Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Were Theo's moves in 2006 a stopgap or were they out to win?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Colorado Express
    I realize that the disparity is not as great as in recent years, but as an example, in 1998 the Yankees payroll was still nearly $30 million more than the league average and was still double that of most teams.
    That doesn't really tell the whole story at all. First, the Yankees spending was more like 25 million, not 30, above league average (which is still a lot), but as I'll explained, that's somewhat skewed by a couple of teams being on the extreme low end. Second, the Yankees trailed the Orioles in spending by more than 7 million. Third, the average is pulled down by a couple of teams, notably the Expos and Pirates being extremely low compared to everyone else. The Pirates spent just 13 million on payroll, while the Expos, in the midst of Loria's glorious gutting of the team, spent just 9 million. No other team spent below 20 million.

    The point, there was much, much, greater parity between what the Yankees were spending and what the rest of league was spending in the late 90s. It was not like it became this decade where the Yankees were spending 200 million, the Red Sox 125, a few teams within 30 million of that, and everyone else much further behind. But in the late 90s, the Yankees were lumped pretty closely with the other high spending teams of the day. Here's a look at the top 10 spending teams in 1998 compared to 2005 (the height of the Yankees spending):

    1998
    1. Orioles - 70.41
    2. Yankees - 63.16
    3. Braves - 59.54
    4. Indians - 59.03
    5. Rangers - 54.71
    6. Cardinals - 52.57
    7. Mariners - 52.03
    8. Red Sox - 51.65
    9. Mets - 49.56
    10. Cubs - 49.38

    2005
    1. Yankees - 208.31
    2. Red Sox - 123.51
    3. Mets - 101.31
    4. Angels - 97.73
    5. Phillies - 95.52
    6. Cardinals - 92.12
    7. Giants - 90.20
    8. Mariners - 87.75
    9. Cubs - 87.03
    10. Braves 86.46

    As you can see, the difference is huge between 1998 and 2005. Yes, the Yankees were a high payroll teams in the late 90s, but they really weren't doing anything that different than a number of other teams. In the 2000s, the Yankees made a quantum leap leaving the league in the dust in spending.

    Another thing this all speaks to is that even though the Yankees have kicked it into extreme overdrive, is that baseball as a whole has done tremendously well financially in the last decade as most teams are spending almost double what they spent nearly a decade ago. Some will say the other teams only spend because they have to keep up with the Yankees, but that's not really it - the teams spend because they have the money to spend, and spending more makes them more competitive (if spent well). Besides, I'd rather have teams spending on themselves to try to keep up with the Yankees rather than their billionaire owners pocket all that money (as some owners have done with the revenue sharing).

    I'm very curious to see how this year looks as I imagine the Yankees will be slightly lower in spending, the Red Sox higher, but I'm curious to see where teams like the Cubs, Mets, Angels, Dodgers, and Giants are in spending.

    Comment


    • #77
      Off topic, but anyone who roots for the Red Sox that whines about the Yankee payroll should be shot in the foot. It's one of the most baseless and feeble arguments out there still today, unfortunately.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by winningtheweapon
        You must be sarcastic.
        Not at all. Do you realize that he traded away a pitcher, when that was what he needed, for another outfielder, which he had too many of? Dumb. Signing a guy who can't stay healthy for his life to a 5-year contract? Dumb. Trading away a guy with a 143 OPS+ and a guy with a 396 ERA+ (yes, 396) for a guy with a 53 OPS+? DUMB. Epstein has become one of the worst GMs in the MLB.
        Last edited by Erik Bedard; 02-17-2007, 07:24 AM.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Erik Bedard
          Not at all. Do you realize that he traded away the NL RoY, as well as Anibal Sanchez, for a guy with an ERA over 5 and Mike Lowell? Dumb move. And trading away a pitcher, when that was what he needed, for another outfielder, which he had too many of? Dumb. Signing a guy who can't stay healthy for his life to a 5-year contract? Dumb. Trading away a guy with a 143 OPS+ and a guy with a 396 ERA+ (yes, 396) for a guy with a 53 OPS+? DUMB. Epstein has become one of the worst GMs in the MLB.

          I never said Anibal and Hanley weren't good prospects, but:

          Beckett still has ace potential, it was his transition year in the American League and he did have dominant games. He just needs to dominate on the good lineups this year.

          Mike Lowell was a good pickup because LOOK, Bill Mueller had to retire! That was a rather weak argument.

          Pena has power potential and could easily become Manny's replacement since there are no left field prospects in the Red Sox system. Arroyo was mediocre at best in the American League.

          I have no idea who you're referring to in the second to last sentence.

          And no he's not, I could list a ton of GM's that are much worse. I don't think you need me to go through the list.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by winningtheweapon
            I never said Anibal and Hanley weren't good prospects, but:

            Beckett still has ace potential, it was his transition year in the American League and he did have dominant games. He just needs to dominate on the good lineups this year.

            Mike Lowell was a good pickup because LOOK, Bill Mueller had to retire! That was a rather weak argument.

            Pena has power potential and could easily become Manny's replacement since there are no left field prospects in the Red Sox system. Arroyo was mediocre at best in the American League.

            I have no idea who you're referring to in the second to last sentence.

            And no he's not, I could list a ton of GM's that are much worse. I don't think you need me to go through the list.
            I agree with every word you say on that one except for Beckett... I actually think that you are too optimistic for him. There might have been a lot of 'transition' years, but is there any pitchers who have succeded after dominating in NL and faltering in AL? There might be, but in low probability.
            What Igawa does for fun:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7KzVSA7eBY

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by AcidLake
              I agree with every word you say on that one except for Beckett... I actually think that you are too optimistic for him. There might have been a lot of 'transition' years, but is there any pitchers who have succeded after dominating in NL and faltering in AL? There might be, but in low probability.

              Regardless, Beckett still has a high ceiling, and that's why I choose to remain optimistic.

              Comment


              • #82
                [QUOTE=winningtheweapon]
                Pena has power potential and could easily become Manny's replacement since there are no left field prospects in the Red Sox system. Arroyo was mediocre at best in the American League.
                QUOTE]

                Just to let you know, Coco Crisp's natural position is LF. So it's likely that when Manny finally leaves Crisp could be in LF.

                Comment


                • #83
                  I think one of Beckett's big problems last year (other than adjusting to a new league with deeper lineups) was that his arm never had to endure a full ML season. Every year of his career, he'd miss significant time, usually with non-throwing arm related injuries, so his arm was always well rested and never had to deal with the strain of pitching every 5th day over a six month period. Last year was the first time he had to do that, and I don't think it's a coincidence that he increasingly struggled as the year went on - it was new territory for his arm. I think he should be better this year now that he's gotten that first heavy and consistent workload season out of the way. I also don't think Verducci's year after effect should be much of an issue with Beckett because his IP numbers have gradually increased every year of his career - because of his injuries, he's come along almost how like the Yankees are trying to bring Philip Hughes along - through gradual yearly increases in workload. I think Beckett should be ultimately better for this, as he has the stuff to be a frontline pitcher, but we'll just have to wait and see at this point.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by DoubleX
                    That doesn't really tell the whole story at all. First, the Yankees spending was more like 25 million, not 30, above league average (which is still a lot), but as I'll explained, that's somewhat skewed by a couple of teams being on the extreme low end. Second, the Yankees trailed the Orioles in spending by more than 7 million. Third, the average is pulled down by a couple of teams, notably the Expos and Pirates being extremely low compared to everyone else. The Pirates spent just 13 million on payroll, while the Expos, in the midst of Loria's glorious gutting of the team, spent just 9 million. No other team spent below 20 million.
                    ...but they were still spending MUCH more than the smaller budget teams, which is the point I'm trying to get across. Think about what $10 million...$20 million...$30 million more bought the Yankees at that time (3-4 all-stars that lower budget teams can't afford)?

                    This also adds further support to what I was saying in regards to how they spent intelligently during that time frame. They didn't go out and simply over-spend on the best players, they simply bought the best talent by out-bidding their competition and filled their voids. I have repeatedly given credit, throughout these posts, to the Yankees for spending wisely and judging talent appropriately during that time-frame.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Colorado Express
                      Precisely. Is this by accident or is this because they are great at their jobs? Whose fault is it that the teams with more money to spend don't have "the best players"?

                      The Yankees are always in the playoffs. But since they have money does this mean that Cashman isn't great at his job? They have the best players, and the best W-L record.

                      Wow, this seems to have turned nasty...sorry to here that. I have re-read it and I still get the same thing, so I'll leave this one alone. Really, I wasn't being "intentionally dense"...I assure you my being dense is an accident.

                      I'll take you at your word on this one.

                      The Yankees were spending "loads" of cash, only behind the Orioles. And this response has everything to do with your previous post stating "So, no matter what they do, they cant be good because they have a lot of money to give? That makes sense..". I actually gave the Yankees credit for spending wisely during that time frame. And to avoid dragging this out, my statement holds even more true if they weren't over spending during that time.

                      Read many of DoubleX's posts on this subject.

                      Please don't take away my cred ! I don't think that I ever said that they signed all these guys as free-agents (did I?), but the fact that they absorbed these contracts (be it through, free agency, trades or extensions) is something that most other teams can't do.

                      I guess it's pretty easy to dance around something when the exact words weren't typed. I'll take it that "throwing boat load of money at players" now means to 'absorb contracts'... are they throwing out or absorbing? If you look the two words up, i'm sure you'll see that the meaning are quite different.
                      ..............
                      Last edited by Westlake; 02-18-2007, 01:09 AM.
                      Originally posted by Domenic
                      The Yankees should see if Yogi Berra can still get behind the plate - he has ten World Series rings... he must be worth forty or fifty million a season.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by DoubleX
                        I think one of Beckett's big problems last year (other than adjusting to a new league with deeper lineups) was that his arm never had to endure a full ML season. Every year of his career, he'd miss significant time, usually with non-throwing arm related injuries, so his arm was always well rested and never had to deal with the strain of pitching every 5th day over a six month period. Last year was the first time he had to do that, and I don't think it's a coincidence that he increasingly struggled as the year went on - it was new territory for his arm. I think he should be better this year now that he's gotten that first heavy and consistent workload season out of the way. I also don't think Verducci's year after effect should be much of an issue with Beckett because his IP numbers have gradually increased every year of his career - because of his injuries, he's come along almost how like the Yankees are trying to bring Philip Hughes along - through gradual yearly increases in workload. I think Beckett should be ultimately better for this, as he has the stuff to be a frontline pitcher, but we'll just have to wait and see at this point.
                        Good post.

                        Comment

                        Ad Widget

                        Collapse
                        Working...
                        X