The worst thing you can do is bring in a proven ace.
I know that sounds stupid, but it is true
Would you not rather have a ace prove himself on your team?
You are much better off in terms of young talent and cash if you discover your own ace.
08 - Hamels
07 - Lester (little bit of a stretch)
06 - Carpenter
05 - Buehrle
04 - Pedro (little bit of a stretch)
03 - Beckett
02 - Lackey
*all led their teams to world series wins
In case nobody has noticed, the best way to win is to find, not buy an ace.
One of: Hughes, Kennedy, or Chamberlain will lead the Yankees to a World Series soon.
If it is not them, then it will be another young gun, because the Yankees will have tons of draft picks if they can refrain from the proven aces.
Their is a saying that you hear in school. Advice for a good leader, who wants to prosper and rule for a long time - "use history as an example"
-Niccolo Machiavelli
Whichever team can realize this proper formula for winning wins the world series year in and year out.
comments (13) write a comment »
write a new comment
about 1 month ago
Yes, because of several reasons.
Santana would have much more pressure on him with his huge contract.
Carpenter pitched eight innings and allowing no runs on three hits in his one W.S. start. In eight career post-season starts, he has a 5-1 record with a 2.53 ERA in 53.3 innings.
Fans rally around a homegrown player, which creates a better atmosphere
Just look at history, Ari.
from about 1 month ago
So go ahead and prove it. Show that a single homegrown pitcher is objectively better than a proven pitcher from another organization. Right now, you haven't done that. Instead, you asserted that Lester was somehow more responsible for the Red Sox winning the 2007 WS than Josh Beckett. That doesn't make much sense at all. And in case you hadn't notice, Pedro Martinez was already an established ace in 2004 and certainly wasn't homegrown.
about 1 month ago
Do you feel as though Lester was the one who was leading the Red Sox rotation during the 2007 post season? Wasn't it CLEARLY Beckett?
Also, I would like to see what you have to say about Carpenter. He always had loads of potential in Toronto, he simply could not get healthy.
Decent theory either way, although I bet a team would rather have the best possible pitcher, regardless of where they came from (See Minnesota with Johan Santana).
about 1 month ago
good points. My theory does not always hold true. It is just a trend. The Red Sox seem to be exceptions.
Maybe that is because they can't afford to be patient in the AL east?
from about 1 month ago
Or is it because they can afford 'bigger and better'?
For example, the Mets had a nice front four in the rotation of Pelfrey, Perez, Pedro, and Maine. However, they were in a position to pick up Johan Santana and improve their rotation.
The same can be said about the Cubs. Between Demspter, Zambrano, Harden, and Lilly, the front four is as good as it gets. But you add Peavy or Sabathia to that mix, and it is that much better.
So I think it is more about being the best possible, some teams have the luxury to acquire that piece, while others have to build it from scratch.
about 1 month ago
I think your views are severely misguided by your frustration over being a Yankees fan. Just because your team has failed due to bringing in old, washed up players doesn't mean that bringing in a proven ace is a bad thing. I'd rather have Santana on my team than Jon Lester- I can't even understand why anyone would think differently. Unproven pitchers may have played an important role in recent World Series, but to say that "The worst thing you can do is bring in a proven ace" is like saying you'd rather be given a lottery ticket than a twenty-dollar bill.
The Mets might not have made the playoffs, but if they had, you can be sure that Johan Santana would have played a huge role. A pitcher like C.C. Sabathia in 2008, overworked and heavily relied on, can fail because they're overworked, not neccesarily because they'll choke. Cole Hamels was already a proven ace going into 2008, and he is a strong pitcher because he can easily handle the massive pressure associated with a championship run. It's not like he had no pressure on him because he had no expectations. He had boatloads of pressure on him and he came through in the clutch.
"How to Win a World Series: 101"- if you're using the Phillies as an example, it's balance. They didn't rely on a single ace, like the Brewers did with Sabathia. They didn't collapse when their top players went through massive slumps, as Ryan Howard, Brett Myers, and Pat Burrell all did. They had all their bases covered, no pun intended.
You want to know why your Yankees aren't winning the World Series? It's not because you can't win with proven players. It's just because your team hasn't performed. It's true that Chamberlain, Hughes, or Kennedy might break out at some point, but it's crazy to have your hopes riding on a specific unproven player. The Steinbrenners have money, and they should use it wisely. Get two (or maybe even three) of the following- Sabathia, Lowe, and Burnett. They mess up? Replace them, and use that money to pay off their contracts. Why on earth would you try to be the Marlins, succeeding on unproven talent, when you can be the Yankees, succeeding on cold hard cash. Relying on dumb luck to win championships is a terrible idea.
So, in conclusion, a proven player (which is different than a washed-up has-been) is ALWAYS better to go after than an unproven one, especially when you have the money to acquire them. Just because unproven players break through the ice doesn't make Ian Kennedy more likely to be a World Series hero than Johan Santana.
from about 1 month ago
You're telling ME I'm frustrated? Who is the one who just went on a completely unfocused rant? You just excused the Yankees losing because "team that has human beings playing for them can win a World Series every single year". That's not a reason, that's an excuse. All you sound like is an irrational New York fan who didn't read beyond the first sentence of my comment.
about 1 month ago
I concede that your logic is stronger than mine.
But still, it confuses me that recent history does favor this theory of mine.
from about 1 month ago
You're recent history only proves your theory because you rewrote the history.
In 2007 Josh Beckett and DiceK helped to win the World Series for the Red Sox and they both were the proven aces of their previous teams.
In 2006, Carpenter wasn't a proven ace, but when the Cardinals picked him up he was already a proven veteran.
In 2005 the White Sox rode their entire pitching staff. Buehrle did not do it by himself, he needed Jose Contreras and Freddy Garcia's help as well.
Now in 2004 you got it wrong again, Pedro was brought in as a proven ace. He didn't come from the Sox farm system and he was already amazing before he got to Boston. Also they can't win without their hired help in Curt Schilling.
What about David Cone and the Yankees?
What about Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling with the Diamondbacks?
about 1 month ago
Rob, I beg to differ on your point with Carpenter. He just won the Cy Young award in 2005. How does that not prove he's an ace in 2006?
about 1 month ago
To refer back to my analogy earlier, imagine getting to choose between receiving a hundred-dollar bill and a lottery ticket. Your thinking is that since the lottery ticket pays more, it's a better choice. It's true that, like a lottery ticket, an unproven ace can have a huge effect on a team. However, it's not like you can find a sure-fire unproven ace to lead your team to a title- that wouldn't make any sense. Many teams do field a large crop of unproven players and hope that one of them breaks out, but that doesn't mean you don't want a proven ace leading your squad.
Often proven aces don't seem to have spectacular postseason performances because they don't exceed their expectiations. We, as writers and fans, already know so much about Johan Santana that he's unlikely to exceed the well-thought out expectations we have for him. So many people, including you, were suprised by Cole Hamels' performance because he was unproven to you. The fact is that you just didn't know enough about him. I'm an avid Phillies fan, and I already knew Hamels' could perform on the level he did in the postseason this year. A good player is a good player, whether or not he is proven. Players never play better than they're able to- rather, they just play better than people thought they would. This is why scouting often leads to unlikely championship teams like the Marlins- a good scout can find a diamond in the rough, even if their team can't afford a diamond in a jewelry case.
about 1 month ago
congrats phillies phan. I am now your fan. (My cousin a huge phillies phan)
It seems you are saying their is always going to be that young team that breaks out, but the consistently solid teams deserve recognition, and have a better chance of winning overall. The ability of a young team to come back and win the world series again, let alone make the playoffs is slim.
The Mets should win the NL East next year based on your logic. Their is no way that the phillies can do well again, behind young pitching and the mets could win 100 games behind Johan, Lowe, pedro, heck even moyer, all just because they are old enough.
from about 1 month ago
Who said old players were good? The Mets had plenty of proven guys, but they were past their prime. I didn't mean that Rollie Fingers would be a good closer in 2009, just because he's proven- he's also really old. The Mets' problem, and even moreso the Yankees' problem, is that they have players that are proven but past their prime. Johan Santana is in his prime and proven. What people missed when they picked the Mets to win the NL East (as I admittedly almost did- I love being objective) is that they had too many older players and that put them at a higher injury risk.
Also, you said "The ability of a young team to come back and win the world series again, let alone make the playoffs is slim". This is true, but, then again, not many World Series champions are able to repeat. I'll tell you right now that the Phillies, if they don't make any big moves this off-season, will probably not repeat, because they were unusually injury-free in 2008. If they can add a little more depth they will be very powerful next year. What the Mets need to do (and what they are doing from what I've seen) is try to build up a base of younger players, while still bringing in the big names (the Johan Santana trade was pure genious) they will easily win the pennant.
write a new comment