2009 World Series: Phillies @ Yankees

[Dipre]

Dipre' date=' it isnt just me my friend. You fight with everyone. As a Yankee fan here, I am used to it. But eventually, you will piss off the wrong person and get booted. I have seen it plenty of times.[/quote']

 

You already did that, got booted, and came back under a different screen name begging for forgiveness.

 

If i get booted, i'll at least stay away and not come back. You know, i'm cool like that.

[Dipre]

There is absolutely no reason to respond with that kind of sarcasm. I wasn't implying anything. I was asking you a question.

 

Then i apologize.

 

And for a response, garbage innings are not meant as a derogatory term, i use it as a "meme" to call innings that are either not high-leverage, or that are chosen with specific matchups and carry less responsibilities in games.

[yankees228]

Then i apologize.

 

And for a response, garbage innings are not meant as a derogatory term, i use it as a "meme" to call innings that are either not high-leverage, or that are chosen with specific matchups and carry less responsibilities in games.

 

That's fair. Well, in the coming years, they're going to count on Robertson to be one of the main setup men. So we'll see what he's got.

[Dipre]

That's fair. Well' date=' in the coming years, they're going to count on Robertson to be one of the main setup men. So we'll see what he's got.[/quote']

 

I'm not saying Bard is or will be lights out better than Robertson.

 

My only claim is that saying that Robertson was better than Daniel Bard last year is a laughable statement. And i say that quite simply because it's the truth.

[jacksonianmarch]

Going by the numbers, it wasnt the truth. Regardless of the type of innings they pitched.

[example1]

Most of my life there was no Wild Card. From 1986 to 1990' date=' the Red Sox won 3 Division Championships in 5 years. Also, a number of the teams in the 70's would have made the playoffs if there had been a wild card. [/quote']

 

I was alive in the late 80s for the teams you are talking about. They were vastly inferior to this year's team and they didn't have the Yankees to compete with in-league.

 

I am not the one who is jealous. This whole discussion began, because I agreed with 228 that winning is enjoyable whether you win with FA's or farm grown players. Others feel that it is more enjoyable to win with the farm guys. I don't agree. This has nothing to do with jealousy. If anything, those who think it is more enjoyable to win with the farm seem like they are being jealous. Don't you think? I agree, but does that fact make winning any less enjoyable to the fans?

 

FAs are, virtually by definition, overpaid. Overpaying for one player or two is one thing, but overpaying for 75% of a roster is simply unsustainable. That leads to teams having huge percentages of their contracts being "bad" contracts and then the need for lengthy rebuilding processes when those guys get old or when their contracts stop being useful. See: Yankees 2005-2008.

 

The mix the current FO has between developing and coveting cost-controlled players and getting occasional FAs seems to be the most sustainable longterm way for this team to be competitive year after year and to allow you to watch his team play in the playoffs.

 

Imagine if the Sox had spent $23m on Sabathia. This year it probably would have been a wise decision. In 3 years if he goes down with an arm injury would you expect the team to just swallow 1/7th of its payroll moving forward and to win despite the inherent inflexibilty this situation would create? You're a smart guy. You know that the risk of such things is way, way too high.

 

You are 100% wrong about this. In my post, I compared the CC signing to the Dice K signing. IMO, the CC signing was a smart good investment compared to the $100 million flushed down the toilet for Dice K.

 

I can think of all sorts of reasons that the Sox wouldn't want to touch CCs contract, even if they could have been assured of a 2009 WS, and whether or not the Dice-K move was wise.

 

Also, nobody was disputing the intelligence of the CC signing when it happened. The cost was way more than anyone here would have been comfortable with, but it had to happen and they overpaid a shitload to make sure it happened.

 

They can probably maximize profit at about 90 wins this season, because they will sell out every game and they will not have to add to payroll with any acquisitions. Is that what you want them to shoot for as fan?

 

The current thinking is that making the playoffs is one of the most important factors to maxamizing profit. 95 games is the number to shoot for because only a small percentage of teams who won that many games didn't make the playoffs. It keeps fans interested and creates the "buzz" to integrate every new year's generation of fans into the fanbase. It gives them added national and international exposure through the playoffs, and, very importantly, it keeps late season games relevant. As you undoubtedly know, the season is long and if a team is out of contention for the last 40 games of the season, viewership and revenue goes down considerably. Attendence goes down too when teams aren't in contention. One need only look at the TB Rays to see how much of a difference this makes. Last year in August they were selling out. This year their stadium was largely empty even against the Rangers and Sox late in the season.

 

From an advertiser's perspective (which really matters) they don't want to spend $200,000 per-game to advertize, say, FW Webb if the last 20 games of the season are irrelevant. If they have a 20 game lead then viewership actually goes DOWN. Same with if they are eliminated from playoff contention.

 

Think about the Rangers viewership this year. My guess is that the last 15 games or so had a sharp downturn in viewership and, thus, in potential advertising revenue.

 

I have outlasted many GM's and ownership groups. Good or bad, none of them could make me change my fan loyalty. To suggest that I reconsider routing for the Yankees if I don't like the FO philosophy is just stupid.

 

I didn't suggest you change your loyalty. I said I don't want you to, but said that if you are demanding yearly contention via continual FA acquisitions you should reconsider.

 

I will take it a step further: not only should you not expect them to sign FAs but you shouldn't even expect them to sign the majority of their expiring contracts. 1st Round picks are simply too valuable to just give away while ALSO paying tens of millions to get an extra win or two for two seasons.

 

BTW, I have not come close to criticizing the FO philosophy in this thread. Criticizing the Dice K move or the failure to get Halladay or Lee is not a condemnation of an entire philosophy, but of course you always try to make every criticism into a blanket condemnation.

 

Your critiques consistently come across as critiques of the overall philosophy. Saying that you don't care whether players are FAs or home grown misses the point about what they're doing. If they have the chance to save 40% on 80% of their players, they would be foolish not to do so--whether you think they have the money or not. For the most part, signing FAs (CC Sabathia included) is flushing money down the toilet.

 

 

As I said before, this whole discussio began with a discussion of enjoying victory. I made no criticism of the Red Sox FO, so why are you picking an argument?

Reread my posts in this thread. I make no such comparison. I compared the joy of winning with or without FA's. I see no difference on that account.

 

It isn't about enjoying winning. It is about creating a team that is sustainable for the longrun. Given the Sox unique payroll and income facts, I think it is reasonable to believe they are doing what makes the most sense for their situation. The Yankees are doing what makes the most sense for them too.

 

If the situation were such that it made sense for the Sox to have 3 players on their payroll who make more than Manny did in 2004, then they would probably do it. However, it clearly doesn't, so looking at alternative strategies as "equally enjoyable" is folly, IMO. I tisn't something the Sox could do, so it isn't worth comparing them. You say you spend a lot of money and you want it to be spent, etc., well, it is being spent, and more wisely than a huge-FA strategy would have been.

[yankees228]

Going by the numbers' date=' it wasnt the truth. Regardless of the type of innings they pitched.[/quote']

 

I think, in a way, you guys are both right. Robertson's numbers compare favorably with Bard's, but Bard has contributed more to his team.

[Dipre]

I think' date=' in a way, you guys are both right. Robertson's numbers compare favorably with Bard's, but Bard has contributed more to his team.[/quote']

 

Again, my point is that Robertson was not BETTER than Bard.

[yankees228]

Again' date=' my point is that Robertson was not BETTER than Bard.[/quote']

 

Yeah, and I don't disagree. However, while Jacko initially said he was better, I think he backed off of that, and just said they were comparable.

[jacksonianmarch]

So example, are you saying that the second strongest baseball market cannot sustain any players signed for more than 20 mil a season?

[a700hitter]

I was alive in the late 80s for the teams you are talking about. They were vastly inferior to this year's team and they didn't have the Yankees to compete with in-league.

 

 

 

FAs are, virtually by definition, overpaid. Overpaying for one player or two is one thing, but overpaying for 75% of a roster is simply unsustainable. That leads to teams having huge percentages of their contracts being "bad" contracts and then the need for lengthy rebuilding processes when those guys get old or when their contracts stop being useful. See: Yankees 2005-2008.

 

The mix the current FO has between developing and coveting cost-controlled players and getting occasional FAs seems to be the most sustainable longterm way for this team to be competitive year after year and to allow you to watch his team play in the playoffs.

 

Imagine if the Sox had spent $23m on Sabathia. This year it probably would have been a wise decision. In 3 years if he goes down with an arm injury would you expect the team to just swallow 1/7th of its payroll moving forward and to win despite the inherent inflexibilty this situation would create? You're a smart guy. You know that the risk of such things is way, way too high.

 

 

 

I can think of all sorts of reasons that the Sox wouldn't want to touch CCs contract, even if they could have been assured of a 2009 WS, and whether or not the Dice-K move was wise.

 

Also, nobody was disputing the intelligence of the CC signing when it happened. The cost was way more than anyone here would have been comfortable with, but it had to happen and they overpaid a shitload to make sure it happened.

 

 

 

The current thinking is that making the playoffs is one of the most important factors to maxamizing profit. 95 games is the number to shoot for because only a small percentage of teams who won that many games didn't make the playoffs. It keeps fans interested and creates the "buzz" to integrate every new year's generation of fans into the fanbase. It gives them added national and international exposure through the playoffs, and, very importantly, it keeps late season games relevant. As you undoubtedly know, the season is long and if a team is out of contention for the last 40 games of the season, viewership and revenue goes down considerably. Attendence goes down too when teams aren't in contention. One need only look at the TB Rays to see how much of a difference this makes. Last year in August they were selling out. This year their stadium was largely empty even against the Rangers and Sox late in the season.

 

From an advertiser's perspective (which really matters) they don't want to spend $200,000 per-game to advertize, say, FW Webb if the last 20 games of the season are irrelevant. If they have a 20 game lead then viewership actually goes DOWN. Same with if they are eliminated from playoff contention.

 

Think about the Rangers viewership this year. My guess is that the last 15 games or so had a sharp downturn in viewership and, thus, in potential advertising revenue.

 

 

 

I didn't suggest you change your loyalty. I said I don't want you to, but said that if you are demanding yearly contention via continual FA acquisitions you should reconsider.

 

I will take it a step further: not only should you not expect them to sign FAs but you shouldn't even expect them to sign the majority of their expiring contracts. 1st Round picks are simply too valuable to just give away while ALSO paying tens of millions to get an extra win or two for two seasons.

 

 

 

Your critiques consistently come across as critiques of the overall philosophy. Saying that you don't care whether players are FAs or home grown misses the point about what they're doing. If they have the chance to save 40% on 80% of their players, they would be foolish not to do so--whether you think they have the money or not. For the most part, signing FAs (CC Sabathia included) is flushing money down the toilet.

 

 

 

 

It isn't about enjoying winning. It is about creating a team that is sustainable for the longrun. Given the Sox unique payroll and income facts, I think it is reasonable to believe they are doing what makes the most sense for their situation. The Yankees are doing what makes the most sense for them too.

 

If the situation were such that it made sense for the Sox to have 3 players on their payroll who make more than Manny did in 2004, then they would probably do it. However, it clearly doesn't, so looking at alternative strategies as "equally enjoyable" is folly, IMO. I tisn't something the Sox could do, so it isn't worth comparing them. You say you spend a lot of money and you want it to be spent, etc., well, it is being spent, and more wisely than a huge-FA strategy would have been.

You have a tendency to really over-analyze things. I don't know how a simple statement that winning is enjoyable regardless of whether you have FAs results in such this ^ analysis.

[Dipre]

Yeah' date=' and I don't disagree. However, while Jacko initially said he was better, I think he backed off of that, and just said they were comparable.[/quote']

 

Fair enough.

[Dipre]

You have a tendency to really over-analyze things. I don't know how a simple statement that winning is enjoyable regardless of whether you have FAs results in such this ^ analysis.

 

It's because, like you, he's old-timey.

[yankees228]

Example, how do the 2005-08 Yankees fit into that category? They made the playoffs in three of those years, and finished with the fourth best record in the AL in the other year (while playing in the toughest division in baseball). Also, they hardly went through a lengthy rebuilding process. I get that they are able to avoid this because of their money, but your example simply does not make sense.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

You have a tendency to really over-analyze things. I don't know how a simple statement that winning is enjoyable regardless of whether you have FAs results in such this ^ analysis.

Textbook 'yes I got smoked here but only because you're trying too hard and I'm not trying at all so stop trying too hard and let's be FUN!!' post.

[example1]

So example' date=' are you saying that the second strongest baseball market cannot sustain any players signed for more than 20 mil a season?[/quote']

 

Not at all. I'm saying that there are only a few players who warrant that type of money and none of them are either available currently or are going to be available in the next year or two. Teixeira was one. A-Rod was one.

 

The salary isn't the issue, the issue is the performance relative to the actual cost of that performance. When you look at the spectrum of pitchers values (from Tim Lincecum to CC Sabathia) you realize that the cost of wins is NOT THE SAME as the cost of FA wins. FA wins are vastly overpriced and, unless they are your only option, not worth the cost more often than not.

[a700hitter]

Textbook 'yes I got smoked here but only because you're trying too hard and I'm not trying at all so stop trying too hard and let's be FUN!!' post.

Typical, I'll be a dick post and take an unprovoked shot.^

[example1]

You have a tendency to really over-analyze things. I don't know how a simple statement that winning is enjoyable regardless of whether you have FAs results in such this ^ analysis.

 

I wasn't responding to that sentence alone. I was responding to the continued statements about your money and how you deserve to have it spent, yada yada.

 

You know there's more to this discussion than that you like winning. We all like winning.

 

It's because' date=' like you, he's old-timey.[/quote']

 

Right...

[Dipre]

a700's and J_E's loving father-son relationship is extremely touching. I'm moved to the point of tearing up.

[Dipre]

Right...

 

Hey!

 

You're a cool old-timer.

[a700hitter]

I wasn't responding to that sentence alone. I was responding to the continued statements about your money and how you deserve to have it spent, yada yada.

 

You know there's more to this discussion than that you like winning. We all like winning.

 

 

 

Right...

Let's try to stay on topic. There will be plenty of time to debate the FO moves and your perception that my criticism of certain decisions arises to a blanket condemnation of the FO. I am surprised that an avowed liberal thinker like yourself is so quick to make broad generalizations of other peoples views. Isn't that how bigotted stereotypes start?

[example1]

Example' date=' how do the 2005-08 Yankees fit into that category? They made the playoffs in three of those years, and finished with the fourth best record in the AL in the other year (while playing in the toughest division in baseball). Also, they hardly went through a lengthy rebuilding process. [b']I get that they are able to avoid this because of their money, but your example simply does not make sense.[/b]

 

It would make sense if you could imagine a similar scenario for other teams.

 

The 05-08 Yankees would have shed a number of their bad contracts in favor of spending their money elsewhere if they could have. Giamboid (21m), Abreu (16m), and Pettitte (16m) are among those I'm talking about here, and it is obvious given that they let Abreu and Giambi go, and signed Pettitte for virtually nothing this year.

 

When other teams are in that position they win 80-something games and don't make the playoffs. When the Yankees do it they ALSO have the best closer, decent other SPs, one of the games best SS's in history, and, oh yeah, A-Rod in his prime, to carry them forward in the win-column.

 

They didn't need to rebuild, per-se, but they certainly needed to get rid of dead weight. The same will happen this year, when they either dump Damon and Matsui and Nady or get them back at some fraction of what they cost this year.

 

The Yankees do it differently than any other club does. Fortunately for you, they stay competitive, but they are not a template that other teams can work from.

 

I think the best comparison for the Sox is the Angels, and I think both of them have had roughly the same amount of success over the past few years and both look good moving forward.

[example1]

Let's try to stay on topic. There will be plenty of time to debate the FO moves and your perception that my criticism of certain decisions arises to a blanket condemnation of the FO.

 

I don't know how else to take it when you basically say that you want to have your cake (win every year) and eat it too (get sexy FAs whenever they are available, because, you know, you spend some money on the Sox). Even complaining about the Sox not landing big FAs, or complaining about the players the Sox DO go after, to me is a condemnation of the entire approach. Do you not understand why Matsuzaka was a good move at the time?

 

I spend money on the Sox too, but I'm happy with the results and I can already anticipate the "big move" that this FO will undoubtedly make in the next year or so that will have all of us saying "now that's what I'm talking about... now this team is primed to be really good moving forward!". At that point, you can I can clink our beer bottles together, slap each other on the back, and realize that we're actually on the same page.

 

I assume that moment is coming but that the FO is waiting for the right move--not just buying CC because he's available. I get the perpetual feeling that you don't trust these moves are on the horizon, so the doom-and-gloom comes out.

 

I am surprised that an avowed liberal thinker like yourself is so quick to make broad generalizations of other peoples views. Isn't that how bigotted stereotypes start?

 

[a700hitter]

I get the perpetual feeling that you don't trust these moves are on the horizon' date=' so the doom-and-gloom comes out. [/quote']I don't know what I have posted recently that would give you that feeling. We both agree that they probably need to make a couple of big moves to pull equal with the Yankees. I expect that they will make those moves. It's in their best interests to get those deals done.

[The_Destroyah]

I don't know what I have posted recently that would give you that feeling. We both agree that they probably need to make a couple of big moves to pull equal with the Yankees. I expect that they will make those moves. It's in their best interests to get those deals done.

 

when you make repeated remarks that paint the FO very negatively you earn a reputation I think thats where this is coming from.

[a700hitter]

when you make repeated remarks that paint the FO very negatively you earn a reputation I think thats where this is coming from.

Every FO makes good moves and bad moves. Criticizing the bad moves does not equate to a condemnation of the FO. I have on several occasions made it clear that I think this FO has done a very good job on balance. It's convenient for those people who disagree with me in those instances to make inaccurate generalizations about me. I guess you are one of those people.

[The_Destroyah]

Every FO makes good moves and bad moves. Criticizing the bad moves does not equate to a condemnation of the FO. I have on several occasions made it clear that I think this FO has done a very good job on balance. It's convenient for those people who disagree with me in those instances to make inaccurate generalizations about me. I guess you are one of those people.

 

hey hey hey I just said I THINK thats where HE is coming from right, wrong, or indifferent I was just saying, you very often sound very critical of the FO, I happen to disagree with many of those opinions but I don't mind them because they are afterall opinions but I was just trying to lay down some insight to where I THINK he is coming from with his comments.

[a700hitter]

hey hey hey I just said I THINK thats where HE is coming from right' date=' wrong, or indifferent I was just saying, you very often sound very critical of the FO, I happen to disagree with many of those opinions but I don't mind them because they are afterall opinions but I was just trying to lay down some insight to where I THINK he is coming from with his comments.[/quote']Okay, I'm glad that you were not making a generalization.

[yankees228]

The Yankees are officially going with a three man rotation the rest of the way.

 

EDIT: Which means the Yankees are trying to do something that has never before been done in the Wild Card era.

[Dipre]

Blanton with the early suck.