Red Mosquito

Coach wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:I love that 2 years after the "RED SOX CAN SPEND WHATEVER THEY WANT" posts from Coach that resulted in terrible signings and subsequent salary dumps, he is still riding the "SPEND AS MUCH AS THEY WANT" train

The Yanks spent as much as they wanted to in '09 and that worked out really well, so there goes you're argument.

I think every team can afford to take risks, and if that means assigning a big contract to a player like Tanaka then so be it. The Yanks can afford this risk.

Yes, because it worked once and ultimately led to 3 disappointing seasons immediately following it, it totally invalidates my point.

Which of course is.. every team has a budget, and wasting money in one direction hurts you in another. It's just the scale that differs for teams like the Yankees. And it's a terrible risk, because it has virtually no upside for them. You are paying him like a top 5 MLB pitcher, and if he proves to be a top 5 MLB pitcher, he gets to opt out and get paid even more. If he isn't a top 5 pitcher, you've committed to paying him like one for 7 years, because the opt out is all his.

Yeah, that opt out is awful.

@SkitchP wrote:

Coach wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:I love that 2 years after the "RED SOX CAN SPEND WHATEVER THEY WANT" posts from Coach that resulted in terrible signings and subsequent salary dumps, he is still riding the "SPEND AS MUCH AS THEY WANT" train

The Yanks spent as much as they wanted to in '09 and that worked out really well, so there goes you're argument.

I think every team can afford to take risks, and if that means assigning a big contract to a player like Tanaka then so be it. The Yanks can afford this risk.

Yes, because it worked once and ultimately led to 3 disappointing seasons immediately following it, it totally invalidates my point.

Which of course is.. every team has a budget, and wasting money in one direction hurts you in another. It's just the scale that differs for teams like the Yankees. And it's a terrible risk, because it has virtually no upside for them. You are paying him like a top 5 MLB pitcher, and if he proves to be a top 5 MLB pitcher, he gets to opt out and get paid even more. If he isn't a top 5 pitcher, you've committed to paying him like one for 7 years, because the opt out is all his.

You're telling me that in the history of baseball overspending for talent has only worked once...in 2009...for the Yankees? Give me some of what you're smoking.

cutuphalfdead wrote:Yeah, that opt out is awful.

Yep. While they probably overpaid for a guy with no MLB experience, no major quibble with it.. but the opt out just makes it look really stupid.

The Yankees must have decided it was necessary to get him signed. To me, it's clear they have decided that they need to load up now and worry about the consequences later, but that line of thinking is the reason they are in tr trouble they're in now.

Coach wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

Coach wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:I love that 2 years after the "RED SOX CAN SPEND WHATEVER THEY WANT" posts from Coach that resulted in terrible signings and subsequent salary dumps, he is still riding the "SPEND AS MUCH AS THEY WANT" train

The Yanks spent as much as they wanted to in '09 and that worked out really well, so there goes you're argument.

I think every team can afford to take risks, and if that means assigning a big contract to a player like Tanaka then so be it. The Yanks can afford this risk.

Yes, because it worked once and ultimately led to 3 disappointing seasons immediately following it, it totally invalidates my point.

Which of course is.. every team has a budget, and wasting money in one direction hurts you in another. It's just the scale that differs for teams like the Yankees. And it's a terrible risk, because it has virtually no upside for them. You are paying him like a top 5 MLB pitcher, and if he proves to be a top 5 MLB pitcher, he gets to opt out and get paid even more. If he isn't a top 5 pitcher, you've committed to paying him like one for 7 years, because the opt out is all his.

You're telling me that in the history of baseball overspending for talent has only worked once...in 2009...for the Yankees? Give me some of what you're smoking.

huh? I just disputed the example YOU gave.

Lots of teams make lots of stupid contract decisions. My whole point is that even for the Yankees and Red Sox there is, and always has been a limit.

numbers wrote:The Yankees must have decided it was necessary to get him signed. To me, it's clear they have decided that they need to load up now and worry about the consequences later, but that line of thinking is the reason they are in tr trouble they're in now.

And that has to be what's scary to Yankees fans. They spent A LOT of money this year and got a decent Catcher. A good, but Old OF, and a pitcher thats never pitched in MLB before, and paid a quarter billion dollars for them. and I dont think they'll even sniff the playoffs.

@SkitchP wrote:

Coach wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

Coach wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:I love that 2 years after the "RED SOX CAN SPEND WHATEVER THEY WANT" posts from Coach that resulted in terrible signings and subsequent salary dumps, he is still riding the "SPEND AS MUCH AS THEY WANT" train

The Yanks spent as much as they wanted to in '09 and that worked out really well, so there goes you're argument.

I think every team can afford to take risks, and if that means assigning a big contract to a player like Tanaka then so be it. The Yanks can afford this risk.

Yes, because it worked once and ultimately led to 3 disappointing seasons immediately following it, it totally invalidates my point.

Which of course is.. every team has a budget, and wasting money in one direction hurts you in another. It's just the scale that differs for teams like the Yankees. And it's a terrible risk, because it has virtually no upside for them. You are paying him like a top 5 MLB pitcher, and if he proves to be a top 5 MLB pitcher, he gets to opt out and get paid even more. If he isn't a top 5 pitcher, you've committed to paying him like one for 7 years, because the opt out is all his.

You're telling me that in the history of baseball overspending for talent has only worked once...in 2009...for the Yankees? Give me some of what you're smoking.

huh? I just disputed the example YOU gave.

Lots of teams make lots of stupid contract decisions. My whole point is that even for the Yankees and Red Sox there is, and always has been a limit.

What limit? Didn't the Yankees just break a record by spending half a billion this off-season?

Coach wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

Coach wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

Coach wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:I love that 2 years after the "RED SOX CAN SPEND WHATEVER THEY WANT" posts from Coach that resulted in terrible signings and subsequent salary dumps, he is still riding the "SPEND AS MUCH AS THEY WANT" train

The Yanks spent as much as they wanted to in '09 and that worked out really well, so there goes you're argument.

I think every team can afford to take risks, and if that means assigning a big contract to a player like Tanaka then so be it. The Yanks can afford this risk.

Yes, because it worked once and ultimately led to 3 disappointing seasons immediately following it, it totally invalidates my point.

Which of course is.. every team has a budget, and wasting money in one direction hurts you in another. It's just the scale that differs for teams like the Yankees. And it's a terrible risk, because it has virtually no upside for them. You are paying him like a top 5 MLB pitcher, and if he proves to be a top 5 MLB pitcher, he gets to opt out and get paid even more. If he isn't a top 5 pitcher, you've committed to paying him like one for 7 years, because the opt out is all his.

You're telling me that in the history of baseball overspending for talent has only worked once...in 2009...for the Yankees? Give me some of what you're smoking.

huh? I just disputed the example YOU gave.

Lots of teams make lots of stupid contract decisions. My whole point is that even for the Yankees and Red Sox there is, and always has been a limit.

What limit? Didn't the Yankees just break a record by spending half a billion this off-season?

A lot of what the Yankees spent this year came off the books in other ways. Cano was $15 million, Pettitte was $12 million, Rivera was $10 million and, assuming it's upheld, Rodriguez saves them $22 million. That's $59 million from last year's payroll that's gone. Not to mention if A-Rod had played this season he would pretty much be guaranteed a $5 million bonus for passing Willie Mays on the all-time homerun list.

Every team has limits. Even the "Spend Whatever the Hell We Want" Dodgers admitted they weren't willing to match what the Yankees ended up paying.

philpritchard wrote:A lot of what the Yankees spent this year came off the books in other ways. Cano was $15 million, Pettitte was $12 million, Rivera was $10 million and, assuming it's upheld, Rodriguez saves them $22 million. That's $59 million from last year's payroll that's gone. Not to mention if A-Rod had played this season he would pretty much be guaranteed a $5 million bonus for passing Willie Mays on the all-time homerun list.

Every team has limits. Even the "Spend Whatever the Hell We Want" Dodgers admitted they weren't willing to match what the Yankees ended up paying.

Yeah, but the 2000 yankees won the world series, and they spent a lot of money so you clearly dont know what you're talking about.

the bottom line is if these moves get the yankees another title, will anybody (who roots for the yanks) care?

i say no, and i think coach is saying the same thing.

what say you, skitch (other than the fact that this business model does nothing to solve the problem long-term and wouldn't work for any other team or city)?

elliseamos wrote:the bottom line is if these moves get the yankees another title, will anybody (who roots for the yanks) care?

i say no, and i think coach is saying the same thing.

what say you, skitch (other than the fact that this business model does nothing to solve the problem long-term and wouldn't work for any other team or city)?

huh? Coach seems to operate under the assumption that the Yankees (and red sox a couple years ago) operate under no sort of budget, and any money they spend does not affect the allocation of that resource going forward. And it does. All that changes is the scale.

@SkitchP wrote:

elliseamos wrote:the bottom line is if these moves get the yankees another title, will anybody (who roots for the yanks) care?

i say no, and i think coach is saying the same thing.

what say you, skitch (other than the fact that this business model does nothing to solve the problem long-term and wouldn't work for any other team or city)?

huh? Coach seems to operate under the assumption that the Yankees (and red sox a couple years ago) operate under no sort of budget, and any money they spend does not affect the allocation of that resource going forward. And it does. All that changes is the scale.

oh. i was reading his comments as those allocations produce championships (maybe not in the case of the gonzo & crawford sox, but the case could be made that not many teams could sign higher-than-marekt/short term deals like the 2013 sox did). i'll step out now.

Welcome to beer capital U.S.A, Matt Garza! 4 year 52 million.

Here's hoping Lohse has another good season and that Gallardo gets his shit together.

I have three points:

1. Yes, you can buy a championship. We've seen it happen plenty of times. Heck, the reigning World Series champs had the fifth highest payroll last year (or top 3). A low budget team could argue that the Sox had the resources to withstand poor signings to secure the players they needed. Did they benefit from dumping salary to the Dodgers via the trade, yes? But they also had to give up a gold glove, .300 hitter in Adrian Gonzalez, and that would kill many teams in losing that talent. For the Sox, they can make up for this by purchasing more talent in other areas.

2. Spending: Teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, and Dodgers may, in fact, operate with a budget, but it's certainly not a hard budget. They often go over budget to secure the talent they need. And some teams, such as the Yankees, can really, really screw up and overpay for talent, but still absorb that loss. Heck, they are now positioned to win another World Series or at least the AL.

3. I applaud the Tanaka deal. It's certainly not perfect and you will always overpay in a situation like that, but don't tell me the AL East didn't just get a whole lot more competitive with that signing.

@SkitchP wrote:

elliseamos wrote:the bottom line is if these moves get the yankees another title, will anybody (who roots for the yanks) care?

i say no, and i think coach is saying the same thing.

what say you, skitch (other than the fact that this business model does nothing to solve the problem long-term and wouldn't work for any other team or city)?

huh? Coach seems to operate under the assumption that the Yankees (and red sox a couple years ago) operate under no sort of budget, and any money they spend does not affect the allocation of that resource going forward. And it does. All that changes is the scale.

I operate under the assumption that "rich" teams can make more and bigger mistakes than "poor" teams. This is not a change in scale, but a real advantage for "rich" teams.

Coach wrote:2. Spending: Teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, and Dodgers may, in fact, operate with a budget, but it's certainly not a hard budget. They often go over budget to secure the talent they need. And some teams, such as the Yankees, can really, really screw up and overpay for talent, but still absorb that loss. Heck, they are now positioned to win another World Series or at least the AL.

I see them as being "positioned to win another World Series" in the same way a lot of borderline contenders are... a lot of things need to go right for them to contend. I think they still have too many glaring holes to be on the same level as the Sox and Rays.

I can say from the perspective of a fan of a team that has a pretty hard budget below 100m that money mistakes kill postseason chances.

Two worst players on the team last year were two of the worst in baseball history over the course of the season and they were the highest paid.

Bj Upton and Dan Uggla,

Also Kenshin Kawakami was a disaster.

Electromatic wrote:I can say from the perspective of a fan of a team that has a pretty hard budget below 100m that money mistakes kill postseason chances.

Two worst players on the team last year were two of the worst in baseball history over the course of the season and they were the highest paid.

Bj Upton and Dan Uggla,

Also Kenshin Kawakami was a disaster.

Agreed. The margin for error is much smaller for a low budget team. This is basically my point.