And they're paying him more than most of their other players combined... meanwhile, likely influencing decisions of how they pay slotted players in the draft, or other erstwhile player development resources. My point was more that Gil Meche wasn't going to help the Royals contend... merely a signing to appease the legion of season ticket holders who want to see money thrown around. I wasn't really saying that Gil Meche was a bad player. On the Astros, he's a great signing as a #2... but on a struggling team like the Royals, he's a terrible signing as an ace. The BEST time to sign a free agent is when you have a set core of home-grown guys, and you simply need that one extra bit of punch to put your team over the top.
People just don't get it. Even the DRAFT is unfair now because certain teams pass on better players because of outrageous contract demands.. and these players are then drafted by teams like the yanks and sox becaue they have no money worries. Even if the Royals and Pirates did depend on the Yankees to stay afloat... that should tell you just how F'ed up the MLB system is. It still leaves them NO CHANCE. And I get that the Yanks haven't won it all in a while,,, but other teams like the Jays and O's don't have any chance whatsoever... while the Yankees and Sox are pretty much guaranteed to be in a great position to play meaningful games in september and october every year. All you need is that shot in the playoffs and you can go on a run.. and the Yanks and Sox are pretty much guaranteed that. And the Rays argument is also very flawed. So the Rays went through 15 years of last place and top 3 draft picks just so they could live their ONE YEAR of glory. Once the contracts for their current stars expire.. about half of them will be gone to bigger market teams like the Yanks and Sox and Angels. Book it. The Yanks and Sox can just re-load every offseason by throwing outrageous money at A-level free agents and signing draft picks that smaller market teams avoid because money demands... while others are forced to invest everything in the draft and their farm system and hope that their prospects don't turn out to be busts.
Why would the Rays not contend next year? On paper, they'll have the exact same team.... with a year of playoff/world series experience. Yes, it does take time and resources to build a contender... but that's exactly what the Yankees did in the mid 80's to early 90's.... before Jeter, Rivera, Posada, Pettite. And, not all of the Rays' young players will go on to have superstar CAREERS after they become free agents. While these teams should be in the position to re-sign some of their own free agents (like the Astros do), it isn't necessarily a good thing to be saddled with a 6 year $120 million dollar contract for a player that will not live up to even half of that deal, thereby limiting your flexibility (kinda like the Astros right now).
Off the top of my head, failure to sign top picks, failure to get the most out of trades when they were selling high (Aramis Ramirez comes to mind), making some flat-out bad picks due to not wanting to commit the $$$ to better players (and yet they go spend that extra 1-2 million on Adam Laroche). Look... the system isn't as perfect as the NFL... mainly because the union is too strong, and the players (unanimnously.... even the Pirates and Royals players) will not allow it to change. Also, the NBA (salary cap and all) still has perennial bad teams mainly due to bad management, and small markets.
Sure - but that's all related to winning. justtxyank was arguing that the Pirates are losing money because they are a failure as a franchise, and that it's not a lack of winning that causes it.
What I'm saying is the Rays had to endure 10+ years of humiliation, thus accumulating a crapload of top 5 draft picks, enabling them to have the players they did last year and make one great run at the World Series. While the Rays ARE in great shape for next year, say some of their guys struggle and don't have the career years that they did last year (which is likely)... they can't simply trade for a great player and take on his huge contract like the Sox and Yankees have done repeatedly. They're stuck with what they got... until those contracts run up.. then it's back to the drawing board with prospects in the farm system. All the while, the high dollar teams guarantee themselves a sustained level of success through spending money in free agency and contracts that other teams simply can't afford. I think it's safe to say that if this system never changes... either the Red Sox or the Yankees or both will be in the playoffs EVERY YEAR.. from now until the system changes. Whether other teams depend on the Yankees shared revenue to survive or not.. this system just is NOT fair.
wow thats what the yankees did in the mid 80's early 90's...we're in 2008-2009...steinbrenner has taken over and his payroll is ridiculous. good for yankees fans...but this argument is silly. "hey look the yankees used to do the same thing" lol. i agree, the system has to change, its gonna suck to get it to change, probably a strike and maybe some seasons not played, but somethings gotta change. you always hear how if the yanks or sox are in world series, higher ratings, which might be true...but it will get old fast.
I would argue that a good baseball team CAN be built on good young players with lower salaries. Its the structure of MLB salaries. For the most part, a player is pretty much at the mercy of the team that drafts and brings him into the majors until he's almost 30. Most MLB players don't get their big free agent contracts until they are 29-32 years old. This allows smart teams to home grow talent and have them contribute before anybody can even touch them. The way it works as well, if you don't want to pay them you can often trade them for other prospect talent. Heck, the Marlins have 2 world series built on the premise that you trade your older talent that is about to get a big contract for more young talent until you get enough young talent at once to win. Small market teams CAN compete. They just have to be smart. With all that being said, there is a breaking point and the big market teams may tip it eventually.
As a Pirates fan that has witnessed 16 straight years of losing first-hand I find it comical some are attempting to dismiss this merely upon incompetence and bad ownership alone. Have those been contributing elements? Absolutely, but don't you think in a 16 year span a professional sports team could SOMEHOW overcome this (even just once) if it weren't for a greater problem hindering them from doing so? That greater problem is the current CBA -- particularly, the lack of a salary cap or some type of regulation outside of merely using revenue sharing and a luxury tax as a smokescreen. The luxury tax does little to deter the "big dawgs" from spending like drunken sailors and revenue sharing benefits the owners more than anything. Tell me how revenue sharing benefits the team stuck with a frugal owner. This all started with what I refer to as "The Curse of the Barroid". He left due to the Pirates being unable to afford him and we haven't had a winning season since. If that's not a curse I don't know what is. Sadly, it's only a microcosm of what I have witnessed during this dreadful span of my life as baseball fan. The same team that was forced to give away Aramis Ramirez even though everybody knew he had superstar talent. The same team couldn't afford to pay their bonafide star Jason Bay $6M a year! The same team that knows it's only a matter of time before Scott Boras leads Pedro Alvarez -- this team's beacon of hope -- out of town. There's no end in sight. You can dress up this argument anyway you want. What it all boils down to is the big spenders MAGICALLY find themselves in postseason contention every year. Meanwhile, there's almost always a small market surprise or two, but their windows for contention are much smaller. This is a direct correlation to salary and spending. They simply can't afford to keep or replace those parts the way teams like the Yankees, Mets, etc. can! An argument I always jokingly yet semi-seriously make at the bar is: Okay, steroids are banned in baseball. Why? They create an unfair, competitive advantage. BUTTTT.....when a small market team develops an up-and-coming prospect they ultimately cannot afford, its somehow okay and acceptable for the big spenders to come scoop them away. How is that not a competitive advantage too? Furthermore, if you want to play that way why not let the small market teams "juice" to compensate? [The part I joke about -- you get the point] How is there any element of competitive balance if before the season starts you can look at nearly half of the teams in the league and conclude those teams have a 0% chance of qualifying for the postseason? If you can turn a blind eye to all this....more power to ya. And before you call me bitter, let me just come out and admit it: I AM BITTER! Why shouldn't I be? I love baseball and I love the Pirates. What I don't love is a blatantly flawed system that doesn't allow teams like the Pirates to compete unless you have literally flawless management, flawless front office decisions and a ton of luck with the draft and developing your farm system. Small market teams don't have much room for error.
A few points I'd like to make 1. The Pirates are really a bad example. They're a joke because their management, from the ownership to the front office, has been largely incompetent for the last 15 or so years. Say what you will about payroll disparities, other small market teams have managed to make it to the playoffs and in some cases win the World Series. When a front office makes a habit out of making poor personnel decisions, it doesn't matter how large your payroll is. Look at the $100M payroll, 101 loss 2008 Seattle Mariners. If you want to talk about a lack of parity, point to a very well-run organization in Oakland that has still struggled to make the playoffs since losing their best players to free agency. Of course, it didn't help that the one player they did invest in blew out his back and has been fairly useless the last few years. 2. A salary cap won't happen any time soon because the MLBPA won't allow it. A salary cap would restrict the amount that players would realistically be able to make. When you consider that based on the revenue that MLB brings in (over $6 billion last year) the players should actually be getting paid MORE. 3. IF a salary cap does get put in place, it's vital that a salary floor also be instituted. Do people realize how stinking rich Carl Pohlad is? When a team makes money, there really should be a mechanism that will lead to them reinvesting it into the team. Otherwise you get the LA Clippers. 4. It's silly to criticize teams like the Yankees and Red Sox for spending money when it's within the rules of the current CBA. The Yankees have more money than God -- what else should they put it towards? Would it be more ethical for the Steinbrenners to pocket that cash, rather than put it back into the team?
Absolutely. They are a failure as a franchise because they've been mismanaged. Horrible trades, horrible drafting, stupid free agent signings, etc. That has nothing to do with their financial disadvantages. The reasons they've failed to compete have to do with stupidity, not money. That was the point I was trying to make; if I failed to make that point correctly then I'm sorry.
But I think the argument is that the method the Rays used to get to the WS this last year is the same method the Yankees used when they were winning the World Series. As they have raised payroll, the Yankees have gotten worse: 2003: Division Champs, Lost the World Series 2004: Division Champs, Lost in ALCS 2005: Division Champs, Lost in Division Series (3-2) 2006: Division Champs, Lost in Division Series (3-1) 2007: Wild Card, Lost in Division Series 2008: Missed Playoffs Each of the last 6 years, they've done worse than the previous year (I call this the A-Rod curse). The whole "buy all the players" philosophy hasn't caused the Yankees to dominate thus far. That said, it's clear that having money is an advantage. Take the Rays and give them an extra $50MM and they could be better. But the key to becoming good in the current MLB era seems to be primarily based on homegrown cheap players.
I do agree with the point that the drafting system needs to be changed. They need to do the NBA style where there is slot money that is automatic at every spot. To Major's point, the problem with "signing free agents" like the Yankees do is you are normally paying big prices for guys who you only get one or two years from them at prime levels before they enter major decline phases.
This phenomenon doesn't actually hurt the Yankees all that much because they can always pay over their mistakes (like they're doing this year with Giambi/Pavano being replaced by Texeira/Sabathia). This hurts teams like the Astros/Cardinals who may just land that big ticket trade/free agent only to have it restrict what they're able to do elsewhere to improve the team. Small market teams don't have to worry about being saddled with long-term contracts for underperforming players... and if they have a productive farm system, it can actually turn out to be a pretty decent advantage/barganing chip.
He did with A-Rod. He totally screwed him, by not accepting their original offer. So much for all that talk about how the economy was hurting the Yankees, and that is why they didn't offer arbitration to players like Abreu. The Yankees pay 40% tax on that contract. I agree that Baseball needs a salary cap. They are the only major sport without one. We have some pretty good contracts when you look at it. Berkman > Teixeira, but makes 5.5 million less.
Poor management has something to do with it... but so does financial limitations. Prime example.. two drafts ago... the Pirates pass on current number one prospect in all of baseball Matt Wieters and pick a clearly inferior prospect because they know they wouldn't be able to sign Wieters (a Boras client). A salary cap would take a strike/lockout.. but it NEEDS to happen. The players will deal with it just fine. Look at it this way... what CAN'T you do with 10 mill a year that you CAN do with 20 mil???
