Apr
04

2013 Draft: Opening Thoughts

By
Mark Appel remains the favorite to go first overall. (AP)

Mark Appel remains the favorite to go first overall. (AP)

Given their newfound austerity and the fact that more and more star players are signing long-term extensions, the farm system will be more important for the Yankees going forward than it ever was before. If they plan to remain competitive year after year — I don’t expect those intentions to change, they are the Yankees after all — they’ll need a deep and steady pipeline of young prospects to plug into the roster and trade for established big leaguers.

Because of the way the most recent Collective Bargaining Agreement changed the system, the Yankees are going to have to simply out-scout and out-develop other teams. They will never have access to top amateur talent as long as they remain competitive, so finding those diamonds in the rough and turning them into useful players will be extra important going forward. I’m not very confident the current regime can actually do that, but they have made some player development changes in recent years — most notably re-hiring pitching coordinator Gil Patterson — so maybe things will change. We’ll see.

When writing about the draft in recent years, in tended to put together posts focusing on prospects who were grouped together somehow. High school bats, players with good makeup, pitchers who had success in the Cape Cod League … whatever. They were almost always players I liked for whatever reason. I want to get away from that this spring and instead highlight individual players who fit what appears to be the Yankees’ draft philosophy. That means players with good makeup, athletic high school position players, hard-throwing college arms, and big-framed high school pitchers.

I still have my personal favorites and I’m sure I’ll wind up writing about those guys as well, but I plan to pump out shorter player profiles like this one I did last year for outfielder Ty Moore last spring. The Yankees wound up drafting him in the later rounds but did not sign him. Those shorter posts make it easier to be a little more specific and provide more information about a player while also being easier to reference in the future. Plus there will be more of them; instead of one big post every so often there will be smaller posts regularly. I dunno, maybe I’m wrong, but I feel like getting away from group posts of four of five players in favor of more short, individual player posts is more informative and enjoyable. At least it is on my end.

Anyway, the Yankees have three relatively high picks and a lot of draft pool money available this year. It will also be their last chance to add multiple high-end prospects to the farm system with a single draft for a while. They don’t really have any qualifying offer-worth players on the roster scheduled to become free agents in the next few years (outside of Robinson Cano, obviously), so they’re stuck with the picks they have. The draft will be fun this season as fans thanks to those three high picks, but its importance to the club can not be overstated. They need to bring in quality and quantity this year.

Categories : Draft

135 Comments»

  1. Craig says:

    “They don’t really have any qualifying offer-worth players on the roster scheduled to become free agents in the next few years”

    Granderson and Hughes will likely be offered and decline, so the Yanks could have 3 high level picks next year as well (assuming Cano resigns).

    • LK says:

      This was my first thought as well. They could also make a QO to Kuroda, though who knows if he’d actually go somewhere else to pitch or not.

      • Robinson Tilapia says:

        Exactly.

        Should be an interesting draft this year AND next.

      • Buhner's barber says:

        Also two years from now I could see Gardner and maybe Robertson getting the QO. This is incredibly speculative but I think it makes the point that the Yankees might be in a really good position to really abuse the QO system, as they have the money to make these offers. They’ll need to do well here as well to make up for the changes to the international FA system.

        • LK says:

          Robertson might be dicey. The QO is expected to go up over time as salaries increase, so paying 15M+ for a reliever, even an elite one like Robertson on a one-year deal, is not exactly a favorable situation.

          • jjyank says:

            Yeah. It depends on what happens after Mo retires, I would imagine. If Robertson becomes a solid 40 save per year closer, they could do a lot worse than that on a 1/~$15 mil deal. But if he falters as a closer or remains a set up man, that’s a lot of scratch for a middle reliever.

          • Preston says:

            Without injury and with similar production, I would love to get Robertson for 15 million on a one year deal rather than pay him 12 for 3+ years.

        • viridiana says:

          Yes, agree with everyne here. QO’s are one way for Yanks to use financial muscle at relatively low risk (maybe at worst overpaying a couple of million for one year). As much as Selig has schem3ed to throttle and penalize Yankees in every imaginable way, there are a few leaks in his master plan. Of course, the biggest one is the Yanks becoming a sub-.500 team and thus qualify for high picks.

          • viridiana says:

            *qualifying*

          • LK says:

            Well, I’m not sure the Yanks becoming a sub-.500 team would be considered a leak. At that point the so-called plan would have succeeded.

            • KeithK says:

              No. MLB wants the Yankees to be good because it boosts ratings/ticket sales everywhere. They just doon’t want them to be dominant.

              I think the ideal for MLB is to have the Yankees in the playoff mix every year but only sometimes making it.

              • LK says:

                Oh, I don’t think there’s actually a plan in place. I was just saying that to the extent there is one, the Yanks becoming bad wouldn’t be a flaw in the plan, it would be its aim.

          • TomH says:


            As much as Selig has schem3ed to throttle and penalize Yankees in every imaginable way….

            Undeniably true. However, my question is: when these throttlings and penalizations are proposed, where have the Yankees been sitting (so to speak)?

            (1) Are there ever opportunities for them to challenge–even sabotage–such moves on Selig’s part? Or are they always made in contexts in which the Yankees have no representation?

            (2) Nor, I think, is it only the Yankees who might become unhappy about these moves. There must surely be other teams with a lot of money-muscle that have mixed feelings about the throttlings.

            (3) Or are the Yankees (and other affluent teams) quietly happy about limitations placed on their spending?

            • Preston says:

              These things happen through owner votes with approval from the players union. The new CBA was ratified unanimously. To be honest other than the Yankees and Dodgers it doesn’t negatively effect other teams. And even for those teams it is a higher luxury tax threshold then under the old CBA(I think the old one was 175?). I remember that when the old luxury tax was put in place George was the lone dissenter. Maybe the younger Steinbrenners realize that dissenting with something that is going to pass anyways just means you can’t ask for something in exchange for your assenting vote (Selig does like to present unanimity to the public). The draft and international caps don’t really hurt the Yankees that much more than anybody else. Everybody will pay less for young talent now, and have much greater leverage in negotiating with their draft picks, I’m sure this was popular with everybody on the side of ownership.

        • Robinson Tilapia says:

          If the Yanks continue to field a competitive team, though, and I don’t see why they’re not going to, how is that a good strategy?

          I’d rather keep a larger number of my FA’s than stockpile sandwich picks.

          • Buhner's barber says:

            I think you have to take it player by player. Obviously this isn’t a team that should be letting all of it’s stars walk, but letting guys like Swisher, Granderson, Soriano etc walk rather than signing them into their late 30s seems like the best all around solution to me.

            Ideally this would come with an infusion of young talent into the system to take the place of the original free agents, however the farm seems to be a year behind in the plan. If we had another year though this might have worked out pretty well, letting someone like Swisher get paid by someone else into his late 30s is easier when you have an MLB ready Tyler Austin to take his place. If they can eek out an offense for this year hopefully this can come to fruition.

      • Mandy Stankiewicz says:

        This might be a stupid Q but:
        What about if your QO is for an athlete who declines, but signs in Japan? That doesn’t count because the team that signs him isn’t in the MLB and can not surrender a pick for the FA signing, right?

        • jjyank says:

          They wouldn’t get a pick in that case. The player has to sign with an MLB team in order for the team to get a draft pick.

  2. Andy in Sunny Daytona says:

    Even though he’s built like a young Prince Fielder, I wish the Yankees would have been able to sign DJ Stewart.

    If you add DJ Stewart, Ty Moore and Vincent Jackson to this system….Wow.

    • Robinson Tilapia says:

      I remember Jackson the most there, as some of these names become a memory quickly after the draft, but I agree. After re-reading the Moore profile, yes, that would have been something for sure.

  3. Mr. O'Rourke says:

    Don’t F this up, Mitchell!

  4. Bavarian Yankee says:

    the idea of shorter profiles about single players sounds good, Mike. Actually I always prefered those.

    I guess we all agree that the Yanks have to have a great draft this year and produce at least 1 rock solid major leaguer out of those top 3 picks.

  5. Fez says:

    It might be treason as a Yankees fan but it seems about time for Cashman to go. His ability to put together an expensive major league roster while working under “The Boss” cannot be questioned, but ‘The Boss’ is gone for good or ill. In this new era of frugality and a focus on prospects, drafting and development are going to be the new currency and Cashman is just not good at this.

    we can’t throw money at players anymore and the draft is slotted, and throwing money at things is where Cash has historically thrived but that’s not possible due to tax and the fact that the Steinbrenner kids are not their father.. perhaps we CAN however, throw money where it not only will do the most good in this new paradigm but it won’t count against the luxury cap — We need to lure execs and maybe even a new GM who is skilled at drafting and developing.

    imagine if Billy Beane had his ability to draft and develop along with the Yankee checkbook in the 90s and 2000s? he could’ve afforded to keep the hudsons, mulders, zitos, giambis, tejadas, et all after he drafted and developed them all? I know the steinbrenner clan could lure Beane and/or the braintrust in Tampa Bay, st louis, heck even kansas city at this point to run the Yankees with a focus on the draft, international scouting and developing players.

    Had Beane or Friedman been running the organization they’d perhaps have made Joba the one of the big three they sen’t to arizona rather than Kennedy.. or they’d have never muffed Joba’s handling in the first place with those stupid joba-rules and the is he a starter, is he a reliever that destroyed the once promising starter.

    even the glory years of the mid 90′s to mid 2000s were not Cashman’s doing.. it was Bob Watson and a suspended Steinbrenner away from the team that led to jeter, mo, pettitte, posada and the cast of characters from the core years. with that bunch mostly retired or on the brink of walking away from the game, we need to turn the page and develop the new generation. when Ruth went there was Gehrig, when he went there was Dimaggio, when he went there was Mantle. when Jeter goes theres…Vernon Wells??

    it’s a new era in baseball finances and for that we need a new General Manager. it’s simply time.

    • Donny says:

      I believe it was actually stick Michael that was the brains behind the late-90′s dynasty.

      However, I agree with your point; for the first time in a long time, Cashman’s job status is, at best, a question mark going forward.

      • trr says:

        That may be….them again a BB GM’s job isn’t for life, right?
        He ain’t the Pope , even if he thinks he is…

        • Robinson Tilapia says:

          Exactly.

          No one should be in the same position forever. Brian Cashman’s probably towards the end of his run as GM, not because of the production on the field, but because of the length of his tenure already.

          Good corporations don’t keep their executives on top for an extended period. If Cashman leaves, and my own person hunch actually is that there’ll be a new GM within 1-3 years (I often mistakes gas for hunches, so take that for what it’s worth) simply because everyone, including Cashman, believes it’s time.

          We love to bitch about those contracts, but I don’t see anyone willing to give back that 2009 championship.

          • Jim Is Bored says:

            The only way I give back any single championship is in exchange for multiple championships.

            And even then, 09 was a pretty pivotal year for me, and I needed every second of distraction the Yankees playoff run provided, so I still might not be willing to give it up.

          • jsbrendog says:

            id give back the 09 trophy and the teixeira contract if it meant they wouldve drafted trout like the angels did….in a cocaine heartbeat

            • Robinson Tilapia says:

              Really? I’m….surprised.

              Pocket the championship. Drini the worries about “what could have been” away.

            • trr says:

              huh? what?

            • Preston says:

              And the idea that we could have drafted Trout if we hadn’t signed Tex survives.. We gave up that pick for CC, not Tex. We later signed Tex which meant LAA got the pick instead of the Brew Crew, but the pick was gone either way. That said the Angels had two picks back to back and would have drafted Trout ahead of us anyways. Either way I’m not trading signing CC and Tex and having four years of misery, for the chance to draft Trout. I think people don’t appreciate how good CC has been for us. His last four years already make him the 18th most valuable Yankee starter EVER. And those four years have the highest 4 consecutive year WAR total of anybody since Ron Guidry. It would be very surprising if he doesn’t finish his Yankee career as one of the top 5 Yankee pitchers ever. He might even get a plaque in monument park. I’m not giving up the chance to sign a player like that for the chance to draft a High School kid.

    • Christian says:

      just…no

    • LK says:

      The thing is though, if the organization is weak at player development but strong in other areas, that doesn’t necessarily mean Cashman should go. It seems to me it would fall more on someone like Oppenheimer.

      • Bob Buttons says:

        This. Cashman doesn’t seem to make more mistakes than the average GM, big payroll or not. Eppler is a nice candidate but I’d rather stick with Cashman.

      • The Big City of Dreams says:

        True but Cashman hired Oppenheimer.

        • LK says:

          I’m not trying to say Cashman has no responsibility. However, if you think he’s good at the rest of the job, it makes more sense to replace the development people than to replace Cashman, that’s all.

    • jjyank says:

      That’s quite the essay.

      All I have to say about this situation is this:

      1. Cashman didn’t set the budget. The contracts that make it difficult were signed against his will (A-Rod) and before there was a set budget (CC, Tex). I can’t blame Cashman because the Steinbrenners set a budget after the team was saddled with those contracts.

      2. The team has a pretty good farm system right now, above average by pretty much all accounts. The timing of the budget with the spot the prospects are in developmentally is off a bit, so I get the frustration, but I’m not sure you can place that blame on Cashman’s feet either. If the budget was set for 2015 or 2016, it may not be a problem. I want to see what this next wave of prospects can do before I shake up the front office.

      3. I hate the comparison to other GMs. It’s really easy to see Beane put together a good team with a small budget and declare him a genius. And maybe he is. But you have no idea how he would do in a big market. Having money isn’t always a blessing, it can be a curse if not used smartly. They are in different situations. Apples and oranges. It’s not fair to cherry pick the best qualities of a GM and assume that things would be perfect if you combined it with another situation.

      • Jim Is Bored says:

        Couldn’t agree more with #3. Being handcuffed by a budget can prevent you from making idiot decisions, like signing a FA past his prime. It limits your options, and thus, the amount of decisions you have on your plate. Beane might be highly skilled at making decisions about minor leaguers, but no one knows how he would perform in a situation where he has the option to trade those players for, say, a Robinson Cano or an Alex Rodriguez.

      • jsbrendog says:

        you’re a towel.

        plus i agree. these are all rational defendable points, which imo are correct. towel.

    • Robinson Tilapia says:

      Wrong.

  6. trr says:

    In fairness to Cashman, a small market GM (like Beane) will always be praised for even the smallest acheivements (the old “seeing a pig fly” meme) while a large market GM will get raked over the coals for not winning year after year. Give the man some credit for surviving in the cauldron of NY all these years. But as I said above, no job is forever…

    • Robinson Tilapia says:

      In fairness to both of them, they both operate according to what’s in front of them. Do people honestly think Beane would operate in the same manner if he had the same position for the Yankees? Of course not. Beane would probably manage a lot like…..Brian Cashman, as Brian Cashman would if he had Beane’s resources.

  7. Cuso says:

    Short Round: “What are draft picks?”

    Dr. J : “Fortune and glory, kid. Fortune and glory.”

  8. TomH says:

    (1) the farm system will be more important for the Yankees going forward than it ever was before.

    It would be enough were the farm system to regain the quality (and importance) it had in the period from the mid-1930s to ca. 1960-62 (when Topping and Webb may (as some suggest) have let it slip. In the 1930s and 40s, it was a well-oiled machine.

    (2) There was never a reason, during the Boss years, for the farm system’s importance to have declined: not even during the FA heyday. The joke used to be, back in the 1970s, that George used other MLB teams as his AAA farm. Fine, but even during the peak years of free agency, a first rate system could have supplied people to the big team or have permitted the big team to draw (as it often did–too often) trade chips. I say all this because I don’t think it’s currently an impressive farm system (N.B.) for any team that aspires, annually, to get to the World Series. A merely above average system is fine for teams that hope now and then to make the post-season.

    (2) the Yankees are going to have to simply out-scout and out-develop other teams. They will never have access to top amateur talent as long as they remain competitive, so finding those diamonds in the rough and turning them into useful players will be extra important going forward. I’m not very confident the current regime can actually do that, but they have made some player development changes in recent years — most notably re-hiring pitching coordinator Gil Patterson

    A gloomy passage.

    Why do you think Gil Paterson may be worthy of note? (I ask only because I know zilch about him.)

    On this matter of remaining annually competitive without access to the top prospects in the draft: “Diamonds in the rough” are great if they’re really diamonds; but in order to find such rough diamonds and ALSO to remain annually competitive, the Yankees will have to devote to scouting and development resources far in excess of anything they’ve ever done before. Perhaps this is feasible. I don’t know. However, I’m now coming around to the view that Cashman may have outlived his usefulness to the Yankees. As another poster points out, Cash was raised under a money-is-no-object dispensation.

    • Robinson Tilapia says:

      Spot-on as to everything until the last couple of sentences.

    • jsbrendog says:

      As another poster points out, Cash was raised under a money-is-no-object dispensation.

      he is also the guy who got nick swisher for nothing in a deal billy beane prob stood up and gave a slow clap for, has been a boss in picking the right guys off the scrap heap, thames, ajones 1.0, raul, and maybe now wells. also dont forget he got abreu for nothing, AND got lidle (RIP) and while ajax and kennedy turned out pretty well so did granderson so that is also a good trade. dude is a good gm. they all make mistakes and have strengths and weaknesses which is why they should build a team around them with the strengths they lack. he may just need a new team.

  9. Pseudoyanks says:

    Very excited for this year’s potential haul.

  10. Mr. RSU says:

    Local kid and one of my friend’s cousins, Rob Kaminskey, is a first round talent with a ton of MLB scouts at each of his games. Left hander with 3 pitch mix and good make-up. A bleacher report mock draft had him falling to the Yanks at 29. Granted, that’s BR.

    Anyway, he has an offer from UNC and it’ll take a lot of money to get him away from there. But an option nonetheless!

  11. mac says:

    As stated by others above, Cashman’s main flaw has been the people he has allowed to retain their jobs in player development. He also leaves alot to be desired as a cocksman, but that shouldn’t affect his performance as a GM going forward.

    He’s done a fine job in mining the scrap heap for bench guys, Grandy and Swisher were fine trades, and he handles the NY media as well as can be expected.

    The farm,in a word, blows. Four top prospects in A/AA, 3 of whom have injury and attitude questions, a couple of bullpen arms and not much else. Unfortunately Cash takes some blame b/c he isn’t a player dev guy himself, but he also has allowed the guys who are to have their jobs for too long. It’s poss. it was not his call.

    • Jim Is Bored says:

      I have to admit, I have no idea what cocksman means, and I’m too frightened to look it up whilst at work.

      • Robinson Tilapia says:

        *submitted to the meme approval board*

        • Cuso says:

          Meme Approval Board Decision: permitted if changed to “cocksmith.”

          • jjyank says:

            Wouldn’t those be two separate things? I see it like this:

            Cocksman (noun): One who has confidence in, and uses effectively, a wide variety of cocks, both of one’s own, or others.

            Cocksmith (noun): One who dedicates his or herself to the craft of building cocks.

            • Cuso says:

              Fair enough. However, by very definition, it would appear that cocksmith is more apropos.

              • Jim Is Bored says:

                Personally I find that memes work better the less sense they make.

                • Robinson Tilapia says:

                  I hope this exchange not does not reflect the type of cocksman either of you make.

                • Cuso says:

                  Agree to disagree on that point. With meme, there’s a certain threshold to breach to make it repeatable and memorable. If it makes “no” sense, no one will repeat it, whether it be in jest, scorn or admiration if no one thinks it makes sense to begin with.

                  But I agree with you that the more insane it is, the more memorable it is. If that’s what you meant.

            • TomH says:

              A term prominently deployed in the middle of the 20th Century. E.g., applied to a President of the era and a Chairman of the Board.

    • Robinson Tilapia says:

      “He also leaves alot to be desired as a cocksman”

      Well, I mean, they can’t all be me.

      • mac says:

        That’s why Cash has all those special assistants, time to submit your resume. He needs help in other matters besides the draft.

        • Robinson Tilapia says:

          Only if we can get an arena-sized crowd of wrestling fans to chant “You’ve still got it” afterwards.

    • jjyank says:

      Has the Yankees’ farm system been rated lower than 14th by any major publications? Pretty sure average to above average is not what you see when you look up “blows” in the dictionary.

      You’re a cocksman. Or a towel. Take your pick.

      • mac says:

        The rankings past the top few hold little meaning. Go back to my original comment,there’s no real impact guy on the horizon. In fact, the top guys are so far away that it is more likely they wash out than even mke the bigs.

        Combine that with an old team with a bunch of holes and a owner who wants to lower payroll and you have a pretty bleak image for the future.

        • jjyank says:

          The farm system doesn’t blow. They’re solidly in the 11-14 range by every ranking. If “above average” meant the same as “blow”, sure.

          • mac says:

            Sorry, in the real world, average blows. Esp. if your plan is to replace star level major leaguers these guys.

            Most of that ranking is due to four players as well, a couple fail and what is the rank then? It is a very thin farm past those guys.

            • jjyank says:

              So your logic is “if you take away the best 4 prospects, how bad will the ranking look?”

              Really?

              Average means average. And in this case, it’s actually slightly above average to almost the top 30%, depending on which publication you like. Don’t give me the “real world” crap.

              • mac says:

                JJ, killer B’s, 3 guys, how’d that work out for us?

                I’ll say it again, after the first couple systems, the rankings do not mean much.

                Yanks need a big influx of talent, pretty quickly. Is the farm going to satisfy any of that need? We just don’t know.

                • jjyank says:

                  You’re moving the goalposts now.

                • Robinson Tilapia says:

                  Everybody’s got those. At least ours didn’t get an SI cover like, um, some other franchises.

                  Also, how you all turned “cocksman” into a player development argument while I went on a coffee break is beyond me and not very cocksmanlike.

                  • Jim Is Bored says:

                    I think we got bored of the meme talk.

                    The thread devolved into something resembling a baseball discussion.

                    For that, and the part I’ve taken in it, I apologize. I don’t know what came over me!

                  • jjyank says:

                    A true cocksman would have kept pace.

                • The Big City of Dreams says:

                  The problem the Yankees are in now is the players in the first couple of waves flamed out, were traded for other players, or became average to below average pieces on the team. The pressure to hit a HR with the upcoming wave wouldn’t be as intense.

              • The Big City of Dreams says:

                So your logic is “if you take away the best 4 prospects, how bad will the ranking look?”

                ——————-

                I think his point is so much of the future depends on those 4 guys that it’s risky for the Yankees to have all their eggs in one basket. What are the chances all four of them come up and become the players the FO believes they will be.

                • jjyank says:

                  There’s that risk with every farm system though. Most of them don’t have sure things waiting to step in. If you want to say it’s risky, that’s fine. It is risky. But the farm system doesn’t blow according to the experts. Some dude on a message board isn’t changing my perception based on what I’ve read by actual scouts.

                  • LK says:

                    It’s clearly not true that the farm system blows. However, I think the heart of his original point (even though he exaggerated) was that for the Yankees current position, a farm system that’s slightly above average probably isn’t good enough given all they need to replace without spending money. I happen to agree with that toned-down version of his comment.

                    • jjyank says:

                      And that’s fine. I feel like mac here has moved the goalposts during this discussion. If it’s his opinion that slightly above average isn’t good enough, that’s great. I think it might be, or it might not be. I don’t know, and the fact is, neither does he.

                    • mac says:

                      LK, if you are going to make my points eloquently, I’m taking my ball and going home.

                      It is great to be optimistic, but some people are so much so that they lose sight of how difficult it is to develop players (never mind multiple players), of the level that the Yanks have fielded for the past two decades.

                      When we look at the track record of the guys we have developed since Cano, my personal opinion is there is something really broken with the people who have been in charge of the farm and in keeping these guys healthy.

                  • mac says:

                    Still missing my point which is to place meaning on being 11 th or 14th holds little value. The first few rankings matter, the difference between being slightly above, below or at average is nebulous.

                    This is not a standardized test where you can supposedly judge mastery of the subject matter. The difference between 11th and 20th (for example) is much less meaningful than between 1st and 5th.

                    As far as the experts opinion, many times they know less and are more off base than the diligent amatuer who often times has more experience (and purer intentions) than they do – and I include many who post here among the latter group.

                    • jjyank says:

                      Well I just disagree with you. You can’t prove to me that you know more than Baseball America, so I don’t see why you keep pressing the point.

                    • jjyank says:

                      And with that, I’m out. We’re both talking in circles now anyway.

                • Jim Is Bored says:

                  That’s the case for every organization in baseball.

                  Except maybe the Dodgers.

            • Jim Is Bored says:

              No, in the real world, average is average. It’s a word that has a meaning that does not change, regardless of whether you want it to or not.

              Everything, in every industry, is relative.

              • mac says:

                Guys, I think its a generational thing. If you wan to believe average or slightly above is good enough to sustain what the Yanks have built the last 20 years then I don’t know what else to say.

                It would be fine to have this farm system if this were 1996, with the team and environment the Yanks were playing in.

                Jim, I respectfully ask you to consider that concept of average does not remain static. As an old guy, I’ve seen things such as grade inflation change public perception as to what is considered the norm.

                • Jim Is Bored says:

                  “Guys, I think its a generational thing. If you wan to believe average or slightly above is good enough to sustain what the Yanks have built the last 20 years then I don’t know what else to say.”

                  That is not even close to what you said though. Of course no one would disagree with that.

                • Jim Is Bored says:

                  “Jim, I respectfully ask you to consider that concept of average does not remain static. As an old guy, I’ve seen things such as grade inflation change public perception as to what is considered the norm.”

                  Nope. Perception of the average is still different than average. Average is a mathematical concept that doesn’t change.

                  • mac says:

                    Good point Jim ont the mathematical definition but the Yanks ranking is based on opinion of certain experts not a mathematical calc.

                    I’ll say it like this, In my opinion the Yanks farm is woefully short of being where it should be and not going to provide any real impact players to the big club in the next few years.

                    In short, I think the farm blows.

                • jjyank says:

                  Nobody said if it was good enough or not besides you. I merely said the farm system doesn’t blow. And that’s not a generational thing. Don’t play the age card.

                  • Robinson Tilapia says:

                    In the old days, we would have said the farm system “kisses Mr. Happy down there,” then pretended no one did it.

                    HORACE CLARKE!

                • Robinson Tilapia says:

                  The issue with what you’re saying is that while, yes, you acknowledge that the guys entering AA could flame out, you’re not acknowledging that there’s a good chance as well that this could be a top 10 farm system within the year, as well as acknowledging that there’s been an improvement since a rather dismal last decade.

                  The concerns are noted, but my stance repeatedly is there’s nothing they can do now to have impact guys in AAA except graduate the guys in AA. You can’t go back in time.

            • TomH says:

              Average is for mediocrities–slightly above average is too. If you want to compete every year to get to the WS, you need well above average. Teams like that (really, there has been only one) usually comprise Hall of Famers who also need to be replaced.

              I’m reminded of Sean Connery explaining who gets to make it with the Prom Queen and who gets to stay home.

              • Jim Is Bored says:

                No one is arguing with that. Seriously. No one disagrees with that at all.

                • Jim Is Bored says:

                  I apologize, I got lost in the reply structure and thought you were replying to me.

                  Still though, I don’t disagree.

              • jjyank says:

                For sustainability, sure. Plenty of teams win the world series without having a top 10 farm system, however. And if the Yanks make a few good draft picks this year and the existing prospects keep taking steps forward, the very well might by the end of the year.

                • jsbrendog says:

                  plus the teams ith the best farm systems rarely make the playoffs. and have had prolonged droughts in that regard

              • mac says:

                Yeah Tom, well said. Wish I could have expressed it as well.

  12. mac says:

    John Mayer is a good example of a modern day cocksman.

    • Robinson Tilapia says:

      BUT CAN HE MINE THE SCRAP HEAP FOR BENCH GUYS?!?!

      • mac says:

        Mayer’s a poor choice for GM, the competition between him and Jeter would distract the team. Mayer’s job should be strictly as wingman to our 125 pounds o’ lovin GM.

  13. John C says:

    Qualifying offers should go to Cano, Grandy, Kuroda and Hughes after this season. The agents really hate that rule and I’m sure it will be gone in the next CBA. I wish they would also get rid of the spending linits in the draft. Definitely cost us the chance to get thelikes of Moore, Stewart and Jackson signed last year.

    • Preston says:

      Injuries might make it so that Hughes and Grandy aren’t entirely deserving of that kind of a commitment. Kuroda will probably re-up with the Yanks, retire or go to Japan, so the QO is really just a formality. Cano obviously gets a QO, but hopefully they re-sign him and if they don’t a draft pick is going to be little consolation.

  14. trr says:

    a cocksman? LOL, what the fuck?

  15. Cuso says:

    Tilapia, jjyank and Cuso in mid-season rambling form

  16. Barry says:

    Can’t wait Mike. Hopefully you can stat pumping these out rapid fire. Will be nice to have some positivity with all the negativity in the Empire.

  17. pc says:

    the yanks recent history on drafting and producing talent in the minors is sketchy at best, this had better change fast or ny will be treading up hill for a while because of the fa market getting less viable by the day.

    • mac says:

      Yep, and thats the big problem with trying to rely on player dev with our current track record. I do think though that some of these players that were signed to big deals, likely backloaded, will become available when some teams fall from contention or fail to recognize that the economics of their particular market will not support the financial commitments they made.

  18. Frank says:

    I think the Yankees really dropped the ball with player development in recent years. Last year they went all out with their international pool and signed 3 of the top 5 guys. They also spent what they could on the draft…although in prior years decided to waste their #1 pick and hope to use that money elsewhere which was a strange and obviously wrong decision in retrospect.

    I don’t think they need to sign everyone out there like other fans, but when guys like Puig, Soler, Cespedes, Chapman, & Darvish become available…you need to try to sign maybe 1 per year. Or one extravagancy every couple of years. They went hard after Soler but they lost. They can’t afford to lose out on every one of those guys when you are targeting 189MM and have a boat load of older and overpriced players on the 40.

    And one final complaint…they absorbed 13MM for wells this year (Which I think means 26MM since they have to pay Luxury tax) to save 30-40MM next year? I know they’d save again in 2015, but it just seems like this plan has major holes in it. Whatever…this is going to be a long two years! Hopefully, they spend it developing some kids who make it interesting.

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.