WasWatching.com

In my world, I'd rather try and fail with my own guys. While I don't love the A-Rod, Posada, or Rivera deals, at least I can justify them as rewarding our own guys for their good performances. But trading Hughes, Cabrera, and at least one or two other guys AND THEN PAYING $150M to reward Santana for those Cy Youngs he won for the Twins? I just don't see how it makes financial or baseball sense.

I think it's blatantly obvious that the Yanks got smoked in these negotiations by both the Red Sox and Twins. It's pathetic that the Yankees have become a frightened and reactionary ballclub that let other teams dictate what they should be doing. The Yanks aren't supposed to worry about what Boston does. Frankly, no team should worry about anyone else. You never win by worrying what others are doing.

That Phil Hughes - he's good, but he's no Scott Ruffcorn.

Oh, and M.J. just nailed it.

~~~In my world, I'd rather try and fail with my own guys.~~~

Yankees history is full of not "my own guys" - from Ruth and Ruffing, to Maris and Reynolds, to Nettles and Lyle, to Gossage and Jackson, to O'Neill and Cone....

Why draw the line at Santana?

How do you look at that list and think "Wow! Most of the pitching prospects projected to be good failed!"? I look at that and think, "They mostly got it right." Who was ranked number one is meaningless. How much separated number one from number five? Probably not much. They list about 52 guys here and I think around 23 of them turned out to be quite good or had good careers. Most of the ones who failed had the stuff but had injuries that ruined their careers.

I think we can all agree that Hughes is a good pitcher. How good is impossible to say until he plays more. I just how we're beyond the point where we question if he's some overrated creation of every single observer of minor-league baseball, which is a claim people seem to make, though it's patently ridiculous.

And I agree with MJ wholeheartedly: the Yankees folded pathetically in a panicky and desperate way. Before the Sox even pushed them with a bluff, they caved in and gave up Hughes. They didn't even bother to wait the Twins out. They offered Hughes early and now exactly what I said would happen HAS happened: the Twins have come back with more demands. Now they want Austin Jackson or Alan Horne in the deal. I cannot believe the Yankees were so stupid to fall for the Twins' "if we don't get Hughes we're trading him to the Sox" ploy -- the Sox are still talking about sending over salary-dump Coco Crisp. The Yankees really believed the Twins were taking that deal? Are they nuts?

I pray this deal falls apart as is and the Yankees move on to trying to get Dan Haren. I hope the Yankees go after Haren with a Kennedy/Melky/Horne-or-Tabata deal and get that done. I personally think Haren/Hughes trumps Kennedy/Santana.

~~~They list about 52 guys here and I think around 23 of them turned out to be quite good or had good careers.~~~

So, that means, by your logic, even for the VERY best pitching prospects in baseball, it's less than a 50-50 shot that they have a "quite good" or "good" career, no?

Sorta still proves the point that it's a coin-flip on whether or not the best pan out, yes?

That's an excellent post, Steve; it forces me to re-think the trade. By the way, how highly rated was Eric Milton rated when the Yankees traded him? I seem to recall that he was very well thought of, but I didn't follow Sickels' work as closely back then.

(Still, I would not give the Twins Horne or Jackson as the third player -- a line has to be drawn somewhere.)

You might be right about the vagaries of pitching prospect success, Steve. But I really don't think Hughes is a coin flip. He showed flashes of dominance this past season at the ML level. He made the Rangers look absolutely goofy (okay, no big whoop there) and had some really nice starts toward the end of the year - including a solid playoff performance. Couple his on-field flashes of brilliance with his pedigree, and it's very hard not to believe that he's going to be something special. I'm not saying he DEFINITELY WILL be a great pitcher, but all signs sort of point in that direction.

This is bad, bad, bad. Though I read often, I post only occasionally here (and even more seldom on other Yankee blogs). My five or six posts here today are a silent scream of sorts: I haven't felt this disturbed or impassioned about anything involving the Yanks since the '04 ALCS cataclysm.

If you include the guys who had the stuff but had injuries, it's a lot more than fifty percent. Anyway, these lists need context. Someone could be rated the fifth best pitcher in the minors, but it doesn't mean a lot because the minors are so pitching-thin that year. Someone is ranked third, but they don't think he's really anything more than a three-starter in the bigs (but they see him as someone who will throw a lot of innings, etc.). It also doesn't mention what level they were at at the time of the ranking. Being ranked in the top five does not mean they are saying you are going to become Roger Clemens.

When I look at that list, this is what I see:

Justin Verlander, Francisco Liriano, Matt Cain, Chad Billingsley, Felix Hernandez, Jeff Francis, Scott Kazmir, Francisco Rodriguez, Rich Harden, Mark Prior, Jake Peavy, Ben Sheets, Josh Beckett, Roy Oswalt, Eric Gagne, Brad Penny, Kerry Wood, Billy Wagner, Jason Schmidt.

You're talking about, for the most part, the best pitchers over that span. And the recent guys (from 2002 on) have panned out.

And anyway, I don't need BA or Sickels to tell me what I saw with my own eyes, in Trenton and then in the Bronx. Phil is good. Maybe he won't ever sniff the Santana territory, but he will be an effective pitcher. Everything I see of Hughes just seems perfect: from his size to his personality. I just don't like giving him up, though I understand why they will.

Or, I don't know, maybe I'm just tired of the "remember that most pitching prospects don't pan out" argument because it's so hoary it has mold on it. In this context, it seems more like a way to shield the horrid negotiations of the Yankees. And it's no longer about prospect/suspect with Phil; we all saw him pitch. If you look at him and see someone who looks like he's not going to be special, fine. I didn't see that at all. In fact, I guess Phil should have gone to the bullpen and pitched one inning at a time, because if he had I guess he'd be untouchable too. Yankees are making a mistake giving him up and it'll no doubt haunt them like most of the moves they made since 2001. Short term it gets them beyond the first round. Long term it keeps them bloated.

One more thing to consider when looking at the list: the writer has no control over what happens once the pitchers get into the bigs. A perfect example is Edwin Jackson. You might think "he was highly regarded but failed," but he actually has plus-stuff -- it wasn't his fault the Dodgers rushed him, ruined his confidence, and generally screwed him up. He's still inconsistent today, but who can argue with his ability? But baseball is mental too and they can't give these guys psych tests. Using this list as a way to say Hughes probably won't work out feels fallacious.

Phil Hughes has not had elbow soreness issues. Those reports are spurious, according to Cashman. They merely shut him down to keep his IP down as he made the transition from high school to pro ball.

I really don't care what Sickels thinks. I can tell from seeing the guy pitch that he will be a very good to great ML pitcher. Why? Because he has incredible command to go along with his great stuff, and because he already understands the thought process of being a pitcher.

Two factors that make me think Hughes is a goner.

Lil' Stein has a new stadium he wants to sell luxury boxes in. Nothing like a WS victory to create demand for those.

With George Steinbrenner's health declining you have to wonder if his kid's are gonna go all out to get him another elusive WS victory.

I would wager $1000 that the Yankees can sell out the luxury boxes even if they don't the playoffs.

As for George, a guy who couldn't keep his mouth shut now needs a spokesman to communicate with the media. I doubt that he is cognizant of his environment all that often.

Please, the Yankees didn't get hosed by the Twins, and certainly not by the Red Sox. Clearly the Sox WANT Santana or they wouldn't still be involved trying to up their own offer. What happened was that the Twins went to the Yankees and said, straight and plain, "you aren't getting Johan without Hughes. Period." And as Stick indicated before all this, they never, ever, said Hughes was off limits, just that they would like to keep him. Basically, the Yankees determined that the best course of action for them was to get Santana and in order to do so they needed to include Hughes. Its got nothing to do with being hosed. There is no way to say that a package of Hughes and Melky for Santana isn't fair. Its overly fair. You are all just very very biased b/c Hughes was the symbol of the new direction of the Yankees.

However, the Yankees are more than right in drawing the line where they have...if the Twins really demand more, screw em...

There is no way the Sox would pay Santana $25 million a year for six or seven years because they would have to give Beckett the same thing.

If they aren't bluffing, they should give up Ellsbury and make the deal, because he is not that good.

Hughes will be better than Santana over the next five years.

The Yankees got worse than hosed.

Come one, Zack, wake up. Santana is worth what the market will bear, and since he wants such a huge contract his value is (oddly enough) limited. All except to the panicking Yankees.

Look at it: the Angels won't give up Adenhart, the Dodgers won't give up Kershaw and the Sox won't give up Buckholz. Seeing a trend here? Only the Yankees were willing to give up their best pitching prospect. The Yankees are getting hosed because they caved before there was a competing offer to match their original deal. And since the Yanks caved so early, now the Twins want Austin Jackson too. It's a fiasco. I hope this whole deal falls apart, the Twins keep Santana, and the Yanks buy him as a free agent. I also hope they can flip Kennedy and Horne for Haren, because I think both pitchers' value is higher than it will ever be.

I think baileywalk has it exactly right. And I'll add another suggestion.

Let's make a list of all the 29 year old pitchers who looked great for 5 or 6 years but declined in their 30s. We could start with Mark Mulder, not yet 30. Or Hampton. Or Zito. Or look at pitchers who appeared aces for a while but declined so that they are more mid-rotation types like Hudson.

It does not matter that Santana may currently look better than Mulder did or have more Cy Youngs. The possibility of decline, already seen in 2007 however slight, is just as real as the possibility that Hughes does not develop into a star.

And comparing Hughes to some list is not valid, partly for the reason given that pitching depth in any given year may yield different quality leaders. You have to look at what he actually did, and I doubt many had a minor league career as stunning as his in so many categories.

Take 4 of the more successful among them (Beckett, Verlander, Felix H. & Kazmir), and their minor league resume is close to Hughes's, with him arguably better than them. He is second to Beckett in H/9 (5.56-5.51), first in HR/9 (.2), 3rd in BB/9 (2.16-2.12-1.98), last in K/9 (10.18-10.36. Beckett is first at 12.29) and first in WHIP (.86). Of the 5, Beckett's last minor league year as at age 23, while Felix was 19, and Hughes is in the middle at 21.

I have another thought. What is the rush? It is the Twins who are desperate, not us or Boston. If they do not trade Santana, he will either leave after next year and all they get are draft choices, or they will have to accede to his contract demands. NY and Boston can wait until July 31 when Minnesota will really be up against it.

The Yankees cannot keep bidding higher because they are afraid Boston will snap him up; NY has to bid based on its own assessment of the talent involved. If anything, Santana will cost less later, and there will also be more time to evaluate whether there really is the beginning of a decline.

I think the best case would be for the Mets to give up Reyes and let Santana go to the NL. Cashman and Epstein should be talking Santana up to Minaya.

Bob R: "The Yankees cannot keep bidding higher because they are afraid Boston will snap him up; NY has to bid based on its own assessment of the talent involved. If anything, Santana will cost less later, and there will also be more time to evaluate whether there really is the beginning of a decline."

My response: Well put and exactly right.

Steve: "Yankees history is full of not "my own guys" - from Ruth and Ruffing, to Maris and Reynolds, to Nettles and Lyle, to Gossage and Jackson, to O'Neill and Cone...Why draw the line at Santana?"

My response: Can you tell me if all those guys were traded for the team's #1 pitching prospect in an era where developing your own pitching was arguably the most important thing a franchise could do? Not only is Hughes the best pitching prospect the Yanks have ever developed, he's one of the best pitching prospects in all of baseball (something Marty Janzen wasn't when they got Coney). The point is that the game has changed over the years and we're seeing the importance of developing your own pitching because of how ridiculously expensive it is on the open market. Case in point, a guy turning 29 who will have 1,100 innings as a starter over 5 seasons at the time he becomes a free agent asking for $150M over six years.

Steve, no matter what Hughes becomes -- even if he bombs like Ben McDonald or Todd Van Poppell -- you're missing the point. The Yanks are operating under the premise that they need Santana because they don't want him going to Boston. What sort of way is that to run a franchise? It's disgraceful that 2004 has shell-shocked people in the Bronx so much that they actually believe ESPN when it talks about this arms race. The Yanks should do what's best for them, not what is worst for Boston. Mutually assured destruction only works in geo-politics, not in baseball.

hear, hear to all the Hughes supportes (especially bailey).

this has become the French off-season - giving in to everyone and everything. management is folding like a house of cards. hope against hope, the 3rd prospect is the sticking point and the deal falls through.

~~~The Yanks are operating under the premise that they need Santana because they don't want him going to Boston.~~~

Do we know this for fact? Or, maybe, just maybe, could it be that the Yankees think they're missing that ace for Games 1, 4, and 7 in the post-season...or, that guy to go toe-to-toe against Beckett in a big game, etc.?

I could see this point - because, as Posada says, right now, the Yankees do not have a true ace. (Sorry Worm Killer, the H/R splits and recent post-season starts suggest that you're very good, but, not an ace.)

~~~And comparing Hughes to some list is not valid, partly for the reason given that pitching depth in any given year may yield different quality leaders. You have to look at what he actually did, and I doubt many had a minor league career as stunning as his in so many categories.~~~

FWIW, when Scott Ruffcorn was selected as the best pitching prospect in baseball, as Epsetin wrote then, "Ruffcorn's minor league track record is flawless; he has been well above average in ERA, K/IP ratio, and K/BB ratio at every minor leage stop for the past three years."

Bob R,

If you want to compare SPs at 28 (that is how old Johan was for the season) you can't just randomly choose guys who were "really good" you need to use comparable players. B-R.com list similar players at the same age on each player page, Santana has the following:

1. Tim Hudson (949)
2. Roy Oswalt (940)
3. John Candelaria (935)
4. Juan Pizarro (931)
5. Bob Welch (929)
6. Mike Mussina (928)
7. Kevin Appier (927)
8. Jack McDowell (921)
9. Kevin Millwood (915)
10. Sid Fernandez (915)

And overall who most closely aligns with his career to date:

1. Roy Oswalt (931)
2. Don Gullett (929)
3. Teddy Higuera (925)
4. Lefty Williams (916)
5. Tex Hughson (913)
6. Doug Rau (911)
7. Roy Halladay (909)
8. Jake Peavy (909)
9. Tom Seaton (907)
10. Jay Hughes (902)

I think these paint a more interesting picture of what is expected out of Johan.

Let me take this opportunity to step in and defend our intrepid leader who merely stated the obvious: That trading a high-quality prospect for the best pitcher in baseball may not be such a bad idea.

Guys, for all the talk of "building from within," the team we love is The New York Yankees. The family that owns this team has long operated under the idea of "Win the next World Series and ask questions later." That's never going to change.

And, this Yankees team is built to win today. The everyday stars on this team are not getting any younger. Bottom line is sometimes you develop prospects to play for you and sometimes you develop prospects to help you get guys like Johan Santana.

The "built to win today" canard is a specious argument because it is based on a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Cash has put a plan in place that will enable the Yankees to win now and in the future, unless some fatuous fool of an owner intercedes and disrupts the process.

Phil Hughes can help the Yankees win now and in the future. The Yankees are almost as likely to win with him in the rotation as they are with Santana, and given Santana's age and the red flags that his late season stats put up, quite possibly more likely to win with Hughes.

The problem with the Yankees in the postseason since the 2004 collapse has been that they have squeezed their bats into sawdust. That can be seen in the drop in their OBP from the regular season to the postseason. Santana won't solve that problem.

If Pettite retires and the Yankees do not get Santana, the starting rotation is Wang, the three rookies, and an aging and inconsistent Mussina. Although the kids COULD all be spectacular, it is much more realistic to expect inconsistency. In short, that rotation points to a team that would win about 85-90 games -- and we haven't even started to look at the thin bullpen.

Put another way, the current Yankee staff looks like a much better bet for 2009 and especially 2010, when the team harvests some of the promising bullpen arms.

The problem, of course, is that the everyday players and closer are made for a win-now approach. By 2010, only A-Rod, Cano, Melky (if he stays) are likely to be performing at their current levels. So, without the Santana deal, it looks as though the Yankees will field a (roughly) $200 million team in 2008 that will be a marginal bet for the play-offs.

I can live with that, as can many bloggers and prospect-lovers. But can the Yankee organization deal with the media complaints? Does Hank Steinbrenner want his first year as Numero Uno to be the first one in which the Yankees don't make the play-offs in more than a decade?

From the win-now viewpoint -- and I mean specifically 2008 -- I think we have to concede that Santana gives the Yankees a much better chance to make the play-offs than does Hughes. In thre years, it's probably a different story. But I do not see the team management being prepared to wait that long.

Rich--Phil Hughes is not Johan Santana. Let's get real.

The Yankees haven't won in the post-season because they have not had a legit number 1 ace to win a big game for them. Period.

~~~If Pettite retires and the Yankees do not get Santana, the starting rotation is Wang, the three rookies, and an aging and inconsistent Mussina. Although the kids COULD all be spectacular, it is much more realistic to expect inconsistency. In short, that rotation points to a team that would win about 85-90 games -- and we haven't even started to look at the thin bullpen.~~~

Dead, solid, perfect.

I concur, 100%.

They may not have had a legit number one to throw in the playoffs, but Pettitte sure pitched like one against Cleveland and they still lost.

You're right, Joel. Hughes is younger and cheaper, and will likely be better than Santana.

As for your ace comment, did the lack of an ace cause them to choke away the 2004 ALCS? Nope.

Did the lack of an ace cause Bubba and Sheffield to collide in the 2005 ALCS? Nope.

Did the lack of an ace cause them to fail to hit Kenny "Freakin'" Rogers? Nope.

Did the lack of an ace cause the swarm to descend on Joba? Nope.

What do all those series have in common? The offense has melted away.

The Yankees collectively need to acquire Manny's philosophy: If they don't win the series, it's not the end of the world. They have acted like it is.

~~~Hughes...will likely be better than Santana.~~~

You see Hughes winning three Cy Youngs? Really? You can predict that now?

~~~As for your ace comment, did the lack of an ace cause them to choke away the 2004 ALCS? Did the lack of an ace cause Bubba and Sheffield to collide in the 2005 ALCS? Did the lack of an ace cause the swarm to descend on Joba?~~~

Well, if they have an ace, maybe they win Game 4 of the ALCS in 2004. Or, if they had an ace, in place of Unit, then there is no Game 5 in 2005? Or, maybe, if they had an ace, winning the games that Wang lost in 2006, then maybe the bugs don't matter?

Rich--Your Hughes worship has run amok. To even put Hughes in the same breath with the best pitcher in baseball--who has one foot in Cooperstown--is ridiculous.

A number 1 ace instead of Kevin Brown wins Game 7 of the 2004 ALCS.

A number 1 ace instead of Mike Mussina wins Game 5 of the 2005 ALDS.

A number 1 ace wins Game 1 of the 2006 ALDS, allows Wang to pitch Game 2, and alters the outcome of that series.

And, a number 1 ace wins Game 1 of the 2007 ALDS, beating a so-so Sabathia. Then, bugs and all, comes back to close the deal in Game 4 or 5.

It all comes down to pitching. Just look at Josh Beckett and the Red Sox.

By saying that Hughes will be better than Santana, I meant from this point forward.

Obviously, there were multiple reasons for postseason success or failure. It's possible that Santana would have won some of those games, if he had been available to pitch, but as I pointed out, the Yankees could have won all of those series without an ace, especially the 2004 ALCS, that produced a hangover from which they still haven't recovered. To me, that hangover has been a more critical factor than the lack of an ace.

Steve, your post that delineated the decline in Santana's stats since the 17 K performance should not be easily dismissed. Taken together with reports out of Minnesota that he may have a nascent arm injury which prevented him from throwing his slider, should offer a severe note of caution, especially when the $150 million investment is added to the calculus.

To surrender a cost controlled 21 year old with Hughes's ceiling, is imo, imprudent.

I would rather stand pat.

Even using those 2 lists, bryank. I see no reason to suppose that Santana is certain or even probable to remain effective over the next few years. Look how many flamed out due to injury or simply declined to be less than an ace.

In the end, all predictions about Santana or Hughes/Kennedy/Jackson et al are educated guesses. I could list many 21 year old pitchers who appeared ready to shine but who flopped and an equal number who succeeded brilliantly, and do the same with 28 year old stars who flatlined or declined or who got even better with age.

I do not think the odds of Santana being a better pitcher than Hughes over the next 6-7 years are better than the reverse, despite his longer track record. And I certainly do not think the total value of Santana is likely to be better than whatever package the Yankees give up.

I also do not see the urgency of doing this now. Why not wait? Sure, if we do, Hughes may seem less attractive, but he may also reestablish himself as untouchable. Why do we think we can make a better deal now than in July? Maybe better options arise. Santana is not the only ace available now, and there may be even more later.

I don't buy the "we have to have an ace to win the World Series argument". Many aces have stunk up the series, and many weaker pitchers have starred. And to build an entire team around the notion that it must be able to win 4 games at the end of the year is like buying a lottery ticket and budgeting for the month as if you had already won. You build a team on a solid bedrock of talent, not around a thin layer of stars resting on a platform of mediocre complements.

Addendum: From that list of "similar pitchers", I found one who might still be considered close to an ace at age 35, Mussina. Every other one had shown some decline from ace status by age 31, had lost it completely or become a sometime starter or had left baseball at between ages 29-33, many by age 29. Even Oswalt saw a decline in his K rate and increase in his walk rate last year at age 29. The Yankees would be paying Santana to be an ace at least until he is 34 or 35, but none of his comparables, with the possible and debatable exception of Mussina managed to maintain that stature.

Bob R.--You are needlessly overcomplicating this. Santana is the best pitcher in baseball. He's 28 years old and has plenty of mileage left.

Hughes is a promising prospect who could become great, so-so, or a nobody.

Me? I'm taking the best pitcher in baseball.

And Rich--A "hangover from the 2004 ALCS...from which they still haven't recovered" that "has been a more critical factor than the lack of an ace."

Do you really believe that psychobabble?

What's psychobabble is the failure to understand the human psyche. Sorry if that's the case with you, but the the disparity between their regular season OBP and their postseason OBP from 2005-2007 is extremely telling.

Santana wasn't even the best pitcher in the American League in 2007. In fact, he wasn't among the top 3.

There is nothing complicated about it. The single most damning error the Yankees made in the 1980s was to believe that they could win by accumulating stars. After 2001 the Yankees returned to the notion that a winner meant having an all-star at every position. Because there remained a strong core of excellent players, the Yankees kept winning, but signs of rot began to emerge because of the neglect of the farm that had supported the team since the early 1990s. So Cashman started building it up again.

The fact that they did not win World Series is irrelevant; this has been a terrific team. It was winning 4 Series in 5 years that was the anomaly; losing in the post-season since is not failure. It is the norm and will continue to be no matter what the team does. What the Yankees have to do is continue their intelligent approach of the 1990s, to build a strong base of talent and supplement it, not to squander it to add one more star.

If the entire focus is on winning the World Series instead of building a solid base to keep supplying the parts needed for a contender over 162 games, which means maintaining depth so that you are not filling in with Cairo or Enrique Wilson or Igawa or Wright or any of the other left-overs you have by trading away young talent for one more star, you will eviscerate the team and lose ground year by year.

To demonstrate that the Yankees fade in the post-season for the reason you suggest, Rich, you have to compare their OBP against the pitchers they face then to their OBP against the same pitchers in the regular season. You can't look at it in comparison to how they do against all pitchers all year. Even then, I would be skeptical that it proves anything; at most, it might be the beginning of a research project. Among other things, the comparison would be between just a few games, and even if it were done over the past 5 years it is not enough to draw even tentative conclusions as so many other factors may be involved.

As for the notion that you have to have a shut-down ace to win in the post-season, that is an overreaction to Beckett's wonderful performance. Look at the history.

In 2002, the matchups with the Angels were: Clemens v. Washburn; Pettitte v. Appier; Mussina v. Ortiz; Wells v. Washburn. The Angels did not win because they had the shut-down ace. If anything, we had that.

In 2003, the matchups were Penny v. Wells; Redman v. Pettitte; Mussina v. Beckett; Clemens v. Pavano; Wells v. Penny; Pettitte v. Beckett. So they won because Beckett was that shut-down guy? Well, in game 3, NY beat him 6-1 behind Mussina, although Beckett did pitch well. Oh yes, and in game 4, Florida won in 12 despite the apparent pitching mismatch.

Even in 2004, the Yankees beat Schilling in game 1 by a score of 10-7 and then Lieber beat Pedro 3-1. The Yankees had it won with El Duque beating Lowe until Rivera gave up the lead in the 9th and we lost in 12. Shutdown aces had nothing to do with it, bloody sock or no.

Finally, in 2001, Arizona had 2 shut-down aces, healthy and at their peak. Still, the Yankees had that World Series won. We had Schilling beaten in game 7 until Rivera, not our starter, coughed up the 2 (fluke?) runs in the 9th.

Obviously a great pitcher helps win, both in the regular and post-seasons. Without fine performances by Schilling and Johnson in 2001, it would not have gone 7, and they would not have been close in the 9th. But the story is far more complicated than that, and sacrificing both talent and depth with that one goal in mind, seeing Santana victorious on the mound in the final game, is fantasy, not rational thinking.

cashman is doing the right thing by building the farm system up and he is doing a fantastic job.he put oppenheimer(not sure about the spelling) back in charge and brought gene michael back.oppenheimer knows the true value of the players in the minors,knows what he needs and what he can get.the yankees have layers upon layers of pitchers coming soon.buying players especially pitchers did not work and trading 3 or 4 guys for santanna would of set the yankees back years.they can win it now with hughes,joba,kennedy among others that will contribute.they also have debth and by homegrowing players it will lower their payroll and keep these players under control for years for very cheap.that is the right way to compete for years.it will be interesting to see how they spend the 80 million coming off the books after 2008.the future rotation looks great with wang,hughes,joba,kennedy,brackman,horne,betances and several more.