  • Ted Nelson says:

                    I know what they’ll do because it’s a basic economic theory. That you are ignorant to it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I know that if the Yankees want to act in their own self-interest they’ll make decisions with more marginal utility and not less. I’m sorry that you don’t know that.

                    I know Burnett is “marginal” because I know how marginal is defined in economics. Burnett is marginal because they already had CC, Pettitte, and Wang, plus Joba, Hughes, and IPK.

                    • Plank says:

                      You can call me ignorant all you want. You’re just a homer pretending to be using economic theory to justify your fantasy Yankee team.

    • Manny's BanWagon says:

      It’s a huge problem at least for 2014 and 2015 if it keeps them from resigning Cano, Swisher and Granderson since they don’t have internal replacements for any of them or signing Cole Hamels since I can’t possibly see how they can sign them all.

      • jjyank says:

        Right, I said it might sting for a couple of years, but I think 5-10 years from now the Yankees might be more flexible without burdened by unmoveable albatross contracts. It’s a long term benefit.

        • Manny's BanWagon says:

          If you’re concerned with how they’ll be in 10 years, the best thing for now would be to come in last place for the next 5 years and totally rebuild.

          Not spending money isn’t the answer, not spending it foolishly is.

          • jjyank says:

            Right, I agree with you. I’m saying that I believe having a budget forces them to not spend money foolishly. $189 mil is still the highest in baseball, it’s not like the Yankees won’t be spending money.

            I don’t see a problem with thinking a few years down the line. I hope the Yankees are doing everything in their power to remain competitive for the next decade.

          • Plank says:


            Not spending money foolishly is easier said than done. It’s the equivalent of saying the team should draft better or they should develop players better. Every front office does the best they can and they fail most of the time. Spending money on the free agent market is no different. Not using that avenue (where the Yankees have the biggest advantage and an amazing track record incidentally) isn’t the answer.

            • Ted Nelson says:

              And no one besides you is even considering that they won’t use that avenue. In fact, they have to use that avenue unless they re-sign guys or replace all of their departing FAs internally (which will leave their luxury tax number well, well under $189 million).

              • Plank says:

                I obviously meant using it to its full advantage. I’m sure you knew that though and just wanted to yell at me some more.

                • Ted Nelson says:

                  No one else is assuming that either.

                  Getting the most out of FA has never meant spending the most money. It’s always meant spending money wisely. Signing a bunch of 30-somethings to 10-year $200 million+ deals is not getting the most out of FA. Signing the best in the game to big deals and bargain hunting the rest of the time is usually how you get the most out of FA.

                  Trading for a Swisher or Granderson can be more effective than signing a FA.

                  • Plank says:

                    Swisher and Granderson were approaching their peak years and signed to below market deals. By definition they can’t be had via free agency.

                    • Ted Nelson says:

                      Which is why I said “Trading for a Swisher or Granderson can be more effective than signing a FA.”

                      What I was saying was that filling every hole that arises through free agency is not “using FA to its full advantage” whether you’ve got a budget at $210 mill or $189 mill.

      • Ted Nelson says:

        Who says that they want to sign them all? Signing 30-something-year-olds off the open market is rarely the most effective use of $. Even without the budget, they should be looking to add the next Swisher and Granderson as much as looking to re-sign the old one. It’s going to depend on what the market holds for those guys and what’s available via trade (as well as if any prospects take big steps forward… both as trade pieces and possible replacements), but re-signing those guys just because they’re already on the team is not necessarily the right move.

        They should be able to sign two or three of the Cano/Granderson/Swisher/Martin group if they can take care of their SP internally. A Hamels would take one of their spots.

    • Ted Nelson says:

      I don’t count it as a negative either. I see it as pretty marginal. It’s the unnecessary contracts to guys like Burnett and Soriano they’re not going to hand out. And, no, that’s not cherry picking out the deals that didn’t work out… those deals were totally unnecessary at the time they were signed. They were signed as an expensive #2 starter and a set-up man… luxury depth. Even though someone like Teixiera isn’t working out swimmingly I still think that they’ll sign that type of stud, probably Cano soon actually.

      It’s only two years. So you’re probably not going to see any Kuroda types to solidify things, but I don’t think it makes a huge difference long-term. They’ve re-signed CC to a HUGE deal already when the plan had to at least be in their minds.

      I already think that they do a pretty good job finding bargains. We’re worried about signing Swisher, Granderson, Martin, and Cano to big deals now, but the production that they’ve given up to date was cheap (especially compared to their free agent counter-parts like Bay, Crawford, Werth, etc.). We can’t predict who will be available for what down the line, but even to stay in the low $200 mms they’d have to find the next batch of those guys going forward rather than re-signing all of them. As much as I like to see prospects develop, sending some of the low minors depth for the next Swisher/Granderson might be more efficient than re-signing the first Swisher/Granderson.

      • jsbrendog says:

        i disagree the burnett contract was unneccessary at the time. with the state of the yankee pitching staff and the price for pitching at the time (derek freaking lowe) it made sense. the 09 yanks do not win the ws wihtout aj burnett.

        was the deal too long? yup. occupational hazard. it’s not like they bid against them selves like with arod. swap him in for burnett.

        • Ted Nelson says:

          That’s not the issue here. The issue is whether they sign him with a tight budget and HUGE incentives not to exceed that budget. Or, more so, the issue is who do they decide not to sign. They can’t sign all the guys that they did, because they were over the new budget. So, who are the marginal guys they din’t sign? To me that’s Burnett.

          Burnett did not pitch well in the 2009 playoffs. I disagree that they wouldn’t have won if they replace him with a decent MLB SP. If they replace him with a AAAA SP, sure, I doubt they win.

          • Plank says:

            Again you are assuming the Yankees will sign the good player and pass on the bad player. It doesn’t work like that.

            • Ted Nelson says:

              Again, you are not reading what I’m writing. I mean what the hell does that have to do with what I said? “Or, more so, the issue is who do they decide not to sign. They can’t sign all the guys that they did, because they were over the new budget. So, who are the marginal guys they din’t sign? To me that’s Burnett.” That’s what I actually said. If you theoretically extend this budget restriction back it’s a fact they can’t sign all the players they did. My question is who wouldn’t they have signed. You did not answer that question. Instead you made a barely relevant and incorrect point.

              Yes, they will sign what they consider to be the good player and not sign who they consider to be the bad player… that’s EXACTLY how it works. Will they always be right? No. Is anyone outside the Burnett family dumb enough to think he is or was when signed a better pitcher than CC?

              • Plank says:

                You are assuming they wouldn’t have signed Burnett if they had a lower payroll. That’s why I wrote what I did. After reading and deciphering your post.

                • Ted Nelson says:

                  Yes. Which is why I said that you’re not reading what I’m writing.

                  They couldn’t have signed all the guys they did for $189 million per. Do you understand that part? So, I am asking who they wouldn’t have signed… would it have been CC or Burnett? Maybe they would have signed Burnett and not Tex. Fine. Point is that they would have still signed CC. Because he was rightly their highest priority. Burnett was not. That’s why they signed him second and paid him less. This isn’t rocket science.

                  • Plank says:

                    If we are playing the pretend alternate reality game, maybe they would have signed Burnett and an inferior 1B to Teix and called it an offseason.

                    This isn’t rocket science.

                    It’s certainly not rocket science. It’s your pretend alternate scenario that sounds good after the fact but didn’t happen and you have no way of knowing it would happen other than your sense of self worth.

                    • Ted Nelson says:

                      Thanks for repeating what I said above!

                      Yes. We do have a way of knowing. We know they will not sign the marginal guy. We know for sure Soriano is that guy. Feliciano, too. Burnett isn’t not 100% sure, but point is they can cut $25 million without impacting production much. Say it’s Tex and not Burnett… who cares? There are plenty of cheap 1B and RF who are as good as or not much worse than Tex. The point is not to talk about the past. It’s to use the past to illustrate how they might operate in the near future.

                    • Plank says:

                      To use last year’s team, the 25 MM they cut could have been Andruw Jones, Bartolo Colon, Freddy Garcia, Curtis Granderson, and Robinson Cano.

                      The imaginary game you are playing works both ways.

      • jjyank says:

        Yeah, I pretty much agree with this. I don’t see $189 as not spending money, I just see it as not spending unnecessary money. Between having a couple of prospects pan out, trading a couple more for cheap production, and making a few key free agent signings, having a budget is possible and sustainable. I mean, most of the time the Yankees hover around $200-210 mil. That’s like, only slightly more than the difference of not signing Soriano.

        • Plank says:

          I don’t see $189 as not spending money, I just see it as not spending unnecessary money.

          How do you know they won’t spend the unnecessary money and keep the necessary money though?

          You seem to be tying spending less on free agency to spending free agency money better. It doesn’t work like that.

          It’s possible that everything breaks right in 2014. They Yankees will make shrewd signings, let the dead weight off the team at just the right time, and promote prospects who are able to step in and contribute just in time. I wouldn’t be on it though.

          Absent certain knowledge of player performance, more money is always better to spend than less money.

          Spending less money will make the Yankees worse at baseball. Spending less money in order to increase the profits of the owners after getting a taxpayer funded stadium hurts me as a fan.

          • jjyank says:

            We don’t know if they’re doing it to put more money in their own pockets or not. Being over budget means they are essentially helping other teams pay for players with revenue sharing. Maybe the Yankees feel that it would be wiser to take that money and pour it into scouting and player development.

            Of course, spending less money and spending smarter don’t always coincide, but I think it encourages it. If you have $1,000 in your bank account, you’re going to make sure you don’t blow that on something unnecessary more so than the guy with $10,000. It’s not a perfect comparison, but I think there’s something to be said for the idea.

            • Plank says:

              Are you saying you think the Steinbrenners won’t benefit financially by slashing payroll or are you just proposing it as a theory?

              I think it’s pretty clear slashing payroll is profit driven.

              • jjyank says:

                Just a theory. I’m just pointing out that we don’t know what they’re doing with the money, and I think that in all likelihood it will be some combination of redistribution and profit, but this is all speculation.

                • Plank says:

                  They can’t spend it on getting amateur players anymore. What are you thinking? Better team buses? A masseuse in the Tampa clubhouse? Better coaches?

                  • jjyank says:

                    I dunno, it could be anything from coaches, to better facilities, increased presence in other countries, more scouts, more research personell, etc.

                    • Ted Nelson says:

                      Come on, man. Plank is psychic and know what the Yankees will and will not spend money on. He knows those greedy 1%ers would never do that. Forget that the league pushed them into this situation, they’re greedy pigs.

                    • Plank says:

                      Plank is psychic

                      You misspelled well-hung.

                      Why are you putting absurd claims in my name?

                      You are the one who claimed the Yankees wouldn’t have signed Soriano or Burnett in this thread. I have no idea what moves the Yankees will make. How am I claiming to know what moves the Yankees will make? Relevant quote, please.

                    • Ted Nelson says:

                      The psychic remark had nothing to do with personnel moves. It was about how private corporations spend their money. Something you constantly claim to know. Not just on this thread.

              • Ted Nelson says:

                BECAUSE OF THE HUGE INCENTIVE TO DO SO PUT IN PLACE BY THE CBA. Stop acting like the Yankees decided to do this to make money. They decided to do this not to lose money they were set to make.

            • Ted Nelson says:

              And if you do blow your $1,000… it’s your own fault and you can live with the consequences. When teams with $300 dollars in the bank are able to win… the Yankees should be able to figure it out with $1,000.

          • Ted Nelson says:

            “How do you know they won’t spend the unnecessary money and keep the necessary money though?”

            Because they are rational actors. Because their goal is to win games. When it comes time to decide whether to sign a starting position player at a spot they have no one else good or a $12 mill set-up man… which do you think that they’ll choose? If they make the wrong choice there, it’s not an org I really care to be a fan of. They’ll make their own bed, and then they can lie in it.

            “You seem to be tying spending less on free agency to spending free agency money better. It doesn’t work like that.”

            Yes, it does. That’s exactly how it works. They’re not joining the poor house. They’ll still be the highest spenders in baseball. They will spend what they consider to be the most valuable dollars and not what they consider to be the least valuable dollars. That doesn’t mean it will always work out. They’ll still sign some Teixiera’s (who I’m not nearly as worried about as some, but he has disappointed relative to his $). It means that they’ll cut the marginal spending, though, not the core spending.

            “Spending less money will make the Yankees worse at baseball.”

            That is not a fact. Not at all. Stop, you’re making a fool of yourself again.

            • Manny's BanWagon says:

              Of course spending less money will make the Yankees a worse team unless all of a sudden miraculously they draft better, develop players better, make smarter decisions in free agency, etc.

              To say otherwise is ridiculous.

              • Ted Nelson says:

                No, it’s not. They already draft well and make smart decisions. Spending more money to re-sign all of their guys or replace them with the next Carl Crawford might make them a worse team just as easily as efficiently spending money. Saying otherwise is what’s ridiculous.

                • Plank says:

                  If they already make smart decisions according to you, why would they sign the next Carl Crawford if they kept their payroll high, but wouldn’t if they dropped their payroll.

                  It keeps coming back to your idea that they will sign bad players if their payroll is high but not if their payroll is lower (189).

                  • Ted Nelson says:

                    Good job, Plank! You finally figured out what we’re talking about! That’s how this thread started a couple of hours ago, and now you’ve figured it out… good for you big guy.

                    Yes. Look up marginal value. I’m tired of trying to explain to you something that is common knowledge.

                    • Plank says:

                      Knowing Carl Crawford was going to suck is impossible to know. There was nothing marginal about it. He was a centerpiece of their offseason.

                      The Red Sox are a smartly run organization that straddles the soft cap year after year.

                      Again, saying you are going to only sign good players is faulty logic.

                    • Plank says:

                      Please stop pretending I’m dumb and you are smart. It’s very insulting. We disagree about baseball, there’s no need to be a jerk.

                      You are so condescending.

                    • Ted Nelson says:

                      Dude. You’re making things up. I said nothing about Crawford being marginal. You’re confusing two things I said to put words into my mouth. Stop.

                      This was a different argument. The point Manny made was that spending less *necessarily* makes you worse. I used Crawford to dispute that. Just one random example. Pick whichever you’d like. Hell, pick the Mets or White Sox. They routinely outspend their competitors and still finish behind them.

                      The Yankees didn’t sign Crawford, though, even when they didn’t have a tighter budget. Why? Because his marginal value to the Yankees was not as much as his salary. When you already have Granderson, Gardner, and Swisher… you don’t need Crawford. Especially not at that deal, which was ridiculous even when it was signed. (Look back to my comments at the time.)

                    • Plank says:

                      Your whole point is that the Yankees wouldn’t get worse when slashing payroll because they wouldn’t sign marginal players like Carl Crawford and AJ Burnett.

                      I’m not misrepresenting your point, I’m highlighting it’s absurdity.

            • Plank says:

              Stop, you’re making a fool of yourself again.

              Why do you always devolve into insults? It’s not even correct, but I’m not going to put myself through the terror of another Ted bout.

              • Ted Nelson says:

                You are making a fool of yourself. Look at the points your making. You keep talking about how they want to “increase” profits, ignoring the new CBA entirely. You keep saying that spending less will necessarily make them a worse team, ignoring all logic.

                • Ted Nelson says:


                • Plank says:

                  I mean Steinbrenner profits, not Yankee profits.

                  Why are you so angry?

                  • Ted Nelson says:

                    I am not angry in the least.

                    • Plank says:

                      I’d love to put that up to a vote. You seem very angry.

                    • Ted Nelson says:

                      Feel free to vote about whether I’m angry. I’ve already told you that I’m not.

                    • Ted Nelson says:

                      Perhaps I seem angry to you because I have no patience for you overcompensating for your ignorance with arrogance. When you say dumb things, I’ll let you know. When you say dumb things pretending like you know more than other people, I’ll also let you know. That has nothing to do with whether or not I’m angry here or in another thread.

                    • Plank says:

                      You are pretending there is a economic basis for your homer-ism. You are essentially saying the Yankees will drop payroll by 25 MM by graduating a lot of prospects, signing key free agents who will all perform well and not make any missteps.

                      It’s possible, but it’s not likely. As I’ve said from the get-go. More likely is that they will get a bit worse if they drop payroll.

                      You are without a doubt an angry, angry man and I would be shocked if it didn’t carry into your real world as well.

  16. Arad says:

    Voted a 42.

  17. Ted Nelson says:

    I’m still feeling good. Still at a 10. I’m still confident that they’ll win 90+ games this season. It’s a really long season. I’m always amazes at how reactionary fans are to small samples throughout the season… but I guess it’s to the point that I shouldn’t be surprised anymore.

    They’ve got a strong front office, a strong farm system, and players who should continue to contribute the next several years.

    • Robinson Tilapia says:

      Not joining you on the 10, but I love it.

    • jjyank says:

      Agreed, I wouldn’t quite put myself at a 10 though, but I’m optimistic.

      And you’re right, you shouldn’t be surprised anymore.

    • jsbrendog says:

      to be completely honest, as a fan, it is unrealistic to win every year. would i trade a couple years of not making the playoffs for the success of the $189 mill budget and a possible lottery draft pick which could net you a strasburg, price, longoria, harper? yeah, I think i would for the long term cause 2 yrs of sucking for at least 5-6 of a phenom like that…problem is nothing is guaranteed in any way ever.

      i like when the yankees win. i am pissed, sad, break shit when they lose a lot, but i feel like it has lost its sheen. I find myself having to try to get excited for the regular season just because i have only a 1% doubt about making the playoffs. i guess after so long of winning i’ve become disenfranchised, which is weird, i know, cause, well, you want your team to win. I just think a reset every decade or so gives it back the excitement. but, at the same time, i don’t want my team to suck. sigh, fandom, you cruel cruel bitch.

      but yeah, basically, being a yankee fan how can you not have high confidence? no matter what the names on the jerseys say they’ve shown that since big stein got suspended, they’ll bring in someone who will get the job done. so, when this group is broken up, someone else will come in whose jersey tee i will buy and who we will find things to nitpick about, and baseball will go on.

      man, i miss mo.

      • Robinson Tilapia says:

        You’re lucky it’s daytime. The nighttime commenters would have had your ass for such heresy.

        I’d rather them win the World Series every year. I remain the biggest fan ever no matter what and understand that even the Yankees will go in some sort of cycle.

        • jsbrendog says:

          yeah man, common sense and reasonable, rational opinion??!!?!

          PITCHFORKS AND TORCHES NOW!!!!!!!!!!! haha

          sorry, lemme fix it for the night time, perspectives ith lionel osbourne crowd:


      • Ted Nelson says:

        It’s likely that they will have to “reset” at some point because it’s hard to keep winning forever, but I’d rather they just keep re-building on the fly and keep making the playoffs. I like seeing that Pettitte or Posada coming from the 20-somethingth round more than the Harper fulfilling his destiny. I mean I wouldn’t complain if the Yankees had Harper… but I’m fine rooting for Austin, etc. (Plus the Yankees’ Harper in Gary Sanchez)

  18. DJ4K&Monterowasdinero says:

    6 for this year. We will not make the playoffs. Blame it all on Ibanez.

    10 for next year when the “Chip on the shoulder CORE 4″ ALL return and we win it all.

  19. Kosmo says:

    I´m still at my usual 7 but could be at a 6.
    I really don´t know what to make of this team but I´m more than happy to wait until mid-June to find out.
    Kuroda and Nova worry me. Kuroda if you look at his career is a 2 good games 1 bad game type of pitcher. If you look at his career to date one rarely finds a run of more than 3 games that he pitches well in and then he lays an egg or two.
    Nova has given up 15 more hits than IP. He has to show something more than that to make me a believer.
    No guarantee that Pettitte can out perform anyone in the current rotation.
    Yanks might be in need for SP come the trade deadline.
    Drob and Soriano are very capable of covering for Rivera.
    What happened to Tex one of my favorite ballplayers ? Is it his usual slow start ?
    Offense will continue to score runs.
    I see 1 maybe 2 Cuban players in the Bronx sometime this season Mustelier and maybe Mujica both are now at Scranton.
    I still wonder why NY didn´t pursue just 1 of:
    IMO the farm system is solid and a bit underrated.

    • Erica says:

      I feel like acquiring Darvish wouldn’t help the Yankees with their payroll budget.

      • Kosmo says:

        I believe Darvish is making less than 10 per over a 6 year period. Alot less than what it will cost NY to land a Cole Hamels.

      • jjyank says:

        Or Wilson. Jackson is pretty marginal IMO. And Gonzalez was a trade target, not a free agent, so who knows what the Yankees would have had to give up to get him. Besides, a guy with his walk rates in the AL East? No thanks.

        • Kosmo says:

          His BB rate is fine this season. MAny many many good SP have given up 4BB per 9. AL East isn´t what it once was.
          Wilson what 5 years 75 mil ? That´s chicken feed.
          Jackson for 1 year 11 mill is almost a steal and he´s only 28.

          • Kosmo says:

            Just look what the Natioanls gave up for Gio and you could more or less determine what NY would have parted with.

            • jjyank says:

              Right, and that would be too much. The AL East isn’t what it once was? The Red Sox still have a good offense, the Rays are a great team, and the Blue Jays are improving.

              I just don’t think E-Jax is all that good, I wasn’t talking about the contract. The point is that every player he mentioned has a flaw or a specific reason that the Yankees didn’t target them.

  20. TomH says:

    I’m one notch lower, 4, this time. If you take the rubric seriously (“Given the team’s current roster construction, farm system, management, etc., how confident are you in the Yankees’ overall future?“) and don’t just think about this year, it’s hard to be confident. This is an aging team, facing serious competition now from more than just Boston. It doesn’t matter a bit how TB or KC or the O’s obtained their promising young players. We can say, “Nah nah nah na nah na, they finished last so many times, etc.,” all we want. They reply that the Yanks bought their way to glory (a complaint that LONG pre-dates free agency–you heard it in the 30s, 40s, and 50s too. Each is stupid and irrelevant.

    The claim about tighter budgets leading to smarter decisions sounds very nice. But we know from teams that had tight budgets in the past that these do not always coincide with smarter decisions. We need to wait and see who’s going to be making the decisions (and who is going to be nudging the decision makers) and just how tight the budgets are going to be.

    • Robinson Tilapia says:

      If you are less than 50% confident about a franchise’s maintaining a level of competitiveness that’s won more than twice the championships of any other sports franchise, you need to have your head examined. You gave valid reasons for concern, but I am sorry.

      • TomH says:

        Have the Yankees won twice the number of championships won by, say, the Montreal Canadiens?

        As for the first part of your I-need-to-have-my-head-examined post (despite my “valid reasons”), Col. Jake, Topping and Webb, CBS, and George Steinbrenner owned the Yankees during the glory years–except, of course, that during the CBS period there was little glory. Except, too, that some think Topping and Webb let quality control slip during the late period of their control. Except that George Weiss’s failures vigorously to recruit black players were a disaster.

        My point is that the present owners are different yet again (despite the Steinbrenner name). We don’t know very much about them yet. They may well have been treading Georgian water during the period when he had relinquished active control and during the years immediately after his death. Perhaps they’re forging their own identity now (e.g., budgets), and perhaps that will mean you’re right and they remain in the great tradition. Or, perhaps it may be they care less about baseball glory than previous owners. Or perhaps there are bottom-line problems we don’t know about. Etc.

        We’ll see. I prefer to be pessimistic until proven wrong. It feels better than going the other way.

        • CS Yankee says:

          You live in a dark and sad place in your mind.

          Life is good, be positive and enjoy all this great talent assembled on one team.

          Odds are they won’t win it all, those same odds also state that every team are against winning it all.

          Enjoy the ride, enjoy some beers and get happy.

          • TomH says:

            You live in a dark and sad place in your mind.

            No, you completely misunderstood. It’s a place of great contentment because I’m not, like Happy Jacks, being constantly mugged by the world. There is also the grim satisfaction–approaching pure pleasure–of seeing that the worst is, as usual, always possible. Tell any story long enough, and it ends in death. Cheer up.

            Life is good, be positive and enjoy all this great talent assembled on one team.

            You’re begging the question. I tried to explain that the team is approaching the geriatric ward. Only if one does not see that obvious fact (every other team does!) can one be a Happy Jack, dancing in the sun.

        • Robinson Tilapia says:

          Holy shit. You’re Greg’s dad!

    • Ted Nelson says:

      ” If you take the rubric seriously (“Given the team’s current roster construction, farm system, management, etc., how confident are you in the Yankees’ overall future?“) and don’t just think about this year, it’s hard to be confident. ”

      I’m thinking about the next 10 years, and I voted a 10. They have a good front office with good decision makes in Cashman, Eppler, and Opp. They have a stacked low minors and a history of turning out prospects that help either through playing or through trades. They have a sick core of players who will be around for a while yet. They will probably continue to have the highest payroll in baseball even with the budget.

      How can you not be confident? What is your scale? 4 seems as ridiculous to me as to Robinson.

  21. Manny's BanWagon says:

    I think the international spending limit and drafting cap are going to hurt the Yankees much more than most people realize. This was the one avenue other than free agency where they could use their financial might to stock the farm system.

    Instead of wasting $2-3 million in a high priced international player or on a draft pick they pay over slot who fizzles out, they’re gonna be end up wasting 10-50X that much on a free agent like a Burnett, Werth or Carl Crawford which will affect the team much more severely.

    • TomH says:

      I think the international spending limit and drafting cap are going to hurt the Yankees much more than most people realize.

      In the 1930s the motto was “Break up the Yankees.” Bud S. may well be trying–and may well succeed–to bring NFL type “parity” to MLB.

  22. Plank says:

    Yikes, this thing got ugly fast.

    • jjyank says:

      Fan confidence polls when the Yankees are in 4th place aren’t likely to be a good source of optimism.

      • Robinson Tilapia says:

        25 people voted a 1. Good thing we’re not using these for scientific purposes…

        ….or are we?

  23. CS Yankee says:

    Last week I went down to an 8 from a 9. Mo went down, the O’s and Royals did much better than expected so I’m still at an 8.

    Hoping that Mo spends some time with the fam and decides to re-up for a couple more…the kid needs to get to 700.

    I don’t get all the Pettitte is 40 and hasn’t pitched in a year mumbo-jumbo…would someone really like it more if he lost a year to TJS and was 49? My belief is the year off did wonders for his focus, helped his hammy and he could repeat 2010, but also could spend some time on the DL. A 50-50 chance is better than what we have with Pineda’s injury, Freddy’s magic show and likely even better than the Phelps/Mitchell project.

    They do however need to feast on this mostly cake schedule and play some .650-.700 ball. Also, let’s get even with the Rays this week (or 2 of 3).

    • TomH says:

      You “believe” it did “wonders for his focus” and hammy. How nice for you!

      I believe he’s forty and returning from a year off.

      • jjyank says:

        I don’t think that’s such a ridiculous statement. Maybe a year off benefitted his arm and his hamstring problems. Maybe not, but there’s enough merit to the idea that you shouldn’t dismiss it so condescendingly.

      • CS Yankee says:

        Quite a number of pitchers pitched well when 40 (or above) and the year off wasn’t due to injury.

        Expecting him to be the 4th SP doesn’t seem like a stretch; having him be the 5th SP and completing the rotation will be a victory.

        It is all good.

        • Plank says:

          Quite a few? If you had said a few, fine, but not many.

          If the year off had been due to injury, at least he would have spent the year off rehabbing. He spent the year off not being in baseball shape.

          • Plank says:

            Just to clarify, I’m sure he worked out, but do you think he was hitting the gym and leading a lifestyle as active as a major leaguer during his first year of retirement? I don’t.

            • Ted Nelson says:

              Just to clarify, your speculation on how often Pettitte went to the gym last year is totally worthless.

              Just to clarify how worthless it is, how many times did David Wells hit the gym his entire MLB career?

              • Robinson Tilapia says:

                I’m not getting into whatever tiff you both are currently having, other than I think both of you are among the best we’ve got here, but I agree with Ted here that the “workout” line of thinking isn’t a wise one.

                Until Andy Pettitte tells us otherwise (or we read something factual to the contrary), we have no way of knowing how close to “game shape” Pettitte was during his year off. Not every player is going to atrophy to the point of a big beer paunch and zero stamina in a year’s time.

                Yes, he’s 39, but being previously in shape leads to recovery quicker when you’re trying to get back in shape.

                • Plank says:

                  I was just giving my opinion. He said he wanted to spend more time with his family. That’s something factual. I won’t believe he stayed in shape enough until he shows it on the diamond. I would love to be proven wrong, though.

                  Of course it’s speculation, but assuming someone in their first year of retirement isn’t as active as they were during their playing career isn’t exactly a huge leap.

                  • CS Yankee says:

                    But what the hell does that have to do with the price of coffee at Starbucks?

                    • Plank says:

                      In my response is a cipher which deals exclusively with the price of coffee at Starbucks. I’ll leave it to you to unscramble it.

                  • Robinson Tilapia says:

                    I think my point still stands there, though. I’ve never thought of Andy Pettitte, at baseline, as being a human being in poor shape. Even if he wasn’t doing pre-game workouts every day, especially since returning to play never left his mind, I think it’s more likely he maintained sufficient enough a level of physical fitness where getting himself back over the top would not take much.

                    You’re right, though. This is all speculation.

                    Starbucks just tastes like a bunch of chemicals at this point anyway, FWIW.

                    • Plank says:

                      I think you are underestimating how hard it is for a 40 year old to be a major league pitcher. It’s not the kind of thing you just pick up again because you used to be good.

                      I might be wrong, he might have been working out like a maniac during his retirement.

                      I might be wrong, he might be able to just pick up a ball and play well.

                      Again, I would love to be proven wrong. But I’m going to need to see results before I believe it.

                    • Robinson Tilapia says:

                      Oh no no no. I agree with you COMPLETELY on that. I think that, even in the best shape of his life, it may not be enough for him to have the tools he needs to pitch effectively.

          • Ted Nelson says:

            Quite a few is pretty accurate. If you’ve made it to 38 as a strong pitcher, chances are you’ll make it the next healthy year you pitch too.



            • Plank says:

              16 pitchers in 23 years isn’t ‘quite a few’ to me.

              • CS Yankee says:

                A few typically means 2-3; therefore quite a few easily equates to 8-10 “fews”.

                This whole he is 40 AND hasn’t pitched in a year is silly IMO. If he doesn’t do well, there will likley be several reasons and his age and sitting a year won’t likely be the drivers…maybe part of the reason, but unlikely that they are main parts.

                • Plank says:

                  I’m not going to get into a discussion of what ‘quite a few’ means. If you find that list reassuring, awesome. I don’t.

                  • CS Yankee says:

                    I would imagine that 23 is also “most” in this case; meaning that if you were still pitching at 38 effectively, chances are a year or two wouldn’t make much of a difference.

                    Also, how in the hell is 23 not quite a few in anyones world?

                    BTW, not trying to be difficult, but state and defend my thoughts that Pettitte’s year off and age aren’t that big of a deal as quite a few make it out to be. Peace.

                    • Plank says:

                      That’s 16 pitchers total who have pitched at the age of 40 the last 23 years.

                      Some not too well, I might add.

            • Plank says:

              What’s your deal?

            • TomH says:

              So, these guys had a year off to play with the kids and the wife? Right?

  24. Bavarian Yankee says:

    still an 8 for me. tbh I don’t know how one can seriously vote 6 or lower, I mean we’re not the Pittsburgh Pirates or Houston Astros. We’re still the Yankees.

    • TomH says:

      Who cares about the Pirates and the damned Astros? The poll is about our confidence in the Yankees, based on various categories. We’re not doing a comparative poll in which we compare our sense of the Yankees’ future against our sense of the Pirates’ or Astros’ future.

    • CS Yankee says:


      If I was a Pirate fan I could see voting a 4, as it is a generation of rebuilding and not making the playoffs in a so-so division. The Astros, have been to a recent WS, have a cooler stadium, and new ownership would all likely net a vote of 5.

      Thank god I’m not a Pirate or Astros fan.

      • Robinson Tilapia says:

        Would vote higher as a Pirate fan since I actually think something will happen there (or I’d feel they’re doing enough to be fooled by it.) If I was an Astros fan…..I’d just become a Yankee fan and vote a 7.

  25. LiterallyFigurative says:

    Still at a 9.

    Losing Mo hurts, but he’s not the hardest-to-replace guy on the team. Sabathia is.

    Robertson and Soriano can handle the job. They may blow a game from time to time, but Mo has his week or two a season where he struggles too.

    I look at the $189 million as a positive. When you break down the current payroll, remember we are paying 2/3rd’s of AJ Burnett, plus Pedro Feliciano, Freddy Garcia, Russell Martin and Rafael Soriano. You could replace that “production” with minor leaguers and a salary appropriate set-up guy.

    They are going to have to decide who to sign out of Hamels, Cano, Granderson, Napoli, Swisher and Josh Hamilton. They can’t sign all obviously, but the decision-making will be intriguing.

    • BK2ATL says:

      I completely agree on CC being the hardest guy to replace on the 25 man roster. Completely underrated around here, until something happens. He might be an even bigger crutch for us, than Mariano.

      I sincerely doubt Hamels, Napoli and Hamilton are even on the radar. I wish we would stop trying to get them on the radar, then end up disappointed when Cashman doesn’t bite on them.

      The Pineda move was done to shore up SP on the cheap, with an eye to the future. He’s hurt, but will be back. Banuelos will be the closest we get to Hamels, in that they are both LHP. Betances? We’ll see. Warren is an injury away. Campos further down the line. Point is, this is the direction that we’re going, not the high-end FA market anymore.

      Plus, regarding Hamels, I sincerely doubt that we’d want to compete with the LA Dodgers for him. If we won, we’d be paying 2 CC Sabathia-type contracts, something I don’t see happening.

      Josh Hamilton in NYC long-term??? Just no.

      Napoli??? No need to lock into him long-term, if we have Romine and Sanchez on the way within the next 2-3 years. We could stopgap the C position, giving up offense for solid defense until.

      We’d be wise to try to re-sign 3 of Cano, Grandy, Swisher, and Martin, staying within the $189 million cap, and call it a day. In the coming years prior to 2014, we’ll be losing the contracts of Jeter, Mariano, AJ Burnett, Kuroda, Feliciano and Soriano, off the top of my head. The plan appears to backfill most of those internally, and including the eventual salary increases in the midst for the remaining players. And Cashman is building the farm system exactly for that.

      I just wish that he makes a play for Jorge Soler, just as I wished he made a play for Aroldys Chapman. Cespedes was too expensive, as was Darvish. So, I get that. Chapman will turn out to be a steal, at what he was signed for.

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.