Mar
26

Yankees officially acquire Vernon Wells

By
(Victor Decolongon/Getty)

I feel the same way, Vern. (Victor Decolongon/Getty)

5:27pm: Despite their attempt at some fancy accounting, Ken Rosenthal has confirmed the Yankees will not receive any kind of “credit” towards the $189M luxury tax threshold in 2014. Wells will simply count as zero dollars for the luxury tax. At least that makes him easy to designate for assignment.

3:21pm: The Yankees have gone from dumpster diving to desperation in their search for outfield help. The Bombers have (finally) acquired Vernon Wells from the Angels in exchange for minor leaguers Exicardo Cayones and Kramer Sneed, the team announced. The Halos will pay $28.1M of the $42M left on his contract according to Mike DiGiovanna, and Jeff Fletcher says New York will pay him $11.5M this year and $2.4M in 2014. The club will have to make a 40-man roster move to accommodate their new outfielder, but they say that will announced at a later time. Okay then.

Wells, 34, has hit .222/.258/.409 (82 wRC+) in 791 plate appearances with the Angels over the last two seasons. Perhaps his poor 2012 campaign (88 wRC+) was the result of the torn right thumb ligament that required surgery and cost him more than two months, but there’s no real excuse for the even-worse 2011 effort (79 wRC+). Wells has hit lefties well over the last two years (119 wRC+) but poorly over the last four years (87 wRC+), with 2010 being his only above-average season (134 wRC+). He’s a dead-pull right-handed hitter, which usually doesn’t mix well with Yankee Stadium. Despite his reputation, the various metrics have rated him as below-average defensively over the last few years.

The Yankees are getting a bunch of intangible qualities in Wells, who has long been regarded as a strong clubhouse presence and is familiar with the AL East given his time with the Blue Jays. They are very clearly banking on his strong Cactus League performance — 13-for-36 (.361) with a double and four homers — being an indication he’s getting back to being his pre-2011 self as he gets further away from thumb surgery. To their credit, the Yankees have had a lot of success getting unexpected production from declining players in recent years. They squeeze water out of washed up veteran rocks better than anyone.

“He looks good … He could be a good pickup. (The Angels) were not asking for much money,” said one exec to Andy Martino while a scout added: “He is a legitimate Major League hitter. He is a professional hitter. Everybody downgraded his abilities because of the contract, (but) he’s still a good player.”

Cayones, a 21-year-old outfielder, was acquired from the Pirates as part of the A.J. Burnett trade last year. He hit .228/.374/.291 (111 wRC+) with seven steals in 200 plate appearances for Short Season Staten Island last year. Sneed, 24, pitched to a 5.37 ERA (4.66 FIP) with nearly as many walks (38) as strikeouts (40) in 63.2 innings for High-A Tampa last summer. The left-hander was New York’s 32nd round pick in the 2010 draft. Neither Cayones nor Sneed was much of a prospect, so it’s a pure salary dump trade.

It’s obvious Wells will be on the roster come Opening Day, especially since New York committed precious 2014 payroll space (even just a small amount) to the three-time All-Star and gave up two real live players to acquire him. Maybe he’ll just serve as a platoon partner for the various left-handed outfielders (and Travis Hafner at DH), or maybe he’ll play everyday thanks to his reputation. I guess we’ll find out. The trade is not good news for Ben Francisco, Thomas Neal, and Melky Mesa, who had been in the running for the righty-hitting outfield job. Juan Rivera is presumably safe given his ability to play first.

The trade doesn’t make much sense overall, so much so that it’s one of the most confusing deals of the Brian Cashman era. The Yankees are now paying $26M over the next two years for two outfielders — Wells and Ichiro Suzuki — who could very easily be replacement level given their 2011-2012 performances. It’s one thing to try out these veteran retreads on minor league contracts or low-base salary one-year deals, but it’s another to guarantee them multiple years and eight figures. Given the players they allowed to walk this winter and their unwillingness to sign free agents to multi-year contracts, this is a very questionable move (at best) that is unlikely to improve team appreciably or answer a roster question. Truly baffling.

Fun (but useless!) Fact: No active player has played in more regular season games without appearing in the postseason than Wells (1,601).

Categories : Transactions

123 Comments»

  1. Jerkface says:

    Despite the CBA being pretty clear on it, Maury Brown is saying the Yankees will be unable to get a credit for 2014. The best they can hope for is a $0 hit for Wells in that year. That makes this deal even more questionable, since you’re paying 13 million for 1 year of Vernon Wells. Puts more of the focus on his 2013 performance. Turns the trade from a ‘bad but potentially clever for a specific purpose’ to just bad.

    • Mike Axisa says:

      It was bad either way. Spending $13M on a bad player in 2013 for a $2M credit in 2014 was a dumb justification to start with. Just go $2M over the tax threshold in 2014, pay the $1M penalty, and keep the other $10M.

      • Argh! says:

        I’m glad we’re on the same page!

      • Jerkface says:

        Of course, the 189 goal is asinine, but at least that was a clever maneuver to try and build a stronger team under the budget, since they’d get the savings even if they cut Wells. Better than what they were doing up to this point, and that better is just relative to the stinky moves they’ve made.

      • Need Pitching & Hitting (but mostly hitting) says:

        Going $2M over the threshold would be incredibly stupid on their part.

      • Robinson Tilapia says:

        Exactly. It’s a pretty silly justification.

        Here we are, though. Welcome, Vernon. I’m the one who yelled at you from the bleachers and asked if you could lend me $10.

        • Jim Is Bored says:

          I’m not sure it’s as silly as you/Mike/others think.

          I don’t think it makes the trade a positive, but it probably changes my opinion from giving it about a -40 on the 0-100 scale to a 1.

          • Steve (different one) says:

            Yes, a $2M credit allows the Yankees to increase their offer to Cano by $14M on a 7 year deal.

            It’s not nothing….

            Now if that is the primary driver of this trade, that is kindof insane, but it could have been one of the factors.

            • Mike Axisa says:

              Do you really think the Yankees would let $14M stand in the way of a Cano deal?

              • Steve (different one) says:

                well, if its the difference between resetting the tax and not, that extra $14M could be worth $40-50m to them.

                My post should have said “it allows them to offer Cano an extra $14M without going over the reset limit”. Your response ignores that.

                We are talking about accounting money, not actual money.

                • Mike Axisa says:

                  They can offer the $14M no matter what. They’ll just trim $2M elsewhere. Won’t be hard.

                  • Steve (different one) says:

                    But with the credit that’s $2M they don’t have to trim. That could mean adding $2M/year onto an extension for Robertson, for example.

                    I am not trying to justify this wierd trade, my point was simply that the $2M buys them more than $2m, it gets them $2M of AAV for someone, since we are playing accounting games.

                    All of this is predicated on Wells becoming a palatable 4th OFer. If he can’t even do that, then there is nothing to keep this from being a disaster. We are only saying it might become something a little short of a disaster, that is all.

                  • I'm not the droids you're looking for... says:

                    Won’t be hard? Sorry Mike that’s just dumb. Probably the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen you post, unless by not hard you mean simply filling the roster with league minimum scrubs and rookies. Sure, that’s “not hard.” But if you want to field a viably competitive roster in 2014 $189mm is hard given the existing commitments. Come on man. Every dollar really counts, and trimming the $2mm elsewhere is not happening in a vacuum.

                    On another note, the lack of a lux tax credit makes this trade an outright abomination, particularly in light of what we learned about Martin looking for a one year deal. Add in that we are paying Wells and Ichiro $26mm over two years, which we could’ve instead given to the (vastly superior every day player) Nick Swisher and…barf.

              • i like bacon says:

                Boras will not let cano sign mid season. he will be a free agent wanting crazy money.

          • Robinson Tilapia says:

            It’s ok. In the annals of “we hate the regulars” history, it’ll go down as me volunteering to french kiss Vernon upon putting on the pinstripes.

      • Joe says:

        You’re missing the point about 2014. If the Yankees go over the cap by even $1, they lose the luxury rate reset AND the MDR refund, which has a three-year impact.

      • Steve (different one) says:

        But the goal is the reset button, not saving the $1M in luxury tax…

      • Slugger27 says:

        Just go $2M over the tax threshold in 2014, pay the $1M penalty, and keep the other $10M

        honestly, doing THIS would be dumber than any vernon wells trade. the whole point is pushing the rest button on the penalties. going $2M over is your suggestion?!? im glad you dont run the yankees.

      • Craig says:

        This is faulty logic. It isn’t about paying the $1 million penalty, rather it is about resetting the rate. It does appear from the CBA that the Yankees will get a $2 million credit, as well.

        Also, fwiw, perhaps Cashman knows that Tex is out for the year and they will need another outfielder in the mix…just spit-balling here. He is going to be a 4th outfielder and isn’t going to make or break the year. The negativity has reached a new level of ridiculousness over this. Everybody needs to get off the ledge and relax.

        • Guns says:

          I can’t speak for everyone, but I believe the negativity comes not from what Wells will or won’t mean to the team’s chances, but that it shows a certain amount of desperation and also shows some extremely questionable rationale by paying $14M for a player who could possibly, if not probably, return zero value on the field.

      • To spend even a $1 of 2014 money on Wells is beyond idiotic. Still confused by this move.

    • Need Pitching & Hitting (but mostly hitting) says:

      Apparently the credit issue is in dispute.

      http://mlbbuzz.yardbarker.com/....._post=true

      But yeah, without the credit, the trade is even more ridiculous.

      • Jim Is Bored says:

        Agreed.

      • Jerkface says:

        The rosenthal piece is interesting, because there was hidden information about how the Jays filed the original contract. They should be in line for a 2.15 million credit. If its less than that or 0 its a bad trade. If its 2.15 then its still bad, but at least something positive comes out of it.

        • LK says:

          It’s hard for me to get that excited about even the 2014 credit, since it basically just shows that the Yanks are devoted to 189 at all costs.

          • Barry's Gift Basket says:

            This.

          • Need Pitching & Hitting (but mostly hitting) says:

            Yeah, my biggest aggravation with the Wells trade is it confirms they’re still on the $189M plan.
            I can deal with him being on the team. I even think he may be a marginal upgrade over their other options.
            I can somewhat deal with the wasted $13M+ (not my money), though I wish it had been better spent.
            Hearing they acquire Wells, it’s costing them $13M+, and the $189M plan is still on all rolled into one package is very aggravating.

            • Jerkface says:

              Yea this is my feelings on it. On one hand it shows they are trying something clever with the 189 goal. On the other hand it means the 189 goal is informing their decisions which means its real which means bleh.

              • Stan the Man says:

                Which is more aggrevating spending $220 million annually to not win the WS or trimming payroll and still competing for a WS?

                • Need Pitching & Hitting (but mostly hitting) says:

                  That assumes they’ll still compete for a WS if they trim to $189M next season.
                  Given the current state of affairs, I think that goal would be much more realistic a few years down the road than in 2014.
                  I’d rather they spend $220M and have a chance to compete than spend under $189M without a chance to compete.

                • Jerkface says:

                  The latter, because I don’t think ‘still competing for the WS’ is a given with a trimmed payroll. There is a reason the Yankees have been to the playoffs the most often of any team, and why even 150 million pay roll teams miss the playoffs while the Yankees do not. Buying out of mistakes has been a big advantage.

      • Tom says:

        What seems kind of crazy in that article (and off topic), is that Martin apparently was willing to sign a 1 yr deal for 9-10mil and the Yankees passed.

        Given how they were handing 1 year deals out like candy to avoid any 2014 commitments, it seems rather odd that they passed on this.

        • The Big City of Dreams says:

          It could mean something happened behind the scenes. They were always high on Martin but when he became a free agent he wasn’t even given a chance to comeback.

          • Tom says:

            Agreed.

            I think the assumption (or at least my assumption) was the issue with Martin was the 2014 money as opposed to the total money and that was why the Yankees moved on.

            Given this info (assuming it’s true), it seems like letting Martin walk was not simply a 2014 payroll thing.

    • Slugger27 says:

      who is maury brown? media guy or yanks front office guy?

    • Gonzo says:

      The wording leaves a little to interpretation I guess. Maybe the credit is only for the 2016 season when there is cash consideration for the 2017 season. That would mean that they only get Actual Salary relief from what would have been the Angels’ Actual Salary for 2014. That interpretation back Maury Brown.

      What do you think?

      • Jerkface says:

        I don’t buy this interpretation, because the ‘preceding sentence’ is literally the entire paragraph, and the 2016 provision is to stop teams from accepting tons of cash in 2017 when there is potentially no salary cap or CBT. Its pretty clear that money paid before 2017 is attributed to the actual club payroll in the year its paid, and thus the second sentence states clearly that money attributed to one teams ACP is deducted from the other teams ACP.

        • Gonzo says:

          That preceding sentence also says payment of partial or all of salary not extra payment. I don’t think it’s as black and white as you do, but I have a reasonable distrust of attorney language because of the Constitution. Lol

          • Need Pitching & Hitting (but mostly hitting) says:

            It isn’t an extra payment though.
            Wells actual salary for 2014 is $21M. The Angels are paying part of that.

          • Jerkface says:

            It says ‘salary obligation’ which I think is different from the CBA defined term Salary. There is an actual physical payroll that teams acquire in a trade, and the salary obligation is referring to that. Or at least that is how I would argue this if the Yankees pit me against MLB.

          • Jerkface says:

            And to back up my earlier statement. ‘Salary’ is always capitalized because its a defined term. Salary obligation is not. They should get a credit!

    • Joe says:

      you aren’t making much sense to me….You are paying for two years of Wells, just paying it all at once instead of over 2 years. Wells isnt anyone special anymore by far, but he is a slight improvement over the crap they have picked up until now. I would have gone with a rookie, Mesa or Mustellier, but they surely know better than I

  2. Reggie C. says:

    Should’ve gotten Cespedes who’ll outproduce both ichiro and Wells.

  3. Argh! says:

    Laughable move!

  4. Certainly makes one question the sincerity and wisdom of Cashman and Steinbrenner. We are in for a long haul.

  5. Johnny O says:

    this season gets worse by the day and it hasn’t started. i’ve always been an optimistic yankees fan and avoided sky-is-falling overreactions, but this is beyond pathetic.

    Mike your next series of articles should focus on ranking the worst opening day lineups for the Yankees for a certain period of time. Say 1980 to present? I’m curious to see where this bunch ranks in recent history of potential ineptitude.

    I know we’re spoiled as yankees fans with a ridiculous run of success basically since 1993 but holy crap this lineup is scary bad.

    • Cool Lester Smooth says:

      Yeah, because it’s totally the Yankees’ fault that Teixeira, A-Rod Jeter and Granderson got injured!

  6. Jerkface says:

    @MikeDiGiovanna 2m

    #Yankees will actually pay $11.5 million of Wells’ contract this year and $2.4 million of it next year.

    The Yankees should theoretically be getting a 600k credit under this arrangement. Not worth it at all. Terrible trade.

    • Need Pitching & Hitting (but mostly hitting) says:

      Wells’ AAV is actually about $16.1M, not the $18M that’s been reported, which would make the credit about $2.5M, if it’s actually allowed.

  7. Jerkface says:

    http://mlbbuzz.yardbarker.com/....._post=true

    According to Rosenthal the Jays reported his contract to MLB as 8 / 131.6, which means the Yankees would get a 2.15 million credit.

    • Need Pitching & Hitting (but mostly hitting) says:

      I believe there would be a $2.66M adjustment down due to the actual $ paid in the first 4 years of his previous contract before the extension being lower the $ subject to luxury tax. That would make it 8/128.94M, $16.1175 AAV, and about a $2.5M credit.

      • Jerkface says:

        Cool. Whatever it is, I want to know MLBs ruling on it. By the CBA they should be getting SOME credit, but Maury and Rosenthal both have an MLB source saying NO.

        The CBA is clear. If they dont get a credit it has to be bud jerking them around.

        • Need Pitching & Hitting (but mostly hitting) says:

          Yeah, I could see the logic behind not wanting teams to get a credit, but that’s not in the CBA, so I don’t see how they could prevent it.

  8. jjyank says:

    They only officially acquire him today, and I’m already sick of discussing it. Should be a season in the comments section.

  9. JStarr says:

    Boy are you people gonna eat your words after Wells hits 290 this year with 35 hrs and 105 rbis. Can’t wait!

  10. Pasta says:

    Its offical now
    Yankees have lost their Cayhones

  11. Jim Is Bored says:

    Did this yesterday, not doing it again today until I hear for sure about the credit issue.

  12. Robinson Tilapia says:

    I’ve already said my piece. He’s a Yankee now. Knock em dead, Vernon.

    It’s going to suck being without Slade Heathcott.

    *waits*

    • jsbrendog says:

      I CAN’T BELIEVE THEY TRADED HEATHCOTT FOR THIS FUCKING BUM!!!!!

      CASHMAN IS THE WORST!!!!

    • LarryM., Fl. says:

      Robinson Tilapia: I agree. Vernon is a Yankee. Knock ‘em dead. The Yankees are not a dumb organization. I trust their ability to make a trade work for them. Obviously, they believe Vernon can help them. He would be a more expensive A. Jones but I believe will be even more of an asset than Mr. Jones.

      • Robinson Tilapia says:

        Look, I don’t like the trade, but it’s done now. You can ask me a year from now, and I’ll say I didn’t like the trade at the time, even if the guy has a rennaisance this year. I’ll still go on record and saying I wasn’t a fan of the Pineda trade at the time even if he comes back and returns to form.

        They’re Yankees now and I root for my team to win and its players to do well. That will always be a thousand times more important than whether I agree with the move or not.

        • Sweet Dick Willie says:

          I root for my team to win and its players to do well.

          It appears that not everyone who comments here shares that sentiment.

  13. MartinRanger says:

    From where I’m standing, it’s a terrible trade. I’m confident that Ben Francisco/Brennan Boesch could easily out produce Wells, and are more likely to stay on the field, and are obviously a whole hell of a lot cheaper.

    But maybe there is something here. The Yankees have been good at picking out older players way past their primes and getting good production out of them. Whether that’s luck, scouting, resources, or gut instinct (aka luck), I don’t know. But if they really wanted Wells enough to pay him, I’m just hoping they have a good reason.

    Generosity aside though, I would be surprised if Wells finishes the season with an OBP above .300.

    What a bizarre move.

    • Steve (different one) says:

      I agree with this take exactly. I haven’t been this surprised by a move since the Soriano deal. And it’s not the player, who I could see them picking up for $2M or so, it’s the money. They did need a RHed OFer and I think Wells does have a good chance to be better than their other options for that role. But the $13M is just bizarre.

      The fact that it came right after we learned they are getting WBC insurance money for Teix, almost makes me think someone said “hey, we just found $10M, go get the biggest name you can!”

  14. trr says:

    Christ, I’m getting a headache!

  15. Adam says:

    “Fun (but useless!) Fact: No active player has played in more regular season games without appearing in the postseason than Wells (1,601).”

    That number of games will only go up after this year.

  16. Adam Shprintzen says:

    Remember the other day when people were freaking out about Slade being included in the trade? Good times, good times.

    • Robinson Tilapia says:

      Shhhh. Maybe they only skimmed through the article.

    • emac2 says:

      my Slade comment was a joke about how stupid they could be and was in no way an endorsement Wells for more than minimum salary. Even a roster spot for two years is rich.

      Wells is replacement level so getting him for nothing is just like getting a bench bat for a minimum deal.

      Too bad to be the whole story.

  17. emac2 says:

    The only question is if the suitcase under the desk held money or drugs.

  18. I just heard on the news that the Yankees are trying to coax Yogi Berra out of retirement for this year…

    • Monterowasdinero says:

      I was just going to comment that we are getting younger with the trade. So exciting. Not.

      I just got back from my first cactus league trip (after 6 straight grapefruit trips). Great place to watch baseball at lots of parks all within an hour of each other. Yes I saw Jesus (trimmed of baby fat) and he played well. I also saw Vernon play LF for the Angels on Saturday against the Royals.

  19. Barry's Gift Basket says:

    Still cannot find a positive outcome about this trade.

    They are paying 11.5 M to Vernon Fucking Wells, it’s not my money, but talk about something I wouldn’t do in a million years.

  20. Robinson Tilapia says:

    ….and Kramer Sneed clearly had potential as part of the bullpen mix too.

    *waits*

  21. Matt DiBari says:

    I will say, as far as confusing deals of the Cashman era, the weird obsession with Sidney Ponson still trumps it.

    • Mike HC says:

      The Javy obsession takes the cake on all of them. We probably would have signed him this year too if he hadn’t gotten hurt. Number two for me is Pavano. Cashman tried to re sign him a second time as well. Guy can’t let go of some players.

      • Steve (different one) says:

        To me, Pavano and Javy are not in the same ballpark.

        Javy was coming off a CY level season the second go round. He hasn’t left the team on bad terms (in the clubhouse, not the fans).

        Pavano was just a disaster the first go round and it was prob best to just let it go.

        • MartinRanger says:

          It’s actually quite easy to understand both of those moves, at least the first time around.

          Young pitchers with good command of a variety of pitches who the Yankees would have across their prime years. Pavano looked to be developing into a ground-ball inducing rotation workhorse (I know, I laughed too), and Vazquez had *elite* K/BB ratios, which usually is a good indication that a pitcher will be effective in the league transition. He had almost no injury history at well.

          Pavano ended up particularly badly, but if the Yankees had a chance to trade for a near Javier Vazquez clone, I’d be more upset if they didn’t. Vazquez turned out to be a rare changeup pitcher who didn’t really know how to pitch, and genuinely seemed incapable of pitching in a Yankee uniform.

          It’s easy to pan both those deals in hindsight. But they honestly made a lot of sense. I remember being thrilled when they got Vazquez, if annoyed because I really liked Nick Johnson.

  22. Mike HC says:

    I actually slightly like the trade. He looks good in Spring Training and is healthy. Why not take a chance when the only thing we are giving up is 2013 money? And if we are serious about getting under 189 in 2014, having Vernon Wells for nothing is not that bad.

    • Steve (different one) says:

      I agree that if this was the limitless budget Yankees, Wells would be ok as a 4th OFer who will only start during April.

      The bizarre thing is what I believed to be a budget lockdown earlier in the offseason, then this splurge. It’s just wierd.

      Which is why I think it is tied to 1) the WBC $$ and 2) MAYBE thinking they will have 50 games worth of ARods salary as well.

      The timing is what has me confused.

      • Mike HC says:

        Good points … I’m assuming it is because of all the injuries. Which doesn’t excuse the Yanks from having a poor early off season plan, just the reason for it. A Martin/Cervelli catching tandem would have been nice, along with convincing (a couple extra mil) a borderline starting outfielder to play here.

        As for the WBC and ARod, that could very well be on target as well.

  23. Tim says:

    Why does no one mention that they didn’t know that Granderson would get hurt, that’s why they didn’t go hard after OF help during the off season when there was actual quality available like Michael Morse, etc. or resign Swisher. And #2 no one mentions that the Yankees are getting $7m in insurance money for Tex’s injury during the WBC, that was used to acquire Wells. I for one, think that he may be a decent pick up. Can RAB Mike be anymore negative about this? Jeez o’pete the negativity is nauseating. Even Francisca likes this move and he’s hated all of the Yankee moves this spring training, *see his 4 minute rant on WFAN on why in the hell did the Yankees picked up Ben Francisco.

  24. Stan the Man says:

    The attempts at finding the silver lining in this trade are great and hopefully Wells produces at a ML level in April/May, but overall this truly is the most bizarre move Cashman has made. I usually like the moves Cash has made (not all just some) as there is usually a clear reason why the move was made. This move is a sheer panic move and when you add a player w/salary who isn’t a clear upgrade over your internal options you legitmately make your team worse in two areas: first the on field product isn’t better and second guys like Mesa, Neal, Almonte that could be added to a trade for a player at the deadline have all lost their value since their organization decided that a bad player is better than them.

    • Mike HC says:

      Cashman has more than statistical analysis at his disposal. They have been scouting Wells all Spring and obviously think he is a legit upgrade over what they have now. Wells has also talked about changing some of his mechanics and getting back to hitting to all fields. I’m not saying this is guaranteed to work, but there is some logic to thinking he is better than what we have now.

  25. Tim says:

    I’m rooting for Wells to do well even harder than normal now to shut you nattering nimrods of negativity up. (I know per Spiro Agnew, it’s nattering nabobs of negativity, I get it).

  26. Tim says:

    I don’t understand the consternation with this move at all. He’s a legit major league hitter and player, has looked great in ST, he’s only a fulltime player or even a full time platoon option until Granderson gets back, most of the money shelled out (it’s the Yankees money folks, not yours), is being paid for by the Tex insurance payment for his injury during the WBC. What’s not to like? Give it a chance for Christ’s sakes.

  27. Darren says:

    Call me a dummy, but I’m going to analyze this at least in part the way trades have been analyzed for a long, long time.

    Does this give us a better chance to win this year? Yes, probably.

    Are there any kids being blocked this year likely to do better? No.

    Did we give up too much? Hell no.

    Does it hamstring us in the future? No.

    Everyone is bugging out playing accountant. So fucking boring, goddamn.

    It’s baseball not spreadsheets (well,….). We got Vernon Wells. Could be very exciting. Or a disappointment. But not a disaster under any circumstances.

    • Mike says:

      +1

      only downside is demonstrating further proof that the Yanks are dead-set for $189….it wasn’t a spoof for Boras et al, or a way to say goodbye to players they didn’t think would fit the mold of a future successful playoff team (martin, Swish)…the 189 is a hard-cap until further notice

    • emac2 says:

      Call me a dummy, but I’m going to analyze this at least in part the way trades have been analyzed for a long, long time.

      Where have they used these questions to evaluate baseball trades for a long long time?

      12 mil for a player who only makes a difference when compared to a single A player on the basis of 1st year production?

  28. Betty Lizard says:

    Still Spring Training. I can’t see that the reasons for doom outweigh the reasons to be happy–or vice versa, so since no real games have been played, I’m just going to believe that it will be a interesting season, that I’ll root, root, root for the home team, and enjoy Andy Pettitte’s (most probably) last season.

    No worries, other than the fact that I can’t figure out what happened to the login system, as this says I’m anonymous.

  29. CashmanNinja says:

    I guess I’m one of the few who actually kind of likes this move. I always liked Vernon (mainly when he was a Blue Jay), so I’m actually a little excited to get to see him in pinstripes. He obviously hasn’t been that great lately, but I actually think that will help deal with the ‘pressure’ of NY. Nobody is expecting big things out of him; they’re expecting the Angels’ version of Vernon and not the Blue Jays (pre-huge contract) version. That way basically anything productive he does is a bonus and makes the trade good.

    We need offense in the worst way and Wells does actually still have the ability to clobber the ball. He isn’t the same player he was in the past. His bat is a little slower and he’s lost a step in the outfield, but the talent is still there. I don’t think he’ll put up huge numbers by any means. All I’m saying is I have a good feeling that he’ll do better than most fans are expecting. In fact, I think he’ll be “good”.

  30. Bob Buttons says:

    I knew Cayonnes would be in the deal (well technically I said one of him or Diego Moreno)

    http://riveraveblues.com/2013/.....nt-6006406

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.