Posted by TMS:

look at you not realizing i was saying it was a good deal for the Muts to make... but i know u like to like to get overly defensive whenever a Yankee fan posts on a Met topic so if it makes you feel better, ur team still sucks... there, happy now?

i notice i don't hear you crying about competitive balance anymore... hmm, strange... oh right, that argument only applies when it's a Mut fan complaining about how the Yankees buy up all the big name talent every year... gotcha.

All you've been doing in this thread is taking shots at the Mets. Thats like your "thing."

How much money did Kiddie Warbucks dole out in bloated contracts this offseason? 500 million?


And lets remember, Johan will be making 13.25 mil this season. Thats only 2 mil more than Glavine made last year. Then after this year, El Duque, Pedro, Delgado and Alou will come off the books. Fernando Martinez will replace Alou in left for cheap. We have Church and Endy for RF. The only position we would really need to fill is first base unless someone emerges from our minors which is definitely possible. So with the money coming off our books, we're not really expanding payroll much at all and there is a good chance our payroll will probably be less next season.


Mets payroll after this trade is around 126 million.
Yankees payroll around 206 million after arbitration and they still have some roster spots to fill

Posted by TMS:

i hope i never hear another bitter Met fan complain about the Yankees gobbling up all the high priced talent & about "competitive balance" ever again.

??? The Mets could sign Santana to that salary and 2 more players to that kind of contract and still have a lower payroll than the yanks.

Payroll numbers are meaningless in a sport without a salary cap. To put them in perspective, look at the money spent on players in relation to its percentage of revenues. In those terms I bet the Yankees are better than most teams, who choose to pocket the money instead of spending it on their teams.

Posted by majorleads:

Posted by TMS:

look at you not realizing i was saying it was a good deal for the Muts to make... but i know u like to like to get overly defensive whenever a Yankee fan posts on a Met topic so if it makes you feel better, ur team still sucks... there, happy now?

i notice i don't hear you crying about competitive balance anymore... hmm, strange... oh right, that argument only applies when it's a Mut fan complaining about how the Yankees buy up all the big name talent every year... gotcha.

All you've been doing in this thread is taking shots at the Mets. Thats like your "thing."

How much money did Kiddie Warbucks dole out in bloated contracts this offseason? 500 million?


And lets remember, Johan will be making 13.25 mil this season. Thats only 2 mil more than Glavine made last year. Then after this year, El Duque, Pedro, Delgado and Alou will come off the books. Fernando Martinez will replace Alou in left for cheap. We have Church and Endy for RF. The only position we would really need to fill is first base unless someone emerges from our minors which is definitely possible. So with the money coming off our books, we're not really expanding payroll much at all and there is a good chance our payroll will probably be less next season.


Mets payroll after this trade is around 126 million.
Yankees payroll around 206 million after arbitration and they still have some roster spots to fill

apart from my referring to your team as the Muts, realize the observations i'm making here... first i congratulated u guys on a great trade... second i acknowledged the fact that Johan is the best pitcher in the game... third i said it was a deal Omar HAD to make... fourth i said the trade off in terms of talent is highly in the Muts' favor... i've been consistent in every respect when it comes to Johan's quality as a player & this deal being a no brainer for the Muts to make... the other potential drawbacks to the deal are well documented... i'd be saying the same things about signing Johan to that longterm big money deal if the Yankees had been the ones to make the trade too... there's no denying that 6-7 year deals rarely if ever pan out in any teams' favor when it comes to acquiring pitching talent... look at your signing of Pedro for example & that was only a 4 year contract he was signed to... another case in point, look at the Barry Zito signing, Mike Hampton w/the Rockies, Kevin Brown w/the Dodgers... the list goes on... ur taking offense at my referring to your team as the Muts & completely disregarding the points i'm making... but that's typical of you whenever we discuss baseball so i wouldn't expect anything less.

as to the payroll argument, u've been whining all this time about how smaller market teams have no legitimate shot at acquiring guys like Johan, etc. because of their limited resources, & yet here you are jizzing in your pants over the Johan acquisition... tell me how that's consistent? i'd love to hear your reasons to justify a $126 million dollar payroll under the same logic.

[Edited by - TMS on 01-30-2008 1:26 PM]

This was a huge gamble by the Yankees (and statistically probably hard to justify). Either Hughes or Kennedy better develop into an ace pitcher, or both better become very strong #2 pitchers.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 01-31-2008 06:56 AM]

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by Bonn1997:

This was a huge gamble by the Yankees (and statistically probably hard to justify). Either Hughes or Kennedy better develop into an ace pitcher, or both better become very strong #2 pitchers.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 01-31-2008 06:56 AM]

I don't think it's hard to justify at all. At best you're looking at a 5 game improvement with Santana this year. Is that worth giving up 2 very young pitchers who can both be solid starters for a lot longer than the length of Santana's contract is going to be? Throw in the money and I think that they are more than justified to back off the way that they did.

The Twins GM is an idiot. The fact that after the Yankees refused to even make Hughes a part of their final offer, this guy came back and asked for Wang and Kennedy, after being turned down by the Red Sox, tells me he has no idea what he's doing. Kennedy alone would have been a better prospect than anything the Mets had to give up and then he asks for a guy who has won 38 games over the last 2 years as well? All before accepting his weakest offer. This guy is the Isiah of MLB when it comes to trading.

It's hard to justify because having a true ace pitcher available for at least 2 games in a 7 game series is invaluable. It's how nearly all championship teams have been built. It can easily be the difference between advancing and going home after the 1st round because you're starting someone who isn't really an ace like Wang.

I know people aren't going to agree with me, because they really like our young kids (as do I). But you have to consider a lot of baseline info. For example, Hughes is a high prospect who pitched decently (ERA in the mid 4s) for half of one season. What percentage of high prospects with a respectable half season go on to become high end (ace or #2) starters? My guess is it's far less than half. Then, Kennedy is a high prospect who has made 3 impressive MLB starts. What % of good prospects with 3 good appearances go on to become high end starters? I'd guess it's even farther from half. (I really, really hope I'm wrong because we're depending on these guys and because I like them.)

nothing like hearing bitter Met fans talk about postseason play of other teams... how about making it to the playoffs before you talk about how other players suck in the postseason? there's an idea.

Posted by TMS:

nothing like hearing bitter Met fans talk about postseason play of other teams... how about making it to the playoffs before you talk about how other players suck in the postseason? there's an idea.

I'd tell them that Santana sucks in the postseason but they have to get there first.

Posted by TMS:

Posted by Bonn1997:

This was a huge gamble by the Yankees (and statistically probably hard to justify). Either Hughes or Kennedy better develop into an ace pitcher, or both better become very strong #2 pitchers.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 01-31-2008 06:56 AM]

if the counter offer was Wang & Kennedy for Johan i would have made that deal personally... we would've had Johan, Pettitte, Hughes, Joba & Moose as our starting 5 w/kids like Horne & Marquez ready to be called up next season if Moose wet the bed again like last year... not bad if u ask me... but whatever, i don't know where that rumor came from but i'm happy to hold onto our kids nonetheless... i think the bigger gamble woulda been to make the trade Bonn... i woulda been for the deal but that's a whole lotta money & talent to give up for 1 guy... let the Muts have him, they needed something to get the fans all excited again after last year's debacle... the Red Sox didn't get him, that's the most important thing.

Why is giving up the pitcher who's won the most games in baseball the last two seasons combined (Wang) less of a gamble than keeping a high prospect rookie who simply had one decent half season? (I don't think the fact that Wang had a bad playoff series is a compelling answer.)

I don't think any of those outweigh the risks of going with a prospect over a proven high #2 starter, and each one of those statements can be easily countered. For example,

Hitters typically bat a relatively high BAA% off him (.268 career BAA)

Wang's career WHIP and ERA are both good and those are more important than BAA. I'm sure you know that a high percentage of the hits against Wang get erased by double plays.

Hughes is projected by many scouts to have a higher ceiling

I'd say many scouts get really excited by every young kid (much like the fans here) and don't take base rates into consideration.

Posted by TMS:

i don't know what you know that the ML scouts don't, but when every scout in baseball gets excited about a kid, i tend to give them the benefit of the doubt

anyway, i'm not sure what you're arguing me here since i already said it would have been a riskier move to make the trade in the first place.

I wasn't arguing anything with you. I was presenting an alternative viewpoint. Question: What do I know that the scouts don't? Answer: A LOT about statistics.