Prospectus Today

May we see another Pavano-esque FA failure grip the Evil Empire.

Obviously, the Teixeira signing was a good move, but we Yankees haters can hope...

I think before baseball fans jump off the deep end and demand rule changes, lets see what happens first. Remember the Tigers last season?

Joe, I agree that you can't blame the Yankees for trying to win within the system we have, but I dont believe the criticisms of the system itself amount to "shrill voices". There is something incredibly wrong about a revenue allocation system in a competitive sports industry that permits one team to be systematically more competitive than the others. The problem is ownership sits on its hands and doesnt implement a system like Woolner suggests. Think of the problem this way. Every single fantasy baseball league that starts up puts each team on even footing...i.e., with equal budget money to start the year. That way its a skill contest to see whose evaluation skills are best. You never see a league where one team is allocated 200 dollars to spend every single year, the next highest team 130, the average team 80, some teams stuck at 50. I defy you or any other prospectus types to claim that that is fair, particularly since the rich team, like the Yankees, is just as likely to engage in sabermetric evaluation as any other.

What's with the parenthetical numbers under our names?

I'm afraid I don't exactly, precisely, get the "The Yankees are spending $40 million to replace what they got from the top-of-the-rotation (Mussina - Pettitte) last year" thingee. First, of course, it isn't $40 million, it's more like $40 million minus the $28 million Mussina - Pettitte made last year. That's, like, $12 million. Second, since Sabbathia was much better than Mussina last year and Burnett was much better than his counterpart in this comparison, and since both are much younger, why it isn't reasonable to think that the added $12 million in payroll won't be visible on the field...well, all I'll say is that it's by no means obvious to me.

"This is the Yankees at their best: signing the top free agents on the market."

Heh heh. I could have hardly have come up with an encomium more laden with unwitting self-deprecation. Awesome.

Marcel gives:
Mussina/Pettitte: 358 IP, 4.33 ERA
Sabathia/Burnett (adjusting for the AL for Sabathia): 398 IP, 3.73 ERA

That's a *lot* better.

Does it really matter? Don't the Yankees sign top free agents or trade for A-Rod or something every year?

Plus, there's an air of desperation around the franchise right now. Their much-vaunted player development system just doesn't seem to come up with the stars that Tampa Bay and Boston can produce. They need to go out onto the market and get the top items available. (Is there any doubt they're gonna get in the Manny conversation now?)

Wouldn't it be refreshing if Tex chose the Nats if the money was equal! To be the new face of a dormant franchise must have some "honor" attached to it. AS long as the Yankees play "checkbook" baseball without a salary cap, the Nats or Pirates, or Royals will always be left holding the bag......

Sorry, Juiced has it nailed. As a Padres fan, with many of the smart guys from Money Ball, we really have to pick and choose our shots in a way a major franchise does not worry about. They get to make baseball decisions, and can absorb the financial impact. Smaller teams have to make baseball decisions constrained by finances. The Padres just dumped Greene for some middle-relief sop, strictly to avoid $6m. They have no in-system back up, and will probably do their best with a replacement level replacement. Funny, I rarely read about major market teams having to make such moves.

This system is broken and salary caps are not the solution. But people who claim this is a free market are way off. Baseball has an anti-trust agreement allowing it to explicitly not compete and that non-competition greatly favors big market teams. I go back and forth on trades with a Mets fan, but he stops chatting when he has to acknowledge that all his team has to do is try to make his team better while my team has to try to make its team better and manage its finances.

Is it coincidence that all the major FA's end up at major market teams? Of course not, and this is an unfair system.

In the 1950's, the Yanks used the old Kansas City A's as their farm team. Prior to the creation of the amateur draft in 1965, the Yanks used their financial clout to corner virtually the entire market of young talent. The Yanks' K.C. farm teams in the '30's were far better than several struggling major league teams. By the 1950's, the Yanks' stranglehold on talent did not benefit the game. Without competitive balance in the games, franchises struggled at the gate and several re-located.

Ironically, from the inception of the amateur draft in 1965 through the beginning of free agency, the Yankees found themsleves with Horace Clarke at 2B, Roger Repoz in the outfield and, more often than not, in the second division.

The local revenue stream from New York gives the Yankees the kind of clout they had before 1965. This is not a happy day for those of us who want to see a level playing field that gives all of the teams a chance to succeed or fail on their own merits. Isn't that what most of us found compelling about baseball in the first place?

Look, there are so many different angles to be argued here, I don't believe any one point of view is entirely right, or entirely wrong. I'm a Red Sox fan, and am used to the Yankees machinations. This is nothing "new", and I really feel that a combination of the current economic recession and the dizzying increase in Team/FA salaries over the past 10 years has created a perfect storm in which we have so many voices (GM's) from both leagues around the sport chiming in on how "something needs to be done". Yankees brass and their "vocal" fanbase is always quick to point out the millions in revenue luxury tax that are given back to the poorer teams (this tax is in dire need of adjustments that factor in market size, currently the Yanks just keep exceeding the limits and paying their dues, and they could care less), and i've heard many say how most teams *could* afford a $70-$80 million dollar payroll if they wanted to, they just choose to be greedy and keep the money for themselves. These statements are simultaneously not untrue, but are also complete banket statements designed to shut up less informed fans who just have a "gut feeling" that the Yankees ability to spend more on 3 players than the entire salaries of at least 14 major league teams (and more on 1 player, A-Rod, than that of the ENTIRE Florida Marlins) is just *wrong*. As a Red Sox fan, i've got a bit of that Johnny Damon "egg in the face" feeling for having once again been outbid (or snaked) by a "mere" $12 million, only about a $1.2 million increase per year over an 8 year contract. But the fact of the matter is, there are 4 very important things to keep in mind: 1)'Emotional spending' is not something to be advocated, and it rarely leads to a long-yielding investment, the Red Sox have their limits and a plan, and we're going to stick to it 2)We've got Lowell and Youkilis. I'll take those corner position players any day, sure Lowell's getting old, but our defense is still superior. And Youk's numbers project very well. 3)Teixeira didn't want to come to Boston and be a Red Sox for personal and financial reasons, we do not need another 'Manny' around. He was FAR from a 'perfect fit'. 4)As wonderful a tool as PECOTA is, a team "on paper" is just that. Look at the '08 Tigers. Anything can happen, the Yankees have been leading the league in payroll for years, and is hasn't resulted in a Championship in 8. And their new rotation is an elbow tweak or a rotater cuff away from having pretty big questions marks in the 4th and 5th rotation spots.

So, i'm not at all scared of these Yankees and their new half a billion dollar trio. And i'm excited that they probably won't stink it up like they did last season. The rivalry was starting to feel stale. In terms of addressing the salary issues, i've been hearing some talk of an INDIVIDUAL salary cap. Something like $25 million a year limit. The agents would HATE it, but I think it would be interesting. Imagine if Tex had had to publicly choose between equal offers from the Yanks, Sox, O's & Nats? Its just an idea, and it certainly has its flaws, but few people (outside of those darling Yankee fans) could sit there and argue with a straight face that our beloved ballplayers NEED to make more than $25 million dollars a year. And I feel that it is so much more rewarding to get production from a homegrown player than to just go out and garrishly purchase "good numbers". But that is truly just my opinion. I think the NYY'll obviously do whatever they can to win (Cashman's "do it ourselves" ethos withered after one dismal [by Yankee standards] season). But that's why baseball is the best. Even as the only sport without a salary cap, its still up in the air every year, and it comes down to that perfect combination of talent, preparation, guts and luck.

Ultimately signing free agents is a losing proposition since you are paying for what a player has done instead of what they are going to do. Now maybe the Yankees huge financial advantage will allow them to pay $20m a year for a player to go away, but I'm not sure that's true.

For all the doom and gloom about how Teixeira guarantees the Yankees to be the best team in baseball history, why don't we look at the last 28 year old superstar 1B to sign a huge multi-year contract. This player was a better hitter, better fielder and more durable than Teixeira. This player was Todd Helton, who the Rockies owe $56.9m for the next three season (plus his 2012 buyout). That didn't work out so well for the Rockies, did it?

it was union greed that kept arod from going to bawston, beanhead; and they didn't get dice-k for sushi; and their offer for the big cubano who couldn't grip ny was more than the yanks'.....go fish...yhey love nyy in the villain role, hypocrites that they be

Yankees fans can stick Beltran...you're never getting him.

One thing's for sure...we may not know how the AL east will stack up ...but we know Yankees hatred will be at an all-time high.

For people bashing the Padres brass, I am not saying they are flawless. The did win the West twice while spending less than the Dodgers. But, the management takes its bets on draft picks, trades, FA, etc. Some will work, others will not. The better the management, the more often it will work. But, big market teams get the added benefit of filling in the gaps with FA or, taking good players in lopsided trades because the other side is doing a salary dump. In addition, they can afford to pay draftees top dollar to sign them, an agonizing choice for smaller market teams.

In any individual season, chance, injuries, player variation, etc. all play a huge factor. And some big market teams are managed much worse than some smaller teams. But if you combine smarts and money, look at Boston. Theo Epstein (former Padres asst. GM) and that crew have combined the two, and while Boston does not win every year, they are in the hunt every year.

The only way small market teams can compete is to invest heavily in the drafts, get a quality team that is under the FA age, and add some talent from the market or trades. That was how Arizona has been competing and now Tampa Bay. The trick is, this is what everyone is trying to do, so doing it better than everyone else is extremely hard. So, if you are rich team, and you have some holes from your farm, go and buy some replacements. If you are a poor team, tough luck, and re-start the re-building.

My initial thoughts:

This signing is sad for baseball as a whole, not the best event for the future of baseball. Very Sad. I would love to see all the teams have a chance to win every year. We need balance between teams. Time to change the rules about free agents. How about a HARD salary cap? Baseball can not continue with just a few teams competing.

A wise man once predicted, once the Red Sox and Yankees learn how to spend their money wisely, there will be no hope for small market teams.

If Hank Steinbrenner owned the Anaheim Angels, and Arte Moreno owned the New York Yankees, where would Teixeira be playing next year?

The Steinbrenners spend money to make money. Trying to penalize them for working hard to maximize revenue is silly. If it's just a matter of being in NY, why don't the Mets spend like the Yankees?

bflaff, your argument doesn't hold water. If it were just a matter of the teams and the fans that those teams bring to the stadium, it would be a much more level playing field. The Yankee advantage comes from the world-wide Yankee market and the revenue that supplies. If there was such a thing for the Angels, you would have seen Moreno in the mix as well. This guy is every bit the business man that George was. His sons are buffoons . . . trust fund boys. Next year the Evil Empire will "blow," and I will enjoy watching it. CC will have arm issues, while Burnett will just have issues. Tex will smoke, but to no avail because that Yankee pitching will be in worse shape than last year. Can't wait for Steinbrenner boys to start crying all over again - it was soooo enjoyable last year, will be better this year.

Merry Christmas

montanabowers

Why is it that, when it comes to sport, the usual split of USA=capitalism & Europe=socialism goes out the window? I've never seen so many Americans whine about the advantages enjoyed by successful entities as when they're talking about the Yankees and free agents. Sport in Europe works just fine without the successful & rich clubs' subsidizing the poor or poorly run clubs---why are subsidies considered sacrosanct in US sport?

If you gave every owner the Yankee revenue stream, you could count on one hand the number who would spend money like the Steinbrenners. The rest would just put a nominally competitive team on the field and pocket the $100 million left over. I'm from Chicago, and I can guarantee you if George Steinbrenner owned the Cubs, there'd be shrines to him all over the North Side.

How is it unfair for the Yankees to spend their money on their product (something their couterparts would never do), but it's fair for Pohlad and his ilk to pocket millions of Yankee dollars just because they're not in New York?

People forget the Yankees are a business first, and a ball team second. Their primary competitors aren't other baseball teams; but the entertainment industry in New York - and if you want to thrive in that environment you need to do more than just win ball games. You need to be seen and talked about all the time. The Steinbrenners NEED to spend money if (unlike their counterparts) they want their team to do more than just get by every year - even if it means taking a chance on (ugh) Carl Pavano. If that's bad for baseball, if "parity" is so desirable, then relocate franchises so none has any revenue advantage over Kansas City. Then we'll see how good for the game plummeting ratings and attendance are.

I'm no Yankees fan; and I don't buy the argument that small market teams can compete year-in and year-out with the New Yorks and Bostons and Chicagos just through the draft. It's not possible. But the real problem with most teams ("small-market" or otherwise) is that they're owned and managed by small-minded men who have no clue what they're doing. The Yankees didn't tell the Mariners to hire Bavasi, or Pittsburgh to hire Littlefield. The Yankees didn't tell the Rockies to give Todd Helton and Mike Hampton huge long-term contracts; or the Giants to give Barry Zito the same. Arguing it's unfair that the Yankees can afford those kinds of mistakes begs the question. For most teams, the source of their "non-competitiveness" is in the nearest mirror.

This issue is not about the Yankees particular management or spending: it is small market vs. big market.

Small market teams are at a material disadvantage to major market teams. Looking at win percentage and playoff participation bear that out. If salary was not a major factor, how come no major market team economizes on salary? There is always a marginal, expected impact. Or they would not spend it.

It has been awhile since reading Woolner, but it does seem like a cap is required that is linked to a fixed % of baseball revenues. Each team is required to spend that amount in salaries. If salaries are under the cap, they remainder has to be put in trust for future salaries, not to the team coffers. The teams have to share revenue to make the system work. You would have to leave some profit incentive for effective marketing and team management, but it could not have a material impact on salary bases across teams.

I doubt any defender of the current system is a fan of a small market team. To argue that the current system is fair is denial of the obvious.

With balanced payroll, some teams will succeed and others flail but that will be much more a product of the team management rather than underlying economics. Teams that flail under the new system should replace their management; they have no one else to complain. Actually, salary discrepancy insulates management. Top market teams can stay reasonably competitive even with making bad baseball decisions. Bad decisions by small market teams can be blamed on the inherent unfairness of the system.

Look at the NFL. There are successful franchises and unsuccessful, but that success can be easily attributed to the player drafting skill and coaching quality. Salary is just not a factor. Spending salary poorly is, but there is no inherent factor inhibiting one franchise from emulating another.

People who argue about the free-market system miss the point. The franchises are awarded markets and they are protected. They did not compete to gain access to those markets nor do they compete to maintain access to those markets. So, this is like a lottery not a free-market. Major market teams may vary in how they manage the windfall of their market's economic power, but that windfall was bestowed, not earned.

The Yankees may have made more of their position relative to other major market teams, say the Dodgers, but that does not change the inherent disadvantage of small vs. large. Does someone honestly believe if Steinbrenner owned the Kansas City Royals he would have the same impact on the industry and same spending capacity than if he happened to own a team in the most valuable market in the country? The Royals might be better, but is laughable to envision them as the "global brand" that people cite as evidence of Steinbrenner's acumen.

The payroll system is completely broken and it will rot out the core of baseball, slowly creating apathy at the extremities (small market teams) until it enters the major market teams as well. Fantasy sports and better analysis have improved engagement, but that cannot overcome over half the teams don't have a chance in a given year.

It is disappointing that the BP staff likes to ignore this fact, and, in the case of this article, trumpet an artifact of the imbalances. This seems to be because the BP staff intensely dislikes baseball owners, strongly favors the players' rights, bristle at anything that might undermine player salaries. It is unfortunate that the owners are led by the ineffective and lethally unimaginative Selig. But, at the end of the day, this is not about labor vs. owners. This is about fairness to fans. Given that the MLB anti-trust exemption is bestowed by the government, I would argue there is a case for governmental intervention to enforce a system that creates salary balance.

This sport cannot thrive as it is. Even if you are lucky enough to have been born into a major market area, the vibrancy of competitiveness suffers and that pulls down the sport. With increasing outlets for entertainment, baseball cannot continue down this path.

The problem isn't really big market v. small market, it's the fact that the yankees are to big-market teams what big-market teams are to small-market teams. They are an outlier. And you can't set your business plan up according to one outlier.

Just think if there were no yankees, sabathia might have signed with the brewers, burnett with the braves, teixeira with the nationals. Would baseball really be dying then?

the problem isn't that small market teams don't have the money, it's that there aren't any players left now that are worth that money. Because the yankees took them all.

This yankee problem doesn't have a good solution.

The other owners should ratchet up the luxury tax penalties for the only team that doesn't mind breaking through that barrier.There are 29 of them, they can do it.

But honestly, the only teams that have their playoff path blocked by the Gotham Gluttons are the other AL East teams. Maybe give them a larger chunk(all?) of the luxury tax revenues, so that the yankee excesses actually fund their main competitors with cash to compete.

As an NL fan, I can watch the spending with detached bemusement. It has no effect on my hope and faith.

I'm not all doom and gloom when it comes to all these signings. I'm more inclined to bemoan what the Yankee brand has become. It used to mean something similar to excellence, hard work, and heart. Now it stands for avarice.

Interesting how half the people think that the Yankees signing Tex is an unfair advantage while the other half think the signing was plain stupid and the Yankees overpaid.

Seems if the true Yankee haters thought the signing was a stupid one, they'd be glad the Yankees did the signing.

Instead the Yankees haters are left to argue from both sides of the fence, which just makes their arguments all that more inconsistent.

I know he's a Yankee fan, but having to read Sheehan's glee at the team being able to throw another $180 million around is nauseating. Didn't they just ask the city for $360 million in bonds a few weeks ago?