Building for the Future

[deeman11747]

I have a real problem with analysts and fans criticiszing teams' moves that will help them out now and hurt them in the long run. One example that obviously affects my team, is the Yankees' deal for Johnson, which kills them long term, but helps them out now.



Teams are always "builidng for the future." But when does the future actually come? For example, the Yankees beasically put themselves in a bad position for years 2007-2012. But at that expense, they have abetter shot of winning the WS this year and next than ever before.

Isnt a teams goal to get to the World Series? Well if a team is always looking to be successful in the long run, they most likely won't ever be successful at the present time. Thats why I am in favor of teams helping themselves out at the moment rather than helping them out in the future.

What if a team has a fantastic chance of winning the WS this year, but then there screwed for the next 5. But what if they dont make the deal, but in those next 5, they fall just short of the title. That it isnt worth it.

In my opinion, I'd rather have a title one year, and then miss the playoffs for the next 5 ,rather than lost in the divisional round for 6 straight years.

Of course this isnt for teams that are 100 loss teams. Obviously they have to build for the future, but I made this post after reading many many articles saying how the Yankees ruined their whole future (lets forget about free agency for a min for the sake of arguement). But they have a chance to win NOW. Their best chance to win is right now. If they kept Vazquez and Navarro and Halsey, maybe they wouldve been good enough to reach the ALCS the next 5 years, but end it there. It wouldnt be worth it.


Basically, I think teams should just put more emphasis into now, instead of the future, because the future never comes, its always a ways away.


Any comments... does anyone have any clue what I mean?

[SPTO]

Re: Building for the Future

I don't agree with this argument you make. I always like to point to the KC Royals and the Toronto Blue Jays as teams that had the right approach to building a franchise. Both clubs were expansion teams that were built on youth rather than picking up veterans who were well past their prime. Both clubs highly invested in scouting and development of the minor leagues.

It's true that both clubs had a lot of years where they were good but not good enough but that's a part of the growing process for a team. I think it's better to have a nucleus that's been together and add some talent via the trade deadline rather than stockpiling a team full of superstars and draining the minor league system.

The Yankees can afford to do this kind of stuff but in the future it's going to really kill them. A team is only as good as their minor league system IMO and the Yanks minor league system is bare. There's only so much you can do by acquiring talent via Free Agency and trades. This is why the Yanks haven't been successful in winning the WS for a while now. The emphasis is too much on free agency and trading for big names.

The Yankees of the 90s had a good mix of homegrown talent and established/aging stars. Nowadays they've got too much older talent that's going to break down at some point. They don't have any good prospects to fill in the gaps hence they'll rely on the Free Agent market far too much which will lead to bad years.

BTW the only club today that has the kind of organizational focus that I mentioned earlier are the Twins. Part of this is due to being a small market but I think Terry Ryan would've done the same kind of thing if he was in a bigger market.

[SPTO]

Re: Building for the Future

I don't agree with this argument you make. I always like to point to the KC Royals and the Toronto Blue Jays as teams that had the right approach to building a franchise. Both clubs were expansion teams that were built on youth rather than picking up veterans who were well past their prime. Both clubs highly invested in scouting and development of the minor leagues.

It's true that both clubs had a lot of years where they were good but not good enough but that's a part of the growing process for a team. I think it's better to have a nucleus that's been together and add some talent via the trade deadline rather than stockpiling a team full of superstars and draining the minor league system.

The Yankees can afford to do this kind of stuff but in the future it's going to really kill them. A team is only as good as their minor league system IMO and the Yanks minor league system is bare. There's only so much you can do by acquiring talent via Free Agency and trades. This is why the Yanks haven't been successful in winning the WS for a while now. The emphasis is too much on free agency and trading for big names.

The Yankees of the 90s had a good mix of homegrown talent and established/aging stars. Nowadays they've got too much older talent that's going to break down at some point. They don't have any good prospects to fill in the gaps hence they'll rely on the Free Agent market far too much which will lead to bad years.

BTW the only club today that has the kind of organizational focus that I mentioned earlier are the Twins. Part of this is due to being a small market but I think Terry Ryan would've done the same kind of thing if he was in a bigger market.

[Darth Dorn]

Re: Building for the Future

BTW the only club today that has the kind of organizational focus that I mentioned earlier are the Twins. Part of this is due to being a small market but I think Terry Ryan would've done the same kind of thing if he was in a bigger market.

I think you have to throw the A's in there as well. Granted, they did just go out and trade their two top pitchers, but they got some very good youngsters that are just about major league ready. They have the same philosophy in building a team, except when it comes to finding the type of players in terms of ability.

[Darth Dorn]

Re: Building for the Future

BTW the only club today that has the kind of organizational focus that I mentioned earlier are the Twins. Part of this is due to being a small market but I think Terry Ryan would've done the same kind of thing if he was in a bigger market.

I think you have to throw the A's in there as well. Granted, they did just go out and trade their two top pitchers, but they got some very good youngsters that are just about major league ready. They have the same philosophy in building a team, except when it comes to finding the type of players in terms of ability.

[deeman11747]

Re: Building for the Future

I don't agree with this argument you make. I always like to point to the KC Royals and the Toronto Blue Jays as teams that had the right approach to building a franchise. Both clubs were expansion teams that were built on youth rather than picking up veterans who were well past their prime. Both clubs highly invested in scouting and development of the minor leagues.

It's true that both clubs had a lot of years where they were good but not good enough but that's a part of the growing process for a team. I think it's better to have a nucleus that's been together and add some talent via the trade deadline rather than stockpiling a team full of superstars and draining the minor league system.

The Yankees can afford to do this kind of stuff but in the future it's going to really kill them. A team is only as good as their minor league system IMO and the Yanks minor league system is bare. There's only so much you can do by acquiring talent via Free Agency and trades. This is why the Yanks haven't been successful in winning the WS for a while now. The emphasis is too much on free agency and trading for big names.

The Yankees of the 90s had a good mix of homegrown talent and established/aging stars. Nowadays they've got too much older talent that's going to break down at some point. They don't have any good prospects to fill in the gaps hence they'll rely on the Free Agent market far too much which will lead to bad years.

BTW the only club today that has the kind of organizational focus that I mentioned earlier are the Twins. Part of this is due to being a small market but I think Terry Ryan would've done the same kind of thing if he was in a bigger market.

I completely get what your saying, but I think your misinterpeting what I was saying... I probably didnt make myself clear enough.

I'm not talking specifically about the Yankees... it was just an example. I mean when does the future become now? Teams are always making moves for the future... but if there always planning for the future... when are they ever playing for the present? Thats all I mean.

[deeman11747]

Re: Building for the Future

I don't agree with this argument you make. I always like to point to the KC Royals and the Toronto Blue Jays as teams that had the right approach to building a franchise. Both clubs were expansion teams that were built on youth rather than picking up veterans who were well past their prime. Both clubs highly invested in scouting and development of the minor leagues.

It's true that both clubs had a lot of years where they were good but not good enough but that's a part of the growing process for a team. I think it's better to have a nucleus that's been together and add some talent via the trade deadline rather than stockpiling a team full of superstars and draining the minor league system.

The Yankees can afford to do this kind of stuff but in the future it's going to really kill them. A team is only as good as their minor league system IMO and the Yanks minor league system is bare. There's only so much you can do by acquiring talent via Free Agency and trades. This is why the Yanks haven't been successful in winning the WS for a while now. The emphasis is too much on free agency and trading for big names.

The Yankees of the 90s had a good mix of homegrown talent and established/aging stars. Nowadays they've got too much older talent that's going to break down at some point. They don't have any good prospects to fill in the gaps hence they'll rely on the Free Agent market far too much which will lead to bad years.

BTW the only club today that has the kind of organizational focus that I mentioned earlier are the Twins. Part of this is due to being a small market but I think Terry Ryan would've done the same kind of thing if he was in a bigger market.

I completely get what your saying, but I think your misinterpeting what I was saying... I probably didnt make myself clear enough.

I'm not talking specifically about the Yankees... it was just an example. I mean when does the future become now? Teams are always making moves for the future... but if there always planning for the future... when are they ever playing for the present? Thats all I mean.

[SPTO]

Re: Building for the Future

I get what you're saying but I was using the Yanks as the example. The only teams that can work the way you're talking are the huge money making clubs (Yanks, BoSox, Cubs, Dodgers) That kind of philosophy that you're espousing CAN win you a WS but eventually it'll lead to destruction. Also as we've witnessed in the last couple or so years the Yanks have been spending like there's no tomorrow but haven't won the WS.

[SPTO]

Re: Building for the Future

I get what you're saying but I was using the Yanks as the example. The only teams that can work the way you're talking are the huge money making clubs (Yanks, BoSox, Cubs, Dodgers) That kind of philosophy that you're espousing CAN win you a WS but eventually it'll lead to destruction. Also as we've witnessed in the last couple or so years the Yanks have been spending like there's no tomorrow but haven't won the WS.

[nkhera1]

Re: Building for the Future

when these players retire the yanks will just sign new ones

[nkhera1]

Re: Building for the Future

when these players retire the yanks will just sign new ones

[rsox]

Re: Building for the Future

The Yankees and Dodgers are two prime examples of what spending to much emphasis on "building for now" can do to an organization.

Sportsman mentioned that the Yankees in the 90's were a good mix of homegrown and veteran players, guy's like Jeter, Posada Rivera and Andy Pettitte came out of the farm system within a 3 year span (bulding for the future), The Yankees then: replaced aging players with young players and won championships, the Yankees now: replaced aging players with...more aging players and win nothing.

With Halsey and Navarro gone, come july who are the Yankees going to trade when they need to get another arm for the bullpen or a bat off the bench?
If they spent more emphasis bulding for the future they would have players to trade to help them win now.

The Dodgers, when the O'Malley's owned the team the farm system was the Dodgers strength, now it's a weakness.
look at some of the players the Dodgers farm system produced in the early 90's: Eric Karros, Mike Piazza, Pedro Martinez, Raul Mondesi, John Wettleland, Pedro Astacio, these were (are?) good players over the course of that decade. Then Rupert Murdock took over and gave Kevin Brown a hundred-million dollar contract, did nothing with the farm system, which is now basically depleted (they have no position players that are major league ready). they emphisized on bulding for now.

The Dodgers under Rupert Murdock produced 0 playoff births.

The point is that you can build for the future and win now, the Twins do it, the A's do it, the Marlins won a championship doing it.
It's possible.

[rsox]

Re: Building for the Future

The Yankees and Dodgers are two prime examples of what spending to much emphasis on "building for now" can do to an organization.

Sportsman mentioned that the Yankees in the 90's were a good mix of homegrown and veteran players, guy's like Jeter, Posada Rivera and Andy Pettitte came out of the farm system within a 3 year span (bulding for the future), The Yankees then: replaced aging players with young players and won championships, the Yankees now: replaced aging players with...more aging players and win nothing.

With Halsey and Navarro gone, come july who are the Yankees going to trade when they need to get another arm for the bullpen or a bat off the bench?
If they spent more emphasis bulding for the future they would have players to trade to help them win now.

The Dodgers, when the O'Malley's owned the team the farm system was the Dodgers strength, now it's a weakness.
look at some of the players the Dodgers farm system produced in the early 90's: Eric Karros, Mike Piazza, Pedro Martinez, Raul Mondesi, John Wettleland, Pedro Astacio, these were (are?) good players over the course of that decade. Then Rupert Murdock took over and gave Kevin Brown a hundred-million dollar contract, did nothing with the farm system, which is now basically depleted (they have no position players that are major league ready). they emphisized on bulding for now.

The Dodgers under Rupert Murdock produced 0 playoff births.

The point is that you can build for the future and win now, the Twins do it, the A's do it, the Marlins won a championship doing it.
It's possible.

[Braindo67]

Re: Building for the Future

I think you have to throw the A's in there as well. Granted, they did just go out and trade their two top pitchers, but they got some very good youngsters that are just about major league ready. They have the same philosophy in building a team, except when it comes to finding the type of players in terms of ability.

As a Braves fan I'm glad they got Hudson but I really hated to see Charles Thomas go in that deal. The A's did indeed get some good young talent.

[Braindo67]

Re: Building for the Future

I think you have to throw the A's in there as well. Granted, they did just go out and trade their two top pitchers, but they got some very good youngsters that are just about major league ready. They have the same philosophy in building a team, except when it comes to finding the type of players in terms of ability.

As a Braves fan I'm glad they got Hudson but I really hated to see Charles Thomas go in that deal. The A's did indeed get some good young talent.