Bonn1997 wrote:I'll call this a good move. Paxton is an ace when healthy and you have to take some gambles. He's never had an ERA above 3.90! He's on the wrong side of 30 but he probably has some good years left in him. Here's an interesting Fangraphs article.
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-yankees-now-have-a-second-ace/

Going to be interesting to see if the Yanks actually do go get Corbin or try for Kikuchi, Ryu or bring back Happ for less years.

There's a decent chance it's not a coincidence that last two major pitching acquisitions have been pre-FA pitchers (Gray and Paxton).

Yanks may be out of the 'giving a 30+ year-old 5 years' business and they'd have a LOT of evidence to support that strategy.

Chapman (a closer under 30) and Tanaka (25 at the time) were the last free agent pitchers they signed to lengthy deals.

Before that it was Sabathia's opt-out extension and Burnett in 2009.

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:I'll call this a good move. Paxton is an ace when healthy and you have to take some gambles. He's never had an ERA above 3.90! He's on the wrong side of 30 but he probably has some good years left in him. Here's an interesting Fangraphs article.
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-yankees-now-have-a-second-ace/

Going to be interesting to see if the Yanks actually do go get Corbin or try for Kikuchi, Ryu or bring back Happ for less years.

There's a decent chance it's not a coincidence that last two major pitching acquisitions have been pre-FA pitchers (Gray and Paxton).

Yanks may be out of the 'giving a 30+ year-old 5 years' business and they'd have a LOT of evidence to support that strategy.

Chapman (a closer under 30) and Tanaka (25 at the time) were the last free agent pitchers they signed to lengthy deals.

Before that it was Sabathia's opt-out extension and Burnett in 2009.

Agreed about pitchers and actually all players over 30. The enticing thing about Machado and Harper is that they're in their mid 20s. They both have huge question marks too. All decisions are gambles.

All decisions are gambles, but data does help quantify the odds. You can go to Vegas knowing which games favor the house more and less and what strategies better your odds as well.

And the data may support certain decisions being less likely to succeed than to succeed in sufficient odds to avoid as strategy.

For me, seeing the evolving strategy is an interesting part of the game. Seeing the same dynamic repeat itself year in and year out and trying to relive the same thing again and again isn't all that interesting.

Last year I thought Ohtani was fascinating, not because of what I concluded his odds of succeeding would be, but because it's be so interesting to witness one way or another.

Bonn1997 wrote:Based on the Gray and Paxton trades, it looks like the Yankees would rather pay for pitchers with prospects (via trade) than dollars (via free agency). That's only a set of 2 decisions though. It's not necessarily a better gamble - just a different one. It will be interesting to see if they go after Corbin.

Not necessarily, but again, all front offices are now heavily reliant on analytics, and the Yankees data may be telling them to avoid long-term commitments to pitchers and/or pitchers over 30.

It may in fact be a better gamble the same way Blackjack is a better gamble than roulette. Doesn't mean you can win at roulette or lose at Blackjack on any given day, but to say all gambles are no better or worse but just different misses the point of analytics.

Bonn1997 wrote:One can debate whether in general trading prospects for veteran pitchers works more often than signing pitchers.

Not much of a debate without data. That's largely an issue of math, not philosophy.

It remains to be seen if the Yankees will sign a pitcher to a big deal. But I think we can conclude the Yankees no longer practice 'its better just to sign needs for money' approach.

SOMETHING is telling them its as good if not better to give up MiLB assets for a few years of pre-FA team control rather than signing a FA to the years FA markets command.

Knickoftime wrote:So, I'll proactively respond here.

I understand James Paxton. I get it. I get small windows. He may turn out to be great and the prospects nothing. I won't complain all winter because that's not what I do or why I follow sports.

But on the other hand, I have enjoyed watching Hicks and Didi and Sevy and Green and Betances and Judge and Sanchez and Anjujar and Torres and yes even Bird and Voit become the core of this team.

And they are the core because the Yankees let rookies fill holes in the line-up. And it worked. They're a good team.

I wouldn't have minded seeing Sheffield get his shot at being a homegrown(ish) long-time Yankee. I hope they'll still be room for young pitchers on the staff and we haven't moved into the stage where that is no longer a consideration and it HAS to be veterans.

What exactly is Bird a core of in your world? He flashed, immediately got hurt, now he sucks and he's hurt almost all the time.
Do you just not complain about anything, other than fans complaining about not winning it all every year?

jrodmc wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:So, I'll proactively respond here.

I understand James Paxton. I get it. I get small windows. He may turn out to be great and the prospects nothing. I won't complain all winter because that's not what I do or why I follow sports.

But on the other hand, I have enjoyed watching Hicks and Didi and Sevy and Green and Betances and Judge and Sanchez and Anjujar and Torres and yes even Bird and Voit become the core of this team.

And they are the core because the Yankees let rookies fill holes in the line-up. And it worked. They're a good team.

I wouldn't have minded seeing Sheffield get his shot at being a homegrown(ish) long-time Yankee. I hope they'll still be room for young pitchers on the staff and we haven't moved into the stage where that is no longer a consideration and it HAS to be veterans.

What exactly is Bird a core of in your world? He flashed, immediately got hurt, now he sucks and he's hurt almost all the time.

He was the Yankees best player during their best postseason run in 10 years. That happened.

I make no bones about the fact I enjoy seeing the home grown guys succeed. Unless you live under a rock, it should be very clear that the Yankees as an organization LOVE Greg Bird and believe in his ability.

Since I'm in no way anxious about baseball, i believe in multiple paths to success. I've seen young players who where hurt all the time until they weren't.

Good news is Bird still costs almost nothing and the Yankees now have another first option. I'm happy to see if he can force his way back into their plans.

There is no downside to keeping an open mind about him. Not a 25 man roster spot, necessarily, just an open mind.

Do you just not complain about anything, other than fans complaining about not winning it all every year?

I don't complain about something that is meant to be fun and by any reasonable standard has been one of the most successful sports franchises of the last 25 years, no.

And I don't complain about "fans" complaining about not winning it all every year, I comment on the guaranteed, self-defeating, futility of it and the fact I don't think fans who do that even really understand what that last sentence means.

They're invested in guaranteed failure.

That's always a poor choice regardless of circumstance.

Knickoftime wrote:So, I'll proactively respond here.

I understand James Paxton. I get it. I get small windows. He may turn out to be great and the prospects nothing. I won't complain all winter because that's not what I do or why I follow sports.

But on the other hand, I have enjoyed watching Hicks and Didi and Sevy and Green and Betances and Judge and Sanchez and Anjujar and Torres and yes even Bird and Voit become the core of this team.

And they are the core because the Yankees let rookies fill holes in the line-up. And it worked. They're a good team.

I wouldn't have minded seeing Sheffield get his shot at being a homegrown(ish) long-time Yankee. I hope they'll still be room for young pitchers on the staff and we haven't moved into the stage where that is no longer a consideration and it HAS to be veterans.

jrodmc wrote:What exactly is Bird a core of in your world? He flashed, immediately got hurt, now he sucks and he's hurt almost all the time.

Knickoftime wrote:He was the Yankees best player during their best postseason run in 10 years. That happened.

So Greg Bird played on the 2009 team that won it all? I must have missed that. Before posting, it's always good to check your math.

Knickoftime wrote:I make no bones about the fact I enjoy seeing the home grown guys succeed. Unless you live under a rock, it should be very clear that the Yankees as an organization LOVE Greg Bird and believe in his ability.

jrodmc wrote:Do you just not complain about anything, other than fans complaining about not winning it all every year?

Knickoftime wrote:I don't complain about something that is meant to be fun and by any reasonable standard has been one of the most successful sports franchises of the last 25 years, no.

And I don't complain about "fans" complaining about not winning it all every year, I comment on the guaranteed, self-defeating, futility of it and the fact I don't think fans who do that even really understand what that last sentence means.

They're invested in guaranteed failure.

That's always a poor choice regardless of circumstance.

Knickoftime wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:I’m somewhere between the two of you but closer to Jrod. I disagree with your definition of standards though. I just looked up several definitions of the term and I do believe Jrod is expressing a standard.

Well, then, let's explore.

Understand the other party to this issue describes it as the singular right of Yankees fans to believe a season without a WS win is unsuccessful and then also chooses to describe the Yankees as the most "successful" sports franchise of the last 25 years.

This is accurate, but when we're talking about sports recency bias is relevant and he didn't choose to name the most successful sports franchise of the last 5 years, or 10, or 15, or 20, or of the last generation. You need to take it out to 25 to make them the most successful team in their own division much less all of sports.

And this subjective framing of the argument is the whole point.

The Yankee "standard," as it applies to fans, has to real world utility ... it has no real world value. It is something that exists solely as an idea and only means anything to the people who choose to think of themselves that way.

It a weightless self-image.

And there is no evidence whatsoever, that this "standard," which let's be realistic here, few to NO fans act on in any way that matters, in any way affects the Yankees. They have committed to their recent austerity and observance of the LT threshold despite the complaints by these certain fans.

So again, find me a value to this standard other than self-image?

Even if I were to agree for sake of discussion, this self-image had any real world utility other than making some people feel better about themselves, the base logic of it is self-defeating.

Jdroc's description of being a Yankee fan is as some sort of superior standard. But let's look at the facts.

Its very HARD to win a post-season tournament. The Yankees are not going to win every one, in fact, they won't win most.

So by his terms, most seasons will be unfulfilling, unsatisfying, unsuccessful. 18 of the last 19 seasons have met that criteria. The Red Sox ARE the superior organization by his own standard the further you move away from the late 90s.

So his definition of being a superior grade of fan of a recreational past-time is being less fulfilled, less satisfied, more frustrated.

In what context other than sports fandom do all these negative things equate to superior and MORE desirable?

Again, when you discount the value of SELF-image, the very premise is ridiculous.

"I'm better, because I'm LESS fulfilled and LESS satisfied and MORE frustrated."

The day a fan can look through the trappings of sports fandom and see that statement for what it inherently is, is the say he or she can pass go and collect their $200.

You seem to equate a higher standard and fandom expectations with self-image, self-esteem and personal fulfillment. Which outlook I find personally baffling as grown men talking about pro sports.

Lets take this slowly, shall we?

"one of the most successful sports franchises of the last 25 years." Your words describing the Yankees, not mine.

I actually look upon them as THE most successful sports franchise of all time, the fuhucking Celtics be damned. Be that as it may, it doesn't define my level of fulfillment, frustration, satisfaction as a fan. I've been a fan of the Yankees for close to 5 decades. There have been long periods where they sucked terribly. And before we get into another dissertative set of 20 posts defining what "sucking terribly" means, that would include not winning a WS.

There seems to be two rather distant poles in your thought process.
1) Success can't be winning it all, because that doesn't happen every season, and this will lead to all sorts of personal unhappiness that is a sign of unbalanced fandom, if not incipient insanity, among other things.
2) Happiness and self fulfillment are only found in fandom firmly grounded in the fact that winning everything, every year is not going to happen.

The Yankees added a supposedly huge bat to the lineup before this past season, and we had a burgeoning core of yoots.
I expected to win a World Series.
The Yankess lost to the Red Sox.
That sucked and said suckiness does not get assuaged by saying "100 wins, 100 wins, 100 wins" over and over.
Yet, I'm still, and will remain a Yankee fan.

We are in the off season and there are other large, expensive and brilliantly shiny things that can be bought.
I expect to win a World Series.
Anything less than that will still suck.
And should anything less than that occur yet again, I will still be a Yankee fan.
See how that works?

My happiness, fulfillment and non-frustration levels will not, and would not be higher if I should say, abandon my annual expectations and wallow in the joy of lower levels of expectation.

I would like Cashman to possibly outdo his name and buy everything that might make us into a frighteningly unfair juggernaut that would steamroll past the Sox and win it all. I really don't care if we win 81 games or 160 on the way there.

If he doesn't, I will still be a Yankee fan. That's my preference, not a prescription for self-fulfillment, happiness and lowered levels of frustration.

I am a homer fan-atic. I actually enjoy listening to John Sterling's home run calls. Run that concept through your "real world utility" lens.

Knickoftime wrote:So by his terms, most seasons will be unfulfilling, unsatisfying, unsuccessful. 18 of the last 19 seasons have met that criteria. The Red Sox ARE the superior organization by his own standard the further you move away from the late 90s.

I repost your quote because you are not describing Yankee fandom here, you are describing front running as a way of life.
Your exercise in re-framing time periods to identify other teams that are better than the one I just happen to be a fan of is a bit perplexing.

I describe the fact that the Yankees have more WS rings than any other team in the sport. That sets a higher level of expectation for me, most other Yankee fans and the vast majority of the media that cover the team, unless of course, you live under your proverbial rock.

Win it all, or get busy getting/buying/growing the parts to win it all. I think the only point of contention here between us is the possible value of spending Steinbrenner dollars to get there (win a WS) NOW.

Life is good, either way.