Yeah. The Yankees look great for the foreseeable future. I was just pointing out the obvious hyperbole.
Time for a rebuild?
- Thread starter crazybird1
- Start date
The scary thing about the Yankees is that in addition to the young talent that won't get expensive for a while, they have very little in future payroll commitments, with Ellsbury the one bad contract and Tanaka/Chapman the only other guys signed long term. Zero reason they can't sign both Machado and Harper.
You will never see this objective evidence. It doesn't exist whether Farrell is the devil or the best manager ever. I totally agree that observational evidence is the lowest form of evidence, but it's going to be the only form of evidence here.
And that's totally fine if you're not convinced by it. You're allowed to just disagree. People are having a conversation about it. We're not actually deciding his fate. It's ok. But this automatic stance of ignoring everything because they're not posting stats is just obnoxious. There's no stat for this. Not one person here is going to be able to even define how much of an effect a manager has in a season let alone Farrell specifically. This is going to be a 100% subjective argument.
So, if there's anything you like about Farrell, and some have brought a few decent points, btw, I'm happy to hear them. If you just want to say you remain unconvinced, that's totally cool, too.
This is patently false. There have been plenty of stats posted on this board since the end of the Astros series that give us useful information in trying to measure the impact of John Farrell. That virtually none of them have come from the Fire Farell crowd isn't really all that surprising, though.
Well, we've got three "Fire Farrell" threads for you to go ahead and post them in. You know, back up your claim or shut the fuck up, I believe it was?
I have.
Here. And here. And abs posted a link to a piece he wrote with plenty of statistical evidence here.
I get that it's in your interest to ignore the statistical evidence since it overwhelmingly works against your premise. But plenty of stats have been posted already, and again, it's on you (the collective you) to make a compelling argument for the change you want to see happen, not on others to prove the opposite. So sitting her poking holes in your anecdotal evidence is, at the very least, bringing exactly as much relevant information to the table as you (again, the collective you).
That there is also some statistical evidence being used to sink the "bad manager" narrative makes this a pretty one sided affair to this point. So bring something more than memories of blunders and references to press conferences (where you are assuming you are interpreting the words correctly and have the whole story) if you want to start convincing people. Or don't. If you are just interested in ranting, have at it, I guess.
But the claim that he's a bad manager, or the claim that the team has to fire him if they want any hope of making it out of the ALDS in the next two years (both claims which have been made explicitly) haven't been supported by anything convincing yet. I expect they won't be since you seem to think that it's impossible to be anything but subjective here.
Farrell has been fired. Take discussion of him over to that thread. Keep this thread for discussion of the on-field personnel.
There is zero reason they cant trade for Stanton this offseason and sign Machado the year after that. I think the nationals will be committed to signing harper, their owners are not afraid to drop loads of money on big stars and the have very few salary commitments outside of Scherzer, Straz and Zimmerman entering next offseason.
But yes, the yankees offense could get even better in like two months, let alone another year. if they just admit to going all in on machado, torres and andujar are valuable trade chips.
Rebuild? No. Retool? Yes. I honestly don't see a whole lot being done with the pitching staff. Pomeranz is arb eligible so I'm guessing you try to take care of that as amicably as possible and perhaps look at what it takes to sign Reed. The rest of the rotation is in place and the bullpen seems mostly set. There is STILL the need for a big bat, maybe a first baseman (but guessing Travis gets a good look this spring) and a fourth outfielder. Perhaps a former Tiger J.D. Martinez might be that big bat AND fourth outfielder. Might a four man rotation between outfield and DH work between J.D. and the three B's? Will Nunez become your new Holt? How much will it cost to keep him? I think if you take care of Pomeranz and are able to sign Martinez and Nunez you may be in decent shape. Yes there is still the question of what to do with Hanley if you go DH with your 4 outfielders but if the rest is manageable you figure that out.
I am probably going to sound stupid here, but line drives wouldnt be going through the wall at Fenway, right? so red dots landing over the wall must have been fly balls, and so they would land where indicated at Kaufman? Maybe I am misinterpreting something, it wouldnt be the first time
With Farrell’s firing and DDski stating that one reason for the change is him wanting to bring in a manager whose team culture will allow the younger players to start assuming leadership roles, I have to wonder whether Pedroia will be quietly shopped this offseason.
As a long term obligation, his deal is very reasonable. And when he’s healthy, Pedroia’s still a very good player with terrific contact skill and defense. However, I’m not really sure that he remains a cornerstone who DDski really wants to build around, at this moment in time.
As a long term obligation, his deal is very reasonable. And when he’s healthy, Pedroia’s still a very good player with terrific contact skill and defense. However, I’m not really sure that he remains a cornerstone who DDski really wants to build around, at this moment in time.
Either Hanley has to go or the FO has to forget about staying under the luxury tax. The lineup just doesn't compute otherwise.
Unless his shoulder issues get better and he can give 130 games of 2016 production.
They aren't staying under the luxury tax threshold in 2018, so no need trying to figure out ways they can do it. $237M is the number to worry about, as that's when their top draft pick gets dropped 10 spots as an additional penalty. And the more I think about it, the more I wonder if even that threshold won't be a deterrent for Dombrowski this winter.
Seriously. While it’s probable that having shoulder surgery will sap Hanley’s power in the long-term, in the short term of his one remaining guaranteed season he may be a great lineup presence.
Hopefully not so much greater than the other bounce-back candidates (like Mookie and Xander and JBJ) that he hits higher than 5th in the lineup and triggers his option, maybe. Then again, if he starts crushing the ball and the Sox get vintage Hanley Ramirez next season, it’ll surely be fun to watch and help them win in 2018. So that’s totally cool by me.
Pedroia's home/away wRC+ split for the past three years: 129/102
For 2017: 121/82
Away from Fenway, he's been a league-average hitter lately, and will probably be less than that from here on in. So from another team's point of view, Pedroia going forward is a useful but ordinary 2B, with no positional versatility, on a contract that's only a modest bargain, and whose fragility is underlined by the fact that he won't be available for the first 50-ish games next year. All of which means that the likely trade return would be pretty underwhelming, which in turn means that it makes sense to shop him only if the Sox think he's actually become a negative clubhouse presence (as opposed to not providing added value with leadership).
Well, to be fair SH, I posted that before Pedroia went under the knife, and before the extent of the time he’d miss next season was guesstimated.
Pedroia obviously won’t be shopped now. Just like with Hanley, surgery to start the offseason also guaranteed the Sox would have Pedroia on their books in April.
Pedroia obviously won’t be shopped now. Just like with Hanley, surgery to start the offseason also guaranteed the Sox would have Pedroia on their books in April.
Oops, sorry, missed your post date. My bad. Though I still think even before the surgery, the Fenway-centric character of his offensive game would have kept his trade value low enough to make a trade unlikely. He really is worth more to us than to anyone else.
I can't recall where I saw it but I think there has been some success rate "bracketing" of draft picks posted on this site from back in the Ball/Benintendi days as to how likely you are to get value from various draft tiers plays out, with back end of the first and comp. picks/early 2nd not being worlds apart.
I think the real penalty of it would depend on:
1. Will the club be forced to either lose both Sale and Pomeranz after 2018 to get back under, or get hit again?
2. Does the 10 pick drop ignore or count compensation picks awarded.
3. Does it effect draft pool money (I'd imagine it does)
4. What do their internal metrics on general pick value and their valuations on this draft in particular of late first/early 2nd round talent indicate?
A 10 pick drop when you're picking late isn't a big deal. A 10 pick drop when you can't get back under the next year and you have a non-trivial amount of talent going under the knife in October for late spring returns might be a bit more prohibitive.
As to the OP thesis - I think we'll know a lot more come late June/early July 2018. If this club is substantially trailing the Yankees at that time that is when you blow it up. On the plus side they'll have the pieces to likely effect a sharp turn around if that is when they make the decision. Sale alone should reap a king's ransom above what Darvish got Texas. Pomeranz could likely return something much along the lines of what Darvish did get. Kimbrel would bring back nearly as much. JBJ to the right suitor would offer a few more years of future control and so if he's hitting to even his 2017 standards could net as much as the later two of those three. Even Price might have substantial value if he's pitching strong but the offense is still floundering. That's before we talk about whether or not Hanley is hitting and therefore valuable to a club or what they do with any other relievers or Bogaerts and Betts.
The "Lets go Crazy" thread is fun but there is a really strong argument for maintaining the status quo. I think you task Dombrowski with finding the next David Ortiz/Jose Bautista/JD Martinez and he basically gets two bites at the apple. One a 1B/DH type the other a corner OF type. Basically the replacements for Mitch Moreland and Chris Young. He gets sort of a 3rd option if he goes for an IF backup focused more on offense, with the Lin/Marrero/Hernandez trio shuttling from Pawtucket and a roster spot open early in the year due to Pedroia's likely late start.
If he gets a hit and/or the young guys are hitting this will look like one of the dominant teams in MLB. If not we'll be the #1 seller in what will likely be another rabid seller's market.
Mods, not sure where this belongs but on the topic of building a winning team I thought this of general interest.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/astros-world-series-win-may-be-remembered-as-the-moment-analytics-conquered-mlb-for-good/2017/11/02/ac62abaa-bfec-11e7-97d9-bdab5a0ab381_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_series-452pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.eb594fccaa36
Amid the focus on analytics, the value of character and team chemistry arise.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/astros-world-series-win-may-be-remembered-as-the-moment-analytics-conquered-mlb-for-good/2017/11/02/ac62abaa-bfec-11e7-97d9-bdab5a0ab381_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_series-452pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.eb594fccaa36
Amid the focus on analytics, the value of character and team chemistry arise.
Character and chemistry are the participation trophies that get handed out when you win. I've never seen a last place team lauded for it's chemistry. And I've never seen a world series winner that sport writers claim had bad character.
I agree in principle, but the 2015 Red Sox finished last and by the end of the season looked like they were having a great time playing together.
Also the 1986 Mets were like the prison team in the never made baseball version of The Longest Yard (Lenny Dykstra!), and the late seventies Yankees too, Cliff Johnson and Goose Gossage in 1979 is one clubhouse fight I remember, that put Gossage on the DL.
There are pretty clearly guys who are better to have in the clubhouse than others, which is why I would never ever hire A-Rod for anything that puts him back in the dugout. He is pretty knowledgable about baseball but he is still so awkward at interacting with people, he always seems to give off such creepy vibes. Of course in this he is a very extreme case, as he usually is.
There are pretty clearly guys who are better to have in the clubhouse than others, which is why I would never ever hire A-Rod for anything that puts him back in the dugout. He is pretty knowledgable about baseball but he is still so awkward at interacting with people, he always seems to give off such creepy vibes. Of course in this he is a very extreme case, as he usually is.
There most certainly are good and bad guys, and their influence on other players is variable. And some teams get along better than others. But I don't think we can judge those things well from the outside, by reading sports writers like Cafardo or watching on TV. These characteristics are handed out to explain why teams win because people are confused by how a team can win a few close games in a row on a big stage, when talent and random chance have the most to do with it. People's inability to understand how big things work lead them to reduce things down to personal moral characteristics, even when they have scant proof for those characteristics. That is what I meant above.