The ugliest unis in the game today…we report, you decide.
The baseball uniform is something of a curiosity. I think we can all agree that baseball did the world a favor by bringing us the baseball cap. But in what other sport are players required to wear a thick belt, tapered white stretch pants, a glorified pajama top, and stirrups?!
Nonetheless, some baseball uniforms are funnier-looking than others. For years, this has been especially true of expansion teams. However, with Tampa Bay’s announcement that they will be changing their uniforms, colors, and logo as well as their name (are they even still a baseball team?), they join the Diamondbacks as reformed expansion teams that have at last forgone the teal-and-purple days of yore. While Arizona returned to the playoffs this year in their new unis, which sported Sedona Red and Sonora Sand colorations, the Rays hope for similar magic with their new, water-and-sunshine themed garments:
According to the press release, “The two hues of blue suggest the deep blue waters and bright blue sky for which Florida is known. The elongated tail of the “R” further reinforces the water imagery.” A bright yellow sunburst emanating from the “R” will “invoke the magnificence of life in the Sunshine State.”
“Our new team name and new look express the vibrancy of our organization,” said Rays President Matt Silverman. “The Tampa Bay Rays will shine, on the field and in our community. We will be a great source of pride for our region.”
One ugly uni down, so many more to go. Which teams do not shine? Which uniforms do not express vibrancy? Which are not dressed in a manner that invokes the magnificence of life?
That, UmpBump readers, is for you to decide. The contendahs:
First, we’ll start with the last remaining expansion team to use purple: the Colorado Rockies. This fall, the nation got to see just how hideous their uniforms truly are:
It’s like they couldn’t decide on one concept (pinstripes? basic black? expansion team purple?) so they just randomly mashed them together. Pintripes! Piping! Purple pit-stain concealers! Sartorial ADHD!Plus, I just don’t think it looks quite right on a baseball uniform to have the number on the front. Come on, folks. This isn’t football.
The Toronto Blue Jays seem to think they are playing baseball in the future, with these space-age fonts. In addition, the color scheme is about as cheerful as a rainy day at a funeral parlor in Toronto. That is to say, not very.
Plus, there is just no way to jazz up a songbird and make it look intimidating, sleek, or otherwise “cool.” Thus, when going with a bird mascot, it’s best to just represent the bird literally and embrace the dorky Audobon Society-feel of it all.
The Texas Rangers have also undergone some uni changes in recent years. And while I’m not opposed to the idea of the vest uniform, in theory, I just feel like something here isn’t working:
The blue is too blue. There’s a number on the front of the vest, and the font of said number totally clashes with the font of the giant “T.” And worst of all, the team name appears nowhere on the ensemble, leaving the impression that this team (whoever they are) has been brought to you by the Letter T.
Finally, I have never liked the Marlins’ attire. Black looks good with some colors (such as orange…here’s lookin’ at you, Baltimore, Detroit!) but it just looks dated with paired with …seafoam? Plus, the ginormous, stylized swoosh on the jersey looks like something I would have thought was wicked awesome back at the Nashoba Brooks school for girls.
And if you’re going to do pinstripes, the rest of the uni has to be clean. Simple. Elegant. Not cluttered with numbers, piping, underlining, frontal uniform numbers, and a freakin’ fish.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Hve you seen the free agents this year? The only good ones were the ones the Yankees resigned off of their own roster. Consider this year a year of transition for the 200 Million Dollar team. Next year, they lose about 80 Million in dead weight contracts & the free agent class is much better. Look for them to spend & spend freely on Texeira & Sabathia.
REPORT COMMENT
February 4th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
One thing I’ll be looking at this year: Joe Girardi. Is he going to be a Torre clone when it comes to bullpen management?
Also, the countdown to Cashman’s ouster has begun.
REPORT COMMENT
February 4th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
dana, I know the free agents this year weren’t that good, but the Yankees could easily have had Johan Santana. Hughes is a very good prospect, but I don’t think anyone is projecting him to be an ace. Plus, I can’t consider it a year of transition when they resigned so many old fogies at such high prices. They would have probably been better served by letting Mo walk and getting the compensation picks than signing him up for three more years. The Yankees have decent talent in their farm system, but it’s not better than what the Red Sox have. And to win the World Series, they need to be better than the Red Sox.
REPORT COMMENT
February 4th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
I think the reason the Yanks hung on to Mo is a) money is no object, b) there aren’t a whole lot of closers out there. So it’s better to overpay and have something, than to let him walk and have nothing.
Who were they going to sign? Gagne?
Never mind, that’s the pipe dream talking again.
REPORT COMMENT
February 4th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH the Yankees have all the money!!!!!!!!!!!
…that they’re sharing with the rest of the league.
REPORT COMMENT
February 4th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Pete, if you divide the luxury tax paid by the Yankees last season by the number of teams in MLB, it’s not even a million bucks per team. I’m sure the Marlins and the Royals find that a real difference-maker.
And, if you’ll note, I’m not bawling over the Yankees’ ridiculous payroll. For crying out loud, I’m a Red Sox fan. The Red Sox pay the tax too—though, I might add, the taxes they owe are but a fraction of what New York has had to pay (something like $13 million versus over $100 million). Both are both big market teams. Both have enthusiastic fans willing to shell out for their ballclubs. Both have their own cable stations bringing in revenue. And I can’t speak for the Yankees, but the Red Sox, at least, have developed an extremely efficient business model since John Henry and Larry Lucchino came to town. There ain’t no shame in spending what you earn. But at least the Red Sox have two World Series rings to show for their newfound profligacy. So does it upset me, as your comment seems to suggest, that the Yankees have been spending even *more* money on a team that can’t go the distance? Does it upset me that they had such a tepid hot-stove season despite their millions?
Quite the reverse.
REPORT COMMENT
February 5th, 2008 at 1:34 am
“Hughes is a very good prospect, but I don’t think anyone is projecting him to be an ace.”
Quite the reverse.
Lots of people regard Hughes as an ace-type.
He, Homer BAiley, and Jay Bruce are the big top three prospects, right?
REPORT COMMENT
February 5th, 2008 at 2:07 am
Sarah, I think Yankees Blography, which took the time to dissect your post FJM-style (they even used the same FJM snarkiness) had some good points about the relative ages of the Yankees and Red Sox:
I’m not sure that proves that the Yankees aren’t getting old fast. But it probably shows the Red Sox are too.
Also, I’m pretty sure a lot of people are projecting Phil Hughes to be an ace. Here’s what Roto Authority had to say about him last spring:
That’s high praise. And I don’t think Hughes did much to lower expectations during his brief MLB stint last season.
REPORT COMMENT
February 5th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Melky is the starting center fielder with Damon getting the nod at Left field. Cashman already confirmed that. DH will mostly be Matsui with Giambi takinghis over at 1B until inevitable injury that will occur sometime in May as it does every year. (Here’s the nit picky stuff)–Duncan has been playing most of his minor league career at 1B and Betemit is 27. Rivera’s contract was 3 years 45 million.
The 5 or 6 guys for first base are basically setting up to be platoon players and backups. Ensberg and Duncan hit well against lefties while Betemit is better from the left side against righties. I have no idea why Jason Lane is there except to be a AAA guy to fill a roster spot when Johnny Damon or Matsui gets injured.
Also, I thought the luxury tax was divided up to where teams with the lowest winning percentage receive the most money. I didn’t know it was divided up equally among all the teams.
REPORT COMMENT
February 5th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Tripp, those are good points. I knew Mo was getting $45 million. I probably just rearranged the crap out of that paragraph until suddenly, Posada and Mariano were making the same exact amount of money. I will fix that. Plus, I had missed that about Melky taking over in CF. I’m not sure that’s for the best. His offense and defense are both comparable to Coco Crisp’s, but Melky doesn’t have as much speed or base-stealing ability. So, I question that call. However, I have no doubt that Melky would get the call anyway, since Damon doesn’t have the legs or the arm for center anymore, and, as you’ve pointed out, Matsui and Giambi are not as durable as they once were. Matsui still played in a heckuva lot of games last year, but he seemed to be battling injury the whole time (same with Damon). Considering that they aren’t, in fact, much older than the Boston team, the Yankees sure do look like a bunch of arthritic old men sometimes. And you’re right about the luxury tax. It does go to the smaller teams, and one day, when I have nothing better to do, I will manage the Google skills that will allow me to find which teams get it and how much. A few quick and dirty searches on this over the past couple days produced nothing useful, so I just averaged it out. Plus, there’s also revenue sharing, which is a whole different kettle of fish. Plus, there’s the fact that the cheapo teams don’t always spend that money as it’s supposed to be spent (on player salaries). But that’s a different debate, and one I am not even remotely equipped to get into right now. But yes, these are all good points.
Unfortunately, our friends Brian and Coley have not made such good points. First, I’m not sure why Brian feels that the best way to criticize what I wrote about the Yankees is to bring up the Red Sox. I wasn’t writing about the Red Sox in this post. But since others have now brought it up, I’ll just point out that the Red Sox managed to win the World Series last season, while the Yankees didn’t make it through the ALDS. The Red Sox also held first place for almost the entire season. That means, to me, that the pressure is on New York, not Boston, to shake things up and make something happen. But this year, the Yankees mostly stood pat.
Now, as for the prospects, this may be hairsplitting, to me there is a difference between saying a pitching prospect projects to a “dominating frontline starter” (as BP said of Chamberlain) and saying he “is one of the few pitching prospects around with true ace potential” (which is what they said of Buccholz). BP also said of Clay’s weaknesses that “anything here is nitpicking” but that he could be better about mixing his many pitches. Joba? They listed injury history, conditioning, the number and quality of his pitches, and his ability to keep his emotions in check on the mound. That’s enough of a difference for me to think that Joba, while he is extremely good, is not *quite* of the same caliber as Clay. Now, as for where Hughes fits in, the Yankees dangled Hughes in the Santana talks. They said Joba was off-limits. To me, that pretty clearly states what they think of the upside of each guy.
I know a lot of people have said the Yankees made the right move my holding onto their prospects and not getting Santana, but I’m not convinced. The Yankees have a lot, a LOT, of great pitching prospects in their system. You’d think they could afford to deal some of them, because you know there ain’t room for all of them in the Bronx.
As for my grading, which Brian also rips in his post, I decided to award my grades based on three main criteria: the team’s goal, the team’s ability to progress toward that goal, and the team’s actual progress toward that goal. The Yankees goal is to get to the World Series and win it—every year. In New York, there is no patience for “rebuilding.” That’s a tall order, but the Yankees do have the ability to make progress toward it, largely because they have more money than anyone, largely because they live in a huge media market and can exploit revenue that, say, the Kansas City Royals can’t. But New York’s progress this offseason could be measured with a ruler an inch long. Now, they will no doubt do much better next offseason, when, it’s true, they will be able to dump some salary and the free agent pool will be better. And next year, if that is the case, I will be happy to give the Yankees organization an A for their scorchingly hot offseason action. But this year, because they did nothing but re-sign a bunch of old farts and pray that their prospects can handle a massively increased work load, I gave them a C. I’m old school. I don’t believe in grade inflation. C is average. C is mediocre. And for the Yankees, this was just an average, mediocre offseason.
REPORT COMMENT
February 5th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Sarah, you say that I didn’t make good points, but then you write four long paragraphs and didn’t address either one of my points!
All I said was that the Red Sox are just as old as the Yankees (they are!) and that Phil Hughes is projected to be an ace (he is!). Do you disagree w/ either of these assertions?
REPORT COMMENT
February 5th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Also, Sarah, while it’s true to an extent that the Yankees are chasing the Sox and not the other way around, let’s not overstate the gap between the two teams. The Red Sox won the AL East last season, but only by two games. And it’s true that the Red Sox faired better in the playoffs, but the postseason is such a small sample size. I don’t want to say it’s a crapshoot, but it’s definitely not always the case that the best team wins (see: 2005 Cardinals).
Regarding the Yankees’ weaknesses, MLB Trade Rumors says Matsui or Damon (but probably Matsui) could get a chance to play first base this season. This would open up an outfield spot for Melky Cabrera, suring up the team’s outfield defense and giving the Yanks a legit slugger at first.
All of a sudden you’re looking at a team where the guy in the starting lineup w/ the lowest OBP is Cabrera, at .340. That’s fantastic. You’re also looking at a team with veterans (Petitte and Wang) and young arms (Phil Hughes and Ian Kennedy), a dominant set-up man (Joba) and a top of the line closer (Rivera).
I’m not sure the Yankees needed to do much in the offseason besides fight the urge to trade away their stellar prospects. And they did that. Will that be enough to help them make up the two-game difference between them and the Yankees? I don’t know. That’s why they play the games. But I think they’ve made it interesting just by reshuffling the deck.
REPORT COMMENT
February 5th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Coley, don’t be a putz. I did address your question about Hughes. Go back and read it again. Plus, Joba is a set-up man now? Says who? Every single thing I’ve read has said no way, no how, the Yankees are DEFINITELY keeping him as a starter. Plus, the Red Sox and Yankees are not that different in age, it’s true, but, as I also noted above, it’s like the Yankees are in dog years or something. Last year, everyone seemed hurt. Matsui is a legit slugger and two years younger than Boston’s left fielder, Manny Ramirez, but even Manny’s crap year was still better than the year Matsui had. I mean, Carl Pavano is only 32 but he has pitched the past several years like a man who is 42. Would you rather have Schilling at 41 or Mussina at 39? Pettitte is just 35, but nearly RETIRED this winter for crying out loud. Meanwhile, Tim Wakefield continues to eat up innings at the tender age of 41 (and at a rock bottom price, I might add). Maybe what the Yankees need, then, is to overhaul their training staff. The Yankee lineup is about 1.2 years older than the Red Sox lineup. The median and the mode are both 33 for NY, 32 for Boston. No, it’s not a big difference. But the Yankees *are* older, and, more importantly, already struggled plenty with nagging injuries last year, when their lineup was a year younger than they will be this season. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. The Yankees have not had postseason success with this roster, and it’s a roster that only gets older every year. Why should they expect success with it this time around?
REPORT COMMENT
February 5th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Sarah is right in that injuries have been killing the Yankees. After the 5th hamstring pull last year the Yanks canned their head trainer. He was an idiot anyways. Made running optional in Spring Training, and then the first month of the season saw Damon, Matsui, Mussina, and Wang go down with hamstring issues.
They didn’t do much to improve the team this year, but the addition of Hughes, Chamberlain, and Kennedy should provide better pitching then the stream of 5th starters they tried to throw out their last year.
Also, look to next offseason for some serious changes to the Yankees. The contracts of Giambi, Abreu, Mussina, Farnsworth, Pavano, and Pettitte will all be over with. Pettitte I assume would be the only one to resign.
REPORT COMMENT
February 5th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
I agree that Hughes, Chamberlain, and Kennedy are improvements over what the Yankees had for starting pitchers last season, but they haven’t had a very heavy workload thus far, in terms of innings pitched, and they haven’t had to pitch from April through October before. I would be concerned about relying on them to go late into games, take their regular turn in the rotation, and stay strong down the stretch. I know all prospects must fledge the nest at some point, and these guys are ready to fly, but—to extend the metaphor into the realm of the ludicrous—are they ready to fly across the Pacific Ocean without even stopping at Guam? I think the Yankees will have to be careful with them. But will the Yankees be able to do that once the playoff race starts to heat up in August? Would they really be willing to shut any of them down before they *had* to? I’m doubtful. Remember last year, when they kept saying, “No, we’re not gonna call up Hughes, he’s not ready,” only to then panic and call up Hughes before he was ready?
PS—Tripp, I missed that story about New York’s trainer. Running, optional?!? WTF?
REPORT COMMENT
February 5th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Sarah, you said NOBODY was projecting Hughes to be an ace. I demonstrated that somebody was (Roto Authority and Baseball America, for starters). Stating that the Yankees reportedly discussed trading Hughes for the best pitcher in the game doesn’t disprove that lots of people think he’ll be an ace. Moreover, the fact that the Yankees didn’t trade Hughes for Santana I think demonstrates that they anticipate he’ll be an elite starter.
Also, Joba might be a set-up man. At least at first.
Other points:
Andy Petitte thought about retiring, so he must be washed up? He had a 4.05 ERA last year and a 2:1 K/BB ratio. Tim Wakefield, who eats up innings at low cost, had a higher ERA and his K:BB ratio wasn’t as good. Number of innings Wakefield pitched in 2006 and 2007: 329. Number of innings Petitte threw over the same period: 429. Petitte has plenty left in his arm.
Also, you say it seemed everyone on the Yankees was hurt last season. But regardless of how it seemed, the Yankees managed to score 80 more runs than the Sox. So the offense is fine.
The Yankees injury problems last season were mostly on the pitching side. Thanks to injuries, the Yankees became the first team in baseball history to employ seven rookie starters through their first 42 games. That has to change this season. And I think it will — mostly because the Yankees have already taken your suggestion and overhauled their training staff.
REPORT COMMENT
February 5th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Coley, RotoAuthority said he’d be “a stud” and they were just quoting Baseball America—plus, that article was written before he’d ever pitched one day in the majors. I feel like I’m talking to a brick wall today, but I’ll try one more time: Hughes has the stuff to be a frontline starter, but he is not projected to be an ace. Perhaps you’re just not understanding how I’m using that term. Every team does not have an ace; an “ace” is not just the guy who happens to start first. Maybe Hughes will one day become a true ace—but he needs to expand his repertoire of pitches and, more importantly, find a way to stay healthy. If his health and mechanics continue to be an issue, then you’ll continue to see some inconsistency with his velocity and control. That’s why I think that’s why you’re seeing some reticence now about throwing the A-word around.
The fact that the Yankees would move Hughes but not Chamberlain says, to me, that they think Chamberlain has a higher ceiling. And even Chamberlain is not projected to be a true ace, though he is, again, projected to be “a frontline starter.” Or, perhaps “a stud.” Again, because of the health reasons and because he doesn’t have as many pitches in his arsenal (at least right now). For what it’s worth, Tom Verducci has singled out Ian Kennedy as the most-likely-to-be-overworked young pitcher this year, and thus the most likely to go down with an injury.
I know I brought up the Pettitte-Wakefield comparison, but I did it to address the point about age. To re-direct it as you are trying to do is to miss the point. You’re now comparing the Yankees’ #2 with Boston’s #5. The point is that Wakefield is a better value than Pettitte, even though he’s six years older. In fact, with just the difference between Wake’s salary and Andy’s, you could go out and get Curt Schilling for a year.
Your point about offense: see the post, in which I said that doubtless the Yankees would mash their way back to the postseason. But, as I also pointed out, it’s pitching and defense—and health—that win championships.
To your point about their training staff, Tripp already made that point, and made it rather well.
REPORT COMMENT
February 5th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05032007/sports/yankees/cursed_aid_yankees_george_king.htm
“Since Miller’s program de-emphasized running in spring training, didn’t include free weights and he didn’t have much experience dealing with major-league egos, many blamed hamstring injuries suffered by Chien-Ming Wang, Hideki Matsui, Mike Mussina and Hughes on Miller. Andy Pettitte also missed time in spring training due to back spasms suffered while lifting weights. “
REPORT COMMENT
February 5th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-rise-of-philip-hughes/
“Let me repeat: This combination of power and command has the potential to underpin a Hall-of-Fame career. Many pitchers have the command; many pitchers have the power. But Hughes has both, and he is just 21 years old. If, and this is a big if for young pitchers, he can stay healthy, he should be established in the rotation by 2008 and the staff ace by 2009.”
REPORT COMMENT
February 5th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Brian, here’s another selective quote from the same article:
“While at first it looks like he firms up the front side pretty well, I slowed it down and saw that it seems like he opens up a little too early. I think he pulls his front shoulder out of the way, which leads to…..Let me explain, as soon as I saw that, I said “shoulder injury” in my head. I knew nothing about Hughes injury troubles, but after I saw that, I Googled “Phil Hughes shoulder injury,” and well there ya go. I think I would worry about his durability. Unless he gets that front shoulder under control, I think shoulder injuries will haunt him throughout his career.”
Yes, our selective quotes from an article written back in July have definitely proven something. Now, if only we knew what it was…
REPORT COMMENT
February 5th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Mine wasn’t a selective quote. It was the conclusion. I think that has more credence than the one negative thing that you picked out in an article that lauds him and compares him to Kazmir and Santana.
Also, for future reference, what is the acceptable half-life of an article that completely calls you on your bullshit?
REPORT COMMENT
February 5th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Brian, first, I don’t understand why you are going to the mat to defend this New York’s offseason. Do you really think the Yankees had such a great hot-stove season? Or are you just being a contrarian ass?
Second, what article “completely calls me on my bullshit”? What bullshit? I’m concerned about Hughes’ ability to stand up to the rigors of a full season in the majors. That’s a judgment call. Plus, it seems to me that a ton of people were hyping him last spring and early summer, but that they’ve now backed off, partly because of what happened when he actually got to the majors. And it seems to me that while the Yankees do highly value him, they do not value him as much as Joba, or as much as the Red Sox value Clay Buchholz. That’s not bullshit. That’s an observation based on evidence.
Are you really pinning your World Series hopes on a 21-year old kid who shouldn’t even flirt with 200 innings this year?
REPORT COMMENT
February 5th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
We can argue all day about whether or not Hughes is a “stud” or an “ace”. But the more relevant point, I think, is that the Yankees have maintained the core of a team that scored the most runs in baseball last year. Moreover, they’re getting ready to add Hughes, who scouts compare favorably to Pedro, Johan and Kazmir. They’re also adding Joba, who Keith Law just named the number three prospect in baseball, saying, “Best known to big league fans as a dominant setup guy, Chamberlain is best cast as a four-pitch starter who projects as a true No. 1 starter.” And Ian Kennedy, who is projected by Law to be a 3 or 4 starter, is on his way as well.
Maybe it’s true that the Yankees will fall just short again this year. But I think hanging on to Hughes and Chamberlain was clearly the right move and will benefit the team in the long run.
REPORT COMMENT
February 5th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
A valid point, Coley. But if “the long run” is what New York is interested in, why give out those contracts to Posada and Rivera? It’s like, on the one hand, New York is saying “No, we need to win now, we’ll keep our aging veterans at any cost,” but on the other hand, they’re saying, “No, we can’t win now, we’ll just bide our time until 2009…or 2010. Or even 2011.” It just seems a bit incoherent to me.
REPORT COMMENT
February 5th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
“Brian, first, I don’t understand why you are going to the mat to defend this New York’s offseason. Do you really think the Yankees had such a great hot-stove season? Or are you just being a contrarian ass?”
I don’t understand why those are mutually exclusive.
The loss of any of these four would be detrimental to the ‘08 season: Posada, Rodriguez, Pettite, Rivera.
There is no replacing those guys on the open market and demand is such that they’d have to pay out the nose.
Abreu was reupped and that was huge too. He had an amazing season after a slow start.
“Second, what article “completely calls me on my bullshitâ€? What bullshit? I’m concerned about Hughes’ ability to stand up to the rigors of a full season in the majors.”
Is this a pattern with you? When you get called out, you change your argument slightly to fit the new criteria?
You started out with the stupidest semantic argument between studs, dominating frontline starters, and true aces. There is no difference. Those are just meaningless labels. I’d actually say that “dominating frontline starter” is a great definition of ace.
Then when I show you that someone has, infact, labeled Hughes an “ace.” You change your argument to “I’m concerned about Hughes’ ability to stand up to the rigors of a full season in the majors.” which, I might be wrong, but I don’t even think you mentioned that before. So please, state an argument and stick with it even if you’re proven wrong.
“Plus, it seems to me that a ton of people were hyping him last spring and early summer, but that they’ve now backed off, partly because of what happened when he actually got to the majors.”
Yes, all those people were hyping him but being careful not to call him an ace. Because, although he’s one of the top two or three pitching prospects in the world, that doesn’t mean he’ll be an ace.
Prove to me that they stopped hyping Phil Hughes. You can’t. It’s nonsense and you’re pulling stuff out of your ass. That article I linked was posted after he hurt himself.
Has he done anything to negate what the scouts have said? Pull his hamstring?
“And it seems to me that while the Yankees do highly value him, they do not value him as much as Joba, or as much as the Red Sox value Clay Buchholz. That’s not bullshit. That’s an observation based on evidence.”
How scientific. What does this have to do with anything? What point are you trying to make? Joba and Buchholz are not offered as trades so they must be better than Hughes? I honestly don’t get this.
“Are you really pinning your World Series hopes on a 21-year old kid who shouldn’t even flirt with 200 innings this year?”
I’m pinning multiple world series hopes on the Yankees with this amazingly talented kid in a very talented rotation.
Now please tweak whatever you claim your argument to be.
REPORT COMMENT
February 5th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
“A valid point, Coley. But if “the long run†is what New York is interested in, why give out those contracts to Posada and Rivera? It’s like, on the one hand, New York is saying “No, we need to win now, we’ll keep our aging veterans at any cost,†but on the other hand, they’re saying, “No, we can’t win now, we’ll just bide our time until 2009…or 2010. Or even 2011.†It just seems a bit incoherent to me.”
It’s not really an either/or situation. You can win now AND prepare for the future.
This rotation can get the Yankees into the playoffs and will set them up with a sweet, cost-controlled, home-grown rotation for years to come.
REPORT COMMENT
February 5th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
People should take into consideration that prospects regardless of who they are compared to aren’t proven big leaguers. Would the Yankees have had a better chance to win the World Series this season if they had traded for Santana? I say absolutely yes, Phil Hughes may one day win 2 Cy Youngs but he hasn’t yet. Will Hughes give the Yankees what Beckett will give the Red Sox? Johan Santana probably could have. It seems the Yankees are relying on unproven young pitchers and aging injury prone veterans. There are a lot of ifs and buts in their formula to win this season and a team with their resources could have done better.
I don’t believe Posada or Rivera will live up to the length of these contracts but the Yankees are given a pass because they can afford to overpay. When it is stated that,the Yankess are going to have a cost-controlled rotation for years to come, you are considering it a given that unproven commodities will develop and stay healthy. I would also offer up that Girardi was criticized highly for “over-pitching,” young pitchers on the Marlins staff. Don’t expect him to show restraint in using his young arms.
I don’t think the Yankees moves have poised them to win their division and I would say that the Indians and Tigers have both made better off season moves to position either of them to be the favorite for the wild card. The Yankees received a grade of C which should mean average. It’s strictly opinion but I can’t see where they made any off season moves that could be considered above average. I also don’t see how their off season moves give them a better chance of winning the World Series than they had last season. Also I might add that I’m not even a Red Sox fan.
REPORT COMMENT
February 5th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
“Would the Yankees have had a better chance to win the World Series this season if they had traded for Santana? I say absolutely yes, Phil Hughes may one day win 2 Cy Youngs but he hasn’t yet.”
So it’s never correct to keep your prospects?
“Absolutely yes”? There are definite caveats as far as Santana goes. Huge decline late in the season. HR rate went up. Wouldn’t throw his slider.
It’s debatable which is the smarter move. Certainly no absolutes.
Hughes is arguably the first or second most promising prospect in baseball. Proven or not, that means something.
The Yankees retained four players this offseason who are IRREPLACEABLE on the open market. There’s your A right there.
I also see the Yankees having improved their starting rotation vastly while the Red Sox have not changed their team in the least.
The Yankees had a slow start and ended up only 2 games back. So how exactly are they far outpaced?
As far as Girardi’s propensity for over-pitching youngsters: Last I heard, plans for Hughes/Chamberlain/Kennedy were being drawn up by front office.
You may not be a Red Sox fan but you oversimplify like one.
REPORT COMMENT
February 5th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
If the Yankees have 3 can’t miss pitching prospects, they can’t afford to sacrifice 1 for the best pitcher in baseball? You actually think keeping Hughes gives them a better chance of winning the 08 World Series than acquiring Santana? Or do you not care if the Yankees win the World Series this season? The only championship they can win is the one directly in front of them. I stated, “I say, absolutely yes,” that is presented as my opinion and your parsing of it is oversimplification on your behalf. I backed up my opinion by adding the concrete fact of Santana being a 2 time Cy Young winner unlike your beloved unproven propect. You seem to emphasize Santana as being possibly injured but disregard estimates of Hughes’ probable injury issues, that seems inconsistent. Hughes being a highly thought of prospect is important because it gives him value on the trade market but it does not assure his actual success. That is why I believe in my simplistic opinion that Santana would have been an upgrade. I can’t believe that you think Mariano Rivera and Andy Pettitte are “irreplaceable.” These guys are not the same pitchers that they were 5 years ago. I noticed that you also didn’t address the issue of the Yankees having to compete with Detroit and Cleveland for the wild card I guess in Yankeeland you’ve got the Red Sox beaten hands down. Good luck with that. The front office can draw up whatever plans they like but if you think Girardi isn’t going to make the calls in the dugout then you are sadly mistaken and don’t know much about him. If you think anyone is going to tell him how to run his ball club he has proven in the past that no one including the owner tells him what to do once the game is on. His in-game strategy is his own don’t expect him to change that.
REPORT COMMENT
February 5th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
You write like your own Cliff Notes. This will be fun. I’m going to try to break this down.
“If the Yankees have 3 can’t miss pitching prospects, they can’t afford to sacrifice 1 for the best pitcher in baseball?”
Never said they can’t miss. In fact, there’s no such thing as a can’t miss prospect. That’s why they’re called prospects.
Because that one that they’d have to sacrifice is Phil Hughes. He can possibly become a Santana-caliber pitcher himself and it won’t cost 20M/year.
“You actually think keeping Hughes gives them a better chance of winning the 08 World Series than acquiring Santana?”
Never said that.
“Or do you not care if the Yankees win the World Series this season?”
Oh, I totally care. But I also think that we can keep Phil Hughes AND go to the Fall Classic.
“The only championship they can win is the one directly in front of them.”
I mean… that’s not true. They can win in 2009. See.
“I stated, “I say, absolutely yes,†that is presented as my opinion and your parsing of it is oversimplification on your behalf.”
Well… no, not really. Absolutely yes means that there is no chance that Hughes will outperform Santana in the coming season. What if Santana wanes like he was at the end of the ‘07 season? It’s a legit concern.
Hughes might get hurt too. But a) we sacrificed nothing to get him, and b) he won’t cost 20M
The risk is debatable but it’s definitely there. Now, which answer seems more simplistic to you?
“I backed up my opinion by adding the concrete fact of Santana being a 2 time Cy Young winner unlike your beloved unproven propect [sic].”
Phil Hughes hasn’t played a full season yet and thus hasn’t had a chance to win one. I know Santana’s good. I don’t know if you’re actually proud for uncovering that information of if you’re pandering but neither is necessary.
“You seem to emphasize Santana as being possibly injured but disregard estimates of Hughes’ probable injury issues, that seems inconsistent.”
I didn’t emphasize it. I just kinda said it.
Hughes has some injury concerns. He also has one of the most significant upsides amongst today’s prospects. There are risks to both sides but I’d rather stick with the homegrown talent who, if he pans out which experts say he will, can provide us with a cheap ace for years to come.
“Hughes being a highly thought of prospect is important because it gives him value on the trade market but it does not assure his actual success.”
And Santana being a great pitcher on the Twins does not assure that he will be as good in Yankee Stadium.
Again, it’s a risk. There are no absolutes but I like sticking with Hughes.
I don’t like paying pitchers for how well they pitched on other teams. This is the smarter move.
“I can’t believe that you think Mariano Rivera and Andy Pettitte are “irreplaceable.†These guys are not the same pitchers that they were 5 years ago.”
Okay. Put your money where your mouth is. How do you replace them? Find me a LHP and a closer in the 2007 market.
“I noticed that you also didn’t address the issue of the Yankees having to compete with Detroit and Cleveland for the wild card I guess in Yankeeland you’ve got the Red Sox beaten hands down.”
I didn’t address it because there’s nothing to address. In order to make it to the playoffs, whether it be by winning division or wild card, you have to win lots of games. I think the Yankees will win lots of games. Are there offseason moves that the Yankees could have made to specifically help them in the wildcard? What are you getting at here?
“Good luck with that.”
Thank you.
“The front office can draw up whatever plans they like but if you think Girardi isn’t going to make the calls in the dugout then you are sadly mistaken and don’t know much about him. If you think anyone is going to tell him how to run his ball club he has proven in the past that no one including the owner tells him what to do once the game is on. His in-game strategy is his own don’t expect him to change that.”
What’s he going to do? Pitch Hughes twice in one game?
Joe Girardi already stated that protecting his young pitchers physically was one of his main priorities as a manager. But, then again, you know the true Girardi.
REPORT COMMENT
February 5th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
I’m obviously incapable of articulating my thoughts in an advanced enough fashion for you to comprehend. Thanks for explaining it to me so I could understand, stay classy Brian.
REPORT COMMENT
February 5th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Don’t be so hard on yourself. You did an average job. I give you a C.
Nanoo-nanoo, Melissa. (My references are a bit dated, sorry.)
REPORT COMMENT
February 6th, 2008 at 12:42 am
“Okay. Put your money where your mouth is. How do you replace them? Find me a LHP and a closer in the 2007 market.”
Erik Bedard was available for the taking, he wouldn’t have cost the Yanks as many prospects as Santana, and a contract extension would have been much cheaper. As for the closer, maybe they had to re-sign Mo, if they didn’t want Joba to be their closer. But they’re overpaying him, and they signed him to a too-long deal.
I totally had forgotten they re-upped Abreu. That just makes me feel better about my initial assessment of their offseason. Abreu makes waaaay too much money. It’s that sort of cavalier throwing about of funds that just seems lazy to me.
“I also see the Yankees having improved their starting rotation vastly while the Red Sox have not changed their team in the least.”
The Yankees had a lot of improving to do; the Red Sox did not. Thus, not only was it more incumbent on the Yankees to improve, it was actually much easier for them to do so! Anything would have to be much better than what they had after Wang and Pettitte last year.
And the second part of the above statement isn’t even true. The Red Sox have actually added a young starting pitching prospect valued even more highly than Hughes or Chamberlain by many scouts. They’ve also moved another five-star prospect to the starting lineup. And they let go of Eric Gagne. Let’s not forget that. His absence from the roster will have a massive cleansing effect on the entire bullpen. That man is just unclean.
REPORT COMMENT
February 6th, 2008 at 4:37 am
They would have to empty the farm system to get Bedard in-division. Or maybe he was there “for the taking” and you’re not just making shit up.
Keeping Joba as a starter is essential.
Part of overpaying Mo, I’m guessing, was for past service. Plus, who cares? If it works out for four years, that’s awesome. If not, it’s just money.
You forgot about Abreu? But it seemed so well researched.
If Abreu is paid too much (so what?) who do you fill in at RF. Or, for that matter, replace his OBP?
It’s supply and demand. Smart resigning.
Plus, you’re the pot accusing the kettle of overpaying for a RF.
Improvement was so easy that we instantly sprouted three young phenoms. Easy!
Wang was a Cy Young contender last year and Pettite was pretty awesome.
The Yankees finished with, what, 94 wins? I’d say it’s pretty hard to improve upon.
Show me a list where Buchholz ranks higher than Hughes.
Right after the BP Top 100 Prospect list came out Kevin Goldstein said he would rank Hughes just under Jay Bruce (1) and “way above” Buchholz (2).
Take a look at the Ellsbury projections and then tell me how much of an improvement that will be.
If the Red Sox get bonus credit for letting Gagne go then the Yankees get credit for never trading for him in the first place. You can’t reward them for a mid-season mistake.
To recap: the Red Sox didn’t resign Gagne, MIGHT add Ellsbury, and added a sixth starter with an innings cap.
I don’t even recognize them anymore.
These teams were two games apart at the end of the season so don’t act like it’s David and Goliath.
REPORT COMMENT
February 6th, 2008 at 6:51 am
I just want to pipe in on some reasons why Posada and Rivera were resigned.
First off, there wasn’t anyone in the farm system to replace them and there wasn’t much on the free agent market. I think the Red Sox are trying to extend Veritek’s(sp) contract for the same reasons. Secondly, I think you can totally rebuild and compete at the same time and we’ll see that next year. Posada won’t be as good as he was last year, but he will surely be one of the top offensive catchers. In two years he will move over to the DH spot and mentor one of the young catchers the Yanks have in the minors at the moment–if the pan out.
The Yankees bullpen is young. So far Cashman has taken all the pitching he can get his hands on and is going to see what works. There are several relievers who will be up from the minors in the next year or two who are projected as closer material. Who better to learn from then Rivera? I think he gave Papelbon some pretty good advice a few years back. Yes Rivera won’t be lights out and earning his money, but by the end of his contract I hope he won’t be the full time closer. I hope the Yanks have a few options to take his place. If Joba needs to move to the bullpen to fill that spot then fine. (Obviously, the Yanks pay their closers pretty well too) I’m all for him starting the season in the rotation and then finishing it in the bullpen for the stretch run this year if needed.
This is all part of Cashman’s new plan. He wants to use the old guys to mentor the young guys and most the young guys to be from the farm system. That’s what happened in 96 and that’s what Cashman wants to see again.
Now if Hank, the Tigers, and the Indians screws up the master plan and forces the Yanks to trade the farm for stars then that blows.
REPORT COMMENT
February 6th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Tripp, I agree with you on Posada. I think if there was one veteran the Yankees had to re-sign, it was him. And like the Yankees, the Red Sox may have to throw an extra year at their veteran catcher to make that happen (on the one hand, Varitek is a year younger than Posada; but on the other, Posada still has offensive value, while Tek does not; but on the third hand [?!] Varitek will not be paid Posada money).
REPORT COMMENT
February 6th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Brian, your endless ad hominem attacks and pointless snarkiness are growing wearisome. I know you think you are being cool with the numerous attempts at FJM-style point by point breakdowns of everyone who dares to question your opinions, but it would probably be better if you just stated your own opinion concisely and clearly. You are not Ken Tremendous. I mean, I have to say, Melissa made some really strong arguments and you responded like she was some sort of moron. Your opinions are welcome here, but a bit more decorum would be nice.
REPORT COMMENT
February 6th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Sarah, I don’t think Bedard is coming cheaper than Santana. Quite the opposite. Have you seen what the Mariners are reportedly giving up? (Adam Jones, a relief pitcher and three top pitching prospects). Jones is the team’s best prospect, by far. The Mets, on the other hand, did not give up their best prospect. The reason for this is that Bedard doesn’t become an unrestricted free agent for a couple of years.
REPORT COMMENT
February 6th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Nick, your post actually made my computer make a farty noise. I don’t know how it did that but I am impressed.
REPORT COMMENT
February 6th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Coley, you are right that the Mariners are paying a high price in prospects for Bedard. But he will not command a 7-year contract at $20 million per, either. So whether he is “cheaper” than Santana depends on what you mean by “cheap.” Plus, the Yankees have more resources than the Mariners do, so you have to take that into consideration as well. What is expensive for the Mariners may not seem as expensive from the viewpoint of the Yankees.
And the Twins ended up getting a bit screwed in who they were able to get for Santana. They really should have gotten more, but they ended up with only one suitor, and so could not.
REPORT COMMENT
February 6th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
I actually think that Bedard will command $20 million for at least five if the Mariners were to resign him. The M’s are giving up Jones. They better not lose Bedard to free agency in two years time. Which means, of course, that Bedard has all the leverage in the world during the negotiations
REPORT COMMENT
February 6th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
I think you’re right, Paul. Of course, the Mariners could make the trade contingent on reaching an extension w/ Bedard, much the way the Mets did with Santana.
REPORT COMMENT
February 6th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Posada and Rivera should not be resigned to multi-year deals because they can “mentor” young players. I understand that they really had no alternative but to resign Posada but this will not look like a good contract in years 3 and 4. The top 2 closers in the National League both changed teams this season. Francisco Cordero was a free agent and Jose Valverde was traded. Cordero’s ERA was 2.98 with 44 saves in 51 opportunities with 86 strike outs and 18 walks. Valverde’s numbers were even more impressive, he had a 2.66 ERA with 47 saves in 54 opportunities with 78 SO and 26 BB. Cordero is 5 years younger than Rivera and Valverde is only 28, either player would seem to have been a better option than resigning Rivera to a multi-year deal. The Yankees upgraded a sub-standard bullpen by acquiring LaTroy Hawkins, I wouldn’t call that an upgrade. Brian Cashman has said that Rivera, Hawkins and Kyle Farnsworth are the only relievers that are set for the club going into spring training. It is possible that young pitchers can step in and fill that void but it remains to be seen. I also can’t understand why Hank Steinbrenner took the Yankees out of the bidding for Santana as early as he did. The Mets did not give up any top tier prospects to get him which leaves me wondering if the Yankees couldn’t have made a better offer. If the Mets didn’t give up a player that is projected to be as good as Hughes then why does everyone assume the Yankees would have had to give him up?
REPORT COMMENT
February 6th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Melissa, I too was baffled as to why the Yankees pulled out of the Santana talks so quickly. Frankly, it seemed to me like typical Steinbrennerian pride. Obviously, the Twins should have felt flattered by Cashman’s initial offer, and Santana should have needed to change his shorts after hearing the Yankees were interested in him.
I think it was a poor attempt to gain control over a negotiation by brute force instead of by subtle manipulation. Of course, he had already tried the same thing with the A-Rod talks. Maybe he saw that as a success with the coercive method, and decided to try it again.
REPORT COMMENT
February 6th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
And @ Paul, the Red Sox also gave up a lot to get Josh Beckett, and he accepted a deal for $10 million per.
REPORT COMMENT
February 6th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Obviously, Beckett’s contract seems like a total bargain now. But with Bedard, it’s a different situation. Bedard has proved himself already as an ace in the AL East. Beckett now may be considered the better pitcher, but his reputation wasn’t stellar when he signed his contract. Remember, he had an ERA over 4.50 when he signed that deal. Bedard is coming off a great year (at least when he was healthy). Plus, we’re now in the Post-Zito era. Like it or not, that deal set the market for starting pitchers. And Johan’s deal is now the ceiling. So Bedard is going to get somewhere in between those guys.
REPORT COMMENT
February 7th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Dang, it’s just ace-ace-ace with you guys. All aces, all the time. Keep it in your pants! Beckett had been a World Series MVP by the time the Sox acquired him. Santana and Zito had both already won Cy Youngs when they got their deals. Bedard hasn’t. Maybe now that he won’t be playing with a shitty team, he will, but we will have to wait and see. You guys are all ready to crown everyone future Pedros at the drop of a hat! Let’s just induct Bedard and Hughes into the Hall of Fame right now and save ourselves the trouble of doing it later. Yeesh. I could see Bedard making at most $15 million per, but I don’t think he’ll get Zito or Santana offers with just two solid seasons under his belt. Bedard has to decide whether he wants to try and get some kind of money locked in now, or whether he wants to pitch out his current contract and count on having more years like the one he just had to get a Santana-esque payday. Of course, many GMs aren’t as smart as I am, so maybe they’ll just throw reason to the wind and sign him to a ridiculous contract right now anyway.
REPORT COMMENT
February 7th, 2008 at 12:37 am
Sarah, Beckett had already won a WS MVP when he got his deal. Santana and Zito already had Cy Youngs.
You know who else won WS MVPs? David Eckstein, Scott Brosius and Jose Rijo. A WS MVP is relatively meaningless. It just means you got hot for a couple of games. Jeff Weaver could have easily won the 2006 WS MVP. Ditto Jeff Suppan. But I wouldn’t want either of those guys leading my pitching staff.
If I’m a team with limited resources, I’d much rather throw money at a guy like Bedard, who has proven himself an elite pitcher and whose best years are ahead of him, than at a guy like Zito. I think there’s even a legitimate argument to be made that Bedard is a better investment than Santana.
FWIW, Bedard should have won the Cy Young last year. He didn’t, b/c the voters are far too concerned with wins and losses, numbers that tell very little about a pitcher’s performance.
REPORT COMMENT
February 7th, 2008 at 1:54 am
Wait, wait, Coley. I was following you there up until the end, when you said that Bedard should have won the Cy Young last year. On what planet should that have occured?
I agree that wins and losses tell little, but Eric Bedard was 28th in the American League in innings pitched last year, so when you don’t even pitch enough innings to give yourself a chance to get wins, then that counts against you. It’s true that Bedard put up some nice rate stats (K/9 and WHIP), but it is a LOT easier to post higher rates when you give your team 20 fewer innings than Josh Beckett and SIXTY fewer innings pitched than C.C. Sabathia. It’s also true that Bedard had a slightly better ERA than Beckett and Sabathia, but his defense-independent ERA was third in the league, behind the aforementioned Sabathia and Beckett.
I just don’t see how you can argue that Bedard was anywhere near as valuable to his team as Sabathia or Beckett (or even Haren or Carmona, for that matter). 28th in innings pitched is ridiculously low for a 14-team league. If we are going to only look at rate stats without any consideration of innings pitched, then we should have awarded the Cy Young to Detroit reliever Clay Rapada, who posted an astonishing 15.43 K/9 in 2.2 innings pitched last year, clearly demonstrating that for those 2 games, he was one of the greatest strikeout artists the game has ever known.
REPORT COMMENT
February 7th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Posada’s contract looks bad if he were to stay a catcher, but he’s not. He’ll be a DH in a few years. It’s a risk, sure, but as Sarah pointed out the Yankees have the money to sign ridiculous contracts. I mean it’s not as if he was showing signs of decline. The last two years he was one of the top catchers.
Now those two pitchers that changed hands in the NL A) Pitch in the NL, which is not the AL East and B) The last time Francisco Cordero pitched in the AL he lost his closer job. And wasn’t he the one who threw a chair into the crowd in Texas? Yea, that would go over great having him in Yankee stadium after a blown save.
Mentor was the wrong word to use I guess, but there was no one else out there worth getting. Also, after the first week in April Rivera’s ERA was 2.20 and he had his highest strikeout ratios in several years.
REPORT COMMENT
February 7th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Bedard is a good investment, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves. He has had two good years in the majors after two not very good years. Two years with an ERA of 4.00 or higher, and two years with an ERA of under 4.00. He’s never pitched 200 innings. His K/9 and K/BB are impressive, as Nick noted, but I don’t think he’s had the kind of success where you can pay him the kind of money you’d pay to a bonafide, Game 1-starting ace.
REPORT COMMENT
February 7th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Who are the aces in baseball? I can think of only two that I would want on the mound for a big game: Santana and Beckett. For the most part all I can come up with are guys that used to be aces:
Randy Johnson, Clemens, Schilling, Maddux, Smoltz, Pedro…
Have you guys done a post on this that you can direct me to?
REPORT COMMENT
February 7th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Nick, that’s a fair point. I got a little ahead of myself. It’s not so much that Bedard deserved the Cy Young last season. But he at least deserved to be in the conversation. And he wasn’t, because he played for the Orioles.
That said, Bedard led the AL in strikeouts last season (until he got hurt), a stat that becomes even more impressive when you consider he pitched fewer innings than guys like Beckett and Sabathia. Simply put, nobody was harder to hit than Bedard.
REPORT COMMENT
February 7th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Tripp, we haven’t done a post like this before that I can remember, but Nick and I were actually just talking about this earlier today. I think we should do one!
REPORT COMMENT
February 7th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Coley, Bedard was fifth in Cy Young voting, tied with Verlander, Santana, and Halladay. I’d say he was part of the convo.
REPORT COMMENT
February 7th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Sarah, you really have become a master of spin. Bedard got one third place vote, for a total of one point. Verlander, Santana and Halladay also got one third place vote a piece. Sabathia, by comparison, got 119 points. Beckett got 86 points. Lackey got 36 points. The Cy Young debate was between those three guys. Most voters never really considered Bedard.
REPORT COMMENT
February 7th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Well, the choice was pretty clear, Coley. CC was a beast, and Beckett a clear second. But Bedard, contrary to what you said, was actually a part of the conversation. Of all the pitchers who got any votes, only two were from losing teams: Bedard and Santana. Considering that Erik Bedard has hardly had the lofty career of Johan Santana, I think that’s pretty remarkable.
REPORT COMMENT
February 7th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
I don’t think one voter (who was probably a Baltimore sports writer) giving Bedard one third place vote means that Bedard was ever a part of the Cy Young conversation. I certainly wouldn’t describe Bedard receiving one third place vote as remarkable. One voter voted for Todd Stottlemyre for the Hall of Fame this year. Does that mean he was part of the HOF convo? No.
I think, at the very least, Bedard should have gotten a bunch of third-place votes. I think he had a better season than Lackey. But Lackey got a ton more votes, b/c he played for a much better team.
REPORT COMMENT
February 7th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
You know what, Coley, I can only speak for myself. I remember Bedard being discussed during the Cy Young voting. I remember people saying, too bad he didn’t play for a better team, because then he might get it. Cy Young is like MVP; fairly or unfairly, you pretty much have to play for a winning team to get it. But if you don’t remember reading those articles or hearing those conversations, at this point, I just don’t know what to tell you.
REPORT COMMENT
February 7th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
But that’s my point. You shouldn’t have to play for a winning team to win the Cy Young. I’m saying Bedard was quickly cast aside because he didn’t have many wins, but that wins are a terrible way to measure a pitcher’s performance.
Sure, there were people talking about Bedard’s candidacy. Smart people like Rob Neyer, Keith Law and the folks at Baseball Prospectus. But none of those people had a Cy Young vote.
You simply can’t argue that Bedard was a serious candidate when he only got one third place vote. And he deserved to be a seriuos candidate — at least as serious as John Lackey.
REPORT COMMENT
February 7th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Tripp,
You can disregard Cordero and Valverde based solely on the fact that they pitched in the NL but they are both better closers right now than Rivera. They’re also guys that aren’t on the decline. If you want to hold onto Rivera it’s based more on sentimentality than him being the best option available.
There are more aces in baseball than Santana and Beckett. Of course it’s hard to define what an actual ace is but I would say it’s a dominant pitcher that his team expects to win every time he takes the mound. Guys that I think fit that profile other than Santana and Beckett would be CC Sabathia, John Lackey, Brandon Webb, Jake Peavy, Dan Haren, Roy Halladay, Jason Verlander, Scott Kazmir, Fausto Carmona, Eric Bedard, Roy Oswalt, and Carlos Zambrano. These are guys that I think their teams would be happy to see pitching game 1 of the World Series.
REPORT COMMENT
February 7th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Melissa, I’d agree with that list, except for Zambrano, who I think walks way too many guys. Also, I might add Smoltz and Cole Hamels.
REPORT COMMENT
February 7th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Sorry to backtrack but…
I don’t care how old Mariano River is, he’s not even on the same planet as Cordero or Valverde.
ERA-plus over the last five seasons:
Rivera: 265, 231, 307, 251, 142 (averaging 239.2)
Cordero: 171, 237, 136, 124, 150 (averaging 163.6)
Valverde: 218, 109, 182, 81 (1.45 WHIP!!), 177 (averaging 153.4)
His salary is ridiculous but, again, I think most of that is for time served.
Also, just because these guys moved during the off-season doesn’t mean that we should have gone for them or could have gotten them cheap.
When you have Rivera in camp, you do what it takes to keep him. Especially when the rest of your bullpen is Kyle Farnsworth.
REPORT COMMENT
February 7th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Brian, I’m not completely against you here. I think that Mo is still one of the better closers in the game and I expect him to perform just fine in 2008. And I don’t think anyone here is surprised that, looking at the ERA plus of those three over the last five years shows that Rivera has been the best by quite a bit.
But I think the argument here isn’t what Rivera HAS done in his career. No one can dispute that he’s going to Cooperstown while the same probably won’t be said of Valverde or Cordero when their careers are winding down. The argument is what he WILL do during the next three years. I don’t really fault the Yankees for paying Mo. For one, he’s a NY-legend. Two, they’re the Yankees and can pay to keep their guys. But I have a hard time being 100% sure that he’ll outperform Cordero and/or Valverde over the next three years. Ideally, teams shouldn’t be paying for what a player did in the past. They should be paying for what they think the player will be worth over the length of the offered contract. Looking at the ERA plus of those three last year, can you be sure that Mo will be better?
REPORT COMMENT
February 7th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Also, Rivera’s numbers aren’t as good as his last 4 or 5 years at first look, but after the first week of the season he was pretty dominant. He didn’t have many save opportunities because of the high powered offense and because the rest of the bullpen had already blew the save before they got him the ball.
10.57 era after April. 2.21 for the rest of the season. Strikeout to walk ratio still phenomenal. I don’t see the signs of him slowing down.
REPORT COMMENT
February 7th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
I don’t think that what Rivera has done 3,4, or 5 years ago is an accurate predictor for what he will be doing at age 38,39, & 40. Obviously Yankees fans love him because he helped them win championships but his better days are behind him. Cordero is 32 and Valverde is 28 and regardless of what they would have cost they are likely to have better numbers going forward. Their numbers this past season reflect the fact that they are in fact better than Rivera right now. Career wise he is an obvious Hall of Famer but this should be about where he is going not where he has been. They are just entering the prime of their careers and Rivera is past his. These guys would not have only replaced
Rivera but most likely would have been an upgrade. The Yankees failed to improve a bullpen that was in fact a weakness.
Coley,
Hamels is a guy I considered but I’m waiting to see him perform at a high level again this season. Carlos may walk people but he is a dominant pitcher and can absolutely shut down the opposition. If he is not an ace how did he just land a contract for $18 million per? Had he tested the open market he would have likely commanded even more. As for Smoltz, I didn’t include him because I think he is on the downward side of his career. I don’t think he necessarily dominates the opposition but there certainly can be an argument made for him.
REPORT COMMENT
February 7th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Melissa, if we’re compiling a list of aces and we’re including all the guys with $18 million contracts, please don’t forget Mr. Barry Zito.
REPORT COMMENT
February 7th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
It’s hard to separate myself as a fan.
But if you take into account these 3 pitchers’ histories and where they pitch and ignore money and whoever you’d have to trade to acquire them, I still take Mo in NY in 2008 by far.
His K/9 was higher than average and his velocity was still there. He’s old but he’s not showing many signs of slowing down.
Neither of these guys is an upgrade for the next 3 years. Cordero’s pretty old and not as good and Valverde is DEFINITELY not as good.
As far as looking at the last three years as a linear regression, that’s ridiculous. I’m not going to punish the guy for being out of his mind lights out three years ago.
REPORT COMMENT
February 7th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Coley, I thought of Zito right after I made that comment. My only defense would be that Zito had performed like an ace before he got the big money. Let’s also not forget that he is left handed which tends to lead GMs to overpay. Zito certainly isn’t an ace and he is overpaid. I also don’t think you can say that Zambrano isn’t an ace simply because of his strike out to walk ratio which is still better than 2 to 1. In 5 full seasons as a starter his highest ERA was 3.95 which he compiled on his way to 18 wins this past season. He has logged over 200 innings each of those seasons and his other ERA totals are 2.75, 3.11, 3.26,& 3.41. He has totaled over 200 strike outs twice and the least he has struck out in a season is 168. In Carlos’ first full season as a starter he had an ERA of 3.11 in 214 innings pitched and won 13 games with 168 strike outs. This past season in Hamels’ first full season as a starter he had an ERA of 3.39 in 189 IP with 15 wins and 177 strike outs. I would have to say that if you think Hamels is an ace then you would have to concede that Zambrano is as well.
REPORT COMMENT
February 7th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Melissa, I’d agree that Zambrano has been an ace in the past. But I wouldn’t have signed him to that monster contract, as he is trending in the wrong direction. Also, I’d agree that Hamels hasn’t quite acheived ace status yet. But unlike Zambrano, I think Hamels’ best days are to come and the stats seem to back that up. Of course, if you’re the Phils, you have to worry about Hamels’ back. But if you’re the Cubs, you have to worry about Zambrano’s fat ass.
REPORT COMMENT
February 7th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Big Z actually came into camp last spring in the best shape he has ever been. He is a big dude but he’s never come into a season out of shape. He certainly has the kind of frame that he could add weight but he is also very athletic for his size. He can field his position and run the bases rather well for a guy as big as he is. CC Sabathia is definitely fatter than Zambrano and it hasn’t stopped him from being an ace. Carlos is only 26 and I don’t think his best days are behind him but we shall see. He could have the potential to eat himself out of the league but hasn’t come close to that yet.
REPORT COMMENT
February 8th, 2008 at 1:49 am
Something interesting from The Harball Times:
The Yankees were right not to trade Phil Hughes
Despite our forecast for Santana’s dominance, that doesn’t mean that the Yankees will be despairing too much when he pitches across town every fifth day. That’s because they’ll get to have a poor man’s Santana in Hughes, and at a much poorer salary.
We project a 4.12 ERA for Hughes in the much tougher American League, and more importantly, our three-year forecast sees that number dropping to 3.84 by 2010. If we put Santana on the Yankees, his forecast for 2010 would be a 3.76 ERA—pretty much equivalent to Hughes! While Santana is the better pitcher now, he probably won’t be any more valuable over the life of his contract than Hughes, if Hughes can stay healthy (or if Santana cannot, I suppose).
Now that’s a big if, but the Yankees have 137 million reasons to feel pretty good about taking that chance.
REPORT COMMENT
February 8th, 2008 at 9:28 am
I think that the Yankees ultimately made the right move by not trading away Hughes. Next offseason, they can dump Giambi, Pettite, Abreu, Mussina, Pavano (if they don’t buy him out first), and Farnsworth. That’s potentially over $80 million that can get freed up. Knowing the Yanks, not all of them will leave for better or worse, but they obviously are looking at Sabathia. He’s going to get at least $22m per on the free market and the Yankees are going to offer him a massive deal. And they get to plug in Wang, Chamberlain, Hughes, and maybe Kennedy along with him. That’s potentially a decade-long rotation.
Ultimately, the Yankees still have a playoff caliber team in 2008. And once you get into the postseason, pretty much anything can happen. So to me, it looks like that’s the Yankees game plan. Go into 2008 with this bunch, make some mid-season acquisitions to improve their chances of a playoff-berth, and hope to high heaven that Sabathia doesn’t resign with Cleveland AND that Cleveland doesn’t bomb during the season (which would make it highly likely that they’d trade CC before he becomes a free agent). And that’s Cashman’s gamble that I think he presented to Hank Steinbrenner. If this doesn’t happen, Cashman’s gone.
REPORT COMMENT
February 8th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Sabathia only gets to the free agent market if the Red Sox don’t make a trade for him first. Woot!
But seriously, folks…this rumor was mentioned in the piece from the Globe I used to update our post on Curt Schilling’s shoulder (ie, that if Schilling goes down and Wakefield goes down and the Red Sox end up without enough starters, the Red Sox would be willing to pull the trigger on a trade for CC) and I almost laughed. According Shapiro, the Indians won’t trade Sabathia unless they completely choke in the first half of the season.
REPORT COMMENT
March 7th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
seattle mariners! ugh! the hat color tends to purple which doesn’t match anything else on the uniform and clashes with the predominant blue.
REPORT COMMENT
March 7th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
What’s curious, iceless, is that all Seattle teams seem to rely heavily on green. Is this because of Starbucks’ stranglehold on the city? Inquiring minds want to know…
REPORT COMMENT
March 7th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
For some reason, I really dislike the Astros home pinstripe unis. I think it’s because the script font is outlined, which makes all the lines kind of blur together and renders the whole thing sort of dizzying. I also don’t really like their color combinations.
REPORT COMMENT
March 7th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Tommy, I’m with you. However, I do think the ‘Stros have lovely whites (even taking the frontal number into account) and I simply adore the deep blood red of their crimson jerseys. It’ so much better than the bright red the Angels or the Reds employ. Plus, the star logo is “hott.”
But that all those nice variations just make me wonder even more why Houston even felt like they needed that ugly pinstripe option. (To sell more replica jerseys, no doubt.)
REPORT COMMENT
March 7th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
The Astros primary home uniform looks like a bad set of pajamas. The color combination is ugly. The pinstripes are too big. The lettering looks strange. And I didn’t think it was possible for black to be ugly, but the black of those unis makes the black of the Rockies look elegant.
That said, I do like the home alternate jerseys. Clean and simple with a nice a shade of red.
REPORT COMMENT
March 7th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
sarah, the state color is green. the motto is ‘the evergreen state’. (obviously named in the middle of summer – NOT in the 10 months that it’s gray). it might come from that. not sure where the seagulls (seahawks) get off on the neon green though.
check out the mariners next time you see them. the hats just don’t match the shirts. bizarre.
REPORT COMMENT
March 7th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
But iceless, do the SHOES match the BAG?
REPORT COMMENT
March 7th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Mets home unis = awesome
Mets away unis = terrible
REPORT COMMENT
March 9th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
The Twins away uniforms are the worst in baseball. Grey with blue pinstripes just doesn’t do it…
REPORT COMMENT
March 10th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Iceless, Washington is green year ’round because it’s filled with conifers, aka evergreens. And the M’s hat is the same blue as the Yanks, Sox, and Tigers. Their uni is one of the best.
Best uni – Tiger’s home.
Worst – freakin’ Padres, primarily because it’s not brown. Replace the blue with monk-brown and they’d have a unique identity again. (just don’t go back to brown and yellow)
REPORT COMMENT
March 10th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Johnny, the Tigers home uni does have to be one of the best. Maybe now that I’ve thoroughly ripped the losers in the uni-wars, I’ll laud the winners. Though that will probably be less amusing.
REPORT COMMENT
March 10th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Sarah,
Looking at the best designs would be cool, especially if you point out the details. Check it out on the Tigers’ home uni – the cap and the shirt D are different, but they are both good clean designs variants of an olde english D. That’s odd but very cool. Now look at the interlocking NY on the Yanks home uni – the hat NY is sharp, but the shirt NY is UGG-LY, with a way-too-wide Y.
REPORT COMMENT
April 17th, 2008 at 10:43 am
The Padres have the worst uniform of any sports team on the face of the planet. Camouflage and baseball, wait, camouflage and anything other than military do not mix!
REPORT COMMENT
April 17th, 2008 at 10:59 am
But that’s a specialty uni, not their regular uni! I feel like specialty unis deserve their own post….watch this space.
REPORT COMMENT
April 17th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Agreed that specialties need their own space…but the “traditionals” need comment…how about the terrible choice Toronto made with their new ‘T” logo acouple years ago…it looks just like the old Tampa Bay logo. Round and round we go. Either leave it alone or get some originality please.
REPORT COMMENT
April 21st, 2008 at 10:18 am
um, no mention of the Blue Jays pajamas? It reminds me of Mitch Kramer’s baseball uni in Dazed and Confused (and I did try to get a photo of said uni, to no avail)
REPORT COMMENT
April 25th, 2008 at 11:07 am
the old D-backs Uniforms sucked. Prety in Purple
REPORT COMMENT
April 25th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Who could forget the shorts the White Socks had in the 70’s
REPORT COMMENT
April 25th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Shoe, these are current unis. For old unis, click here.
REPORT COMMENT
May 17th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Great article, Sarah.
The biggest uni problem I have in baseball is with the vest things. Great on the NBA court, but I do not like it on the baseball field. Just looks weird. Ugh!!!!
I like the colours of the new D-Backs, I love the black unis that my Mets wear and totally agree with Nate and his hatred of the Twins away unis. Not good
REPORT COMMENT
May 18th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
I think we can all agree that the St. Louis Cardinals are pretty much the gold standard clean design, heritage and class. No colored alternates, no vests, just classic road grays and home whites. And those birds on the bat are basically unchaged for more than 100 years.
REPORT COMMENT
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:30 pm
The ugliest uni’s far and away: The Padres
The orange and blue was somewhat classy?
Now these ugly faded grey and blue make them look like a beer league team. Doesn’t help the image when you are 10 games under .500.
REPORT COMMENT
June 22nd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Best uniform- Phillies (love the Sunday outfits!)
Worst- Padres. Period
REPORT COMMENT
October 10th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
The Phillies new alternates def deserve consideration
REPORT COMMENT