Comments on Yankeeist: The argument for John Lackey

see my comment on larry's post for the difference ...

2009-11-13T09:15:40.974-05:00

see my comment on larry's post for the difference between santana and halladay. you brought up santana in your post, so i told you it's not relevant, which is still completely true. Whether the yankees sign john lackey as a free agent has nothing to do with trading players for johan santana....because those players don't play a factor in the signing of lackey.

You brought up Santana in your comment. And he is ...

2009-11-12T19:44:38.783-05:00

You brought up Santana in your comment. And he is entirely relevant to the post. Others in the blogosphere are using the example of the Yankees not pursuing him and waiting to year to get Sabathia as an argument against signing Lackey. It is therefore important to point out how luck broke the Yank's way when the made that decision. Huges and Joba are therefore relevant to the argument, as they would have been traded for Santana, or would be traded for Halladay, if the team heads in that direction. Lackey is a better option, provided he's at full heatlth.

Let's just put it this way...I disagree with almos...

2009-11-12T16:21:06.298-05:00

Let's just put it this way...I disagree with almost everything you say. Most of it doesn't make sense or doesn't have anything to do with anything. Santana is completely irrelevant to this entire argument. So are Hughes and Joba.

At all times I could have seen the team winning th...

2009-11-12T15:53:29.140-05:00

At all times I could have seen the team winning the World Series. I never said that I didn't expect that to a certain degree of probability. My point was then, and was with this most recent post, that it wasn't nearly as pre-ordained as many people said. It still took above expected performances from many players.

That was my point with the sidebar. Reading Larry's piece reminded me how much the Yankees had to overcome. But I would never go so far as to say that I was certain the team didn't have what it took. And I never have said that.

Santana got hurt this year. And the Yankees got lucky. They were not guranteed to get an impact pitcher in 2008, but they did. Not having Santana may turn out to be good if his nagging injuries turn into a real problem. But passing on him was a gamble that paid off for them. It was, however, still a gamble.

"did you ever see this team doing what it did? Yea...

2009-11-12T15:25:18.048-05:00

"did you ever see this team doing what it did? Yeah, me too, but it was still amazing" ...you posted two weeks ago that the team's success was unexpected. Now, with a championship in their pocket, you expected it....interesting.

and I'm not completely sure how the Yankees won big on not getting Santana. If they had been able to trade for him, they still could've picked up every single free agent they did last season...and they could still sign lackey now.