Oswalt to Phils? ... The trade-deadline thread

I love the Yankee faithful trying so hard to live in last year. When players get old, another year tends to make a difference.

 

Not sure how I'm "clinging to that little fallacy" by mentioning last season on its own once. My point was that you are saying he is on a steady decline, which generally infers a decrease in production over several seasons, less than a year after he had one of the best seasons of his career.

Take my argument as seriously as you want. All I know is that I brought a decade's worth of statistics that suggest that perhaps he is following what he has done for most of his career, while you have brought 100 games and his age as your proof that he's done being productive at the top of the lineup and that Brett Gardner should replace him.

As I've said twice already, I fully acknowledge that at his age, Jeter's performance is a red flag. But I ask you this:

Which do you think is more likely ... Brett Gardner, a career .274 (.358 OBP) hitter and his 189 career hits will perform better leading off in a pennant race and the playoffs, or that Jeter, a career .315 (.385 OBP) hitter with 2,866 hits will hit better in the second half than he did in the first as he has done in most of his 14 full seasons in the bigs?

I, for one, would cast my lot with Jeter at the top of the lineup, not Gardner.

 

The Yankees will give Derek Jeter a 4-year, $80-milion contract at the end of this season.
Why? Because he's Derek Jeter.
Derek Jeter will be the Yankees starting shortstop for all four years of that contract.
Why? Because he's Derek Jeter.
Derk Jeter will bat first or second in the Yankees lineup for at least the next two season.
Why? Because he's Derek Jeter.
s

 

And he is worth every nickle. When Jeter came up the Yankees annual attendance was around 2 mil.

Since then the Yankees have won 5 World Championships and attendance is over 4 million.

Maybe on a go forward he does not perform to an 80 mil contract but he sure deserves the money based on the past.

 

For any other franchise, that would be the Stupidest. Thing. Evar. But since it's the Yankees, no big deal.

 

I agree with this.

The New York Yankees consider themselves a first-class business, from the championships all the way down to the most minute details of the organization.

A first-class business treats its most loyal, longest-tenured, most valuable employees the right way. It doesn't toss them out at the end. Treating Derek Jeter the right way isn't just a message to Yankees fans or Major League Baseball. It should show all businesses in the United States, large and small, that this is how you do things.

 

Well, since you asked:
In his final seven seasons (1954-1960), Ted average .337, hit 184 homers, had 541 RBIs, and had a walk-to-strikeout ratio of 673-255, in 828 games. Extrapolate those numbers over a 162-game season and you get 37 homers and 108 RBIs per year.

His OBP was .451 or better in six of those seven seasons; his OPS was 1.042 or better in six of those seven seasons, and his slugging percentage was .584 or better in six of those seven seasons (he had an off year in 1959).

At 38 years of age, he hit .388, with 38 homers and 87 RBIs in 132 games, with a .526 OBP, a .731 SP, and a 1.257 OPS.

Don't ever disparage Teddy Ballgame's hitting ability. Ever. He's the best hitter there ever was.

 

One word micro guy:


AMEN!

 

So Micro and Spnited, a great player can still have great seasons late in their careers. For me, that would keep Jeter off the scrap heap and above the clean up hitter in the batting order.

 

Yes, Devil, a great player can still have great seasons late in his career.
But don't for a second confuse Derek Jeter with Ted Williams.

 

Sure, one never won jack shit.

If Joe is a Red Sox and Teddy is a Yank, do the Yanks still dominate?

 

Logical fallacy of equivocation. Just because they are both "Great" doesn't mean Jeter can do what Ted Williams could do.