Damn Yankees, when does football start?

[Ksyrup]

An update from Rotworld...


According to the Newark Star-Ledger, the Rangers and Mets could talk later this spring about a trade that would send Alfonso Soriano back to New York for Jose Reyes and Tyler Yates.
It's believed that the Mets want Soriano, but they'd probably prefer to keep Reyes and build a deal around top pitching prospect Scott Kazmir. The Mets view Soriano as a right fielder, so they'd still want Reyes at second base.

[The_herd]

If the Mets trade Reyes I'm going to New York to punch the shit out of Jim Duquette.

[oykib]

A deal for A-Rod is probably the one positive way the Mets could have gotten rid of Roger Cedeno. I wonder if Hicks would have gone for Cedeno and Tom Glavine striaght up with no money changing hands. Maybe the Mets would have had to throw on a fig leaf prospect and Ty Wiggington or something.

But it is now obvious that Hicks was desperate to get rid of A-Rod. Every team that is not the Yankees and is in a middle to major market should be ashamed of themselves.

Don't the Giants have some more young pitching prospects in their system? Think of a lineup with 3. Bonds 4. A-Rod.

How about the Cubbies? They've got more cheap fireballers than you can shake a stick at. They also had Hee Seop Choi before that stupid deal with the Marlins. A-Rod would virtually have guarunteed them the Central.

We already know that Boston could have had Rodriguez and Magglio Ordonez instead of Garciaparra and Ramirez but for their own stupidity.

Wasn't Seattle in the market for a shortstop? Couldn't they have given Texas Guillen and that giant pitcher they've got in the minors, who'll never develop, to try and get A-Rod back?

Basically, the GMs in all these towns need to take a hit. The fact that Texas was willing to kick in as much money as they did knowing that they are getting a guy who's going to demand about half of A-rod's salary in his own right tells you that it was a buyer's market for one of the all-time greats. How often does that happen?

Actually, though, the Mets should take a bigger hit for not signing Guerrero. I was somewhat pissed myself that the Yanks went after Sheffield for a few million less rather than Guerrero. But the Yanks still got an impact hitter (that they really don't need).

Guerrero is the one of three young position players playing today that looks like he's going to be an all-time great. He's just entered his prime. His comps:

Similar Batters through Age 27
Willie Mays (929) *
Duke Snider (912) *
Orlando Cepeda (896) *
Manny Ramirez (894)
Joe DiMaggio (884) *
Jim Rice (882)
Frank Robinson (878) *
Hank Aaron (876) *
Hal Trosky (874)
Juan Gonzalez (872)

Most Similar by Age
22. Joe Medwick (935) *
23. Willie Mays (927) *
24. Willie Mays (927) *
25. Willie Mays (917) *
26. Willie Mays (908) *
27. Willie Mays (929) *

You can't let a player like that pass. Even if the lie they told about his health were true, he is wotrth the risk. How can a team that's paying a geriatric Tom Glavine $10 million pass up a guy whose most similar comp through age 27 is Willie Mays, and whose walk rate and power numbers have improved almost every year?

Seven of his ten best comparables are Hall of Famers. And we're not talking bullshit, borderline HoFers either. Four of those seven are among the twenty best players ever. Six of his top eight are Hall of Famers. Jim Rice is number six and he's nearly a HoFer. Manny Ramirez is number four.

Just ridiculous. The Mets are almost an object lesson on how not to run a franchise. They spend tens of millions of dollars on guys like Mo Vaughn, Tom Glavine, Roger Cedeno, and Cliff Floyd. Guys that anyone with half a capful of baseball knowledge could see were going to bust. Then, they get gunshy when an almost surefire upper echelon HOFer comes along.

I'll give them a pass on Roberto Alomar, whom I thought would do well myself, and Jeromy Burnitz, whom I didn't think would be bad-- although I thought his best years were behind him. But those two moves wouldn't have killed them had they spent the rest of their money wisely.

I feel for Mets fans everywhere.

[Ksyrup]

The fact that the Yankees will be paying less for A-Rod for 2004 and 2005 than the Rangers will for Soriano, should tell you something. The Yanks are going to end up paying A-Rod $14M a year through 2005, and Soriano costs them $5M this year, plus the $9M they are paying A-Rod, and next year will likely receive around $8-9M in arbitration, plus the $9M the Rangers are paying A-Rod.

This deal may give the Rangers more payroll flexibility, but it won't be until 2008!

[HornedFrog Purple]

Yeah I guess that's why they inked Blaylock for 5 years and are in talks with Texiera to do the same.

Soriano is gone by the trading deadline if not sooner.

These moves help free up money to go after Kerry Wood.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by HornedFrog Purple

Yeah I guess that's why they inked Blaylock for 5 years and are in talks with Texiera to do the same.

Soriano is gone by the trading deadline if not sooner.

These moves help free up money to go after Kerry Wood.

If Soriano is gone by the deadline anyway, why not just get those prospects now and save the $3 million dollars that you are going to be paying him for half a season's work. Had the Rangers made it known that they would be willing to give up A-Rod at $13 million per I think they could have gotten an A prospect and two B prosects for him. They played their hand wrong.

If they'd let the NY or Chicago papers know that A-Rod was available under those circumstances, I think the Cubs or Mets would have been forced to make a move. Basically, because they went with Cashman an co.'s recommendation to keep it silent, they sold on the Yankees terms.

As much as A-Rod wanted to go to the East coast, I have to think that he'd have taken a deal to any contender in a major media market. Especially, if he could have stayed at short. Also, on any other team but the Yanks, he'd still be 'the man.' Anywhere else he goes, he's the reason that the team won the World Series. Even if he went to the Giants he'd be 1A, but he'd be credited with putting the team over the hump.

If he wins with the Yanks, it'll be considered a coattail championship. Every championship the Yankees win is Derek Jeter's championship, even though he hasn't been the best player on the team since 1999.

[HornedFrog Purple]

No one knows besides the teams involved who talked to who about anything, only if the teams want it to be known. I think it's safe to say that more than the Red Sox and Yankees talked to Texas about A-Rod.

Maybe because the union was such a pain regarding any kind of restructuring it scared off some suitors.

The point is you don't know and neither do I.

[oykib]

HFP, are you telling me that you think that the Rangers got thebest deal that they could for A-Rod?

But even worse than them-- I mean they were going to end up looking bad on any deal that they made-- I am really wondering about all the other conteders. Let's skip Houston, as I actually believe that they've pushed their payroll to the limit and they were busy getting Clemens.

But think of Anaheim, Los Angeles, Seattle, both Chicago teams, Boston...

Any one of those teams could have put together a better offer than the Yanks. Every one of those teams needed A-Rod more. I don't know what deals were offered. But if you are in the position to make a deal like that, you find a way to make it happen.

Basically the discussion started as, "OMG the Yaks buy another championship." But it turns out that just about every contender could have afforded him at the price that he was sold at. If you're one of these teams, you have to make it happen. That's why these GMs get paid ten to twenty times what you and I make.

The Yanks were going to make the playoffs regardless. They were also going to sell three-and-a-half million tickets without A-Rod. These other teams operate in a world of uncertainty. Having A-Rod would make their possible success just that much more certain-- both in wins and at the box office.

I guess the Cubs and Sox were going to have no trouble making money. But neither team has won a title since before the Eisenhower administration. So You'd think that they'd have done what it takes anyway.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Originally Posted by oykib

HFP, are you telling me that you think that the Rangers got thebest deal that they could for A-Rod?

But even worse than them-- I mean they were going to end up looking bad on any deal that they made-- I am really wondering about all the other conteders. Let's skip Houston, as I actually believe that they've pushed their payroll to the limit and they were busy getting Clemens.

But think of Anaheim, Los Angeles, Seattle, both Chicago teams, Boston...

Any one of those teams could have put together a better offer than the Yanks. Every one of those teams needed A-Rod more. I don't know what deals were offered. But if you are in the position to make a deal like that, you find a way to make it happen.

Basically the discussion started as, "OMG the Yaks buy another championship." But it turns out that just about every contender could have afforded him at the price that he was sold at. If you're one of these teams, you have to make it happen. That's why these GMs get paid ten to twenty times what you and I make.

The Yanks were going to make the playoffs regardless. They were also going to sell three-and-a-half million tickets without A-Rod. These other teams operate in a world of uncertainty. Having A-Rod would make their possible success just that much more certain-- both in wins and at the box office.

I guess the Cubs and Sox were going to have no trouble making money. But neither team has won a title since before the Eisenhower administration. So You'd think that they'd have done what it takes anyway.

Knowing Tom Hicks, he probably did think it was the best deal he could get.

But putting that aside, of all the teams you mentioned, I don't think most of those teams would have absorbed that trade without more of a restructuring of A-Rod's contract except maybe the Red Sox and Dodgers.

Seattle has been trying to cut payroll, Anaheim could not take that contract and hope to keep a core for any length of time, the White Sox don't sell tickets no matter what kind of team they have.

There are only a couple of teams along with the Yankees that can do what the Yankees did. If some of these other teams you mentioned did do it, you'd see a Marlins firesale in a couple of years regardless of how they did.

That is really the difference.

[oykib]

I can understand your argument about the White Sox. I don't really believe it-- after all, what great superstars have the White Sox had and what consistent winners have they put on the field since the days of Shoeless Joe.

But other teams would get the revenue back at the gate with A-Rod on the team. A-Rod at $25 million is a losing proposition. A-Rod at $15 million is a good proposition. How much are the cubs paying Alex Gonzales to be their shortstop? Include him in the packege to get A-Rod and they'd only be adding maybe ten million to their payroll.

Seattle makes money like they print it themselves. They're just being cheap. Anaheim has already shown that they are in a spending mode. They could have shipped off the oft-offered Eckstein and Washburn for A-Rod and not added much to their wage bill.

I'm just not buying that only the Yanks could have or should have made this trade.

[stevew]

I'm Bummed, as a Philly fan that we couldnt get the ARod thing to Happen for us. I know our payroll is at its seams, but theres no Reason we couldnt have thrown them some stud arms and some young guys like Rollins and/or Burrell. Especially if Texas was willing to pay 10 mil a year of the deal

[HornedFrog Purple]

Seattle getting A-Rod would be a PR disaster. Most of the Mariner fans that post on this board hold A-Rod in contempt.

A-Rod at 15 million for 3 years is good, it's the rest of the contract they have to worry about.

The Cubs acquiring A-Rod eliminates any chance of resigning Kerry Wood. It is easier to find hitters for Wrigley Field than pitchers for Wrigley Field. Also the Rangers would not take Gonzales as they could move Michael Young to SS and also have a good prospect there (though his name escapes me at the moment).

For all we know maybe Anaheim offered that deal and the Rangers didn't want the players.

I never said the Yankees were the only ones that could have made this trade, but they were one of a couple.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by oykib

I can understand your argument about the White Sox. I don't really believe it-- after all, what great superstars have the White Sox had and what consistent winners have they put on the field since the days of Shoeless Joe.

I'm just not buying that only the Yanks could have or should have made this trade.

The problem with the White Sox lies in that they're always going to be second fiddle to the Cubs. I was just thinking to myself "you know, I can't think of the last time the White Sox were in the cellar" and went over the baseball-refence.com. The last time they finished lower than 3rd in their division was 1989 and, while they only have 3 playoffs appearances to their record, have always been competitive with only one season under 80 wins (not including the two strike-shortened seasons). They had one of the premiere players in the early 90s in Frank Thomas. I remember that for 5 years, he and Griffery were the two marquee players in the big leagues. He hit .300 with 40 homers before everyone and their mom could do it. So I think that's not fair to say they haven't had consistent winning or major stars.

The Yanks were the only team that could have made this trade this late in the offseason. Everyone else had already spent their money so Hicks bargaining power was way down. If this is November, even an idiot like Hicks points out that a team's salary is low compared to last season and they have to pick up $20M of his remaining salary instead of getting him for a relative bargain like the Yankees did. And if they balk at that, then he moves onto the next suitor because there would have been many. Hicks priced everyone out of the competition and had to settle for dealing with the Yankees. Smart move on their part, stupid move on his, and the rest of baseball wishes they had that kind of payroll flexibility.

SI

[oykib]

SI, the White Sox record in hindsight looks good. But winning means pennants. You can't build a rep as a winning team with .500 records, even if you have .500 records every year. Also, Frank Thomas is one of the most boring great players of all time.

He doesn't play in the field very often, and when he did/does you wish he weren't/didn't. He works a walk every fourth plate appearance and it appears like that's what he's trying to do all the time. And he's proven once and for all that there is nothing in baseball duller than watching a slow righthanded hitter.

Over the years the White Sox haven't had that fireballing strikeout pitcher. Even in the seventies and eighties they didn't have that speed demon-- even though it seems like every other team has. But worst of all, they haven't won any championships. That's the real killer. A semi dynasty with a few pennants and/or championships would have a chance of turning around a few of the fans in that town. Going to Wrigley is always going to be an experience. But people always support a winner.

As an addendum to the big slow guy who takes the walk be the dullest thing in baseball-- I wonder if the fact that it's not fun to watch and therefore is not a box office or television draw is the real reason that Beane and the A's have moved to the pitching and defense model. The common wisdom is that he plans to keep Mulder, Zito, and Hudson and hopefully Harden as stud pitchers and has to maximize their effectiveness. But that has never made a whole lot of sense to me.

You win by outscoring your opponents. You can do that by holding them to a miniscule amount of runs and score a slightly-more-than-miniscule amount yourselves. Or you can do that by holding your opponent to a respectably low number of runs and scoring a good amount yourself. There are still bargains to be had in undervalued hitters. They don't really cost any more than no-bat defensive specialists. This idea is the only one that makes sense to me. I wonder if is having an impact or will have an impact going forward that the A's are cutting time off of the games and adding more dynamic plays.

[Ksyrup]

FYI, this is from Rob Neyer's latest column. I found this interesting, regarding the Yankees' payroll now vs. 25+ years ago:


"There's no guarantee they'll win on the field. But I'm not sure there's any reasonable limit to the Yankees' financial power. And you know, it's been like this for a long time. I attended a local SABR meeting this weekend, and Mike Rice noted that the Yankees' payroll, as a percentage of all MLB payroll, was essentially the same in 2003 as it was in 1977, and generally has remained stable since then."