Fitting

WhiteSox · Post by **WhiteSox** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:50 am

Great picture, much like the MLB Yanks the IBC Yanks think these two are pretty damn good!

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:40 pm

The Yanks problem since their last world championship (you know, back in the 20th century), has been pitching. It's always been pitching. Sure, a lot of it had to do with the fact that the pitching they had was old, but if they were old and effective their age wouldn't matter. If the Yankees can get Santana for Hughes or Chamberlain plus Melky and Kennedy/Cano, they should pull the trigger immediately. This is not a 40 y/o Randy Johnson. It's a 28 y/o Santana. The one thing the Yanks absolutely can afford to give up is a young position player like Cano. Sure, he'll probably continue to get better and be a very good player, but show me another LH starter who has a chance to get David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez out in a big spot. Certainly not C.C. Sabathia, and he just won the Cy. The Yankees rivals have the best LH hitter in the game, so it would be a tremendous advantage (especially in Yankee Stadium) to have the best LH SP in the game.

As long as they don't have to give up BOTH Hughes and Chamberlain, the Yankees should pony up for Santana. Same goes for the Red Sox, so long as they don't have to give up Buchholz AND Lester.

I don't think the Sox can afford Santana, b/c although they're big spenders, they do have some kind of financial limits. If Buchholz, Crisp, Bowden/Masterson and Lars Anderson wouldn't get it done, they just can't move Ellsbury, Pedroia or both Buchholz and Lester and afford to fill another big league hole at a key defensive position easily.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:32 pm

Agreed on the Sox, especially the way that recent MLB free agent signings have seemed to fall apart in Boston (Drew, Lugo, Renteria, Clement etc.) Schilling, Lowell and Ortiz came by trade, Pedroia/Youk/Ellsbury/Paps/et. al from the minors, and Dice-K/Okajima from Japan. Who was the last MLB free agent signing to meet expectations for the Sox? Does it go back to Manny.

As far as the Yankees go, don't make the Santana trade. If you have a new philosophy as an organization that revolves around building from within then don't break that philosophy for one player, bad things happen when an organization strays from its philosophy.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:41 pm

Please don't kid yourselves. The Red Sox have pretty eliminated any financial limit they may have had previously.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:45 pm

Okie was a Free Agent and should be lumped with the other Free agents, regardless of where he came from. Dice-K I can understand putting in a different category because of the posting, though I'd personally say he belongs there as well.

Oh, and Ortiz was a Free Agent signing. The Twins didn't get anything for letting him walk away.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:46 pm

Dodgers wrote:Please don't kid yourselves. The Red Sox have pretty eliminated any financial limit they may have had previously.

Agreed to an extent, I don't think they could spend what the Yankees do and still make money.
That said, for the most part, the only limits they have are those which they impose upon themselves.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 6:22 pm

It's not that the Red Sox have or don't have a budget, we all know that they don't, it's that they have emphasized fiscal responsibility as part of their corporate value system, which the Yankees have not. Bill Gates might have the money to afford everything, but that doesn't mean he should invest $2,000,000 in buying every super deluxe king-sized mattress available in the greater Seattle area and converting them into a giant fort in his trampoline room.

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 6:30 pm

Dodgers wrote:Please don't kid yourselves. The Red Sox have pretty eliminated any financial limit they may have had previously.

They can afford to spend more money than any team... except the Yankees. If that were not the case they wouldn't adhere so steadfastly to their player valuations. The Red Sox would not have offered Posada or Rivera anywhere near the types of contracts the Yankees did (see: Johnny Damon, Pedro, Lowell). The Yankees just lost all the Texas Rangers money when A-Rod opted out, then they STILL gave him what will eventually be a $300 mil contract w/ all the incentives, which is likely more than any other team would have offered him. Even though the limits might be higher than they once were, there are still limits. They are much closer to the Dodgers, Mets, and other higher revenue franchises than they are to the Yankees based on how much revenue they generate, and how much that allows them to spend on salaries without hurting their bottom line.

I also think that trading for a 28 year old LH ace like Santana wouldn't really be straying from an organizational philosophy that stresses investing more resources in young talent, and allowing that talent to grow and succeed at the major league level. One of the benefits of such a committment to player development, especially for high revenue franchises, is that eventually you stockpile assets that have a higher value to teams without your financial capabilities so that when opportunities exactly like this one present themselves, you can take advantage of them.

The Red Sox committment of increased resources to scouting and player development yields them a few advantages:

1. Rather than having to pay veteran players above their actual value (like Johnny Damon) to maintain a certain level of production at a given position, they have one or more potential replacements within the organization capable of providing equivalent (or nearly equivalent) production at a tiny fraction of the price. The more Ellsburys and Pedroias that come out of your system and prove capable of success at the big league level at a low cost for multiple seasons, the more resources you have available to commit to filling holes when they appear and for one reason or another an internal answer isn't available. So if there are cheap, productive young players at multiple positions - you can make a $17 million mistake on J.D. Drew without crippling your team.

2. Because of the revenue disparity between teams like the Yankees and Twins, or the Red Sox and the Marlins, capable young players under a team's control for 5+ seasons at a price well below their market value are far more valuable to franchises with half as many resources to put towards player salaries. So a high revenue team with lots of cheap young guys will have the chance to get an excellent return on a talent basis by dealing away less talent at a low price for significantly more talent which they'll have to pay market price to. That's a huge advantage. It's so difficult to find and develop an elite SP like a Beckett or Santana, that if you can bundle assets together so that another team with fewer resources gets more production for their dollar, you can win the talent swap b/c you can afford to pay.

The Yankees have wisely turned away from overpaying in trade or in salary for players who don't markedly improve their team over exponentially cheaper young players (like Pavano, Kevin Brown, RJ, etc.), however they still have a larger margin for error than any other team b/c of the revenue they generate. So they can afford to tack on an extra year for Posada, knowing they may not get much bang for their buck in year 3 or 4 b/c they don't have a viable low cost alternative. Of course no team (even the Red Sox and Yankees) wants to pay veteran talent more than homegrown young players if they provide similar production, but hanging on to young players just for the sake of making the team younger doesn't make a lot of sense when you could move less talent for more talent, and have the financial wherewithal to cover the cost disparity (and the resources to survive a large-salaried mistake if you make one). It doesn't mean the team isn't committed to player development, it just means the improved player dev. is yielding a return in trade, rather than on the field.

If the Yankees can deal two or more young players who are unlikely to ever have the on-field impact of Johan Santana for a guy of his talent level, they should absolutely do so.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:45 am

I have a lot to catch up on, so I didn't read your post closely Dan, but I assume the following also applies.

Jake, do the names Julio Lugo (4 years, $36 mil) and JD Drew (4 years, $70 mil) not provide an argument to what you posted?

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 2:58 am

Dodgers wrote:I have a lot to catch up on, so I didn't read your post closely Dan, but I assume the following also applies.

Jake, do the names Julio Lugo (4 years, $36 mil) and JD Drew (4 years, $70 mil) not provide an argument to what you posted?

I addressed the ability to make "expensive mistakes" like Drew and Lugo in my post.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 5:32 am

As did I. Drew and Lugo's contracts were not out of line with the market value of their position and production. Also, like Vacek said they went with those contracts because they had Pedroia et al on the cheap. Of course the Red Sox are going to be a big spending team, but John Henry is never going to give Theo Epstein carte blanche to sign every big name like the mandate Steinbrenner Sr. gave Cashman.