Originally Posted By: Rob Kamphausen
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.


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...

 Quote:
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.


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.


 Quote:
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.


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?


 Quote:
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.


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

 Quote:
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."


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

 Quote:
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.


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

 Quote:
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.


"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.

"Are you eating it...or is it eating you?"

[center][Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com] [/center]

[center][Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com][/center]