I can't think of any offensive players that we've lost in the last 5 years due to McClane not paying the money that would've put us over the hump. Besides that, it's the expensive / high-end players that have failed us in the playoffs anyway. The teams were there - they were the best in the league ('98, '01). They didn't perform. Simple as that.
he and his family lived in arizona during the offseason. by and large, i agree with you, RM95; i've shed no tears over our decisions regarding our own players. but therein lies the problem with everyone's beef with drayton -- it's woefully misguided. instead of b****ing about who we haven't kept ('cause, as stated, all were justified decisions), people should be b****ing about the fact that, despite enron/astros/minute maid field money, we're never a player in bringing in anybody beyond our organization. who was our last big free agent acquisition? ken caminiti? case in point, scott rolen's available right now and we could use a 3b. will we be a contender for his services? almost certainly no. why? drayton won't spend the money. but wasn't that what enron was supposed enable him to do? make us big-time players in baseball? that's certainly how he pitched it to us. oh, well. not my money; easy for me to b****...
I think its more that Drayton cant afford to do it rather then he wont do it...Im sure he wants a winner as bad as anyone but you cant expect him to go broke doing it
people should be b****ing about the fact that, despite enron/astros/minute maid field money, we're never a player in bringing in anybody beyond our organization. who was our last big free agent acquisition? ken caminiti? We bring in players all the time - we just do it through trade instead of free agency. With player salaries rising at ridiculous rates every year, free agent signings are always going to be the least value for the dollar. If you trade for someone under contract, you get someone at a lower cost. If the market value for a mediocre pitcher is $8M per year, should we be going after them when we can get mediocre pitchers for virtually free out of the farm system? Why not just save the $8M to sign the farm system players that actually do pan out? Players we've brought in through trade at various times include Randy Johnson, Pedro Astacio, Mike Williams, Moises Alou, Jose Lima, Brad Ausmus, Dave Mlicki, and Octavio Dotel. Some we keep, some we let go. Paying top dollar for players when you can get them cheaper is just inefficient management when you have limited funds. case in point, scott rolen's available right now and we could use a 3b. will we be a contender for his services? almost certainly no. why? drayton won't spend the money. This is simply not true. This team has always made deadline deals <I>if we are in contention</I> - see above. Signing him long-term is a different story, but is it worth locking up $100 million in someone who's having a miserable season and has back injury issues?
I think its more that Drayton cant afford to do it rather then he wont do it...Im sure he wants a winner as bad as anyone but you cant expect him to go broke doing it NJ -- he can definitely afford it. He's a billionaire. The thing is that he doesn't believe in taking losses each year, so he tries to break even. What that does is prevent him from having to shred the team when things aren't going well, unlike what teams like Cleveland and Texas are trying to do now. Tom Hicks has already said this spending philosophy is dead and they are now trying to chop off payroll. The problem is no one is buying and the Rangers are in a bind now.
Thats because its the only way we can...we cant afford to bring any others in because we cant compete with the huge long term deals that other teams are offering. and in our case, we also lose prospects because we dont usually have the higher priced guys to trade (ie. Garcia, halama, Guillen, and the pitcher who went to Pittsburgh in the Mike Williams deaL..i forget his name) Players we've brought in through trade at various times include Randy Johnson, Pedro Astacio, Mike Williams, Moises Alou, Jose Lima, Brad Ausmus, Dave Mlicki, and Octavio Dotel. Some we keep, some we let go. RJ costed us a ton in prospects, Williams cost us a young pitcher (and now the Pirates have both), Alou I'll give you, Dotel coming here was a result of us not being able to afford Hampton i agree...but when you have to gut your young players to do so is a bigger problem Rolen will almost certainly demand a 5 or 6 yr deal worth around 50-60 million or more and easily get it...Drayton cant afford it...plain and simple..neither can a lot of other small market owners without TV revenue
EXACTLY....how can you possibly kill a guy for not wanting to lose money...just because he has money, doesnt mean he should have to lose it...if Im not mistaken, the Yankees payroll is 132 million now with the addition of Monsdesi...what is that, twice what the Astros is? How can he possibly compete?
and in our case, we also lose prospects because we dont usually have the higher priced guys to trade (ie. Garcia, halama, Guillen, and the pitcher who went to Pittsburgh in the Mike Williams deaL..i forget his name) Sure -- but prospects are simply our currency. Instead of spending money, we "spend" prospects. Instead of spending a lot of money on free agency, we spend it on developing the best farm system in baseball. i agree...but when you have to gut your young players to do so is a bigger problem Agreed, but we haven't gutted out farm system. Even with all those trades, we added Berkman, Oswalt, Miller, Hernandez, and Redding from the farm. Berkman is a Top-5 hitter and Oswalt is a Top-10 pitcher already. Our philosophy is simply build from within and trade to meet glaring needs. Others have the philosophy of spend like crazy and then deal with major financial problems and raise ticket prices. I like ours better.
True...but you look at a team like the Yankees( i hate to keep using them as the example) and they dont have give away prospects..and when they do, they can look ahead and say...well, we can trade Ted Lilly or Sterling Hitchcock because we will just bring in Mussina or Wells next year
are we trading for interns? maybe you get deffered salaries, or teams pitch in, but you're discounting the loss of personnel you have to absorb to trade for these players. they may cost less, but only financially, and only in the short run. depleting your famr system can have long-term financial implications. well, again, the players may have been "cheaper" but they also cost us talent. how good would freddy garcia look in the blood and brick? i wouldn't say "always" -- they made a deadline deal in 1998 (johnson) and they made two in 2001 (astacio and williams), but they've won four division titles under mcclane, so he's batting .500 in making deadline deals; a far cry from "always." and of the deals made, they took on prorated salaries and all 3 were free agents-to-be who left after their month-and-a-half stay with us. i don't advocate spending money unwisely, and the astros don't, which is why i don't b**** about this often, if ever. but enron was supposed to at least make us players in baseball's big spending, and we haven't been beyond very stringent circumstances. (PS rolen's year is a) still better than any astros' 3b's year, and b) good enough to rate him among the top 3 or 4 in the NL...)
Its unfortunate (or fortunate, whichever way you choose to look at it), but Hunsicker, IMO , is one of the best GM's in baseball. If this guy had a bigger payroll (not necessarily a Yankee payroll), we would really be great..look at what he has done in the past and imagine what he could do if we were able to get a Scott Rolen or Cliff Floyd.
If some type of salary cap is implemented, would the current Houston payroll be in the right dollar neighborhood? If Houston has a payroll that was 15 million more, would there be a problem in slashing it under a new labor agreement? Mango
I'm not sure where the Astros rank in payroll (probably somewhere around 16-20) but I can't imagine us having to cut too much (if any) even if we added 15 million or so
If some type of salary cap is implemented, would the current Houston payroll be in the right dollar neighborhood? If Houston has a payroll that was 15 million more, would there be a problem in slashing it under a new labor agreement? I'm guessing no salary cap will be implemented -- I don't think MLB is even trying to do that anymore. You'd have too many big market teams b****ing about their new constraints. If anything, teams would have to be grandfatherered in, which doesn't solve the problems. I think MLB is really focusing on revenue-sharing and luxury taxes to control the spending. Not sure if it would work, though.
MLBPA is probably the strongest union in the country...Id be shocked if they give in to luxury taxes...and they will never agree to a cap. Revenue sharing is the only possible solution (if you even want to call it a solution) but the owners who have the TV deals will never go for it...especially if the players are taking such a hard stance on luxury taxes, steroid testing etc. Its so frustrating that 7 or 8 teams have a chance to win the WS every year...and its the same teams. Its not like that in football or basketball and its about time the MLBPA woke up before none of them have jobs.
Its so frustrating that 7 or 8 teams have a chance to win the WS every year...and its the same teams. Its not like that in football or basketball and its about time the MLBPA woke up before none of them have jobs. Yup. I'm kind of hoping one of these teams don't make payroll on Monday and we get to watch the fallout. Maybe it'll knock some sense into the MLBPA.
FYI....the lawsuit for breach of contract that is being filed by Wilpon against Doubleday (or vice versa) today could mean that one of the troubled teams is the Mets....that and the fact that they are close to sending either Alomar or Alfonzo to LA.
From ESPN's little homepage Blurb: "On Wednesday, Selig said one team might not be able to make payroll Monday, but those concerns have now apparently been addressed and resolved." Too bad.
i think that's a misguided complaint; after all, how many teams beyond the lakers realistically have a chance to win an nba title right now? yes, the yankees benefit greatly from their money, but look at their roster: posada, soriano, jeter, williams, pettitte, rivera... off the top of my head, are all in-house prospects. so, it's likely, even with revenue sharing and/or a salary cap, the yanks would still be a contender -- their organization is well-run. the problem is that we have too many low-tier owners doing stupid, stupid things. in recent years, the pirates have given big contracts to derek bell and pat mears; the devil rays have a roster dotted with horribly misguided and overpaid decisions; as does colorado, and milwaukee, and baltimore... the problem rests in the stupidity of the owners who cry the loudest about baseball's financial disparity, not with the teams that would likely succeed in whatever environment baseball can cook up.
thats absurd...the Lakers have the best players and thats why they win...not because they spend more money than anyone else For the most part, this is true...with the exception of Soriano Soriano is actually a perfect example of why the money DOES make a difference for the Yankees. Soriano was a known commodity to everyone...as was Jeter...but the yankees paid HUGE signing bonuses to Soriano and Drew Henson and made it impossible for anyone else to have a shot at getting them. Even certain guys they got in the draft (if im not mistaken, jeter falls into this category), made it known that it would take a big signing bonus to get a deal done so teams purposely passed on them. Its not like this in any other sport...just baseball.
