WasWatching.com

I completely agree with you here, Steve. Although I do think we might need at least one more moderate bat to make up for the loss of A-Rod, if we had the pitching, we wouldn't need to score 900 runs.

Well, I'm sure that if Cashman does make this move, it would be for 2008 and beyond. That's the part that really doesn't make sense. Why part with IPK, Melky, Wang, Tabata, etc for Cabrera to salvage 08 when you can probably just buy Texiera (a better option for what the Yankees need) a year from now? Just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

well, Miggy is a better hitter than Tex. 3 years younger and wont be a FA until after 2009, a year more than Tex. Tex definitely has the better glove though and is a switch-hitter.

overall i'd rather have Cabrera. a 24-year-old with a career 143 OPS+ is amazing. the best RHB under 30 outside of Pujols. i'd be willing to part with anyone outside of Cano, Hughes and Joba. especially if Girardi thinks he can keep him in shape and motivated (a big question unto itself).

but between trading a boatload for Miggy or signing Tex as a FA, Tex is the way to go despite being the slightly inferior player. we get to keep our blue-chippers.

You nailed it, Steve. Cabrerra's a monster at the plate, but the Yanks need to add to their pitching cache - not subtract from it.

I think it's a long, loooong shot Cabrera ever ends up on the Yanks. The Marlins would really have to value Ian Kennedy. They would have to see him as a solid, long-term two in their rotation. Also, no other team could offer up a young ace pitcher (someone like Kazmir or Joba).

Would Cashman give up Kennedy, Melky and Tabata? Hmm, maybe. But the Marlins are clearly going to want Hughes or Joba, and I just don't see Cashman making that mistake.

I basically said the same thing Steve wrote here a while back: the loss of A-Rod's production can be balanced out by a much-improved starting rotation.

With Pettitte declining his option, I don't see how on earth Kennedy, let alone Hughes and Joba are in play for any trades.

The Yanks might need to add to their pitching cache, but be honest, there is only so many spots. Giving up Kennedy is not going to destroy the Yankees pitching depth. Joba and Hughes is another story.

If the Yankees could somehow get Cabrera for Melky, Kennedy and Tabata, you have to pull off that trade. They still have insane pitching depth, and hopefully Pettitte will resign.

Obviously if he doesn't, the Yanks have to seriously think about trading for a pitcher...

From the Times article that Steve linked to:

"the Yankees have no interest in a Johnny Damon-for-Crede trade."

Really? Why the hell not?

I think if the Marlins will take Melky-Kennedy+1 you have to do that deal. Cabrera is not just some overweight guy with a big stick. He's 24 and he's the third or fourth best right-handed hitter in the game. His closest comparable through that age is Hank Aaron.

One thing: Hughes and Chamerlain are special and the closest players the team has to untouchable prospects so they probably shouldn't go for even a Cabrera. But making them categorically untouchable would be ridiculous. Mark Cuban won't trade Dirk Nowetski for Kobe Bryant because Dirk is untouchable to him, even though Kobe is twice as good.

The reasoning in this post is weak; you have to look at this in terms of Pythagorean records. If the Yankees had scored 800 runs this year, their Pythagorean record would have been 83 wins - 79 losses.

If the Yankees wanted to hold ground and play to a .580 record next year, while scoring 800 runs, their pitching staff would have to give up 681 runs. Figuring in 10% unearned runs, the Yankees team ERA would have to drop to 3.80. Given the youth and overall composition of this staff, picking up that much ground in ERA would be almost miraculous.

Giving up Melky means an OF of Matsui, Damon, & Abreu. Defensively, I don't think that's a good idea.

~~~The reasoning in this post is weak; you have to look at this in terms of Pythagorean records. If the Yankees had scored 800 runs this year, their Pythagorean record would have been 83 wins - 79 losses. If the Yankees wanted to hold ground and play to a .580 record next year, while scoring 800 runs, their pitching staff would have to give up 681 runs. Figuring in 10% unearned runs, the Yankees team ERA would have to drop to 3.80.~~~

I think you have to factor in that the Yankees PW% was close to 20 points higher than their actual W% in 2007. Those extra runs sure did help the team's PW% this year - but, it did not impact their actual record as much.

I think you have to factor in that the Yankees PW% was close to 20 points higher than their actual W% in 2007. Those extra runs sure did help the team's PW% this year - but, it did not impact their actual record as much.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sure, the Yankees won three less games than they should have -- a minor fluke. Essentially, they did worse in one run games, but won more blowouts than the average team. You can't expect results like that to carry over from year-to-year; they're essentially random.

But, still, there's a lot of difference between 97 wins (what they should have won), 94 wins (what they did win, and 83 wins (what they would have won if they had scored 800 runs).

jonm - I totally understand your point - that, if you shave off 100 runs scored, you need to also shave off 100 runs allowed to get the same PW%.

But, that's just math. In terms of how the Yankees applied those runs, in reality, cannot be ignored.

All those wins by 5+ runs would be the same amount of wins if the Yankees won those games by 3+ or 4+ runs. You don't get extra wins for margin of victory.

But, that's just math. In terms of how the Yankees applied those runs, in reality, cannot be ignored.

All those wins by 5+ runs would be the same amount of wins if the Yankees won those games by 3+ or 4+ runs. You don't get extra wins for margin of victory.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, but you almost seem to assume that the Yankees can choose how their total number of runs are going to be distributed over the course of the season. It just doesn't work that way -- the opposing pitcher and defense have something to say about that. Sure some of those marginal 168 runs were scored in blowouts, but also some of those marginal runs were useful in turning one run losses into one run wins.