Let’s Move On

Ken Rosenthal writes that the Yanks’ pursuit of world-beater Jarrod Washburn is complicated by the lefty’s no-trade clause:

The contract provision complicates the Yankees’ pursuit of Washburn, which was first reported by the Newark-Star Ledger.

Washburn, who turns 34 on Aug. 14, is owed the balance of his $9.85 million salary this season and $10.35 million next season.

Players generally require financial compensation to waive no-trade protection, usually in the form of a cash bonus or contract extension.

The Yankees almost certainly would not part with quality prospects for Washburn if they needed to absorb his contract and negotiate additional compensation with his agent, Scott Boras. The Mariners are seeking young pitching in return, according to major-league sources.

I understand that Washburn is likely an improvement on either Sidney Ponson or Darrell Rasner because they’re not very good, and I understand that money is no object in Yankeeland–except when it is. But this is Jarrod Washburn we’re talking about.

I mean listen, we’re sitting here talking about Jarrod Washburn, not Johan Santana, not Johan Santana, not Johan Santana, but we’re talking about Jarrod Washburn. Not Johan Santana who I would go out there and die for and post about like it’s my last post but we’re talking about Jarrod Washburn. How silly is that?

Now I know that I’m supposed to lead by example and all that but I’m not shoving that aside like it don’t mean anything. I know it’s important, I honestly do but we’re talking about Jarrod Washburn. We’re talking about Jarrod Washburn.  We’re talking about Jarrod Washburn. We’re talking about Jarrod Washburn. We’re not talking about Johan Santana. We’re talking about Jarrod Washburn. When you come to the site, and you see me post, you’ve seen me post right, you’ve seen me give everything I’ve got, but we’re talking about Jarrod Washburn right now.

39 comments… add one
  • I’m confused, who are we talking about here?

    LocklandSF July 23, 2008, 11:09 am
  • I figure it’s some guy’s name.
    Some guy named Gabbo.

    attackgerbil July 23, 2008, 11:16 am
  • We’re talking about Jarrod Washburn.

    Nick-YF July 23, 2008, 11:20 am
  • I think we’re talking about Johan Santana, Lockland. I mean I keep seeing his name above so we must be talking about him.
    Nomaas suggests the Yanks get Jason Bay, and are willing to trade anyone except Hughes and AJax. Not a bad idea.

    Atheose July 23, 2008, 11:21 am
  • Why the f*ck would Seattle have given Jarrod Washburn a no-trade clause!?

    SF July 23, 2008, 11:28 am
  • “I understand that Washburn is likely an improvement on either Sidney Ponson or Darrell Rasner because they’re not very good, and I understand that money is no object in Yankeeland–except when it is.”
    I think that’s iffy at this point. He may be better – but that’s far from certain. And 10 million next year is better spent on Sheets or CC or both.
    “Nomaas suggests the Yanks get Jason Bay, and are willing to trade anyone except Hughes and AJax.”
    Add Montero too. But yeah, I’d open up the kitty for Bay.

    A YF July 23, 2008, 11:28 am
  • “Why the f*ck would Seattle have given Jarrod Washburn a no-trade clause!?”
    See Boras, Scott.

    A YF July 23, 2008, 11:30 am
  • Despite Bay’s unusual 2007 season he’s a monster at the plate. He’s shitty at defense too, so they could DH him once Damon’s shoulder is healthy enough to let him play LF.

    Atheose July 23, 2008, 11:31 am
  • When is Hughes able to start throwing again? Isn’t the boot coming off Wang soon too?

    krueg July 23, 2008, 11:50 am
  • I’ve been a huge fan of Bay, thought the last few years his numbers are down. Perhaps playing the Yanks might get his motivation up again though.

    Lar July 23, 2008, 11:52 am
  • The players that are available do not excite me one bit. If we are going to ride with the team we have, so be it. At this point I would rather see that happen than over pay for a player like Bay. Our pitching situation is borderline awful, how does another bat help that out? So we make the playoffs and once again we have too few good arms to go anywhere. It seems like the Yankees are fine with this being a year to rebuild and reload. I know Gardner hasn’t been good, he’s been awful (at the plate) but let him play until everyone is healthy and see what he turns into. It’s the only way to let him properly develop. As much as I hate to say it, let’s just play with what we have and wait for the offseason.

    John - YF July 23, 2008, 11:57 am
  • krueg-
    peter abraham, who literally wrote the book on wang, says that the boot should come off in “two weeks or so.”
    hughes said on his blog that he is already throwing, but he didn’t give any details.

    Yankee Fan In Boston July 23, 2008, 11:59 am
  • Pete Abe said yesterday that Wang wants to be back in September. Will that happen? Who knows. As for Hughes he will not be back this year, that’s what Pete Abe said on the radio Sunday. He said the vibe he gets is that the Yankees feel they may have rushed both Hughes and Kennedy. He said he wouldn’t be surprised if Kennedy wasn’t back in the bigs until the earliest next season.

    John - YF July 23, 2008, 12:00 pm
  • the Yankees feel they may have rushed both Hughes and Kennedy.
    This would be a pretty stunning admission, if anyone were to ever come out and make it. The line sold on Hughes and Kennedy was their callups were in no way brought on by panic or other outside forces, that they were ready to play. So, if Pete Abe’s take is correct, either the Yankees made a horrible misjudgment that hurt both the big club and the development of two of their most prized arms, or they made a calculated decision that placed short-term needs over potential long-term results. Not exactly pretty either way.

    Paul SF July 23, 2008, 12:06 pm
  • I will be happy if we don’t see IPK back in Pinstripes for a LONG time…Hughes I’m still hoping pans out. He’s has to have the tag of “injury prone” at this point though, right? I know he is young, but he seems to break down pretty easily at 21…
    I agree with John, ride out the season, the team is good enough on paper to make the post-season. Then reevaluate this offseason and great some free agents…*cough* C.C. *cough*

    krueg July 23, 2008, 12:11 pm
  • Hmmm, except the same logic that applies to IPK and Hughes also applies to Joba. So if they “rushed” Hughes and IPK they also rushed Joba. And he’s very “pretty”!
    This is Yankee “rebuilding”. And they’re 3.5 back of the division. Yeah, I’ll take that.
    “Our pitching situation is borderline awful, how does another bat help that out?”
    Well, if you can’t prevent more runs, then you can score some. And right now, the bottom third ain’t helping with the latter.
    Plus, Bay helps going forward – as in 2009 and beyond.

    A YF July 23, 2008, 12:15 pm
  • “let’s just play with what we have and wait for the offseason.”
    I agree John. I just hate to say that when “what we have” includes Ponson. I’d almost rather roll the dice with Rasner AND another minor league arm – i.e. Karstens. I don’t like having Sid on the team and I expect a horrid flameout from him. But yeah, everyone else – including extended trial-time for Gardner – is just fine with me and is actually pretty fun to watch.
    Surprised not to see more fallout from Melky’s wave-to-the-crowd-induced error last night. Manny being Manny is hard to take but it is connected to a beast at the plate. There should be zero tolerance for this kind of Melky being Melky. I don’t want to see the kid pilloried publicly, but I sure hope he heard it from Girardi and/or – even better – from his teammates behind closed doors. I don’t mean to go overboard, but his is the same position Joe DiMaggio filled. Try to play the game the right way please.

    IronHorse (yf) July 23, 2008, 12:25 pm
  • “But yeah, everyone else – including extended trial-time for Gardner – is just fine with me and is actually pretty fun to watch.”
    Me too!

    A YF July 23, 2008, 12:27 pm
  • IH – anyone got a video of that?

    Lar July 23, 2008, 12:31 pm
  • And IH, when Melky does only one of:
    a) slapping a teammate
    b) pushing a 66 year old employee to the ground
    c) throwing away an AB to get back at the team
    I’ll start to worry about his “antics”.

    A YF July 23, 2008, 12:37 pm
  • Paul SF July 23, 2008, 12:38 pm
  • And IH, when Melky does only one of:
    a) slapping a teammate
    b) pushing a 66 year old employee to the ground
    c) throwing away an AB to get back at the team
    I’ll start to worry about his “antics”

    Manny could decapitate a maid at the Embassy Suites and pack her body parts in the minifridge for all I care as long as he keeps OPS+’ing 143. When you’re OPS+ is 74, though, ZERO antics are allowed.

    Atheose July 23, 2008, 12:40 pm
  • Manny could decapitate a maid at the Embassy Suites and pack her body parts in the minifridge
    If he did, the team would certainly keep that info to itself!

    A YF July 23, 2008, 12:42 pm
  • That video is great, Paul. I love when they watch the replay Michael Kay says “Yep, Melky was too cool for school on that play.”

    Atheose July 23, 2008, 12:45 pm
  • I’m pretty sure the ‘we rushed Hughes and Kennedy’ is a more retrospective admission. If they could have gone back and redid it, they would have let Hughes develop in the minors, where for purely logistical reasons it is likely he wouldn’t have torn his hamstring. They probably also wish they could have left Kennedy develop a bit more too. Notice how they have zero regrets over pushing Joba to the majors.
    Abraham has a tendency to skew words and situations to his benefit (remember, he championed the ‘they rushed Hughes and that’s why he got injured, his hamstring was not major-league ready’ viewpoint, which was completely idiotic and still is). The organization likely is going to be a bit more cautious with their prized prospects, even if they blow away the minor leagues and look for all the world like they are major-league ready.
    Of course, this is easy to say and do now, as they don’t really NEED to rush Melancon, or Aceves, or Kennedy at this point. Saying it’s some grave, embarrassing, awful error is a bit dramatic. They promoted Hughes quickly, and it didn’t work out. They promoted Joba quickly, and it’s worked out better than anyone could have expected. You don’t hear them wishing they could go back and change what they did with Joba, do you? I wouldn’t read too much into it, other than that they’re going to be a little more careful, especially since now they’re in more of a ‘rebuilding’ mode. For example, if the Clemens situation were around this year, I doubt the Yankees would bite.

    AndrewYF July 23, 2008, 2:12 pm
  • Cash said last week on Michael K’s show that Wang is expected back in September.

    I'mBillMcNeal July 23, 2008, 2:13 pm
  • “If he did, the team would certainly keep that info to itself!”
    Since when do they owe you an explanation?

    I'mBillMcNeal July 23, 2008, 2:14 pm
  • I totally agree Andrew and don’t really go in for the over-the-top “they made a terrible mistake” criticism of front offices by the fans of rival teams whenever a gamble doesn’t work out. And I mean that when YFs do it of Theo et al as much as when SFs do it of Cash.
    Hughes appeared ML-ready and they tried it. He did better in ’07 – including in a playoff game – than in ’08 and IPK was the best pitcher on the Yankee’s rotation for the brief late-season stint he had in ’07, so I don’t think it was stupid to think they might be ready. It would have been stupid to expect a great ’08 team being as dependent as the Yanks were on such untested young talent going in, but if you’re ready to take some lumps and have some rebuilding pains without panicking as a result – which the Yanks have shown they are – then why not give it a try? I have no problem with how the Yanks made decisions given the information they had at the time they made them. It’s easy, but ultimately meaningless, to fault in retrospect only those gambles that don’t work out.

    IronHorse (yf) July 23, 2008, 2:26 pm
  • It’s easy, but ultimately meaningless, to fault in retrospect only those gambles that don’t work out.
    And it doesn’t anything of substance to the site either, it just engages both sides in a useless “your team’s FO sucks, no yourteam’s FO sucks!” type of argument.

    Atheose July 23, 2008, 2:29 pm
  • IH, Ath, I think it is newsworthy if Pete Abe has a real source in the front office who tells him that plans were made despite feelings that certain players weren’t ready. It’s a non-story and just discussion if we speculate that they weren’t ready without a piece of journalism, but it’s a story if the front office thought this and played them in defiance of their own hunches.
    We engaged in a ludicrous discussion about Manny tanking an at-bat last week on nothing, even shakier evidence, and it was regarded as a legitimate topic (I don’t think it was, frankly). By the same standards, if Abraham has a source for this he ought to be more forthright, and if the front office for the Yankees felt this way and Abraham has this information then certainly it is newsworthy, and in a big way, particularly if certain deals were scotched because they wouldn’t part with “ML-ready talent”.
    To be fair, if it’s all just speculation by Abraham then no, it isn’t really a story, I agree.

    SF July 23, 2008, 2:40 pm
  • And it doesn’t anything of substance to the site either, it just engages both sides in a useless “your team’s FO sucks, no yourteam’s FO sucks!” type of argument.
    If both sides turn it into that argument. I don’t think there’s necessarily any topic here that automatically qualifies as a “third rail” discussion here. That implies the participants in the discussion have no responsibility to police themselves, something I cannot agree with. It seems you’re assuming a lowest common denominator, which of course is exactly what will result if that’s where your expectations are.

    Paul SF July 23, 2008, 2:44 pm
  • I disagree SF. What’s the news? That the FO of a team was uncertain of a decision – thinking a player might be ready but also might not – decided to give it a shot and it turned out he wasn’t ready and so now in retrospect they realize that the doubts they had may have been justified? Big deal. Next time an FO promotes a guy from the minors with universal confidence that he is ready would probably be a rarer occurence.
    As for the Manny discussion I have no idea about that – I was splitting time between a deathbed and a toilet all of last week…

    IronHorse (yf) July 23, 2008, 2:46 pm
  • Next time an FO promotes a guy from the minors with universal confidence that he is ready would probably be a rarer occurence.
    I basically agree with this. But given the public posture regarding the readiness of these guys I think there is something worth discussing. It has to do with the way the team plans/planned/traded/didn’t trade. It’s a valid line of discussion about baseball operations and personnel strategy.
    Qualification: it is a story if Abraham confirms that this is the story and a real sentiment. Otherwise it is ethereal and about as useful as the Manny idiocy.

    SF July 23, 2008, 2:59 pm
  • “But given the public posture regarding the readiness of these guys…”
    I’m sorry but I totally disagree with that as a legitimizer of such debates too. No matter what your reservations about a promoted player are, once you’ve decided that you’re going to let the kid make that leap, you can not – especially in public – express anything but confidence in him. It would undercut his confidence, which is only the second most critical element in the prospects of his ultimate success (right after his actual talent level).
    I’m not trying to be argumentative here SF and I wasn’t meaning to be disrespectful of Paul in responding as I did to his comment – this really is a feeling I have about all such debates regardless of the team.
    What might be newsworthy in my view is if a division has developed between different parts of baseball operations on a team where the feelings of one are consistently over-ridden or they are undercutting each other by leaking to press, etc. The now-dismissed NY-Tampa division that the Yankees organization had under George’s final operational years are a perfect example. But I see this as really different from it coming out that an FO was not 100% sure of a promotion when they did it and I don’t think their public pronouncements of utter confidence in their decision at the time they made that promotion is at all surprising or makes the issue any more of a story. Indeed, if an FO were to make a promotion and publicly undercut it at the same time by saying “we’re not totally sure about this guy, but what the hell”, now THAT would be more of a story.

    IronHorse (yf) July 23, 2008, 3:07 pm
  • you can not – especially in public – express anything but confidence in him. It would undercut his confidence, which is only the second most critical element in the prospects of his ultimate success (right after his actual talent level).
    Understood, agreed. Again, I think this is a legitimate topic for debate because it goes to the workings of the front office. And I don’t mean “debate” as in flamethrowing accusations of front office duplicity, but rather debate as in “hey, was the front office correct in it’s assessment of players, their possible impact, and their reasoning behind making a trade or not making a trade involving these players”. I don’t see why this is off-limits, particularly if a front office source cops to this kind of equivocation and doubt.

    SF July 23, 2008, 3:12 pm
  • I do think the Yanks rushed Kennedy and Hughes. A mistake, yes, but not a terrible one. Loads of guys get rushed and turn out fine. And it was hard to think they were bei9ng rushed after they both performed so well down the stretch last year. Setback – possibly. Not a disaster. If they have have the ability, health, and makeup, they will be fine.

    Mark (YF) July 23, 2008, 3:16 pm
  • SF, if the issue is were they wrong in not trading Hughes and/or IPK given how they ended up performing this year, then sure, that could make for a meaty debate. I don’t think their performance this year changes my mind much as to whether they should have been traded – whether one thinks they should or shouldn’t have – the fact of their youth should dictate that we won’t know, esp. with Hughes, for at least another 2-3 years, if that. One could argue that winning with a largely aging team requires that they not wait that long and therefore trade the kid, but that’s a valid argument regardless of how well or badly he did this year in my view given the timeline required for us to know for sure, as is the opposing view that they should hold on to Hughes and it is worth the wait given the potential upside (my view).
    Anyway, I am not meaning to rain on parades here – anyone can debate whatever aspect of this they want to of course. I, like Mark, think they may have rushed it in retrospect, but I don’t have a problem with it and don’t think the ramifications have been a big long-term deal. If they blew out their arms from overthrowing in the bigs or if their psyches were irreperably damaged by getting shelled and they hadn’t had previous sucess at this level to fall back on I’d judge things much harder, but that’s not where we are and they both seem mentally pretty tough and surprisingly mature for their ages.

    IronHorse (yf) July 23, 2008, 3:26 pm
  • “We engaged in a ludicrous discussion about Manny tanking an at-bat last week on nothing, even shakier evidence, and it was regarded as a legitimate topic (I don’t think it was, frankly).”
    the discussion to me was legitimate because of Manny’s future with the Sox. Since the Sox FO has a decision to make about him at the end of the year, I thought, if the story was true (that there were people in the front office who actually thought he tanked an at bat–which is a serious and basically insane allegation–not that he had actually tanked it), then it was pretty significant news about what the Sox are/were thinking about Manny’s future with the team. As it turns out, Lobel seemed to be talking out of his ass.

    Anonymous July 23, 2008, 4:40 pm
  • that be me

    Nick-YF July 23, 2008, 4:50 pm

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.