SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Yankees Offseason Discussion
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 19, 2016 0:02:57 GMT -5
A significant part of that has been that their just-better-than-mediocre performance has kept them in the back of draft rounds. They had a huge IFA haul the past two years, but those guys are 18, 19 at the oldest and barely in rookie ball. I agree that they're probably a few years away, but their low-minors talent is exceptional. After the McCann trade, 11 pitchers in the minors who've hit 100. The Sox have three (although Kopech is the best of the entire bunch). I don't really buy the reason the Yankees haven't been producing talent on late round draft picks. Look at 2011 Bradley, Owens, Swihart and Betts were all after first round. Out of our top 10 picks we hit on Benintendi and missed badly on Ball. What about internationally? They have all the money in the world they should have been dominating that market for years. Just recently we have got Bogarts, Devers, AE and Moncada just to name a few. Those are top notch elite prospects, top 10 to 20 prospects, who have the Yankees got? Sure guys that throw 100 are great, but can they do anything else? Give me the guys that can throw 90-95 with good off speed stuff that they can control. Also, to nitpick, Swihart was a 1st-rounder (non-comp 26), and both Owens and Bradley were 1st-round comp picks. Only Betts was technically a true non-1st rounder (he's also a guy BA didn't have in their top500, so kudos to the Sox draft team). NY produced Sanchez (typically in the 30-50 range in the top 100s the past few years), and Jorge Mateo, who was as high as back 20s, but struggled this past year. But again, yeah, the Sox have been just awesome with Devers, Espinoza, Bogaerts. Moncada...well, NY picked the wrong guy to be fiscally responsible about. So despite the Marrero, Vitek, Ranaudo, Brentz, Fuentes, +/- Johnson, Ball picks, the Sox have stayed strong. I think it's more testament to their player development/scouting/luck than an indictment of NY's. The Yankees figured it out and signed something like 11 of the top 30 IFAs a couple years ago. Again, there's strength in numbers. Those guys are all young; we'll see in 2-3 years how strong their system is. Even now, they're massively improved after the Chapman/Beltran/Miller sell-off. They'll have 6 or 7 top-100 players, with Gleybe Torres probably top-20, and Frazier top-40. They don't have the Sox's elite star power beyond Torres, though, it's true. I love the Sox's chances to dominate for years, I'm just not sold on the idea that NY's player development system is broken.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 19, 2016 0:22:22 GMT -5
True but in those past 17 years, when did they build they way they did in the 1990s? Until recently, not at all. They spent the first decade of the new century trying to maintain, and they've been directionless the past five years of so until this past season. The Yankees have a good farm system now. Torres and Frazier are top notch prospects. Sanchez has blossomed into a very good player. They will go into the 2019 season with some good young homegrown players and good young players acquired in trades for relievers. Add to that, they will have a ton of money to spend on great mid 20s players like Harper and Machado. And they could very well be after Otani the following year. The money is there for them. Other than Ellsbury, they've done a pretty good job clearing the decks. By the end of the decade the Yankees will be a handful, having built for the future for the first time since the 90s. They will be dangerous. They'll be competitive next season, but they're still a couple of years away from the direction they're trying to go in, but when they get there, they could be very scary good. The Yankees did that in the years of steroids and no revenue sharing. You could buy however great of a team you wanted if you had a big enough budget. They finally realized that doesn't work anymore starting in 2015 or so, but now they're competing with 20 other teams who can do the same thing they're doing. You just cannot buy a team anymore. It helps to have a huge budget to keep your own stars. But I still remain skeptical that spending billions of dollars in 2018 is going to do much in the long run. You get right back where you came from in a few years. And also, I'm skeptical that they actually have the budget anyone thinks they have. They didn't even beat us out on Moncada. I tend to think they're setting the team up to sell. The Yankees didn't get beat on Moncada. They simply didn't value him enough to make a legitimate offer. If the Yankees wanted Moncada back then, they would of signed him and beat the Sox offer just like they did with Jose Contreras (spelling?). The Yankees bought a team just 8 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 19, 2016 0:35:14 GMT -5
I don't really buy the reason the Yankees haven't been producing talent on late round draft picks. Look at 2011 Bradley, Owens, Swihart and Betts were all after first round. Out of our top 10 picks we hit on Benintendi and missed badly on Ball. What about internationally? They have all the money in the world they should have been dominating that market for years. Just recently we have got Bogarts, Devers, AE and Moncada just to name a few. Those are top notch elite prospects, top 10 to 20 prospects, who have the Yankees got? Sure guys that throw 100 are great, but can they do anything else? Give me the guys that can throw 90-95 with good off speed stuff that they can control. Also, to nitpick, Swihart was a 1st-rounder (non-comp 26), and both Owens and Bradley were 1st-round comp picks. Only Betts was technically a true non-1st rounder (he's also a guy BA didn't have in their top500, so kudos to the Sox draft team). NY produced Sanchez (typically in the 30-50 range in the top 100s the past few years), and Jorge Mateo, who was as high as back 20s, but struggled this past year. But again, yeah, the Sox have been just awesome with Devers, Espinoza, Bogaerts. Moncada...well, NY picked the wrong guy to be fiscally responsible about. So despite the Marrero, Vitek, Ranaudo, Brentz, Fuentes, +/- Johnson, Ball picks, the Sox have stayed strong. I think it's more testament to their player development/scouting/luck than an indictment of NY's. The Yankees figured it out and signed something like 11 of the top 30 IFAs a couple years ago. Again, there's strength in numbers. Those guys are all young; we'll see in 2-3 years how strong their system is. Even now, they're massively improved after the Chapman/Beltran/Miller sell-off. They'll have 6 or 7 top-100 players, with Gleybe Torres probably top-20, and Frazier top-40. They don't have the Sox's elite star power beyond Torres, though, it's true. I love the Sox's chances to dominate for years, I'm just not sold on the idea that NY's player development system is broken. My point was picking at the back end of rounds wasn't really an excuse for not drafting well over an extended period. In 2011 if Yankees were picking at back end of first round they could have landed a very good player. That's if they drafted the right player.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 19, 2016 0:51:43 GMT -5
The Yankees did that in the years of steroids and no revenue sharing. You could buy however great of a team you wanted if you had a big enough budget. They finally realized that doesn't work anymore starting in 2015 or so, but now they're competing with 20 other teams who can do the same thing they're doing. You just cannot buy a team anymore. It helps to have a huge budget to keep your own stars. But I still remain skeptical that spending billions of dollars in 2018 is going to do much in the long run. You get right back where you came from in a few years. And also, I'm skeptical that they actually have the budget anyone thinks they have. They didn't even beat us out on Moncada. I tend to think they're setting the team up to sell. The Yankees didn't get beat on Moncada. They simply didn't value him enough to make a legitimate offer. If the Yankees wanted Moncada back then, they would of signed him and beat the Sox offer just like they did with Jose Contreras (spelling?). The Yankees bought a team just 8 years ago. If the Yankees didn't value Moncada enough than there is something wrong in NY. He was seen as a super elite prospect, a guy that could have been the #1 player in the draft. A true 5 tool player, that was really advanced for his age. Again with buying Championships. Go look at the amount teams spend now. Massive TV revenue and revenue sharing have changed the game. That's why prospect values have sky rocketed. When you have D Backs giving out largest per year deal in Baseball history and Marlins spending over 300 million on a player you have to know things have changed, no? When Texas was trading ARod years ago, only a few teams like Yankees and Red Sox could trade for games best player. He just made too much money for other teams. Now you could have 10-20 teams. Unless you think Yankees can spend 300-400 million a year on payroll, they can no longer just out spend everyone.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Post by nomar on Nov 19, 2016 1:18:52 GMT -5
They'll discount the sophomore slumps of Bird, Sanchez, Judge and Austin and probably be talking selling 2 or 3 of them by the trade deadline. Like either team but they are the same fanbase as us. Impatient and they hold grudges.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Nov 19, 2016 6:19:37 GMT -5
The Yankees did that in the years of steroids and no revenue sharing. You could buy however great of a team you wanted if you had a big enough budget. They finally realized that doesn't work anymore starting in 2015 or so, but now they're competing with 20 other teams who can do the same thing they're doing. You just cannot buy a team anymore. It helps to have a huge budget to keep your own stars. But I still remain skeptical that spending billions of dollars in 2018 is going to do much in the long run. You get right back where you came from in a few years. And also, I'm skeptical that they actually have the budget anyone thinks they have. They didn't even beat us out on Moncada. I tend to think they're setting the team up to sell. The Yankees didn't get beat on Moncada. They simply didn't value him enough to make a legitimate offer. If the Yankees wanted Moncada back then, they would of signed him and beat the Sox offer just like they did with Jose Contreras (spelling?). The Yankees bought a team just 8 years ago. Red Sox fans complaining about the Yankees spending is very hypocritical. Mark Zuckerberg does not criticize Bill Gates for buying a bigger yatch.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Nov 19, 2016 7:52:27 GMT -5
I think the Yankees are in the process of perfecting what Ben c started with us.
They are going to build a young position core and fill in with expnsive free agent pitching.
I think the biggest difference is that Ben c over valued prospects to the point of adding an extra year to our rebuild.
The Yankees won't make that same mistake.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Nov 19, 2016 9:50:54 GMT -5
Sit back and enjoy the Red Sox! They are the team set up to dominate the AL for the next 10 years, not the Yankees. The Sox have a chance for a nice run but I'd say only the next 2 years appear fairly certain. They do not have to make any major decisions in the next 2 years only minor ones. After 2 years free agency begins for some of the home grown talent, and several others contracts expire and Price can opt out of his contract. The backbone of the talent should still be in place but decisions will have to be made that can assure more years of being a top calibre team. Those decisions are not assured.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Nov 19, 2016 10:12:41 GMT -5
The Yankees didn't get beat on Moncada. They simply didn't value him enough to make a legitimate offer. If the Yankees wanted Moncada back then, they would of signed him and beat the Sox offer just like they did with Jose Contreras (spelling?). The Yankees bought a team just 8 years ago. Red Sox fans complaining about the Yankees spending is very hypocritical. Mark Zuckerberg does not criticize Bill Gates for buying a bigger yatch. Well for the longest time it was entirely correct to do so. We play in the same division and you used to have to win the division to make the playoffs. There was no luxury tax. So being #2 in spending meant precious little. The introduction of the wild card increased the chances that spending had an impact. The rules changed again much more recently to make it much tougher on the wild card teams chances. I've being hearing that argument for 20+ years and every time the other person acts as if the money is being spent outside a vacuum. When inside a vacuum having the second highest (not even sure that is true anymore) doesn't mean much.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 19, 2016 10:32:52 GMT -5
The Yankees did that in the years of steroids and no revenue sharing. You could buy however great of a team you wanted if you had a big enough budget. They finally realized that doesn't work anymore starting in 2015 or so, but now they're competing with 20 other teams who can do the same thing they're doing. You just cannot buy a team anymore. It helps to have a huge budget to keep your own stars. But I still remain skeptical that spending billions of dollars in 2018 is going to do much in the long run. You get right back where you came from in a few years. And also, I'm skeptical that they actually have the budget anyone thinks they have. They didn't even beat us out on Moncada. I tend to think they're setting the team up to sell. The Yankees didn't get beat on Moncada. They simply didn't value him enough to make a legitimate offer. If the Yankees wanted Moncada back then, they would of signed him and beat the Sox offer just like they did with Jose Contreras (spelling?). The Yankees bought a team just 8 years ago. Do you honestly believe that George Steinbrenner would have gotten beat out for Moncada? When the Red Sox and Yankees were fighting over Teixeira in 2009, I remember the rumored ask by his agent started out at 5/$75 million and it ended up at 8/$180 million. Steinbrenner always got what he wanted. It's not that way anymore. The owners are much more stingy now. George Steinbrenner was still alive 8 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 19, 2016 10:33:46 GMT -5
Sit back and enjoy the Red Sox! They are the team set up to dominate the AL for the next 10 years, not the Yankees. The Sox have a chance for a nice run but I'd say only the next 2 years appear fairly certain. They do not have to make any major decisions in the next 2 years only minor ones. After 2 years free agency begins for some of the home grown talent, and several others contracts expire and Price can opt out of his contract. The backbone of the talent should still be in place but decisions will have to be made that can assure more years of being a top calibre team. Those decisions are not assured. Hmm, in two years you have what Price and Kimbrel to worry about? Look at the year they both had and how many wins we had. Even if we lost them we can still be a title contender. ERod could be a TOR starter by then, so could Kopech, or maybe Kopech takes over at Closer. Groome could be in majors or knocking on door. As long as they resign Bogaerts, Betts and Bradley, then the next wave of guys like Benintendi, Moncada, Swihart, etc. We could very easily have a 10 year window if not longer. Never mind if guys like Owens and Johnson can finally put everything together and reach their potential. The amount of young high end talent is just mind blowing good. Never mind if our non elite guys step up and you know a couple will. I could see Sam Travis having a very nice career for example.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Nov 19, 2016 10:33:59 GMT -5
I think the Yankees are in the process of perfecting what Ben c started with us. They are going to build a young position core and fill in with expnsive free agent pitching. I think the biggest difference is that Ben c over valued prospects to the point of adding an extra year to our rebuild. The Yankees won't make that same mistake. Explain how Ben added a year. It appears several of his moves took an extra year to come to fruition and I can't see how we can blame him for that.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Nov 19, 2016 10:52:38 GMT -5
Red Sox fans complaining about the Yankees spending is very hypocritical. Mark Zuckerberg does not criticize Bill Gates for buying a bigger yatch. Well for the longest time it was entirely correct to do so. We play in the same division and you used to have to win the division to make the playoffs. There was no luxury tax. So being #2 in spending meant precious little. The introduction of the wild card increased the chances that spending had an impact. The rules changed again much more recently to make it much tougher on the wild card teams chances. I've being hearing that argument for 20+ years and every time the other person acts as if the money is being spent outside a vacuum. When inside a vacuum having the second highest (not even sure that is true anymore) doesn't mean much. Well the baseball universe is more than the Yankees and Red Sox. While it is true that the yankees have greater financial might than the Red Sox, the the Red Sox have more money than about 25 other teams. That money allows them a chance to compete with the Yankees and allows them to maintain success in ways not possible for teams like the Rays, Royals, Padres, ect. The financial structure of baseball has helped the Red Sox far far far more than it has hurt them. It has allowed the Red Sox to make for (for example) their complete inability to develop starting pitchers this decade.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 19, 2016 10:52:48 GMT -5
I think the Yankees are in the process of perfecting what Ben c started with us. They are going to build a young position core and fill in with expnsive free agent pitching. I think the biggest difference is that Ben c over valued prospects to the point of adding an extra year to our rebuild. The Yankees won't make that same mistake. I don't think there doing it like Ben, when been traded away stars he went for win now players like Cespedes who he flipped for Porcello, Craig and Kelly. He did make one deal for ERod, a near ready prospect. The Yankee deals were much more like what Theo did for years with Cubs. Almost all prospect packages with most guys years away. If they do a 2-4 year rebuild they could become scary. Sign mid tier free agents to trade away at deadline. Trade guys like Gardner and maybe even Tanaka, anyone of value that won't be part of the new team in 2-4 years. Then when most of your young prospects are in majors start signing free agents. I just don't see Yankees taking the Theo approach. The fans will revolt and I think they start making win now trades and trade away a lot of that talent they just got.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 19, 2016 11:01:13 GMT -5
At the end of the day, wins are more important than signing "exciting" superstars who end up not being worth close to their contracts just about every time.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Nov 19, 2016 17:11:05 GMT -5
At the end of the day, wins are more important than signing "exciting" superstars who end up not being worth close to their contracts just about every time. This is so true in many cases but it is the structure of MLB compensation that forces the GM's hands. Teams like the Sox and Yankees with their rabid fan bases feel forced to do something "exciting". Whether when they are losing or when they are contending the pressure is there. The fact that the players don't make it to FA until there 29/30 in most cases mean the money is there for the older stars. I love what the Sox have done and it is paying off. I have been preaching patience for a long time and that is exactly what the Sox have done. But they still went out and got Panda, Hanley and Price over the last few years. How many of those contracts will be considered bad deals in the end. I didn't like the Victorino deal and in the end it could be said it was bad but he was a big part of winning a WS. I agree with you jimed but teams still need to wade into those deals to stay competitive on a regular basis. Unlike the teams that cant afford to and threaten to win every 10/15 years or so if there lucky with draft picks and or development. Also remember the "we don't want to sign those players" comment from Henry a few years back? Did we lose Lester with that philosophy?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 19, 2016 17:18:31 GMT -5
At the end of the day, wins are more important than signing "exciting" superstars who end up not being worth close to their contracts just about every time. This is so true in many cases but it is the structure of MLB compensation that forces the GM's hands. Teams like the Sox and Yankees with their rabid fan bases feel forced to do something "exciting". Whether when they are losing or when they are contending the pressure is there. The fact that the players don't make it to FA until there 29/30 in most cases mean the money is there for the older stars. I love what the Sox have done and it is paying off. I have been preaching patience for a long time and that is exactly what the Sox have done. But they still went out and got Panda, Hanley and Price over the last few years. How many of those contracts will be considered bad deals in the end. I didn't like the Victorino deal and in the end it could be said it was bad but he was a big part of winning a WS. I agree with you jimed but teams still need to wade into those deals to stay competitive on a regular basis. Unlike the teams that cant afford to and threaten to win every 10/15 years or so if there lucky with draft picks and or development. Also remember the "we don't want to sign those players" comment from Henry a few years back? Did we lose Lester with that philosophy? What I was implying is that I really don't think that Yankees fans are going to "demand" them shell out over a billion dollars in contracts in 2018 by buying every big free agent the way people are talking about. They might sign Harper, but they're not signing Kershaw, Otani, and Machado also. I don't think the Red Sox could have signed Lester no matter what they did. He took the most money and was never interested in re-signing.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Nov 19, 2016 17:24:20 GMT -5
This is so true in many cases but it is the structure of MLB compensation that forces the GM's hands. Teams like the Sox and Yankees with their rabid fan bases feel forced to do something "exciting". Whether when they are losing or when they are contending the pressure is there. The fact that the players don't make it to FA until there 29/30 in most cases mean the money is there for the older stars. I love what the Sox have done and it is paying off. I have been preaching patience for a long time and that is exactly what the Sox have done. But they still went out and got Panda, Hanley and Price over the last few years. How many of those contracts will be considered bad deals in the end. I didn't like the Victorino deal and in the end it could be said it was bad but he was a big part of winning a WS. I agree with you jimed but teams still need to wade into those deals to stay competitive on a regular basis. Unlike the teams that cant afford to and threaten to win every 10/15 years or so if there lucky with draft picks and or development. Also remember the "we don't want to sign those players" comment from Henry a few years back? Did we lose Lester with that philosophy? What I was implying is that I really don't think that Yankees fans are going to "demand" them shell out over a billion dollars in contracts in 2018 by buying every big free agent the way people are talking about. They might sign Harper, but they're not signing Kershaw, Otani, and Machado also. I don't think the Red Sox could have signed Lester no matter what they did. He took the most money and was never interested in re-signing. I agree with you there also. Too much competition these days and George isn't running the team anymore. But they will win the price war on at least 2 if not 3or 4 stars soon.
|
|
|
Post by dnfl333 on Nov 19, 2016 19:08:08 GMT -5
Please, delete this thread and FTNYY!
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Nov 19, 2016 21:42:06 GMT -5
At the end of the day, wins are more important than signing "exciting" superstars who end up not being worth close to their contracts just about every time. Maybe but the Yankees are set up to trade for trout, if they so desire.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 19, 2016 22:24:44 GMT -5
The Yankees didn't get beat on Moncada. They simply didn't value him enough to make a legitimate offer. If the Yankees wanted Moncada back then, they would of signed him and beat the Sox offer just like they did with Jose Contreras (spelling?). The Yankees bought a team just 8 years ago. Do you honestly believe that George Steinbrenner would have gotten beat out for Moncada? When the Red Sox and Yankees were fighting over Teixeira in 2009, I remember the rumored ask by his agent started out at 5/$75 million and it ended up at 8/$180 million. Steinbrenner always got what he wanted. It's not that way anymore. The owners are much more stingy now.
George Steinbrenner was still alive 8 years ago.The Yankees are run kind of different but that doesn't mean the big splurge isn't coming after 2018. The Yankees geared up big-time in 2009. Don't know how active George was involved by then. They went crazy signing free agents after the 2013 season ended. Except for Tanaka who they did sign the free agent market was laden with older veterans that offseason. It's obvious Cashman is clearing the decks for that free agent class of 2018-19. And it's not just for Harper. I think they'll come away with Harper, Machado, and a pitcher, although Otani might not be posted at that point. They're going to go hard after the mid 20s free agents because they know that's the best bang for their buck. When George was alive it was a new toy every winter. With these guys, they'll spend in big spurts.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 19, 2016 23:17:11 GMT -5
Do you honestly believe that George Steinbrenner would have gotten beat out for Moncada? When the Red Sox and Yankees were fighting over Teixeira in 2009, I remember the rumored ask by his agent started out at 5/$75 million and it ended up at 8/$180 million. Steinbrenner always got what he wanted. It's not that way anymore. The owners are much more stingy now.
George Steinbrenner was still alive 8 years ago.The Yankees are run kind of different but that doesn't mean the big splurge isn't coming after 2018. The Yankees geared up big-time in 2009. Don't know how active George was involved by then. They went crazy signing free agents after the 2013 season ended. Except for Tanaka who they did sign the free agent market was laden with older veterans that offseason. It's obvious Cashman is clearing the decks for that free agent class of 2018-19. And it's not just for Harper. I think they'll come away with Harper, Machado, and a pitcher, although Otani might not be posted at that point. They're going to go hard after the mid 20s free agents because they know that's the best bang for their buck. When George was alive it was a new toy every winter. With these guys, they'll spend in big spurts. It's funny you think 2013 is an example of why they"ll sign super elite free agents in 2018-19. In 2013 they let the best free agent on market go because they wouldn't go beyond 7 years after what happened with ARod, and said contracts over 7 years have too much risk and 240 million was too much money to tie up in one player. Harper and Machado are most likely getting 10 year deals, heck they might be longer. They might get 300-400 million each. No way a team signs both and assumes that much risk at that type of money. In 2013 they only signed one really big long term deal and it has completely back fired. The other deals were for 5, 3 and 1 year.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 19, 2016 23:18:53 GMT -5
Do you honestly believe that George Steinbrenner would have gotten beat out for Moncada? When the Red Sox and Yankees were fighting over Teixeira in 2009, I remember the rumored ask by his agent started out at 5/$75 million and it ended up at 8/$180 million. Steinbrenner always got what he wanted. It's not that way anymore. The owners are much more stingy now.
George Steinbrenner was still alive 8 years ago.The Yankees are run kind of different but that doesn't mean the big splurge isn't coming after 2018. The Yankees geared up big-time in 2009. Don't know how active George was involved by then. They went crazy signing free agents after the 2013 season ended. Except for Tanaka who they did sign the free agent market was laden with older veterans that offseason. It's obvious Cashman is clearing the decks for that free agent class of 2018-19. And it's not just for Harper. I think they'll come away with Harper, Machado, and a pitcher, although Otani might not be posted at that point. They're going to go hard after the mid 20s free agents because they know that's the best bang for their buck. When George was alive it was a new toy every winter. With these guys, they'll spend in big spurts. I completely agree with this post. I hate the Yankees because of their smug fan base and the whole pretentious "Yankee way" crap but I do respect the way they spend money. They will be the team that hands both Machado and Harper 35-40 million a year contracts. I just take down as fact at this point. There aren't a lot of teams that'll go to Yankee land spending despite the skepticism about the new owners of the Yankees. The Dodgers and Sox are really their only competition in terms of spending like they do annually. Sure some teams splurge for a couple years but they eventually bring their payroll under the luxury tax to save money. While the Yankees have been over this mark since they started implementing the luxury tax I believe. Now they are way under and it kind of stinks that there's not a Arod in their payroll anymore, instead it will be the most talented players in their primes very soon.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 20, 2016 0:46:39 GMT -5
The Yankees are run kind of different but that doesn't mean the big splurge isn't coming after 2018. The Yankees geared up big-time in 2009. Don't know how active George was involved by then. They went crazy signing free agents after the 2013 season ended. Except for Tanaka who they did sign the free agent market was laden with older veterans that offseason. It's obvious Cashman is clearing the decks for that free agent class of 2018-19. And it's not just for Harper. I think they'll come away with Harper, Machado, and a pitcher, although Otani might not be posted at that point. They're going to go hard after the mid 20s free agents because they know that's the best bang for their buck. When George was alive it was a new toy every winter. With these guys, they'll spend in big spurts. It's funny you think 2013 is an example of why they"ll sign super elite free agents in 2018-19. In 2013 they let the best free agent on market go because they wouldn't go beyond 7 years after what happened with ARod, and said contracts over 7 years have too much risk and 240 million was too much money to tie up in one player. Harper and Machado are most likely getting 10 year deals, heck they might be longer. They might get 300-400 million each. No way a team signs both and assumes that much risk at that type of money. In 2013 they only signed one really big long term deal and it has completely back fired. The other deals were for 5, 3 and 1 year. Robinson Cano was 31 years old and signed a deal with Seattle that would take him into his 40s, something Cashman had already done with A-Rod and wasn't going to do again. Bryce Harper can sign a 10 year deal and still be 37 when it's done and Machado could do the same and not be much older. We're talking about younger free agents here. And Otani, if he's around at that point, will still be quite young. There is a difference between that and signing a 31 year old to a decade long contract.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Nov 20, 2016 9:24:11 GMT -5
Well for the longest time it was entirely correct to do so. We play in the same division and you used to have to win the division to make the playoffs. There was no luxury tax. So being #2 in spending meant precious little. The introduction of the wild card increased the chances that spending had an impact. The rules changed again much more recently to make it much tougher on the wild card teams chances. I've being hearing that argument for 20+ years and every time the other person acts as if the money is being spent outside a vacuum. When inside a vacuum having the second highest (not even sure that is true anymore) doesn't mean much. Well the baseball universe is more than the Yankees and Red Sox. While it is true that the yankees have greater financial might than the Red Sox, the the Red Sox have more money than about 25 other teams. That money allows them a chance to compete with the Yankees and allows them to maintain success in ways not possible for teams like the Rays, Royals, Padres, ect. The financial structure of baseball has helped the Red Sox far far far more than it has hurt them. It has allowed the Red Sox to make for (for example) their complete inability to develop starting pitchers this decade. You missed, ignored or failed to comprehend the point and once again your way of viewing this ignores that we are in the same division as the Yankees and until recently we would have to outright win the division to make the playoffs. That meant that all things being equal (quality of decisions etc) they had an advantage over us and it was completely irrelevant that we had more than others. If you are the second richest man bidding against the richest man in the world for an item on ebay, who wins. If the Sox were in the National League your view would be by and large completely right. Adding the wild card did give the Sox an advantage over other teams and increased our chances to make it to the dance where anything can happen in a short series. Far more recently, after several wc teams won the WS, they changed the wild card team to a one game death match, decreasing the Sox best chance of winning it all. That is what this conversation is about, winning it all not winning more games which no-one really cares about in the end. And that also weakens any point about the Sox having the second (or whatever it is now) most to spend. Also I'm not sure where you were going with your last sentence as it appears you left a few words out
|
|
|