Oct
29

Fan Confidence Poll: October 29th, 2012

By

2012 Record: 95-67 (804 RS, 668 RA, 96-66 pythag. record), won AL East, swept by Tigers in ALCS

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

108 Comments»

  1. Eddard says:

    I cannot, in good faith, vote any higher than a 4. Did the Yankees F.O. watch the WS? The Giants gave us the blueprint to beat the Tigers, which we’ve been unable to do in the postseason. I don’t really expect anything to change. The same HR or K hitters will be back next season. They may even give Swisher a 10 year extension like they gave ARod, like they’ll give to Robbie Cano.

    There is something fundamentally wrong with the way the Yankees do business. From the empty seats in the playoff games to a bloated payroll with aging stars to a boom or bust offense that more times than not goes bust in October. Nunie and Gardner will be traded because we wouldn’t want youth and speed on this team. Phelps will be traded because we wouldn’t want a young, upcoming starter to develop. We’ll just keep begging Andy to come back. They’ll just keep trotting out the old and the overpaid and expecting different results. Until they adjust we’ll be sitting here every year watching teams who do it the right way like the Cardinals and Giants win the WS.

    • 0 for infinity and beyond says:

      The Blueprint = don’t suck out loud against the Tigers. Got it!

      • Steve S. says:

        There is no blueprint for October, its really just another month of baseball. That said, one trick ponies are easy for opposing teams to deal with. This team was a sac fly or ground ball away from advancing to the WS, yet up and down the lineup you couldn’t find a hitter willing or able to do so. The 2012 Yanks were good at doing big things, but horrendous at doing the little things that win games.

        • CP says:

          This team was a sac fly or ground ball away from advancing to the WS

          Really? Because I saw a team that got swept in the ALCS. A sac fly or ground ball wasn’t going to win the ALCS when almost everyone on the team went into a horrible slump.

          • Steve S. says:

            Would “a few” SF/GB make you feel better? And do you think those horrible slumps were some random statistical anomaly, or a function of their scouting reports?

            • Ted Nelson says:

              Most likely a random statistical anomaly. Were teams purposely not scouting the Yankees during the regular season when they led MLB in offense?

              • Steve S. says:

                No, but the students pay more attention when the test is due.

                • Ted Nelson says:

                  So the Tigers paid much, much more attention in the ALCS then absolutely no attention in the WS, the Orioles paid a bit less attention in the ALDS, and the Yankees paid a bit more attention in the ALDS followed by no attention in the ALCS?

                  Interesting theory… unfortunately I still think it’s overwhelmingly likely that it was luck more than scouting.

                  • The Big City of Dreams says:

                    Not this luck thing again.

                    • Ted Nelson says:

                      What was it, then?

                      Luck doesn’t mean it was beyond their control. In this context it means random chance.

                      Certainly I would fault the Yankees individual players and organization for getting embarrassed by the Tigers. They have no one else to blame.

                      In terms of actually analyzing the situation and considering what actions they should take going forward, though… Some sort of rational analysis is needed. 4 games is a very small sample. If you don’t think luck comes into play in any 4 game sample, you are wrong. You need to get a better understanding of luck, baseball, or both.

                    • The Big City of Dreams says:

                      Does luck play a role? Sure it does but this wasn’t just a 4 game sample. Fans have been complaining about the offense all season. Bur yes I know I know they scored a ton of runs this yr blah blah blah. I’m not going to sit here, drink the Cashman kool-aid and just say hey we slumped at the wrong time it happens.

                    • Ted Nelson says:

                      Fans were complaining about an offense that scored about as many runs as any team in the league…

                      That some fans get upset about something doesn’t make it true.

                      Should Tiger fans erect a monument for the ALCS sweep and then fire everyone they just erected a monument to for the WS sweep?

                    • The Big City of Dreams says:

                      That some fans get upset about something doesn’t make it true.

                      —————–

                      No but what is true was this team struggled this yr in certain situations. The fans that complained didn’t make it up just to cause trouble.

                    • Ted Nelson says:

                      What is true is that this team didn’t struggle to score runs. Nor did it struggle to score runs against very good pitchers. Nor did it struggle to score runs in the first round of the playoffs.

                      I don’t have the final stats in front of me, but I believe that this team also hit about the same with RISP as without.

                    • The Big City of Dreams says:

                      I’m sure someone will post the numbers eventually.

                  • TomH says:

                    “Luck” and “statistical anomalies” (especially this very vague latter) lead to passivity of attitude (“Oh well, not to worry: it’s a small sample size/luck/statistical anomaly“). In areas of human activity, it’s pragmatically preferable to assume human intention is always primary because, after all, we’re not merely aspects of particle physics.

                    • Ted Nelson says:

                      Did you read what I said at all? Even one word of it?

                      Doesn’t seem like you did. Using big words doesn’t make you smart.

                    • The Big City of Dreams says:

                      Why do you feel the need to insult him because he doesn’t completely agree with what you said?

                    • Ted Nelson says:

                      Where’s the insult?

                      I asked if he read my comment because he attempted to disagree with my comment without actually reading it… the result being that he didn’t actually disagree with what I said. He disagreed with a strawman.

          • LarryM., Fl. says:

            Steve, we were swept by a team which we should have hammered. San Fran hitters had no issue winning four straight and they were struggling all year looking for offense.

            On another note 5 is my confidence level. This team needs to change the template. I don’t disagree with Cashman’s assessment of younger if it makes us better. But we must give a younger guy a real shot at making it. The cameo appearance is getting old. Start with Nunez let him play half the games at short. No one expects Jeter to play 140 games at short. Let Jeter play some third base while Arod DH’s. Look for a power RF who can play some first base. Look for some players who have a different approach to the game. No need to abandon the power philosophy just don’t embrace 125%.

            I like Prado from Atlanta who maybe getting too expensive for the Braves.

            • 0 for infinity and beyond says:

              The only way Jeter stops playing shortstop is when he calls it a career and heads to Cooperstown.

              • Monty says:

                I read this over and over again. I don’t disagree that He deserves to make this decision himself but he needs to realistically step up and acknowledge if its time to change positions. With that said, Jeter on one foot and one eye would be better than Nunez at short.

                • 0 for infinity and beyond says:

                  Right. If he was going to move it better be for the best damn shortstop in the world. I don’t think he is moving from SS but I think we can all agree that he’s not moving unless it’s for someone who can play that postion 100% better than he can.

                  • Preston says:

                    Agreed, I have no problem asking Jeter to move off of SS. But think how hard it would be for Nunez to play everday at SS after Jeter. His already common errors would be magnified by the media, and might compound the problem. If we had Jurickson Profar waiting in the wings I’d have no problem with making a change. I think Nunez could be a league average SS, I just don’t think that’s good enough to replace Jeter.

            • Sweet Dick Willie says:

              This team needs to change the template.

              Said by a fan of a team that has made the playoffs for 17 of the past 18 seasons.

              facepalm

        • 0 for infinity and beyond says:

          Sac Fly = four playoff wins now.

    • Hugh says:

      #EddardWorld

    • jim p says:

      The reason the Yankees failed in the postseason: Beards.

      They don’t have one on the entire team. Every other championship team has beards. We don’t. I hope everyone will start posting this same fact over and over, day after day, time and again: No Beards equals No Rings! The stats will back me up.

      If the guys running this site had any sense, they’d turn it into an “All Beards, All the Time” place. Even if we all get bored hearing the same thing over and over and over and over.

      No Beards? No Rings.

    • Ted Nelson says:

      LOL… So a top 4 team in MLB gets a 4 out of 10 on your scale? You have decided that the optimal scale is to lump roughly 26 out of 30 teams (87%) between 1 and 3 on a 10 point scale?

      Right… the Yankees wanted Gardner to get hurt for the season so they wouldn’t have his speed. Makes sense. They wanted Nunez to not be able to make throws or adjust to 3B, then they wanted him to get hurt for the majority of the year. They don’t want young Ps, but they traded their best prospect in years for Pineda (who I guess they also wanted to get hurt, probably wanted Banuelos to get hurt too) and had Hughes, Nova, and Phelps in the rotation throughout the year…

      • Ted Nelson says:

        And what is doing it right? How many guys on their teams have SF and the Cards developed? Ironically they are two teams that consistently sign older veterans.

      • TomH says:

        In fact, I also voted 4, and I paid no attention (zero, nada, the void) to the other teams. The rubric doesn’t require that:

        Given the team’s current roster construction, farm system, management, etc., how confident are you in the Yankees’ overall future?

        My concern is with the outlook for the Yankees, not the Rangers, A’s, Astros, et al. I do interpret that rubric in such a way as to permit me also to consider the impact on MLB’s “leveling” tendencies of recent years. This has some impact on the stocking of the farm system. It also may reflect–I think it does–the manner in which the Yankees’ management respond to MLB’s desire to “give the little guy” a chance (i.e., leveling).

        • Ted Nelson says:

          How good they are is only measurable in relation to the other teams. There is no reliable way to compare them across time or space to teams that don’t play in MLB at the same time (in comparing runs scored/allowed in one year vs. another you necessarily have to consider the level of competition in both those years). It is only measured against the teams they actually play against.

          So, yes… it does necessarily ask you to compare them to other teams. Their “overall future” is entirely dependent on how they do relative to other teams. The Astros have a lot of really, really amazingly good baseball players in an absolute sense… relative to other MLB teams, not so much.

          • TomH says:

            This is truly ridiculous, and you’re merely trying to cover up for having been caught with your pants down. You did not–I repeat NOT–do such a comparison. No one did. It would be insane to attempt it.

            Man, pull yourself together.

            • Ted Nelson says:

              This is really, really simple. Let me try to explain it to you:

              These grades are necessarily relative. The Yankees’ future performance only matters relative to other teams. They compete against teams, and the results of these competitions determine the performance of the franchise. If you are to say that the Yankees’ overall future is a 4 out of 10… you are necessarily saying that teams that perform worse in the future are a 4 or below, and teams that perform better are a 4 or above (since this is a discrete scale, not continuous).

              You said “I paid no attention (zero, nada, the void) to the other teams. The rubric doesn’t require that.” Yet it does. Their overall future is only relevant in comparison to the overall future of the rest of the league.

              You said “My concern is with the outlook for the Yankees, not the Rangers, A’s, Astros, et al.” But you necessarily had to. The Yankees play those teams. If the Yankees improve, but the other teams (especially in the AL East) collectively improve more… the Yankees are worse off in the future despite having improved. What matters is whether you improve relative to your competition.

            • Ted Nelson says:

              Or think of it this way:

              Could this same question easily be extended to 29 other MLB orgs?

              I would argue yes. Easily.

              If you asked this same question about another team that you expected to perform worse than the Yankees going forward (whether you want to measure that by profit, run differential, wins, playoff appearances, playoff series wins, WS wins… whatever your metric or metrics of choice), what sort of sense would it make to assign that org a higher grade? What would be your rationale for doing so?

              “I feel that they will do worse, yet I am more confident in their future outlook…” Does that seem reasonable to you?

  2. 0 for infinity and beyond says:

    The Blueprint = Don’t suck out loud against the Tigers. Got it!

  3. Steve S. says:

    I’ve always been an 8 or 9, but am downgrading to a 7 based on Cashman’s recent comments. We all love the long ball, but they’re such a tiny sliver of outcomes that you can’t rely on them too heavily, and the streakiness of this team during the regular season and disappearing act the offense pulled in October should drive that point home. But the message seems to have been lost on the GM.

    I look at it this way. The Yanks had 6231 PAs last year and hit a record setting 245 HRs. That means in any given AB, you have a less than 4% chance of scoring via the long ball. In all the situational hitting team stats, this group was at or near the bottom. They led the world in # baserunners, yet were 2nd to last in plating them. Only the Mariners and Indians were less efficient. You have to find ways of scoring runs in the other 96% of PAs and this team seemed unwilling or unable to do simple things like advance runners, generate a sac fly or ground ball that would get runners home.

    The worst example was ALCS game 2. They loaded the bases three times in 6 innings and failed to score. That’s when the crowd turned ugly on this group. I was there, and was so disgusted I wanted to walk out. The place started emptying after the 7th inning, and by the 9th it was less than half full. Fans had little faith in this group, and I think it was warranted. I hope the Yanks noticed what I did, but the GMs comments seem to suggest otherwise.

    • 0 for infinity and beyond says:

      But “we’re a homerun hitting team”

      - Joe Girardi

      • Steve S. says:

        I know Girardi said that, but he also made clear during the season and playoffs that he wanted this group to improve in other areas. Just because he accepts that fact about the 2012 group doesn’t mean he fails to see the need for a more balanced attack. He also told the team after the final game that “we all need to get better” at some aspects of the game. Don’t forget he was Brett Gardner’s biggest backer in the org when many thought he was nothing more than a bench player. He limited Posada’s role when he could no longer cut it defensively. Girardi gets it, and he’s been one of the few voices advocating more speed and defense from the day he arrived here. The Yanks will always have power, and that’s a good thing, but they also need table setters and guys that can play defense. The best Yankee teams have had a balance of both.

    • CountZero says:

      There is no doubt that those bases loaded failures in ALCS Game2 were the nadir of my postseason experience. This brings up an interesting question — in my mind anyway…

      We’ve all heard the stat that the only team in whatever number of years to lead the ML in HR and win the WS was the 2009 Yankees.

      Now obviously leading the ML in HRs is not in and of itself a negative. In fact, it may be that any number of other “lead the ML” stats evidence the same disparity — e.g.: How often does the team that leads the ML in Starter ERA win the WS? Maybe it just indicates that being great at one thing goes along with being not so good at something else, and that well-rounded teams are more likely to win the WS.

      But I would be interested to know if there is any correlation between leading the ML in HRs and some other negative stat. E.g., RISPfail, % of runners on 3rd w/less than 2 outs score, etc.

      I.e., does “relying on HRs” actually correlate with anything that would predict a team would have more trouble scoring runs against high-quality pitching, or is that just 100% narrative?

    • Ted Nelson says:

      You got all that from him saying he wants to get better? Interesting. Guess it was opposite day?

      You’ve created a false dichotomy between HRs and “situational hitting.” A HR is simply the best outcome of strong situational hitting.

      • jjyank says:

        Agreed. So much fuss was made on here about Cashman saying he wants to make the team better. Unreal.

      • CountZero says:

        Agree 100%. However, there also many “not the best” outcomes that are nonetheless “positive” outcomes. So in total, whoever scores the most runs via all positive outcomes, has a better situational hitting team, right?

        I.e., you can lead the league in “best” outcome and still not be as good at situational hitting as a team that leads the league in total positive outcomes. I think we all agree that leading the league in HRs does not automatically make you the best offense in MLB.

        • Ted Nelson says:

          Yeah, but the Yankees also led the league or were right there in overall offensive outcomes.

          • CountZero says:

            Again — generally agree. However, I’ll copy / paste here what I posted lower down…

            Before we shoot down the entire notion of situational hitting failures, we should take note of one stat which is not meaningless — BRS% (% of baserunners who scored on the batter’s PA):

            NYY = 14% (10th in AL)
            League Average = 15%

            I’m not saying the offense wasn’t really good. I’m not saying this “small ball” crap isn’t a way over the top knee-jerk reaction. Just saying the Yankees left a hell of a lot of men on base all year long — not just in the postseason. There is a weakness there which goes beyond SSS or bad luck.

            Given the amount of HRs and the fact that those HRs result in even guys on 1B scoring, that percentage isn’t completely devoid of significance.

            • Ted Nelson says:

              I’m not sure that’s not luck and sample size, though. It’s still one season. It absolutely might be some sort of cultural thing or that they have managed to assemble a lot of really good, really expensive players with this weakness… It would take more to prove either, though.

      • Robinson Tilapia says:

        Just stop, Ted. You’re making too much sense.

  4. Steve S. says:

    One other thing. I’ve been a full season ticket holder, spent over 15K a year on my seats (110) between the playoffs and regular season. There is zero chance that I renew. The Yanks always sell you on buying the full season package so you get those playoff tickets. Guess what? I couldn’t go to a few of those playoff games and couldn’t even get FACE VALUE for ALCS tickets. I wound up dumping them at the last minute for about half of what I paid. Not for a midweek game on Tuesday, for the ALCS. I have to be an idiot to renew when I’m selling playoff seats for half of what I paid. I’m on the wrong end of that transaction.

    People vote with their wallets, and they voted against this group. Call me when you have a team to be excited about. I’m done buying season tickets.

  5. Matt says:

    lol ok dude

  6. Mark in VT says:

    Ridiculous. The Yanks had the best offense in the league. And if they didn’t you’d be complaining that Cashman couldn’t put together a team that hit with power.
    They got to the playoffs, won a round, lost to a good team. It was a great season. Leave it at that and be happy they aren’t the Royals, Pirates, Red Sox, etc..
    I voted an 8. Thanks for a great, entertaining season and I look forward to more fun this off-season!

    • Steve S. says:

      Sorry, but you’re simply factually incorrect. The Rangers scored more Runs than the Yanks, and they didn’t even make the playoffs.

      • Mark in VT says:

        Oops. 2nd best. Still worth the complaints?

        • Steve S. says:

          Sure. If the Yanks want to sell their fan base on being ‘all about October’ and then build a team that pulls an offensive disappearing act more often than not, they’re selling something they’re not delivering on. Just promote the fact that they’ve been the best regular season team in the AL, make the case that is more meaningful than anything that happens in October and be done with it. I’d have zero complaints if they did that. But don’t hold your breath waiting for it.

          • 0 for infinity and beyond says:

            They claim to be an all of nothing organization. I like your spirit in holding them to it :)

          • Robinson Tilapia says:

            Selling your fanbase on that while ignoring simple odds and math is silly, though.

            I can tell you I’ve manufactured the safest car on earth. You still shouldn’t try to drive it off a cliff.

            The Yankees try to hold themselves to a higher standard every year and, frankly, they’ve succeeded. They’ve missed the playoffs once since 1995 and have won five championships. Folks born in 1995 will be able to vote next year for the first time.

            However, there are 29 other teams in baseball, some of them holding themselves to that standard. Nothing is ever a given. You still have to play the games, and those other teams are going to be trying just as hard.

            Why do I even need to explain this?

            • Robinson Tilapia says:

              Don’t mind me, Steve. I’m a bit stir crazy at home with this hurricane right now. :)

              • Steve S. says:

                Yeah, me too. I started getting cabin fever last night. I’m just posting comments to avoid starting some projects around the house that will consume the rest of the day once I begin.

          • Mark in VT says:

            Runs/HR/BA/OBP/SLG/OPS – Place in ()
            NYY 804 (2)/254(1)/.265(4)/.337(1)/.453(1)/.790(1)
            TEX 808 (1)/200(4)/.273(2)/.334(3)/.446(2)/.780(2)
            LAA 767 (3)/187(7)/.274(1)/.332(4)/.433(3)/.764(3)
            DET 726(6)/163(10)/.268(3)/.335(2)/.422(4)/.757(4)
            CHW 748(4)/211(2)/.255(8)/.318(7)/.422(4)/.740(5)
            http://www.baseball-reference......2012.shtml
            I think it’s safe to say that the Yanks had the nest offense in the league.
            This is just a response to everyone who thinks they “failed” us by not building a team that can do everything. They had a bad series. Cashman and the rest built a winning team. They just didn’t perform at the end. Bad luck. Small sample. Exhaustion. Whatever. It was a great team.

            • CountZero says:

              I don’t think it’s that clear cut. None of those stats are “park adjusted.”

              OPS+: LAA (1) NNY (2)
              lgOPS: TEX(1) DET (4) NYY (5)

              Overall, I would agree they were number one, but it’s not overwhelmingly obvious unless you ignore the fact that the Yankees play in a hitter’s park.

              Before we shoot down the entire notion of situational hitting failures, we should take note of one stat which is not meaningless — BRS% (% of baserunners who scored on the batter’s PA):

              NYY = 14% (10 in AL)
              League Average = 15%

              I’m not saying the offense wasn’t really good. I’m not saying this “small ball” crap isn’t a way over the top knee-jerk reaction. Just saying the Yankees left a hell of a lot of men on base all year long — not just in the postseason. There is a weakness there which goes beyond SSS or bad luck.

      • jjsabe says:

        And the Yankees were first in WOba and Wrc+ so it’s probably the yankees.

    • 0 for infinity and beyond says:

      VT hates the Yankees

      • Robinson Tilapia says:

        I’ve walked through every state in New England in a Yankee hat. I get more compliments, by far, than anything else. People appreciate the guts of doing so.

        • 0 for infinity and beyond says:

          Lived in VT. Little old ladies would swear at the Yankee hat. More people in Boston are able to have a calm baseball discussion than VTers.

          • jjyank says:

            I went to school in Vermont. I had the exact opposite experience.

            • Mark in VT says:

              It’s split down the middle. There are quite a few people here who are Yankee fans. But since Boston won the WS a couple of times, there seems to be more fair-weather Boston fans and they can get a little mouthy.

              • jjyank says:

                Oh absolutely. I have many friends in Vermont. Some are Yankee fans. Most are Sox fans. All of them can have calm baseball discussions.

                Granted, my experience was mostly in Burlington. That, and the surrounding mountains where I would go snowboarding. Still, I never caught any grief at Stowe, Jay Peak, Sugarbush, Okemo, Killington, or Bolton Valley wearing my Yankee beanie.

              • 0 for infinity and beyond says:

                Lot of Yankee Haters in New England and some aren’t even Red Sox or baseball fans. Just Yankee haters which is about the most pointless thing I’ve ever seen!

            • 0 for infinity and beyond says:

              18 years…

              • jjyank says:

                So? I lived there for 4, and that was very recently. I had zero problems like that. Length of your time there does not give you more authority for your experience.

                • Mark in VT says:

                  13 years in VT(not that it matters) and in Williston near Burlington.
                  Unfortunately, I’ve had some really bad experiences, like people walking and whispering “Yankees suck” just loud enough for me to hear but without turning around. Another time a father and his 8 year old kid started razzing me a bit about the Yankee hat I was wearing. Got a little uncomfortable.
                  I think individual people here can be weird but I wouldn’t generalize the whole state. If feel like most people can have thoughtful, intelligent conversations about the Yanks, mostly vs. the Red Sox. It can be a lot of fun actually.

                  • jjyank says:

                    I’m sure there are plenty of individual people like that. Hell, I was born and raised in New Jersey and I knew people like that. They’re everywhere. I just took issue with lumping the whole state in there, because I freaking love Vermont.

                    I can play the opposite of the anecdote game. In Burlington, there is a simple little diner called Handy’s. Guy who owns it is a huge Yankee fan, he has posters, autographs, pictures, etc. hanging from every spare wall space. One of my closest friends from my time there is a Yankee fan born and raised in a small town in Vermont. Even among the many Vermont Red Sox fans who I am friends with, we still to this day have calm baseball discussions.

                  • Ted Nelson says:

                    Doubt you’ll get a real warm reception walking around the NY area with a Red Sox hat on either…

                    Also, not sure if people saying mean things about a team you root for under their breath qualifies as a bad experience. I would call that a minor inconvenience. A whole lot of people have much bigger problems than strangers whispering about their hat.

                    • Robinson Tilapia says:

                      I’d say we actually ignore them, for the most part. Most of us here have a friend as well who grew up in New England and is a Sox fan. That’s life.

                      Connecticut is always an interesting 50/50 spot.

                    • Mark in VT says:

                      I meant it in relation to the topic. Overall, it was obviously not a real bad experience (comparing it to many real-life things like last year’s flood, it’s a great experience). But comparing it to the way I think people are normally treated in VT it was. The people here are great – warm, inviting. It’s a great place to live.

                    • Ted Nelson says:

                      Yeah, but the hecklers aren’t usually going to be the average person (maybe the average person when drunk). I would argue the average person in both areas is going to be cool about it, but there are still going to be people who aren’t cool about it.

                      If you lived in the NY area for 13 years occasionally wearing Red Sox gear I’d be willing to bet you’d get a few comments and probably have one or two uncomfortable conversations/confrontations… and, of course, some of it is also going to depend on your attitude: how you respond to the comments.

                    • Ted Nelson says:

                      Fair enough, Mark. Just thought I’d throw that out there. Not really sure why I did, actually.

                  • Robinson Tilapia says:

                    I’ll be honest. Maine has been the only place where I’ve seen people wear “Yankees Suck” shirts just as part of their regular wardrobe rotation.

                    However, people I’ve been approached by? Nothing but complimentary. Never once gotten a bad word, and I wear a Yankee cap a LOT.

                • 0 for infinity and beyond says:

                  So you’re experiances make it fact and mine don’t, that sounds about right.

    • Ted Nelson says:

      Thanks for making a rational comment. Unfortunately it’s lost on most of the commenters here.

  7. Reggie C. says:

    I’ll stay at a 7 for now but I can say that the departure of any of the following will drop the 7 to a 6: Mo, Pettittte, or Kuroda. Cashman must pull out the stops to keep the starting rotation intact especially since Nova regressed to the point where he’s more akin to Hughes than Kuroda in terms of reliability.

  8. Robinson Tilapia says:

    My confidence in the Yankees is 7. My confidence in any thread which begins with an Eddard comments is a -5.

    I was a seven last week. Nothing’s changed. I’m a seven again.

  9. Steve S. says:

    “Cashman said the club won’t get younger unless it makes the team better, and he hedged his bets when asked if Raul Ibanez and/or Russell Martin could be back next year.”

    Not sure this is a fair characterization by Mike. Cash said in his FAN interview that he’s “a fan” of Russell Martin and would like to bring him back, and said similar things about Ibanez. Of course, both are FAs and he doesn’t want to hurt his bargaining position, but I think his initial positive reaction when asked about Martin makes it clear what he would like to see happen. Minor point, but worth noting.

    • Robinson Tilapia says:

      I wouldn’t read too much into any of that either.

    • 0 for infinity and beyond says:

      I think some fans want the Yankees to just come out and say what their entire plans for the offseason is but if we know then so does every other team and agent.

    • Ted Nelson says:

      Do you understand what hedging your bets means?

      • Steve S. says:

        Do you understand how to have a civil debate?

        • Ted Nelson says:

          Sure. There’s nothing to debate here, though.

          You explain how Cashman hedged his bets just after saying he wasn’t hedging his bets.

          Having a preferred outcome and hedging your bets are far from mutually exclusive. Say you’re holding some gold in a bull market… you’ve hedged your bets but that doesn’t mean you want the market to tank.

          I would argue you’re reading a lot into casual remarks made to the public, though. He specifically said they would evaluate Ibanez in the context of all available options (of course they will… what team wouldn’t?). I don’t remember exactly what he said about Martin, but I am not aware of him publicly committing the re-sign the guy.

  10. Austin Aunelowitzky says:

    Did the pitchers and catchers report yet?

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.