New ideology will be on display this week in MLB

The four teams that have turned the baseball standings upside down economically this season showcase themselves and their new school ideology this week.


Never mind those payroll-busting New York Yankees who took a financial-blistering from senior vice president Hank Steinbrenner last week, and focus instead on those penny-pinching darlings in first or second place in four of the game's six divisions: The NL West-leading Arizona Diamondbacks, who travel to the NL East-leading Florida Marlins for a three-game series starting Tuesday; and the AL East-challenging Tampa Bay Rays, who are at the AL West-challenging Oakland A's for a three-game set opening Monday.

Suddenly, it's not about how much money an attractive off-season veteran player commands or a team spends, but how a developing young player performs and a team schemes. The buzzword in baseball: Young players are an organization's most valuable asset.

"Clearly, there is a trend that suggests that the aggressive free-agent spending that has permeated the game for a while might not be the wisest choice,'' says Ken Kendrick, the Diamondbacks managing general partner. "The trend is in the direction of more homegrown talent, giving the younger players an opportunity to prove themselves.''

So far, so true.

Through the first quarter of the season, youth-dominated teams in the bottom 10 rung of the payroll ladder are outperforming the money-hoarding, veteran-laden 10 teams in the top layer.

Through Sunday's games, the bottom 10 — from the Marlins at $21 million to the Texas Rangers at $67 million — are a combined 17 games over .500. The top 10 — from the Yankees at $209 million to the Atlanta Braves at $102 million — are nine games over.

That's an eight-game gap (just a few days ago it was 18, but the wealthy teams have rallied). Even more startling, it's a $79 million gap between the average top 10 payrolls of $131 million and average bottom 10 payrolls of $52 million.

"Being at the bottom tier of the payroll scale, it's encouraging now,'' says Kendrick. "We have a realistic chance of winning it all. It's not the view of clubs like ours that we're overmatched and can't compete.''

This is how the Rockies stunned the baseball world and reached the World Series last season. They're off to a poor start this year, but are sticking with a program that is spreading.

"It's a great thing for baseball,'' says Rockies manager Clint Hurdle. "It's going to be a trend. Don't you think the Yankees are tired of spending the money they spend? It's not about spending the most money anymore. It's proven itself out.''

Even beyond the Yankees. Seven big-ticket veterans have been handed their walking papers so far, including Jacques Jones ($5.5 million) of the $137 million bankrolled Detroit Tigers and Brad Wilkerson ($3 million) of the Seattle Mariners ($117 million payroll).

The seven are due $31 million in guaranteed contracts — $10 million more than the Rays entire payroll.

"There is a lot of buyer's remorse going on around these large market clubs,'' says John Hart, senior adviser of the Rangers. "There are a ton of guys bloating payrolls and they're not getting productivity.''

Ironically, that was the message from Steinbrenner to his last-place Yankees last week: Play more like the Rays, who thumped the Yankees three times in a four-game series.


That message is resounding league-wide. "It's kind of flipped,'' says manager Bob Melvin, whose young Diamondbacks are among the trendsetters. "The veterans were always pushing the young guys. Now, with the way the younger guys play, the veterans take notice and know that someone's coming all the time. You better do your job on a day-to-day basis or someone will take it.''

That's the new school theme emerging; in a game filled with younger general managers, younger players are getting a chance earlier than ever to showcase their talent, notably in smaller market cities where money is always a priority.

"There is more confidence in youth now,'' says Melvin, whose roster includes young talents in Justin Upton, Mark Reynolds, Chris Young, Conor Jackson and Stephen Drew — all homegrown except for Young, who was obtained in a trade.

Their minor league cupboard was so full, in fact, the Diamondbacks were able to trade six prospects to Oakland to acquire Dan Haren and shore up their pitching staff. That was a win-win trade for both organizations.

Arizona and Colorado, who reached the NL championship series last fall, raised the ante of the new-school game first introduced by Hart with the Cleveland Indians in the '90s.

"There is a track record to go on,'' says Melvin. "Now you're seeing other teams follow for a couple reasons, one, financially, and two, there is more confidence in rookies. Some of the younger general managers have a lot to do with that. They are more apt to push guys.''

They are pushing young talent (see Hanley Ramirez) in Florida, where the Marlins were picked to struggle this season after trading high-priced stars Miguel Cabrera and Dontelle Willis to the Tigers for six players.

Three of them are contributing to the team's best start in history — pitchers Andrew Miller and Burke Badenhop and catcher Mike Rabelo. Also adding a bang for their minor bucks are veteran additions Luis Gonzalez and Mark Hendrickson and Jorge Cantu.

Veteran second baseman Orlando Hudson of the Diamondbacks can't wait to play the Marlins. "It'll be fun, a blast. You get to watch that middle of the infield with (Dan) Uggla and Ramirez and watch Young, Upton, Drew, Reynolds.''

The AL series will spotlight a Rays team that added almost $20 million to its now $43 million payroll, largely through contract extensions to young players, and an A's team fortified by the addition of rotation pitchers Greg Smith and Dana Eveland in the Diamondbacks trade.

Billy Owens, A's director of player personnel, says the new thinking revolves around "teams getting better at forecasting talent instead of reacting to what a player has done in the past.''

That takes work, starting in the scouting department.

"If you have quality young players, if you out-scout people and have a good development system that turns out young players, that's the most important asset you have,'' says Hart. "It's extremely desirous for small markets to have young players to build around and commit to. They're affordable. It's good business, but not without risks.''

It's all about outsmarting money. "We do not have the same luxury to make mistakes with signings that teams with more substantial budgets have,'' says Kendrick. "That means our guys have to be smarter.''

It's only May, but the have-nots are banking wins faster than the haves. Will they win out?

"Everybody can be fooled in May,'' says Hart. "But what we're not getting fooled about is all of these clubs are loaded with young talent. And nobody wants to play them.''
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/8...lay-this-week-

Yeah, that's great - until those guys get a few years under their belts and they go free-agent. How good would the A's have been the last ten years if they could've just kept all the guys?

I love it. Smart ownership leading to intelligent drafting, contract signings, and arbitration. Perfect.

I'm all for rewarding smart baseball people, and a smart owner with enough intelligence to stay out of their way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lkcostas

Yeah, that's great - until those guys get a few years under their belts and they go free-agent. How good would the A's have been the last ten years if they could've just kept all the guys?

---

Well, judging by how those guys have turned out...I'd go with...not so great and a lot worse than they have been.

Keep in mind that the scouting on display by the As is also a lesson in evaluating when a players salary value has exceeded his contribution to the team, not only drafting and developing. And not just on a year-by-year basis, but over an entire contract.

This is the lesson the yankee's seem to have yet to learn (although they backed themselves into that corner by leaving a mostly barren farm system)

Yea, that was actually my main point when I made this post:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

In my opinion, deals longer than 4 years are pretty much always dumb. You're better off biting the bullet and either paying more or getting a lesser talent for a few years than being saddled with some monster contract for 5, 6, or 7 years. Those contracts never pay of at the end.

...of course, they usually pay off for the first couple of years. usually.
lol

---

I wouldn't say never. Manny had a long contract when he signed with the Red Sox, he's in the last or second-last (can't double check my memory right now) year, and he's still performing at the same level. Anecdotal evidence, perhaps, but it does happen.

What the problem is is that there are maybe 10-15 players at any one given time who have the combination of productivity, health, youth, and proven value to be worth the monster contracts. The A-Rods (regular season, at least), Mannys, Maddux/Glavine type pitchers.

But in the high demand, low supply world of superstar baseball players, teams will inevitably end up paying A-Rod, Manny, Maddux/Glavine type money for a Sexson, a Beltre, a Barry Zito, or a Giambi.

Or, a team will end up paying big money for a player whose youth, productivity, and proven value justify it, but who does not have the track record of health to end up being worth it. See Griffey.

And lets not forget that despite the high-payroll bashing going on now in the wake of debacles like the Giambi and Zito contracts, the last 14 years (post-94 strike) have borne out that high-payroll teams do succeed in the long run: the Yankees and Red Sox have, between them, 6 of the 14 WS championships in there, another belongs to the Braves--high spenders at the time, who probably would have had more championships if not constantly pitted against those Yankees, and both the Marlins and Diamondbacks, although praised in the article for their thrift, both won WS titles by rushing out to buy every high-priced free agent they could.

The Marlins did do it the homegrown, low-priced way in '03, and the Angels, White Sox, and Cardinals weren't really high-spending teams (the Cardinals actually went more bonkers in the market the year they lost the WS).

The last several years are actually filled with stories of almosts from these small-market teams. The A's had a great run in the late 90's and early 2000's, but they couldn't get by the Yankees. Same with the Twins and their 3 or 4 division titles. What about the '03 Royals and Expos--both had shots at making it, but didn't have the resources at the end to pull off that one final move.

Well, I didn't actually say never. The Manny, A-Rod, Maddux type players are, I think we'll all agree, really exceptional players. Exceptions to "the rule" can and should be made for truly exceptional players.

Low supply and high demand is a good point though. In a competitive marketplace, it's tough to be disciplined enough to pass up what may seem like a good opportunity. Unless there's some really strong evidence that you're scouts are looking at the next A-rod or Clemens though, it seems to me that it's best to pass when a real bidding war over a good player comes up.

Regardless, my point above has more to do with contract length than contract size. Personally, I see nothing wrong with signing a player to what may be an extremely high contract, as long as the duration is limited to at most 3 years. Anything longer and you're gambling the long term future of the franchise.

I LOVED to see (not the contract itself but) the way the yankees structured A-Rod's deal. The contract is frontloaded

Code:

---

Alex Rodriguez 3b
10 years/$275M (2008-17)

    * re-signed as a free agent 12/13/07
    * $10M signing bonus ($2M paid upon approval, $1M paid each Jan. 15, 2009-2013, $3M paid Jan. 15, 2014)
  * 08:$27M, 09:$32M, 10:$32M, 11:$31M, 12:$29M, 13:$28M, 14:$25M, 15:$21M, 16:$20M, 17:$20M
    * $30M marketing agreement based on home run milestones ($6M each for reaching 660, 714, 755 and tying and breaking major league HR record)
    * Texas obligated to fund $9M as part of deferred compensation provision in previous contract (to be paid with interest in $3M increments in 2008, 2009 & 2010)
    * 10 years/$252M (2001-10)
          o signed as free agent 12/00 (Texas) (opted out 10/29/07)
          o $10M signing bonus (paid between 12/00 & 3/05)
          o salaries: 01-04:$21M/year, 05-06:$25M/year, 07-10:$27M/year
            (with bonuses, Rodriguez earned $185.45M from 2001 to 2007)
          o no-trade clause
          o Rodriguez may void after 2007 season (10-day window after WS)
          o Rodriguez may void after 2008 or 2009 unless club increases 2009-10 salary by $5M/year or $1M more than highest-paid MLB position player
          o club may offer salary arbitration if Rodriguez voids contract 2007-09, but club may not offer salary arbitration after 2010
          o 2008-2010 financial obligations (eliminated if Rodriguez voids):
                + NY: $50,695,500 (08:$15.884M, 09:$16.8985M, 10:$17.913M)
                + Texas: $21,304,500 (08:$8.116M, 09:$7.1015M, 10:$6.087M)
          o after 1 year (12/01), Rodriguez agreed to defer $45M in salary to 2011-20 at 3% (later reduced)
          o waived no-trade clause 2/04, allowing trade to Yankees
            with 7 years/$183M remaining on contract:
                + Texas agreed to pay remaining $4M in signing bonus & $67M of remaining $179M in salary
                + NY agreed to pay $112M of the remaining $179M in salary
                + For further details on 2001-10 contract, click here.
          o award bonuses:
                + $50,000 for finishing 6th-10th in MVP vote
                + $0.1M each for making All Star team, receiving most All Star votes, Silver Slugger, making post-season AP, Baseball America or Sporting News All Star team, being named player of the year by AP, Baseball America or Sporting News
                + $0.15M each for LCS or LDS MVP
                + $0.2M for WS MVP or finishing 2nd-5th in MVP vote
                + $0.5M for MVP ($1M for second MVP, $1.5M for subsequent MVPs) (received $0.5M for 2003 AL MVP, $1M for 2005 AL MVP)
    * 4 years/$10.7M (1997-2000) (Seattle)
          o 97:$1.0625M, 98:$2.1262M, 99:$3.1125M, 00:$4.3625M
    * 3 years/$1.3M (1994-96) (Seattle)
          o 94:$442,333, 95:$442,333, 96:$442,334
    * drafted 1993 (1-1) (Westminster (Fla.) HS)
    * agent: Scott Boras
    * ML service: 13.011

---

at the end of hos deal when he is declining he will get the least $$$ (still a fortune but a decent contract) thus not cripeling the team as badly with a bad contract a la Giambi

Code:

---

    * signed as a free agent 12/01
    * $17M signing bonus (paid over 6 years: $3M in 02, $4M in 03, $4M in 04, $4.5M in 05, $1M in 06, $0.5M in 07)
    * 02:$8M, 03:$9M, 04:$10M, 05:$11M, 06:$18M, 07:$21M, 08:$21M, 09:$22M club option ($5M buyout)
    * full no-trade clause
    * 3 years/$9.3M (1999-2001) (Oakland)
          o 99:$2.2M, 00:$3.1M, 01:$4M
    * drafted 1992 (2-58) (Long Beach State)
    * drafted by Milwaukee, 1989 (43-1,116) (South Hills (CA) HS)
    * agent: Arn Tellum
    * ML service: 12.095

---

lol just noticed... Giambi was drafted in the 43'd round

That's really not all that unusual.

Beltre was actually a good signing by the M's, Sexson was not.

As for Griffey, he was rarely hurt in the 10 years he played in Seattle. Injuries caught up to him. He never had track record for getting hurt hear. Only freak accidents (see 1989, and 1995 ;))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

Well, I didn't actually say never. The Manny, A-Rod, Maddux type players are, I think we'll all agree, really exceptional players. Exceptions to "the rule" can and should be made for truly exceptional players.

Low supply and high demand is a good point though. In a competitive marketplace, it's tough to be disciplined enough to pass up what may seem like a good opportunity. Unless there's some really strong evidence that you're scouts are looking at the next A-rod or Clemens though, it seems to me that it's best to pass when a real bidding war over a good player comes up.

Regardless, my point above has more to do with contract length than contract size. Personally, I see nothing wrong with signing a player to what may be an extremely high contract, as long as the duration is limited to at most 3 years. Anything longer and you're gambling the long term future of the franchise.

---

You chimed in with this in another thread, saying it is pretty much always dumb...but i highlighted easily 8 or 9 times where it has worked out and the best anyone could come up with was around 8 to 9 times where the long term (4yrs plus) big contract didn't work out! At worst it's a 50/50 split meaning its far from always dumb.

I need better data to really make a good counter argument... I'm not one to just start rattling off names and then saying "See!". I have contract data here someplace... I'll probably put something together eventually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

I need better data to really make a good counter argument... I'm not one to just start rattling off names and then saying "See!". I have contract data here someplace... I'll probably put something together eventually.

---

Maybe until you get the better data you should reserve judgment on the matter...:rolleyes:

You stated it is 'always dumb'...i'd assumed you'd have done some homework prior to making that type of claim.

I guess that 'eventually' may come after you again post in the future that contracts in excess of 3 years are 'pretty much always dumb', and I again correct you that you are wrong.

Yea, yea... I have a job you know.
:rolleyes: