The Yankees Have Been Impressively Rebuilt

You’ll have to forgive me if I think of Andrew Miller as the travellin man. Now in his 11th major league season, Miller is headed to his sixth major league team, all east of the Mississippi. But unlike most journeymen, for the most part the teams acquiring Miller have been quite excited about the possibility. The latest team to celebrate getting the lanky lefty are the Cleveland Indians, who are now looking quite formidable. But they’re not the only team looking formidable. The Yankees may no longer be in 2016 contention, but they’re setting up well for 2017 and beyond.

The Yankees didn’t give up Miller for cheap, and rightly so. With Miller under contract for the next two years, and in a third straight season of total domination, he was never going to be cheap. While I first saw the news from Ken Rosenthal, Buster Olney was the first person I saw with the return for the Yankees:

Starting with those two players, this is already a great haul for the Yankees. Heading into the season, Clint Frazier was tabbed as the team’s second-best prospect here, and Justus Sheffield fifth. The two have done nothing to diminish their prospect status since. Looking at Chris Mitchell’s new KATOH 100, we see Frazier clock in at 73rd. Over at Baseball America, Frazier clocked in at 21st on their midseason top 100, with Sheffield landing at 69th.

Our own Eric Longenhagen recently got looks at both players, and came away impressed. He projects Sheffield as a league average starting pitcher, and one who may have four average or better pitches. And, as a sentimental bonus, Yankees fans will likely love having Gary Sheffield’s nephew in pinstripes. Eric also liked Frazier, and thinks he may have more power potential. That’s a scary thought, since he just posted a .194 ISO at Double-A at 21. Eric said thusly:

Frazier has elite bat speed but it plays down because of the extra loop his hands make as he triggers his swing. There are pitches he should be murdering to left field that he’s pushing the other way because his barrel arrives late. Frazier is so strong and physically gifted that some of these balls get muscled into the right-field bleachers anyway and I think, even without a change, he’s going to be a solid big leaguer with above-average game power.

That’s a pretty tasty package. But that isn’t the whole package! Jon Heyman later added the other two players, though his spelling wasn’t in top form:

That is relief pitchers Ben Heller and J.P. Feyereisen. Neither gets much prospect shine (Heller currently checks in at #30 for MLB.com), but you can see the thinking here. First, relief pitcher will be a position of need this winter, and the more live arms they have, the better. Both of these guys are in the upper minors — Triple-A for Heller, Double-A for Feyereisen.

Second, they both strike out oodles of players, and if there’s one statistic you want to make a bet on minor league pitchers, it is on strikeouts. Feyereisen is sitting down 33.1% of batters this year, and for his career has struck out 136 batters in 105 innings pitched. Heller began his season by striking out 38.3% of Double-A hitters, and has ascended to Triple-A, where he is striking out 24% of hitters, while lowering his walk rate. For his pro career, he has struck out 226 batters in 172.1 IP. Not bad. Oh, and Heller touches 100.

Like they did in their deal to land Aroldis Chapman, the Yankees have landed a top 25 hitting prospect, and in this deal they got another top 100 prospect and two potential pieces for the bullpen who are close to the majors. That is a great deal, and Frazier is even closer to the majors than Gleyber Torres.

With both Frazier and Aaron Judge close to the majors, the Yankees outfield looks pretty robust moving forward. Out of the playoff picture for the first time in a long time, the Yankees knew it was time to unearth some diamonds, and they have done so this week. For a team that doesn’t usually find itself in that position, this has been a particularly impressive week for Brian Cashman and Co. Let’s do a 2017 Yankees reset, as we stand now.

First, the players under non-league minimum contracts:

They have roughly $141 million tied up in guaranteed deals to eight players. They also have 10 arbitration-eligible players, but it could easily be eight — they won’t miss Parmelee or Swarzak. They could probably part with Ackley. Eyeballing the future salaries with a conservative eye, let’s call it $45 million for the eight, thinking that they hang on to Ackley. That’s $186 million for 16 players, leaving the team down from their 2015 Opening Day payroll of $216 million. As such, there should be plenty of room to sign who they want to this winter. But they might not have to sign too many players, because now the farm system is bubbling over with prospects:

Sanchez has already been up this year, and with a 132 wRC+ at Triple-A, he doesn’t have much to prove. He’ll compete for a spot on the 2017 roster. The same is true for Judge, and his 139 wRC+ at Triple-A. Hopefully both will be September call-ups. Frazier may need a bit more minor league time, but not a ton. He’s already graduated to Triple-A, and while he only has four games played there, he’s also still just 21. Jorge Mateo should be ready for Double-A next year, as should Torres and Sheffield. With just three starts at High-A and a burgeoning elbow problem, James Kaprelian may come along slower, but that still leaves the Yankees with six top prospects who might be ready for major league duty at some point in 2017. (And don’t forget about Greg Bird!) That is a dramatic transformation for the Yankees.

There’s also this:

The best thing though is that the Yankees now have options, and leverage. They could trade some or all of those guys — Beltran especially should be on the move, as he might be the best outfielder left on the trade market — but they don’t necessarily have to. Or, if they do, they now have the luxury of acquiring players who are further from the majors to make sure the farm system doesn’t evaporate like it had in the past few years.

The Yankees entered the week with three of the best relief pitchers of the past few years, and a decent farm system. They still have one of those great relief pitchers, but now they have a great farm system that will be ready to graduate its top prospects in the very near future. The Mets are watching the throne right now, but the Yankees will be ready to lift off again very soon.





Paul Swydan used to be the managing editor of The Hardball Times, a writer and editor for FanGraphs and a writer for Boston.com and The Boston Globe. Now, he owns The Silver Unicorn Bookstore, an independent bookstore in Acton, Mass. Follow him on Twitter @Swydan. Follow the store @SilUnicornActon.

27 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
OddBall Herrera
7 years ago

Kudos to the Yankees for not getting stuck on the ‘Yankees don’t rebuild’ thing. This was such a seller’s market, particularly for pitching, that, sure, maybe they lost their small chance at a playoff spot this year, but it looks totally worth it.

Cool Lester Smoothmember
7 years ago

I think they’ve stuck to the “Yankees don’t rebuild” thing, actually, and used it to their advantage. Chapman was gone after this year no matter what, and they basically told anyone asking for Miller “We don’t rebuild. You’ll need to make us trade him.”

And Cleveland did.

jdbolick
7 years ago

I think they’ve stuck to the “Yankees don’t rebuild” thing, actually, and used it to their advantage.

I agree that they used posturing to their advantage in negotiations, but OddBall’s point is precisely that they did choose to rebuild. Sheffield probably won’t be up next season at all. Frazier probably will be, but is still a work in progress who isn’t likely to contribute much initially. The Yankees aren’t just conceding the remainder of 2016, they’re positioning themselves to sit out 2017 as well in exchange for a better long-term future.

Cool Lester Smoothmember
7 years ago
Reply to  jdbolick

Who says they’re sitting out 2017? Downgrading from Miller to Clippard isn’t the difference between competing and not.

The Sox do the same thing when they fall out of contention.

jdbolick
7 years ago

Who says they’re sitting out 2017? Downgrading from Miller to Clippard isn’t the difference between competing and not.

It isn’t, but they could have traded Chapman and Miller for assets that would be ready to contribute in 2017. Instead they chose to target long-term assets. It’s always possible that the Yankees spend a ton of money in free agency to be competitive in 2017, but their roster as of now does not appear to be one that will contend next season.

Cool Lester Smoothmember
7 years ago
Reply to  jdbolick

Which comparable assets to Torres, Frazier and Sheffield could they have obtained from the Indians or Cubs that would have been “ready to contribute in 2017,” moreso than Heller or Frazier?

They held out for the absolute maximum return in each trade, whether that meant a 19 year old in A-ball or a 21 year old in AAA.

jdbolick
7 years ago

They held out for the absolute maximum return in each trade, whether that meant a 19 year old in A-ball or a 21 year old in AAA.

Which is precisely my point. The Yankees didn’t prioritize talent that would be able to help them contend next season, they went for the best package they could receive even if it won’t be ready for years. They chose to rebuild. What are you even arguing about?

Cool Lester Smoothmember
7 years ago
Reply to  jdbolick

The fact that retooling is a separate thing from rebuilding?

Words have meanings.

The Cubs rebuilt. There’s a meaningful distinction between that and what the Yankees are doing.

jdbolick
7 years ago

You already acknowledged that they were rebuilding when you admitted that they went for the “absolute maximum return in each trade” even if it meant the centerpiece was “a 19 year old in A-ball.” Again, what are you even arguing about? You already admitted that the Yankees chose to rebuild with these trades.

Bat
7 years ago

I know there will be a bunch of people thinking this is one of those critical Dave Cameron comments but that isn’t my intention here. The guy is brilliant about baseball and finance at a minimum and if I owned a baseball team I’d hire him tomorrow.

But I couldn’t help reading about this morning’s Miller trade on ESPN and thinking how wrong Dave must be about the value of Sale.

If Miller is worth this price, a #1 starter to be utilized for this year’s playoff drive + under team control for three more years (inc options) + at a ridiculously low contract value must be worth a ton more than the prospects Dave proposed in his recent article (or as one great comment said it is tough to believe 40% of Sale = Joey Gallo).

As I thought about this issue, I wonder if all of the recent articles discussing the value of a top reliever doesn’t include one critical, non-quantitative aspect. Let’s say you’re the GM of the Indians or some other executive running a team. And this is applicable, although less so, to super successful executives like even Theo (and I’ll explain why I’m saying “even”) in a minute.

Guys like Keith Law can write at the deadline last year about how the Mets trade of prospect Casey Meisner for Tyler Clippard is a significant overpay because Clippard will only pitch 20-30 or whatever number of estimated innings between the trade deadline and the end of the playoffs (assuming the team makes it) or write something similar about this year’s trade of Chapman or Miller (although Miller has a year more of control).

But think for one second about if whether you get fired (outright terminated) or not extended (a soft firing?) depends on how far the team gets this year. Do you want Chapman on the mound or Rondon deciding your job fate?

The playoffs create so much revenue for teams and the execs certainly feel the pressure from owners. You can talk about 6 years of control of one of these prospects but most of these execs aren’t making it to the end of the 6 years of control without some playoff history under the belt of their tenure.

And those exes while the long-term steward of franchises in theory also have incredible pressure to win now…just to keep their jobs. Some years are just straight up rebuilding years whether the team is honest with its fans about that or not. But in those other years where the teams are close enough to the prize like the Indians or even the Cubs (Theo is getting extended regardless but the money at which he gets extended has to be moved upward if he wins a WS championship in Chicago), I think these exes say “Maybe he’s only pitching 20-30 innings but I want my job security riding on him.”

Obviously considerations like the team in question getting blown out of the game so relievers are largely irrelevant could happen. But here we’re supposing that doesn’t transpire. Not many playoff series are routs like Mets-Cubs last year.

second-pot
7 years ago
Reply to  Bat

Couldn’t agree more. I think all we can really do is talk about these transactions and player valuations in a vacuum, but there are real-world job security concerns that definitely factor in to what decisions are actually made. Someone else is going to get all the credit when the Sixers that Hinkie built are a contender in a few years, I don’t think there’s a more perfect illustration of this factor.

jdbolick
7 years ago
Reply to  Bat

The same front office that traded Shelby Miller for a phenomenal return gave away Andrelton Simmons for a very underwhelming one. We can make analytical arguments about what various players and prospects are worth, and I believe there is value in doing so, but the nature of two-party trading means that there will always be wide variation in the quality of those returns.

Bat
7 years ago
Reply to  jdbolick

Good point JD – beauty / value is in the eye of the beholder regardless of what outsiders are saying.

Another point I intended to make in my post above is that it’s not just “Do you want Chapman or Rondon on the mound?” for the executive.

But also, on a deeper level, it’s “Do you want Chapman on this staff or [pick whatever reliever is not making the playoff roster]”.

Because it’s not just that Chapman moves into the driver seat on saves or late inning leads, but also that Rondon can become a relief ace of sorts used in any key situation, and you’re also bumping the low guy on the totem pole off the playoff roster altogether.

If I’m a GM looking to make sure I don’t get fired (or a super successful guy like Theo looking to get a bigger raise on my next contract and enhance my legacy with another world championship (with the Cubs of all teams)), I’ll give up Vogelbach and Gleyber Torres in order to get Montgomery and Chapman for high leverage situations and bump guys down a notch…and bump the two guys completely off the roster that I have the least faith in.

jdbolick
7 years ago
Reply to  Bat

I don’t think you give up Torres in that scenario without already having young quality at shortstop. FanGraphs has produced several columns arguing that relievers are more valuable in the postseason than the regular season, which dovetails a bit with what you’re saying, but I think you’re pushing the “try not to get fired” angle too strongly. If the team flames out in the playoffs even if the acquired reliever does well, there’s going to be a lot of discontent from the fanbase regarding the prospect loss.

Dave T
7 years ago
Reply to  Bat

I agree with you. I also believe that some of it could be incorporated analytically by adjusting the discount rate for the present value of future WAR, i.e., teams/execs are showing that in certain situations their discount rates are much higher than we’re assuming for analysis.

Matmember
7 years ago

Definitely an interesting departure from the their norm. They’ve really done a great job overstocking the farm and potentially keeping the 2017 budget within reason by Yankee standards. It will be interesting to see if the maintain this course or get rid of all that young talent for veterans who may or may not be declining. Old habits die hard. I’ve personally been critical of the front office decisions they’ve made over the last decade plus, but maybe they’re on to something.