http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/s...e=MLBHeadlines
Printable View
lol is it supprising
Another case of a small market team crying about losing their star. I actually feel sorry for small market team's and wish they could keep their stars, but no need to cry about the Yankees "overbidding." Did the Yanks overbid? Well, probably, but I'd say that it just shows how serious Cash and co. is about bringing in CC.
I hope the Yanks bid big on CC, Lowe, Burnett..tons of FAs. I hope they just go nuts and then when they find that some of them are disappointing and they are attached to them for so long and for so much money and they keep falling short..we can laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh.
Buying WS rings doesn't work. It's about developing your own guys and supplementing the team with FAs..not entirely depending on FAs. I don't care how many FAs they bring in..they won't be the favorites in the AL East.
Buying WS rings doesn't always work, but it does help! (see the Red Sox in 2004 and 2007)Quote:
Originally Posted by KowboyKoop
Also, if we bring in CC, Burnett, Tex - I don't see how we wouldn't be favorites. Though, I don't see us getting Tex, as Cash doesn't seem to be pursuing him that aggressively.
You mean the Yankees in the 90's?Quote:
Originally Posted by koolzach1
Yankees tried that this year, when they relied on the Cabrera's, and Hughes', and Kennedy's, and Gardner's. You know what happened? Correct, worst season in the past 14 yearsQuote:
Originally Posted by KowboyKoop
How many "total rebuilding, no free agency/impact trade" teams are in playoff cotention year in, and year out? How many teams like the Yankees, Angels, Mets, etc. are consistantly in playoff contention year in and year out? While you should also have home grown players, you also need some impact players from trades/free agency to bring you to the next level
....because the Rays and BoSox are still going to be better. Not all of those FA signings are going to work out...and a lot of other players on that team are just getting older.Quote:
Originally Posted by koolzach1
Yes, big payroll helps and is an obvious advantage over everyone else..but it isn't the key to success.
On a sidenote..MLB needs a salary cap AND a salary basement. 50 million to 150 million...I think that's pretty reasonable. 150 million is plenty big enough...
That's why I said SUPPLEMENTING THAT with trades/FAs. I didn't say a team should sign absolutely no FAs or make no significant trades. That would be silly....but having good enough prospects to pull off the significant trades is key...and spending big money on one or two players isn't near enough to make you good. It's about developing enough of your own players.Quote:
Originally Posted by defense
or just how foolish Cash & co. are with their money;Quote:
Originally Posted by koolzach1
Clemens
Giambi
Pavano
R. Johnson
Irabu
Igawa
Wright
K. Brown
Damon
Farnsworth
Those FAs are all players that underperformed their FA contracts offered by the Yanks in recent years and are only the ones off the top of my heads. There have been far more 'mistakes' than 'successes' which is why the Yanks are where they are at.
HAHAHAHAAHAHA this whole post is extremely comical.Quote:
Originally Posted by koolzach1
never would happen and i think its past time people move past this idea. it will never happen and to be honest, i'm not totally sold it will benefit the league.Quote:
Originally Posted by KowboyKoop
I don't think it will happen in the forseeable future. Never say never.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
I think it would benefit the league b/c it would force some owners to spend a little more. I think it'd be good to limit how much the biggest teams should be able to spend, but I certainly don't think it should be something that forces all the teams to be equal...but come on, it's clearly a problem when one team is spending 200+ million a year and another team is spending 40 million. The cheap owners should be forced to at least put a decent amount of money into payroll and the biggest markets should just be kept from going out of control. The way things are now isn't that bad, but it could be a little better.
The thing is... Cashman and co. have the ability to be "foolish" their their money... They are able to make mistakes without it crippling the team. Clemens won multiple WS titles for us the 1st time around, the 2nd time around he was nothing more than a middle of the rotation type SP with a low 4 ERA. Damon has actually worked out for us, if you haven't noticed. I'll take 2/3 very good years (as a leadoff hitter) anyday of the week. Giambi has worked out mostly, but he didn't fully live up to his contract. Point is, some signings work out, and some don't - We can afford to make mistakes.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
What do you call:Quote:
Originally Posted by KowboyKoop
Derek Jeter
Chein Ming Wang
Joba Chamberlain
Phillip Hughes
Melky Cabrera
Jose Veras
Mariano Rivera
Jorge Posada
Brett Gardner
All of them are HOME GROWN who should have prominent roles on this year's Yankees club. Now the Yankees have to SUPPLEMENT it with free agents, which is exactly what they are doing
While I could see the benefit of a salary floor (although I'm NOT sold on that), I'll never support a salary cap. All it does is transfer money from the players to the owners.
And what exactly does everyone think the benefit of forcing some owners to spend a little more is?Quote:
Originally Posted by KowboyKoop
One thread everyone says Boras is the devil because he tries to get his player paid, then in the next thread the owners are the devil because they don't spend.
If there was any kind of payroll floor, all it would do is cause salaries to escalate further. Instead of paying Joe Schmoe $8 million a season, now they have to pay him $15 mil a season so they can reach the salary floor? What's the use in that?
Suppose you are the Florida Marlins. You have your roster and the payroll comes out to $40 million. Do you have to look for a player to give $10 million to? A guy that you didn't even anticipate being on the roster? Do you give all your players a $10 million/25 player raise? What's the thinking?
Yeah, that's giving me reservations about actually "supporting" a payroll floor. Honestly, I'm in favor of just leaving the market open. Let the owners decide how they want to spend their own money. Yes, it will result in some cheapskates like Loria in Florida and some "go-all-out" guys like Steinbrenner in New York, but all-in-all, I think it's better than forcing teams to spend money, or forcing them to keep their money, resulting in bloated wallets for the owners and less money for the players.
There's also the option of letting the fan keep it...just for the recordQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
The fan has that option.Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
As well as the owners and the players
The players don't. The owners do, sure, but what kind of business owner willingly gets less than he can?Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
Quote:
Originally Posted by defense
That's nine players. They've clearly spent the last 5-6 years or so just going after all the biggest names no matter what..and it hasn't worked. There's a reason they haven't won a WS in nearly a decade now..which is just an embarrassment given their resources. They are doing things a little better now..but going out and just spending a ton of money on three or four FAs could be a pretty significant mistake. If their farm system is as good as some say it is..they should lean on that a little more. Back during their dynasty of the late 90s.....it seemed like it was a lot of their homegrown guys that led the way...lately they seem to have gotten away from that. Perhaps they are going back to what worked for them in the past.
Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
It would prevent really cheap owners from even being in the league. You do have a good point about a salary floor though...no, a team shouldn't be forced to get certain expensive players. Perhaps a better idea would be an overall financial floor. Like..the combines cost of scouting, farm system, front office, payroll..etc. etc. should be at a minimum and maximum. Perhaps that would work better. Regardless.....the gap between the richest teams and poorest teams can't just keep growing. Again, I don't think the way things are now are that bad....but it could be a problem at some point if the gap were to keep increasing. If ten years from now the Yanks have a 300+ million dollar payroll along with their overwhelming resources in international markets and scouting and everything else, while the Rays are sitting at 40 million and can't come close to keeping up in other areas of building the organization..that's a problem that hurts the sport.
Also..I don't claim Boras to be the devil. He does his job.
I think people forget exactly how those teams were made up.Quote:
Originally Posted by KowboyKoop
Here's a hint: Homegrown players + trades/free agents.
Look at the 1998 team. Main guys...Posada, Martinez, Knoblauch, Brosius, Jeter, Curtis, Williams, O'Neill, Strawberry, Raines, Pettitte, Cone, Wells, Irabu, El Duque, Rivera, Mendoza.
Homegrown: Posada, Jeter, Williams, Pettitte, Rivera, Mendoza
Traded for: Martinez, Knoblauch, Brosius, Curtis, O'Neill, Irabu
Free Agency: Strawberry, Raines, Cone (acquired in a trade but resigned as FA), Wells.
Hernandez was signed as a free agent, but was technically homegrown.
They were getting major production from players acquired in a variety of ways. It wasn't solely, or even mostly, any one type of player.
Luxury tax and revenue sharing are ways to combat this without restricting the market.Quote:
Originally Posted by KowboyKoop
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Okay..so all the homegrown players plus I'd be willing to be that most of the players they traded for were traded for players from their farm system. Seems to me like they've depended on the FA market a lot more this decade than last decade..and it's hurt them.
Again, I'm not saying they shouldn't spend any money on the FA market...especially given their resources...but I think that if they go overboard...which seems to be a good possibility, it could be a mistake. For other teams..the FA market should be even less on a way to build a team. Use FAs to supplement..not depend on, I think that's the direction a lot of teams are trying to go.
They have made things better than they used to be. I still think it could be a little better. I don't know what the numbers would be, but I wouldn't want to set a floor that would cause a ton of teams to spend a lot more money than they are now...and for a cap..it wouldn't be so low that a lot of teams would be significantly affected. It would just be something to prevent things from getting out of hand either way. Obviously there's a lot more to it than anything I can come up with while posting in a forum...but I think the general idea would be good if executed well. A big reason for this is the growing trend of getting players from Japan and other countries.....there's no draft, it's just a matter of whoever has the most money plucking all the best talent. When Dice-K was posted, there was on way 80% of the league could even dream of even TRYING to sign him. That's just not fair and not good for the sport. That's something that could happen more and more in the next twenty years as the Japan leagues improve..which they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
With the world economy the way it is I don't see anyone besides New York getting CC.
Boston maybe Texiera, but most likely I bet he stays in Los Angeles .
Definitely not an embarrassment... We've also been to the playoffs every year the last decade, with the exception of last season. The Red Sox went 86 years as a large market team and not winning a WS, the Cubs haven't won the WS in like a century, it's been a while for the Mets, and Dodgers too.Quote:
Originally Posted by KowboyKoop
Well, when you tend to rely on your farm system, your results will tend to be poor. (See: Cincy, Tampa other than this year, KC, Pit, etc...) Cashman has just recently started putting money into the farm system and developing it. I think in the next few years when Brackman, Jackson, Betances, Hughes, Melancon, Cox, Montero, Horne, Bleich, Sanchez, etc... all come up to the majors (not to mention Hughes, Kennedy, Melky, Gardner), we shall see the results of what Cashman has done recently.
Because they've gone after the wrong free agents.Quote:
Originally Posted by KowboyKoop
This isn't true. Look at the Twins.Quote:
Originally Posted by koolzach1
As always, all I see in this thread is a ton of generalization. There's really only one generalized rule that is true - If you're smart, you'll succeed. If you're not, you won't. There's multiple ways to run a team, but every way requires intelligence.
Tampa Bay did it intelligently. Relying on your farm system won't produce immediate results, but the results will be more easily sustained once they do happen, as Tampa Bay is likely to see. Pittsburgh and Kansas City are examples of teams relying on their farm system and NOT doing it intelligently (although both teams, Pittsburgh in particular, look to be wising up now). They both refused to spend money on top draft picks, and drafted "safe" low-ceiling, inexpensive players.
If you're going to rely on your farm system, you have to do one of two things (or both): 1) Draft smartly, 2) Have a great player development system. Tampa is an example of an organization that does both things. Minnesota does #2 extremely well. Kansas City and Pittsburgh have been failing not because they've been relying on their farm system, but because they've failed at both drafting smartly and running a good player development system. Not to mention, they've both been making mediocre or downright bad moves with the big league club (Jose Guillen for KC, Matt Morris for PIT, etc.).
In summation, there is no one method of building a team that is superior to others. There's relying on the farm, building via trades and/or free agency, or an amalgamation of each. The only thing that separates the routinely good teams from the routinely poor teams is the intelligence of the front office. Look at the routinely good teams, and you see teams built with homegrown players (Boston, Tampa Bay, Minnesota), teams built with free agency (New York, Boston), teams built with trades (Oakland), etc. Look at the routinely bad teams, and you see the same thing. The difference between the two is how well the front offices have made moves (of any variety).
Quote:
Originally Posted by koolzach1
Obviously it's an exaggeration to say it's an "embarrassment," but given their resources......they should be better.
The bolded statement is completely false. The reason that the teams you listed have failed isn't because they have relied on their farm system..it's because they haven't done well enough developing their farm system. Relying on your farm system works. Again though....relying on your farm system doesn't mean never going after FAs...AND relying on your farm system can also mean trading a lot of those prospects for big name guys. For example, the Braves farm system is pretty loaded and they were about to trade for Peavy. Peavy wouldn't be homegrown obviously, but he would be on their team as a result of relying on their farm system. That's what I am talking about. For all those bad teams you listed..there are good examples too. The Twins, the Marlins two WS were heavily built on their farm system, the Phillies had a good core they developed on their own, the Braves in the 90s...the Rays, etc. To flatly say that relying on your farm system doesn't work is false.
Cashman is starting to do it with the Yanks, that's why I think going overboard in FA would be a mistake. That doesn't mean they shouldn't sign CC, but I don't think they should sign CC and Lowe and Burnett and be in on Tex and Manny.....I think if they signed two or three big name guys to huge money..it could be a mistake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I would disagree about Boston being built on FAs. They had/have a lot of homegrown guys plus guys they traded for with their prospects. Yeah...they had a few FAs..but I think their farm system is the biggest reason for their sustained success. Not a major point though...doesn't really matter.
You're definitely right that decision making is the most important factor. No denying that.
its working...attendance is at all time highs in most markets.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Which is why I put them under both categories. Boston is an example of a team being built by a front office that excels at EACH area of team-building - drafting, player development, trading, and free agency.Quote:
Originally Posted by KowboyKoop
Oh, didn't see that. I'd agree with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Also, just to be clear, I'm including the ability to resign your current players to long-term extensions under the "free agency" heading. Basically, free agency, at least how I'm using it, refers to the team using its money to sign and/or keep players.