Did anyone notice...

[Trevytrev11]

Re: Did anyone notice...

God bless the Yankees (or any other team) for taking their money and pumping it back into the team.

I wish my ownership did EVERYTHING in their power to put a winning product out on the field no matter what.

Like it or not, these players still have to perform. Zito hasn't performed. Burnett hasn't particularly performed this year. Countless other millionaires haven't performed either. It's all about finding who WILL perform.

I'm more pissed at teams who mismanage their money or don't even spend it, than the ones who actually play to win.

You want to make the playoffs and not spend a ****load of money on players? Draft smart, manage smart, scout smart, and you'll find your teams in there sooner or later despite your limitations. See; Tampa Bay, Minnesota, Oakland, hell, even the Braves have not spent nearly as much as they used to, and yet with guys like Hanson/Heyward/Prado/McCann/Kimbrel/Venters/Medlen all coming up from the minors. Hell, even bargain signings/trades like Ankiel (who made the trade pay off with ONE swing of the bat last night), Lee, etc. I mean, jeez.

I'm so sick of this argument. SO sick of it.

/rant off

I agree with almost everything you said. My only response is that given these two formulas (spending up the *** vs. basically being a perfectly executing organization), the teams that spend, spend, spend for the most part have (or should have) the opportunity to compete for a title every year where as the other teams that build from within are only going to compete for short spurts of a few years then have to rebuild all over again.

I look back to the early 00's A's. Had they had the resources to carry a larger payroll ($100M+), they could have kept that team together for a few more years and made 2 or 3 more runs, but they couldn't and had to trade talent they developed in their system as they were heaing into their prime years (Hudson, Mulder, Zito, Tejada, Ethier) for prospects and start all over again.

So yes, teams like the early 00's A's and the Twins and the Rays can build from within, but once that talent matures and becomes unaffordable, the teams have to start all over from scratch. We'll see it from the Rays this year as they have to cut their payroll by 1/3.

I don't fault the Yankee's, Red Sox, etc. for spending. Like you, it's more bothersome for me to have teams receiving luxury tax money and not spending it. However, for me, I see the field as completely unbalanced and think that the game would be better off with a cap.

I don't imagine the World Series of Poker wouldn't be as huge of an event and nearly as popular or fair if most players entered with $10,000 in chips and some had $150,000 to start with.

I'm kind of hoping the Yankee's win like 10 or 15 in a row as it may be the only way change happens.

[WazzuRC]

Re: Did anyone notice...

I agree with almost everything you said. My only response is that given these two formulas (spending up the *** vs. basically being a perfectly executing organization), the teams that spend, spend, spend for the most part have (or should have) the opportunity to compete for a title every year where as the other teams that build from within are only going to compete for short spurts of a few years then have to rebuild all over again.

I look back to the early 00's A's. Had they had the resources to carry a larger payroll ($100M+), they could have kept that team together for a few more years and made 2 or 3 more runs, but they couldn't and had to trade talent they developed in their system as they were heaing into their prime years (Hudson, Mulder, Zito, Tejada, Ethier) for prospects and start all over again.

So yes, teams like the early 00's A's and the Twins and the Rays can build from within, but once that talent matures and becomes unaffordable, the teams have to start all over from scratch. We'll see it from the Rays this year as they have to cut their payroll by 1/3.

I don't fault the Yankee's, Red Sox, etc. for spending. Like you, it's more bothersome for me to have teams receiving luxury tax money and not spending it. However, for me, I see the field as completely unbalanced and think that the game would be better off with a cap.

I don't imagine the World Series of Poker wouldn't be as huge of an event and nearly as popular or fair if most players entered with $10,000 in chips and some had $150,000 to start with.

I'm kind of hoping the Yankee's win like 10 or 15 in a row as it may be the only way change happens.

I completely agree with everything you said.

There should be a high salary cap and a floor as well to stop owners from keeping all the profits when they should be spending some of it to get a better product on the field IMO.

[steelcurtain311]

Re: Did anyone notice...

I don't fault the Yankee's, Red Sox, etc. for spending. Like you, it's more bothersome for me to have teams receiving luxury tax money and not spending it. However, for me, I see the field as completely unbalanced and think that the game would be better off with a cap.

Telling other teams to spend more isn't the answer, that's just furthering the broken system, and the reason why players get such absurdly inflated contracts in the MLB. They should be LIMITING the spending of the other teams, not forcing others to spend hundreds of millions just to stay afloat competitively. That's how you end up with teams like the Cubs. When one team can basically pick and choose an All-Star for every position through free agency, that isn't a professional sport, that's a video game. The Yankees payroll is absurd, period. That's the only word I can even use to describe it. It's simply put, absurd. They spend so much more than any other team in baseball. The answer shouldn't be telling other teams to spend as much as them, as no team should be spending that much to begin with. The answer should be to stop inflating FA contracts to the point that mediocre players are getting 80-100 million dollar deals, just because that's "fair market value" under the current system. Some kind of spending floor fixes this. You shouldn't have half of your starting players making 15 to over 20 million dollars per season, that's ridiculous. It isn't this way in any other sport.

The Pirates opened their books, believe it or not, small market teams aren't pocketing the revenue sharing, or re-investing it in private businesses. A lot of them need this money just to break even, or they use it for scouting and player development, to scout and develop all of the future Yankees. The Pirates aren't profiting much by putting out a losing team, and they're the cheapest team in the MLB, not to mention one of the worst in attendance, so it's not nearly what people thought. It was thought that the Nuttings were lining their pockets every year, but that really isn't the case. They spent money on the draft, and a multi-million dollar facility in the DR. So if you can't turn a big profit by putting out the cheapest team possible, how do you think other small market teams are profiting, considering there is no cheaper team than the Pirates?

[Trevytrev11]

Re: Did anyone notice...

Telling other teams to spend more isn't the answer, that's just furthering the broken system, and the reason why players get such absurdly inflated contracts in the MLB. They should be LIMITING the spending of the other teams, not forcing others to spend hundreds of millions just to stay afloat competitively. That's how you end up with teams like the Cubs. When one team can basically pick and choose an All-Star for every position through free agency, that isn't a professional sport, that's a video game. The Yankees payroll is absurd, period. That's the only word I can even use to describe it. It's simply put, absurd. They spend so much more than any other team in baseball. The answer shouldn't be telling other teams to spend as much as them, as no team should be spending that much to begin with. The answer should be to stop inflating FA contracts to the point that mediocre players are getting 80-100 million dollar deals, just because that's "fair market value" under the current system. Some kind of spending floor fixes this. You shouldn't have half of your starting players making 15 to over 20 million dollars per season, that's ridiculous. It isn't this way in any other sport.

The Pirates opened their books, believe it or not, small market teams aren't pocketing the revenue sharing, or re-investing it in private businesses. A lot of them need this money just to break even, or they use it for scouting and player development, to scout and develop all of the future Yankees. The Pirates aren't profiting much by putting out a losing team, and they're the cheapest team in the MLB, not to mention one of the worst in attendance, so it's not nearly what people thought. It was thought that the Nuttings were lining their pockets every year, but that really isn't the case. They spent money on the draft, and a multi-million dollar facility in the DR. So if you can't turn a big profit by putting out the cheapest team possible, how do you think other small market teams are profiting, considering there is no cheaper team than the Pirates?

Just to clarify, I'm not saying they should spend more...I just don't blame them for doing so. They are playing within the rules that exist...However, I do think the rules are broken.

And with those rules, you can never expect contracts to stop inflating because, what is $5M more to a team like the Yankee's ro Red Sox. They will always be able to outbid any other team and therefore will continue to push contracts up. I have to believe that had any other team outbid the Yankee's for Sabathia, they would have simly just upped their bid again. If it took $30M to put him in pinstripes, you have to believe that they would have paid it.

I don't expect other organizations to match them...they don't have the resources to do so.

[ryan36]

Re: Did anyone notice...

So if you can't turn a big profit by putting out the cheapest team possible, how do you think other small market teams are profiting, considering there is no cheaper team than the Pirates?

When the Pirates sign a GM worth a damn, they will have similar success to the Marlins, or Rays. Most fans will support a winner. You wanna make money? Win. In the Central, even the Cards have cut payroll and the Cubs suck. There's absolutely no reason the Pirates can't be good. They overrate young talent, and instead of letting the play in the minors too long they rush them to the majors. Where they promptly lose their trade value, and suck. I don't think the system is the problem, I think the management is. Pittsburgh is big enough to field a winner. They say small market, but small market is still big enough to field a 75 million dollar payroll. It's actually not that hard with a minor investment and some business sense.

[steelcurtain311]

Re: Did anyone notice...

Neal Huntington has done a fine job. Dave Littlefield was their problem. In three drafts and trade deadlines, Huntington has already amassed more talent than Littlefield ever did. I have no idea what you're talking about "overrating young talent" and rushing them. I can't think of a single case of this. They haven't had any great talent in their farm since the 90's, until McCutchen started it now.

[TheMatrix31]

Re: Did anyone notice...

I agree with almost everything you said. My only response is that given these two formulas (spending up the *** vs. basically being a perfectly executing organization), the teams that spend, spend, spend for the most part have (or should have) the opportunity to compete for a title every year where as the other teams that build from within are only going to compete for short spurts of a few years then have to rebuild all over again.

I look back to the early 00's A's. Had they had the resources to carry a larger payroll ($100M+), they could have kept that team together for a few more years and made 2 or 3 more runs, but they couldn't and had to trade talent they developed in their system as they were heaing into their prime years (Hudson, Mulder, Zito, Tejada, Ethier) for prospects and start all over again.

So yes, teams like the early 00's A's and the Twins and the Rays can build from within, but once that talent matures and becomes unaffordable, the teams have to start all over from scratch. We'll see it from the Rays this year as they have to cut their payroll by 1/3.

I don't fault the Yankee's, Red Sox, etc. for spending. Like you, it's more bothersome for me to have teams receiving luxury tax money and not spending it. However, for me, I see the field as completely unbalanced and think that the game would be better off with a cap.

I don't imagine the World Series of Poker wouldn't be as huge of an event and nearly as popular or fair if most players entered with $10,000 in chips and some had $150,000 to start with.

I'm kind of hoping the Yankee's win like 10 or 15 in a row as it may be the only way change happens.

Oh yeah, the smaller teams have cyclical success. Hell though, look at the Marlins, they're about to go into their third cycle of success with already two World Series wins in 17 years of existence(wow, its been that long already?). A lot of people might even prefer short bursts of championship success than sustained contention with not as much, if at all.

[ryan36]

Re: Did anyone notice...

Oh yeah, the smaller teams have cyclical success. Hell though, look at the Marlins, they're about to go into their third cycle of success with already two World Series wins in 17 years of existence(wow, its been that long already?). A lot of people might even prefer short bursts of championship success than sustained contention with not as much, if at all.

I'd prefer a championship every 5 to 6 years to 12 pennants and 1 WS win

[Sportsforever]

Re: Did anyone notice...

I'd prefer a championship every 5 to 6 years to 12 pennants and 1 WS win

I don't think I would/do. I would prefer my team is in it as often as possible, even if they don't win. In the end it's entertainment and I am more entertained when my team is in the hunt. Ideally you get both, but I would much rather have been a Braves fan the last 20 years than a Marlins fan.

[TheMatrix31]

Re: Did anyone notice...

I don't like the bursts and tear-down though, because it's sad. If it was a championship burst and then no intentional shakedown, just lackluster performance, I might be happy with the 5-6 year method.

But the tear-down method, that doesn't fly with me.

[Dog]

Re: Did anyone notice...

I don't think I would/do. I would prefer my team is in it as often as possible, even if they don't win. In the end it's entertainment and I am more entertained when my team is in the hunt. Ideally you get both, but I would much rather have been a Braves fan the last 20 years than a Marlins fan.

Eagles fans are very familiar with this

[steelcurtain311]

Re: Did anyone notice...

I don't like the bursts and tear-down though, because it's sad. If it was a championship burst and then no intentional shakedown, just lackluster performance, I might be happy with the 5-6 year method.

But the tear-down method, that doesn't fly with me.

The tear down method sucks, because you have to go into the season knowing that your team doesn't stand a chance, and isn't going to compete. Then you have to hope that your team gets the right pieces in the trades. Then you have to wait for those pieces to develop and pan out, provided they are the right pieces. Then you have to also draft really well during this same time period. Then you have to wait for those players to develop, too. Then you have to do it all over again in 5-6 years, for maybe one or two winning seasons/playoff appearances.

But that's fair, compared to what the Yankees can do.