Details of changes made to player development staff and minor league complex

(Photo via Colwill Engineering)

The Tampa complex, several years ago. (Photo via Colwill Engineering)

After auditing their unproductive player development system, the Yankees implemented some procedural changes earlier this offseason but did not make any significant personnel changes to their minor league staff. Long-time VP of Baseball Ops Mark Newman was one of those expected to come under fire if changes were made. Anthony McCarron spoke to Newman and got some details about those procedural changes. Here’s the skinny:

  • A new building has been added to the minor league complex in Tampa. It houses meeting rooms and a cafeteria, which I assume will help players with nutrition. A dormitory for prospects is currently being discussed and may be added as well.
  • The four diamonds at the minor league complex are all being refurbished. “These fields have been here since Johnny Bench was an 18-year-old,” said Newman, referring back to when the Reds owned the complex.
  • The Yankees have added a statistical analyst to work exclusively with the player development staff. Newman called that person a “PhD in advanced math and statistics” and said they have “some bright dudes here … (the system) is going to go back up, odds are.”
  • Among the other staff additions are former Cubs manager Mike Quade, who will serve as an outfield/base-running coordinator, something Newman says they haven’t had “in a while.” Ex-minor league coach Jody Reed has rejoined the organization and will handle individual development plans for prospects.
  • And finally, after fielding two teams in the Rookie Gulf Coast League last summer, the Yankees will again field two teams in the league in 2014. Nothing but good can come from that.
Categories : Minors


  1. Paco Dooley says:

    This is definitely where they need to be investing money. I realize that they have not had great draft positions and have lost some picks through FA signings, but they have still done a marvellous job of underachieving.

    They should be able to approximate the level of success that St Louis has had – and it really is all about gathering and processing information in an intelligent way. Someone should have been able to project guys like DBJ, Brackman and Culver as being busts…

    • Havok9120 says:

      So you’re saying that if they do not “approximate” the production of one of the best player development systems in the game that they must be doing something wrong?

      I don’t think anyone is standing by the argument that the farm has not underachieved/underperformed on the development of talent. But our expectations cannot be “they should be one of the best.”

      • Alkaline says:

        Wait…wait. You’re telling me that it’s not easy as everyone thinks to develop a strong farm? You’re right. The Yanks and the rest of the league must just be lazy.

        Mind. Blown.

      • Matt DiBari says:


        That’s completely serious question, by the way. Why shouldn’t we expect the team with the most money and best resources to build a drafting an development staff that can eventually create a lop tier farm system?

        I mean I don’t expect anyone to turn this mess around next year or anything but I absolutely don’t think its ludicrous to suggest that the Yankees should be able to do this

    • Dalek Jeter says:

      “Someone should have been able to project guys like DBJ, Brackman and Culver as being busts.”

      My biggest problem with that argument is there is always going to be somebody who projects a potential prospect to be a bust. Sure, we never hear about it if the prospect shines…but I’m willing to bet my bottom dollar that if you gave truth syrum to everybody in the Angels organization you’d find at least one guy who didn’t like them drafting Trout at the time.

    • Havok9120 says:

      Also, Culver is one thing, and MAYBE you can put DBJ, effectively a second round pick, in the same basket. They were “reach” picks, and I think just about everyone knew it.

      But Brackman is another issue entirely. It was a guy who was gonna go much higher in the first round and only fell to the team due to injury. Injury which the Yanks thought (rightfully, it turns out) that he could recover from and remain effective. I think you need to make that pick every time.

      • jjyank says:

        Exactly this. The Brackman pick was nothing like the Culver/DBJ picks. If you’re drafting at the end of the round, I’d argue that a player like Brackman is exactly the type of guy you target. It didn’t work out obviously, but that not nothing to do with his potential ceiling at the time.

        • Tom K says:

          At the time, I think most people liked the Brackman pick. I think the one thing most did not like was the 40-man roster guarantee. I hope the Yankees are forever never going to do that again – you instantly put a timetable on a prospect which could hinder development.

          Which is not to say it impacted Brackman one way or another – he was just a big pitcher with nasty stuff who busted. It happens all the time.

    • Jorge Steinbrenner says:

      “Someone should have been able to project guys like DBJ, Brackman and Culver as being busts.”

      Have you considered that they took the risk into account when they drafted them?

      One was known by everyone to be a swing-for-the-fences prospect, while the other two were taken in the first round despite not being listed as first round talents anywhere. History has thus far proven them dead wrong on DBJ and Culver, but they were clearly up to something unconventional there and had to be aware that there was risk involved in doing so.

    • ALZ says:

      Every team gets first round busts all the time. They should be doing better, but STL has had some really lucky drafts in recent years. They also have significantly better draft picks, and have been sliding by in an extremely weak division.

  2. Dicka24 says:

    I think its good that they’re making some changes, but I’m somewhat underwhelmed by what they’ve decided to do. It seems as if all of the same people are still in charge. Why not try to pry some understudy from an organization like the Rays, Cards, etc. with proven minor league development instead? Tossing a new coat of paint on your old house, doesn’t mean you rebuilt, or remodeled. I’d have preferred to see the people who pick Cito Culver get reassigned, or some new blood brought in at the top, at the very least. I get that the organization has suffered some bad injury luck in the minors, but still, it’s not like the system has been a talent factory for the last decade or so, when the same names have been calling the shots.

    • Bo Knows says:

      Rays haven’t done jack squat in like 6 years with their drafts, what they have benefited from are the trades that they’ve done with the last crop of guys they did develop. Perfectly sustainable and they assume the least amount or risk.

      Cards though are well known for being at the forefront of many of the things the Yankees are just now implementing.

      Outside of firing Newman, there isn’t going to be anything announced that is going perk a fan’s ears up, but a lot of what they are doing can have huge impacts going forward. The baserunning coach especially, considering several talented Yankee prospects over the past few years, have had their young careers completely destroyed getting hurt on bad baserunning

      • Havok9120 says:

        I think it hilarious that Rays prospects have been so much less awe-inspiring since the team actually started, y’know, winning.

      • I'm a looser and a trader baby so why don't you kill me? says:

        Honestly I don’t see any of the changes listed that I can imagine would have a “huge impact” on much of anything. And yes that includes the base running thing.

        I’d love to be wrong. Don’t think that I am. I think the single biggest thing that will improve our farm has already been implemented in the most recent draft: get the consensus best guy on the board at the time of the pick. No more getting cute with the Culvers and DBJs of the world.

        • Jorge Steinbrenner says:

          “I think the single biggest thing that will improve our farm has already been implemented in the most recent draft: get the consensus best guy on the board at the time of the pick.”

          There’s certainly truth to that.

          It’s hard to say what has a huge impact or not, but change happens in both big and small fashion. It also happens through trial and error.

        • Havok9120 says:

          Meh. If it was only “reach” picks causing the problem then we’d have had a lot more developmental success in recent years.

          I do agree that getting cute is not what the first round is for unless the draft class is just spectacularly weak.

        • Caballo Sin Nombre says:

          Why do you think there is a consensus best player at any spot, beyond the top two-three? I don’t buy that BA or any other published list would actually represent a true consensus. The baseball draft is a very inefficient market.

  3. Dicka24 says:

    Oh, and let me add the revelation that they’ve hired a “statistics” analyst is somewhat concerning in a way. It implies that they didn’t have one in the organization to begin with. I hope that’s not the case. All of this really makes you question the competence of the organization overall.

    • Bo Knows says:

      a lot of teams don’t have one, I read once that like 5 teams or so teams have a minor league analytics department. It’s something that’s being slowly adopted, so it should not be a big surprise, outside the fact that the Yankees should have been one of the teams at the forefront of that

    • Steve (different one) says:

      It implies that they didn’t have one in the organization to begin with. I hope that’s not the case.

      It’s not, they have had one for years. I think his name is Michael Fishman.

      Dedicating another one solely to the minors is the development I guess.

    • Bryan says:

      I too found that strange. Especially since if you look at job opportunities on the Yankees homepage, they have an opening for a statistics intern. That means they at least have some people for the big league club. But no one for the lower levels? Really, Yankees?

    • steve (different one) says:

      Remember Edwar Ramirez? The analytics department was responsible for signing him out of an independent league. So we know they have people combing minor league statistics for players. But in terms of the draft, the reality is that in terms of high school and even college players, scouting is going to be a MUCH larger part of the equation than statistics.

      I am also guessing when someone like, for example, Dean Anna pops up on the DFA list, it’s the analytics department telling Cashman this is a guy you might want to see if you can grab on the cheap.

      I know everyone wants blood, and I would not have been disappointed to see Newman go, but I also think these are steps in the right direction. IMO, the issue is less about the amount of talent being funneled in (yes, Culver was a big miss, but this has been known to happen in the MLB draft) than the development side. If the team can use their resources to get state of the art facilities, nutrition, conditioning, coaching, etc., I think this is a good start.

      Last year was about as bad as it can get for a system on the injury front. But like Cashman said, the same talent (outside of Corey Black) is all still there. If the system bounces back this year, maybe it was the right call to not make wholesale changes. If it doesn’t…I think at that point, big changes are prob in order.

      • Jorge Steinbrenner says:

        Thank you.

      • Havok9120 says:

        Spot on.

      • jjyank says:

        Well said.

      • I'm a looser and a trader baby so why don't you kill me? says:

        But the same talent is not there. We added three late first round picks, all three of whom were instantly in our top 10-15 guys depending on whose list you looked at. That’s the single biggest factor of improvement in our system’s ranking, and is unlikely IMO to be swamped by (major) improvement in the previously existing talent. Our system blew last year far more from on field performance issues than it did from injuries.

        Said another way, I think wholesale changes should’ve been made, starting with MN.

        • Havok9120 says:

          You don’t think the two fed into each other?

          You think injuries to Austin, Heathcott, and ManBan didn’t play a huge role in their stock (and the stock of the system) falling through the floor? I think there’s plenty of upside with the mid-level guys.

        • Jorge Steinbrenner says:

          The same talent is there. No one of consequence exited the organization. Those lists simply reflected injury and/or underperformance from the players on it the previous year. Time will still tell whether that was due to injury, need for patience, or simply plateau.

          The major part of Steve-thankfully-different-one’s comment involves those diamonds in the rough, though, such as Edwar and Vidal Nuno and such, and where analytics and DEEP scouting play a role. That’s pretty damn important. Vidal Nuno was nowhere on anyone’s radar several seasons ago, and he’s got an outside shot at being your fifth starter next season. That matters.

          I appreciate you wanting heads to roll but, honestly, I don’t consider either of us truly qualified or well-informed enough to diagnose the issue.

          • I'm a looser and a trader baby so why don't you kill me? says:

            What I mean by same talent is that we added 3 guys who essentially weren’t there last season, and those 3 guys are now 3 of our top guys. Wasn’t meaning that people left. (Certainly no one of consequence!)

    • Havok9120 says:

      It amuses me that you assume the Yankees are basically the last team to do this for the minor league clubs.

    • Jorge Steinbrenner says:

      I don’t read it that way at all.

  4. emac2 says:

    They need to commit one roster spot to a rookie every year. The team underestimates the value of a real opportunity in player development.

    The major league team will also naturally be more afraid of the unknown than replacement level play. Forcing the incorporation of at least one rookie a year will result in better play in the majors, better development and significant financial savings.

    • Rick says:

      “They need to commit one roster spot to a rookie every year. The team underestimates the value of a real opportunity in player development.”

      Surely this is sarcasm. No one can rationally conclude that the team needs to commit one roster spot to a rookie every year. Why don’t we just throw a presumed MLB caliber prospect on the 25 man roster every year and limit his playing time since he will be behind, in the Yankees case, a likely high priced player brought in to start. Nothing like having a player to come up and sit on the bench rather than get hit 4 plate appearances that night in the minors.

    • Jorge Steinbrenner says:


    • jjyank says:

      No, what the team needs to do is incorporate a rookie if the team needs it or if the player earns it. It sounds like you’re advocating throwing a prospect into the fire whether he’s ready or not, simply so the MLB team can get used to playing with someone 10 years younger than them.

      It should be a fluid process that depends on the situation.

      • Jorge Steinbrenner says:

        I’m not quite sure what he’s advocating. What was the last season a rookie didn’t at least get minor playing time with this team, even if it was as a bullpen callup?

        • jjyank says:

          His statement “Forcing the incorporation of at least one rookie a year” seems to me that he wants someone to be committed to regular playing time. And it also seems to have no regard to whether or not a prospect is ready for that, or if the team has the right spot open. It’s just too definitive of a statement.

          The Yankees, and pretty much every team, give playing time to rookies at various points in a season in various roles. It’ll happen again this very year.

          • Jorge Steinbrenner says:

            “His statement ‘Forcing the incorporation of at least one rookie a year’ seems to me that he wants someone to be committed to regular playing time.”

            That, or he has sick sexual fantasies involving JR Murphy.

          • Get Phelps Up says:

            Funny thing is that he’s completely ignoring the fact that the Yankees are making a rookie a key part if their team this year.

    • Get Phelps Up says:

      Yeah…the Yankees are going to do that this year.

  5. PunkPitch says:

    Any time I hear of another Cub developmental person coming over, I can’t help but think of the Jim Hendry connection. Please note that Theo Epstein cleaned house when he moved in. Sooner or later, the bulb will go on, and Hendry will move on, leavingba big fat mess behind him.

    • jjyank says:

      You do know that just because Hendry wasn’t a great GM doesn’t mean that he’s completely useless in the Front Office, right? It’s entirely possible that he’s a positive addition when he’s not the head honcho.

      • Havok9120 says:

        No, because he rose to the position of GM, one of the thirty or so most powerful front office decision makers in the sport, by sucking at everything.

        It’s the only way.

  6. TWTR says:

    It is hard to believe that more fundamental change , including replacing key decision-makers, isn’t needed to fix a system that has underperformed for so long.

    • Havok9120 says:

      That depends who has been making what decisions and why they went wrong. A factor we have no way of measuring from the outside.

      If Newman or Cash has been making decisions about development of talent which has more or less directly led to underperforming prospects, then yeah. Your case carries weight. But we simply don’t know.

      It must also be noted that I am not on the bandwagon of “our scouting and drafting has sucked.” I think the problems are on the development side, but that we’ve mostly drafted well.

      • jjyank says:

        I agree with that. Outside of Culver and DBJ, there really haven’t been any high profile picks that I questioned at the time. Two picks out of years and years of drafts? I think the system has a ton of talent, it just needs to be developed properly.

      • I'm a looser and a trader baby so why don't you kill me? says:

        The problem is that in all likelihood Cashman and Newman were involved in, if not in charge of, this system wide analysis. Tough to be your own critic or executioner.

        • Havok9120 says:

          That’s where you need to trust ownership to be fairly ruthless when they see a mistake made.

          There are many things we may find lacking in Levine and the Steinbrenner clan, but ruthlessness is not among them. If there are systemic mistakes being made which are costing the organization money, don’t you think they’d be exactly the ones to sniff them out and correct them?

        • Jorge Steinbrenner says:

          A lot of assumptions on your part there.

  7. CONservative governMENt says:

    Awareness of the problem sounds obvious, but is step one.

    Brackman was a great pick, they just got bent over in structuring his contract (major league deal..).

    Culver and Bichette were supposed to be stealth picks with upside that allowed DO to spend money later in the draft. My problem with that is that 1st rounders have the most ‘certainty’ and that DO should have been allowed to splurge on a 1st AND on later picks (penny wise, pound foolish).

    Attention to conditioning and overall player development is crucial, as highly rated lower level guys continue to fizzle out at a seemingly disproportionate rate.

    • Jim Is A (Bored) Peckerhead says:

      I would love to see the data behind your “seemingly disproportionate” conclusion.

      • Jorge Steinbrenner says:

        I think what’s more likely to be disproportionate is the number of fans that, because they can get whatever info on the MiLB system they want, now fall in love with every guy in short season ball before they really should have any business doing so.

        Once again, this is where you’ll see me standing with Chad Jennings. Talk to me when they look good in AA. Until then, they’re just a nice story.

      • CONservative governMENt says:

        And I would love to see how you define the word ‘seemingly’.

        Does it not SEEM as if the Yankees every year have guys that are talented but in the lower levels? None of them seem to be making it.

        • Jorge Steinbrenner says:

          Every team has guys that seem talented in the lower levels. They have more teams in the lower levels.

          • Jorge Steinbrenner says:

            The New York Yankees have:

            A mystery DSL team with, like, ten thousand Dominicans in it. Even chicks.
            Two Rookie League teams
            A short season A-ball team
            A low-A team
            A high-A team
            A AA team
            A AAA team
            An MLB team

            Seems pretty weighted in one direction, doesn’t it? There’s a good reason for that.

    • Jorge Steinbrenner says:

      “highly rated lower level guys continue to fizzle out at a seemingly disproportionate rate.”

      Show me the numbers.

      • I'm a looser and a trader baby so why don't you kill me? says:

        I get his point though. It does seem hard to believe that last year, when it seemed like our entire starting MLB roster and their backups were injured, our farm system had literally no one – not a single fucking player at any position – who could step in and make even a middling contribution.

        I get that it’s “only one year” but it’s not a good sign. Worse, that’s likely to be the case this year as well as our nearest “good” prospects are starting the year in AA. Maybe one or two of em get a few starts in September but it’s tough to imagine anything beyond that.

        People love to point to Gardner, Nova, and Robertson to balance the argument but they’re getting a little long of tooth, no? Thank god we preserved those 3 late first round picks, and better that we didn’t squander them on reach picks.

        • Havok9120 says:

          Oh, there’s a point to be made there. He could very well be correct in his claim. But just saying that there’s a systemic problem and providing no evidence or context is not a way to go about convincing people who aren’t already inclined to agree with you.

        • Jorge Steinbrenner says:

          That’s not what he’s saying at all.

          “Highly rated lower level guys continue to fizzle out at a seemingly disproportionate rate.”

          That sounds to me like guys in the lower levels of the minors not advancing. That’s what happens to the majority of players in the lower levels, regardless of organization.

          This is, in a way, prospect-hugging on a different scale than which those who aren’t as down on the organization do. I like reading around Luis Severino and Ian Clarkin. Until I see them doing it in the higher levels of the minors, though, they’re still just lottery tickets to me…..and I’ve never won the lottery.

          On this specific point, I don’t see where Gardner, Nova, and Robertson matter. They matter on another, different point.

          • I'm a looser and a trader baby so why don't you kill me? says:

            I don’t know. Fizzling in A/AA may not be the “lower levels” but that does seem to be where the prospect bucks have mostly stopped in the last few years. Either way, they’re not getting to the bigs in any meaningful way, at least not as needed last year.

          • I'm a looser and a trader baby so why don't you kill me? says:

            Oh and the point about Nova, and the other two is that they’re used to point out examples of guys from our farm making meaningful contributions, and so not flaming out at the lower levels. So, the fact that the newest among them has 3 (4?) years of MLB service time says to me that the farm has not been productive overall. That in turn says to me that guys are flaming out pretty much wholesale at this point.

            No one* in 3-4 years? That’s…a long time.

            * I’m obviously discounting the value of random middle/long relief types

    • Havok9120 says:

      Let’s see some numbers for that last part. It could very well be true, but I’ve not seen anyone point it out and back it up with stats from our farm versus those of other teams.

      • Jim Is A (Bored) Peckerhead says:

        I’d also need to see teams picking at comparable draft slots(or with comparable draft budgets the last few years).

        No one’s arguing that the past few years haven’t been disappointing. People just need to stop drawing conclusions when we don’t have the data to do so.

  8. Jorge Steinbrenner says:

    Reading stuff like “The Bullpen Diaries” always reminds me of how crappy eating habits have often been for minor leaguers in the past, especially if they’re eating off of salaries that aren’t exactly MLB millions. Glad to see that we’ve moved from those days.

    Other than that, it all sounds good, and time and their own evaluation over time will tell them what is worth keeping and what isn’t.

  9. Eselquetodolosabe says:

    Newman; some bright dudes here, system is going to go back up, ODDS ARE
    Really Mr. Newman ?! What’s your function and responsibility in all of this ? How did the system degrade in the first place ? “Odds are” that you, Mr. Newman, had better ensure that the system does “go back up”. Might’ve been your responsibility to make sure that it never went down to begin with. I don’t advocate anyone losing their job, but if the system is static, or degrades further, you might lose your spot to “a bright dude”. And for those that think or say that it’s unfair or unreasonable to expect NY’s system to be in the upper echelons of systems….. I say BS. It’s The NY Yankees. A team with limit-less resources. Damned right, expectations should always be for #1….. In everything.

    • Jorge Steinbrenner says:

      Well I hope that was cathartic for you.

      • Eselquetodolosabe says:

        Clever. I guess it was like taking an angry , steaming crap. It just seems like every time I hear a high level, Yankees executive speak; Newman, Levine and to lesser extent Cashman, I come away shaking my head wondering how the heck they were elevated to that position. Alas, I’m probably way off, as most of us will never be privy to the grunt work responsible for team successes. That Newman comment though…..aaaaa probably not his best.

        • Jorge Steinbrenner says:

          Which comment are you referring to?

          I think Levine comes off as a tool, but there’s no way by which I can truly evaluate how he actually does the job he’s paid to do.

          I’m a Cashman fan. Always has been. There’s certainly been mistakes on his clock, but I like his process and how he addresses his mistakes. If I think he should go, it’s simply because I don’t think anyone should be GM for too long.

    • Jim Is A (Bored) Peckerhead says:

      “A team with limit-less resources.”

      Which is almost meaningless to the modern minor league draft.

      • jjyank says:

        And just not a true statement overall.

        • I'm a looser and a trader baby so why don't you kill me? says:

          Probably true in this context though. The Yankees organization could obviously absorb another $5-10mm in costs for “whatever” if they chose to.

          • jjyank says:

            Sure. But it’s not limitless. And with slot assignments, that’s even less true of the draft.

          • Havok9120 says:

            But…that’s exactly the kind of expenses this article is talking about. Adding staff, beefing up facilities, and adding a whole additional team at the lowest level of the minors. Those are the kinds of things where money can make a difference, and that’s exactly what the team is trying to do.

            • Jorge Steinbrenner says:


              Also, no, it’s not limitless. It never is.

              And, last, money isn’t going to will a player into improving. These things you read about above are supposed to matter.

              • I'm a looser and a trader baby so why don't you kill me? says:

                I don’t think they matter more than the overall mix of people scouting, drafting, and developing. That roster doesn’t seem to have changed much if at all. That concerns me.

            • I'm a looser and a trader baby so why don't you kill me? says:

              That’s my point. Still seems to me that these “fixes” are way too light on bringing in the right folks. But we shall see.

              • I'm a looser and a trader baby so why don't you kill me? says:

                I don’t think they matter more than the overall mix of people scouting, drafting, and developing. That roster doesn’t seem to have changed much if at all. That concerns me.

  10. Eselquetodolosabe says:

    Not limitless…..limitless……. It’s all BS semantics. They have a metric, sh**-ton of money. Whether they spend it, and on what they spend it on, is a better question/discussion.

    • Jorge Steinbrenner says:

      If someone were to hand either of us the organization’s budget, I imagine our eyes would begin to do that spinny thing.

      • Eselquetodolosabe says:

        The “budget”. That’s where I get that unfounded feeling that the roster budget undoubtedly, is expansive, and that pennies are pinched in scouting, player-development, etc…,

        • Jorge Steinbrenner says:

          You have nothing to base that on.

          • Eselquetodolosabe says:

            Yup. Hence, “unfounded”. Though given the state of the system, one can postulate. Probably philosophical view-points, and allotment of budget resources as responsible for the current state of the system.

            • Havok9120 says:

              I’m not sure why assuming the budget has that much impact on the minors makes sense when we know that budget has so little impact on performance in the majors.

              • Eselquetodolosabe says:

                Scouting; responsible for players added
                Development; instruction, facility, nutrition, strength & conditioning, etc..,

                That’s were money matters, provided you have the right people with the right philosophy, making decisions.

  11. PunkPitch says:

    The FO people seem to me to wring their hands that Selig and Co. Have it out for the Yanks. The attitude comes across passive aggressive. Let’s make a few tweaks to our strategy. For example, the rumors that Yankee brass has decided to blow by the Intl. Free Agents cap. So is the sleeping giant waking up? As far as I can tell, they are always reaching for straws. There is no long term game plank except to throw money at problems.

    • LitFig says:

      ” There is no long term game plank except to throw money at problems.”

      But the minute they don’t spend obscenely, a segment of the fan population loses their minds and calls Hal cheap. Then they write off the payroll as “It’s not my money”, only to act as if their money when the player doesn’t perform up to standard.

    • Havok9120 says:

      What FO people would those be? A segment of the fanbase does that, sure, but aside from the occasional “the luxury tax and revenue sharing are aimed at us” comment, I’m not sure that FO people have said such things.

  12. Fin says:

    I agree with what some others have said…It doesn’t appear to be a lack of talent in the system, but a lack of developing the talent that is the issue. Just getting players to AAA let alone MLB seems to have become a major issue. Murphy, Montero and Romaine are the only guys I can remember in years as position players actually making it to AAA that led me to think, yea this guy has a chance to be a ML regular. Is that the norm for teams? Have one prospect in AAA that has the chance to be a ML regular? I don’t know, but it wouldn’t seem to be the case.

    The team has been much better with pitching, as they have had options for the major league team in both starters and relievers. Maybe they should be looking at what the minor leagues pitching development people are doing that could help the position players people. I’m not saying the Yankees have been turning out aces but they have been turning out the Hughes, Novas, Phelps, Nunos, Warrens and some pretty good relievers which is a damn sight better than the position players situation.

    I don’t expect the Yankees to be turning out stars with where they pick in the draft and the limits with what they can do internationally now, but there is no reason they shouldn’t be turning out position players to help the team in much the same way they have been turning out pitching help. Low to mid level players that fill a couple roster spots and help the team win and keep the budget down, as well as provide capable players when there is an injury. There is a very good chance that there wont be one starter on the team next year that came through the Yankees system.

    • Jorge Steinbrenner says:

      Having more pitching prospects than position player prospects is something that’s been discussed since the latter part of the last decade. If anything, we’re starting to see the efforts of attempts to even that out in recent drafts.

      • Fin says:

        No idea where you came up with the Yankees have more pitching prospect, I would have to see some evidence to that. What’s undeniable is that they have had far more success in developing their pitching prospects.

        • Jorge Steinbrenner says:

          It was pretty widely discussed on here when the Yankees had the Big Three, plus guys like Alan Horne and such, that the system was far more weighted towards pitching prospects.

  13. After seeing what the Red Sox did with their minor league complex, I’m surprised the Yankees don’t do something similar.

    For reference:

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.