Yankees Cry Foul

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by mlyons

For the record, Cone, Clemens, and Martinez were all acquired by the Yankees via trade, not free agency.

This is one point that escaped my argument. Tack it on to my post.

[Melo]

Originally Posted by mlyons

For the record, Cone, Clemens, and Martinez were all acquired by the Yankees via trade, not free agency. Look through the rosters of those late '90's Yankee ball clubs, and you'll be surprised by how few players were acquired through free agency. They had an amazingly effective personnel strategy (which has since been abandoned) of allowing other teams to sign players to exorbitant contracts in free agency, and then making enormously lopsided trades to acquire those players for next to nothing when the original teams realized they couldn't afford the contracts.

Or, they acquired those players via trade because the team knew that they wouldn't be able to afford to sign them after the season.

Either way, it comes down to the same thing: the Yankees had the resources to pay those contracts while the other teams did not.

[Johnny99]

Originally Posted by CommishJoe

I'm impressed. I had you on ignore because most of your posts weren't worth reading. However, this one you did pretty well with. Unfortunately, it is an old argument.

MIL, PIT, TB and KC are all examples of mis-management. The teams could have fielded a better team, but didn't. Probably because they wanted to pocket the cash. For example, the Twins never spent money on their payroll until Pohlad finally realized he could make more money if he fielded a winner. Once he started re-signing some of his key players, and putting role players around them, they started winning. Fancy that.

The real comparison is teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals, Cubs, Braves, Angels, Dodgers, Mets, Orioles who all have VERY deep pockets. However, it doesn't matter how much you spend, it's HOW you spend it. The Yankee teams of the late 90s were built right. No true super-stars, but together they made one hell of a team. 2002 Angels were built the same way and they reminded me a lot of those Yankees teams. Now, Steinbrenner is back to his old ways of signing names past their primes. If it wasn't for Cashman and some "under the radar" signings, this team would have sunk out of contention a long time ago.

The figure $200m isn't a magic figure that automatically equates to wins. Just like when the Dodgers, Orioles and Mets all went out and spent tons of money only to wind up crapping out. Just because you have the money to spend doesn't guarantee anything.

Also, let me ask you a couple of questions.

Would Steinbrenner be better if he took the money he's making off the Yankees and pocketed it instead of spending it on trying to field a winner?

Why, when the Red Sox, Angels, Mets or some other big market team signs a player, it's a great signing. But, when the Yankees sign someone, it's bad for baseball and they are "buying their team again"?

Why is it that the Red Sox can win the World Series with highest payroll of anyone in history, and they are celebrated, while the Yankees win with a high payroll, but relatively close to everyone else (late 90s) are just bought teams and they didn't earn anything?

These are the double standards I was talking about. I'm not defending this current team. I LOVED the teams of the late 90s. Those teams were built right. This team is a collection of superstars and over the hill "names". However, even with the $200m spent on all of that, they wouldn't be anywhere close to where they are today without Cano, Wang, Small and Chacon.

Let me make myself clear. The Yankees, within the confines of the current financial system of major league baseball, do nothing wrong. They have the money and they spend it in an attempt to win. Good for them. But the system is broken and the Yankees are just the most visible example of it, so they take the most heat for it. I agree, actually, that its not entirely fair, but let's hold off on the pity party for the Bombers.

I just don't believe that its healthy for a sport to have a built in advantage, and I don't care how you want to spin it, its a built in advantage, conferred on a group of top tier teams while others are perpetually consigned to the bottom of the standings. I grew up a Yankee fan. And I watched great players like George Brett play his entire career for Kansas City and help them win division titles. Today, Brett would have left KC at 27 or 28 and gone to NY or Boston or LA. And that sucks. A salary cap is what allows Brett Favre to still be in Green Bay.

[Joshv02]

Originally Posted by Melo

Or, they acquired those players via trade because the team knew that they wouldn't be able to afford to sign them after the season.

Either way, it comes down to the same thing: the Yankees had the resources to pay those contracts while the other teams did not.

Except that if they trade for the players, instead of sign the players, no one can blame them for spending their money unwisely. It is the team that signed the player that is the fool, while the Yankees are simply capitalizing on others idiocy.

[Melo]

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

Either way, give me an organization that has the ability to develop Bernie, Jeter, Rivera, Posada, Mendoza, et al. with the ability to sign the right free agents, and you have a legitimate and deserved championship franchise.


This is an excellent counterpoint. I'm not saying that it doesn't give them a competitive advantage. I'd be a fool to do so. My point is, overall, that people shouldn't just play the money card when talking about the championships won by late 90's Yankees. It doesn't do Gene Michael or the rest of the organization justice.

Gene Michael, like Gabe Paul in the 70s, built a tremendous team, utilizing all the standard player acquisition principles (develop, trade, free agency).

Unfortunately, Steinbrenner couldn't keep his fingers out of either's pie, which tainted their work. Trust me, I'm an avowed Yankee hater but I have great respect for what Gene Michael constructed. I have much less for what Steinbrenner has done.

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by Melo

Trust me, I'm an avowed Yankee hater but I have great respect for what Gene Michael constructed. I have much less for what Steinbrenner has done.

Oh, we're on the same page, my friend.

[mlyons]

Originally Posted by Johnny99

I just don't believe that its healthy for a sport to have a built in advantage, and I don't care how you want to spin it, its a built in advantage, conferred on a group of top tier teams while others are perpetually consigned to the bottom of the standings. I grew up a Yankee fan. And I watched great players like George Brett play his entire career for Kansas City and help them win division titles. Today, Brett would have left KC at 27 or 28 and gone to NY or Boston or LA. And that sucks. A salary cap is what allows Brett Favre to still be in Green Bay.

Baseball has always had a built in advantage for large market teams -- after all, twenty of those Yankee World Series titles came before the free agency era. It didn't seem to hurt it for most of the twentieth century, though. Baseball seems pretty healthy right now, too. I believe attendance was at an all-time high this season.

[mlyons]

dola

Originally Posted by Melo

Or, they acquired those players via trade because the team knew that they wouldn't be able to afford to sign them after the season.

Either way, it comes down to the same thing: the Yankees had the resources to pay those contracts while the other teams did not.

Again, Cone, Clemens, and Martinez were all acquired in the middle of their contracts, not during their "walk" years.

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by Johnny99

I just don't believe that its healthy for a sport to have a built in advantage, and I don't care how you want to spin it, its a built in advantage, conferred on a group of top tier teams while others are perpetually consigned to the bottom of the standings.

You do realize that there's more competitive balance today than there was in the 60's or any time before that, don't you?

[Melo]

Originally Posted by Joshv02

Except that if they trade for the players, instead of sign the players, no one can blame them for spending their money unwisely. It is the team that signed the player that is the fool, while the Yankees are simply capitalizing on others idiocy.

Yeah but there is a caveat to that. Don't forget that a lot of teams used the Yankees to get what they wanted. The very spectre of the Yankees could add $ to any contract negotiation. How many times did a players agent drop a hint about the Yankees and a GM figure he better lock a guy up before he lost him with nothing in return?

You could call it what you want but the Yankees had a tangible effect on the market and a players perceived worth.

Also, don't forget that one team might consider exhorbitant could be easily absorbed by the Yankees. That kind of power has a big effect on the market.

[IatricSB]

Originally Posted by CommishJoe

IThe real comparison is teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals, Cubs, Braves, Angels, Dodgers, Mets, Orioles who all have VERY deep pockets. However, it doesn't matter how much you spend, it's HOW you spend it.

If you're speaking of the past, then OK. But in the present, the Dodgers no longer have deep pockets. They seem to be determined to not have more than an 85 Mil salary.

[Melo]

Originally Posted by mlyons

dolaAgain, Cone, Clemens, and Martinez were all acquired in the middle of their contracts, not during their "walk" years.

We're both wrong or both not completely right, I should say.

Cone was traded to the Yankees on 7-28-95. He was granted Free Agency on 11-3-95 and resigned by the Yankees 12-21-95.

Tino Martinez was in the midst of his 6th Major League season when he was traded. His first ML experience started in 1990. I'm pretty sure he was eligible for free agency in 1996 but the Yankees locked him up after acquiring him. It's possible he had one year of arb left but still the issue was that Seattle felt they would be unable to sign him if he went FA.

Clemens was in the middle of his contract.

[Johnny99]

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

You do realize that there's more competitive balance today than there was in the 60's or any time before that, don't you?

You do realize that good, old fashioned dynasties like the Yankees, Celtics, Canadiens and Packers were the result, for the most part, of smart, hard working organizations that were able to hold on to their best players without high spending teams being able to cherry pick their best players away?

[Y0DA55]

Originally Posted by Melo

Clemens was in the middle of his contract.

What were the circumstances regarding this trade? Why did the Blue Jays think that this was a good trade? Why did they do it?

[Johnny99]

Originally Posted by mlyons

Baseball has always had a built in advantage for large market teams -- after all, twenty of those Yankee World Series titles came before the free agency era. It didn't seem to hurt it for most of the twentieth century, though. Baseball seems pretty healthy right now, too. I believe attendance was at an all-time high this season.

Your argument seems to be that, because those old Yankee teams had success, therefore it must mean there was a built in advantage for big market teams. How many championships did Boston win in those years? Chicago? Philadelphia? How much success have the Angels had until recently?

[CommishJoe]

Tino still cost the Yankees kiddies though. That's why I never considered him a FA signing.

I found an interesting article to dispute EdRooney's "Yankees have had the highest payroll since the 17th century" quote (1994 was the latest year I could find that the Yanks didn't have the highest payroll, but I wasn't able to find data after 1996).

http://www.businessofbaseball.com/yankeespayroll.htm

[Johnny99]

The answer to almost every one of these trade questions is, the team felt it no longer made sense to be paying that player the salary they were paying him, or he was headed to free agency and they knew they couldn't afford him. The Yankees are fortunate enough that they do not care what the player makes if they think he can help, and if he doesn't help, they trade him away and pay 90% of his salary.

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by Johnny99

You do realize that good, old fashioned dynasties like the Yankees, Celtics, Canadiens and Packers were the result, for the most part, of smart, hard working organizations that were able to hold on to their best players without high spending teams being able to cherry pick their best players away?

I'm not talking about the other three sports as my knowledge of their respective histories is much less than that of baseball.

However, your conception of the "good old fashioned" Yankee dynasty is horribly wrong.

Look up how they acquired Clete Boyer, for one.

At least read a book or two before you start spouting off asinine cliche' statements about the good ole' days.

[edrooney]

Originally Posted by CommishJoe

Tino still cost the Yankees kiddies though. That's why I never considered him a FA signing.

I found an interesting article to dispute EdRooney's "Yankees have had the highest payroll since the 17th century" quote (1994 was the latest year I could find that the Yanks didn't have the highest payroll, but I wasn't able to find data after 1996).

http://www.businessofbaseball.com/yankeespayroll.htm

I'm aching to leave work, so didn't read the article, and skipped to the last paragraph, which was this:

"During the past 27 years, Major league Baseball has changed a great deal. Teams have been added, historic records have been broken, and there have been bitter labor stoppages. During this time, there has been one constant. No matter how good or bad they maybe, the New York Yankees will have a high payroll that is substantially above the league average. If it wasn’t ruinous for baseball in 1977, there is no reason to believe that it will be ruinous for baseball in 2004 and beyond. While having a large bankroll is nice to have, it is no guarantee of success on the field."

I don't believe it is ruinous for baseball, or even bad for its health. I also agree that it does not guarantee success. But the disparity does provide for a competitive imbalance, which clever heads can exploit to produce success.

Also, I'm actually agreeing with you that the Yankees get pounded for their payroll, but other high payers don't, and that's double standards.

[IatricSB]

The other advantage money has is the ability to cover mistakes. If a mid-range market signs a big name and he flops, they're sunk for the life of the contract. The Yankees just sign more until the find the ones that will help. So all this talk about how smart they are handling money IMO is just that money has hidden the mistakes (see Irabu)