Showing posts with label Yankees. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Yankees. Show all posts

Monday, January 3, 2011

Are the Yankees Losing Plate Discipline?

Seven of the eight regular position players saw their O-Swing% increase by over 4%, and Brett Gardner, who made an obvious attempt to draw more walks, increased his by exactly 1%. This obviously isn’t good as more swings at pitches out of the zone leads to softer contact, if any at all, and more outs. It’s also troubling for the older players because it could be a sign of decline—as players age and lose bat speed, they start their swings earlier to catch up to hard fastballs, making it more difficult to stay back on breaking balls and pitches out of the zone. Aging doesn’t seem to tell the whole story, however, as this seems to be a team-wide problem, which indicates that the hitting philosophy has changed.

But I’m not sure that’s it, either. Kevin Long has been the hitting coach since 2007, and it seems unlikely that he would switch his philosophy now. If being more aggressive was his philosophy, you would imagine that the Yankees would have seen an increase before this past season, but as you can see, it just happened this past season. Granted, perhaps it has taken this long for the players to buy into his philosophy, but I doubt it. So I decided to look at their overall Swing% (the percentage of times they swing at any pitch; table is below), and there was not a corresponding increase in the number of swings they were taking (if he wants them to be more aggressive, then everyone should swing more). In fact, the only major change is Nick Swisher, but his new approach has been widely examined. We knew he would swing at more pitches, but everyone seems to be swinging at the same rate as always (Gardner is another exception, but his patience has been addressed as well, though he shouldn’t be more patient if the team philosophy is to be more aggressive).

Let’s look at this a different way. Why would you be more aggressive? One, you don’t want to strike out so much, and two, you want your guys to hit. Therefore, we should see a drop in walks (because they’re swinging at pitches out of the zone) and strikeouts (because that’s the whole idea). I looked at the same players’ BB and K rates (table below), and that isn’t happening. Their total team BB rates are essentially the same, and they are actually striking out more often. So either the philosophy isn’t working out, or something else is going on.

After all this, what do we have? The Yankees are swinging at more pitches out of the zone, but they aren’t swinging any more than normal, aren’t walking anymore, and are striking out a bit more. One explanation is that the Yankees hitters have simply lost track of the strike zone. They are expanding their zone and limiting their swings at a similar rate within the zone (to have a similar Swing%, something has to work against the increase in O-Swing%–in this case, Z-Swing% or percentage of times a player swings at a pitch within the strike zone), which is happening as the Z-Swing% decreased 1% from 2009 to 2010 (the percentage decrease is smaller because there are more pitches in the zone). If the reason was a team philosophy or the results of aging, we would expect all swings to go up, but again, that isn’t happening. So, WTF?

Finally, I looked at the plate discipline statistics for every team in 2009 and 2010, and it all finally made sense. You’ll be happy to know that the Yankees have had the best plate discipline (lowest O-Swing%) of any team in baseball for at least two years running, which doesn’t surprise those who lament the 3-hour, 8-minute games (that seems low). You’ll also be happy to know that the entire league’s O-Swing% has increased, which tells me that the Yankees aren’t swinging at different pitches but the pitches are being classified differently. Only 1 team topped 30% in 2009, but 11 teams did in 2010 with 7 other teams with 29+% (no team in 2009 had an O-Swing% between 28.3% and 31.2%). But why didn’t the highest total increase that much, Mark?! The percentage looks the same, but I’d argue otherwise. The Giants were notorious for their lack of patience in 2009, but in 2010, they added Buster Posey and Aubrey Huff, who take their share of walks (Posey, at least, in relation to Bengie Molina). If they had the same team from 2009, it may have been much higher.

What this tells me is that there’s something screwy in the data. I’m not sure what the problem is (or even if there is one. The entire league may have just started swinging at more pitches out of the zone, but that doesn’t really make sense to me. However, they could also have just changed the classification of certain pitches on the borders and didn’t do it for previous seasons), but I’m guessing that wherever the strike zone data is coming from is having issues, which happens while trying to calibrate data from park to park. Listen, all the new stats and technology is great. We know so much more now than we ever have, but we also have to remember that there will still be problems on the margins, where the innovators are still working out the kinks. Hey, at least it’s on the margins.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured site: So, Why is Wikileaks a Good Thing Again?.


View the original article here

Friday, December 24, 2010

Minor League Recap: Tampa Yankees

Tampa was strong all season and topped off their 2010 year with a sweep of Dunedin in the semi-finals before dispatching the Charlotte Stone Crabs in the finals.? While they played well as a team, there were a few players who were particularly instrumental in Tampa’s success.

Curtain Calls:
Dellin Betances (SP): In fourteen starts for Tampa, Betances went 8-1 with a 1.77 ERA (1.83 FIP).? As one of the Yankees biggest prospects, Betances dominated the opposition in the Florida State League.? He allowed just one homer and nineteen walks, while striking out 88.? He held hitters to a .169 average before getting called up to Trenton.

Corban Joseph (2B):Joseph had a great season in Tampa before getting promoted to Trenton late in the season.? Over 98 games, Joseph put together a line of .302/.378/.436/.814.? He drove in 52 RBIs, six homers and three triples.? As Joseph continues to improve, he still committed thirteen errors in the field.? He also struck out 74 times, while walking just 43.

Walter Ibarra (SS):Ibarra also had a good season for Tampa, hitting .301/.348/.370.718.? He has continued to play well during the offseason, where he is currently hitting .312 for Naranjeros de Hermosillo.

Graham Stoneburner (SP):Stoneburner has made a name for himself in his second year in professional baseball.? After being promoted to Tampa, the right-hander went 8-5 over 19 starts and 103 innings.? He put together an ERA of 2.53, giving up just four homers and 24 walks while striking out 93 batters.? Stoneburner held opposing hitters to just .214 average.? August was a great month for the young hurler, who went 3-0 with an ERA of 1.95 over five games.? While he makes it hard for hitters to get on base, he does seem to struggle once runners are on, with his ERA jumping from 0.30 to 5.70. ?It is 11.39 when runners were in scoring position.

Adam Warren (SP): Another second year pro, Warren pitched his way to a late season midseason call-up to Trenton.? He went 7-5 in fifteen starts for Tampa.? He had a 2.22 (2.72) ERA, allowed only two homers and seventeen walks, while striking out 67 hitters.

Pat Venditte (RP): While it has been widely accepted that Venditte was not considered much of a prospect, the switch pitching youngster continues to make noise as he works his way through the Yankees farm system.? He appeared in 41 games for Tampa this season, before getting called up to Trenton for a couple games.? He recorded six saves thanks to a 1.73 ERA (1.88 FIP).? Venditte allowed only seventeen runs, fourteen earned, and two homers.? He walked fourteen hitters and struck out 85 while holding opposing hitters to a .187 average.

Players to Watch:
Andrew Brackman (SP):The big righty from NC State has struggled with injuries during his minor league career, but looks to have gotten back on track this season.? His numbers were not particularly impressive in Tampa, but his 5.10 ERA did not show the full picture, as his FIP was 3.12.? He gave up five homers and nine walks while striking out 56.? Brackman earned a spot on Trenton’s roster for the second part of the season, where he appeared to step things up and put together some strong numbers.

Jack Rye (OF):Rye spent fifteen games in Trenton before ending up back with Tampa, where he put together some solid numbers.? He hit .274/.342/.413/.755 in Florida, stealing seven bases and only getting thrown out once.? Rye has done alright in Tampa, but he has done two short stints in Trenton (once in 2009 and once in 2010) and has struggled.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured site: So, Why is Wikileaks a Good Thing Again?.


View the original article here

Monday, November 29, 2010

Money To Burn? (More On the Yankees’ Budget)

Sure, the Yankees are one of the most valuable franchises in sports – Forbes values the team at $1.6 billion, just behind Manchester United and the Dallas Cowboys, and well ahead of any other baseball team.? According to Forbes, the Yankees brand is the most valuable in sports.? The Yankees play in the third most expensive stadium in the world, and by some measures they have the most expensive player payroll of any sports team.? Yes, by most measures, the team is very, very rich.

But first and foremost, the Yankees are a business, a successful business.? They are governed by the same rules that apply to all businesses, and they have achieved success by doing the things that successful businesses do.? Successful businesses spend within their means. Joe Posnanski noted for Sports Illustrated that in 2009, the Yankees’ spent ?94.4% of their revenues on their baseball operations.? This is a high percentage for a baseball team, but not an unusually high percentage: in 2009, the Kansas City Royals spent 94.3% of their revenues on their baseball operations.

Posnanski concludes from this that the Yankees’ 2009 spending was “almost exactly in line with their revenue”, and this is a key point: even for the Yankees, the amount of cash flowing out is limited by the amount of cash flowing in.? In other words, if we’re going to understand the Yankees’ budget, we have to do more than we did in Part 1 of this series, where we looked at the Yankees’ historic spending.? Here in our Part 2, we’ll take a close look at the Yankees’ revenues.? Do the Yankees make enough money to justify an increase in their budget, and if so, how high might this budget legitimately go?

More precisely, we’re going to take two looks at Yankees revenues.? The first look, a simple look, suggests that the Yankees are already spending close to their limit on player payroll.? The second look, a more complex (and confusing) look, suggests that the Yankees might be able to spend a heck of a lot more.

First Look (The Simplified Look)

To get a simple picture of the Yankees’ finances, let’s put together a simple income statement for the Yankees for 2009.? Of course, the Yankees do not publish their financial statements — baseball teams are privately owned businesses and are not required to publish their financial results.? So we’re doing what everyone (even Forbes) does when they write about the business of baseball — we’re making an educated guess.

Please keep in mind, this is only a guess … but also note that my guess ($26 million in profits) is not far off from Forbes’ guess ($25 million in operating income).? So maybe my guess is pretty good.

Let’s quickly walk through these numbers.? The $600 million revenue figure was widely reported earlier this year — this is what caused Craig Calcaterra to comment on the Yanks’ ability to print money. I think the figure may be high — it is based on a statement by CNBC reporter Darren Rovell that the Yankees’ business “now approaches $600 million in annual revenues”. But let’s go with the $600 million figure for the moment. Roughly 2/3 of these revenues — $397 million — come from ticket sales and Stadium luxury suite revenue. (This revenue has increased dramatically in recent years — the Yankees were “only” earning $157 million in ticket sales in 2005, and $52 million in 1997.) Other amounts come from local TV payments (around $65 million – more on that later), MLB TV and licensing (estimated at $30 million in 2007), concessions, sponsorship and advertising (estimated at $30 million in 2007), local radio and “other”.

Next, let’s look at the expense side of our financial statements. The $213 in payroll is from Cot’s Baseball Contracts. The $140 million in revenue sharing is the number mentioned by MLB Executive Vice President Rob Manfred in a speech he made in March at the Harvard Law School. $57 million in Stadium rent is taken from the prospectus issued for the bonds used to finance stadium construction (I’ve seen this number reported as high as $64 million, but I think the $57 million number is correct), and I found the $35 million cost for Stadium maintenance here.

I only have two more numbers to explain.

The Yankees’ $600 million in 2009 revenues includes approximately $72 million in post-season revenues.? Apparently, the Yankees can make a lot of extra money when they play in the World Series!? But there are extra expenses associated with making the post-season.? Using the financial statements for the Rays and Angels disclosed by deadspin.com, we can guess that post-season expenses run anywhere from 22% to 33% of post-season revenues. The $20 million of post-season expenses estimated above about splits the difference between these two percentages.

Finally, there are all of the other expenses that go into running a major-league baseball team: minor league operations, scouting, sales, advertising, travel, general and administrative, and so on. How much do the Yankees spend on these miscellaneous expenses? I haven’t a clue. But from deadspin.com, we? learn that the total expenses in 2009 for the Angels were around $229 million. If we deduct from this figure expenses that we’ve already estimated for the Yankees (payroll, stadium operations, revenue sharing and the like), we’re left with around $72 million of expenses that would fall under the miscellaneous category. Of course, it should be more expensive than this to run the Yankees — the Yankees’ revenues are more than twice that of the Angels, plus the cost of living is higher in New York. But again, let’s be conservative and assume that it only costs 15% more to run the Yankees. The Angels’ miscellaneous expenses plus 15% equal the $83 million of miscellaneous expenses we’ve shown for the Yankees.

Yes I know, I’ve made a bunch of wild guesses here … but my bottom line estimate is close to that of Forbes, so I don’t think I’m too far off.? What can we conclude from this?? We can conclude that with a $213 million budget for player payroll, the Yankees are already operating at the edge of profitability. The only reason the Yankees made a profit in 2009 is because they made it to the World Series and earned $72 million in extra revenue.? What if we cut that post-season revenue figure in half?? Then we’d be discussing a season like 2010, where the Yankees played 9 post-season games, 4 at home (compared to 15 in 2009, 8 at home).? Let’s try putting together a 2010 income statement for the Yankees, where we’ll assume that all costs and revenues are identical to 2009, except that we’ll cut in half both post-season revenues and post-season expenses:

This is my guess and I’m sticking with it until Randy Levine tells me I’m wrong.? By my estimate, the Yankees broke even this year.? The 2010 Yankees … with roughly $600 million in revenues and a post-season run falling two wins short of the post-season … may not have turned a profit.

Is this possible?? Of course it is possible. According to Forbes, the Yankees consistently lost money prior to 2009: $4 million of losses in 2008, $47 million lost in 2007, $25 million of losses in 2006, $50 million of losses in 2005, $37 million of losses in 2004, and $26 million lost in 2003.?? Excluding 2009, Forbes last showed the Yankees turning a profit in 2002.? Between 2003 and 2008, the Forbes numbers show the Yankees losing a total of about $200 million.? We need to keep in mind that the Forbes numbers are only estimates. Still, Forbes is not the only publication that thinks the team loses money – see here, for example.? The Yankees themselves claimed for years that they’ve been losing money.? Brian Cashman said so here in 2005; Randy Levine said so here in 2008. According to one report in 2007, the Yankees at that time had not distributed profits to its ownership in 10 years.

So … this is our simplified view of the Yankees’ revenues, and the Yankees finances.? By this simplified view, the Yankees have a real need for a payroll budget in the range of $213 million.? If the team enforces this budget, it can about break even, assuming that it makes a decent run through the post-season.? By this simplified view, there is no money to burn, no ability to spend whatever it takes to make the playoffs.? By this simplified view, there is no extra money at all.

But that’s our simplified view.

Second Look (More Sophisticated, More Confusing)

Let’s forget everything I wrote above, and start over.

We’re primarily interested in a baseball team called the New York Yankees.? That team is probably breaking even financially, just like I said above.? But there’s more to the picture.? The team is owned and operated by the New York Yankees Partnership.? The partnership is 99% owned by YGE Holdings, LLC, which in turn is owned by Yankee Global Enterprises LLC, which in turn is owned by the Steinbrenner family.

This is more than a simple chain of command, since many of these companies own interests in businesses other than the Yankees.? For example, YGE Holdings, LLC owns Yankee Stadium LLC, the company that leases the new Yankee Stadium from the New York State industrial development agency that issued the bonds to finance the stadium’s construction.? Yankee Global Enterprises owns a stake in the Yankees Entertainment and Sports Network, more commonly known as the YES Network.? Yankee Global Enterprises also owns a piece of Legends Hospitality Management, the company that manages concessions, suite catering and team stores at Yankee Stadium (as well as at the new Dallas Cowboys stadium).? Reportedly, Yankee Global Enterprises owns a stake in dozens of smaller businesses, including Yankee Steiner Collectibles, the company that (in)famously sold dirt from the old Yankee Stadium to souvenir collectors at roughly $80 a tablespoonful.

In short: the Yankees are a business conglomerate.? More precisely, the Yankees are a part of a larger group of businesses, some of which (like the YES Network) are not fully owned by the Steinbrenners.? Is this conglomerate profitable?? We don’t know for certain (again, these are all private businesses), but it is almost certain that these businesses together are earning healthy profits.

Let’s look more closely at the most valuable business in this conglomeration of businesses, the YES regional sports network. Various estimates show the YES Network with annual revenues of over $300 million, or over $400 million, and with annual net profits of $150 million, or $200 million, or 60% of revenues.? These are huge numbers in relation to the normal business of baseball.? Consider that the YES Network revenues are higher than those of any single baseball team, other than the Yankees.? Consider that the YES Network profits are higher than those of any baseball team, including the Yankees.? In fact, if we take the highest estimate of YES profits, they exceed the combined 2009 operating income of all14 teams in the American League (as reported by Forbes).

We mentioned above that the Yankees are one of the most valuable franchises in sports, with a Forbes-estimated worth of $1.6 billion. Well … the estimated value of the YES network is higher than this — roughly twice this high. Hard to believe, but the regional network that covers the Yankees is probably worth twice as much as the team itself.

When we consider the YES Network and the other businesses that make up the Yankee conglomerate, it becomes nearly impossible to figure out an appropriate budget for the Yankee payroll. I mentioned above that reader-commenter Brian wrote that the Yankee budget is whatever it takes to make the playoffs. It might be more accurate to say that the Yankee budget is whatever it takes to maintain the value of the Yankee business enterprises.? But I have no idea how much (or little) such a budget might be.

(We’ve been posting quite a bit about the negotiations between Derek Jeter and the Yankees, and reportedly the two sides are about $8 million apart with respect to Jeter’s upcoming annual salary. But $8 million is a small number compared to the numbers we’ve been discussing here. If another $8 million in payroll is required to maintain the Yankees’ brand (and that, of course, is the big question), then the Yankees will gladly pay it.? That $8 million is chicken feed compared to the numbers being generated over at the YES Network.? It would take about a week for the YES Network to earn that kind of money.? Not quite “all in a day’s work”, but close.)

Let’s try another tack.? By my best estimates, the Yankees are struggling to break even and the YES Network is making hundreds of millions annually.? Should some of the YES Network revenues be transferred over to the Yankees?? Of course, some of these revenues are transferred to the Yankees — the YES Network pays the Yankees somewhere between $60 million and $67 million annually for the right to broadcast the Yankees’ games.? However, by any way of thinking, this is a bargain rate.? Consider the amounts received by other teams for their broadcast rights — Fox pays the LA Dodgers $45 million a year; and has agreed at some future point to pay the Texas Rangers a reported $80 million a year.? Approximately 68,000 households watch an average Rangers game; roughly 92,000 households watch an average Dodgers game.? But a lot more people — approximately 328,000 households — watch an average YES Network broadcast of a Yankees game.? By those numbers, the Yankees ought to receive somewhere between $160 million and $385 million annually for their broadcast rights (based on the price per household paid by Fox for Dodgers and Rangers broadcast rights).? That’s a lot more than the Yankees are currently receiving from the YES Network.

So… if the Yankees were to sell their TV rights on the open market, they’d probably receive at least another $100 million in annual revenue on top of the $600 million they’re already taking in.? The $100 million+ saved annually by the YES Network is value that the Steinbrenners transferred to the YES Network, to help the network get started and attract investors.? If the Yankees were receiving that extra $100 million, that money would be included in the calculations that determine the Yankees’ revenue sharing payments, so some portion of that money would flow to teams like the Marlins and the Pirates (this is one reason why the Steinbrenners might prefer to leave this money over at the YES Network).? But the remainder of this money would be available to increase payroll.

Of course, the Yankees cannot presently sell their broadcast rights on the open market — they’ve already sold these rights to the YES Network.? If as a result there’s more money at the YES Network and less money over at Yankees headquarters, this is not a situation that can be changed.? Even if there was a legal way to move the money from the YES Network account to the Yankees account, there’s no reason why the YES Network would agree to such a plan.? The YES Network is not owned by the Yankees, and it is not 100% owned by the Steinbrenners. The YES Network’s ownership includes people and institutions (such as Goldman Sachs) who have no direct interest in the Yankees.? Also, reportedly, all of the YES Network’s cash flow is spent to pay down the network’s more than $1 billion in debt. In other words, the YES Network’s money is not available to pay salaries for players like Cliff Lee and Derek Jeter, because this money is already being used, for the network’s own business purposes.

Still, the YES Network has an interest in how the Yankees perform on the field.? What if the Yankees were playing .500 ball, and YES Network viewership declined, and YES Network ad revenue declined, and YES Network cash flow and earnings declined?? The $3 billion+ value of the YES Network depends on the network having a premium product for broadcast.? To maintain that value, the network MIGHT find a way to invest funds in the Yankees.? Or … in order to maintain the value of their investment in the YES Network, the Steinbrenners might allow the Yankees to operate at a loss, and the Steinbrenners might agree to make good those losses.? In essence, this is what George Steinbrenner did during the prior decade — the team lost hundreds of millions of dollars, but the value of the Yankee financial empire increased by many times that amount.

Where does this leave us?

If we think that the Yankees’ payroll budget is limited to what the team can afford to spend without losing money, then the budget should be set at around $213 million.

If we think that the Yankees’ payroll budget should be at a point designed to maintain the value of the various Yankees properties, then the budget might be set somewhat higher than $213 million.? How much higher we cannot say.? Perhaps the Yankees could sustain losses this decade comparable to the losses they sustained in the preceding decade.? This would allow for a higher budget, perhaps around $240 million.? The budget might be pushed much higher than even $240 million if the Yankees stopped playing championship level baseball, and as a result the team saw a decline in attendance and TV viewership.? Remember that the combined value of the team and the YES Network is something like $5 billion.? It would be worthwhile to increase the Yankees’ payroll by 10%, if that was needed to avoid a 10% decline in the value of the Yankees financial empire.

But at the moment, the Yankees team is not in crisis.? The guys who run the baseball operations seem to think that the team is one quality arm away from a possible 28th World Championship.? Under these circumstances, there is no threat to the continued growth of the Yankees’ brand, and no need for a dramatic increase in the size of the budget for payroll.

Remember, the financial goal is to maintain and grow the value of the Yankees’ brand.? It didn’t hurt the Yankees’ brand when they lost around $30 million a year during the last decade, but if losses got a lot larger than this, at some point the value of the Yankees enterprises would have taken a hit.? No one likes to own a business enterprise that bleeds money.? Not even the Steinbrenners.

We’re not done analyzing the Yankees’ budget!? The next thing we need consider is the upcoming negotiation of a new baseball Collective Bargaining Agreement.? This agreement will have a major impact on what the Yankees can spend … and the Yankees will try to do everything in their power to shape this agreement in their favor.? I believe that the Yankees will be in the best possible position to negotiate a favorable agreement if they keep 2011 payroll at the lowest level possible.

More on this in an upcoming post.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.


View the original article here

Sunday, November 28, 2010

Minor League Recap: Staten Island Yankees

Curtain Calls:
Gary Sanchez (c): Sanchez’s strong performance in the Gulf Coast League led to him playing sixteen games with Staten Island.? He put up some of the stronger offensive numbers on the team during his short time there.? His line was .278/333/.426/.759.? He hit two doubles and two homers, driving in seven RBIs.

Garrison Lassiter (3B): Lassiter led the offense for Staten Island during his 39 games.? He hit .285/.389/.325/.714.? He struck out 29 times, walked nineteen times and drove in ten RBIs.

Michael O’Brien (SP):Over eleven starts, O’Brien went 6-2 with a 2.08 ERA.? He gave up nineteen runs (fourteen earned runs), walked just eighteen hitters while striking out 38.

Chase Whitley (RP): This year’s fifteenth round pick has shown some sleeper potential in his first season of professional ball. Whitley gave Staten Island some strong innings out of the ‘pen.? He went 4-2 over 34.1 innings of work (28 games).? His 1.31 ERA was accompanied by 44 strikeouts and just fifteen walks.

Richard Martinez (P): Martinez had a 4-1 record with a 1.69 ERA over sixteen games (two starts).? He allowed just nine runs (six earned) and walked sixteen hitters while striking out 34.

Players to Watch:
Cito Culver (SS): Culver’s fifteen games in Staten Island were a disappointment, but the Yankees’ first round pick from this year showed some great potential in the Gulf Coast League.? During his time on Staten Island, however, Culver hit .186/.340/.209/.549 and committed six errors.

Kelvin De Leon (RF): While De Leon has been viewed at having a significant ceiling as a prospect, his development has been rather slow.? Over 69 games for Staten Island, he went .236/.288/.359/.647.?? Unfortunately, he struck out 80 times while walking just seventeen times.? He had 37 RBIs with six homers and twelve doubles.? De Leon will need to improve on his defense if he is going to continue to move along in the farm system.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.


View the original article here

Yankees Lack Flexibility This Offseason

For purposes of this discussion, we have to operate under the assumption that all three of the Yankee standards (Jeter, Mo, Pettitte) will return–because even if the Yankees think they won’t, they risk serious fallout were they to add insult to injury by signing a SS or CL before negotiations with Jeter or Mariano conclude–or if they go out and sign (gulp…) two starting pitchers before Pettitte officially retires. The Yankees current agenda isn’t going to include filling these slots until they know that they’re truly open.

It’s already been penciled in that Posada will likely be a part-time catcher/part-time DH this coming season–which would open the door for a signing or a trade if the Yankees weren’t fully stocked in the minors (Montero, Romine, J.R. Murphy, Gary Sanchez are all solid to incredible prospects.) That means the Yankees can’t go out and try to find themselves a bargain at DH, which is typically a good spot to underpay for value (Guerrerro and Thome stick out the most in 2010, and there are any number of candidates in 2011). In fact, this will be an issue for the forseeable future, as Cashman is going to have to reserve the spot for his aging generals (Posada, A-Rod, Jeter, even Teixeira from time to time). We should also include Nick Swisher in this group, who spent 1/10 of 2010 as a DH. They could theoretically go the Brian Sabean route and pick up a catcher to share duties with Posada while Montero gets his final seasoning in the minors, but I don’t see it happening.

Due to the aforementioned DH bottleneck, while most AL teams look to pick up power on the cheap at the DH role, the Yankees will need to look to find that most elusive of creatures, the effective infield utility player who is actually worth a roster spot (to fill in around the diamond when the ancients are DHing). These are excessively difficult to find, because most players who are good enough to play every day at the majors play only one position. This makes sense, right? GMs want to be able to write out their roster and know who is playing where on a regular basis. Players aren’t really incented to learn to play multiple positions competently unless they know that they *need* to do this to garner a contract. This tends to lead to players who can cover the defensive positions, but not contribute at the plate–a breed that the Yankees have mostly avoided since the days of Tony Womack were cut short by the ascension of Robinson Cano (excepting a cameo by Jerry Hairston Jr.)

It’s also possible that the Yankees could trade one of their three starting outfielders to make space for a Carl Crawford, Jason Werth, or either of the Upton brothers (who are both on the trading block this offseason). If you open up this can of worms, there are plenty of other options as well–but in most cases, it would either lead to a serious expansion of the Yankees already sizable payroll, or a significant outlay from the minor league treasure trove Brian Cashman has built up.

Here at IIATMS, we’ll be covering each of these options and more over the coming weeks–check back soon to get in on the discussion.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.


View the original article here

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Yankees Interested in Jorge De La Rosa?

No thanks.

Really though, I’m not even sure what the point of this would be. I understand that Brian Cashman wants to upgrade the starting pitching, as always, but is De La Rosa really much of an upgrade over just about anyone else they have? I mean, he sports a career walk rate that makes A.J. Burnett look like Andy Pettitte. Maybe on a one year deal I could see it, but will De La Rosa settle for a single year deal in free agency?

The Yankees definitely need another starting pitcher for next season. They’ve got a lot of good pitching prospects, but none of them are ready for the big leagues. Ivan Nova and Sergio Mitre probably aren’t the answer. But the situation isn’t necessarily dire, so I wouldn’t be bringing on someone like Jorge De La Rosa. If you can’t find someone via a trade, either in the offseason or at the deadline next year, then I think I’d just rather go with Nova and hope that Andrew Brackman or Dellin Betances is ready for 2012.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.


View the original article here

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

More facepalm for Yankees fans

Yankee fans are hardly perfect, but to lob a grenade like this one, while your team is still playing, is just low:

“I think particularly in Game 3 of the World Series they just blew away anything I’ve seen in any venue during the postseason. I thought Yankee fans, frankly, were awful. They were either violent or apathetic, neither of which is good. So I thought Yankee fans were by far the worst of any I’ve seen in the postseason. I thought they were an embarrassment.”

I was at Game 3 of the ALCS with Will and while there was plenty of anti-Texas Rangers jeering (no different than the anti-Yankee stuff we hear over the TV, every game), I saw nothing close to “violent” or “apathetic”. Just witness to Cliff Lee dismantling our team. I didn’t see this, though. Then again, I am not the owner of the opposing team sitting in the front row for all to see and jeer.

Mr. Greenberg, it must be nice having the most perfect fans in all the wholest world ever.

Other teams have fans who puked on someone intentionally, or attacked an opposing coach, or thrown things on the field, or fought with cops, or dumped beer on an opposing player, or generally be so unruly that the team banned alcohol as a result, or berated the bullpen.

In other words, every team’s fanbase has their bad apples.

Or everything Philly gets called out for.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.


View the original article here