Because they won't give him a paycut. He's been making well over $18.9M over the last number of years.Originally Posted by I'm A Wenner!
I don't agree with this, it's just the way it's going to go down.
Because they won't give him a paycut. He's been making well over $18.9M over the last number of years.
I don't agree with this, it's just the way it's going to go down.
Wait a second, weren't you arguing against me with regards to that AAV?
Mo' Nut: One Smoove Brotha.
Jaret Wright's 2005 Cy Young Season: 20-3, 3.04 ERA
When? Refresh my memory.
sweet inflation. Not saying that he deserves a higher AAV though.
How is he not the same player? In 4 of the past 5 years he has put up an OPS+ equal or better than his career average. This past year was the best defensive year of his career and one of his best all-around. He stole 30 bases for the 4th time in his career this year. His OPS+ was tied for second best in his career. I fail to see how he is not the same player. Yes, his age is a concern and a decline will come eventually but he hasn't shown a single sign of that yet.
I agree with Boss, don't be surprised to see him get roughly 20M per. Why will he get more? Because its a shorter deal than the one he signed at 26 and because the Yankees simply can't afford to let him go to another team. They'll pay up to make sure the captain retires in pinstripes and the team doesn't have a whole lot of leverage because they would never let him walk and everyone knows it.
Two things come into play here one is the economy two is age he will be at the end of this next contract. Jeter is showing no signs of trying to play until he is 44. He is close to getting married and I think he is the type of player who will move on when he feels like it. I still say a 3yr contract at 15-18 a yr is in the ballpark, Two other variables come into play Rivera and Posada. How long will they stick around. Both are showing signs of decline with players waiting to take over.
I think that Jeter's future will depend on the next 2 seasons and how he does. If he stays healthy and performs close to what he did in 2009, he will end 2011 with about 3,200 hits and he will be 37. Assuming that is true, I think he may try to push himself to see how long it takes him to get to 4,000. Quite honestly, I really don't believe that personal statistics drive him, rather World Series titles do and he knows that a continued high level of play from him equates to a higher chance of another ring. The one exception on personal statistics would be any chance he has to make a run at the hits record, since it is such an amazing achievement and level of sustained success.
Posada and Rivera may play a factor with him, but I also believe Jeter enjoys working with the younger generation and if he can continue playing at a high level and helping to develop the next group of Yankees to help carry on the dynasty, I think he would love that. Of course, if he is moved off SS at any point, then I think all bets are off.
Can you explain how Swisher is 'well into' his decline phase? Unless you mean that he won't see 28 again, which is true of many, many productive MLB players. Paul O'Neill was traded to New York at the same time as Swisher; he was pretty productive afterwards.
I know we'd all like the Yankees to be a team full of 26-year-old All Stars, but I think you're being ludicrously demanding and unrealistic. Swisher and Granderson's best years may (MAY) be in front of them; it's not like they're 38. If their peak is 27-32, which is a fair rule of thumb for position players, then Cashman's managed to pick them both up at a low cost after poor years. Swisher bounced back. Maybe Granderson will too; he certainly has the tools.
It's Gardner and Sabathia, by the way. Pretty sure about that.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Mayonnaise is a demanding master.
I know it's definitely possible for Jete to reach 4K but he'd have to be outrageously consistent for the next 5-6 years. I don't doubt he has it in him but man, seeing him get 4,000 hits would be insane.
Don't bother.
That guy thinks that a players prime years are before age 29, which is nowhere close to the truth.
Most hitters have their best season at age 26.
O'Neill was a nice complimentary piece to a dynasty team, that was indeed built around a young core. The inclusion of Swisher, by some here, when refuting that the Yankees have an aging core is stretching it, to be kind. I look for trends in evaluating a players prime, which varies. Swisher's last two years were not as steady as the two that proceeded it, based almost entirely on the 2008 season. But what about his defense? Those '06 and '07 numbers are from an adequate defensive CF'er. He's now a corner outfielder, which makes those numbers less impressive and his overall value diminished. Can't play CF since '07 = well into downward spiral in my world. He is also making over ten times what he was making in '07, speaking of bad trends. And I was speaking about....from this point forward. The core's production WILL decline. Swisher and even more so Granderson, do not IM not so HO, fit the profile of players that will age well. As the core continues to age and their performances diminish, the Swisher's and Granderson's of the world are not the types to smoothly take the baton. Having to include them as core players speaks volumes as to reinforcing my premise.
The money going into the development system is been surpassed by several small market teams in recent years. The farm's ratings have dropped. Montero, Joba, and Hughes joined the system under a far different climate. They were added when the Yankees experienced the effects of a severely strapped roster by a revaged farm system. The lesson didn't last very long. There isn't near enough in the system to build that next core. Without it, the bloated roster is destined to be more tease than please.
This core, that still produces championships, was patiently built with a commitment of capital and uncommon restaint in keeping them in the system until they were able to contribute at the major league level WITH THE YANKEES. The veteran pick ups during the dynasty years were the supporting cast-- brilliantly assembled and not always of the biggest, most expensive names. History shows an all out effort in acquiring ametuer talent is the most cost efficient approach to building championships than the living from year-to-year, forever filling roster holes with these expensive veterans that forfeit the chance at building on to that future core (aka losing guys like Viz and Jack.) The present core was built when no Steinbrenner was present. Those days are gone for good. They now live almost exclusively for the present. It will catch up to them, shortly and no over-the-top support, in this forum, of the less-than-middling group of prospects will change that.
No way of knowing if Vizcaino and Jackson ever pan out. Simply feel that filling the present roster needs with FA that would cost no more then the players acquired without having to give away prospects possessing the potential to be worthy of a next generation, young core is the lesser gamble.
Bedard AND Sheets, plus Vizcaino > Vazquez
CF Byrd and LF Damon, plus Jackson > CF Granderson and LF Gardner
If Jackson becomes that low cost, two way CF'er while Vizcaino becomes a low cost, top-of-the-rotation stud, the cash savings can allow me to get much better veterans in the FA market than Vazquez and Granderson. That scenerio is worth the risk and worth waiting for, especially when you consider the present is as likely to be as good with the FA's added.
Time, as always, will tell.
Bedard and Sheets + a guy who benefits greatly from a hitter friendly stadium. Incredible.
Tiger Woods:Sent: 01:28 PM 09/08/2009:
Have you ever had a golden shower done to you
I'd love to see Jeter go for the record;
He's a first ballot HOFer and all-time great clutch player. But if he added the all-time hit record to his resume, he would be an immortal.
Seriously, he'd be mentioned with the Ruth's, Cobb's, May's and Aarons.
By itself its a nice record, with his other accomplishments its the crowning of a all-time great.
WARNING! This post may be offensive to little girly men or women with soft feelings.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Rose has the record and no one thinks that he is better than Cobb, or in the Cobb's class.
Hits thru age 35 season.
Pete Rose 2760 Total 4256
Derek Jeter 2747
It's definitely doable. But Jete's still 1500 hits away. Rose had almost 800 hits over his 36-39 years. Pretty impressive.
If Jeter can stay healthy, get to 3,500 over the next 4 years? Well then you think he has to have a shot.
But he's gonna have to want it. He'd probably still get paid decently so it may be attractive, but odds are he'll be playing someplace other than SS.
That will be the deciding factor, whether he'll be able to swallow his pride and move or go out like Joe D in his prime.
WARNING! This post may be offensive to little girly men or women with soft feelings.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Rose is a jerk, schmuck, banned from baseball, arsewhipe with 1/2 the post season resume Jeter has.
Cobb had it and he was the greatest of all-time in many's mind.
Although Rose was a 17 time all-star and did win a MVP with 64 Rbi's. That's pretty stout.
Interestingly I didn't remember how awful a base stealer Rose was. 198 sb's - 149 cs. As compared to Jeters 305-80.
WARNING! This post may be offensive to little girly men or women with soft feelings.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
The record actually hurt Rose's value. From 41 to 45, he never had a 100 OPS+ or above seasons. And he played 1B at that time. If Jeter wants the record, I'm 100% sure he would greatly hurt the team in his career last few years.
Even at that time he broke the record, no one thought that he was better than Cobb or in his class. Rose himself also admitted that. HOF great? Definitely. Cobb's class? No way. Jeter shouldn't be and wouldn't be in Cobb's class even he breaks the record.
Interestingly Jeter only has one higher OPS+ season than Rose's "64RBI MVP" season. And Rose's MVP season was his 4th highest OPS+ season.
I love the idea that Swisher's contract is going to continue to multiply by 10 every two years, or that the fact that he's not being forced into CF is proof that he's declining.
Who says that Swisher has to be part of a core? For me, the core has been A-Rod, Jeter, Posada, Rivera, and is in the process of transition towards Tex, Cano, and possibly Granderson. As a corner outfield without elite production, I would describe Swisher as playing exactly the same role as O'Neill - useful complimentary piece who's not at the top of the table for his position but offers patience, power, and acceptable defense.
Yes, he had a bad year. He bounced back to almost exactly his previous production level, vindicating Cashman's decision to pick him up for almost no cost. If he hadn't had a bad year in 2008, New York wouldn't have been able to acquire him for nothing, and he'd be being paid a heck of a lot more than he would now.I look for trends in evaluating a players prime, which varies. Swisher's last two years were not as steady as the two that proceeded it, based almost entirely on the 2008 season.
Well, that's an opinion, but I wouldn't say that it's very definitive. He's just had the most productive offensive year of his life, and plays adequate defence in a position where defence isn't that important. It's a bit like complaining that A-Rod doesn't steal many bases any more. It's just not an important part of his game.But what about his defense? Those '06 and '07 numbers are from an adequate defensive CF'er. He's now a corner outfielder, which makes those numbers less impressive and his overall value diminished. Can't play CF since '07 = well into downward spiral in my world.
And the Yankees currently have two players who can play good-to-great CF defence. Why would it matter if Swisher still could? There's no way he'd push out Granderson.
Come on, this is just silly. A player's early years are his cheapest, and his salary rapidly increases when he hits arbitration/free agency. The money you save by not paying him for his production in 06/07 is money you spend when he hits free agency. There's no way you don't know this already.He is also making over ten times what he was making in '07, speaking of bad trends.
Marlon Byrd made $800k in 2006 but $6m+ in 2009! Oh NOES!
I don't think Swisher's core. Granderson may be. But no profile projects to age without decline; the ones who do are those who defied that projection by definition.And I was speaking about....from this point forward. The core's production WILL decline. Swisher and even more so Granderson, do not IM not so HO, fit the profile of players that will age well. As the core continues to age and their performances diminish, the Swisher's and Granderson's of the world are not the types to smoothly take the baton. Having to include them as core players speaks volumes as to reinforcing my premise.
It CERTAINLY doesn't reinforce your premise, it just re-states it. It's a statement that 'Granderson and Swisher aren't very good, and they can't help the new core. I can prove it! The fact that the core will have to rely on Granderson and Swisher when they're not very good proves it!" Uh, no, it's just re-stating the unproven premise, based on you not liking them (yet, mysteriously, liking Byrd).
Didn't we just win a World Series? We have one of the best prospects in baseball, and recently graduated several other players (Hughes, Chamberlain, Cabrera, Gardner, Robertson, Coke, even Cano and Wang) to the majors. Strange time to panic.The money going into the development system is been surpassed by several small market teams in recent years. The farm's ratings have dropped. Montero, Joba, and Hughes joined the system under a far different climate. They were added when the Yankees experienced the effects of a severely strapped roster by a revaged farm system. The lesson didn't last very long. There isn't near enough in the system to build that next core. Without it, the bloated roster is destined to be more tease than please.
But more expensive, I would expect, and maybe needing multi-year commitments. Vazquez is one-and-done, which adds flexibility - you can choose to re-sign him, or let him go.Bedard AND Sheets, plus Vizcaino > Vazquez
But more expensive, at least when the decision point was reached on Granderson and Damon wanted $10/year. What's this Byrd thing about? He's older than Granderson and Swisher and had a bad year last year; he's not got the track-record of production of either (compare his yearly OPS+ totals). Although he's pretty good defensively, I see no reason to believe he's somehow more likely to defy his age than Granderson or Swisher - particularly as he's further along the age axis!CF Byrd and LF Damon, plus Jackson > CF Granderson and LF Gardner
And then Damon. Damon? Really? You want to build a young, cheap, good defensive core for the future and you want Damon? Byrd's an outfield mediocrity and Damon's a one-year stopgap at best. That's a big assumption, that you aren't weakening a WS team for no reason. Cashman apparently is much more creative; he's re-building on the fly.
There was a time to re-build in New York without stretching everything to compete. Instead of going for Sheffield, Brown, Johnson, we could have been looking for younger, cheaper, healthier options, but we didn't. Now we ARE, and instead we should be signing Byrd and Damon? I'm lost.
No, it's not worth the risk. Viz' chances of being what you describe are less than 1 in 10, given that TANSTAAPP, and Jackson might be Granderson, but he might also be a lot less. That's betting $50 on a 1-in-4 chance to win $75.If Jackson becomes that low cost, two way CF'er while Vizcaino becomes a low cost, top-of-the-rotation stud, the cash savings can allow me to get much better veterans in the FA market than Vazquez and Granderson. That scenerio is worth the risk and worth waiting for, especially when you consider the present is as likely to be as good with the FA's added.
Yes, I miss some of our minor leaguers too. No, you can't build your 2012 team around them. Just as I like my lottery tickets very much, but I'm not buying a boat with them, particularly when I've already got a very nice one.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Mayonnaise is a demanding master.
Andy MacPhail basically just said that the O's liked Bedard's "competitiveness" and that he didn't have any red flags in his medical report, but that he still wasn't close to being ready.
hurhurhrur, better than a guy who's a lock for 200 innings.
Tiger Woods:Sent: 01:28 PM 09/08/2009:
Have you ever had a golden shower done to you
Gardner in LF and Granderson in CF would be more valuable than Byrd in CF and Damon in LF. First of all, that's probably in the range of 20 runs on defense (maybe 30), and I would peg them as pretty much a wash on offense. I'm not a Byrd fan, at all.
"I don't think Swisher's core. Granderson may be. But no profile projects to age without decline; the ones who do are those who defied that projection by definition.
It CERTAINLY doesn't reinforce your premise, it just re-states it. It's a statement that 'Granderson and Swisher aren't very good, and they can't help the new core. I can prove it! The fact that the core will have to rely on Granderson and Swisher when they're not very good proves it!" Uh, no, it's just re-stating the unproven premise, based on you not liking them (yet, mysteriously, liking Byrd)."
I stated that the core of this team is getting old. Another poster, in refuting my claim, brought up Swisher's age as evidence to the contrary. To which I replied that having to include Swisher in the arguement OF CORE PLAYERS is proof of there being no real young core worth mentioning.
"They can't help the new core." What new core?
Joba is a high injury risk and is proving to be best suited for short relief. Hughes is still a two pitch pitcher and will almost certainly stay that way = success at short relief at the MLB level. Add 2 more potential young relievers, with lower ceilings. Cano will be 28 this year and is an above average 2b, not likely to improve on that. Is this group, even with the FA binge of '09 going to strick fear in Red Sox nation after the real core's time is up? Pleeeease.
There is that shining star on the horizon. With the rest of this group he stands way out there. Needed more of his calibre. Very likely gave one away i9n Vizcaino.
And I will say it again, SWISHER'S BAT IN CF IS OF VALUE. IN RFBIG DIFFERENCE.
I am not above rubbing the noises of posters of your ilk when time proves who is right. Vizcaino's prospect status will sky rocket this year. Vazquez will be a bum and most here will do their typical 180 degree turn around. Granderson and Swisher will not preform anywhere near their top years.
Bedard and Sheets / Damon and Byrd may be a bit more expensive, but not nearly as costly as giving up on Vizcaino and Jackson for equal production. Mystery in liking Byrd? I get to keep Jackson! If that farm system really means something to Cash and Hank, spend the extra capital to field a WSC team without giving up on two of your highest end prospects. Check out Byrd and Reed Johnson's righty/lefty splits. Sign them both, Johnson would take a one year deal and Byrd would make an excellent 4th OF'er upon Jacksons arrival.
We can go back and forth all you like but, all will be revealed in the short course of one season. Lets see whos limb gets cut off.
First two months you can get by with four starters and Acevedos. Makes me even more pissed they didn't take that route.
Swisher had like a .300 EqA last year. That's valuable at any position.
Actually, the whole idea and premise of a farm system and prospects serves more than one purpose. Two of the main purposes being: 1) Prospects that ultimately contribute to the major league team, and 2) Prospects used as a trade chip to fulfill other needs.
Another thing, it's clear that your idea for how the Yankees should operate is severely flawed. Your expectation: (1) Yankees should have $200 million payroll; (2) Should never trade a Top 10 prospect (or any prospects that hints to have "star" potential) unless for Hanley, Pujols, Felix, Ruth, or Koufax;(3) Should spend atleast $10 million annually in Latin America;(4) Should select the player available that Baseball America rates the highest with each pick in the draft.
As far as the #2 expectation, you do understand how that philosophy will get you nowhere right? (For the sake of your shtick, I'm assuming you don't.) But if you need an exercise to keep yourself busy, go back and look at various team's Top 10 Prospect lists. Then find out just how many of those "star" type prospects, (Montero, Vizcaino, Jackson, etc type) actually panned out. After you get that absurdly low number, you're honestly going to chastise the Yankees for using their farm system efficiently and appropriately? Chastise them for trading prospects that have what, a 5% chance of being above average players in exchange for players that have say an 85% chance of being above average beginning THIS season?
#3 expectation: That's just a poor strategy in any type of business. Hording prospects in this nature will result in a lot of money wasted and would also make that whole "financial advantage" thing go away rather quickly.
#4 expectation: If you want, go review all the Top 100 draft prospects over the years. I'll bet you'd find that the chances of those players turning out to be anything special are even more bleak than the putrid chances of the organizational Top 10. It's safe to say you rely on anonymous scouts and these publications WAAAAY too much.
Now on with your schtick...
So, even after he misses the first two months, it's still a better deal than Vasquez? But hell, we do have Acevedos.
-Swisher was the third best RF in the AL last year.
-Joba dealt with tendinitis prior to being drafted and then dealt with a shoulder ailment that derailed him for a month. High injury risk, right.
-Marlon Byrd was a product of Arlington, but lets go ahead and pay him 12x what Gardner is making because that would be the cool thing to do.
-Cano turns 28 when the playoffs roll around.
You continuously spew nonsense while ignoring facts just so your terribly thought up theories have a ground to stand on. It's seriously one of the saddest things I've seen on this forum.
Tiger Woods:Sent: 01:28 PM 09/08/2009:
Have you ever had a golden shower done to you
what's up doc? = Disabled Mess?
We will see, indeed, how these players preform. Although I suspect they're already formed. Even Acevedos.I am not above rubbing the noises of posters of your ilk when time proves who is right. Vizcaino's prospect status will sky rocket this year. Vazquez will be a bum and most here will do their typical 180 degree turn around. Granderson and Swisher will not preform anywhere near their top years.
Swisher had a good year for any position, not just CF. A 129 OPS+ plays anywhere up to and including DH, your all-caps screaming aside.
Viz is a good prospect. That doesn't make him a good MLB pitcher.
You write off Hughes and Chamberlain with startling speed. I have a fair degree of confidence that one or both will become MLB starters, based on what they've already shown in the majors.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Mayonnaise is a demanding master.
"Another thing, it's clear that your idea for how the Yankees should operate is severely flawed. Your expectation: (1) Yankees should have $200 million payroll; (2) Should never trade a Top 10 prospect (or any prospects that hints to have "star" potential) unless for Hanley, Pujols, Felix, Ruth, or Koufax;(3) Should spend atleast $10 million annually in Latin America;(4) Should select the player available that Baseball America rates the highest with each pick in the draft."
I see no flaws at all, except for the stupid BA reference, which was never mentioned by yours truly.
The only thing continuing to multiply by ten is your twisted interpetations. Forced? Swisher liked playing CF. He no long can play CF.
20, maybe 30 runs, that is a classic. Only on this site could such uninformed drivel get glossed over.
Read what Bill James has to say about defense.
The cool thing to do is for me to check back here after the facts and see who was correct. And you are the one I look forward to most of all.
The flaws are quite obvious in fact. By basically telling teams you refuse to trade prospects with imminent star potential (Montero), prospects with star potential at least 3 years away (Vizcaino), and prospects with the chance to be above average (Jackson), the Yankees would be prohibited from making any significant trades. So that eliminates one of the 4 avenues available to Yankees to utilize to improve their team.
By signing the top 5 "rated" Latin America prospects each year, the Yankees would have to spend what, $15 million each year? And if the Yankees were to select the highest "rated" player available in the draft set by Baseball America (or whichever publication you choose), and signed say 25 of them, they would have to spend another $25 million at least right?
You really think it's fiscally responsible, efficient, smart, etc to spend $40+ million every year on AMATEUR prospects, all in addition to a $200 million major league payroll? That's a tremendous amount of lost money each year. At least the Mitres and Gaudins of the world provide SOME benefit to the team. Even if its just mop up innings to give the rotation/bullpen a breather.
Be realistic, if you were running the yanks, you would maybe spend 15 mil combined on amateurs. They are still a business! don't forget stadium payments, as well.
"If we have to, we'll hoard everybody. That's what the Yankees used to do."
“Most lineups will hate facing our pitching and most pitching will hate facing our lineup,”
Well I would come to think that buying the talent for 20 million in a draft is a lot better than buying it for 160 million when it's on the free agent market.
The draft is a highly speculative investment -- you have very little idea what you are going to get. It also doesn't help improve your team and continue to drive revenue for years.
"Trade a player a year too early rather than a year too late" -- Branch Rickey
Or you can say that buying the talent for $160M is a lot better than buying nothing for $20M. I support buying talents in a draft. But there are reasons why the FA cost $160M because you know what you get. You get an All-Star level player immediately. People may think that we can throw $20M in a draft every year and we must get something back in 8 tries. I agree but we ignore the time factor. Being a contender every year, the Yankees can't just take the risk for hoping the "talents" produce. Also, not putting $20M in a draft every year may be because their scouting department just thinks those talents are not as good as people think.
If you spent 20 million plus another 8 million(the original budget) and you don't get a good player then you got a scouting problem. If someone spent $28 million on the draft......I can say right now thats going to be a hell of a draft unless your GM is Omar.
Well 160 yeah, but you can't say its fact. I name plenty of f/a busts like Zito, Pavano, Wood, Hall, Giambi(even though he had two or three good years), etc. I'm not against signing CC, but if someone said you can have Abreu for $12 million or take that $12 million and spend it on the draft and I'd spend it on the draft, but thats just me.But there are reasons why the FA cost $160M because you know what you get.
The problem is that now some propects just got $20M. So basically you may be able to sign 2 or 3 talents if we go after every top talents the media love.
And if the GM spends $160M on someone like Zito, then it's the problem of the GM. And Giambi was far from bust. His OPS+ in Yankees was 143. He had 4 great years, 1 decent year and 2 bad years in Yankees.
I'm not saying the Yankees should not spend on draft. But I just want to point out that maybe sometime they are just not high on some prospects who are loved by the media or other teams. There are reasons they spend a lot in LA. It's not only about signing bonus. They spend a lot in training facilities, scouting department. I hate to see whenever a high price talent was signed by other teams, some Yankees fans complained.
Well if someone gets $20 million in a draft..
I would take Strasburg over a lot of the free agents this year.
Me too, but we are not getting Strasburg and maybe the teams' target players were drafted by others? What's the point of spending $20M on talents when the team only think they worth $10M?
I'd laugh at you for being wrong about Vasquez, Swisher, and Granderson, but you'll probably take another hiatus to spend some quality time with your "friends."The cool thing to do is for me to check back here after the facts and see who was correct. And you are the one I look forward to most of all.
Tiger Woods:Sent: 01:28 PM 09/08/2009:
Have you ever had a golden shower done to you
If Strasburg was available on the open market he would have gotten more money
"Trade a player a year too early rather than a year too late" -- Branch Rickey
Thats what I'm saying here.
Realistically, I advocate that the Yankees bit-the-bullet on cost by filling roster spots through free agency until they build up the farm system from bottom-to-top. Once a pipeline is established, there is a means for filling roster openings with cost controlled, impact talent from within. Look no further than the current bullpen-- I'd love to see the rest of the team resemble that unit (better results for a fraction of the cost.) As this talent improves, one-peg-at-a-time, at the MLB level, the feeder system will have more talent lining up. One of the many nice features of this system is that as players begin to cost more, they are headed towards their prime years. As truly elite talents become available through free agency or a trade just before free agency, the Yankees will have the capital and prospect chips to make them the preeminent destination for these Yankee-esque talents. Signing the best-in-the-biz talent that still have prime years left are less risky investments: 1) you manage to sign them in their prime years and 2) Elite level players tend to extend their prime years beyond that of the average player. This will be made possible in no small part by the influx of cost controlled, impact, farm talent coming up through the ranks.
Some of the best young talent in the league accompanied by some of the best, prime age talent would produce something really good. Maybe even special, as in dynasty. And if the farm system is really in full effect, the big name free agents won't be a necessity in bringing championship seasons. It's been done before by every Yankee dynasty before the draft began through aggressive scouting and league leading signing bonuses. And it's hardly a coinsidence that the Yankees suffered through a long drought just after the draft era began. There was one Yankee dynasty during modern times. The Yankees of 1996 to 2001. The payroll for those years was much more in line with other big market clubs of the time. Much more so than most of the '80's and the '00's. Yet the results were far more pleasing to Yankee fans. Solid evidence that an emphasis on the farm system is more cost efficient and produces greater results-- more bag with less bucks.
That special dynasty was forged through a total, comprehensive commitment to player development-- when the league did Gene Michaels and the Yankees a collosal favor and took George away. As the young core that was destined to dominate began to ascend on the baseball world the other component was not the biggest name, most expensive free agents on the market. They were savy, high character veterans. High end role players who knew their part and how to play it in pressure packed situations.
Prospect projection is a spoty proposition. To which the proper response, IMO, is "cast a bigger net." To build such a system would be costly. It would require patience the Yankee FO does not possess. There would be many busts along the way. And it would be the best cost-of-doing-business capital the Steinbrenner's ever spent.
Flattered to hear you plan on continuing to monitor my activities. But there will be no reason for me not to be here for that.
But come to think of it spending quality time with friends is much preferred to reading drivel from you.
This is why this entire thread was a bad idea- giving someone who vents talk radio garbage like its fact somewhere to get on a soapbox is just asking for frustration.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
