Yoan Moncada

Not even the Yankees have an unlimited budget, and for any capped pool of money, every signing carries with it an opportunity cost.

We discussed all of this several pages ago, by the way. Let's not try to replicate that exact discussion all over again. If you don't have anything new to add, let's move on.

Even the Red Sox had a limit on what they would offer, it just happened that it was higher than the Yankees. Here is a quote from the Speier series on the process:

Kind of surprising no one has mentioned this regarding an extremely muscular young man who dwarfs his contemporaries... Any sense that steroids are in use in Cuba? I'm guessing there is little, if any, testing down there with much incentive to use whatever will help make millions since that the U.S. pipeline is now open. I'm guessing his prolonged delay before reporting to Ft. Myers included extensive PED tests, but folks are good at skirting tests. Thoughts?

Jr the car is a dumb analogy because is a commodity and yes it's true that every 2015 Jeep won't perform exactly the same, if they are driven and maintained the same they basically will because they are built to the same specs and major issues are covered under a warranty. It doesn't fit to a unique baseball player. It's an extreme reach at best.

I understand why some people would think like this, but I think it's very unfair.  I've been accused of using steroids many times, but I've always naturally been muscular and put on weight easily.  Go to some high school football, baseball, basketball games and look at the athletes and you'll see ever so often that one guy who is just ahead of his time physically.  Some men just develop sooner, and he is 19 and not 16.  

Is it really hard to believe that perhaps the most talented under 20 prospect to come out of Cuba in a decade also happens to be very physically developed?  I don't and as a matter of fact I think it makes complete sense. 

Yes, it is a dumb analogy when you expand it outside of its purpose. The point was, if it's your money, would you willingly spend more on something than it's perceived value? You can calculate a present value for any commodity, option, contract, etc. there's obviously less variability in a car purchase than a baseball contract, with virtually no serious appreciation opportunity but you can still come up with a current value for its future performance. The Yankees came up with some value for Moncada, and refused to expand it past t25M, same goes for the car example.

The example was meant to be simplistic and relatable, nothing more. I didn't think id have to define each variable to use it as a talking point. Yes, the Yankees have more than 40k to spend, the analogy was suppose to be proportional to a normal persons budget. yes baseball players are in fact different from cars, I get this people. Buying a car is more relatable than signing a baseball player, to me at least. ... We're boiling the ocean to prove everything besides the intended point...

The Yankees did their due diligence, they scouted the guy 3 times recently and have been following him for years. They came up with their max number, (25m) and the Red Sox beat it by a third. Similar to what happened with Jon Lester and the cubs. Same player different value.

I mean if I used stocks and bonds would that be less criticized? I cannot for the life of me understand how that post brought out these tangents.

Sent from iPhone

That's the definition of borrowing trouble.  Do you have any proof that Russell Wilson didn't throw the Super Bowl for gambling purposes?

Sure, let's go with this example instead.. Two billionaires at a car auction want the same car. Do they keep bidding against each other endlessly until they have nothing left to bid, or at one point does one of them back out, because they don't think the car is worth it? It doesn't matter if it's the accord, the lambo, or Moncada, or if your a normal person or a billionaire, there will always be a breaking point.

I think this is a good point, and I think that in many ways it comes down to the structure of the organization, and ultimately John Henry's role as principle owner. There's also a stark contrast there with NY, which essentially boils down to issues with leadership, and thus dysfunction throughout the Yankees' organization.

I agree 100% that the Sox probably had a sense of Moncada as being not just a supremely talented player, but of being a (perhaps incongruously these days) humble and congenial one as well. I do think, looking at Mookie, Bogaerts, Barnes, and some of their other recent top talents, that they emphasize character probably more intently than most teams. This seems to be a common thread in players who succeed, and even overachieve (Pedroia being a prototypical example) relative to their industry-wide perception of talent/skills. Even in cases of errors in judgment (Denney, Kukuk; Lars Anderson and Jason Place...neither a problem child but both apparently too self-critical and perfectionistic), the Sox seem to have a good feel for balancing talent ceiling with character risk. I'm certain they do a fair amount of research not just on the players...but how also to research and assess players.

Like the Patriots, the Sox have developed an internally consistent message and set of policies around it. It seems pretty clear that there was mutual (great) respect between them and Moncada...thus the good-will boost in bonus that Moncada got over $30M, and their willingness to go there in the first place. There's a reason players generally seem to like playing for their organization nowadays, as opposed to, say, the '80s.

Contrast with the Yankees, who have a hydra for ownership, which leads to inconsistent messages, nepotism, and failed communication. NYY fans talk about the good ol' days under George, but he basically bought a team with a solid minor-league system and scouting in place, made a few nice buys on the FA market, had initial success, and then watched Guidry and Co. decline while trying to spend massive $ on guys like Rickey and Winfield (just like CC and Texiera and ARod) to stave off decline. This culminated in Buhner for Balboni and nearly a decade of mediocrity to abject awfulness. It was only Gene Michaels's brilliant resurrection job while George was away that led to the incredibly well-constructed '90s teams. These were teams built on home-grown character guy talent combined with, again, shrewd FA and trade acquisitions who fit the "character" template: Jimmy Key, Tino Martinez, Paul O'Neill, Scott Brosius. Basically, they're declining now the same way they did in the late '80s, only this time due to a change in FA dynamics and too many cooks instead of George's lone inflated ego.

If anything, it's becoming more and more clear that the Moncada signing was as much, probably more, about the human element than simply dollars and cents. They made an investment in Moncada's character just as much as in his talent on the field. Say what you like about a John Henry, but as nerdy as he might be he's a fundamentally character-oriented owner, and his leadership permeates every part of the organization (much like Robert Kraft). I think it's becoming clearer every day that players...be they Moncada, Hanley Ramirez, Pablo Sandoval, or Dustin Pedroia or Mike Napoli...view the Sox as a premier destination because of that, which is a HUGE change from my youth. It also has the added benefit of filtering out mercenaries (Ellsbury, and IMO Lester) who want $ and not Championships.

That said, I think everyone but NYY fans is going to be happy about Moncada's choice. Barring injury or accident, he strikes me as incredibly low-risk to fail, given all that's been revealed with his signing.

Answering because you asked: Eric is drawing on what he knows from when he used to work for the team.

That said, I'm more inclined to agree with you.

This is true. I do think this was during the time Steinbrenner was still in exile and Gene Michael was running the team (and very well). Perhaps the way the Yankees did business during George's exile was a little different? I think there was a lot of things that Michael did and didn't do that he wouldn't have been able to accomplish or not accomplish had George been in the way. I remember reading that at separate times George wanted to deal a young Andy Pettitte and a young Mariano Rivera.

Michael ran that team very well and should get the lionshare of credit for the dynasty. Things were done differently when Steinbrenner got suspended, which was a huge break for the Yankees.