I don’t think his defense is overrated.  I think he is an incredible defender I just don’t trust the accuracy of defensive stats.

Perfect example, UZR says Granderson has cost the Yankees almost a full win on defense already while Nunez has been a good defender.

I know Gardner is good, I just don’t know that he is worth 2-3 wins a year just for defense but yeah, they do need him back.  Some of these numbers were due to Swisher being out at the same time but still, they need him back.

I think his D is what the numbers say it is: ridiculously awesome.

Nunez being above-average on defense is laughable.  Granderson strikes me as so-so, but not terrible.

The guy who cooked up UZR has said you need 3 full seasons of data to get a handle on a guy’s D.  For smaller samples than that, it doesn’t really work well.  Therefore, it’s of limited utility.  You can only really use it confidently with guys with track records (non-1B, for which I don’t think it ever really works).

Regarding Swisher… I really don’t see how the team lets him walk.  I know, the budget.  But they have no internal replacement available, which means they either need to trade (having already used their biggest chip) or pay a different FA.  Why not just keep Swish?

I don’t think his defense is overrated.  I think he is an incredible defender I just don’t trust the accuracy of defensive stats.

The comment about Gardner’s defense wasn’t necessarily directed at you, more of a general statement about the fact that yes, the accuracy of defensive statistics is suspect.

Not sure what’s up with Granderson’s rating this year.  The other metrics also have him as pretty bad and while he did look shaky to my eyes over the first week or so he’s seemed pretty solid since then IMO.

So, we should prepare for the King Felix shutout with Montero 4-4 with 2 dingers, right?

The guy who cooked up UZR has said you need 3 full seasons of data to get a handle on a guy’s D.  For smaller samples than that, it doesn’t really work well.  Therefore, it’s of limited utility.  You can only really use it confidently with guys with track records (non-1B, for which I don’t think it ever really works).

My understanding of what he was saying is that it takes that long to know someones defensive baseline, but it is still accurate in small time intervals. 

For instance, since it hasn’t been over 3 seasons you can’t say that you can expect Granderson to cost your team 5 wins on defense a year, but you can say he has cost your team 8 runs so far this year.

Regarding Swisher… I really don’t see how the team lets him walk.  I know, the budget.  But they have no internal replacement available, which means they either need to trade (having already used their biggest chip) or pay a different FA.  Why not just keep Swish?

I really think they have two choices.

1) Damn the $189M payroll and continue to contend for the World Series
2) Shoot for the $189M payroll and be lucky to be a .500 team

It is almost impossible to see a scenario where they can be a good team with a $189M payroll with the A-Rod and Teixeira contracts hamstringing them.  They have to re-sign Cano.  They probably should re-sign Granderson, although with an eye to moving him to an OF corner.  Gardner and Robertson are getting more expensive.  They need to build a rotation behind CC and for 2013 that looks like Ivan Nova and ???.  They should be able to cobble a bullpen behind Robertson and Joba if Mo retires after 2013.

Oh, and they probably need a catcher.  And a RF if Swisher walks.

The $189M payroll limit was mostly designed with screwing the Yankees in mind.  If they decide to say they don’t care and continue to go well above it, the next CBA will also be designed with that in mind and will almost certainly be harsher on them.

In the big picture, it might be wise to take their lumps for a few years to keep themselves in a position to maintain some of the financial advantage they have. But that advantage isn’t what it used to be, because teams are locking up their best young players through their primes, and the opportunities to draft and sign the best young players are no longer any bigger for the big market teams.  The free agent classes have been getting weaker and weaker, which means teams are overpaying for the guys who do become available.  And just look at the cost for trading for good young players now?  It’s through the roof.

The fact is, the entire financial landscape of MLB is changing, and I don’t know if the present Yankee management is the right group to adjust to that.  I’d like to think they might be, but the Montero trade really was a turning point for me in terms of how I regard them.  I really think they’re just not all that good at evaluating players or developing them.

Which is a long way of saying I think they should re-sign Swisher if they can have him for three or four years, but I don’t think they will.  Seems to me you can go Granderson in RF, move Gardner to CF and stopgap LF while hoping Mason Williams can be knocking on the door in a couple of years.

[6] - Agreed.  Furthermore I have no idea what the hell is going on with MLB payrolls anymore.  This $189 number came along right at the same time the Dodgers sold for $2 billion.  Like you said, teams are locking up their stars but because of the price of the Dodgers they are locking them up to absurd contracts.  But why?  If the big spenders at the top are handcuffed by the $189 number and have to be smarter, who are they bidding against?  Who is going to hand out this long term mega contracts now that there are real consequences to their downside?  It seems like the costs of free agents should be falling, not rising.  Unless you see a league where 10 teams are going to bump up against the $189 mark and teams like the Red Sox and Yankees are just forced to watch as others close the gap.

Looking back at the new CBA’s luxury tax rates, they are less harsh than I remember, so it’s possible that the Yankees are just saying that they will go under the threshold.

The luxury tax is still primarily a Yankee issue, so big contracts will keep happening like they had been on players the Yankees can’t use, ie, through some combination of one dumb owner and Scott Boras’ hubris.

[6] The ARod and Tex contracts hurt, yeah.  As will CC’s.  And Cano’s new deal, whenever that’s done.

I think the Yankees should make a fair offer to Swish, but refuse to do the bid-against-themselves thing.  If he walks because someone else is willing to pay more, you deal with it.

Though the prospect of losing him pains me, they will need to do something similar with Cano.  They need to keep 2008 firmly in mind.  He’s still a hacker, and that *can* happen again.

The only place the Yankees will still be able to throw their weight around will be in the international FA market.  They will need to redouble their efforts there.

I don’t think Cano is the kind of player you let go.  Defense + pop at second isn’t so easy to replace.  Big-hitting outfielders are somewhat easier to find.

The only place the Yankees will still be able to throw their weight around will be in the international FA market.  They will need to redouble their efforts there.

I don’t think so.  Didn’t they institute a $2M cap on international spending?

Yep, there’s hard slotting in the draft and there’s a cap on international free agents.  Now we just need to add about 9 more wild cards in each league and we’ll have a level playing field.

So, in reference to the last point…

Bourjos? probably lighter hitting than you want, but young, cost controlled, good defense, some speed…

Defense + pop at second isn’t so easy to replace.  Big-hitting outfielders are somewhat easier to find.

But the defense you get from Cano in 3-5 years is likely not the same as what you’re getting now. There’s even a chance he may shift to another position down the road like third or a corner outfield position.

I’m not saying his defense will decline a lot, but it’s a consideration. Nor am I saying he wouldn’t be worth resigning even if there is noticeable decline.  But it is something to consider.

I can’t imagine the Steinbrenners are going to stick to $189mm if the alternative really is that the NYY become a .500 team.  Clearly, it’s in their interests to SAY they are serious about cutting payroll, and it’s possible they’re being sincere in saying it.  But when the choice actually presents itself, pay the luxury tax or prepare to miss the playoffs every year, I think there’s an excellent chance they will opt for the former.

Weren’t the Townies’ owners a few years ago fond of saying they had a team policy of not giving any 5-year deals (might have even been 4-year deals)? Yet they’ve been offering players long-term deals left and right lately.  What sounds like a commitment to fiscal discipline today can turn into serious flexibility tomorrow.

Also one thing to consider, it seems pretty obvious that attendance is down.  Not just from looking at the games on TV, but just look at all the extra promotions for partial season ticket plans, including weekend plans still being offered into May.  I have had the same 20 game package since NYS opened, and so far it certainly has seemed like fewer people, even on a nice weekend day.  I am going Saturday, and am intrigued to see what the crowds are like.  Of course Hughes is pitching, so I may just get too drunk to notice and go buy some $1.99 double cheeseburgers now that the thread earlier today put that in my head…

The $189M payroll limit was mostly designed with screwing the Yankees in mind.  If they decide to say they don’t care and continue to go well above it, the next CBA will also be designed with that in mind and will almost certainly be harsher on them.

In the big picture, it might be wise to take their lumps for a few years to keep themselves in a position to maintain some of the financial advantage they have

If the league can turn on a dime to administer a second screwing to up the pressure, they can do that whether NYY makes it under the $189M mark or not.

The NYY “unfair advantage” is due in part to having a large, well established market where baseball matters, all the time (unlike Chicago and LA, though it didn’t keep the Giants or Dodgers in the city and hasn’t helped the Mets).

But the biggest factor has been making moves that had good return on investment. Starting with building the original YS and buying Ruth, up through their management of TV contracts.

It is a rich market, well harvested and a willingness to spend money to leverage the historical success.