RKMBs Forums .::Robegories::. Sports and Wrestling hows bout those yankees for 2007 - cuz no other team matters

the poker game is not a fair analogy. not a complete analogy, anyway. starting a poker game with two high cards will always guarantee you an advantage. having a higher payroll actually offers teams just as much potential advantage as it does disadvantage. it is much more of a gamble in sports than it is in ... well, gambling.

teams do not pay player salaries for the upcomong season(s). rather, you pay salaries based on the previous season(s). you're not paying for a center fielder who hits .350, you're paying for a center fielder who did hit 350 in the past.

arod's 54 homers in 2007 could have him opting out of the yankees and in to, say, the mets for $50 million a year in 2008. but, in 2008, he could have 20 homers. he could be sick. he could have some sorta "relocation adjustment." he could get into a car accident and not play at all. he could get into a fight with new-teammate jose reyes, and their angst-filled love could cause them both to suffer and drop their stats.

but, no matter what, the mets are out $50 million a year. that money is gone. there is no built in "high-card" aspect. in fact, contractually speaking, they have the exact opposite. the mets now have lost money, lost opportunity, and lost value, and there's nothing to undo that.

the variable that you keep adding of "smart spending" and/or "mismanagement" is based almost entirely on retrospect, hindsight, and opinion, and is thus impossible to track, predict, or guarantee.

was clemens a good pick up mid-season? now, its clear he was not. he had a 4+ era, 11+ in the post season, and was pitching .500 ball. that is a huge yankees loss. you would now note that pickup as "poor spending." however, he could have just as easily had a season like the three prior, with a 1 or 2+ ERA, and dominated in the playoffs. in that case, it would have been a huge yankees win. you would then have noted the pickup as "an unfair advantage."

in retrospect, the 25 mil to clemens could have been spent on 6 young pitchers, with 14 wins between them and a communal 3 ERA. that marginal improvement could have carried the yankees further in the season, and been better financially. or, all of these younger pitchers could have had a terrible 9+ ERA. you never know until they p(l)ay.

the "unfair advantage" 2007 yankees finished a game or two out of first this season. that same team, with the same payroll, was hovering towards last place and below 500% at mid-season. the two season halves could have easily been swapped.

the fact that all of these samples can go either way (and more-so the bad way for the yankees in the past few years) shows that the salary guarantees you nothing.