SB Nation User Blog: LateInningRelief

Keep Damon, Trade Swisher?

LateInningRelief — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:49:25 -0000

Swisher, 29, is the right guy to move; he will not improve much on his 29-homer, 82-RBI season, and his over-the-top gregariousness eventually will wear thin. The Braves love Swish, and would love even more to obtain him for right-hander Derek Lowe. The Yankees should pass on that idea – Lowe turns 37 on June 1 and has not pitched in the American League since 2004. Swisher for prospects would be a better move, and the Yankees then could sign some innings eater at a reasonable price to be their No. 4 starter.

I’ve got no problem with the Yankees refusing to give Damon big money for three or four years. I’ve also got no problem with Boras advocating for his client and trying to suck every last dollar out of the biggest money-making machine in sports. It’s business, and we’ve all become accustomed to the familiar off-season song-and-dance.

Well, enough already.

Damon needs the Yankees, and the Yankees need Damon.

Get it done.

Thoughts?

Reality Check

LateInningRelief — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 11:10:16 -0000

With all the talk of the "untouchables" in our farm system, I thought this cautionary tale was worth a read. Remember Todd Van Poppel? As sure thing pitchers go, he was about as big a disappointment as you can get. For position players, I'd rank Steve Balboni at the top of the list of major league busts.

Two years ago, all the hot stove talk here was about the Trinity: Joba, Hughes and IPK. It's still possible that they could all put it together and anchor a dreadnought rotation for the next decade. Joba and Hughes have demonstrated that they can play a role at the major league level, but so far, neither has proven they're anything more than a # 4 starter or an 8th inning guy. And Kennedy got shellacked in his last winter league outing.

It's a big jump from AAA to MLB. You hate to trade away a prospect that turns into Mike Lowell. But the chances of that happening are less than trading away a sure thing that becomes a journeyman.

To create a little reality check, I thought I'd see who everybody thought was the biggest bust as a prospect, as well as who you think turned into the one who got away. For the one who got away nominees, consistency is key. (Last year, I would have put Dioner Navarro in the one who got away category. This year, not so much.)

Who was the better team?

LateInningRelief — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:34:46 -0000

I just saw this quote from Jimmy Rollins on RAB:

“They were the better team this series,” Rollins said after the game. “Do I think we’re the better team? I really do. They just executed. I think we weren’t playing bad, but they were playing that much better. They got the hits, we didn’t. It’s that simple.”

Classy, right? Which brings up my next question:

Who was the better team: The Angels or the Phillies? I actually think the Phillies were the third best team in baseball this year.

Poll

Who was the better opponent?

The Angels

40 votes

The Phillies

52 votes

92 votes | Poll has closed

How do we straighten out the setup guys?

LateInningRelief — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:07:13 -0000

Having Andy taking the mound tomorrow in Philly gives me confidence that we can re-take home field advantage. I think we're going to need it because Cliff Lee is IN THE ZONE right now. (The behind-the-back catch? Christ. How do you beat that?)

Still, a key issue is what do about the young gun relievers. Roberston may have been the victim (sigh) of poor calls, but what Hughes, Chamberlain and Bruney are going to do, game to game, is anybody's guess. Clearly, Girardi felt the same way last night, going with Mo for 6 outs. I just don't see how we can ride our starters, LOOGYs, Roberston and Mo to victory against the Phillies.

So let's assume Bruney's seen his last serious appearance. Does Girardi keep working through the kinks with Hughes? Is Chamberlain the next call in a 7th inning situation? Or is it Robertson? Does Girardi toy with Gaudin or Aceves in late innings?

Would the Babe have juiced?

LateInningRelief — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:42:40 -0000

Here we go again...A-Rod's admission has that carousel of moralizing columnists and talking heads moving again. Sigh.

This is one sticky wicket, and honestly, at this point, Bonds, Clemens and A-Rod seem victims of MLB's catastrophically flawed approach to steroids, with Clemens and Bonds also victims of their own hubris to the extent that they are likely going to jail for perjury. This the nub of the issue: An illegal, performance-enhancing substance was not banned in baseball until 2004. If we're to believe Canseco--and at this point, why shouldn't we?--steroids were rampant in clubhouses for well over a decade before that.

It's hard to believe that Selig et al did not make a conscious decision to keep the issue at an arm's length for as long as possible. Perhaps they reasoned that the data was not clear, that the facts were not all in, that previous generations had been hopped up on speed to get through 162 games. As likely, I think they feared the repecursions of placing the issue on center stage. McGuire and Sosa's battle for the home run record brought the game back to life. And that little bottle of andro in McGuire's locker? Well, you'd have to ask him about that.

Am I alone in thinking that the tax dollars we're spending to put Bonds in jail, send IRS agent Jeff Nowitzky scouring the seedy world of Houston bodybuilders and hold Congressional hearings could be better spent elsewhere? Certainly, something that can give you an extra ten feet of lift on your fly ball, or a few extra MPH on your fastball may not be equivalent to Mantle popping greenies to get up for the game. But are the steroid users of this era of clearly lesser moral character than previous generations?

Poll

Would Babe Ruth have taken steroids?

Assuredly yes

130 votes

Maybe

79 votes

No way

48 votes

Doesn't matter--it's not equivalent

67 votes

324 votes | Poll has closed

Don't promote Kennedy...

LateInningRelief — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:25:44 -0000

...yet.

I was delighted to see that IPK had nearly thrown a no-hitter in Scranton. Glad to see that he's back on our radar and making a case for a promotion to the Bronx. I'd love to see a replay of last year, when he comes up in August and makes a big impression.

But please, brass, be patient. Give him at least 2 more starts in Scranton. Let Ponson and Rasner soak up the innings for a bit longer. Let IPK build up a good head of steam. He needs to string some consecutive strong outings together before he gets the call up.

My two cents.

Enough Already

LateInningRelief — Sat, 10 May 2008 12:10:14 -0000

Consider me the lone voice of dissent in saying that while Wells himself is not the right move, throwing the young guns into the mix to see if one of them can handle the challenge isn't either. Let's see IPK string another couple victories together in Scranton. White and Marquez aren't ready yet either; otherwise, nobody in their right mind would have put Igawa on the mound yesterday. Rasner did well last go-round, and hopefully he can fill the #4 slot for a bit. McCutch and the rest: Let's discuss in July.

Here's the point:

The idea of bringing in a veteran, in my view, is about letting the young guns develop at their own pace. This is not Tampa, and we're not the Rays. I saw the long list RAB put up the other day, laying out all the in-house talent they'd prefer to give a shot over Wells. While I'd probably pick AAA talent over tub-o-goo, let's get real about how one a.) develops young talent and b.) does it in NYC.

The Yankee organization needs to stop over-compensating for years of larding the roster with overage stars by suddenly putting all of the onus on the young guns.

Okay, the ship has partially sailed. That's a given. And hopefully, IPK can get back into the swing, Rasner can hold down the fort and Hughes can get his mojo back. But organizationally, this focus on throwing kid after kid into the breach is sort of like trench warfare. Yeah, sooner or later, somebody's going to get through, but the attrition rate is too high.

Let's be smart about it. And let's give these kids a lot bigger net. Because it's all a game of expectations. Last year, IPK and Hughes had far less, and they won the expectations game. This year? Not so much.

Rate the organization

LateInningRelief — Thu, 08 May 2008 23:59:58 -0000

Ed got me thinking about why I'm a bit disengaged this year. The process of developing young talent is always a bit of a trial, no matter how strong a fan one may be.

But that, I think, is really only part of the issue. I can live with a young group of players. However, we're also breaking in a new pair of owners and a new manager. The whole organization, in my view, is up in the air a bit. In fact, there's an argument to be made that the Yanks have the third best organization just in the AL East.

Curious what everybody else thinks...

Poll

Where does the Yankee organization (ownership, front office, farm system, scouting, coaching and players) rank in the AL?

1st

5 votes

2nd

3 votes

3rd

4 votes

4th

4 votes

5th

1 votes

Not in top 5

8 votes

25 votes | Poll has closed

Cashman's future

LateInningRelief — Fri, 02 May 2008 14:00:20 -0000

is now all about depth. Even if Joba's move to the rotation gives us the semblance of a starting 5, Phil and IPK are definitely looking more like reclamation projects in 2008. Meaning: Cashman's youth movement needs to produce some unlikely heroes. Otherwise, the big non-deal last winter will probably get him canned.

Jscape, is there anybody in the pipeline beyond Rasner that could be helpful? With Horne on the DL, does White look like the best candidate to come up next?

Time for Sabathia?

LateInningRelief — Thu, 01 May 2008 13:49:17 -0000

Now that criticism of the front office is no longer tantamount to giving aid and comfort to the enemy, can we finally have a real discussion on our reliance on the Trinity?

There's been a lot of hazy thoughts on what package the Yankees ultimately left on the table for Santana, but I believe Pfisty mentioned that the last demand the Twins made was IPK + Horne or Marquez + Another Prospect. As I recall (and my memory is not entirely clear on this, so correct me if I'm wrong), Hank was for the deal, Hal and Cash were against it, largely because of the need to then swing a huge contract. Bottom line: If Boston wasn't a real stalking horse, the Hal and Cash did not want to give up both solid prospects AND a gargantuan contract.

I understand that 4 weeks do not in any way indicate whether the long-term decision to forego Santana was right or wrong. But if we're evaluating stretching out Ohlendorf and hailing the 2nd coming of Rasner, things, uh, ain't going so well.

Was this avoidable? I sure think so. I'm the last person anybody would want evaluating prospects, but I am enough of a student of history to think the odds were long that two legitimate rookies (IPK and Joba) and the youngest starter in MLB (Hughes) could power this team to any real standing this year. I believe I am also in the minority in thinking that Joba is going to have a rockier transition to the rotation than most of us think. And I remain dubious that all three are going to be real aces period.

Yeah, yeah, you say. Water under the dam. Case closed. Santana's a Met. Hold the line, and they'll turn it around. Don't panic.

Well, not so fast. Because there's a big fella in Cleveland whose likely going to be in another uniform by the trading deadline. And I think it should be pinstripes.

Thoughts?