PDA

View Full Version : A stunning stat this off-season


Fenway
12-24-2008, 12:49 PM
There have been 33 free agent signings so far this off-season

The Yankees have signed 3 of them for 423.5 million

The other 30 have signed for a total of 296.6 million

spawn
12-24-2008, 12:51 PM
For some reason, I'm not stunned by this. It is pretty amazing though.

soxpride724
12-24-2008, 01:31 PM
I wish there was a salary cap.

soxfan21
12-24-2008, 01:35 PM
I wish there was a salary cap.


I do too, the yanks make money up there and they are just throwing rediculous cash at these guys and no other teams can compete with this spending.

DumpJerry
12-24-2008, 02:02 PM
There have been 33 free agent signings so far this off-season

The Yankees have signed 3 of them for 423.5 million

The other 30 have signed for a total of 296.6 million
I say "so what?" If the Yankees want to spend that kind of money, so be it. It's their money. I don't understand the big uproar from some people over the Yankee signings. If the Yanks had signed the three guys for a combined $100.00, would there still be an uproar? They still have the three guys.

Remember, the object of a baseball team is to win the World Series, not spend the most money. The two concepts are mutually exclusive. Let the Yankees and Red Sox spend all they want, they still have to play 162 games and win well over 50% of those games. The money does not make the player better.

LoveYourSuit
12-24-2008, 02:47 PM
I say "so what?" If the Yankees want to spend that kind of money, so be it. It's their money. I don't understand the big uproar from some people over the Yankee signings. If the Yanks had signed the three guys for a combined $100.00, would there still be an uproar? They still have the three guys.

Remember, the object of a baseball team is to win the World Series, not spend the most money. The two concepts are mutually exclusive. Let the Yankees and Red Sox spend all they want, they still have to play 162 games and win well over 50% of those games. The money does not make the player better.


Disagree. Spending money on good players increases your chances of the ultimate goal which is the World Series.

Iwritecode
12-24-2008, 02:53 PM
Disagree. Spending money on good players increases your chances of the ultimate goal which is the World Series.

The key word being "good".

LoveYourSuit
12-24-2008, 03:02 PM
The key word being "good".

Indeed.

CC, AJ, Tex are all good major league players and in the case of CC and Tex they are GREAT.

jamokes
12-24-2008, 03:33 PM
It would be nice if the chemisty is not there for the Yanks and the Rays and Red Sox come through again. The Yanks improved themselves but strange things happen sometimes in sports and life.

RKMeibalane
12-24-2008, 03:36 PM
Disagree. Spending money on good players increases your chances of the ultimate goal which is the World Series.

Read the post again. He said "the money does not make the player better." The Yankees spent money, but does this guarantee that they're going to win next season? Not by any means. They still have get by Tampa and the Red Sox to win their division, which won't be as easy as they would like to believe.

Lip Man 1
12-24-2008, 05:06 PM
RK:

Correct it doesn't "guarantee" with 100 per cent accuracy anything.

But based on Proud To Be Your Bud's own comments statistically it sure as hell helps...by a LARGE degree:

"The record is clear. From 1995 through 2001, a total of 224 MLB postseason games were played. Only five were won by clubs whose payrolls were in the lower half of the industry. None advanced past the Division Series, and no team, other than those whose payrolls are in the top fourth of payroll, has won a World Series game during this period. The seven-year postseason record is 219-5 in favor of the high payroll teams" (direct quote)

Now that discrepency has shrunk somewhat since then, but the gap between the two (spending vs. non spending) is still about as wide as the Grand Canyon.

Lip

Brian26
12-24-2008, 05:17 PM
Indeed.

CC, AJ, Tex are all good major league players and in the case of CC and Tex they are GREAT.

Teixeira is nowhere near a "great" player, nor does he deserve a larger contract than Sabathia.

Craig Grebeck
12-24-2008, 05:17 PM
Teixeira is nowhere near a "great" player, nor does he deserve a larger contract than Sabathia.
He is a great first baseman.

LoveYourSuit
12-24-2008, 05:22 PM
Teixeira is nowhere near a "great" player, nor does he deserve a larger contract than Sabathia.


Texiera is top 3 at his position with a very solid glove.

I think that's GREAT at any level.

Just because the guy is not playing for us doesn't mean he'a a dog.

Give credit where credit due.

itsnotrequired
12-24-2008, 05:29 PM
Texiera is top 3 at his position with a very solid glove.

I think that's GREAT at any level.

Just because the guy is not playing for us doesn't mean he'a a dog.

Give credit where credit due.

if kw signed him, you would call him a dog.

:party:

LoveYourSuit
12-24-2008, 05:31 PM
RK:

Correct it doesn't "guarantee" with 100 per cent accuracy anything.

But based on Proud To Be Your Bud's own comments statistically it sure as hell helps...by a LARGE degree:

"The record is clear. From 1995 through 2001, a total of 224 MLB postseason games were played. Only five were won by clubs whose payrolls were in the lower half of the industry. None advanced past the Division Series, and no team, other than those whose payrolls are in the top fourth of payroll, has won a World Series game during this period. The seven-year postseason record is 219-5 in favor of the high payroll teams" (direct quote)

Now that discrepency has shrunk somewhat since then, but the gap between the two (spending vs. non spending) is still about as wide as the Grand Canyon.

Lip


Couldn't have been said any better.

The gap is closing but at the pace that the rich teams can continue to throw around money, it will continue to be the Grand Canyon unless a salary cap is worked in on the next CBA.

LoveYourSuit
12-24-2008, 05:32 PM
if kw signed him, you would call him a dog.

:party:


If KW had signed him, Noah would have started building his second Ark.

itsnotrequired
12-24-2008, 05:34 PM
Couldn't have been said any better.

The gap is closing but at the pace that the rich teams can continue to throw around money, it will continue to be the Grand Canyon unless a salary cap is worked in on the next CBA.

not gonna happen. players don't want it, owners don't need it.

If KW had signed him, Noah would have started building his second Arch.

the st. louis arch?

LoveYourSuit
12-24-2008, 05:36 PM
not gonna happen. players don't want it, owners don't need it.



the st. louis ark?


fixed it.... thanks

But maybe a Stl Arch too...why not. The world would be ending anyways.

cards press box
12-24-2008, 06:50 PM
There have been 33 free agent signings so far this off-season

The Yankees have signed 3 of them for 423.5 million

The other 30 have signed for a total of 296.6 million

Man, the Yankees (and their delightful fans) are just really difficult to stomach. One host on XM175 this morning called their latest spending spree "obnoxious, gross and detrimental to the game that we all love." Amen.

RKMeibalane
12-24-2008, 07:41 PM
RK:

Correct it doesn't "guarantee" with 100 per cent accuracy anything.

But based on Proud To Be Your Bud's own comments statistically it sure as hell helps...by a LARGE degree:

"The record is clear. From 1995 through 2001, a total of 224 MLB postseason games were played. Only five were won by clubs whose payrolls were in the lower half of the industry. None advanced past the Division Series, and no team, other than those whose payrolls are in the top fourth of payroll, has won a World Series game during this period. The seven-year postseason record is 219-5 in favor of the high payroll teams" (direct quote)

Now that discrepency has shrunk somewhat since then, but the gap between the two (spending vs. non spending) is still about as wide as the Grand Canyon.

Lip


The Yankees have to reach the post-season first.

Lip Man 1
12-24-2008, 07:47 PM
RK:

You mean like in 13 of the past 14 seasons?

:?:

I'd LOVE to see the Sox have that type of "failure" record, but that's just me, you understand.

Lip

whitesox901
12-24-2008, 07:52 PM
****ing yankees

Brian26
12-24-2008, 10:40 PM
Texiera is top 3 at his position with a very solid glove.

I think that's GREAT at any level.

Just because the guy is not playing for us doesn't mean he'a a dog.

Give credit where credit due.

I never said Teixeira was a dog. He's a very good player.

With Youkilis, Pujols, Morneau and Howard (off the top of my head) playing, he's not in the top three at his position. He might be 5th or 6th. I don't think the 5th or 6th best first baseman in baseball is worth $22.5 million a year. But, I always value pitching over offense, and that's why I think its crazy that they signed Teixeira for more money than CC.

btrain929
12-24-2008, 11:03 PM
I never said Teixeira was a dog. He's a very good player.

With Youkilis, Pujols, Morneau and Howard (off the top of my head) playing, he's not in the top three at his position. He might be 5th or 6th. I don't think the 5th or 6th best first baseman in baseball is worth $22.5 million a year. But, I always value pitching over offense, and that's why I think its crazy that they signed Teixeira for more money than CC.

Outside of Pujols, I think those guys you mentioned might fall right in line with Teixeira. I don't think any of them are clear-cut better than Tex, though. Now if you wanna say they are better players value-wise (because none of them cost 22MIL a year), then you definitely have a point. But just comparing the players and their numbers, none of them are clearly better than Tex besides Pujols.

RKMeibalane
12-24-2008, 11:06 PM
RK:

You mean like in 13 of the past 14 seasons?

:?:

I'd LOVE to see the Sox have that type of "failure" record, but that's just me, you understand.

Lip

I understand the point you're making, but I don't agree with it, at least not entirely. The Yankees reached the post-season every year between 1995 and 2007, but that in and of itself did not enable them to make the playoffs last season. The Yankees have to produce on the field, which is by no means a certainty, regardless of how much money they've spent. Sabathia is not likely to duplicate the success he enjoyed during his half-season in the National League, and everyone knows about AJ Burnett's injury history.

I would expect Tex to get his numbers, but the rest of the lineup (not including A-Rod) is full of question marks. I need to see more than press-conferences and flash-bulbs before I'll concede anything to Yankees, who, like everyone else, must start the season 0-0 and play 162 games. They don't get to skip to end of the season just because ESPN thinks so.

btrain929
12-24-2008, 11:16 PM
We need the grammar police in here, 2nd paragraph, STAT....

RKMeibalane
12-24-2008, 11:22 PM
We need the grammar police in here, 2nd paragraph, STAT....

:cool:

btrain929
12-24-2008, 11:23 PM
:cool:

:D:

86 that last request, false alarm, over, ksh.

Nellie_Fox
12-25-2008, 01:59 AM
Remember, the object of a baseball team is to win the World Series, not spend the most money. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.No, they are not "mutually exclusive." If they were, the team spending the most money would never, and could never, win the WS. I think the best you can say is that they are not strongly correlated.

khan
12-29-2008, 12:52 PM
Not having some constraints on spending today means that when Quentin is up for contract in a few years from now, our SOX won't be able to meet his demands.

Then all the "So what? The Yankees haven't won anything" types will piss and moan about KW/JR being too cheap to re-sign TCQ. You can't have it both ways, unfortunately.

TDog
12-29-2008, 07:44 PM
I say "so what?" If the Yankees want to spend that kind of money, so be it. It's their money. I don't understand the big uproar from some people over the Yankee signings. If the Yanks had signed the three guys for a combined $100.00, would there still be an uproar? They still have the three guys.

Remember, the object of a baseball team is to win the World Series, not spend the most money. The two concepts are mutually exclusive. Let the Yankees and Red Sox spend all they want, they still have to play 162 games and win well over 50% of those games. The money does not make the player better.

I agree. Of course, the Yankees are paying their free agents for things they have done in the past. There isn't any guarantee that they will do as well in the future, and even if they put up great personal numbers (like Cliff Lee and Grady Sizemore did for the Indians -- heck, look at the numbers Miguel Cabrera ended up recording for a team that finished behind the Indians), winning is another story.

Signing players to big contracts doesn't guarantee a team will win. If the players don't perform well, their contracts will make them more difficult to move. The difference between the Yankees and other teams isn't just that they spend money, but that they have the money to pay for their mistakes. The Yankees make a lot of spending mistakes. As they have to spend more to outbid other teams for the players most in demand, their margin for error decreases.

Other teams aren't giving up. Other teams are being forced to develop talent, look for up-and-coming players who are hungrier and be smarter with the money they spend.

There is no way baseball will get a salary cap without some sort of labor action that shuts down the game for a couple of years. Fortunately, baseball doesn't need a salary cap.

DumpJerry
12-29-2008, 09:53 PM
Not having some constraints on spending today means that when Quentin is up for contract in a few years from now, our SOX won't be able to meet his demands.
:cleo
I love amateurs.

RKMeibalane
12-29-2008, 10:03 PM
Not having some constraints on spending today means that when Quentin is up for contract in a few years from now, our SOX won't be able to meet his demands.

Then all the "So what? The Yankees haven't won anything" types will piss and moan about KW/JR being too cheap to re-sign TCQ. You can't have it both ways, unfortunately.

Quentin needs to prove he's worth that kind of money before anyone should offer it to him. Remember, this is the same player who the D-Backs gave up on only one year ago.

Edit: In other words, he needs to have multiple seasons similar to 2008 before we can even speculate on what kind of money he's going to get once he hits the open market.

PennStater98r
12-30-2008, 11:02 AM
Man, the Yankees (and their delightful fans) are just really difficult to stomach. One host on XM175 this morning called their latest spending spree "obnoxious, gross and detrimental to the game that we all love." Amen.


:tealpolice:

Always wanted to do that.

khan
12-30-2008, 11:14 AM
Quentin needs to prove he's worth that kind of money before anyone should offer it to him. Remember, this is the same player who the D-Backs gave up on only one year ago.
Yes, we all recognize that. I happen to have a high degree of confidence in his abilities going forward.

Having said this, a high tide rises all boats. In MLB, obese salaries to players, whether they are deserving or not, lead to future obese salaries to OTHER players, whether they are deserving or not.

The Yankees have already screwed up MLB with previous stupid signings: Carl Pavano's contract was a mistake, for example. Even a blind, drunk monkey could've looked at Pavano's history and seen that he was NEVER going to repeat his one good/lucky year.

With their CURRENT crop of signings, they may or may not benefit the yankees. I don't know yet, and I don't particularly care.

As a SOX fan, what I DO care about is the future signability of OUR good/young players. If you don't like the Quentin comparison, then what about a solid young lefty like Danks? What will the oft-injured Burnett's deal do to Danks' value? Or [if he should continue to progress] Floyd's value? In arbitration, under the current CBA, when Burnett gets injured again while Danks/Floyd have good years, Danks/Floyd will rightfully be able to ask for more money than Burnett. And they will get it, too.

To me, the point that the yankees waste money like paris hilton on vacation means:

In a league with arbitration and a powerful players' union, future wages WILL increase, whether they should or not. And that may make it difficult for this young core to stay together in the future. And much of KW's work today may yet be undone.

thedudeabides
12-30-2008, 12:00 PM
I agree. Of course, the Yankees are paying their free agents for things they have done in the past. There isn't any guarantee that they will do as well in the future, and even if they put up great personal numbers (like Cliff Lee and Grady Sizemore did for the Indians -- heck, look at the numbers Miguel Cabrera ended up recording for a team that finished behind the Indians), winning is another story.

Signing players to big contracts doesn't guarantee a team will win. If the players don't perform well, their contracts will make them more difficult to move. The difference between the Yankees and other teams isn't just that they spend money, but that they have the money to pay for their mistakes. The Yankees make a lot of spending mistakes. As they have to spend more to outbid other teams for the players most in demand, their margin for error decreases.

Other teams aren't giving up. Other teams are being forced to develop talent, look for up-and-coming players who are hungrier and be smarter with the money they spend.

There is no way baseball will get a salary cap without some sort of labor action that shuts down the game for a couple of years. Fortunately, baseball doesn't need a salary cap.

I think this is a very important point. This is what separates the Yankees and a couple other organizations, to a lesser degree. There aren't many teams who can afford to bank on guys like Swisher making a comeback over the next few years, when they already have a glut of outfielders. The Angels made a mistake on Matthews Jr., and they cover it up by signing Hunter. The Dodgers were sitting Andruw Jones and Juan Pierre most of last year, yet they were still able to go out and get Manny. The Cubs can afford to trade for Harden and eat $7 million a year knowing he can only give you a partial season. The Red Sox can throw $5-8 million at Penny, hoping he turns it around. If he doesn't no big deal.

Most teams can't throw that type of money around on reclamations or mistakes. When they give out a bad contract, it comes back to bite them. This is why as currently constructed, those teams will always compete. It doesn't guarantee a world series, but it assures they will be right in the hunt, year after year. And if they are, the revenues will keep coming and they can keep pumping money into the payroll.

spiffie
12-30-2008, 04:28 PM
The Yankees have $200 million to spend per year.

The White Sox have Kenny Williams and Ozzie Guillen.

Advantage: White Sox.

A. Cavatica
12-30-2008, 08:51 PM
The Yankees have $200 million to spend per year.

The White Sox have Kenny Williams and Ozzie Guillen.

Advantage: White Sox.

Imagine the advantage the Sox would have without Ozzie!

BadBobbyJenks
12-31-2008, 12:30 AM
RK:

"The record is clear. From 1995 through 2001, a total of 224 MLB postseason games were played. Only five were won by clubs whose payrolls were in the lower half of the industry. None advanced past the Division Series, and no team, other than those whose payrolls are in the top fourth of payroll, has won a World Series game during this period. The seven-year postseason record is 219-5 in favor of the high payroll teams" (direct quote)

Now that discrepency has shrunk somewhat since then, but the gap between the two (spending vs. non spending) is still about as wide as the Grand Canyon.

Lip


And the record from 2002-2008?

Nellie_Fox
12-31-2008, 02:06 AM
Imagine the advantage the Sox would have without Ozzie!Yeah, just look at the Sox record pre-Ozzie.