Brewers GM: Yankees 'overbidding' for Sabathia

[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.

Because they've gone after the wrong free agents.

Well, when you tend to rely on your farm system, your results will tend to be poor.

This isn't true. Look at the Twins.

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).

[KowboyKoop]

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.

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.

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.

[KowboyKoop]

Because they've gone after the wrong free agents.


This isn't true. Look at the Twins.

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).

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.

[dickay]

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.

its working...attendance is at all time highs in most markets.

[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.

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.

[KowboyKoop]

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.

Oh, didn't see that. I'd agree with that.

[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.