What a player gives is what the team gets. Sure, that’s a fairly obvious statement that’s likely too broad a generalization. There is more nuance to it, both on the SABR side (marginal value of a win) and the more traditional side (chemistry, etc.), but let’s take a look at the statement at its face and boil it down to two simple things: playing time and quality of performance. You want players to do both of these things and the ones who can perform at the high ends of these respective spectra are the star payers. Of course, that doesn’t always happen. There are some who can pitch a lot of innings or go up to bat a lot, but aren’t necessarily good at it. On the flip side, there are those who posses great skill and talent, but can’t stay healthy enough to play at that high level for extended periods of time.
I’ve talked before about the “two devils” of contract negotiations–money and years–but i guess w could consider this dichotomy a third devil (bonus points if you can come up with a clever term for it). We keep hearing that the Yankees don’t like the prices out on the market, and given what we’ve heard, part of me ca’t blame them. But perhaps they don’t like any of the potential signings or trade acquisitions because they’re finding it hard to find a player who gives them the right combination of quantity and quality (at the right price).
Take Matt Garza and Edwin Jackson. Each pitcher has dynamite stuff, but only shown flashes of handling it well enough to put together high quality seasons. Both, however, have mastered the quantity question by pitching a lot of innings recently.
Roy Oswalt and Hiroki Kuroda (to a lesser extent) have the opposite problem. They’ve stablished a track record of high quality performance (again, Kuroda to a lesser extent) but due to injury and/or age, there’s concern about the quantity either pitcher can give at this point.
In a vacuum, Garza is probably the best fit in terms of finding a balance between quantity and quality for the Yankees. He’s most likely a better performance bet than Jackson is and can give just as many innings. And, given Kuroda’s age and Oswat’s injury history, he’s a safer bet than they are. But, factoring cos in swings that balance.
Does Jackson become the best fit, then? His performance isn’t as bad as many (myself included) have made it seem in the past and he’s proven himself durable over the past few seasons. again, cost becomes an issue as we’ve heard multiple sources say the Yankees would have to extend the budget to accommodate a Jackson signing. That could be posturing, though. I don’t love Jackson, but $12M AAV for him would be just fine with me.
As for Kuroda and Oswalt, the Yankees have thus far steered clear, despite their relatively low costs. Again, this could be budget posturing, or they could be “covering up” the fact that neither pitcher gives them what they want in terms of a quantity/quality balance.
When there is no balance to be found, the best thing to do may be to just wait. This is a conclusion I’ve drawn on a near weekly basis, but I can’t help but come back to it. It may not be ideal to essentially stand pat, but when there is no perfect fit–no CC Sabathia, no Cliff Lee–perhaps the best thing to do is to go with the cheapest alternative and save money for later, whenever that may be.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
4 Responses to Giving and Getting
Leave a Reply
TIQ IQ
I fully understand the reluctance to overpay for Garza. The new CBA has tremendously raised the vaule of prospects for the Yankees, as they will be prevented at every turn from securing top young talent in the future (unless, of course, they become a bad team).
Dealinbg Banuelos or Betances is simply too risky as Yanks have no comparable high-upide pitching prospects behind them. It’s not easy producing BA Top 50 pitching prospects. Who knows how long before the Yanks come up with others?
Having said that, I simply can not understand why the Yanks refuse to do all they can to lock up Kuroda for a year or even two. He could immediately upgrade the rotation by replacing Burnett. He will not cost any prospects. And he won’t interfere with the plan of trimming payroll in 2014. He may not be an ideal #2, but he would instantly improve a supect rotation.
I am concerned about the potential for Rays staff to dominate this year. Ignoring this threat could force Yanks into one game wild-card playoff, possibly with Boston. I think Yanks are being complacent and they may pay for this and have to make far more costly moves later.
Sorry for the long post.
I’ve read a lot of posts about how Cashman thinks that even without a new #2 starter (Garza, for example) the current rotation is good/deep enough to win with the strong offense. But every article assumes CC will be solid/healthy. If CC goes down early due to an injury (300+ lbs on a fragile knee), the Yanks will then be in a panic position to fill the No 1 slot, making it even more likely they will make a “bad buy” for a top of the rotation replacement. Seems like poor planning to me.
Nice grammar. This article looks like it was written on a phone by a 9 year old.
The question is what do you do if there is no “perfect fit” out there or for the foreseeable future? You can either give up or you have to live with some compromise.
Maybe there is some grand plan at work in the background, but I don’t see it yet. In the year before getting CC, I understand waiting, not stripping the farm bare someone like Johann, but I don’t get the feeling that’s the case now.
Saving money for later is all well and good, but what’s going to be there “later”?