From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Re: would i were the boss.
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:33:06 GMT

In article <16NOV199211163543@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu> doctor8@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Jason Abner Miller) writes:
>In article <92319.152653RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>, <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> writes...
>>the first thing that i would do would be to banish all thoughts of
>>protecting charlie hayes from my mind.
>
>	The Yankees got Charlie Hayes because they had NO 3rd Baseman.  About
>20 guys tried to play for them in '91, the likes of Leyritz, Humphreys,
>Bam-Bam, Torey Lovullo, and a cast of millions.  What Charlie Hayes did
>was come in and play every day.  He's very solid defensively, with good
>range and a good throwing arm, hit extremely well for about 6 weeks, and
>finished up with decent numbers.

Agreed.  Hayes, in his career year, has been an average offensive 3B.
He also plays solid defense, or so I'm told.  I thought the Yankees
made a good move in picking him up.  They didn't give away anything
significant.  But I still wouldn't protect him, at least not in the
first round.  Surely no expansion team would waste a pick on him.
And the Yankees have *many* more promising players to protect.

As for the future?  Russ Davis looks *very* good.  I didn't realize
how much of a pitchers park Albany is.  I expect to see him in the
majors by the end of 1993.

>Not MVP numbers, not OPS numbers,

What the hell is an OPS number?

>but every team needs someone
>like Hayes.  Always plays, produces moderately well, fills a GAPING hole,
>and is quite dependable

Well, yes.  There are many teams with worse 3B men than Hayes.
However, most of them aren't protected in the expansion draft.

>You can't fault Hayes for coming in and
>sealing up the biggest bloody mess in New York - in some ways, he was one
>of the more valuable players there last year, and since nobody better is
>going to come along, it's pretty important to protect him.

Check out Russ Davis before you make this claim...  Besides, I don't
agree with that line of reasoning.  I think protecting talent is more
important than protecting a starting nine for next year.  Sure, the
Red Sox might have a hole at catcher if they don't protect Pena.  Is
an expansion team going to draft Pena simply to annoy the Red Sox?  I
can't imagine that they wanted to spend $100 million just to play
games out of spite.  I have to believe that the expansion teams will
be looking out for their own interests.  And drafting Hayes would be
a stupid move for an expansion team.

>>  10. hensley meulens
>	Strike that, and keep Hayes

Protect Meulens, and you get to keep *both* of them.  Then you can
trade Meulens, and end up ahead by a bag of roasted peanuts.

>>  15. kevin maas
>	Why?  The Yanks have a glut at 1B, and Bull at DH - why keep
>a .240 hitter with not great power?  At 3B, like Hayes, he's good.  But
>not behind Mattingly (who's still much better), prospect JT Snow (deserves
>his long look), and that great prospect DeBerry from Cincinatti.

"That great prospect"?  This is the first time I've heard anybody call
him *that*!  I thought he was merely a throw-in that nobody wanted.

-Valentine
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball