WasWatching.com

I love Andy, too; but his elbow concerns me.

I would love to have Andy back, because maybe that would bring Clemens. But, I cant expect B-Cash to be smart enough to let Rog leave to see his family on non-pitching days.

No on Roger. Yes on Andy.

I still think letting Andy walk was the stupidest thing the Yankees ever did. I know he went down with an elbow injury the year after he left, but letting a homegrown lefty coming off a 20-win season just walk out the door was absurd (I know there are many conspiracy theories about why he left).

The question is: what does Andy have left? He was great last year, but had a lot of problems this year (and often looked utterly disgusted with himself in post-game interviews).

I think the best thing about the deal is that it will probably be a one-year thing. That would be ideal for the Yankees right now. They bring back someone who already pitched in New York and knows what to expect, and they don't have to commit years to him.

If Andy signed and Igawa signs, the Yankees would have Wang, Moose, Andy, Johnson, Pavano and Igawa under contract. If Pavano is actually healthy, someone -- Igawa? -- is heading to the bullpen, I guess.

Signing Andy also probably allows the Yankees to leave Phil Hughes in AAA to get to 180 IP and then come up in 2008 without any worries about the innings in his arm.

Andy could be good. I'd like to see an incentive laden contract as his elbow does worry me.
One sentence that intrigued me: "season during which he churned out 214 1/3 innings while working through elbow pain"
200 innings is nothing to sneeze at. And pitching through pain? Maaybe he could light a fire under someone else's sore buttocks.

Bailey, why no on Roger? He's still a good pitcher and the Yanks need as much of it as they can get.

Hopefully Andy's physical comes out clean. The Yanks don't need any more injuries in their rotation as Pavano/RJ are all they can handle right now.

You kind of answered the question yourself, MJ. Roger was the most dominant pitcher in baseball in '05, but his body couldn't withstand the punishment of a full season and he broke down at the end of the year (and had to leave during the World Series). He had hamstring and groin issues, and revealed later that he had some sort of back surgery, too.

This year he only pitched in the second half to keep his body healthy (and I think for the most part it was).

I don't think the Yankees are going to allow Roger to only pitch in the second half. And I don't think his body will allow him to pitch the entire year.

The scary thing about this rotation -- Wang, Moose, Andy, Jonson, Pavano, Igawa -- is that EVERYONE in it (save for Igawa) is an injury risk. Wang had the shoulder injury in his first year and had a HUGE spike in IP; Moose has his elbow and groin issues; RJ had back surgery; Pavano has... everything; Andy has his freaky elbow.

I'd rather the backup plan to these guys be Clippard, Hughes, Sanchez, etc., and not another guy old enough to be my father, who probably will break down too.

I heart Pettitte, he could pitch for my team any day of the week. He's a known commodity; this isn't Gil Meche commanding 8 figures annually just because he's available.

I figure Andy would get a 2 year deal worth about $25M with some IP-based incentives.

Of all the "big name" FA pitchers out there, Andy's the only one with a "proven winner" pedigree to back it up.

Re: Pettitte's elbow.

It's held up for 30+ GS the last two years. That's pretty good.

Mussina made 30+ starts and was more effective than Andy in a tougher league, but we consider him an injury risk, don't we?

Andy has always had elbow issues, he finally had surgery, and now he says he pitched the whole year with pain. Sounds like it has to at least be considered.

Still want him on the team, though.

For the record. Pettitte's made 6 more GS than Mussina in the last two years. In the last 3 years, Mussina has done 31-plus GS just once.

Re: Pettitte's elbow.

It's held up for 30+ GS the last two years. That's pretty good.
===
Yeah, but that article also said he pitched through elbow pain all season.

His second half numbers in the NL Central (a truly terrible division) were very good, but the only team over .500 he beat were the Padres (I haven't checked gamelogs though, so his ERA might be better). Although, I don't think we can just dismiss his first half terribleness.

His ERA+ was just a bit above average (108)

I would welcome him back should he sign with the Yankees, but I would be disappointed if it weren't at least partially incentive based.

Also, I hope the Yankees and/or fans aren't expecting Andy Pettitte to be a solid number 3 with flashes of a number 2 pitcher and possible flashes of being an ace. I think the better bet would be him being a very good number 4 pitcher.

For the record, Andy missed half the year in 2004 because he had to have surgery on his elbow.

Andy missed significant time in two of the last five years (15 GS in '04 and 22 in '02).

Mussina hasn't made less than 27 starts since '94.

Mussina is also older than Andy.

Bottom line is that I consider both durable, good pitchers. But at Moose's age and with Andy's elbow issues, I think it's prudent to not consider either a lock health-wise. No one is, really.

Injury risk aside, I think the stats tell a different story. I have warm and fuzzy feelings about Andy Pettitte just like everyone else, but a recent post over at Canyon of Heroes got me thinking that the feeling may be partly a fan bias. Wishing to guage the expectations of Igawa, Mike Plugh compared his Davenport translations to those of Pettitte... and if we were willing to accept years like this from Pettitte (1999):

14-11 4.70 ERA 10.14 H/9 4.18 BB/9 5.68 K/9

Then we should be able to accept similar seasons from Igawa. That said, there are some disturbing trends from Pettitte:

2003 4.02 ERA 9.81 H/9 0.91 HR/9 2.16 BB/9 7.78 K/9
2004 3.90 ERA 7.70 H/9 0.87 HR/9 3.36 BB/9 8.57 K/9
2005 2.39 ERA 7.61 H/9 0.69 HR/9 1.66 BB/9 6.92 K/9
2006 4.20 ERA 9.99 H/9 1.13 HR/9 2.94 BB/9 7.47 K/9

Pettitte's Davenport Translations paint a similar picture:
2003 6 PRAA 4.26 DERA
2004 7 PRAA 3.28 DERA
2005 38 PRAA 2.93 DERA
2006 -1 PRAA 4.52 DERA

A few months ago you ran similar stats on Alex Rodriguez and came to the conclusion that his 2005 season was an aberration in a player's consistent decline. In this case, I think you must make a similar conclusion about Mr. Pettitte, that his 2005 was a lightning-in-a-bottle year and going forward, we can expect his numbers to decline to the point where a Darrel Rasner can easily eclipse Pettitte's production.

This was such an omnipotent posting (on Nov. 7th) that I thought I'd remind everyone....

/////Little bird told me that Andy will go through the motions, conclude that he's got another two years in him, and sign up for same. He's leaning toward NY if they'll have him. He's enjoyed being home and will play in Houston if the Yankees don't offer, but he also sees that life after baseball as a retired member of YankeeLand (maybe with a plaque in CF) is a pretty nice place to be for the rest of his life.

I'm a bit worried how much he has left. But if he signs, he'll give it his all; that much we can all be sure about.////

If he signs, we'll be flush with 3's, 4's, 5's and 6's. Do everything we can to structure a trade with Pavano, et al, to seek a good, young, potential 2 or 3. Right field in NY vs. right field in Houston will work to Andy's advantage. He has good and bad days, but did string together a pretty nice sequence late in the year. He does know how to pitch, and knows how to pitch in Yankee Stadium. Guts aren’t the issue.... ligaments and cartilage are.

Sorry, make that left field in NY vs. left field in Houston will work to Andy's favor....

http://tinyurl.com/yjcmv3

Yankees offered 1 year $15M?

Good on the years. At least $4M too much on the money.

The money's not bad when you compare it to Pavano, Johnson and Mussina.

Actually, I think the money is silly when compared to Mussina.

As I said the other day, the more depth of starting pitchers you have, the better off you are. When the Red Sox have a need, they address the need while B-Cash is pinching pennies for us. If you want the Great Andino back, you sign him to a 2yr deal around 23-27 mil and just expect him to miss the first year w/ his injury and say "oh well, weve got him for next year when RJ leaves" and if he succeeds this year, then its a bonus.

Apparently, Boras wants Gagne to go to the Red Sox. This is because Boras understands that the Red Sox know its only money and are willing to pay top dollar for a player that theyve targeted for team like JD Drew. If you want to bring up Johnny D, the Red Sox did not want to bring him back because of his age and made him a lowball offer, effectively Damon the message. This happens because Brian Cashman is out looking for bargains. If B-Cash identifies a player that would make our team better, than he needs to go after that player w/o looking for a discounted price, kind of like when Cash waited to offer Damon until Boras cut his demand from 7 yrs to 4 yrs and when he waited around 2 months to get Abreu while HOPING we would still be in it come trade deadline day. It worked out for us that we got both of them, but do not think that because the results were successful, that B-Cash did the right thing in waiting. DO NOT confuse the results of Cashman's maneuvers with the stupidity of the maneuvers themselves. You may not agree with me, but I would rather have seen Cashman give Damon a 7 yr deal to know that he went after a player he wanted rather than waiting for a discount. (Not that I agree with getting Damon at all, when he could've gotten Beltran the yr. before.

I can not comprehend your entire post, Chewbacca.

In what way does any of that make sense?

you would rather have had the Yankees give Damon 7 years because then you would "know they went after a player they wanted?"

Huh?

As it is, year 4 looks questionable with Damon, and you would have preffered to give him 7 years--because it meant he signed in November as opposed to December?

And now you are applying that logic to Pettitte. You would rather give Pettitte 2 years at $27M with the knowledge that he would miss year 1?

What?

I'm going to have to evict you from GM school.

I don't really care how much, and maybe it's nostalgia, but I want Pettitte back.

Ok, let me say it again. I would rather have Cashman give Damon a 7 year deal because it would have shown that Cashman was going after the player he wanted rather than waiting for a discount. My point in saying this is that the next time Cashman wants a player I would rather see him overpay for that player rather than losing out to another team willing to go the extra mile. The fact that Cashman did not lose out on Damon does not change the fact that he could have lost out on him and we would have been stuck with Bubba Crosby because Cashman was looking for a discount. He is the GM of the New York Yankees, the only team that could have afforded to make a mistake in signing Damon to a 7 year deal. He needs to use that to his advantage and not be afraid of making a mistake. That is why I said that he should just assume that Pettite would miss next season as long as we lock him up for next season because we can afford to pay a player who wont be pitching next year. And the fact is he could probably be ready to pitch this year even with an elbow injury as long as he had enough rest. How does this not make sense? This is all part of my original argument, which is that the Yankees should use their money as their best advantage.

The part of your argument that might make sense is refuted by the stats I posted above. Regardless of which season Pettitte pitches, there is no evidence to suggest that he will be an above average pitcher in the American League. At the very least, Carl Pavano was young, hadn't had a serious injury (yet) and had pitched a good season prior to his large contract. Pettitte is old, injured, and was an average pitcher in the National League last year. He does not deserve "Pavano money." He's a great guy, and a "winner" and we all remember him fondly. But throwing money for money's sake, or for "you can never have too much pitching" sake, is a poor way to run a baseball team.

I suspect that whatever your occupation is, it does not in any way involves sales or any kind of negotiation.

Chewy,
Not very well grounded thinking. Pay whatever and come what may? Cost-benefit analysis, son. Cost-benefit analysis. There are only 25 roster spots, and it's foolish to think the Yankees don't have budget. All teams, families, businesses, and countries do. It's bigger than everyone elses, but there is still a budget. Blow 4 mil extra on Andy, and then have to skimp on a solid middle reliever? Not smart. Would you give Clemens a 4 year deal?

I may agree with you on the fact that Pettite may not be an average AL pitcher but still the same logic applies to whatever pitcher we should be going after. You are also forgetting that Cashman used exactly what I am preaching now once to get Jon Lieber, signing him to a two year deal with the advanced knowledge that he wasnt going to get anything out of him for the first year of the contract. So if Cash was willing to do that for Lieber, why not do it for a better pitcher.

And in response to #15, of course the Yankees have a budge but their budget so far outweighs everyone else's budget that they can afford to make more mistakes than other teams. I am not saying overpay every single player but only to overpay the players that will really make a difference. If Johan Santana were a free agent and had Scott Boras as an agent, and was asking for a 7 year deal, I would hope that Cash gave Johan the 7 year deal even if he knew for an absolute certainty that the returns on Johan in the 6th and 7th year were terrible. The Yankees can afford to give away the last two years of a contract for the excellent performance in the first 5 years. Finally, of course I would blow an extra 4 mil on a quality starting pitcher and skimp on a middle reliever because starting pitchers are far more valuable than middle relievers. And absolutely, I would give Clemens a 4 year deal if only to prevent him from going to the Red Sox and guaranteeing a World Series for them.

I suspect that whatever your occupation is, it does not in any way involves sales or any kind of negotiation.
=============================

If I said all this stuff about any of 28 teams in baseball, you probably would be right that my occupation wouldnt involves sales. HOWEVER, THESE ARE THE NEW YORK YANKEES. The Yankees can afford to throw money around, and in fact would be better served to do so. If there were no rule about signing a limited amount of Type A/B free agents, we would be better served to sign every "above average" starting pitcher that we could, and then throw a couple of them into reliever's roles and wait for the inevitable injuries to occur. You have to assume that the Yankees starting pitching every year will be like the NY Giants linebacking core of '05 and whole defense of this year.

Just curious, Chewy, but didn't the Yankees throw around the money from 2000-2005 with very dubious results?

The Yankees have the financial wherewithal to make more mistakes than just about every other team, but that doesn't mean they should go ahead and make them because they can. I agree that overspending by a tad to get someone they really need or someone who can make a real difference is a good strategy at times. But since you yourself say that as much pitching depth as possible is a good thing, how would the Yanks be able to acquire all of that depth if they're financially constrained by all those 7-year, $80M contracts you're giving out to the world?

So if you had $5 billion, and were in the showroom of an Aston-Martin dealership, and the salesman asked for $500,000 on a car worth $100,000, would you take it because guy who has just $1 billion could come in and overpay for the car? Personally, I'd go across the street and buy a Lexus for $90,000.

You pay what something is worth, otherwise it is not worth it. The Yankees have yet to win a World Series while being the team with the #1 payroll. Your strategy isn't just nonsensical... it hasn't worked in real life.

Just curious, Chewy, but didn't the Yankees throw around the money from 2000-2005 with very dubious results?
=========================
Again, do not confuse the results with the idea. The idea is terrific in spite of the results. Although 2 WS appearances and 1 should be WS appearance & playoffs every year aint so bad because "ya gotta be in it to win it." As long as youre in the playoffs every year, youve gotta shot.

The Yankees have the financial wherewithal to make more mistakes than just about every other team, but that doesn't mean they should go ahead and make them because they can.
====================
I'm not saying that they should make mistakes intentionally, I am saying that Cash should not be AFRAID to make them.

constrained by all those 7-year, $80M contracts you're giving out to the world?
======================
Again, the Yankees are not like any other team or business. George does not care about losing money, rather he cares about "winning, second only to breathing," which is why he is the best owner in sports. Therefore, we shouldnt be constrained by throwing out 2 yr 40 mil contracts to every "above average" starter.

Also, we could get other name-brand players through trades of the "failure players" like Pavano just by being willing to eat contracts. We could get Huddy just by eating Pav's contract but I am sure that idea has crossed Cashman's mind and was immediately dismissed.

I'm trying. I really am, but I just can't get through your irrational thoughts.

I can not figure out in what planet they make even the most remote form of sense.

I can not figure out in what planet they make even the most remote form of sense.
=======================

Do not confuse the results with the idea of spending money. The idea of spending money is terrific in spite of the results(losing 6 straight years despite giving the team a shot by making the playoffs each year).

We could get Huddy just by eating Pav's contract but I am sure that idea has crossed Cashman's mind and was immediately dismissed.

Cash should not be AFRAID to make mistakes because of our financial flexibility.

I AM NOT THE TYPE TO INITIATE INSULTS, BUT IF THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO YOU, THEN YOU OBVIOUSLY CANNOT THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX AND HAVE SERIOUS CONSTRAINTS ON YOUR CREATIVITY.

I think simply eating contracts and handing out 7 year contracts as opposed to waiting for the cheaper, just as effective deal, proves that it is you, not me, who can't think outside of the box.

With the cheaper, just as effective deal, we have to HOPE that is "just as effective." However, by giving out contracts to "above average" starters, it increases the opportunity that our staff will be successful and eliminates a lot of the HOPE that goes into getting bargain basement deals.

Waiting for the cheaper, just as effective deal, is what most teams do. Thinking outside the box is using your money as your advantage, even if it means losing money in the process. I think winning the World Series is the most important thing in the world, as does George Steinbrenner. Losing money doesnt mean anything if you win. I will quote again the line that I live by: "Winning is 2nd only to breathing." George had it right when he said that. He didnt say "Winning is 2nd only to making money" or "saving money" or "getting bargain basement deals."

BTW, I didnt say "give out 7 yr deals to everyone." I made a mention of a 7 yr deal in regards to Damon, because that was what Boras originally wanted for his client and if not for the Red Sox lowball "we dont want you back" offer to him, we wouldnt have gotten him.
I also didnt say all we should do is eat contracts. I said that whenever a player proves himself to be worthless to our team, if someone like the Braves (when they had Mazzone) wanted to try and turn around a pitcher, we could eat the contract and get proven pitching or at the very least, quality prospects.

I will always love Bernie for many things (mainly his professionalism), but you are the type of person who would rather have Bernie back for 1-3 mil next year than to just give Bonds a 1 yr 22 mil deal to help our team win.
Not only could Bonds help our team, maybe he could relieve some of the pressure off AROD, if thats possible, by becoming the most hated man in all of baseball instead of AROD. You probably think that Bonds is more hated. But AROD is everyone's whipping boy. Everybody loves to take their cracks at AROD. But if Bonds came to us, he would be so hated, people might actually like AROD, giving his insecure self exactly what he needs to succeed.

The Red Sox just threw 106 million, depending on option years and what not, to an injury prone outfielder and an average, if not below average, fielding shortstop with little power. Do you see how their management identifies players that they "think" will improve their team and they go after them with one of the advantages that they have, their money.

If we were them, and we would rather have Drew and Lugo than "Manny" and "Any Number of Shortstops Better than Lugo" for 106 mil, I would be angry.
But I cant stop wishing we had their brains when it came to spending money.

What we need is a "Talent Evaluation Expert" (because in my opinion, Drew and Lugo arent great) and a "Free Spending" person as our GM.

I see how the Red Sox are ignoring any and all fiscal responsibility. I see that the Red Sox paid over $100M for 2 players who are improvements over what they had but no great shakes (one is just about average, and one never played more than 146 games in a season in his life).

And by the way, I would hate if the Yankees resigned Bernie, so I'm not really sure where you get that from.

I will quote again the line that I live by: "Winning is 2nd only to breathing." George had it right when he said that. He didnt say "Winning is 2nd only to making money" or "saving money" or "getting bargain basement deals."
------------------------------------
I do hope you realize that a lot of that is rhetoric meant to market or brand the Yankees in the eyes of The New York Post and the fans. I know George wants to win but you shouldn't take it so literally.

And, honestly, giving the biggest contract to the best players is hardly thinking outside the box. That's about as in the box as it gets.

Neither one of us can prove either way whether it is rhetoric or not. But the facts support that it is not rhetoric, as our payroll . If George really cared about making money, then he could field a competitive for 100 mil and pocket the other 100 mil + luxury tax as profit. The fact that he doesnt do that should show that he doesnt care as much about making money as he does about winning.

Secondly, there are sometimes stories about when agents want to get their clients the best deals, they will do an end run around Cashman and go straight to George because they know George would gladly give the money for a better player.

"And, honestly, giving the biggest contract to the best players is hardly thinking outside the box. That's about as in the box as it gets."
============
For the final time, its about giving the best contracts and NOT CARING and being willing to eat the contracts if the player does not work out. That is outside the box because most of the time, the key to a successful business is to limit your mistakes, but the Yankees dont have to limit their mistakes. The Yankees are the exception to the rule.

Chewbacca, you have some interesting ideas for certain. But I think your basic premise is wrong. Even the Yanks have a limit to how much money they can (and are willing to) spend. Remember Carlos Beltran? The Yanks didn't sign him, even though he offered a 'discount', because of the luxury tax implications.

Even taking into account the deduction the Yanks will get from the construction costs for the New Stadium, having a payroll significantly over the luxury tax threshold is costing the Yanks. Forbes says the Yanks lost a ton of money (almost $88M) the last 2 years. I don't think even the Yanks can sustain those kinds of losses for many years into the future, which is what your suggestions would lead to.

Do you see how their management identifies players that they "think" will improve their team and they go after them with one of the advantages that they have, their money.
==============
Don't underestimate their talent evaluation, and getting productive players on the cheap. Tim Wakefield, Bronson Arroyo, Troy O'Leary, David Ortiz, among others. One of the things that I have found amusing about the Red Sox during their current run (1995-present) is that they seem to be a team made up of spare parts.

When the Yankees are reporting their annual income, their operating losses are not accurate, as they do not include their revenue from the YES Network.

I am not underestimating their talent evaluation. However, a lot of the players they identify to make their team better, really shouldnt. But they do anyway, by luck and umpires alone.
e.g. Wily Mo Pena has throughout his career shown no patience whatsoever at the plate, and somehow they thought he would become more patient under the tutilage of David Ortiz, and he miraculously became better. With Cincy, his OBP was 283/316/304 and with the Red Sox, 349.

Wily Mo Pena has throughout his career shown no patience whatsoever at the plate, and somehow they thought he would become more patient under the tutilage of David Ortiz, and he miraculously became better. With Cincy, his OBP was 283/316/304 and with the Red Sox, 349.
===========================
bb/pa (2003-06)
.067, .060, .060, .066

bb/so (2003-06)
0.23, 0.20, 0.17, 0.22

I wouldn't read too much into his "miraculous" improvement, especially when they've come in under 300 ABs

My mistake. I was doing it rather quickly and just looked at OBP. Basically, the difference in OBP is due to his BA. So, all that means is, is that Wily Mo got luckier with the Red Sox. Go Figure :-)

I would like to know what his Pitches/PA are for his career though.