Hank Scorpio
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
You're gonna die now!
Posts: 573
|
Post by Hank Scorpio on Nov 5, 2009 14:58:04 GMT -5
How much of that 7.36 was due to AJ Burnett lasting 2 innings? And Burnett's perfomance had less to do with the short rest than it did with the fact that he is AJ Burnett. Let's not go overboard calling the 3-man rotation a great strategic move just because the Yankees won the series. The three starters' ERA in Games 1-3 was 4.05. In Games 4-6, it was 7.36. I'm guessing Chad Gaudin could've thrown up a 7.36 pretty easily had he been given a shot.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,319
|
Post by tashoya on Nov 5, 2009 14:59:12 GMT -5
For a board with a ton of Republicans, there sure is a lot of vitriol for a well-run business. Ironic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2009 15:09:59 GMT -5
How much of that 7.36 was due to AJ Burnett lasting 2 innings? And Burnett's perfomance had less to do with the short rest than it did with the fact that he is AJ Burnett. Let's not go overboard calling the 3-man rotation a great strategic move just because the Yankees won the series. The three starters' ERA in Games 1-3 was 4.05. In Games 4-6, it was 7.36. I'm guessing Chad Gaudin could've thrown up a 7.36 pretty easily had he been given a shot. A big chunk of it, obviously - my point is that everyone acts like Gaudin would've been a total disaster in Game 4, when he wouldn't have been worse than Burnett was in Game 5. On the flip side, I'm pretty sure that the hypothetical Game 6 Burnett (on normal rest and pitching at home) would've been closer to the Burnett of Game 2 than the Burnett of Game 5. Either way, any strategy can be touted as the "correct" one...as long as you win.
|
|
hoya95
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,445
|
Post by hoya95 on Nov 5, 2009 15:10:14 GMT -5
For a board with a ton of Republicans, there sure is a lot of vitriol for a well-run business. Ironic. What exactly is your definition of a "well-run" business? Over the last 8 years, they spent $1.4 billion to not win any World Series. This year they spent enough on guys still in their prime (to whom they will be paying $20 million a year when they are long past their primes) to finally win another. Not my idea of "well-run", but the franchise itself does make a fortune, if that's what you mean.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Nov 5, 2009 15:52:54 GMT -5
For a board with a ton of Republicans, there sure is a lot of vitriol for a well-run business. Ironic. What exactly is your definition of a "well-run" business? Over the last 8 years, they spent $1.4 billion to not win any World Series. This year they spent enough on guys still in their prime (to whom they will be paying $20 million a year when they are long past their primes) to finally win another. Not my idea of "well-run", but the franchise itself does make a fortune, if that's what you mean. Plus, it's not like they have all that revenue based solely on being a "well-run" business. Any team in New York is going to have a greater revenue stream than any other city. Have the Yankees maximized that revenue stream? Yes. But it's not like the Pirates are going to start a PES network (or get the city to build them a $1.5 billion dollar ballpark).
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Nov 5, 2009 19:47:21 GMT -5
Let's all cry a river for the poor (125MM) payroll Phestoons. Now maybe that merry band of sign-stealing, HGH ingesting aholes can slink back into mediocrity where all philly teams belong.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Nov 6, 2009 0:11:13 GMT -5
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Nov 6, 2009 16:04:02 GMT -5
re: 4th starter, Wang got hurt, and Joba/Hughes will be in that role next season. That they did not trade either of those 2 for Santana, something Cashman got killed for at the time, will pay dividends down the line. They're both 23. It sounds like you're saying they withheld Hughes, which they did for a while but ended up not doing: www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2007/11/30/2007-11-30_yankees_decide_to_offer_phil_hughes_in_p-2.htmlAnd the Twins decided to go for a package that didn't even contain the Mets best prospect. I know that after years and years of trading away prospects you want to get excited about someone coming out of the Yankee farm system. Unfortunately the fact is that both guys have had a full season's worth of starts and demonstrated that they're just not very good in that role. Pay dividends? Santana is several times more valuable than either of those guys ever will be.
|
|
Hank Scorpio
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
You're gonna die now!
Posts: 573
|
Post by Hank Scorpio on Nov 6, 2009 17:04:42 GMT -5
Cashman has denied that report, and I refuse to believe that the Twins accepted a package centered around Carlos Gomez if Hughes was, in fact, on the table. And, of course, Santana is a way better pitcher than either of those 2. But, if you can pay Sabathia as a free agent and keep those prospects, who eventually would turn into an average starting CF, a shut down 8th inning reliever, and a 4th/5th starter, or just have Santana, it seems, in retrospect, that Cashman made the right decision. And this is discounting the "dividends down the line" which I mentioned. A more in depth look: Hughes turned 23 in June, has made 28 career starts. You're going to say he is a proven failure at SP b/c of 140 innings? Seems shortsighted. (his ERA is 5.50+ as a starter) Same goes for Joba, he turned 24 in September. He has shown moments of brilliance as a starter amidst moments of frustration. 156.1 career innings as a starter and we're writing him off completely? (Joba is at 4.78 as a starter) And if you think I am suffering from pinstiped myopia, ask any Red Sox fan here if they think that Clay Buchholz, with a 4.91 career ERA through his first 190+ innings, has proven himself incapable of being a starting pitcher? Some more data before I go: Felix Hernandez posted a 4.52 his first season as a starter. Roy Halladay posted a 3.92 in his first 140 innings, and then posted a 10+ ERA in the next season. Sent to the minors, came back a beast. Cliff Lee was at 5.43 his first season as a starter. It got worse later on. Tim Lincecum had a 4.00 ERA his first 146 innings. Sabathia posted 4.40 ERA through his first 390 innings. Not everyone can come into the league throwing 4 plus pitches for strikes. re: 4th starter, Wang got hurt, and Joba/Hughes will be in that role next season. That they did not trade either of those 2 for Santana, something Cashman got killed for at the time, will pay dividends down the line. They're both 23. It sounds like you're saying they withheld Hughes, which they did for a while but ended up not doing: www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2007/11/30/2007-11-30_yankees_decide_to_offer_phil_hughes_in_p-2.htmlAnd the Twins decided to go for a package that didn't even contain the Mets best prospect. I know that after years and years of trading away prospects you want to get excited about someone coming out of the Yankee farm system. Unfortunately the fact is that both guys have had a full season's worth of starts and demonstrated that they're just not very good in that role. Pay dividends? Santana is several times more valuable than either of those guys ever will be.
|
|
njhoya06
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 228
|
Post by njhoya06 on Nov 6, 2009 23:30:54 GMT -5
Let's all cry a river for the poor (125MM) payroll Phestoons. Now maybe that merry band of sign-stealing, HGH ingesting aholes can slink back into mediocrity where all philly teams belong. Things the Phillies are going to do next year: finish ahead of the Mets, win the East for the fourth straight year, and quite possibly maybe win the NL for the third time in a row. Who knows, the team has as good a shot as anyone not named the Yankees of winning the whole damn thing. This is the sort of mediocrity I can support as a phan
|
|
njhoya06
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 228
|
Post by njhoya06 on Nov 7, 2009 0:22:45 GMT -5
This really is a terrific article.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Nov 7, 2009 13:49:06 GMT -5
Let's all cry a river for the poor (125MM) payroll Phestoons. Now maybe that merry band of sign-stealing, HGH ingesting aholes can slink back into mediocrity where all philly teams belong. Things the Phillies are going to do next year: finish ahead of the Mets, win the East for the fourth straight year, and quite possibly maybe win the NL for the third time in a row. Who knows, the team has as good a shot as anyone not named the Yankees of winning the whole damn thing. This is the sort of mediocrity I can support as a phan Completely agree. The Phillies were close to a repeat and could only be stopped by Yank of America. It's a rare day that Philly is largely optimistic about a team but this is definitely one. They'll return everyone, upgrade at third, and get Hamels a third reliable pitch. A crafty deal for a righy starter and a utility player and the Phightins have a shot at three straight NL pennants which hasn't been done since WWII. I'll take it.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Nov 7, 2009 15:56:47 GMT -5
Does anyone want to note that during the seasons when the Yankees actually won all their World Series in the late '90s, early 2000s, they payroll was not very much higher than the rest of the league? In 1998, the Orioles actually had a higher payroll, and the Yankees were the winningest team in AL history. So can we get off the argument that the Yankees only win b/c they spend money. History has shown that they DON'T win when they rely on spending too much money. This year is an outlier, but with the exceptions of Texeira, A-Rod, and CC, the Yankees don't really have a giant free-agent-bought team. They have a lot of home-grown guys again. And this is how they've won.
|
|
hoya95
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,445
|
Post by hoya95 on Nov 7, 2009 16:44:01 GMT -5
Um, no. If they didn't go out and buy the top 2 free agent pitchers and the top free agent slugger to add to all their stars, they probably don't make the playoffs and would not have won the World Series. They wouldn't have had a pitching staff for starters. Do you think Phil Hughes and Ian Kennedy would have carried them? And Texeria put up huge numbers, took enormous pressure off of A-Rod, and made their infield defense light-years better. They bought it. And how many home-grown stars have they produced this century? Cano is a nice player and Melky is just sort of there. They exist based on what they buy. (And they still have the greatest closer ever.) To pretend otherwise is just silly. Enjoy the win and celebrate however you'd like. But for Yankee fans to suggest they were the underdogs or won because of their home-grown talent is completely ridiculous.
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Nov 7, 2009 16:50:38 GMT -5
Does anyone want to note that during the seasons when the Yankees actually won all their World Series in the late '90s, early 2000s, they payroll was not very much higher than the rest of the league? In 1998, the Orioles actually had a higher payroll, and the Yankees were the winningest team in AL history. So can we get off the argument that the Yankees only win b/c they spend money. History has shown that they DON'T win when they rely on spending too much money. This year is an outlier, but with the exceptions of Texeira, A-Rod, and CC, the Yankees don't really have a giant free-agent-bought team. They have a lot of home-grown guys again. And this is how they've won. Yeah let's just exclude their three best players. How many different teams would be World Series favorites if you just plunked those guys on their roster? Anyone who finished above .500 this year? Not to mention that those three guys get paid about as much as the Reds, who actually spend more than ten other teams.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Nov 7, 2009 18:32:24 GMT -5
Does anyone want to note that during the seasons when the Yankees actually won all their World Series in the late '90s, early 2000s, they payroll was not very much higher than the rest of the league? In 1998, the Orioles actually had a higher payroll, and the Yankees were the winningest team in AL history. So can we get off the argument that the Yankees only win b/c they spend money. History has shown that they DON'T win when they rely on spending too much money. This year is an outlier, but with the exceptions of Texeira, A-Rod, and CC, the Yankees don't really have a giant free-agent-bought team. They have a lot of home-grown guys again. And this is how they've won. Um, I'd rather take my chances with the Yankees payroll versus, say, the Royals payroll. Also, they've been in the playoffs every year but last year, so I'd say the huge payroll has been paying off.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Nov 7, 2009 18:42:30 GMT -5
This year is an outlier, but with the exceptions of Texeira, A-Rod, and CC, the Yankees don't really have a giant free-agent-bought team. Way to leave out the World Series MVP. And A.J. Burnett And Johnny Damon. And Nick Swisher (trade).
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Nov 7, 2009 21:44:46 GMT -5
Does anyone want to note that during the seasons when the Yankees actually won all their World Series in the late '90s, early 2000s, they payroll was not very much higher than the rest of the league? In 1998, the Orioles actually had a higher payroll, and the Yankees were the winningest team in AL history. So can we get off the argument that the Yankees only win b/c they spend money. History has shown that they DON'T win when they rely on spending too much money. This year is an outlier, but with the exceptions of Texeira, A-Rod, and CC, the Yankees don't really have a giant free-agent-bought team. They have a lot of home-grown guys again. And this is how they've won. Does anyone want to laugh at how the Yankee fan's argument is "We won that one year in the last 50 we were actually (GASP!) SECOND in the league in payroll." OH THE HORROR! So the Yanks have won when they've far outspent everyone in the league, outspent everyone in the league, and yes outspent everyone but one team in the league. Thems some crafty team-builders there.
|
|
Hank Scorpio
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
You're gonna die now!
Posts: 573
|
Post by Hank Scorpio on Nov 7, 2009 22:27:40 GMT -5
The system needs fixing, but a salary floor would be way more effective than a salary cap, and probably a more feasible policy measure given the strength of the MLBPA.
The problem you've got now is the scouting methods espoused by Billy Beane and written about it Moneyball have spread to teams with vast financial resources. They can sign the best players available and spend more money to get out of their mistakes if moves don't pan out. How many teams could see one huge contract doled out to a closer prove to be a waste, and then sign another one to a huge contract? (Mets, Billy Wagner). How many teams could sign a shortstop to a 9 million dollar a year contract, and pay him to go away? (Red Sox, Julio Lugo) The Angels gave a ton of money to the useless Gary Matthews Jr, and then gave 5 years/90 million to Torii Hunter. Not to mention the Yankees largesse this offseason.
On a side note, I think part of the Yankee largesse is that the Steinbrenner family acquired the team for what, 10 million dollars? They are playing with a billion dollars in house money, and that doesn’t include the 38% stake they have in the YES network, which is worth a billion dollars itself (the entire network, not the Yankee stake). And I don’t mean to imply that the Yankees are operating in the red, they’re certainly not. But, John Henry, on the other hand, bought the Red Sox / Fenway Park /. 80% of NESN for 700 million dollars.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Nov 8, 2009 12:17:35 GMT -5
The Yankees had a high payroll. So what. The Series is about the guys on the field. The Yanks played GREAT baseball, regardless of how much money they make. They did not play like overpaid, soft, jaded guys who don't care.
Any true baseball fan would admire and respect the long time accomplishments, dedication, talent, determination and class of guys like Jeter and Mariano - Hall of Famers in waiting.
Whatever rules MLB has devised for signing players and the luxury tax, the Yanks have played within the rules and paid a TON of luxury tax dough to MLB which was re-distributed to the rest of the teams in the league. One more ways the rest of the league benefits financially from the Yankees -- who are traditionally the "Best Draw" of visiting teams as well.
And what fans of any team in the country would be upset if the owners of Their favorite team were as dedicated as the Steinbrenners to spending whatever it takes (within MLB rules) to win?
Congratulations to the Yankees on #27! Great drama. Great Baseball. And the Greatest Closer in the history of the game.
|
|