Where the Moneyball Meets the Road

[example1]

You dont sign on with Boras if you intend on taking a lesser valued contract UNLESS there is another potential moneymaker involved (endorsements). By signing with Boras' date=' you essentially say, I am gonna go to the highest bidder. Very few players actually turn down the highest offer when Scott is their agent.[/quote']

 

Sorry. Teixeira said from the beginning he wanted to play on the east coast and that's what he got. Boras wasn't opening th ebidding to everyone, or if he was it was well understood that Teixeira had preferences and would likely follow through on them.

 

I think it makes you feel good to say that Boras clients follow the money and only the money, because for whatever reason you don't like the idea that the Yankees won Teixeira because he wanted to be a Yankee--you want this to have been a "Yankees beat the Red Sox in head-to-head, even competition, again!" headline. It simply isn't true though and I think Teixeira got both of what he wanted: money, prefered city.

[redsoxrules]

Sorry. Teixeira said from the beginning he wanted to play on the east coast and that's what he got. Boras wasn't opening th ebidding to everyone, or if he was it was well understood that Teixeira had preferences and would likely follow through on them.

 

I think it makes you feel good to say that Boras clients follow the money and only th emoney, because that's what the Yankees have and what helps them win clients. It simply isn't true though and I think Teixeira got both of what he wanted: money, prefered city.

 

he didn't have a prefered city

he follows the money . he's well known for that and a lot of GM crtiticied him because of that

 

NY offered the most so he took and made it look like thats what he was looking for all along

[example1]

he didn't have a prefered city

he follows the money . he's well known for that and a lot of GM crtiticied him because of that

 

NY offered the most so he took and made it look like thats what he was looking for all along

 

Isn't it just easiest to see it that way? Why look at the actual reports that are coming out. The Murray Chass piece stated pretty clearly that his wife didn't want to live in Boston and that he had prefered NY the entire time.

 

Even if you question the validity of that piece (don't know why you would) did you not notice that Teixeira said he prefered to be on the East Coast? So... does that mean that he "prefered" to be in Los Angeles or that he "prefered" to be in New York? The jeopardy music starts now...

 

At the very least he was allowed to eliminate a number of cities, so the theory that he didn't have any say beyond taking the most money is absurd. If they wanted the bidding to go up why cut it off by Christmas? Why not wait more than 30 minutes after NY's first offer? Oh wait, he said he wanted to be signed by Christmas!! So there's another place where his preferences played out over letting a free-market bidding take shape.

[jacksonianmarch]

Sorry. Teixeira said from the beginning he wanted to play on the east coast and that's what he got. Boras wasn't opening th ebidding to everyone, or if he was it was well understood that Teixeira had preferences and would likely follow through on them.

 

I think it makes you feel good to say that Boras clients follow the money and only the money, because for whatever reason you don't like the idea that the Yankees won Teixeira because he wanted to be a Yankee--you want this to have been a "Yankees beat the Red Sox in head-to-head, even competition, again!" headline. It simply isn't true though and I think Teixeira got both of what he wanted: money, prefered city.

 

I wonder why he would say he preferred the east coast? Hmm. Any teams out there that might have a lot of money and be willing to get into a bidding war? Hmmmmm. And he wanted to go to NY SOOOOO MUCH that it only took 10 million dollars MORE than what the sox offered for him to commit. That idea holds NO water and is just media spin to avoid a fanbase backlash on the favorite son, Theo

[Dipre]

So Washington, who offered MORE money, isn't on the East Coast?

 

Talking about ideas that hold no water...........

[jacksonianmarch]

Washington offered even money according to the latest reports.

[Dipre]

Washington offered even money according to the latest reports.

 

Where are the links?

[jacksonianmarch]

http://www.rootzoo.com/threads/view/MLB-Baseball/Washington-Nationals/Nationals-offer-Teixeira-8-years-and-180-million_204371

 

Rotoworld had it as well.

[Dipre]

http://www.rootzoo.com/threads/view/MLB-Baseball/Washington-Nationals/Nationals-offer-Teixeira-8-years-and-180-million_204371

 

Rotoworld had it as well.

 

Come on man, get me something legit, lol.

[example1]

I wonder why he would say he preferred the east coast? Hmm. Any teams out there that might have a lot of money and be willing to get into a bidding war?

 

You're getting more dilusional every day. Teixeira said he wanted to be on the east coast because he wanted to be closer to home. You think he was lying about that? ********. Bull. s***. Yes, there are bigger money teams on the east coast, but anyone who is TRULY willing to get the most money doesn't eliminate teams from the bidding geographically. It just doesn't happen

 

Hmmmmm. And he wanted to go to NY SOOOOO MUCH that it only took 10 million dollars MORE than what the sox offered for him to commit.

 

Yeah, which Boras initially turned down, asked for 10 million MORE than that, and then called back and said "we'll take it" without checking in with other teams. Teixeira wanted to be in NY. He got to be in NY. He wanted to be signed by Christmas. He was signed by Christmas.

 

Show me a link or any legitimate piece that says what you are arguing: "Scott Boras always gets his players top dollar and his players never get any say in terms of which city they want to play in or what would make their family happiest". If you can't show it to me then I call bull s***.

 

That idea holds NO water and is just media spin to avoid a fanbase backlash on the favorite son, Theo

 

It's just a fact. Players who sign with Boras always get paid, but they have some say in where they end up as well. Boras would not be the BEST agent if this weren't the case.

 

If what you were saying is true, then the following

 

Washington offered even money according to the latest reports.

 

would warrant a continued bidding, no? Boras clients always go to the highest money =/= BOras clients choosing one team over another with even money. There would be no even money, there would be bidding until one team won out.

 

 

This isn't a worthwhile discussion to have with you jacksonian. Your team got Teixeira, our team didn't. There is reason to believe that Teixeira wanted to play in NY, given the reports that his wife didn't want to live in Boston and his love of Mattingly and the boner that he (and you) get when thinking about playing ball with other men wearing stripes. I don't know why that's so hard for you to believe... it's like an 'extra' "f*** you!" if you can somehow paint this as solely a problem of Theo's.

 

Of course, Theo wasn't the one who stopped the bidding and it isn't Theo's money. He, unlike Brian Cashman (apparently) doesn't have an open wallet to work with. He actually has to get approval of ownership before writing checks for hundreds of millions of dollars.

[a700hitter]

The post mortem rationalization of the Teixeira is getting boring. We are convincing ourselves that it was his life long dream of being a Yankee and his wife sings "I love NY." It's all speculation and rationalization. The players statements after the signing are canned BS that they feed to a willing press for the home town fans of his new teams to gobble up like gullible fools. The only facts regarding this signing that can be verified are that he was the Red Sox #1 off season priority and they didn't sign him. Fail by the FO. Everything else is BS.

[TheKilo]

+1

[example1]

The post mortem rationalization of the Teixeira is getting boring. We are convincing ourselves that it was his life long dream of being a Yankee and his wife sings "I love NY." It's all speculation and rationalization. The players statements after the signing are canned BS that they feed to a willing press for the home town fans of his new teams to gobble up like gullible fools. The only facts regarding this signing that can be verified are that he was the Red Sox #1 off season priority and they didn't sign him. Fail by the FO. Everything else is BS.

 

+1

 

Yeah, you're right. I think it is much better to just assume that the FO is stupid, or cheap, or that they are intentionally trying to not win, or that they don't know how to win, or that they are just hoarding 'our' money and not doing what they can to win.

 

The suicidal reaction around here after they didn't get Teixeira warrants an attempt at rationalization by calmer heads, IMO. The absurd claims that "Boras clients go after one thing and one thing only: money" overlooks many obvious other points which some may see as rationalizations, but which are actually facts playing directly against the posited theory.

 

If Boras clients --> highest money and only highest money

 

then no Boras client would ever say anything like "I want to be on the east coast", and Boras would never say anything like "so and so discussed it with his family and decided 'x' ".

 

That said, I too am tired of the Teixeira discussion but mostly because I get the sense that there is a groupthink that goes on here, some combination of "I didn't get my way" and "I hate the Yankees" that turns people who were being rational 2 weeks ago into irrational defeatists now.

 

In other news, I don't know where the word "fail" came from, but I find it pretty lame. I feel like I'm walking down a hall in high school and everyone is trying to use the newest lingo but that lingo is already passe.

[a700hitter]

Yeah, you're right. I think it is much better to just assume that the FO is stupid, or cheap, or that they are intentionally trying to not win, or that they don't know how to win, or that they are just hoarding 'our' money and not doing what they can to win.

 

The suicidal reaction around here after they didn't get Teixeira warrants an attempt at rationalization by calmer heads, IMO. The absurd claims that "Boras clients go after one thing and one thing only: money" overlooks many obvious other points which some may see as rationalizations, but which are actually facts playing directly against the posited theory.

Whoa! Come in off the ledge. You seem to be the one who is suicidal. Did anything in my post accuse the FO of being stupid, cheap, etc.? Teixeira was the #1 FO priority and they didn't achieve their objective. You can call it what you want, but not achieving an objective is failure to me.

[example1]

I'm off the ledge my friend. I'm off.

 

We can have different assumptions about goals, and different views about how to improve the club, what improving the club means, and the value of any particular move on the long term economic health and competitiveness of the franchise. We just tend to disagree.

 

---------------

That said, if anyone has extra Christmas (or festivus) money, I would recommend getting the book "Diamond Dollars". I would love to see if anyone has read it and discuss it a bit. It is a much more complex approach to 'moneyball'--moneyball looked at Oakland as an example of a "small market team" and described how it competed against "big market teams". This book looks at the variables that change among each individual market and the factors that drive particular owners in each market to make the decisions they do.

 

I recommend reading it... I'm not through with it yet, but it should be an interesting discussion.

[a700hitter]

I'm off the ledge my friend. I'm off.

 

We can have different assumptions about goals, and different views about how to improve the club, what improving the club means, and the value of any particular move on the long term economic health and competitiveness of the franchise. We just tend to disagree.

Differences? I wanted the team to build it's pitching, rather than go after Teixeira. The FO had different priorities. We were both disappointed that the Red Sox did not get him after making him a priority, so we have no difference there. I will not make excuses for them not getting their man. There could be many reasons why they didn't get him, and there is no one single definitive story even from the parties involved. Posters on a forum are merely guessing. Why should I engage in pointless guessing about why the outcome was the outcome? They set out to get him and they didn't. Their plan failed. If Tex had no intention ever of coming to Boston, because his wife's hair stylist is in NY or some other reason, I still don't let the FO off the hook. If he was unsignable by the Sox, the should have done their due diligence and known that, then they could have gone in a different direction with their resources and maybe signed Burnett or made an early start on some serious trade negotiations. Differences? We both wanted the FO to get their man.

 

---------------

[TheKilo]

Whoa! Come in off the ledge. You seem to be the one who is suicidal. Did anything in my post accuse the FO of being stupid' date=' cheap, etc.? Teixeira was the #1 FO priority and they didn't achieve their objective. You can call it what you want, but not achieving an objective is failure to me.[/quote']

 

Yup.

[example1]

Thanks for your contribution Kilo. I'm the one who is arguing against an automatic 3rd place finish before a single pitch has been thrown, but I guess I'm also the one on a ledge. Whatever.

[TheKilo]

I'm not saying anything about ledges.

 

The Red Sox made Mark Teixeira their #1 priority this offseason. They did not land him, and that is a failure for the FO. They did not accomplish what they set out to do, so they failed.

 

That's all.

[jacksonianmarch]

I'm off the ledge my friend. I'm off.

 

We can have different assumptions about goals, and different views about how to improve the club, what improving the club means, and the value of any particular move on the long term economic health and competitiveness of the franchise. We just tend to disagree.

 

---------------

That said, if anyone has extra Christmas (or festivus) money, I would recommend getting the book "Diamond Dollars". I would love to see if anyone has read it and discuss it a bit. It is a much more complex approach to 'moneyball'--moneyball looked at Oakland as an example of a "small market team" and described how it competed against "big market teams". This book looks at the variables that change among each individual market and the factors that drive particular owners in each market to make the decisions they do.

 

I recommend reading it... I'm not through with it yet, but it should be an interesting discussion.

 

 

Judging by the majority of your posts, if anyone has any extra money they should send it to the sox pronto as well as all leftover jewelry and unused cars. Cause with just a little bit more money, the sox could have gotten their #1 priority. But those bad, bad yankees with their willingness to put the fans money back into the team swooped in with their big money machine and took him from the sox!! Big money spending yankees!!!

[TheKilo]

Well, the Yankees are over budget by 30% for their new stadium and are asking their city for a bailout.

 

Not exactly the most fiscally responsible crowd over there.

[example1]

Judging by the majority of your posts' date=' if anyone has any extra money they should send it to the sox pronto as well as all leftover jewelry and unused cars. Cause with just a little bit more money, the sox could have gotten their #1 priority. But those bad, bad yankees with their willingness to put the fans money back into the team swooped in with their big money machine and took him from the sox!! Big money spending yankees!!![/quote']

 

You're a f***ing idiot jacksonian . Way to take a casual suggestion and turn it into innane discussion.

 

1) I'm not crying poverty. I haven't cried poverty. I have stated that the Sox set their limit with Teixeira and didn't go beyond it. They had reason to believe that their offer wasn't going to suit him--whether it was that he didn't want to be in Boston, that the Yankees were going to bid high on him, or that he was demanding a NTC or opt out in his negotiations with Boston. How that is 'crying poverty' I don't know.

 

2) the interesting thing about the book is that it looks at the differences between markets and fan responses to spending money on players. I'm sure you've seen similar things, but it talks about the value of particular wins to a team. It has been discussed in various BP's an din other books like "the Economics of Baseball" (I think that's what it was called) and "Baseball Between the Numbers" (a tremendous book). The point is that there are different values for different franchises when they talk about picking up a player who will add 'x' wins.

 

For instance, a team like KC or PIT could spend 20m on an 8 win player, and improve from 73 wins to 81 wins. Their economic return would be minimal, compared to if they were able to add that player to a team that has a baseline of 88 wins.

 

Additionally, there are unique features to each individual market that either encourage or discourage such expenditures. The long and short of it is that the 'challenges' the Red Sox face very closely resemble those of teams like the Cubs, Angels, Mets and Dodgers. The Yankees are on their own planet with regard to spending on players, as tier 20+m person market and ability to draw casual fans away from the Mets with a successful season givest incentive for them to field soemthing percieved as a "hyper competitive" team each and every year. Their pay off for wins between 90 and 95 is something like 18m. For the Sox it is closer to 11m.

 

For teams like the Red Sox, who do not get as much "bang for their buck" due to the high baseline saturation of the Sox in the NE market, their already high national popularity, their maxamizing of revenues through ventures like NESN and national advertizing, they don't have as much incentive to spend 'whatever it takes' on a FA who might put them over the top, particularly if they believe they already have a baseline of 90+ victories on the team (which I think they do if players like Buchholz, Ellsbury, Lowell and Ortiz return to a 50% performance level).

 

Furthermore, historically it has held true that as teams make it to the playoffs in consecutive seasons they make less money for each appearance. This is true for all teams. It also holds true that they make less money for a team that wins 105 games than they do for a team that wins 96--due largely to the fact that teams who rest their players the last few weeks, and who have games that don't 'mean as much' get lower ratings, lower demand for tickets, etc., as they approach the playoffs. Sad but true.

 

The long and short of it for the Sox is that it is absolutely, 100% in their best interest to field a winning team. The same is true for the Yankees. At the same time, the Sox have a strong incentive to field that team int he most economically sound way possible--largely driven by having a majority of farm-grown players rather than expensive FA's that give the same production. The Angels are in a similar position in that regard. They should spend on FA's to fill the holes, but they have different incentives than the Yankees do, who are competing for fans within a dual-team fan base, and whose need to be hyper competitive to stoke regional interest pays of in dividends that no other team can touch. The Yankees value as a club between 2001 and 2006 nearly doubled, due to the success of YES, the publicity machine that is mlb.com and the high profile nature of their all-star team. For the Sox what matters more is wins (especially between 91-96), how they get there is less important to the market that they are appealing to.

 

I'm disappointed that they didn't get Teixeira, but I can understand why they would drop out if they felt assured that they would end up spending 20m or 30m more than what they believed his value to be to the team. In 3 years they DO have the prospect of having Lars Anderson join the team, and even if he just joins the team to the tune of an additional 4 or 5 wins, those wins could keep them in the 'maximized' profit region with much lower expenditure on their part. Their top priority this year was to add Teixeira if the contract made sense. At some point the negotiations apparently turned to where it didn't make sense for them to keep going--whether because they were being played off against the Yankees, or because there were demands for an opt out or NTC, or because it became clear that Teixeira prefered to be in NY. I can accept that--I don't have much choice.

 

You can say it is making excuses, but as someone who realizes that baseball is a business, and that each team represents a separate business, I think looking at how the economics of baseball actually work is warranted. Winning is a very important part of finding economic success--actually THE MOST IMPORTANT PART, but there is a limit on what different teams are willing to spend on the FA market based on the revenues they will get back for their spending.

 

I think other fans look at their team's willingness to buy THE biggest FA as a sign of whether or not their teams love them. I don't. I don't feel entitled to big name FAs, just to a competitive team, and there are clearly numerous ways for a team to achieve competitiveness.

[example1]

Well, the Yankees are over budget by 30% for their new stadium and are asking their city for a bailout.

 

Not exactly the most fiscally responsible crowd over there.

 

They make money like no other team and they are currently as iconic of NY as the Empire State Building or Statue of Liberty. I think it is in the city's best interest to keep the Yankees fat and successful, as much as it is in their ownership's interest to be "hyper competitive", which is essentially competitive in terms of on-field production and projections, but also to have the names that make everyone else say "there's no way this isn't the team to talk about, follow, and love. Look at their players!"

 

The Sox do best if they are able to say "we're so competitive" but their players are underpaid. Even resigning players is a different beast for the Sox, because as soon as they are paying Youkilis roughly wha the is worth, they have lost an area of potential profit--if that makes sense.

 

The Yankees aren't fiscally responsible in the traditional sense, but the projected income they bring to the city and in paying taxes, I think they ultimately end up making lots of money above whatever they borrow.

[TheKilo]

They make money like no other team and they are currently as iconic of NY as the Empire State Building or Statue of Liberty. I think it is in the city's best interest to keep the Yankees fat and successful' date=' as much as it is in their ownership's interest to be "hyper competitive", which is essentially competitive in terms of on-field production and projections, but also to have the names that make everyone else say "there's no [i']way[/i] this isn't the team to talk about, follow, and love. Look at their players!"

 

The Sox do best if they are able to say "we're so competitive" but their players are underpaid. Even resigning players is a different beast for the Sox, because as soon as they are paying Youkilis roughly wha the is worth, they have lost an area of potential profit--if that makes sense.

 

The Yankees aren't fiscally responsible in the traditional sense, but the projected income they bring to the city and in paying taxes, I think they ultimately end up making lots of money above whatever they borrow.

 

Oh no I agree with you 100% - I'm just relaying how completely disingenuous the people running the Yankees are when they can spend $450 million on FAs but then turn around in the same breath and ask to be covered for the 30% they were over budget for their new stadium.

 

NYC taxpayers will continue to suffer and sheep like Gom will continue to say "It's a BUSINESS - you'd do the same thing if you could."

 

Doesn't make it any less ethical or irresponsible.

[BoSox21]

in fact, it makes it "Detroit autoheads going to Washington on a private jet to ask for a bailout"-level ridiculous

[Dipre]

Oh no I agree with you 100% - I'm just relaying how completely disingenuous the people running the Yankees are when they can spend $450 million on FAs but then turn around in the same breath and ask to be covered for the 30% they were over budget for their new stadium.

 

NYC taxpayers will continue to suffer and sheep like Gom will continue to say "It's a BUSINESS - you'd do the same thing if you could."

 

Doesn't make it any less ethical or irresponsible.

 

The problem is, to some people, unethical is only wrong when they're not the ones doing it.

 

I bet that if, starting next year, the Yankees started, for some reason, having to tighten their budget, and John Henry opened his wallet like a $20 dollar hooker spreads her legs, and the Sox went out and spent 400 mill on FAs, every yankee fan on this board would cry "poverty" or "it's unfair", and that, to me, is what makes their claims of "it's BUSINESS" fake and acted, hell, they say the 2007 WS championship was "bought", but if we complain 'cause they spend a shitload of money on players then ask for more money and more tax cuts from the city, then complaining is the least we can do, but anyways, ethics, to some fans, only depend on the team they root for.

[CrespoBlows]

They make money like no other team and they are currently as iconic of NY as the Empire State Building or Statue of Liberty. I think it is in the city's best interest to keep the Yankees fat and successful' date=' as much as it is in their ownership's interest to be "hyper competitive", which is essentially competitive in terms of on-field production and projections, but also to have the names that make everyone else say "there's no [i']way[/i] this isn't the team to talk about, follow, and love. Look at their players!"

 

Why?

[example1]

Why?

 

Because the team-city combination is a global brand name, like Coke or McDonalds.

[CrespoBlows]

Because the team-city combination is a global brand name' date=' like Coke or McDonalds.[/quote']

 

The Yankees aren't fiscally responsible in the traditional sense, but the projected income they bring to the city and in paying taxes, I think they ultimately end up making lots of money above whatever they borrow.

 

This is actually wrong. The handout to the Yankees by the city of New York is the favoritism of one economic group over the other. In this case, a wealthy billionaire gets his stadium, the taxpayers get the bill. Oh, and they have to repair this billionaire's stadium, and clean it up. They make no actual money.

[example1]

This is actually wrong. The handout to the Yankees by the city of New York is the favoritism of one economic group over the other. In this case' date=' a wealthy billionaire gets his stadium, the taxpayers get the bill. Oh, and they have to repair this billionaire's stadium, and clean it up. They make no actual money.[/quote']

 

I'm not here to argue about whether or not they should have borrowed money for the stadium, and frankly I couldn't give two shits about whether NY makes money from the Yankees. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I've seen on previous pages in your arguments with others that you know a lot more about their stadium's financing than I do, and I don't care to get into it. None of it is central to the enormous post that I made a few pages back.

 

My initial point ws about the team's ability to earn money in a different way than the Red Sox do, and how their earning curve (win-curve) encourages spending on FA's at a pace that may be considered reckless by other teams. At least, that was the basis of this book that I'm citing.