MLB Offseason Thread

[-Jrabbit]

You know, this argument that gets trotted out -- that Minnesota or Toronto or whoever won, so the other small market teams just need to be more clever -- is really idiotic.

Insultingly idiotic.

[rah]

I really get tired of hearing that other teams can't compete. Yes, it's easier to win if you spend money, but it's far from guarenteed. Look at the chubs last year. Big money, no results.
Especially if you look at the last six world series winners.
2001 Arizona
2002 Anaheim
2003 Florida
2004 Boston
2005 Chicago WS
2006 St. Louis

Yes, it's nice to have lot's of money to spend, but it's not a requirement.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Wow, some upper and mid-tier payroll teams won the WS (and yes, even the 2003 Marlins were in the middle third of teams in payroll) in the last 6 years. The interesting thing is to look at the percentage of playoff appearances (compared to total playoff teams) by lower payroll squads.

Payroll is not the only determinant, but it sure is a large factor for teams that make the playoffs.

[rah]

I'm not saying it's not a factor. I'm just saying it's not the end all. Otherwise the Yankees would win every year. But yes, they make the playoffs a lot.

And I'm not going to say you just have to be smarter, even though it never hurts, but you have to get lucky.
That's the beauty of Baseball. The best team doesn't always win. A great player that bats 330 fails two thirds of the time. A seven game series is supposed to minimize that but it doesn't always.

Having that kid that was drafted in the seventh round that turns into a stud when someone teaches him how to throw a different pitch. Always trading when you're out of it and stockpiling young arms hoping one out of 5 makes it. Some skill but a lot of luck.

[Sava]

Originally posted by rah

2005 Chicago WS

[Imran Siddiqui]

The problem is that having a ton of cash means that you have more oppertunities to be lucky. A bad deal won't totally sink you. The Yankees can throw big money at Jeff Weaver and when he sucks, that's ok, they can throw money at another pitcher.

But when the Royals sign Juan Gonzales to a big deal and he sucks, they can't do jack about it. And any successes in scouting or whatnot don't mean anything because there isn't enough money to give them long term deals, so they jump somewhere else.

The thing that gets lost is that the big money teams make plenty of large mistakes, but because they have the cash, they can rectify that with little pain.

[rah]

I don't think that get's lost at all. Yes it helps.
Scouting youth is still critical. It's what, 5 years in the bigs before they can earn the big money. That's a long time even if it takes them 2 years to establish themselves. Some skill but lot's of luck required.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by rah
I don't think that get's lost at all. Yes it helps.
Scouting youth is still critical. It's what, 5 years in the bigs before they can earn the big money. That's a long time even if it takes them 2 years to establish themselves. Some skill but lot's of luck required.

Keeping that youth is even more critical . The Royals (for example... I keep using them because I think its tragic what has happened to this once proud franchise) developed some pretty good talent in the mid 90s with Johnny Damon and Carlos Beltran. Including dealing for Jermaine Dye when he was still young (after his first season) for Michael Tucker. But they couldn't afford to keep any of them and had to deal them away to get anything at all of value.

[rah]

Yes, a sad tale, but I know the smaller market teams can't keep everyone, but it doesn't mean that can't keep anyone. And have any of the people they traded for pan out?
Yes money will help you bury mistakes, but if you make fewer mistakes, you need less money. Again more luck then skill.
It's too bad, guarenteed contracts is the bain of all sports. Football has the right idea. Not a perfect system since the older players have a tendency to get screwed, but it's a faster recovery from a stupid decision.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
You know, this argument that gets trotted out -- that Minnesota or Toronto or whoever won, so the other small market teams just need to be more clever -- is really idiotic.

Insultingly idiotic.

I'd like to make it clear that I'm not making that argument.

On the other hand, there are some teams out there that like to claim "small market" status that in reality are NOT small market teams. They are teams in mid-sized markets who are doing a ****ty job of capitalizing on their market. The Baltimore Orioles are just such a team.

Seattle used to be considered (labelled?) "small market" but they're really not. They invested in their product and now are solidly middle-of-the-pack in payroll, with the ability to "go for it" if they find a window of opportunity (which they won't as long as Bavasi is runnign the show). Are they the Yankees? No. Do the Yankees have an advantage over them? Yes. But they're not the Royals. Or even the Twins.

Anyway, were I to head up a financial restructuring of the game, there would be a lot more revenue sharing, but there would have to be some sort of reward for teams that did a good job of investing in their product... rather than simply distributing the money evenly to all the teams (thus rewarding both the good owners/management and bad). I'm not entirely sure how to do that, by the way.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

The only way to really do it is even distribution (or at least even distribution of 50% of the gate/TV reciepts). The problem is finding out the ACTUAL television money for teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, and Braves that own (or have sweetheart deals) their own television stations.

The NFL has it easier because of a national TV deal, but I'm sure baseball can find someway to make it work if they really wanted to.

[Arrian]

Yes, getting accurate financial info is a major hurdle. The TV revenue is the motherload.

-Arrian

[reismark]

"Return To Sender"

The Unit goes back to the Diamondbacks along with $2 mil of his $16 mil salary for this season for reliever Luis Vizcaino and three prospects.

[-Jrabbit]

Why would ANYONE do the Yankees such a favor????

[Arrian]

Meh, it's not like they gave up anybody good. This appears to have been a... wait for it... salary dump by the Yankees.

I'm psyched that he's gone, personally, though looking at the deal objectively I wouldn't say the Yankees really got much out of it, talent-wise.

jrabbit - there are actually projections out there that say RJ could have a good year, provided the surgery really did what he hopes it did. I'm highly skeptical of such projections (PECOTA had him down as the best Yankee starter next season), but I'm sure that someone in the Diamondbacks organization managed to conjure a pie-in-the-sky scenario wherein a return to his home, the NL, and a warmer climate = a healthier, more effective RJ. More 2005 than 2006, but against NL hitters.

I don't really buy it, but obviously they did.

-Arrian