What will be the Yankees MAIN priorities?

[Hammerojustice]

1) I think it has to start with Cano. Although most of us have agreed that 6 years should be the limit I think in reality you're probably looking at 8 years 200M.

2) We'll need at least one strong solid starter because we still don't know what we're going to get from Pineda.

3) 3rd base. If A-Rod is going to miss the entire 2014 season we can't have another 3rd base by commitee as we did this past year. Though you may not get much average wise from Reynolds he just may be our only option. I was impressed with Nunez late season work at 3rd so he'll be an okay back up option. And hell, we could also take another look at Chavez. Someone IMO we should have resigned to begin with.

4) Ryan is a wizard with the glove so he would be a nice fill in for Jeter from time to time. But I'd feel better with someone like Drew.

5) Back up at 1st. I'd like to see the Yankees go after Kendrys Morales who could also be used as DH.

6) Catcher, this CANNOT be taken lightly. McCann or Salty should definitely be considered.

7) If we don't resign Grandy the outfield needs to be addressed, Guys like Choo, Ellsbury or even McCloth could be options.

OK...
-I strongly disagree with Cano... anything over 6 years, let him walk... he is not worth 7 or 8 and definitely not 10 years! and not at $25/year either...
-7 players are committed to next year... 3 or 4 of which we can't count on... the 7 are: Alex Rodriguez, CC Sabathia, Mark Teixeira, Derek Jeter, Ichiro Suzuki, Alfonso Soriano and Vernon Wells... that is 3B, SP, 1B, SS, OF, OF, OF
-SO... we need more than 1 strong SP... we need 2 or 3 strong SP and 4 or 5 SP in total... as you said, we don't know what we can count on Pineda.
-regarding 3B, I agree Reynolds is probably the best option.
-regarding SS, we'll need someone... Jeter, unfortunately, can't be counted on... So either Ryan or Drew
-I agree completely about Kendry
-I agree completely about catcher... McCann should be higher on the list
-OF is a problem... we already have 3 OF, 1 shouldn't see time at all, another shouldn't see much... So I would sign at least 2... Choo and Ellsbury are my votes

 

[Hammerojustice]

You just know some team is going to offer Cano what he wants. 8-10 years & in the ballpark of 250M

let them... someone else's mistake...

 

[Hammerojustice]

I'll say again that the following line up is possible. Not probable but possible..............

1) CF = Ellsbury
2) SS = Jeter / Drew
3) 2B = Cano
4) 1B = Teixiera
5) LF = Soriano
6) DH = Morales
7) C = McCann
8) 3B = Reynolds
9) RF = Gardner

I'll work on the pitching & the bench.

My new Closer is Edward Mujica. Saved 36 of 38 with a 2.19 ERA and a 0.859 whip

Honestly, top priorities should be catcher and pitching.. all else falls in after this

 

[Hammerojustice]

The SUPER STORE is called free agents. My additions, Ellsbury, Drew, Morales & McCann or even Salty are all FAs.

Again... only 1 SP committed to next year, no RP... that needs to be a focus

 

[Hammerojustice]

What's exaggerating about that? All are true areas of concern. Its reality. I actually forgot something....with the Cubs open, job they might be looking for a manager too. I also did place a plan on this board quite a whole back detailing what the yanks would need to do. Essentially signing every free agent of impact there is. That would include guys like Ellsbury, McCann, I mentioned Garza at the time but he has regressed since coming back to the AL, resigning Kuroda somehow but he looks cooked. Colon was another option. Look what is out there. Look at how awful the farm is and realize just how many holes there are. Money to spend or not it's going to be almost impossible for the Yankees to be fixed next year. Its a multi year project at this point i believe directly resulting from years of neglect and mismanagement with the draft, development and dishing out bad contracts. Who exactly is this great starter the yankees are getting anyway? Especially with this GM. How he is coming back yet again......I shake my head.

as you said, it's a multi-year project... that is the situation in full!

 

[BigDaddyAl1973]

...pitching was not the problem this year...the offense ranked 14th in SLG % (one point higher than the Astros for last place)...and topped it off by finishing the season batting .222 in September.

...I also see NO reason why D-Rob can't be the closer...Mo blew 7 saves this year and I'm sure DR can do at least that well because he had better numbers than Mo did this year. I really don't know why some people put such a premium on the closer role, as if the guy pitching the 7th or 8th innings is any less important.

Difference is this... you fuck up a lead in the seventh or eighth and there is time for a comeback. .or there is the closer to save you. .. as the closer. . You fuck up and its usually game over

the dimished mind of a soon to be 40 year old

 

[yankeesince59]

...^^^First off, IMO, the "save" stat should be done away with. It doesn't matter when runs are scored. 27 outs is 27 outs no matter how you slice it and today's teams are losing games in the 9th inning or later at about the same rate they were 40 years ago, so the importance of the designated closer is over-rated. This has been shown by Bill James and many others.
...It also has a lot to do with whether you're at home or on the road. And saving your best pitcher exclusively for the 9th inning is flawed depending on the batting order of the opponent because it makes much more sense when facing the other team's best hitters in the later innings, to counter with your best reliever.
... for example, if the Yanx are playing a tie game in Boston and the heart of the order are due up for the Sox in the 8th inning, it makes more sense to counter with Mo at that time, instead of waiting for the 9th inning to face the 7-8-9 hitters.

 

[yankeesince59]

Found this stat;


MLB W-L %=== When Leading:


Year==After 7 Innings==After 8 Innings


2013 .897 ============ .945
2010 .917 ============ .955
2005 .904 ============ .955
2000 .900 ============ .950
1995 .898 ============ .947
1990 .914 ============ .955
1985 .906 ============ .948
1980 .897 ============ .946
1975 .903 ============ .949
1970 .895 ============ .944
1965 .901 ============ .950
1960 .899 ============ .947

Source: Baseball-Reference.com

 

[Rick2583]

...^^^First off, IMO, the "save" stat should be done away with. It doesn't matter when runs are scored. 27 outs is 27 outs no matter how you slice it and today's teams are losing games in the 9th inning or later at about the same rate they were 40 years ago, so the importance of the designated closer is over-rated. This has been shown by Bill James and many others.
...It also has a lot to do with whether you're at home or on the road. And saving your best pitcher exclusively for the 9th inning is flawed depending on the batting order of the opponent because it makes much more sense when facing the other team's best hitters in the later innings, to counter with your best reliever.
... for example, if the Yanx are playing a tie game in Boston and the heart of the order are due up for the Sox in the 8th inning, it makes more sense to counter with Mo at that time, instead of waiting for the 9th inning to face the 7-8-9 hitters.

I've been saying this for years now. When I became a fan of this game there was no such think as a save. And IMO the only stat dumber then a save is a HOLD. Please it's not enough that they've introduced the HOLD & are also using the stat WAR I can only imagine what's next.

The new commishoner needs to eliminate the HOLD & also needs to adjust the rules of what qualifies as a SAVE. The 3 run lead is bullshit & the one & two out saves are bullshit. JMO.

 

[yankeesince59]

^^^yup, and just look at the W/L % I posted for the last 53 years...the designated "closer" role has not helped teams odds of winning one bit.

 

[vette322]

By the far dumbest stat ever tracked was the 'Game-Winning RBI' back in the 1980's. I remember a game in 1986 against Texas when Mattingly put the Yankees up three different times in the same game, only to have Yankee pitchers surrender the lead each time before Pags ended with a hit.

Sometimes the GW RBI was credited in the 9th inning - sometimes it was credited in the 1st inning. Ridiculous.

 

[Rick2583]

By the far dumbest stat ever tracked was the 'Game-Winning RBI' back in the 1980's. I remember a game in 1986 against Texas when Mattingly put the Yankees up three different times in the same game, only to have Yankee pitchers surrender the lead each time before Pags ended with a hit.

Sometimes the GW RBI was credited in the 9th inning - sometimes it was credited in the 1st inning. Ridiculous.

I guy comes in in the 9th inning with his team leading 5-1 but the previous pitcher left the bases loaded. The closer walks a guy (5-2), gives up a single (5-3) walks another guy (5-4), before finally recording the final out. For this he gets a save.......................really?

 

[mrmel29]

The current yankee holes include:

1. #1 starter
2. #2 starter
3. 2nd base
4. Competent short stop
5. 3rd base
6. catcher
7. vacated closer role (unless you think Drob is the guy...i do not).
8. considering the OF consist of 57 year old Ichiro, 57 year old Soriano, and Gardner who can never finish a season, and throw in Vernon friggin wells, i would suggest an upgrade in the OF is a must as well.
9. back end starter

This is a market with very few attractive, impact type players, and a barren farm for which to make an impact trade with or fill in any of these holes, as well as a clueless GM who unfathomably is keeping his job yet again.

To recap, that is basically a rotaion, and entire infield outside of 1B (which by the way is filled with a rapidly declining hack), a closer, and an upgrade need in the OF. Basically the whole Goddamn team.

What did i miss?

Good friggin luck.

Good luck blue but I think if the top of that list doesnt include a new gm with an eye for young talent that can build a team and not rely at just throwing large checks at over the hill players that never live up to their big bucks contracts it is not going to happen. I have no confidence in cashman.

 

[BigDaddyAl1973]

^^^yup, and just look at the W/L % I posted for the last 53 years...the designated "closer" role has not helped teams odds of winning one bit.

I have to disagree...so your telling me that in your honest opinion. You would expect the same winning percentages after having a lead through eight with a guy like phil hughes coming in and pitching the nineth? There is a psychological difference pitching the last innings of a game. Bases loaded two outs tying run on third..not every pitcher is built on being able to perform to a high standard at that moment.

Has it been that long ago when you heard announcers say that when teams faced the 96 yanks they knew they better be winning by the 6th inning or else forget about it.

the dimished mind of a soon to be 40 year old

 

[yankeesince59]

I have to disagree...so your telling me that in your honest opinion. You would expect the same winning percentages after having a lead through eight with a guy like phil hughes coming in and pitching the nineth? There is a psychological difference pitching the last innings of a game. Bases loaded two outs tying run on third..not every pitcher is built on being able to perform to a high standard at that moment.

Has it been that long ago when you heard announcers say that when teams faced the 96 yanks they knew they better be winning by the 6th inning or else forget about it.

the dimished mind of a soon to be 40 year old

...Hughes?...seriously?...no, that's not what I said and that's not what those stats were about, but nice stick man argument...why would you interject a glorified batting practice pitcher like Hughes and then reference either Mo or Wetteland? Hughes or any other grossly inferior pitcher has no place in this discussion. We're talking about using your best reliever at a pivotal point in the game.

...with regards to '96, even as a set up man, Mo was a better pitcher than Wetteland and a big reason why the Yanx won and why Wetteland was allowed to leave for Texas after the season. But as a relief tandem, Mo and Wetteland were otherworldly in '96 and suggesting that I would condone Hughes to be allowed to pitch in any crucial part of the game, whether it is the 8th or 9th inning is simply ridiculous.

...again, the point is that you never know when the most crucial inning or AB may be in a game...7th, 8th, 9th ?...who knows, but pigeon-holing a certain pitcher for a certain inning is flawed. If you use a lesser pitcher and give up the lead in the 8th and then vainly hope for a "comeback" that may never come, while saving your best pitcher for the 9th when you are now behind in the score serves no purpose whatsoever.

 

[BigDaddyAl1973]

...Hughes?...seriously?...no, that's not what I said and that's not what those stats were about, but nice stick man argument...why would you interject a glorified batting practice pitcher like Hughes and then reference either Mo or Wetteland? Hughes or any other grossly inferior pitcher has no place in this discussion. We're talking about using your best reliever at a pivotal point in the game.

...with regards to '96, even as a set up man, Mo was a better pitcher than Wetteland and a big reason why the Yanx won and why Wetteland was allowed to leave for Texas after the season. But as a relief tandem, Mo and Wetteland were otherworldly in '96 and suggesting that I would condone Hughes to be allowed to pitch in any crucial part of the game, whether it is the 8th or 9th inning is simply ridiculous.

...again, the point is that you never know when the most crucial inning or AB may be in a game...7th, 8th, 9th ?...who knows, but pigeon-holing a certain pitcher for a certain inning is flawed. If you use a lesser pitcher and give up the lead in the 8th and then vainly hope for a "comeback" that may never come, while saving your best pitcher for the 9th when you are now behind in the score serves no purpose whatsoever.

And what I'm saying is you made a comment that it's 27 outs..sorry but I disagree in that those final three outs...final 6 outs ...requires something more.

the dimished mind of a soon to be 40 year old

 

[yankeesince59]

...uhhh, no, it doesn't and the stats I posted proves that fact.

 

[Majorball]

I feel there is an assumption here that makes sense. And that is as 59 stated, none of the MLB teams would consistently use there worst or near worst rostered pitcher in the 9th. With that assumption, the stats posted by 59 takes into account managerial responsibility to the 9th inning and at worse case, allows for the closer by committee to be included in the numbers posted by 59. In addition 59 mentioned in a previous post that Mo had 7 blown saves this year. The numbers since the 60's are insanely close.

 

[BigDaddyAl1973]

^^^yup, and just look at the W/L % I posted for the last 53 years...the designated "closer" role has not helped teams odds of winning one bit.

What an I missing. Your stat shows that the winning % increases after eight thab after 7. One reason is the CLOSER. Don't you think the stars would go the other way if you don't use your best relief pitcher at the end of the game.?

the dimished mind of a soon to be 40 year old

 

[Majorball]

What an I missing. Your stat shows that the winning % increases after eight thab after 7. One reason is the CLOSER. Don't you think the stars would go the other way if you don't use your best relief pitcher at the end of the game.?

the dimished mind of a soon to be 40 year old

And my response took that into consideration. I stated that the manager is going to put his best chance out there in the 9th. Not every team has had a Rivera, Fingers, Smith, etc. But the numbers since 60's would indicate to me that from Mo to a bullpen by committee, and everything in between, the team leading after 8 is a 94-95% lock. So Al I feel we are saying almost the same thing but coming at it in 2 different view points. What is interesting to me about the Stats posted by 59, It takes into consideration a period when the closer hadn't been invented for all practical purpose.

 

[yankeesince59]

What an I missing. Your stat shows that the winning % increases after eight thab after 7. One reason is the CLOSER. Don't you think the stars would go the other way if you don't use your best relief pitcher at the end of the game.?

the dimished mind of a soon to be 40 year old

...what are you missing?...pretty much the whole point. You're taking those stats and only seeing that a teams' chances of winning when leading after 8 innings vs 7 innings which is obvious considering the law of averages...It goes without saying that a team's chances would increase even more when leading with 2 out in the 9th...but that is not at all what we are talking about here.

...you are looking at that stat all wrong...instead of comparing the "after 7 innings" column to the "after 8 innings" column, look from top to bottom in BOTH columns. Those columns go back in 5 year increments from this year all the way back to 1960 which is well before the "designated closer" came to be. The number have not really fluctuated at all since then which proves that the designated closer role does not improve a team's odds of winning.

MLB W-L %=== When Leading:


Year==After 7 Innings==After 8 Innings


2013 .897 ============ .945
2010 .917 ============ .955
2005 .904 ============ .955
2000 .900 ============ .950
1995 .898 ============ .947
1990 .914 ============ .955
1985 .906 ============ .948
1980 .897 ============ .946
1975 .903 ============ .949
1970 .895 ============ .944
1965 .901 ============ .950
1960 .899 ============ .947


...maybe between my explanation and majorball's explanation hopefully it will all finally sink in. Like I said at the beginning, today's teams are losing no more or no less games in the 9th inning than they were 50 years ago...and again, this has been proven over and over by Bill James and many others.

 

[BigDaddyAl1973]

What you fail to realize is what happens when you take away thr desiginated closer out if the equation. The true closer was defined in the late 70's. Granted back then you would see a gossage pitch two or three innings you woukdnt see him in say the 4th if a starter was flubbing early in the game. Also of note that each decade (correct me if I'm wrong) offenses have generated more runs meaning you better have a good closer becuase in today's game starters go 6 innings there will be multiple times you would want to use your best relief pitcher but using him to early leaves you suspectable to a late rally. Unlike waiting to use your best relief pitcher you have enough innings to overcome a poor middle relief pitcher compared to blowing a lead in the 9th.

the dimished mind of a soon to be 40 year old

 

[yankeesince59]

...no, again, what YOU fail to realize is that the DH is totally irrelevant and winning %s have not changed and those stats do not differentiate between the AL (DH) and NL...it entails ALL of Baseball.

...let me try again to make this even simpler for you...

1. in 1970 (before the DH) a team's winning % when leading after the 7th inning was 89.5% ...in 1975 (after the DH) it was 90.3%...in 2013 it was 89.7%.

2. in 1970 (before the DH) a teams' winning % when leading after the 8th inning was 94.4%...in 1975 (after the DH) it was 94.9%...in 2013 in was 94.5%.



...THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE in teams winning % with or without the DH regardless of the year, period...not sure why this is so hard for you to grasp.

 

[Hammerojustice]

They are essentially the same over 50+ years......

 

[yankeesince59]

They are essentially the same over 50+ years......

...yup, and I don't understand why b d al can't grasp that fact...it's really quite simple.

 

[Hammerojustice]

...yup, and I don't understand why b d al can't grasp that fact...it's really quite simple.

Especially the 9th inning stat... .947 to .950 to .944 to .949 to .946 to .948 to .955 to .947 to .950 to .955 to .955 to .945... lowest over those 53 years was .944 and the highest was .955... .011 difference... doesn't get much tighter than that...

Eighth inning not quite as tight, but still pretty tight... .899 to .901 to .895 to .903 to .897 to .906 to .914 to .898 to .900 to .904 to .917 to .897... lowest over those 53 years was .895 and highest was .917... .022 difference... even that isn't that bad a range...

 

[Majorball]

To support 59's argument, these stats courtesy of ESPN for 2013 Regular Season. Look at the teams in the playoffs

TEAM BLSV SVO SV%

1 Houston 29 61 52.00
2 Arizona 29 67 57.00
3 Baltimore 27 84 68.00
4 Chicago Cubs 26 65 60.00
5 Boston 24 57 58.00
6 Milwaukee 23 63 63.00
7 Seattle 23 66 65.00
8 Cleveland 22 60 63.00
9 Kansas City 21 73 71.00
10 Oakland 21 67 69.00
11 Washington 21 68 69.00
12 Chicago Sox 20 60 67.00
13 St. Louis 20 64 69.00
14 Toronto 19 58 67.00
15 LA Dodgers 19 65 71.00
16 Minnesota 18 58 69.00
17 NY Mets 18 58 69.00
18 Colorado 18 53 66.00
19 Tampa Bay 18 60 70.00
20 LA Angels 17 58 71.00
21 Miami 17 53 68.00
22 Detroit 16 55 71.00
23 Atlanta 16 69 77.00
24 Cincinnati 16 59 73.00
25 Philadelphia 16 48 67.00
26 Pittsburgh 15 70 79.00
27 NY Yankees 13 62 79.00
28 San Diego 13 53 75.00
29 San Francisco 13 54 76.00
30 Texas 11 57 81.00
LEAGUE AVERAGES BLSV SVO SV%

American League 20 62 68
National League 19 61 69
Major League Baseball 19 62 69

 

[yankeesince59]

^^^holy crap.

...so much for the DH effect on save %s...lol