The Yankees and Giancarlo Stanton


(Dustin Bradford/Getty)

It has been nearly two months since the Marlins and Blue Jays swung their 12-player blockbuster, a trade that moved every Miami player making decent money north of the border. Ever since that trade, fans of every non-Marlins team have been clamoring for their squad to acquire Giancarlo Stanton. The just-turned-23-year-old is a .270/.350/.553 (140 wRC+) career hitter with 93 homers, the sixth most all-time through a player’s age 22 season. Stanton is special and everyone wants him.

A few days ago, Marlins assistant GM Dan Jennings told Jim Bowden that the team will indeed listen to offer for their young slugger, but they’re not actively shopping him and are disinclined to move him given his age and near-league minimum salary. In fact, Ken Rosenthal says the chances of a trade are “as close to zero as they can be.” They’re willing to listen to offers the same way every team will listen to offers for every player. It’s part of the business. Due diligence, as they say. The Yankees were one of several teams to contact Miami about Giancarlo this offseason, but obviously nothing has come from it.

The Yankees desperately need to add a young, impact hitter to the lineup, and Stanton obviously fits the bill. The problem is that they really don’t have the pieces to acquire him. This isn’t an Alex Rodriguez situation, where they were able to acquire one of the game’s best players on the right side of 30 despite a middling farm system because they could absorb his contract. Stanton is dirt cheap. He won’t be arbitration-eligible until the 2014 season, when he could threaten Ryan Howard’s first-time arbitration record of $10M. That’s a lot of scratch, but most teams could afford it.

The quartet of Mason Williams, Tyler Austin, Gary Sanchez, and Slade Heathcott will crack pretty much every top 100-ish prospect ranking in the next few weeks, but those guys have a combined eight plate appearances above Single-A ball. The Marlins aren’t taking a bunch of A-ball prospects for Stanton, they’re going to want MLB ready or near-MLB players. Guys who could step right into their lineup at some point this coming season. Ivan Nova, David Phelps, Adam Warren, David Adams, Corban Joseph … none of them are nearly good enough to pique Miami’s interest. They’re quantity, not quality. I can’t see a trade of Curtis Granderson for prospects that are then flipped for Stanton either. Good idea in theory, but why wouldn’t the third team just send those prospects to Miami directly?

(Brian Bissell/Future Star Photos)

I think that more than anything, this is where drafting the Cito Culvers and Dante Bichette Juniors of the world really comes back to bite the Yankees. Obviously injuries to Manny Banuelos and Jose Campos (and Michael Pineda) hurt as well, but the team passed on better talents (according to the consensus) to draft Culver and Bichette with their top picks in recent years. They haven’t developed as expected and leave the team with two untradeable assets. Well, not untradeable, but not all that valuable. Bichette would be what, the fifth player in a realistic Stanton package? Almost like a throw-in.

I understand what the Yankees were getting at with those selections. They targeted high-character guys who could rise to the big league level with the team rather than higher risk, higher ceiling guys. They didn’t draft for need per se, but the objective wasn’t best available player. If it was, the front office should be asking itself how the hell they managed to rate Culver and Bichette as the best available players at those draft slots. It doesn’t make sense. I say this all the time, but teams aren’t just drafting for themselves. They’re drafting for the rest of the league as well. Look at the Reds, they drafted Yonder Alonso and Yasmani Grandal despite having Joey Votto and Devin Mesoraco, and it helped them land Mat Latos.

Anyway, I honestly don’t think the Marlins will move Stanton this offseason. I think they’ll wait until his big arbitration award next winter, then look to move him for a massive haul. Their history suggests they’ll cut bait once he gets moderately expensive, so I don’t think I’m wildly out of line here. Perhaps the Yankees will be in a better position to acquire Stanton next winter, after their top four prospects get time in Double-A and both Campos and Pineda get back on the mound. Maybe Culver and Bichette even boost their trade value, who knows. Everyone wants Giancarlo Stanton right now, but I don’t believe the Yankees have enough to entice Miami.

Categories : Hot Stove League


  1. Midnight Rider says:

    not sure I understand this last line ” but I don’t believe the Yankees don’t have it enough to entice Miami”?

  2. Blake says:

    If Cashman went and said you can have any 4 prospects plus Gardner or Nova then maybe they could talk…..but not sure even that’d be enough and considering the Yanks budget I’m not sure how productive that’d be either.

    Upton “should ” cost less in players and I see he and Giancarlo as similar talents contract aside…..Upton is a couple years older but he might even have more 5 tool upside and is much more likely to actually be traded.

    If the yanks want to go for the downs in a trade then Upton makes more sense because its a bit more realistic (maybe a 10% chance rather that 0.1%)…..

    • MannyGeee says:

      truth is, the conversation would start at Nova/Phelps AND Gardner, then start throwing some of those kids in there…

      Also, if the Rangers, with more “desirable” (read: more hyped by the MSM) prospects couldn’t get it done for Upton, I am having a hard time believing the Yankees wont overpay for his services.

    • Ted Nelson says:

      “I see he and Giancarlo as similar talents contract aside…”

      Production aside too…

      • Blake says:

        Uhm no….Upton was a 6+ WAR player in 2011

        • Ted Nelson says:

          Uhm… that’s one of the last three seasons. He wasn’t that far above average as a starting RF two of the last three seasons. Stanton has been far more consistently great.

          You can pretend that didn’t happen and be confused as to why Stanton is in such greater demand, but that won’t change reality.

          • Preston says:

            Well I don’t think it’s that simple, Upton was a 4.8 win player the year before that. So while his 2010 and 2012 seasons were underwhelming he has averaged more than 4 wins per season the last four years. We think Stanton is better than that, but I’m not sold on his high UZR yet, and his K rate and BB rate both went in the wrong direction in 2012. Not that it matters, because Stanton is younger and under team control for longer and for presumably less money.

            • Ted Nelson says:

              Upton has been less than 10% above average offensively 2 of his 4 seasons since his rookie year (3 of 5 if you want to include the rookie year… Stanton was almost 20% above league average as a rookie, and has taken a big step forward from there). The consistency is terrible. Stanton’s consistency is there. At his best Upton has been at a 139 wRC+, while Stanton has been at 140 and 156 the last two seasons. If you put stock into UZR, it’s tough to argue Stanton isn’t the clearly better player.

  3. Bo Knows says:

    A little premature on Bichette don’t you think? He had an MVP campaign his first year and had a disappointing follow up.

    • turd surfer says:

      He’s not cutting bait on Bichette. He’s just saying he’s not worth much in a trade right now. His MVP campaign was also against inferior talent in the Gulf. A team is going to care more about his more recent results against more relevant competition.

      • Bo Knows says:

        He won’t fetch much in a trade this year, but the article practically calls his drafting a mistake. I disagree with that sentiment, also we’ve seen higher rated prospects (by national media)see 10 games in GCL and proclaim said prospect the be top 50.

        My point is to take the wait and see, unless its a pitcher (tools are always easier to measure on pitchers than hitters) I’d prefer to wait longer than one sub par year before calling a guy a mistake especially if he had the year he had prior.

        • turd surfer says:

          Ok that’s your opinion. I think it’s a mistake but that’s just my opinion. I’m also ready to basically throw out his Gulf stats because he signed early and it was against inferior competition.

  4. Upstate Yanks says:

    I still think Stanton gets moved this winter.

  5. Blake says:

    What really stinks about the Culver pick is that they could have drafted Nick Castellanos instead….you never know in the draft but that’s one of those that hurts in hindsight

    • jedua says:

      Taijuan Walker,Mike Olt also make this worse

    • Ted Nelson says:

      The consensus pick would have been Stetson Allie, and that doesn’t hurt at all right now. Castellanos was very highly ranked and has worked out so far, but most of the other consensus-ish guys have not. The Yankees could have gone with nothing but the consensus and taken Allie, and you’d be even more upset that they didn’t get Castellanos right now.

    • RetroRob says:

      It’s always easy after the fact to point to missed players in a draft. Castellanos was the 44th pick, and there are not 43 better prospects right now, so lots of teams missed that!

      That said, I can’t really defend the Yankees since the Culver and then Bichette picks were reaches. It’s one thing to miss by picking a top prospect. It’s another to knowingly pick a player who is not regarded as one of the best on the board.

    • Preston says:

      Well if you take Castellanos and pay out that money maybe you don’t draft two or three other guys that they took later. There is a lot of things that go on in a baseball draft beyond talent evaluations.

  6. turd surfer says:

    Great article even though I know the usual folks are going to rip it. Not sure why the Yankees didn’t wield their financial might more in the draft right before the new CBA.

    • Ted Nelson says:

      Yeah, they should have taken Stetson Allie and Josh Bell!

      • turd surfer says:

        Thanks for proving my point.

        • Ted Nelson says:

          No, I’m pretty sure Allie and Bell disprove your point that spending the most money on the highest ranked prospect is the right draft strategy.

          • turd surfer says:

            If you don’t know that is a spurious argument, I don’t know what to tell you.

            • Ted Nelson says:

              “Not sure why the Yankees didn’t wield their financial might more in the draft right before the new CBA.”

              Because they didn’t think it was the best strategy for their organization. That’s the answer. Unless you’re fishing for a negative answer, what else are you looking for? A combination of baseball and business decisions led them to take those guys.

              Why do you care how much money they spent instead of how good their results were? They could have spent far more and gotten worse results, or far less and gotten better results.

              They have been completely right so far that going with the top ranked guy on the board according to the consensus was the wrong move. Allie and Bell were those guys, and while they cost far more than the Yankees’ picks their results have been no better. And it’s not just those two. Most guys drafted around that area fail. Sure they missed on some great prospects. Many of whom were far from consensus picks. Walker was 70, Simmons was 90, Olt was 98…

              • turd surfer says:

                Still begs the question. You are also ignoring the fact that Castellanos got more money than Allie even though that argument is still just as flawed as your Allie one. I’d still rather have Bell too. You have a thing for the Pirates or something?

                • Ted Nelson says:

                  The article talked about taking “consensus” picks. Since I didn’t have time to poll all MLB draft decision makers to find out what their consensus was (and even if I did wouldn’t trust the results 2.5 years later), I assumed BA was the consensus. They are the most respected media source on amateur baseball prospects, have the longest track record, and are voted on by a group rather than being one person’s rankings. Allie was their #8 prospect, and Castellanos was #17. That’s a fairly large difference. AJ Cole was also ranked just above Castellanos and on the board.

                  My point with Allie is three fold: 1. If the Yankees were to follow the “consensus,” that’s who they would have taken. 2. Going with a consensus pick doesn’t always get you the exact right guy. People keep bringing up Castellanos, but it’s very possible that Allie, Cole, Eibner, or whoever else would have been the choice, for better or worse. It’s possible they would have gone about as much off-consensus and taken Mason Williams or Tyler Austin or Olt or Simmons or Walker and gotten a good pick. 3. A lot of teams don’t follow the consensus. The Phillies went way off consensus and got a pretty good prospect in Biddle at #27 (116 on BA). The Rangers are a team a lot of people here admire and want the Yankees to spend like, and they took un-BA-ranked Skole at #15, then took BA’s 51 at #22.

                  Who your agent is, how willing to go to college you are, and dozens of other factors play into your signing bonus. It comes down to what one team and one player decided was a fair price. BA’s rankings are a bunch of people’s opinions on pure talent. I don’t think one is necessarily better than the other in terms of evaluating pre-draft talent.

                  • turd surfer says:

                    Pretty sure fair price is contingent on your budget. That’s the point I tried to make.

                    • Ted Nelson says:

                      That’s just one of a bunch of factors that play into it. Some guys are anxious to sign and have no real options. Other guys have a lot more leverage. That has nothing to do with the budget of the team. How much of your budget you want to devote to one guy or what sort of value you place on two guys given the investment required also have nothing to do with your budget.

                    • turd surfer says:

                      “How much of your budget you want to devout to one guy…have nothing to do with budget.”

                      I’m talking about the size of the budget. Pretty sure the % you spend on a guy is contingent on the size of the budget. You want to ignore everything before the budget was finalized. That’s fine. That’s not what I’m getting at though. All you keep saying is Allie & Bell!!!!

  7. Blake says:

    If I could trade 3 players for Upton rather than 5 for Stanton then Id rather do that…..they may not can do either though and have to settle for Scott Hairston or Vlad Guerrero or try to talk Bernie out of retirement or something

  8. mick taylor says:

    sign travis hafner to dh with nunez. sign grady sizemore to a modest 1 year deal with a team option . if sizemore by some miracle is healthy in 2014 , he could replace granderson for cheap money. stanton is a pipe dream. come 2015 and 2016 when the yanks can spend money again, there will be players like david price, verlander, carlos gonzalez, who the yanks could sign. maybe pedroia will be a free agent then. why not let cano walk if he wants 200 million contract and get pedroia .

    • Blake says:

      They could spend money now if they wanted….the majority of the money they are saving is in actual payroll reduction ….I’m not so sure they’ll just start spending big ever again under Hal

      • Sweet Dick Willie says:

        The Yankees will probably always have one of the highest payrolls in MLB.

        It is just that the luxury tax is so onerous under the new CBA that it could be unlikely that the Yankees will reguarly exceed it.

        That is not the same as “never spending big again.”

        • Need Pitching & Hitting says:

          If they kept the payroll the same, they would pay less in luxury tax in 2014 than they did in previous years.

    • MannyGeee says:

      “stanton is a pipe dream.”

      Speaking of pipe dreams, here’s to hoping Hafner and Sizemore will ever be healthy enough to golf again, let alone play meaningful baseball.

      “Why not let cano walk if he wants 200 million contract and get pedroia”

      You shut your whore mouth right now.

    • Robinson Tilapia says:

      “Buy Cleveland Indians hats circa 2006 for the entire team.”

  9. Josh says:

    What about the one asset the Yankees have the most of…money? How much of the gap could be closed with an unprecedented deposit?

    • Midnight Rider says:

      virtually no chance the league let any team buy Stanton,never,nope, not gunna happen. Besides yanks would only be one of 4 – 5 teams bidding and no guarantee of anything. Yanks have begun using heads instead of egos in business decisions and they are not the leagues ATM anymore.

      • Josh says:

        I didn’t suggest using only money. We know they want to be under the 189 for financial gains. This site did a great job of totaling up the options. They just sold off a chunk of YES for a significant sum. As you say, bidding against no guarantee, which is what all prospects truly are.

        To suggest it is ego not brains at work is counter to my point. All players have a value, measured in wins, which is evaluated compared to money. I assume EVERY front office uses versions of that type of equation in all player transactions. Prospects are worth money, too. We lack one type of resource, not the other. This was purely an academic question.

        To do this, would be like the Japanese posting system, and it would be beyond unprecedented, and potentially crazy. Which kind of sounds like completely gutting your franchise one year after establishing it in an entirely public funding stadium that no one wanted. Loria loves his money…

  10. Midnight Rider says:

    It wasn’t quite deserving of the The Bulwer-Lytton Award but it was an interesting use of English language!

  11. J6takish says:

    The most fascinating thing about Stanton being available, is how prospect hugging has reached an almost absurd level. Isn’t the absolute best case scenario for any prospect is to develop into a player like Stanton? People seem 100% convinced that their teams A Ball prospects are going to develop and balk at the idea of trading them for a guy who is a proven elite player right now

    • MannyGeee says:

      I think the opposite is happening here. Everyone is convinced that what is left in the Yankees prospect tank wouldn’t land you Barry Zito, let alone Giancarlo Stanton. Yes Stanton is the kind of guy you do not EVER turn away from offering any prospect for.

      Also, we miss you, trade chips of Jesus Montero & Austin Jackson….

    • Blake says:

      Of course non single prospect will turn in to Stanton…..the question though is if you trade 5 or 6 of them for him could the aggregate of all those guys turn into more value than one player?

      Maybe….who knows

      • MannyGeee says:

        great point. Our friend Ninja Cashman has done a nice job of trading prospects for valuable pieces before… so do you move 4 top prospects for Stanton and miss out on the opportunity to make another Swisher type deal plus an Abreu type deal? Who’s to say, but all your eggs in one basket is a scary proposition…

      • Ted Nelson says:


    • Robinson Tilapia says:

      That’s not what’s happening here, though. This isn’t as much about the individual prospect hug as it is about not wanting to put all your eggs (which it may take, and more) in one baskt when you’re looking to build more on cost-controlled players.

      Stanton’s a great player and, yes, he is cost-controlled. I question how prudent it is to use all your chips to chase that one guy when rolling the dice on whether two of them become even 50% of what he is might make a lot easier for your team.

  12. I think if the Yanks were to trade for Stanton this offseason, they’d have to get another team involved. That team perhaps wants Granderson.

  13. jjyank says:

    I’m sure everyone here wants Stanton badly, but IF the Yankees even have the pieces to do it, I’d imagine it would hurt too badly.

    • Preston says:

      What constitutes hurt too badly. I would trade Sanchez, two of the OF trio, any pitching prospect along with Phelps and Nunez and I wouldn’t bat an eyelash about it. Maybe they’d want more and I might be inclined to give that too.

  14. Chris says:

    If you’re the Marlins GM, don’t you just trade him now when he has one more cheap year and one more year of team control? You could get a lot more for him, and I don’t think you can disillusion your fan base more than you already have.

    • Blake says:

      I think they should…. He’s not signing there, they have no fans either way…..and his value can really only go down from where it is now

  15. Reggie C. says:

    Not sure who the Yanks could have drafted in place of Cito Culver that would be the centerpiece of a Stanton proposal. The Bichette pick is off to a rough start, but fans have to give Bichette a full year in Charleston before passing judgment on the pick. I just hope Bichette has made a few adjustments to that swing and recovered that loft. A consensus 2nd round talent picked at the at the bottom of the first isn’t a disaster, just a reach.

    • Blake says:

      Nick Castellanos went about 10 picks after they took Culver

      • Reggie C. says:

        Yes. I do realize that. The Castellanos pick is the one I hoped Oppenheimer would pull the trigger on. But Castellanos was asking for $3 million, which would’ve likely meant no Mason Williams.

        Its only my opinion, but Mason Williams looks like a better prospect than Castellanos.

        • Voice of Reason says:

          If the Yankees had the spending power of say, the Pirates, they could’ve totally made both happen. But alas.

      • Reggie C. says:

        However, taking a quick look at what followed Culver, I do see some good young arms there (Aaron Sanchez, Noah Syndergaard, Tajuan Walker).

        Egh… arms > hitting stars from Albany.

        • Ted Nelson says:

          Yeah there are very good prospects that they missed, but using hindsight to pick out the guys who have worked out is easy. There are a lot of guys ranked higher than those guys by the “consensus” who have not worked out as well.

  16. Jw says:

    I never thought I would see our big league team with so many issues in Jan, George made this team by investing what they needed to win!! Wasn’t always the smartest but this 2.1 steinbrenners are killing us with indecision and. The Numbers 189 which spell disaster

  17. The Moral Majority is Neither says:

    I don’t think the Yankees draft high character guys because they are more likely to make it as Yankees, but more likely to make it in general.

    I thought the draft philosophy was that i) Culver/Bichette took slot deals, allowing for splurges later in the draft, ii) the Yankees scouts knew these players long-term and had a better read on them than the consensus (and that the Yankee scouting network was more reliable than the amalgamation of leaks and reports BA relies on), and iii) Culver was a legit SS defensively and Bichette had bloodlines and underrated athleticism (nationally ranked tennis player!).

    Bichette wasn’t just MVP of the GCL but the top prospect according to BA and Culver was the 10th ranked prospect there the year before, so there was some validation of their tools/talent/ability/ceiling.

    I agree that the Yankees could have spent more on prior drafts and that 1st round slot guys seems counterintuitive for the Yankees, but I don’t think Bichette and Culver are holding up a Stanton deal.

    • Ted Nelson says:

      Good points. There’s also no guarantee that a consensus guy would have worked out any better.

    • Preston says:

      I agree, they obviously saw something in Bichette that others didn’t. Prior to the draft the talk was that he was a future DH who could only rely on power. Now it’s pretty clear that if he stays in shape he can stick at 3B, it was the power that every scout agreed he had that was really lacking in 2012. For Culver there is no question he could be a big league defensive SS, and there aren’t a lot of people in any draft who have that ability. The Yankees thought that maybe he could hit a little too. He didn’t, it sucks, oh well.
      I do have a problem with drafting on character though, especially a HS kid. Nobody’s character is defined good or bad at 18. Most of it is molded in response to your environment, an environment that you played very little role in creating. People are complex and there is not real way of predicting how they will react when being transferred from one situation to the next. A high risk teen could become a model citizen and a model young man might become a drug addict rapist, at least that’s my take on it. Human behavior is hard to predict.

      • Ted Nelson says:

        Bichette was not nearly as much of a reach as people make it out to be. He was BA’s #108 prospect and went #51. That’s very typical. Just the year before Rangers hit on BA’s #98 with the #49 pick (Olt).

        Human behavior is hard to predict perfectly, but you can get an idea for it. And a lot of your character is formed by 18. I don’t think they care much about whether a kid is nice, but about whether he has the work ethic to turn tools and skills into MLB success. It’s a long road between HS and MLB, and you have to put a lot of work in along the way.

  18. Voice of Reason says:

    It’s been interesting to watch the prevailing attitudes around here regarding the Culver and Bichette picks shift from “THE YANKEES KNOW WHAT THEY’RE DOING YOU DON’T SHUT-UP” to Captain Hindsight-esque handwringing. I thought the picks were stupid then, and stupid now (not that it’s time to write off Bichette, necessarily), because there’s no excuse at all for the Yankees to be anything other than aggressive in the draft. None.

    That said, there’s a pretty decent chance whoever you’d have liked them to take wouldn’t be an outstanding prospect – complaining about who they could have selected is silly. I would’ve liked them to take Asher Wojciechowski or Anthony Ranaudo instead of Culver, for example, but not Taijuan Walker, Nick Castellanos or Mike Olt. But yeah, you aren’t drafting just for yourself. If in some bizarre twist the Yankees really did think those two were the best players available, they must have done so not caring that they were selecting players who were instantly inferior prospects to almost all those selected around them, and a bad year from being non-factors – a dumbfounding move for a team like the Yankees.

  19. John C says:

    I think the drafting of Ty Hensel in the first round last year may have signaled a change in that strategy.

    • Robinson Tilapia says:

      Agreed. I don’t think you can roll the dice like they did with Culver/Bichette for many years straight before you have to start making some safer and more conventional picks.

    • Ted Nelson says:

      It’s such a tiny sample that it’s really hard to say. They might have been set to take a total consensus guy who went right before they picked Culver and/or Bichette. They might have been set to take a non-consensus guy instead of Hensley only to see him go.

      While Culver and Bichette are not hits at this point, they’ve taken other non-consensus guys who are hits in the same drafts. Mason Williams wasn’t ranked that much ahead of Culver by BA, and he’s been a stud. Tyler Austin was not in BA’s top 200 for the 2010 draft (and lasted till 415 in the actual draft), now he’s a top 100 prospect in all of baseball. You’re not going to hit 1.000, but the same process that led to Culver and Bichette also led to Williams, Austin, Gumbs, etc. Taking the consensus guys would have led to Stetson Allie and Josh Bell…

      • Voice of Reason says:

        It’s pretty lazy to point to Josh Bell and Stetson Allie as a criticism of taking consensus picks. Okay, BA’s top ranked available prospects also both suck…and? What if they’d selected randomly from the 1st through 10th best available prospects, for example? I guarantee that in the long run that’s going to be a more successful strategy than picking a much lesser regarded prospect you happen to like. As I’m sure you know the argument is not that adhering strictly to consensus will yield the best player every single time. Nobody comes close to thinking that, just that on average, consensus picks are going yield more value.

        • Ted Nelson says:

          You guarantee that based on what evidence? Your say so? And I’m the lazy one?

          The BA lists are not historically worth much after the first 20, 25 picks. I would absolutely trust a good scouting director over their list.

          Don’t get too bent out of shape by my one off example… Opp has said he had Mike Trout #2 on his draft board, while BA had him #22. It’s definitely possible that Opp and his staff are better at what they do than BA is.

          It’s also not lazy. It’s the truth. If the Yankees went with the consensus, that is exactly who they would have ended up with. The Yankees only get one pick, so it’s not exactly a fair comparison to put the Yankees’ one pick up against BA’s next ten. A fair comparison would be ten to ten. Since we don’t have Opp’s draft board, one for one is a fairer comparison than ten to one.

          • Voice of Reason says:

            I guarantee that based on the fact that there is more than no relationship between those lists and success. Why do you think?

            I’m not “bent out of shape” about your example. Baseball America being better than the Yankees at grading prospects is not the point. You wish it were, because that would give you license to go on these vapid tirades about how professional scouts are better because they’re professional scouts (an incredibly dubious notion to begin with), but it’s not. Damon Oppenheimer loving Mike Trout is no better an argument against consensus than is Stetson Allie being terrible. It’s still cherry picking.

            There’s no need to pretend that people don’t know there’s variation between the opinions of ML teams, because they do, and hearing you tell them otherwise won’t fool them. I don’t care if Damon Oppenheimer and staff are better at scouting than the BA staff at all. I’m sure they are, great, fantastic, not the point. BA’s list, which needless to say not every amateur draft-watcher completely agrees with, is really meant to function more as an approximation of the consensus among ML teams, hence why they’ve become the shorthand for “consensus.” Otherwise, that word wouldn’t be used to describe a single list. I’m not prepared to assume the Yankees are necessarily far better at drafting and amateur scouting than the rest of baseball, and even if they are, the opinions of other teams still matters.

            Saying the Yankees shouldn’t go way off the board as much as they have and take players that other teams will also like does not require a defense of Brett Eibner’s pro career. You’re wishing again.

        • Ted Nelson says:

          If you want to line up the next 10 prospects, the mid-point is between Asher Wojciechowski and Brett Eibner.

          Wojciechowski was a fairly conservative pick who is progressing along well enough for an NCAA arm, but isn’t wowing anyone. Was traded as one of 6 guys that netted the Jays Lyon, Happ, and David Carpenter.

          Eibner just put up an OPS below .700 in High A at 23 years old.

    • turd surfer says:

      It might be a change brought about by the new CBA though not a shift in strategy.

  20. John C says:

    Hensley, I meant

  21. theyankeewarrior says:

    Who not package a deal around Montero? Oh, wait.

  22. trr says:

    we should speak in tongues if needed to get some young talent on this team; my beer league softball team is younger than this team as presently constituted…

  23. Robinson Tilapia says:

    This whole Culver/Bichette thing is a rather Rube Goldberg way of getting to why it’s hard for the Yanks to acquire Stanton. I just don’t buy it. It’s almost reminiscent of blaming Mark Teixeira for not having Mike Trout.

    Blake has thrown Nick Castellanos’s name around, but I’m sure even he’ll admit that it’s ignoring a whole lot of variables that could have led to have drafted any other player not named either Culver or Castellanos to varying degrees of success.

    I think not having Manny Banuelos and Dellin Betances where we hoped they would be probably hurts a lot more here, as well as firing the Montero bullet on the, seemingly for now, wrong player.

    Whatever, though. I’m not convinced gutting the farm for anyone, and seemingly throwing your farm system back to square…..two is the right move.

    • Reggie C. says:

      I’m still holding onto hope that Pineda returns and proceeds to give the team 100 innings of very respectable performance. After all he’s only 23 and you can’t teach that kind of natural velocity he possessed and i hope will recover by mid season.

    • RetroRob says:

      Bringing in the Culver/Bichette drafts felt a little shoehorned. Sure, they could have drafted Castellanos and had him a big chip for a Stanton deal, then again, maybe and more likely they’d have picked some other player who won’t get them to Stanton either.

      The Yankees are restricted now by budget and how far their best prospects are from the Majors. Yet what hurts them today might help them tomorrow. The early 90s sucked, yet it helped give birth to the great teams in the mid to later part of the decade.

  24. LK says:

    I think anyone who could’ve been drafted in place of Culver and Bichette wouldn’t really be close enough to MLB to really change the Yankees’ ability to land Stanton. It does really suck that the Yanks took two guys who were thought to be reaches who have then not refuted that notion with their play.

    However, if the Yankees viewed both of those guys as having very high ceilings, it’s hard to argue with the strategy, just the execution. I find it hard to imagine they thought Culver’s ceiling was especially high given everything we know, and that’s what’s really disappointing.

  25. Ross says:

    Phelps, Joseph, whatever we get from trading Granderson, and two of Williams/Heathcott/Sanchez/Culver/ptbnl (Hensley) … Does that get it done?

  26. yanks61 says:

    theyankeewarrior says:

    January 3, 2013 at 10:56 am

    Who not package a deal around Montero? Oh, wait.


    Why don’t the Mariners? Oh wait. Maybe Montero is not going to be headlining any big tade at the moment. Just sayin.

  27. The Moral Majority is Neither says:

    I personally wanted to draft Syndergaard instead of Culver and Snell instead of Bichette, but I’m a pitching guy.

    Young starting pitchers are the keys to the kingdom.

  28. Ted Nelson says:

    The chances he’s traded are next to zero, but the you want to jump on the Yankees for not having the pieces to trade for him? There is apparently no team that can trade for Stanton.

    What exactly do you think the Yankees would have gotten with a consensus pick? When you use hindsight to pick out the one or two guys who worked out, sure, they could have gotten a great pick. The best available player according to the consensus when they drafted Bichette was Josh Bell, whose 2012 in the Sally was no better than Bichette’s. Stetson Allie was the consensus pick when they took Culver: he is coming off a season where he moved to 1B and hit like Culver in rookie ball. Brett Eibner and Justin O’Conner were the top hitters behind Castellanos.

    A lot of the available picks who have worked out were not at all the consensus choices. Mike Olt was ranked #98 in BA. Ten spots behind Segedin. Ten spots ahead of where the unforgivable Bichette pick was ranked. Taijuan Walker was ranked 70.

    • Mike HC says:

      While you are right it is meaningless is this particular situation, I think Mike’s overall point is a pretty good one. If you draft guys that are not highly thought of by other teams, their trade value is diminished right off the bat.

      • Ted Nelson says:

        Media rankings aren’t necessarily other team’s rankings, though. I don’t know what bonus he got, but the Marlins picked 23rd in 2010 and took BA’s #52 prospect in Yelich. Assuming that they’d prefer BA’s #23 prospect Brett Eibner is not necessarily correct.

        Ultimately I think that the best prospect is going to have the best trade value. Mason Williams and Tyler Austin were #145 and unranked according to BA, yet I’d say they have substantially more trade value than Segedin and Encinas who were #88 and #133.

        • Mike HC says:

          I wouldn’t draft players based on consensus either. And you could easily be right that other teams may have evaluated Culver and Bichette similarly to the Yanks. I just thought Mike brought up an interesting point that if the Yanks are indeed consistently higher on certain types of players than most of the other teams, that may extend into their trade value down the line.

          • Ted Nelson says:

            Maybe at the margins, but I think rankings change significantly once guys start playing as pros. That’s my point with Williams/Austin vs. Segedin/Encinas.

          • Ed says:

            We don’t really know if the Yankees are higher on players than other teams. We only know if they’re higher on them than the media is.

            The year of the Culver pick, Cashman said that multiple other teams said to him “Good pick, we would have taken him before your next pick.” To me, it seems like they valued him similarly to at least a few other teams.

            Another big key to drafting well is knowing when to pick guys. Draft order tells you how much demand there is for a player. Signing bonus tells you how good they are. Those two factors correlate highly at the start of the draft, but diverge as you get further thru the draft.

      • turd surfer says:

        I think there is the underlying question of why they were taken. Was it budgetary concerns? Was it talent evaluation? Was it something else?
        What combination of things?
        Why would the largest spending team in baseball for over a decade get outspent in the draft by 2 teams in their division routinely. 3 teams when AA took over in Toronto.

        Isn’t the draft along with IFA the best deal in sports?

        • Ted Nelson says:

          They should have taken Allie and Bell! Just would have taken a bunch of millions!

          • turd surfer says:

            That’ll show anyone looking to talk Yankees on a Yankee blog. Atta boy!
            Never question the Yankee brass or else this guy will get ya!

            • Ted Nelson says:

              Or instead we should launch an investigation into every decision that doesn’t pay immediate dividends. Not rationally discuss things, just use hindsight to criticize everything that goes wrong with a great handle using a feces reference.

              • turd surfer says:

                Your response to my questions were very rational.

                Referring to my handle is also very rational when talking about the content of my post.

                You are worse than the sky is falling crowd. You won’t be happy until you drive away any view different than yours. Look at the posts again and tell me you were the most rational person.

                • Ted Nelson says:

                  Your point was what? It came across that those two specific Yankees picks have not done well so far because they didn’t go with the consensus guy, presumably because of money.

                  If they had gone with the highest ranked guy, it would have been Allie in 2010 and then Bell in 2011. Those guys have done no better than Culver and Bichette.

                  If that’s not your point (and it seems like it was), is it just that their picks haven’t worked out so far? Neither do about 4 in 5 picks around that point in the draft.

              • Steve says:

                Rationally discuss? HAHA this fuckin guy

        • Mike HC says:

          The MLB draft rules are so convoluted and irrational, who knows what teams are thinking when they draft guys.

          • turd surfer says:

            Is the answer never to question then?

            • Mike HC says:

              Question the Yanks all you want. Personally, I don’t know enough about the drafted players or the rules to have an opinion on their picks.

            • Ted Nelson says:

              The answer is that you’re asking questions none of us can possibly answer. Why did any team draft any player that didn’t work out? It’s a complex answer that it’s rare for anyone outside the war-room to have any answer to.

              You’re also asking the wrong questions. You provided a series of questions designed only to prove your theory that they took them to be cheap and not because they actually thought they were the best talents. You’re questioning two instances instead of looking at the larger sample that’s available. Why did the San Francisco Giants get swept to open the season?

              • turd surfer says:

                I never said they didn’t take them because they were the best talents available. That’s actually one of the questions. There could be absolutely reasonable answers to these questions.

                The difference is that I won’t assume anything. You seem to assume the best because you seem to want to defend the Yankees as the best decision makers ever. You also assume that I’ve made up my mind on the subject.

                Listen you’ve made up your mind as to what I’m saying and my stance, so this is pointless. There is no way you’ll change your mind about me and what I’m saying. I don’t really care for what you’re saying anymore either. You are a hammer and anyone you think is saying something you don’t like is a nail.

                It’s something I try to avoid in real life and on the internet. Goodbye. Try to be more open minded in the future.

                • Ted Nelson says:

                  I’m not assuming anything at all. Except that we will never have the answers to your questions.

                  I’m reading what you’re writing. If it’s not what you mean, try to express yourself better.

                  Your posts suggest that you’ve made up your mind. They are very leading: “Why would the largest spending team in baseball for over a decade get outspent in the draft by 2 teams in their division routinely. 3 teams when AA took over in Toronto.”

                  You fail to take draft position into the equation or results.

                  • turd surfer says:

                    Finally you mention something like draft position. That’s actually a valid point. Isn’t that better than just coming at me like some anti-troll turned troll?

                    I did consider draft position. That didn’t seem to stop the Red Sox though. I wt deny the Yankees were one of the better spenders outside of the first couple of rounds too. If slot didn’t stop them from spending outside of the first couple rounds, why did it stop them within the first round recently?

                    I gotta run. If you want to talk reasonably, I’m game for that. If you want to feel better about yourself by picking on someone, please choose someone else.

                    • Ted Nelson says:

                      I’m coming at you because your comments are garbage.

                      Your whole theory is that spending more money gives you a better draft.

                      You may not intentionally be a troll, but you come across as one by making ridiculous comments.

                    • Ted Nelson says:

                      A team generally wants to spend less in the draft, not more. If you can get the same talent and spend less… that’s a good thing. Not a bad thing.

                      You are disregarding the actual talent teams got, and fixating on the money they spent. I am asking you why, and you are going ape-shit about it. I tried to show you that the highest ranked, most expensive guys in those cases actually would have been awful picks so far, and you went ape-shit. (I can’t imagine how upset you’d be and what questions you’d be asking if they actually took your advice and drafted Allie and Bell.) You have offered nothing to show that these teams spending more did any better relative to their draft spots. Just said that they spent more and you don’t know why… your comments are garbage.

                    • Jim Is Bored says:

                      Only one of you two has been reasonable in this discussion and it wasn’t the guy with turd in his handle.

                    • Robinson Tilapia says:

                      I actually took the time to read through this a couple of times.

                      I thought TS’s questions were a bit out of left-field as it pertains to the discussion that was going on already, but there just seems to be less patience with and from Ted right now which, again, eclipses that I thought every point Ted made was spot-on.

                      People just need to take a fucking warm shower and actually let rational, non-generalized, actual thought-out opinions be heard and discussed, regardless of what the name of the commenter is.

                    • turd surfer says:

                      This is absurd. Your crew is getting involved. I asked some questions. I never said spending more is always the best. The Yankees have done very well later in the draft. They also spend more later in the draft than other teams. I’m just asking questions. I guess the Yankees are infallible though.

                    • turd surfer says:

                      White Sox and the Mets spent the least. They obviously have the best results. See, I can play the extreme game too.

                    • turd surfer says:

                      Why are the most successful 1st round picks by the Yankees recently overslot picks? I know because you will answer for the Yankees and say they were on top of their board. Easy cop out answer.

                    • Ted Nelson says:

                      Keep asking random questions, turd surfer. Maybe someday Brian Cashman or Damon Oppenheimer will start frequenting the blog and answer them for you.

                    • turd surfer says:

                      I think he would be wowed by your idea that the point of the draft is to spend less money. That was a doozy. I thought the point of the draft was to acquire talent.

                      Pretty sure you could get a job with the White Sox or Mets 6 years ago though.

                    • Ted Nelson says:

                      That’s not at all what I said. You are a joke. Serious conversation my ass.

                      Stop making things up.

                      What I actually said was: “A team generally wants to spend less in the draft, not more.”

                      I did not say the point of the draft is to spend less money. You made that up, turd. The point is to acquire talent at the best value possible. If you can get the same amount of talent for less money, that’s a good thing. Once you pick a guy, you are trying to negotiate his asking price down, not up.

                    • turd surfer says:

                      Wrong again. The idea of the draft is to maximize value within a given budget. The whole same talent at less price is pointless without bringing up a budget constraint. The Yankees have done a damn good job at maximizing value given their budget. You keep missing the point, but I guess your the hammer and everyone is a nail in your world.

  29. ClusterDuck says:

    Looking at the demand I see for Stanton, I believe if Stanton is traded, the Marlins will receive more value in return than the are giving up.

  30. RetroRob says:

    Yankee fans should hope that Stanton is not traded for at least one more year. As Mike noted, if the team’s prospects continue to move up they’ll have a much better chance of acquiring Stanton than they will today.

    Regarding Culver and Bichette, the moves remain as fascinating today as when they were made. Overall, the Yankees get fairly positive reviews for their overall draft, finding good value moving down the draft. Yet those two #1 picks remain odd. I still think it was more budget related. The team under Hal Steinbrenner had a set amount for drafting and basically the organization then decided to direct a higher percentage of that money past the number one pick to land players with signability issues that fell lower. If so, it’s unfortunate, because for the sake a few million more they could have had both. The new CBA, however, has changed this dynamic, which may explain why they went back toward drafting a more recognized top pick in Ty Hensley this year.

    • Now Batting says:

      Stanton won’t be cheap next year. He’ll make Swisher money through arbitration. So you’re giving up prospects + $.

    • Captain says:

      The team under Hal Steinbrenner had a set amount for drafting and basically the organization then decided to direct a higher percentage of that money past the number one pick to land players with signability issues that fell lower.

      Are we sure this is a practice that started under George’s sons or is it a draft strategy that has been in practice before Culver and Bichette?

      Also I doubt the Yankees or any team go into the draft without a set budget.

      • RetroRob says:

        Hal is definately a budget guy. He’s said as much, even referring to himself as a finance geek. He’s talked about how he has all his department heads submit a budget and that he expects them to meet them. He’s said his $189M budget is a goal, but adding that “my goals are normally considered a requirement.” We’ve heard Cashman and Oppenheimer mentioning the budget to a level unknown in prior years and all we have to do is look at the type of postings we have here on RAB about budgets. All basically unheard of in the past.

        A team that doesn’t have a flexible budget going into the draft limits its opportunities. There are examples of many teams that have hurt themselves by having too small and too inflexible of a draft budget. Other teams clearly spend more in the draft and have quite flexible budgets. Yet if you look a the top spending team to the mid-level spending teams and even the bottom spending teams, the gap when viewed as part of a team’s overall budget is not that large.

        The Yankees are certainly not at the bottom when it comes to spending. I seem to remember they were sitting in the middle spending wise the past years before the new CBA. That’s not bad because they don’t have to spend a huge amount on a Bryce Harper or a Stephen Strasburg. Teams getting one of the top few picks should be spending more than a team that drafts consistntly toward the backend of the first round.

        I have no idea where the Yankees fall in that approach, but indications are they their budget might have been a tighter than I think was wise. So I’m just throwing out the idea that’s why they opted to go for easier signs on the first pick to push more money down in the draft. Not saying I’m correct. Just food for thought.

        • Ted Nelson says:

          So, all speculation?

          If the Yankees didn’t have a flexible draft budget, why did they take Cole and Brackman when they fell to them? That would seem to evidence that they did approach the draft with a flexible budget.

  31. Dayglo says:

    “The Yankees desperately need to add a young, impact hitter to the lineup…”

    My first thought was Jesus Montero, but then I remembered the Trade…

  32. P says:

    This deal only makes sense if you’re a Yankee fan. If the Mariners/Rangers had any desire to trade for Stanton, which I’m sure they do, they would be able to pull off this deal with a package that blows ours away. While our four top100 prospects may eventually turn into four top 50 prospects, we don’t have in any of them a number one prospect. The Mariners and Rangers do. I would love more than anything to see Stanton in pinstripes, however the likelihood of that happening won’t be until he is a free agent.

  33. The Moral Majority is Neither says:

    Has anyone run an analysis on what return teams are getting from draft spending? It seems like it should make a difference but is there evidence of it?

    It does seem like every year the Red Sox have extra picks that they use on the names we recognize from BA’s mock drafts, but does Boston have a better farm system? If yes, is it due to these ‘consensus’ names?

    I feel like Oppenheimer should be able to do better with more money, but so much of the draft takes place in contact prior to the draft and maybe the Yankees don’t feel the need to pay guys more than what their scouts value them (i.e. prudence rather than cheapness)?

    Overall I like the Yankee farm system and maybe the spending limits will actually help a bit in comparison with Boston and Toronto, since NY seems to do well on below-the-radar guys.

  34. Kevin Wisla says:

    Tigers get David Robertson
    Rangers get Curtis Granderson and Boone Logan
    Marlins get Martin Perez, Drew Smyly, David Phelps, Gary Sanchez and Mason Williams
    Yankees get Giancarlo Stanton and Wade LeBlanc

    • Preston says:

      Those trades actually look pretty good (I think Smyly would be too much to ask for DRob and adding Logan on top of Granderson is too much for Perez) although it’s a lot of moving parts amongst three AL competitors who might not want to deal with one another. But man that’s a lot to give up for Stanton. We’d be giving up an elite set-up man a very good middle reliever, our best OFer, a nice young big league pitcher with five seasons of big league control and our two most highly touted prospects.

  35. Wayne says:

    We are weak at the amount of young catchers we have available in our system. I would not make that trade if we had to give up Sánchez. I’ m not familiar with wade leblanc what position is he and how good is he?
    As far as drafting culver, kyle Richter is the guy we should have picked!
    He will be available in this year’s draft. He is left handed version of tom
    Seaver and bigger and 3 inches taller. Similar type of mechanics especially with the legs and drive he get and very compact. He is the next big thing in starting pitching! If we are able to draft him this year, 2010 is a side note then. But i’m not sure he will be available where we end up picking. You have to remember we had signed sabathia, texiera and burnett to large contracts! So i do think there was a budget concern.

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.