MLB Hot Stove 2008

[mikeyredk]

I saw the putz deal first but didn't want to brag about it…

I think the mariners got the long end and the indians got the short end of this deal

Mets give
Heilman, Chavez, Carp, and Smith
Get
Putz, Green, and Reed

Mariners give
Putz, Green, and Reed

get Heilman, Chavez, Carp, and Gutierrez

Indians give Gutierrez
get Valbuena and Smith

 

[mysterytramp]

I always liked Davey Johnson.

I wonder if baseball would consider an arrangement similar to what the USA basketball team did for the olympics -- schedule events so that the starters would play together and know each other better; it helped return the basketball program to a position of dominance. We should dominate baseball, for crying out loud.

mt

 

[furcalchick]

i sure hope the braves get burnett instead of the spanks, who need to actually build a team instead of buying one.

 

[MacNut]

Isn't Burnett injury prone. Is he worth the risk if he is never going to be healthy. The Yankees are going to go hard after Lowe and maybe Sheets.

 

[sangosimo]

i sure hope the braves get burnett instead of the spanks, who need to actually build a team instead of buying one.

buying is so much easier.

 

[furcalchick]

Isn't Burnett injury prone. Is he worth the risk if he is never going to be healthy. The Yankees are going to go hard after Lowe and maybe Sheets.

i thought burnett hasn't gotten injured in some time, and he already had tommy john a few years ago.

 

[mysterytramp]

i sure hope the braves get burnett instead of the spanks, who need to actually build a team instead of buying one.

So what happened to the Yankees building their future on Joba Chamberlain, Ian Kennedy and Phil Hughes? Are Steinbrenner Jr. (Thing 1 & Thing 2) showing the same impatience as Steinbrenner Sr.? (Of course, that was a stupid question.)

mt

 

[IJ Reilly]

One season out of contention is completely intolerable to Yankee fans, who will complain bitterly in the rare years when the team fails to make the playoffs (even more bitterly than when they don't win the World Series, which as every Yankee fan knows, is their birthright). The fans and the Steinbrenners both believe in one thing for sure, which is that "building seasons" are for wimps, or at least for teams that don't have a quarter billion dollars to spend on player salaries.

 

[MacNut]

The Yankees don't like to be embarrassed, Kennedy didn't win a game last year, his career is just about over. Hughes still could redeem himself but they are getting impatient. Jaba will be a starter, I would rather see him as a setup man for Rivera. Cashman went down to talk with Pettitte yesterday so who knows.

The feeling is that the Yankees should have gotten Santana last year when they had the chance. Sabathia is just sloppy seconds.

 

[aloofman]

For the Yankees it's all kind of self-reinforcing. With the kind of revenue they bring in, it would be hard for them to justify NOT spending a lot of money on free agents. Even with their huge payroll, I bet they still pull in over $100 million in profit per year, and the new stadium will bring even more money in. Of course, they can also spend more on scouting and developing their minor-leaguers than other teams can, but that's an even less exact science than buying free agents. It's much easier to say that a free agent was overpaid but still produced, as opposed to all the prospects who get signing bonuses but never reach the majors.

 

[MacNut]

It is not easy to try to figure out what prospects will be stars. It could take years for them to develop. If you can get a free agent you have to do it. Pitching is more important than fielders.

 

[IJ Reilly]

For the Yankees it's all kind of self-reinforcing. With the kind of revenue they bring in, it would be hard for them to justify NOT spending a lot of money on free agents. Even with their huge payroll, I bet they still pull in over $100 million in profit per year, and the new stadium will bring even more money in. Of course, they can also spend more on scouting and developing their minor-leaguers than other teams can, but that's an even less exact science than buying free agents. It's much easier to say that a free agent was overpaid but still produced, as opposed to all the prospects who get signing bonuses but never reach the majors.

Which is why baseball needs more revenue sharing and/or team salary caps. The "luxury tax" can't be seen to work, when one team can still spend nearly twice as much as their nearest competitor and four to five times the average. Ironically this doesn't always translate into winning, but it does succeed in driving up the cost of the game for everyone.

Developing new talent isn't an exact science, but somebody has to do it, or you don't get new talent. The current system is almost hopelessly lopsided. The teams without big bucks take the risks associated with scouting and developing talent, because they have to. Then when they've found and developed these players, the wealthy teams buy them up. Some of these teams have such relatively tiny resources, they can't even afford to keep the players they've developed when they become eligible for arbitration. The foodchain in baseball is kind of perverse, and sickly.

 

[Koodauw]

It is not easy to try to figure out what prospects will be stars. It could take years for them to develop. If you can get a free agent you have to do it. Pitching is more important than fielders.

Although bringing in free agents hasn't exactly worked for the Yankees either. I think the big spending is really due to the new stadium opening and revenue generation from that.

 

[MacNut]

Although bringing in free agents hasn't exactly worked for the Yankees either. I think the big spending is really due to the new stadium opening and revenue generation from that.

That has been their motto for years. I think the stadium is part of it but not making the playoffs last year is bigger.

Cashman has said that the payroll this year will be less. 80 million off the books. Add 20 something for CC.

 

[IJ Reilly]

That has been their motto for years. I think the stadium is part of it but not making the playoffs last year is bigger.

Cashman has said that the payroll this year will be less. 80 million off the books. Add 20 something for CC.

You mean this is the end of the Yankees' free agent signings? They are no longer interested in Derek Lowe, for instance?

 

[MacNut]

You mean this is the end of the Yankees' free agent signings? They are no longer interested in Derek Lowe, for instance?

Lowe and possibly Sheets. I don't think they will spend 80 million this year. We are not talking about long term contracts but yearly spending. Cashman has said that the payroll will be below what it was last year.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Lowe and possibly Sheets. I don't think they will spend 80 million this year. We are not talking about long term contracts but yearly spending. Cashman has said that the payroll will be below what it was last year.

I know what we're talking about: $23 million for Sabathia, $15 for Lowe, possibly $10-12 for Sheets -- so that's around $50 million for starting pitchers alone. You do realize that $50 million is more than most teams pay in salary to field their entire rosters? Under those circumstances, it's difficult to be impressed with the claim that the Yankees will be paying out less this year. The numbers are still stratospheric by any reckoning.

EDIT:

Here's a good commentary on the state of the game.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp...=3715071&vkey=perspectives&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

 

[MacNut]

I know what we're talking about: $23 million for Sabathia, $15 for Lowe, possibly $10-12 for Sheets -- so that's around $50 million for starting pitchers alone. You do realize that $50 million is more than most teams pay in salary to field their entire rosters? Under those circumstances, it's difficult to be impressed with the claim that the Yankees will be paying out less this year. The numbers are still stratospheric by any reckoning.

I agree, but even a little cut in salary is a big deal for the Yankees. They could spend 120 million if they wanted.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I agree, but even a little cut in salary is a big deal for the Yankees. They could spend 120 million if they wanted.

So what you're saying is, we should be happy that they're not spending $300 million this season?

 

[MacNut]

So what you're saying is, we should be happy that they're not spending $300 million this season?

I want the payroll to be lower. We all know that they will never get to 150 but if they can get it under 200 it is a start.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I want the payroll to be lower. We all know that they will never get to 150 but if they can get it under 200 it is a start.

I don't think the Steinbrenners are going to volunteer to spend less if it means not getting all of the top free agents on their list. Some sort of equity has to be enforced with rules created by MLB. Nothing else will work. Not that I'm holding my breath.

 

[MacNut]

I don't think the Steinbrenners are going to volunteer to spend less if it means not getting all of the top free agents on their list. Some sort of equity has to be enforced with rules created by MLB. Nothing else will work. Not that I'm holding my breath.

The problem is the league is making huge money. They are launching the MLB Network and that will bring in big money. Why can't they distribute that money from the National TV contracts. The Yankees and Red Sox get a lot of their money from their regional networks. A lot of the other teams are starting networks.

 

[aloofman]

Pitching is more important than fielders.

Except that it's often difficult to separate how many runs are saved by your pitching vs. fielding. In baseball, defense is a combination of these two things. There are circumstances where getting better fielders can be more cost-effective than getting better pitchers.

Which is why baseball needs more revenue sharing and/or team salary caps. The "luxury tax" can't be seen to work, when one team can still spend nearly twice as much as their nearest competitor and four to five times the average. Ironically this doesn't always translate into winning, but it does succeed in driving up the cost of the game for everyone.

One thing I've always thought would be an easier way to share revenue: divvy up local broadcast revenue to the opposing teams the same way that ticket revenue is.

 

[MacNut]

Let me rephrase, pitching is more important than hitting. Fielding is always needed.

The problem I see with TV revenue sharing is how can you be sure other teams will spend the money and not just pocket it.

 

[IJ Reilly]

The problem is the league is making huge money. They are launching the MLB Network and that will bring in big money. Why can't they distribute that money from the National TV contracts. The Yankees and Red Sox get a lot of their money from their regional networks. A lot of the other teams are starting networks.

That's fine for teams in large regional markets, or with a national following. Just a few.

One thing I've always thought would be an easier way to share revenue: divvy up local broadcast revenue to the opposing teams the same way that ticket revenue is.

This would probably go a long way towards equalizing revenues, but I'm sure the teams pulling in the big media bucks would argue that they've negotiated these contracts so they deserve to profit from them. In normal circumstances, I'd agree. But the team owners (especially the wealthiest of them) like to think of themselves as acting within a free market -- which in baseball doesn't really exist. In a free market, the NYC area would have at least two more clubs competing for the region's vast baseball revenues. The system protects the existing clubs from this competition. Therefore they should be sharing their revenues with the system that makes that wealth possible.