WasWatching.com

I have seen very little evidence at any point that Karstens could be a serviceable major league staff member. He's always looked brutal to me, even in that brief shining moment in 2006 where he strung a couple half-decent starts stat-wise. I don't get it, he needs to be cut, there's gotta be someone better in triple-A.

I'm sorry, does this even make any sense at all? A credible rotation? Of what? Dice-K, Wakefield, Two rookies, and Colon? How is that credible at all? I would say that is made up of not one single credible pitcher, not even one.

Its not like if the Yankees lost two pitchers (well, one pitcher and another pitcher for asay 15 days, a la Beckett) they wouldn't look at Loshe or someone in the same way the Sox looked at Colon. I fail to see how the Sox somehow "hedged their bets" more than the Yankees did or whatever nonsense this dude is spewing...

I don't know...I kind of find it hard to take this article seriously when its foundation is flawed. How exactly are the Red Sox well stocked to survive Schilling and Beckett missing significant time? Dice-K is obviously a fine option, but who rounds out the rest of their staff? Wakefield? Uneven at times last year, and battled shoulder and back problems. Lester? Coming back from cancer, and, for what it's worth, has looked mediocre at best this spring. Buchholz? Should be looked at with the same skepticism as any of the Yankees young starters having only pitched a shade over 22 ML innings. Bartolo Colon? Has looked good in workouts this spring (again, should be taken with a grain of salt) but he's a HUGE injury concern. Odds of him making it through half a season healthy, much less a whole season, are slim.

In fact, I think, sans Schilling, the Red Sox rotation, though probably superior with Beckett at the top, stacks up pretty evenly to the Yankees.

Beckett/Wang, Dice-k/Pettitte, Wakefield/Moose, Bucholz/Hughes, Lester/Kennedy. Each team has a pitcher that seems to slide into the same category. The only difference is that Beckett is a lights-out ace type with proven postseason success. Wang, our “Ace” has yet to reach that level.

Yes…if injuries/poor performances occur, than the Yankees will be in trouble. But I don’t think they’re any less prepared for it than the Red Sox are/were.

Ah...beat me to it Zach. We seem to be making the same point though, so I don't mind.

We also could have picked up Sidney Ponson. He was hitting 94 on the gun in his workout session. The pesky Rangers got him instead. Shrewd decision on their part.

I think this article is particularly relevant,
http://tinyurl.com/2fn2fm

"There are less and less jobs that are being handed to players for what they used to be, as teams are now showing more willingness to go with the more talented, less proven guy for a fraction of the price."

"The days of saying that replacement level is some vague, undefined theory that is only for poor teams is over. Major League Baseball has defined replacement level this winter, and the game is better for it. Hooray for finally having to earn your way on the roster by having enough talent to help your team win, and not through some arbitrary right of experience and name value."

Kyle Lohse? The player you wanted to sign to a 4 year contract @10m a year?

If you were the owner of the Yanks (or any team for that matter) wouldn't it concern you that your GM paid way more than the market rate and for more years than necessary?

See how easy it is to use hindsight to judge a GM's performance?

In your words, Not pretty at all.

What a silly premise. The Red Sox have hedged better? Is that why they've finished with a better record than the Yankees 1x over the past decade (and only by two games at that). If anything, the Yankees have "hedged" better because they have avoided a 2006-type collapse like Boston had.

As for what happens if Mussina flops and one of the kids isn't ready? Hmm...that sounds like a scenario very similar to last year. I guess the Yankees will rely on Kei Igawa, Jeff Karstens, Chase Wright, etc. and still wind up winning over 90 games.

There is still Freddy Garcia. LOL, what about Jeff Weaver?!

If all else fails, I think Yanks would trade for a starter like Ben Sheets or something along those lines.

~~~The player you wanted to sign to a 4 year contract @10m a year?~~~

Be fair. I later revised that once I saw the way the market was working for him and said that I would never sign him for that - and would only offer him a one-year deal.

The Yankees tend to make big, risky bets, like the decision to bank this year on rookie pitchers. It fits the structure of the team, which has always focused on running out the best star talent available and filling the gaps around the edges as needed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think this says it all: what part of banking this year on rookie pitchers would indicate a focus on running out the best star talent available?

If anything, the decision to keep Hughes, Kennedy, or any other young player instead of trading for Johan Santana represents the exact opposite effect at play.

While the above may have been true in the past, I think it is less so now and Marchman's failure to realize that leads him to write yet one more in the long line of tired stories about how the Yanks are poorly run and survive exclusively on their $200M payroll and their best start talent rosters.

Man, a city this big and yet no one in the press corps knows anything about baseball or cares to do research?

Be fair. I later revised that once I saw the way the market was working for him and said that I would never sign him for that - and would only offer him a one-year deal.

==========

You endorsed the move in your original post. Real GM's don't get "do overs". If Cashman had done what you wanted him to do when you wanted him to do it he'd be over-spending based on the market. I don't care about the money, it was the length of contract you endorsed that I found extravagant.

BTW, even if the times I write are (almost) always against your opinion I still come back because I like to see your opinions.