PDA

View Full Version : (NY Daily News)Reinsdorf has become outraged and exasperated over pitching market


Fenway
01-08-2007, 10:32 AM
from Madden's Sunday notes

http://www.nydailynews.com/01-07-2007/sports/story/486298p-409449c.html


As for Cashman, it's now clear why he spent so much time at the Winter Meetings with White Sox GM Kenny Williams. They both seem to be following the same philosophy this winter of trading established players for young starting pitching. Williams traded starter Freddy Garcia for two Phillie pitching prospects, lefties Gavin Floyd and Gio Gonzalez, and would-be '07 starter Brandon McCarthy for Texas' top prospect, another lefty, John Danks.
Williams nearly traded another established starter, Jon Garland, to Houston for two other younger (and inexpensive) pitchers. Williams' deals were given their impetus by White Sox board chairman Jerry Reinsdorf, who has become both outraged and exasperated at how his fellow owners have pushed the starting pitching market to insane heights.

ma-gaga
01-08-2007, 10:40 AM
The old Twins owner, Calvin Griffith has also bemoaned the current CBA and the salaries. Calvin really wants to get back into baseball ownership, but I don't think he's got a shot (ie. enough money). Basically, he thinks there should be a salary cap: "if all the other major leagues have one, why not baseball??"

Bottom line is, someone is getting the customer's money, it's either the owner/ownership group or the players.

:cool:

barney27
01-08-2007, 10:41 AM
Nice article, I agree teams like the chubbies have pushed mediocrity into big paydays. Why else do you think we are hearing of a Jim Parque comeback? He wasn't that great when he was younger and healthy. He is just looking for a sub .500 season to get a 3yr 18mil contract, what a joke.

SoxxoS
01-08-2007, 10:42 AM
markets are markets for a reason...there is no such thing as a ridiculous market - That is the beauty of a free market system -

AuroraSoxFan
01-08-2007, 10:46 AM
I can agree that the market for SP is ridiculous. I have a ? though....

Does anyone see it improving in future years? I can't see SP's accepting less $$ in future years. I hope I'm wrong because I think their salaries are way out of hand. I just don't see any paycuts happening anytime soon. What do you all think?

caulfield12
01-08-2007, 10:47 AM
markets are markets for a reason...there is no such thing as a ridiculous market - That is the beauty of a free market system -

Of course....just as there is a market for $75-125 concert tickets or studios willing to pay $20-25 million to a movie star for ONE motion picture.

The correction will inevitably come, the only question is how soon?

The most interesting and germane issue is for JR is to consider will be how the White Sox fans react to this new "counterintuitive" approach, of going against the trends (ala Warren Buffett)...it's going to be a difficult position for KW to sell if the Cubs are having success and the White Sox don't make it to the playoffs in 2007.

The fans came out and supported the team in record numbers...they're walking a fine line between being "cheap" and being "financially responsible" in order to keep the ballclub competitive in both present and future years.

itsnotrequired
01-08-2007, 10:48 AM
I can agree that the market for SP is ridiculous. I have a ? though....

Does anyone see it improving in future years? I can't see SP's accepting less $$ in future years. I hope I'm wrong because I think their salaries are way out of hand. I just don't see any paycuts happening anytime soon. What do you all think?

I feel it will balance itself out. All it will take is some injuries and the teams that spent this insane amount of money will be handcuffed for years.

Mr.1Dog
01-08-2007, 10:48 AM
I can agree that the market for SP is ridiculous. I have a ? though....

Does anyone see it improving in future years? I can't see SP's accepting less $$ in future years. I hope I'm wrong because I think their salaries are way out of hand. I just don't see any paycuts happening anytime soon. What do you all think?

In the future it may not be as inflated as it is now and I think that many GM's and owners are going to realize that. That will lead to pitchers not getting 4/40 or something outrageous like that. On the other hand, anything is possible.

AuroraSoxFan
01-08-2007, 10:53 AM
I feel it will balance itself out. All it will take is some injuries and the teams that spent this insane amount of money will be handcuffed for years.

I hope it balances. I just think a lot of agents will have some major leverage. If guys like Adam Eaton and Jason Marquis can get $8-10 mill deals, now any agent of a pitcher who has a remotely decent year can ask for 3/33 or 2/25 or something. Hopefully, owners/gm's will toughen up and make a somewhat reasonable offer in the future and tell them to take it or leave it. I am just not sure if it will work that way or not.

itsnotrequired
01-08-2007, 10:59 AM
I hope it balances. I just think a lot of agents will have some major leverage. If guys like Adam Eaton and Jason Marquis can get $8-10 mill deals, now any agent of a pitcher who has a remotely decent year can ask for 3/33 or 2/25 or something. Hopefully, owners/gm's will toughen up and make a somewhat reasonable offer in the future and tell them to take it or leave it. I am just not sure if it will work that way or not.

Teams are at the mercy of their dumbest competitor in terms of contracts. All the owners could be smart business men who know real value and all it takes is one lunatic to offer a Gil Meche type of contract and it gets all thrown out of whack.

On the other hand, if all these huge deals dissappear next year, then collusion talks will start to heat up.

CaptainBallz
01-08-2007, 11:03 AM
markets are markets for a reason...there is no such thing as a ridiculous market - That is the beauty of a free market system -

Markets are dictated by human actions. Humans acting irresponsibly affect markets as well as humans that decide to act responsibly. In this particular case, there is no real "reason" behind it, it's just bad GMs consciously throwing excess capital at mediocre talent.
I commend any GM/owner that doesn't go along for that ride under the premise that "markets are markets".

gobears1987
01-08-2007, 11:05 AM
markets are markets for a reason...there is no such thing as a ridiculous market - That is the beauty of a free market system -QFT

The reason pitchers are getting so much is that there is a shortage of supply when it comes to good pitchers. On top of that, they are in heavy demand.

Bucky F. Dent
01-08-2007, 11:06 AM
I can agree that the market for SP is ridiculous. I have a ? though....

Does anyone see it improving in future years? I can't see SP's accepting less $$ in future years. I hope I'm wrong because I think their salaries are way out of hand. I just don't see any paycuts happening anytime soon. What do you all think?


It was only after the nuclear winter of a lockout, and a new CBA that the NHL players fell into line.

caulfield12
01-08-2007, 11:08 AM
Markets are dictated by human actions. Humans acting irresponsibly affect markets as well as human that decide to act responsibly. In this particular case, there is no real "reason" behind it, it's just bad GMs consciously throwing excess capital at mediocre talent.
I commend any GM/owner that doesn't go along for that ride under the premise that "markets are markets".

I think there is some sanity. The problem with contracts like A-Rod or Ramirez is that they've artificially inflated the market for the second-tier players who are now getting paid $8-12 million per season to be 5th starters or just .500 pitchers. What's the saying, a rising tide floats all boats?

However, I think the second highest bidder on Zito was at $99 million, so there was a roughly 25% difference in the two top bids. I would be curious to see what the other teams bid on Dice-K and to see if the Yankees were in the same zip code on that contract. Igawa is a gamble, and Pettite is going to get hit pretty hard this time around in the AL.

Steelrod
01-08-2007, 11:09 AM
Of course....just as there is a market for $75-125 concert tickets or studios willing to pay $20-25 million to a movie star for ONE motion picture.

The correction will inevitably come, the only question is how soon?

The most interesting and germane issue is for JR is to consider will be how the White Sox fans react to this new "counterintuitive" approach, of going against the trends (ala Warren Buffett)...it's going to be a difficult position for KW to sell if the Cubs are having success and the White Sox don't make it to the playoffs in 2007.

The fans came out and supported the team in record numbers...they're walking a fine line between being "cheap" and being "financially responsible" in order to keep the ballclub competitive in both present and future years.
Studios have already come to that conclusion and are downgrading budgets in hopes of profits.

Fenway
01-08-2007, 11:10 AM
It was only after the nuclear winter of a lockout, and a new CBA that the NHL players fell into line.

don't think what happened in the NHL hasn't gone unnoticed by some MLB owners

caulfield12
01-08-2007, 11:14 AM
Studios have already come to that conclusion and are downgrading budgets in hopes of profits.


Yes, I agree, without creating a dissertation length movies discussion, studios are going more for "niche" movies that have a ready audience (meaning immediate profitability)...have you noticed how many low budget teen "horror" movies have come out in the last 2-3 years?

The Tom Hanks, Sandler, Ferrell, Ben Stiller, Jim Carrey, Reese Witherspoon mega-contracts still will be there occasionally...but only for the right type of projects. And I'm sure they didn't pay Ferrell a huge amount of money for that "Stranger than Fiction" mess. And I even noticed last night at Dreamgirls that Jim Carrey is going to be in a horror/thriller movie. For another example, look at Tom Cruise/Paula Wagner getting dumped last year. The only person I don't feel bad for is M. Night Shymylan or whatever is name is, that guy deserved to be knocked down a peg or two. Same for Mel Gibson, although Apocalypto is actually a decent movie, albeit hellaciously violent.

The Immigrant
01-08-2007, 11:17 AM
Don't expect a correction until the owners have spent or otherwise allocated the latest revenue increase, and until further revenue increases slow down to a trickle. Baseball teams are flush with cash as a result of new broadcast revenues, including satellite radio, worldwide licensing, etc. The owners are spending this additional revenue, and while some of them are doing so foolishly, it's their money to spend. Even the Royals had enough resources to commit $55 million to Gil Meche. Unless there is a significant slowdown in overall revenue growth, I am afraid that the inflated free agent market will become the norm, rather than an aberration.

The Immigrant
01-08-2007, 11:19 AM
It was only after the nuclear winter of a lockout, and a new CBA that the NHL players fell into line.

The conventional wisdom was that the NHL was losing money, and it certainly was nowhere near as popular as MLB is these days. MLB owners would be foolish tokill the golden goose because they are not making as much money as they would through collusion.

WhiteSox5187
01-08-2007, 11:23 AM
When Mr. Reinsdorf doesn't like the market, he has a tendency to pout and trade all his free agents to be. I would not be at all surprised to see a White Flag Part Deux trade. It is typical Reinsdorf, he is NOTHING if not a shrewd buisnessman. And he will always be a buisnessman first and foremost. I hope I'm wrong.

fquaye149
01-08-2007, 11:25 AM
markets are markets for a reason...there is no such thing as a ridiculous market - That is the beauty of a free market system -

tell that to S & L investors in the 80's. Or some IPO investors in the 90's.

Or to the teams that paid big buck contracts to Bobby Higginson and Chan Ho Park b/c that's what the market dictated.

Or, ****, tell that in 3 years to the teams that paid big bucks to Ted Lilly, Barry Zito, and Gil Meche.

Fact of the matter is: money is money. It doesn't matter what relative value of commodity is: FORTY MILLION DOLLARS will always be FORTY MILLION DOLLARS (well, inflation, but still)...and spending it on crap just because others are spending similar amounts of crap has nothing to do with the "free market system"

fquaye149
01-08-2007, 11:26 AM
When Mr. Reinsdorf doesn't like the market, he has a tendency to pout and trade all his free agents to be. I would not be at all surprised to see a White Flag Part Deux trade. It is typical Reinsdorf, he is NOTHING if not a shrewd buisnessman. And he will always be a buisnessman first and foremost. I hope I'm wrong.
:rolleyes:

if only the tribune owned this team and jim hendry were the GM.

JR has made mistakes in the past, but being pissed off about free agent pitching right now is not one of them

Steelrod
01-08-2007, 11:30 AM
Yes, I agree, without creating a dissertation length movies discussion, studios are going more for "niche" movies that have a ready audience (meaning immediate profitability)...have you noticed how many low budget teen "horror" movies have come out in the last 2-3 years?

The Tom Hanks, Sandler, Ferrell, Ben Stiller, Jim Carrey, Reese Witherspoon mega-contracts still will be there occasionally...but only for the right type of projects. And I'm sure they didn't pay Ferrell a huge amount of money for that "Stranger than Fiction" mess. And I even noticed last night at Dreamgirls that Jim Carrey is going to be in a horror/thriller movie. For another example, look at Tom Cruise/Paula Wagner getting dumped last year. The only person I don't feel bad for is M. Night Shymylan or whatever is name is, that guy deserved to be knocked down a peg or two. Same for Mel Gibson, although Apocalypto is actually a decent movie, albeit hellaciously violent.
And I agree with you. Blockbusters are now mostly deemed too risky. Realistic budgets for realistic movies equal a decent chance for break even or a profit. We will see how freely Cruise spends on talent other than himself now that he is a decision maker, or is he?

Steelrod
01-08-2007, 11:31 AM
:rolleyes:

if only the tribune owned this team and jim hendry were the GM.

JR has made mistakes in the past, but being pissed off about free agent pitching right now is not one of them
Let's thank the lord that they don't!

thedudeabides
01-08-2007, 11:33 AM
Don't expect a correction until the owners have spent or otherwise allocated the latest revenue increase, and until further revenue increases slow down to a trickle. Baseball teams are flush with cash as a result of new broadcast revenues, including satellite radio, worldwide licensing, etc. The owners are spending this additional revenue, and while some of them are doing so foolishly, it's their money to spend. Even the Royals had enough resources to commit $55 million to Gil Meche. Unless there is a significant slowdown in overall revenue growth, I am afraid that the inflated free agent market will become the norm, rather than an aberration.

The correction will be quick if guys like Meche, Lilly, and Marquis get hit hard this year. Odds are they will. If not, within two years. Although, I'm not sure how much it will correct itself. GM's quickly forget Clement, Ponson, and Odalis Perez.

itsnotrequired
01-08-2007, 11:34 AM
When Mr. Reinsdorf doesn't like the market, he has a tendency to pout and trade all his free agents to be. I would not be at all surprised to see a White Flag Part Deux trade. It is typical Reinsdorf, he is NOTHING if not a shrewd buisnessman. And he will always be a buisnessman first and foremost. I hope I'm wrong.

How is this different from other owners?

Flight #24
01-08-2007, 11:43 AM
When Mr. Reinsdorf doesn't like the market, he has a tendency to pout and trade all his free agents to be. I would not be at all surprised to see a White Flag Part Deux trade. It is typical Reinsdorf, he is NOTHING if not a shrewd buisnessman. And he will always be a buisnessman first and foremost. I hope I'm wrong.

There are 2 types of trades, IMO:

1) Primarily Baseball-driven. IMO the McCarthy trade has to fall in this group since he was young & cheap and going to stay that way for a few years. The only way that trade makes sense is if KW thinks enough of the difference in talent between Brandon and Danks/Masset that it's worth it. Financials don't factor in. IMO the Garcia trade also falls into this one because at the time, the Sox had 5 other solid SPs and Brandon wasn't cutting it in the 'pen anyway. You can argue that KW could have gotten more/better guys in return, but it wasn't driven on his end by a need to dump the $$$.

2) Primarily Financial-driven. WFT would fall into this: Dump any & all vets who you won't resign for young talent. If they were to trade another veteran starter for unestablished young pitchers ala Danks/Gio/Floyd, that would almost certainly fall into this group. But I don't think that's happened yet.

Trades in #1 may be disconcerting, and I'm not sure Kenny's right about the ones he's made, but they're primarily baseball decisions. Trades made for #2 are the one's I'd be concerned about.

That said, one thing that confuses me is that ther's a lot of talk about the increased revenue base, etc that's flowing into baseball from the Internet, Satellite radio, International, etc. That's supposedly why teams are cash-flush and raising budgets/payrolls. Yet the Sox are not doing that (yet). So are they a) Not participating in the increased $$$ (and if so, why?)? b) participating but holding onto the cash for better value rather than spending it on mediocre FAs? or c) pocketing it (which would be against their behavior for most of Reinsdorf's tenure)?

For obvious reasons, a & c concern me. I'm hopeful that b is what's happening, but that will be proven by what happens in the next 12 months.

fquaye149
01-08-2007, 11:43 AM
Let's thank the lord that they don't!:bandance::bandance::bandance::bandance::ban dance:


for good measure:
:supernana:

fquaye149
01-08-2007, 11:45 AM
There are 2 types of trades, IMO:

1) Primarily Baseball-driven. IMO the McCarthy trade has to fall in this group since he was young & cheap and going to stay that way for a few years. The only way that trade makes sense is if KW thinks enough of the difference in talent between Brandon and Danks/Masset that it's worth it. Financials don't factor in. IMO the Garcia trade also falls into this one because at the time, the Sox had 5 other solid SPs and Brandon wasn't cutting it in the 'pen anyway. You can argue that KW could have gotten more/better guys in return, but it wasn't driven on his end by a need to dump the $$$.

2) Primarily Financial-driven. WFT would fall into this: Dump any & all vets who you won't resign for young talent. If they were to trade another veteran starter for unestablished young pitchers ala Danks/Gio/Floyd, that would almost certainly fall into this group. But I don't think that's happened yet.

Trades in #1 may be disconcerting, and I'm not sure Kenny's right about the ones he's made, but they're primarily baseball decisions. Trades made for #2 are the one's I'd be concerned about.

That said, one thing that confuses me is that ther's a lot of talk about the increased revenue base, etc that's flowing into baseball from the Internet, Satellite radio, International, etc. That's supposedly why teams are cash-flush and raising budgets/payrolls. Yet the Sox are not doing that (yet). So are they a) Not participating in the increased $$$ (and if so, why?)? b) participating but holding onto the cash for better value rather than spending it on mediocre FAs? or c) pocketing it (which would be against their behavior for most of Reinsdorf's tenure)?

For obvious reasons, a & c concern me. I'm hopeful that b is what's happening, but that will be proven by what happens in the next 12 months.

Or perhaps it's option d.)---

that even with the increased number of sources of revenue, revenue itself is not increasing as ratings for baseball continue to flag, and playoff ratings were at an all-time low.

or e.) none of the above

CaptainBallz
01-08-2007, 11:45 AM
How is this different from other owners?

Exactly. They're all watching the bottom line and have a responsibility to keep investors happy and teams afloat. Some even factor winning into that equation.
The beauty of what JR is doing now is abstaining from engaging in this ridiculous market while still loading up on those pieces that are driving costs up and still fielding another competitor in 2007, IMO. This leaves him in a better position to negotiate once talent starts dropping off, getting old, and moving on. He fields yet another contender without betting the farm and breaking the bank.
Smart, maybe??

champagne030
01-08-2007, 12:01 PM
Or perhaps it's option d.)---

that even with the increased number of sources of revenue, revenue itself is not increasing as ratings for baseball continue to flag, and playoff ratings were at an all-time low.

or e.) none of the above

If there's an option D, that is not it. MLB has already signed those contracts and that money is locked. Networks, ect. could use ratings when the next contract comes up, but these recent deals are cash in hand for teams.

caulfield12
01-08-2007, 12:08 PM
Exactly. They're all watching the bottom line and have a responsibility to keep investors happy and teams afloat. Some even factor winning into that equation.
The beauty of what JR is doing now is abstaining from engaging in this ridiculous market while still loading up on those pieces that are driving costs up and still fielding another competitor in 2007, IMO. This leaves him in a better position to negotiate once talent starts dropping off, getting old, and moving on. He fields yet another contender without betting the farm and breaking the bank.
Smart, maybe??

It's smart UNLESS we don't make the playoffs, we dump all our veteran starters except Garland and Contreras (or take the draft pick compensation), Crede and Dye are gone and we have a rotation of Garland, Contreras, Danks, Floyd and Broadway for 2008.

That would knock our season ticket base down significantly, as we go through another "these kids can play" phase, except we'd also have to figure out what to do with Konerko, AJ and Thome, as they would be superfluous on a rebuilding team.

We have to capitalize on the "new Sox fans" and try to make them lifelong Sox fans. Tearing the whole thing apart after this season (if we don't make the playoffs) is not the best way I can think of to go about it.

SoxxoS
01-08-2007, 12:19 PM
QFT

The reason pitchers are getting so much is that there is a shortage of supply when it comes to good pitchers. On top of that, they are in heavy demand.

Pitchers got that much money b/c the owners that gave it to them dont think they are overvalued, they think they are priced just right -

The owner for the Giants thought paying Zito that much money was the right thing to do weighing his costs ($$$, not living up to his contract compared to other pitchers available) to his possible benefits (how much better he is than everyone else, his probably statistics, wins, etc).

CaptainBallz
01-08-2007, 12:24 PM
It's smart UNLESS we don't make the playoffs, we dump all our veteran starters except Garland and Contreras (or take the draft pick compensation), Crede and Dye are gone and we have a rotation of Garland, Contreras, Danks, Floyd and Broadway for 2008.

That would knock our season ticket base down significantly, as we go through another "these kids can play" phase, except we'd also have to figure out what to do with Konerko, AJ and Thome, as they would be superfluous on a rebuilding team.

We have to capitalize on the "new Sox fans" and try to make them lifelong Sox fans. Tearing the whole thing apart after this season (if we don't make the playoffs) is not the best way I can think of to go about it.

I agree with your last paragraph wholeheartedly, but don't necessarily see what's going on now as the precursor to "These Kids Can Play, pt. deux". Maybe it's me, but I find KW to be an incredibly sincere person. I truly believe that he wants to to field a winner EVERY year. Considering that we're discussing how ridiculously overpriced the FA market is, especially amongst quality pitchers, how does having a bulk of young talent in the ranks NOW equal the Sox holding on to all of it and not using them as bargaining chips to aquire proven veteran talent as that need arises?
If any of these guys strut their stuff this season, the Sox have increased their investment 100-fold.

itsnotrequired
01-08-2007, 12:26 PM
Pitchers got that much money b/c the owners that gave it to them dont think they are overvalued, they think they are priced just right -

The owner for the Giants thought paying Zito that much money was the right thing to do weighing his costs ($$$, not living up to his contract compared to other pitchers available) to his possible benefits (how much better he is than everyone else, his probably statistics, wins, etc).

I would argue that Smart Owner A thinks "Crap, I know Stupid Owner B will offer $30 million and Stupid Owner C will offer $40 million so I better offer $45 million if I want get this player. Crap!"

The contract a player gets does not necessarily reflect his worth.

caulfield12
01-08-2007, 12:31 PM
I agree with your last paragraph wholeheartedly, but don't necessarily see what's going on now as the precursor to "These Kids Can Play, pt. deux". Maybe it's me, but I find KW to be an incredibly sincere person. I truly believe that he wants to to field a winner EVERY year. Considering that we're discussing how ridiculously overpriced the FA market is, especially amongst quality pitchers, how does having a bulk of young talent in the ranks NOW equal the Sox holding on to all of it and not using them as bargaining chips to aquire proven veteran talent as that need arises?
If any of these guys strut their stuff this season, the Sox have increased their investment 100-fold.


I'm not sure about 100 fold, we'll just have to wait and see how it all pans out.

We have some very nice assets to trade, depending on how things go THIS season...almost all of them would be attractive to other teams.

Konerko
Thome (AL)
Crede
Dye
Buehrle
Garland ???
Vazquez
MacDougal


KW simply has to decide who he's going to build around for the future. Will it be Buehrle or Garland or neither? You would think he should keep Jenks and Thornton around. Then you have Fields, Sweeney, Anderson, Toby Hall...and the young pitchers. We will have to make decisions on AJ, Pods and Uribe, as well as Iguchi.

One way or the other, this is the key year to determine the future of the franchise. I think how our pitching looks going into 2008 will have a large impact on whether we keep Crede his final year or try to re-sign Dye (or go with youngsters).

I want Mags back
01-08-2007, 12:34 PM
markets are markets for a reason...there is no such thing as a ridiculous market - That is the beauty of a free market system -
You sound like my ECON teacher

samram
01-08-2007, 12:37 PM
I would argue that Smart Owner A thinks "Crap, I know Stupid Owner B will offer $30 million and Stupid Owner C will offer $40 million so I better offer $45 million if I want get this player. Crap!"

The contract a player gets does not necessarily reflect his worth.

I think that in many cases that may be the thought process, but that doesn't really negate SoxxoS's point since they wouldn't offer the $45 if they didn't think the player could live up to that number. The whole market thing is subjective and those who find it ridiculous simply don't enter the market, often wisely so.

Your last sentence is absolutely correct- contracts reflect perceived value, not necessarily any objective measure of worth.

The Immigrant
01-08-2007, 12:49 PM
markets are markets for a reason...there is no such thing as a ridiculous market

Markets can be ridiculous or irrational - there are plenty of examples, although you typically need the benefit of hindsight to reach this conclusion. Keynes famously said that the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.

Steelrod
01-08-2007, 12:56 PM
Pitchers got that much money b/c the owners that gave it to them dont think they are overvalued, they think they are priced just right -

The owner for the Giants thought paying Zito that much money was the right thing to do weighing his costs ($$$, not living up to his contract compared to other pitchers available) to his possible benefits (how much better he is than everyone else, his probably statistics, wins, etc).
Actions are not necessarily correct decisions. Only time will tell if spending loosely pays off. Remember only 4 teams can win divisions, and one one the Series.
The real problem is arbitration, for which these signings will force EVERY players salary up. An owner who attempts to controls his costs and bottom line is at the mercy of the 29 other teams.
A free market may always be correct, but that doesn't mean that it is healthy. Higher salaries will pyramid into higher costs of tickets, parking, food, etc. A budget takes expenses into account when it projects revenues, and adjusts accordingly.

SABRSox
01-08-2007, 12:59 PM
The only certainty with this market is that if it is sustained, there will be another work stoppage when the current CBA expires.

daslobo
01-08-2007, 01:01 PM
it's MLB. MLB is a legal monopoly due to their anti-trust agreements. The market correction will not come because it is not an open market. They can be as dumb as they want to be because there is no "smarter competition". It must be infuriating for a businessman like JR.

soxtalker
01-08-2007, 01:03 PM
The most interesting part of that article to me was that Cashman is taking a similar approach to that of KW. Now, the Yankees are big spenders, and you don't easily turn that around overnight. And there's no indication that they are going to turn into KC or Florida. But they do seem to be changing their approach -- just as KW is changing. For all of the effects of big money on the game, being smart in your choice of players still makes a difference.

caulfield12
01-08-2007, 01:23 PM
The most interesting part of that article to me was that Cashman is taking a similar approach to that of KW. Now, the Yankees are big spenders, and you don't easily turn that around overnight. And there's no indication that they are going to turn into KC or Florida. But they do seem to be changing their approach -- just as KW is changing. For all of the effects of big money on the game, being smart in your choice of players still makes a difference.


But what have the Yankees really done that is so "KW-esque"?

Dumped Johnson? Let Sheffield go? They added a big contract in Pettite, and also paid speculative money to Igawa as well. Pavano has a big contract (wasted $$$ so far) and so does Mussina.

I guess they've kept Cabrera and P. Hughes instead of trading them...but adding B. Abreu wasn't something KW would ever have contemplated. They still have All-Stars at nearly every position on the field. It will take 2-3 years for them to turn around their organizational philosophy, if that's what they are indeed contemplating.

The only person many thought they would sign that got away is Dice-K, but they will quickly turn around and overpay Clemens (especially considering he's going to the AL, same with Andy).

TDog
01-08-2007, 01:33 PM
I agree with Jerry Reinsdorf. The problem, really, isn't in paying a good starting pitcher $10 million-$12 million in 2007, when he appears set to perform according to what ECON professors will insist is the "market." The problem is guaranteeing more money four or five years or more out. The last couple of years on long-term contracts for big-money players are often eaten by the teams that signed them. Rarely are they performing at the top of their game at the end, despite what the team is paying them. The problem is severe enough from the perspective of competition that teams will often send money with their big-money players to seal the trades. The result is that a five year contract for $75 million can become three years with the team for a $60 million expense. Projecting pitching more than three years out is risky. Everyone knows it, but the bidding isn't just a matter of annual salary. It's a matter of years. GMs have long known this. Where was Kevin Brown at the end of his big contract? Randy Johnson didn't even last his entire contract with the Yankees.

Of course the market is insane. Even more insane is that arbitration awards are based on the insane market. The players know it is insane. They call it "stupid money." But it's there, and if they don't have the killer instinct to go for it, at least they have agents who do.

Signing a big free agent often will sell tickets, especially with fans clamoring for such players, but it often isn't particularly smart. Winning a championship means putting together a team that will win, which isn't as easy as putting together a bunch of players who have won or who have put up great stats. Competitively, it is a higher percentage move to get rid of Freddy Garcia, who will be paid stupid money on the downside of his career for a pitcher who may do better at a fraction of the cost.

Flight #24
01-08-2007, 02:01 PM
I agree with Jerry Reinsdorf. The problem, really, isn't in paying a good starting pitcher $10 million-$12 million in 2007, when he appears set to perform according to what ECON professors will insist is the "market." The problem is guaranteeing more money four or five years or more out. The last couple of years on long-term contracts for big-money players are often eaten by the teams that signed them. Rarely are they performing at the top of their game at the end, despite what the team is paying them.

While I agree with you, it means that you have to be right on your prospects. Because if the tradeoff is paying 3/$60 out of a 5/$75 deal but competing v. ending up scrounging for pitching, that's an easy tradeoff to make.

That's my concern: If the market doesn't correct (and I'm not so sure it will, at least not for 2-3 years), then KW needs to be right on the guys he's acquired or the Sox are going to struggle. Ideally, he'd pay market for 1-2 guys which would at least let you sign a low-tier vet or 2 if necessary. But if you have a rotation with no ace or even #2 caliber guy, you're screwed. Contreras in '09 as the ace or Danks/Gio/Floyd trying to play that role scare the crap out of me.

Paulwny
01-08-2007, 02:15 PM
While I agree with you, it means that you have to be right on your prospects. Because if the tradeoff is paying 3/$60 out of a 5/$75 deal but competing v. ending up scrounging for pitching, that's an easy tradeoff to make.

That's my concern: If the market doesn't correct (and I'm not so sure it will, at least not for 2-3 years), then KW needs to be right on the guys he's acquired or the Sox are going to struggle. Ideally, he'd pay market for 1-2 guys which would at least let you sign a low-tier vet or 2 if necessary. But if you have a rotation with no ace or even #2 caliber guy, you're screwed. Contreras in '09 as the ace or Danks/Gio/Floyd trying to play that role scare the crap out of me.

Thank you, I fully agree, add to this, JR's continual crying about the over paying let's other owners and GM's know that with all things being equal all they have to do is add an additional year, with $$$ compensation for that year, and JR will force KW to fold .

ewokpelts
01-08-2007, 02:26 PM
Studios have already come to that conclusion and are downgrading budgets in hopes of profits.
really?

superman returns -209-260 million reported budget(not counting promotion)...200 million domestic gross

pirates 2 - 250 million budget(not counting promotion) - 425 million domestic gross

spiderman 3 - 250 million budget(and growing)
pirates 3 250 million budget(and growing)

children of men - 76 million budget for an oscar hopeful with no high priced stars

ewokpelts
01-08-2007, 02:27 PM
I predict the market will correct itself the very next offseason.

Same thing happened in 02.

Whitesox029
01-08-2007, 03:57 PM
Teams are at the mercy of their dumbest competitor in terms of contracts. All the owners could be smart business men who know real value and all it takes is one lunatic to offer a Gil Meche type of contract and it gets all thrown out of whack.

On the other hand, if all these huge deals dissappear next year, then collusion talks will start to heat up.
I agree with that. If the owners and GMs banded together and said, "There are 30 of us and not one is willing to pay you more than you're really worth" to someone like Ted Lilly, the problem would be solved.

Thing is, there are guys like Hendry who don't care what happens to the market as long as they get the mediocre pitchers they need to take the places of the truly subpar ones they already have. As a result, it hurts everyone else immediately, and it hurts you in the long run because you are essentially buying 3rd place, which really isn't good for much when it comes to the first tuesday in October.

SABRSox
01-08-2007, 03:59 PM
I agree with that. If the owners and GMs banded together and said, "There are 30 of us and not one is willing to pay you more than you're really worth" to someone like Ted Lilly, the problem would be solved.

That is collusion.

itsnotrequired
01-08-2007, 04:02 PM
I agree with that. If the owners and GMs banded together and said, "There are 30 of us and not one is willing to pay you more than you're really worth" to someone like Ted Lilly, the problem would be solved.

Thing is, there are guys like Hendry who don't care what happens to the market as long as they get the mediocre pitchers they need to take the places of the truly subpar ones they already have. As a result, it hurts everyone else immediately, and it hurts you in the long run because you are essentially buying 3rd place, which really isn't good for much when it comes to the first tuesday in October.

This is collusion and a violation of the CBA.

EDIT: Damn you, SABRSox!:D:

As for the second point, there is lots of speculation that the Cubs bulked up on a lot of players in an effort to make the team more attractive to a buyer.

CaptainBallz
01-08-2007, 04:10 PM
That is collusion.

Good thing that never happens in the "free market".

I would think that amongst the movers and shakers within all the teams organizations, there has to generally be some form of consensus agreement about what various talent is "worth". Heck, not even within organizations, just with anyone that pays attention (media, fans, etc.).
It just takes one loose cannon with a corporate order to "spend-or-die" to throw that consensus out of whack. My point is that it doesn't seem like a "natural" outcome of market factors, regardless of the current FA pool.

maurice
01-08-2007, 04:11 PM
They added a big contract in Pettite.... they will quickly turn around and overpay Clemens

Pettitte got a $16 million, one-year deal. Clemens also stands to get a big $$$, one-year (actually more like half-year) deal.

Pettitte's performance is not likely to justify $16 mil., but the one-year part of the deal is pretty nice for the Yankees. He's only 34 and pitched 200+ innings each of the last 2 seasons.

Clemens potentially is very valuable down the stretch and in the playoffs. I suspect if Clemens asked KW for a one-year deal, he'd have to seriously consider it.

5-7 years + $$$ = huge risk for a starting pitcher and potentially crippling to future deals.
1 year + $$$ = not so much, if you can fit it into your one-year budget.

Pavano has a big contract (wasted $$$ so far)

The lack of performance from the big money / multi-year guys he acquired in past years likely is the reason he's acting like KW now (with the added benefit of being able to sign veteran pitchers to one-year deals).

Hitmen77
01-08-2007, 05:47 PM
When Mr. Reinsdorf doesn't like the market, he has a tendency to pout and trade all his free agents to be. I would not be at all surprised to see a White Flag Part Deux trade. It is typical Reinsdorf, he is NOTHING if not a shrewd buisnessman. And he will always be a buisnessman first and foremost. I hope I'm wrong.

Thank you, I fully agree, add to this, JR's continual crying about the over paying let's other owners and GM's know that with all things being equal all they have to do is add an additional year, with $$$ compensation for that year, and JR will force KW to fold .

Since when is JR continually "crying" and "pouting"?

Since 1990, the Sox have the 4th or 5th best record overall in MLB, have given us five 90-win seasons and a world championship. The Sox had one of the top 5 payrolls in 2006 and will have an approx. $100 million payroll in 2007. I don't get why their responsible and successful approach has earned them the label of being chronic whiners.

This is what bothers me about the whole "free market" argument. People like to argue that the high salaries are the fault of the owners who are stupid enough to hand out insane contracts. Yet, when our team successful team doesn't sign players to outrageous contracts - then we're pouting and being cheap.

TDog
01-08-2007, 06:30 PM
While I agree with you, it means that you have to be right on your prospects. Because if the tradeoff is paying 3/$60 out of a 5/$75 deal but competing v. ending up scrounging for pitching, that's an easy tradeoff to make.

That's my concern: If the market doesn't correct (and I'm not so sure it will, at least not for 2-3 years), then KW needs to be right on the guys he's acquired or the Sox are going to struggle. Ideally, he'd pay market for 1-2 guys which would at least let you sign a low-tier vet or 2 if necessary. But if you have a rotation with no ace or even #2 caliber guy, you're screwed. Contreras in '09 as the ace or Danks/Gio/Floyd trying to play that role scare the crap out of me.


You also have to be right on your veteran pitchers, if that's the course you take. And it isn't as easy as it sounds. A lot of people here would have opened up the coffers for Sidney Ponson. Winning a bidding war to sign a pitcher who has past success doesn't guarantee you have a winning pitcher. Your chances of finding a solid pitcher out of Danks/Gio/Floyd may be better than your chances of finding success from a big-money contract for a Zito who no longer has any financial motivation to perform.

Flight #24
01-08-2007, 10:55 PM
You also have to be right on your veteran pitchers, if that's the course you take. And it isn't as easy as it sounds. A lot of people here would have opened up the coffers for Sidney Ponson. Winning a bidding war to sign a pitcher who has past success doesn't guarantee you have a winning pitcher. Your chances of finding a solid pitcher out of Danks/Gio/Floyd may be better than your chances of finding success from a big-money contract for a Zito who no longer has any financial motivation to perform.

The concern on a guy like Zito is primarily the out years. That's the kind of FA we're talking about. Obviously if you offer Ponson a Zito deal, you deserve to get burned. But for the most part, it's a question of how much yo're willing to pay (or overpay) a pretty good bet of a veteran to get a couple years solid or better performance and a year or 2 of significant overpayment.

caulfield12
01-08-2007, 10:59 PM
The concern on a guy like Zito is primarily the out years. That's the kind of FA we're talking about. Obviously if you offer Ponson a Zito deal, you deserve to get burned. But for the most part, it's a question of how much yo're willing to pay (or overpay) a pretty good bet of a veteran to get a couple years solid or better performance and a year or 2 of significant overpayment.

The problem with Zito is that he's being paid as a staff ace when he's devolved into a 3rd starter the last couple of seasons. His strikeouts are down, walks are up and velocity is 3-4 MPH down.

Eventually, unless you're Jamie Moyer and/or Kenny Rogers, you need to have something on your fastball to keep the hitters honest. If Zito continues to get behind in the count and is forced to throw fastballs, he'll just be Mark Buerhle 2nd half 2006 and the Giants will never get out from under that contract. They went from a power pitcher in Schmidt to a finesse starter in Zito. Usually not a wise move.

Paulwny
01-09-2007, 01:31 PM
Since when is JR continually "crying" and "pouting"?

Since 1990, the Sox have the 4th or 5th best record overall in MLB, have given us five 90-win seasons and a world championship. The Sox had one of the top 5 payrolls in 2006 and will have an approx. $100 million payroll in 2007. I don't get why their responsible and successful approach has earned them the label of being chronic whiners.

This is what bothers me about the whole "free market" argument. People like to argue that the high salaries are the fault of the owners who are stupid enough to hand out insane contracts. Yet, when our team successful team doesn't sign players to outrageous contracts - then we're pouting and being cheap.

JR has complained about long term contracts for pitchers quite often after the Jamie Navarro fiasco.
I never mentioned pay-roll, which I believe is substantial.
I wouldn't have offered any contracts to the fa pitchers who were available this year.
In the future the sox may have need for a #1 or #2 starter. Any fa pitcher who fits this catagory is looking for $$$ and a long term contract. The sox stance of no pitcher contracts over 3 yrs will put them out of any real negotiations. All other teams interested in the same pitcher will extend the years of the contract knowing the sox will fold.
The sox will then need to trade players to fill pitching holes if their minor league pitchers haven't fully developed.
If JR doesn't want contracts to pitchers beyond 3 years fine, but the sox don't need to continually remind the rest of baseball that this is his stance.

1951Campbell
01-09-2007, 01:52 PM
Since when is JR continually "crying" and "pouting"?

Since 1990, the Sox have the 4th or 5th best record overall in MLB, have given us five 90-win seasons and a world championship. The Sox had one of the top 5 payrolls in 2006 and will have an approx. $100 million payroll in 2007. I don't get why their responsible and successful approach has earned them the label of being chronic whiners.

This is what bothers me about the whole "free market" argument. People like to argue that the high salaries are the fault of the owners who are stupid enough to hand out insane contracts. Yet, when our team successful team doesn't sign players to outrageous contracts - then we're pouting and being cheap.

My problem is that JR sounds like someone who had to move to Brooklyn because they were priced out of Manhattan--he's all "it's not fair, those apartments aren't really worth that much." Well, you can stomp you feet all you want, but that's still not going to lower rents in Manhattan or get you an apartment there, unless a lot of other people join you in not renting there. And in MLB, I don't see too terribly many teams looking at things JR's way, which, face it, means fewer options for the team.

Hokiesox
01-09-2007, 04:28 PM
I can agree that the market for SP is ridiculous. I have a ? though....

Does anyone see it improving in future years? I can't see SP's accepting less $$ in future years. I hope I'm wrong because I think their salaries are way out of hand. I just don't see any paycuts happening anytime soon. What do you all think?

It can if baseball agrees not to pay them outrageous sums. Baseball still has an anti-trust exemption. It would be perfectly legal for them to do so.

spiffie
01-09-2007, 08:58 PM
It can if baseball agrees not to pay them outrageous sums. Baseball still has an anti-trust exemption. It would be perfectly legal for them to do so.
See posts #51 and #52 of this thread. Baseball owners cannot collectively agree to anything regarding player salaries.

itsnotrequired
01-09-2007, 09:10 PM
See posts #51 and #52 of this thread. Baseball owners cannot collectively agree to anything regarding player salaries.

The owners need to unionize!

:redneck

fquaye149
01-09-2007, 09:23 PM
My problem is that JR sounds like someone who had to move to Brooklyn because they were priced out of Manhattan--he's all "it's not fair, those apartments aren't really worth that much." Well, you can stomp you feet all you want, but that's still not going to lower rents in Manhattan or get you an apartment there, unless a lot of other people join you in not renting there. And in MLB, I don't see too terribly many teams looking at things JR's way, which, face it, means fewer options for the team.

If rent went up like 5000% in the last 10 years, that might be a closer analogy.

And also if 75% of all apartments you rented became unliveable within the first year of your 5 year lease and there was nothing you could do about it

soxinem1
01-09-2007, 09:49 PM
The old Twins owner, Calvin Griffith has also bemoaned the current CBA and the salaries. Calvin really wants to get back into baseball ownership, but I don't think he's got a shot (ie. enough money). Basically, he thinks there should be a salary cap: "if all the other major leagues have one, why not baseball??"

Bottom line is, someone is getting the customer's money, it's either the owner/ownership group or the players.

:cool:

Didn't old Calvin die about 8-9 years ago?


In the future it may not be as inflated as it is now and I think that many GM's and owners are going to realize that. That will lead to pitchers not getting 4/40 or something outrageous like that. On the other hand, anything is possible.

I doubt it. 4/40 will soon be the bench mark for a premier closer, as Wagner, Rivera, and Ryan are already at or past the $10 million/year mark.

The question should be, who is the first $20 million a season pitcher going to be?

Daver
01-09-2007, 10:16 PM
This is collusion and a violation of the CBA.

EDIT: Damn you, SABRSox!:D:

As for the second point, there is lots of speculation that the Cubs bulked up on a lot of players in an effort to make the team more attractive to a buyer.

Not to be picky, but to keep things accurate, that is not a violation of the CBA per se, though it does contain language to that effect, but a violation of federal labor law. MLB lost the collusion suit filed by the MLBPA in a federal court, that made a ruling based on federal labor law as it pertains to negotiations of a contract, the language in the CBA is based on that ruling, and is placed there at the insistence of the MLBPA. MLB got off quite cheap as a result of that lawsuit thanks to their anti trust exemption BTW.

Hokiesox
01-10-2007, 01:26 PM
See posts #51 and #52 of this thread. Baseball owners cannot collectively agree to anything regarding player salaries.


--Thanks Daver, I should learn to read the last post... sorry for cluttering your board.

lakeviewsoxfan
01-10-2007, 01:31 PM
Didn't old Calvin die about 8-9 years ago?




I doubt it. 4/40 will soon be the bench mark for a premier closer, as Wagner, Rivera, and Ryan are already at or past the $10 million/year mark.

The question should be, who is the first $20 million a season pitcher going to be?

Johan Santana

caulfield12
01-10-2007, 06:20 PM
Santana's money won't come until after 2008, unless the Twins miraculously are able to get him to extend before that time period is up.

Someone will undoubtedly get there in the next 18 months first.

Clemens made $18 million in 2005, right? Or maybe he made more, if you pro-rated his salary for a full season last year?