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

That's why we thank GOD for the dood!

It's troo! Err... true!

maybe the yanks'll bring willie back?

either way, t'was a disappointing finale to a season that really picked up steam in the second half. sadly, money proved itself invincible again, as the extravogant cleveland indians outbid the yanks and purchased themselves another round of playoffs. the proof just keeps on proofing!

but, like the peejus said, i was happy to see the yanks rely a lot of the youth this season. cano, cmw, melky, chamberlin, etc. if they could just work out a few bugs here n'there, they'd be in really great shape.

clemens was a mistake. greatest pitcher of all time? very likely. but he's old and he's spoiled and he just doesn't have what he used to, primarly versus AL batters. his huge salary and pampered stay are exactly the kinda thing the yanks should shed.

giambi is done. he's a waste defensively and inconsistant at best offensively. he's too expensive for the little output he provides. i'm not a huge fan of manko...chevitz, so i'm hoping phillips can have a nice off season, and the yanks can ship off JG.

as for the fate of arod and/or torre?

arod wasn't too great in the post season, tis true. but, truthfully, the entire team hasn't been good offensively in the post season for the past few seasons. i still hate the guy, but i'd like to see the yanks keep him around -- if for any reason, the thought of bringing the all-time HR leader back to the pintstripes. ...then again, if the fucker wants to bump up his 25 mil to 30+ a season (which he very well could after his production) it might be time to punch him in the throat.

torre is a good manager. a dozen some-odd consecutive post-season runs, dealing with 14 starters, and six number 3 hitters, etc, to the point where every player loves playing for him. but, all that said, i think its becoming clearer and clearer that this respect has evolved a little into complacancy. like there's nothing more to prove, and no extra effort shown. maybe a new face would spark something -- moreso an attempt at a shakeup versus a demerit.

"as the extravogant cleveland indians outbid the yanks and purchased themselves another round of playoffs. the proof just keeps on proofing!"

This further shows the incompetence of the organization. To waste that kind of a competitive advantage should embarrass anyone involved with the Bankees...

yes, you can't fight proof!

Proof that they were rolled up by a team with a fraction of their payroll?

It is a lot like Michigan losing to that I-AA team a few weeks back. Having every advantage possible and still losing must feel pretty bad right about now...

appalachian state

poor michigan

right. which would, again, disprove your spending=winning theory. as we have seen year after year.

I never claimed it ($pending = World Championships) was a written in stone, absolute fact of life.

I've always claimed it is an unfair competitive advantage.

and you've held on to this argument for years now, even as spending teams such as the yankees have been unable to defeat non-spending teams such as the indians.

when you are unable to prove theories, you often note that the theories are wrong. scientists such as uschi will be able to help you with this in the future.

It is not a theory, it is a fact. The Yankees and other big market teams have an advantage in terms of payroll. They are in a better position to sign big name free agents and to keep their own players. If they piss away the blantant advantage that they have, it is their own fault for mismanaging their cas...ca$h.

This can not be refuted.

You seem to think that I equate this with guaranteed championships or something. There are no guarantees that the big market teams will always use this advantage the right way. But it is an advantage just the same.

If I play 5 other people in poker, and I start with two Aces every time, I have a competitive advantage. It doesn't mean that I'm going to win every hand, but I surely have a better shot than the schmuck who starts off with a 4 and a 9...

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.

who is your favorite team? why hate the Yankees so much?

teehee!

I don't like baseball (at least I haven't in years and years) and I don't hate the Yankees.

I just don't understand why anyone would consider it a major accomplishment to win a championship or make the playoffs when you enter every season with a loaded roster.

It's just like seeing teams like Florida State, Flordia, Ohio State, Michigan, and USC field teams that contend for the National Title every year. Their fans get arrogant and go on and on about how great they are, but so what? Those programs are able to offer more free rides than Northeastern Alaska Tech.

I was going to leave this thread alone until Rob forced me to rehash this argument for the 532,000th time...

Steinbrenner just announced that the team will operate under a 40 million dollar budget next year, and give 150 million to the Royals so they can compete.

What's your thoughts on that?

im thinkin i wish i had quick access to that fancy barry sanders picture to help illustrate your response.

And yours as well.

wouldn't the conversation go much smoother if you first acknowledge and respond to points addressed to you, before ignoring them and starting your own?

Having extra money to sign proven stars like A-Rod, John Wetteland, Jimmy Key, David Cone, etc, etc, etc is not nearly as big of a gamble as it is to put that money into an unproven kid out of high school or college.

Those guys, and every other big name free agent has proved they have the ability to produce at the major league level. This is not the case with a farm project, who may take years to develop, and who may never get there. That what makes the project a project.

And that's the advantage to signing a free agent...



Of course teams pay for upcoming seasons...if that center fielder hit .350 on a scrub team, any GM will sign the guy, because he has proven that he can hit .350 at the major league level. And for a good team, he may do even better if he has someone good batting behind him.

On the other hand, 18 year old Joe Smith, a great prospect straight out of high school, hasn't done anything professionally. Who would you rather give the money to? The CF is 25 by the way, and you want to compete for a championship right now. If the proven star flames out for you, you can always eat the loss and reload next year, just like you reload every year.




That same scenario could happen to prospects like, I don't know, Don Peters, Dave Zancanaro, Kirk Dressendorfer, and Todd Van Poppel. Disappointing seasons and careers aren't limited to free agents...granted none of those flops made A-Rod money, but even in your scenario, there are other things to consider:

Signing A-Rod would boost attendance. It would get people talking. More Mets jerseys and other junk would sell. They wouldn't be out 50 million...they'd still lose their ass on the deal, but it wouldn't be a total loss. And A-Rod could still turn it around, since he has proven talent. What could a bust out rookie like Brien Taylor do, since he doesn't have the talent to begin with?




That's why I never use the term guarantee. It's an advantage.



Giving 25 million to a 45 year old, washed-up, selfish prick like Clemens is the definition of mismanagement.



Right. But the smart money is on the guys who have done it before.



"The bad way"? Just because they don't win the World Series every year it is a bad year?

The thing you gloss over is things like the Clemens deal. 25 million for one asshole. Imagine if a small market team tried that...they'd have to cut half the roster...then they would really be screwed. The Yankees have the ability to shrug it off, and reload for next year.

It would take years and years for a small market team to recover, since they would have to field Tony the janitor, and Mike the hot dog guy to play the infield, since they had to trade away all of their talent to accomodate one guy.

I guarantee it.

putting big money on anyone is a gamble. always. it is quite often worse to put "all your eggs" in stars, a methodology that many teams embrace. you have pointed out dozens of unsuccesful yankee acquisitions over the years as a rib. hell, i could point out 10 for every 1 you could. simply going through the current roster, you'll notice a good deal. all of them were lost gambles.

all you've ever noted is the rosey possibility stars provide and/or the drastic comparison to a mediocre farm player. i implore you to acknowledge the mirrored reverse, where the star tanks and/or the farm player succeeds. or just note how fantastically different the negative impact either failure leaves in its wake: if a younger player falters, he can be moved around or replaced or absolved with out much fanfare. if a star falters, or even simply does not live up to expected performance, the gap is devastating for the status quo and the wallet.

the yankees had a major losing gamble on their free agent japanese import, igawa. conversely, joba chamberlain steps up out of the farm and dominates. at first base, jason giambi faltered or flat out didn't play. phillips, mientkiewicz, and phelps filled in more than adequately for fractions of the cost.

this year was truly noteworthy of this contrast -- the 2007 yankees, one of the highest spending teams in the history of the universe, was filled with failing stars and dynamo youths. if 200 mil was spent on the team, more than half of that was on the bench, with another 20% that should have been.

and thats not "shrug off" level losses






thats thinking about sports in an extremely limited way. if a center fielder has a stellar season, there's absolutely no guarantee that season will repeat. this is shown time and time again, on the yankees, on other teams, in other sports, etc. peaks and valleys and variances and outside interference and injuries and a million other variables constantly come into play to illustrated how simplistic that view is.

you can't list the amount of failed superstars just the yankees have gone through in the past 3 years, then follow with your above statement.





well, you don't pay the prospect what you pay the star, which is a huge point. lets say the star gets $15 million, and the prospect gets $1 million. now fast forward to the end of the year stats, where the star hit .335 with 38 homers and the prospect hit .275 with 15 homers.

if you knew those numbers before the year played, would the extra $14 million be worth the statistical difference? and that says nothing of the added, intangible baggage of ego, expectation, resistance, and pampering that come with the star, versus the prospect who is willing to bunt, dive, run out grounders, listen and learn.

now lets imagine they both have awful years, where the prospect is dropped back down to the minors, and the star is the one who goes .275 with 15 homers. is it more hurtful to lose $1 million on a player you didn't expect much from, or $15 million on a player you were counting on?





taint funny money, my friend.

these is real dollars floating away. steinbrenner is a billionaire, so maybe he doesn't flinch too much at the loss of $15 million on a failed star. but 4 failed stars at $60 mil, not at all a stretch after quick roster review, and it adds up damn quick.

a local paper actually listed the cost spent between today and the last yankees ring in 2000. we're talkin 9-10 figures, before decimal point, with no additional jewlery to show for it.

all spending money guarantees is money spent.







valid points. though, yankees and mets set attendance records lately with or without arod on the team right now, so they're not in terrible shape. however, that does show that a failed arod season would only show losses, since he's not fillin any additional seats.

a better example might be arod during his texas days, where he was a boon and a super-duper star on a last place team. one who put up phenomenal MVP numbers, i might add. he definitely sold seats, and definitely made an impact on incoming revenue. but his maintenance costs were disgustingly high, and texas felt they could get more outta 5 (or 10) lesser players with that arod money. middle-range stars, scouted young talent, whatever.

they've done better every year since.






maybe he could turn it around. there's no guarantee, and there are tons of examples, but i'll allow the point and say he does get great again. money lost still equates money lost. and if that means "eating" $20 mil for an off year, thats a shitload to stomach.

(and lets not forget how much money and time was dropped on stupid brien taylor!!)






yeah, after he's had a bad year, thats easy to say. this is exactly the "failed star" scenario pointed out above.

the year before, roger's ERA was 2.30. in '05 it was a league-leading 1.87. 1! did he get washed up between the ages of 44 and 45? if the yankees had made a deal to get clemens in 2006, you would change your reaction from "mismanagement" to a "yankees advantage", would you not?



you can't have both.

to me, that point alone destroys the logic behind the "advantage" argument.

the only problem I have with what JLA is saying is that most small market teams have billionaires for owners. So I don't feel too bad for the cheap fucks when they don't spend money on their business to try and improve it.

i wonder what animalman would say...

Heh. JLA's decade-long rant against the Yankees payroll does highlight what is, in my view, the biggest problem facing baseball today(even bigger than the "steroid stuff"): that the gap in team salary continues to widen between the large and small market teams.

However, his argument's biggest flaw lies in his mislabling this trend as an advantage. The Yankees aren't the only team with money. They're just one of the few willing to spend it(albeit poorly).

Of course, the Yankees recently have been a lot more active in drafting and developing talent than simply buying it. They were silent at the trade deadline, electing to keep their younger assets. Last offseason the most significant move they made was trading an established star for prospects. They're way behind the curve, but oh well.

Thanks, man...

hey!

Why did it never happen for us, JLA? Why didn't the stars align in our favor? Now I know how Dante felt when he saw Beatrice that first time.

where have you been? are you in NYC? what's new?

pjp, he's trying to reconnect with jla. you have to give him some space.

and time!

and how!

And now!

boy that gagne sure likes to keep it interesting doesnt he...?

He comes to the mound and I repeat this mantra:

"They won't keep him in...draft picks...they won't keep him in...draft picks..."

At least if he goes into a blowout game, there's still a chance he'll finish it relatively pain-free, and a good reliever gets more rest. God, I hate Gagne...

interesting take. hits it from both sides:

Money can't buy me championships
By Dan Wetzel, Yahoo! Sports

• The most expensive team in baseball, the $189.7 million New York Yankees (and that's a pre-Roger Clemens figure) went down this week with a whimper. The team with the third-highest opening day payroll, the New York Mets ($115.2 million), collapsed long before that.
  
  Nos. 4 and 8 – the Los Angeles Angels and Chicago Cubs, respectively – couldn't win a playoff game. Nos. 5-7 (Chicago White Sox, Los Angeles Dodgers and Seattle Mariners) didn't even make it to October. Neither did Nos. 8 to 12.
  
  People like to decry baseball's salary disparity and lack of championship opportunities for small-market teams, but once again the playoffs are proving otherwise.
  
  Yes, the $143 million Boston Red Sox, with the second-highest payroll according to USA Today's salary database, have reached in the American League Championship Series. But they're joined in the final four by the Cleveland Indians (No. 23), Colorado Rockies (No. 25) and Arizona Diamondbacks (No. 26). Those three payrolls total $168.2 million, $21 million less than the Yankees' entire outlay.
  
  If the goal is to make every team feel like it has a chance every season, you couldn't design a system that would produce a better outcome. If Cleveland or Colorado win, baseball will be assured of its eighth different World Series champion in eight years, not to mention its 13th different Fall Classic participant out of a possible 16.
  
  Salary cap or not, baseball's parity – at least at the championship level – trumps the other major sports.
  
  The NFL – with its hard salary cap, revenue sharing, weighted schedules and "any given Sunday" motto – has crowned six different champions the past eight years and, like baseball, has had 13 different teams reach the Super Bowl.
  
  The NBA, which also boasts the kind of salary cap seemingly everyone claims baseball needs, has seen four teams win the title in the past nine years. Just nine clubs have reached the NBA finals over the last eight seasons.
  
  Making the MLB numbers even more impressive is the fact that just eight of the league's 30 teams (26.6 percent) are invited to the postseason. The NFL lets in 12 of 32 (37.5 percent) and the NBA goes with 16 of 30 (53.3 percent), which, in theory, should increase the likelihood of upset-driven diversity in the late rounds.
  
  Does it help to spend more money? Obviously, it lessens the margin for error. The Red Sox, for instance, were able to overcome up-and-down seasons from free-agent splurges Daisuke Matsuzaka and J.D. Drew. And the Yankees, of course, make the playoffs every year with a payroll nearing a quarter-billion dollars.
  
  The woeful Pittsburgh Pirates ($38.5 million) and Tampa Bay Devil Rays ($24.1 million) would have to put together a magical run to reach the postseason once.
  
  That said, recent history indicates anything is possible. Just a year ago, the Detroit Tigers shook off 12 consecutive losing seasons (including 119 losses in 2003) to reach the World Series. The Rockies have been below .500 the past six seasons and the Diamondbacks the last three, yet will meet in the NLCS as the league's hottest teams.
  
  And while Boston outspent Cleveland by $81.4 million, the Indians are no rag-tag unit – the Tribe's Game 1 and 2 starters are C.C. Sabathia and Fausto Carmona, after all.
  
  The truth is, you can't buy a World Series. Spending money may increase your odds, but it assures nothing because the star player has less impact in baseball than any other sport.
  
  Alex Rodriguez made $22.7 million and put up MVP numbers during the regular season, but even if he was capable of getting a playoff hit outside of Yankee Stadium (he's sporting an 0-for-48 streak), he can only influence the game so much. He only bats about four times per game and may not make a single defensive play. Likewise, a starting pitcher may only get the ball twice a series and a key reliever relies on his teammates handing him a late-inning lead.
  
  In basketball, each player impacts each possession on offense and defense. In football, a star quarterback will handle the ball approximately 50 percent of the time. Therefore, having a Tim Duncan or Tom Brady is far more valuable than an A-Rod or Andy Pettitte.
  
  But that's baseball. The best hitters fail twice as often as they succeed, so you need players up and down the roster to step up.
  
  Take it from the Yankees, who despite the having league's highest payroll have come up empty in the playoffs the last seven seasons: You can spend all the money in the world and it guarantees nothing.
  
  No matter how loud the cries for a salary cap, no matter how much cheapskate owners claim the current system isn't fair, here's another October to again prove differently.
  
  Dan Wetzel is Yahoo! Sports' national columnist. Send Dan a question or comment for potential use in a future column or webcast.

good article find rob...

A-Rod opted out of his contract, as anyone with half a brain and the slightest knowledge of the way Boras works could've predicted. The question is this, do the Yankees stick to their guns and refuse to negotiate with them or do they go back on their word and try to re-sign him? And, if they decide NOT to re-sign him, who do they go after to play third base?

Personally, I hope they tell Boras and A-Rod, "Thanks for everything you did in the last few years. Goodbye."