I find it funny that some otherwise sensible people are saying you cant judge whether or not this was a good trade a few months into a trade where you have ownership of the player for 5 years.

Yes but right for the wrong reasons!! The trade has to be judged on the day it happens as to whether or not it was a good decision or a bad decision!! The actual outcome is irrelevant to whether or not a risky decision was correct or not.

If you offer me a game where I pay $3 dollars in exchange for receiving in dollars the number that comes up on the roll of a dice, it is a good decision for me to play the game regardless of whether I get a 1 or a 6 when the dice is rolled.

For the record I think the trade was a good decision.

Nah, the trade sucked. Also, the Yankees suck. And I don’t like brussels sprouts.

[1] I think there are two schools of thought - one that judges the trade on trade day, the other X years out with the benefit of hindsight.

The problem is that bad analysis typically picks and chooses which perspective to use and goes back and forth. Javier Vazquez for Melky and Arodys Vizcaino? Seemed sensible at the time. Melky went on to become an average/slighlty above average OFer (albeit a year and a team after the trade) and Vizcaino is a promising young pitcher. Vazquez didn’t make the playoff roster and was retired a year later. But it seemed like a good idea at the time.

[4] .. forgot about Boone Logan, of course.

Yeah, with Arodys Vizcaino unable to stay healthy and the fact that it’s doubtful the Yankees would have kept Melky after his 2010, the Vazquez trade in hindsight doesn’t seem that bad.  Logan’s a lot better than most Yankee fans want to give him credit for being.

[1] I think you can judge the trade fair for both teams. Both teams received players with high upside and 5 and 6 years service time left, respectively. It’s just premature to call anyone the winner of this trade.

I hated the trade because I was and still am 100 % convinced, that Jesus will become an absolute superstar.

That said, I liked the trade on the day it was made.  Pineda had a full year of success in the majors, which I think more than offset the risk that is inherent with pitchers relative to hitters. Mix in the fact that Montero wasn’t going to catch (I believe they were even talking about a Russell Martin extension at the time), and it seemed like one of the few guys you would trade Montero for.

j - agree on the schools of thought and going back and forward between which way to analyse the deal.  I have no problem in the analysis of who a trade worked out bette for.

The conclusions people draw is the problem.  Generally it goes like:

Montero performance 2012 - 2018 >>> Pineda therefore bad trade therefore cashman sucks

or

Montero performance 2012 - 2018 >>> Pineda therefore I was right in february 2012 when I argued the trade was bad.

I also thought the Vasquez trade was a good trade at the time.  Swisher is an interesting example of the opposite effect - White Sox now judged to have made a ridiculous trade but it wasnt THAT lobsided at the time. (though it seemed pretty clear that the Yankees made a good trade at the time).

[4] “The problem is that bad analysis typically picks and chooses which perspective to use and goes back and forth.”

Then there’s the similarly fraudulent tactic of taking a trade that, in hindsight, appears lopsided and scrutinizing the facts and circumstances that existed at the time of the trade in such a harsh and unrealistic way as to compel the conclusion that the GM who traded away the better player “should have known” he was being rooked.  This often involves dredging up facts that nobody noticed or considered significant at the time and portraying them in retrospect as enormous red flags.

And I don’t like brussels sprouts.

You need to have them roasted, it’s like a completely different thing.

Brussels sprouts are totally cooked - to taste good

Actually I prefer them sauteed

[11] It’s a trap!

That makes it sort of edible, but I’d still have to decline.

[11] Exactly. Roasted brussels sprouts are a wonderful thing.

[10] agree strongly with this post.  Historians lapse into the same cherry picking fallacy.  No theoretical/analytical framework and you just get ad hoc bullshit storytelling.

Irish, as one of the participants in this, and as one of those taking hte position that it’s too early to judge, I have to say I think your comment is entirely unfair.
Yes, that sort of thing happens a lot - but not, as far as i have seen, here.
First of all, as J points out, it’s entirely legitimate to measure the actual outcome of a trade.  And yes, of course, that is entirely separate from the issue of whether it was advisable to make the trade given the information then available.
The reasonable people you’re referring to here have been saying that the notion that this trade is a bust - and that’s clearly going to the “measuring the actual outcome of the trade” question - is radically, ridiculously premature.
People often, as you say, confuse the questions and conclude that, SINCE the trade cannot yet be called a bust, THEREFORE it was ok to make it.  But I certainly didn’t do that, nor did anyone else here, as far as I can tell.
I think the trade was defensible and reasonable, pretty much for the reasons j gives in [8].
But if you want to say that people here are doing what you say in [9], you should be prepared to give examples.  I’m doubting you’ll find them.

You can shred the b. sprouts finely and throw them into a slaw preparation. Masks some of the unpleasantness (if any) while enhancing nutrients from diversified/varied food source.

And it’s good sautéed and roasted too. Get them caramelized good.

I was ok with the trade.  My primary worry was “young pitchers get hurt.”  And now he’s hurt.  So that sucks.

Also, as with all vegetables, adding bacon (for those not of the tribe) is always delicious.

Fine Beans with bacon is my favorite vegetable thing.

I think both time-off and after time has passed are both fine ways to analyze the trade.  The time-off you take everything that is known and decide if the trade was good or not.  Personally I liked the trade, but can certainly see how there is enough subjectivity that a reasonable person who values advanced stats like I do could come to a different conclusion.

When analyzing later, it can be useful to determine if the process was good.  That is partially - but not completely - decided by outcome.  But if the outcome was less than desired you can look back and see perhaps what indicators there were which were missed, or weren’t valued highly enough, etc.  And then determine if the process was poor, if the process was good at the time but a new method is available now which would have uncovered the issue, or if everything was still done right and it is just one of those things.

I was ambivalent about Yu, but now I’m just pissed that their main rivals got him instead.

Brussel Sprouts are wonderful, many ways. My favorite is sauteed in butter with dill or carroway seed.

[14] agree strongly with this post.

WRT to Jesus vs. Pinata, I was in favor of the trade because I thought Jesus would never catch, and we don’t (or shortly won’t) have much need to a full time DH. I don’t know if they made much of an effort to give him some OF of 1B time in order to add to his value, or went all-in on time as C. Maybe MikeK knows, if anyone does.

Pinata wasn’t the young pitching phenom I wanted from Seattle, but was a more likely bet than anyone else. I still think it was a good trade, and a good bet going forward. The only way to get more value out of Montero was to trade him earlier before it was obvious he wouldn’t be more than emergency catcher status.

I think many people (not here necessarily) are down on the trade for some combination of reasons:

1) He’s named Jesus. Are you saying you don’t love Jesus ?

2) Everyone loves a masher. It’s fun !

3) Prospect Loving. He’s homegrown, so that makes him more valuable !

4) Cashman’s an idiot, so he must have gotten hoodwinked. (This may turn out to be true, actually)

This will all turn around when Pinata returns in 2013 and pitches a no-hitter.

I liked the Pineda trade at the time.  Jesus had no place on this team if he wasn’t going to catch and it became clear how they treated him after they called him up last year that he wasn’t going to catch.  I still like the trade because I have hope he will come back strong.

I loved the Vazquez trade.  Even though I was a Melky fan and REALLY didn’t like that it pushed Hughes or Joba out of the rotation it had to be done. 

I loved the Swisher trade when it happened but at the time was not excited about it at all because it was an alternative to getting Teix.  Still you knew it was a great trade.  Now I wish they stuck to the original plan.

[24]
1) yes.
2) Of course.
3) Yes, Prospect Loving. That doesn’t make him more valuable, but you are more emotionally attached to someone you have been following for all these years.
4) Just because I hate the trade, doesn’t mean I don’t understand the reasoning behind it.

I find post 14 to be somewhat inflammatory and unnecessarily antagonistic.

And I am in the ‘hated the trade emotionally but understand why it was made and see the logic behind it’ camp.

I don’t know if they made much of an effort to give him some OF of 1B time in order to add to his value, or went all-in on time as C. Maybe MikeK knows, if anyone does.

Montero would take grounders at 3B and 1B in SWB, but it’s misleading because this is standard for catchers, at least in the Yankees system. It’s more of a warm-up routine than a ‘you’re learning a new position’ thing.

I think they kept him at catcher because they knew he couldn’t be an OF or a 3B, were locked in at 1B, and knew they wanted to trade him. It was just the matter of maximizing the trade. I think they offered him for Halladay and were shot down, I know they offered him for Lee and were shot down, and then they finally got him for Pineda.

[20] Please do not forbid us to choose to add bacon to vegetables. Have my people not suffered enougth?

Did CC switch from Cocoa Crisps to Brussel Sprouts recently?

[14] disagree strongly with this post, but also agree strongly with it.

[22] “When analyzing later, it can be useful to determine if the process was good.  That is partially - but not completely - decided by outcome.  But if the outcome was less than desired you can look back and see perhaps what indicators there were which were missed, or weren’t valued highly enough, etc.”

I agree with this post too.  Theory and data interact.  If the data contradict the result the theory predicts, it may be time to revise the concepts.

[14]  Ja Rule…

Bacon with sprouts is the definitive answer.

Also, the Mets guy has a very good rep.

Maybe MikeK knows, if anyone does.

Turns out J knows, too.  BBRef doesn’t have him spending time at any position except for C and DH.  I read someone at FanGraphs recently - don’t recall who it was in a chat - who mentioned that you always leave the player as far to the right (IIRC right is more scarce) of the defensive spectrum as possible, as long as possible.  Because as soon as you move him off, he stops developing, and loses value there.  So that’s probably why Yankees didn’t move him.

[14] I think this post is empty of original thought, but is oddly pleasing…

and I’m not sure if I’ve ever had brussel sprouts honestly…but am suddenly thinking they will go great with dinner tomorrow…

and I’m not sure if I’ve ever had brussel sprouts honestly

Hmmmm….Have you ever had…ketchup ?

the good thing about Pinata being hurt is that at least we aren’t suffering through starts where he gives up a run an inning. yet.

[37] Well, yes.  So let me revise and say I don’t know if I’ve ever had brussel sprouts in that haven’t been pureed and mixed in with other items.  Certainly not in any of the tasty-sounding ways described above.

Brussel sprouts are better than they taste.

A word of advice, B-Sprouts can be tough.  You may want to steam for say 6 minutes, then roast.  You DON’T want them to be fork-tender from the steaming.  Or, just make sure you allow enough time for a good long roast.

When analyzing later, it can be useful to determine if the process was good.  That is partially - but not completely - decided by outcome.  But if the outcome was less than desired you can look back and see perhaps what indicators there were which were missed, or weren’t valued highly enough, etc.

This.  We amateurs analyze trades based on what information we have publicly, and the assumption that behind the scenes, the Yankee brain trust and medical staff uses a thorough and effective process in vetting a player.  So I think it’s fair now, whether you supported the trade or not (I supported it), to begin to question whether the Yankees did a good enough job with their internal vetting process.