YES Network.com

May 1, 2012 -- 3:27PM, Lola wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 12:58AM, AJFreeway wrote:

Apr 30, 2012 -- 8:29PM, luvdayanks wrote:

Cashman had pulled off a deal getting King Felix and the same thing happened to him as Pineda. Would he be taking the ridiculous flack he's getting that it was a bad deal? Just curious.

That's a loaded question. Seattle never would have traded King Felix because he wasn't injured before the deal like Pineda was. Cashman gets this kind of treatment because he has been making these disastrous deals for pitching for a very long time now. This is just the latest edition.

And how do you know Pineda was injured before the deal? Do you have evidence of this? He came with a clean bill of health.... you think they didn't make sure of that. You think they didn't go over Pineda with a fine toothe comb. You can't just make false statements AJ without backing them up.

and yet in another thread , you said it wasnt cashman's job to make sure pineda was healthy and in shape .  so which one is it?

May 1, 2012 -- 3:36PM, Lola wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 3:31PM, ratmann wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 3:27PM, Lola wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 12:58AM, AJFreeway wrote:

Apr 30, 2012 -- 8:29PM, luvdayanks wrote:

Cashman had pulled off a deal getting King Felix and the same thing happened to him as Pineda. Would he be taking the ridiculous flack he's getting that it was a bad deal? Just curious.

That's a loaded question. Seattle never would have traded King Felix because he wasn't injured before the deal like Pineda was. Cashman gets this kind of treatment because he has been making these disastrous deals for pitching for a very long time now. This is just the latest edition.

And how do you know Pineda was injured before the deal? Do you have evidence of this? He came with a clean bill of health.... you think they didn't make sure of that. You think they didn't go over Pineda with a fine toothe comb. You can't just make false statements AJ without backing them up.

and yet in another thread , you said it wasnt cashman's job to make sure pineda was healthy and in shape .  so which one is it?

Don't put words in my mouth and try try and spin this.... It's NOT Cashman's job to follow this guy around with a training program and diet plan! Obviously it was his job to make sure Pineda was NOT injured before thet signed him. Clearly even you can comprehend this concept.

i am not putting words in your mouth , you said the yanks checked him with a fine tooth comb to make sure he was healthy and in shape when the trade happened and in another thread you said  that cashman couldnt keep and eye on him 24 7 before ST . so again i ask you which is it?

May 1, 2012 -- 3:29PM, Lola wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 10:00AM, 61in61 wrote:

Apr 30, 2012 -- 8:51PM, Lola wrote:

Be happy Loon.... just think of all the bad deals Cashman didn't make. He didn't trade for Santana.... hey there's an idea. Make it happen Cashman, surely the farm hasn't been completely depleted.

Why would trading for Santana have been a bad thing?

Seriously????

Ask a Met fan.

Who cares what Met fans think? What about the deal the Yanks gave AJ for a lot poorer performance? Look at his numbers for 2008-10. Those numbers would have been a bargain in Yankeeland. He had 3 good years and is looking pretty good so far this year.

May 1, 2012 -- 3:49PM, newinn wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 3:40PM, 61in61 wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 11:52AM, newinn wrote:

One year of Santanna, then the injury and many would be screaming that Cashman traded for a guy on the downhill of his career that was showing signs of decline. I doubt we make the playoffs in '08 but even if we did, it's not good for organizations to just look at one year at a time.

He had 3 good years with the Mets, not just one. Hughes and Chamberlain are still struggling and have had a bunch of injuries as well, and Melky got traded anyway. I don't know where this idea that Santana was showing signs of decline. He still had a sub 3.00 ERA in 2010. He was only 29. Cliff Lee was 32 and the Yanks were ready to open the bank for him.

For the record, I wanted Santanna but not for what the Twins were asking for. Cashman was right on this one by passing on Santanna and signing CC for just money. Hughes and Joba certainly have not yet turned out to be what we all expected but at the time imo it was the right call. Santana's velocity was in a pretty steady decline

the yanks would have had both cc and santana 

May 1, 2012 -- 3:40PM, 61in61 wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 11:52AM, newinn wrote:

One year of Santanna, then the injury and many would be screaming that Cashman traded for a guy on the downhill of his career that was showing signs of decline. I doubt we make the playoffs in '08 but even if we did, it's not good for organizations to just look at one year at a time.

He had 3 good years with the Mets, not just one. Hughes and Chamberlain are still struggling and have had a bunch of injuries as well, and Melky got traded anyway. I don't know where this idea that Santana was showing signs of decline. He still had a sub 3.00 ERA in 2010. He was only 29. Cliff Lee was 32 and the Yanks were ready to open the bank for him.

If you're getting paid $20M+ a year for 6 years... then merely "good" is unacceptable. You better be a lot better than that. Santana's K-Rate has been in decline for a few years now, and his walk rate has gone up. His home run rate had trended upward up until his trade to the Mets. Not good. I can imagine how many HRs he'd be giving up at the Stadium playing in the AL East. With the Mets he's giving up a few less homers but then again Citi field IS a pitchers park....

The Cliff Lee trade would have been a disaster and I was really happy at the time to see it fall through. Lee made it perfectly clear that he was never going to stay here if he was traded here, he would have gone out the door after the season ended. You guys think trading Montero for a guy who's injured is bad? How about trading Montero and whoever else the M's wanted.... for nothing? That's what the Yankees would have been left with.