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
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
If the proven star flames out for you, you can always eat the loss and reload next year, just like you reload every year.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!!)
Giving 25 million to a 45 year old, washed-up, selfish prick like Clemens is the definition of mismanagement.
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?
Right. But the smart money is on the guys who have done it before.
you can't have both.
to me, that point alone destroys the logic behind the "advantage" argument.
