|
|
Post by inger on Feb 5, 2019 19:28:44 GMT -5
If profit is your motive then Hal's supposed model makes sense. Personally I think, based on our experience with other free agents that spending huge amounts of money on free agents from other teams rarely works. I think that, not profit, is why teams are not going for those players. Are you actually questioning whether profit is the motive? I guess there could be a franchise where profitability isn’t specifically the motive but long term franchise valuation is even if short term profitability is impaired. But honestly be real. The only reason owners care about winning is if it translates to profit and franchise enterprise value. They’re investors not fans. Navin Johnson: “I get it now! It’s a PROFIT GAME”!!! |
|
|
|
Post by greatfatness on Feb 5, 2019 19:40:35 GMT -5
Are you actually questioning whether profit is the motive? I guess there could be a franchise where profitability isn’t specifically the motive but long term franchise valuation is even if short term profitability is impaired. But honestly be real. The only reason owners care about winning is if it translates to profit and franchise enterprise value. They’re investors not fans. Navin Johnson: “I get it now! It’s a PROFIT GAME”!!! He hates these cans! |
|
|
|
Post by noetsi on Feb 5, 2019 20:18:21 GMT -5
I am questioning whether profit maximization is the reason the Yankees are not investing more in free agents. Or alternately, that they don't believe investments in long term contracts for free agents on other teams works on the field, and that is why they are not spending the money.
I don't think profit maximization was really what GS was about. He wanted to win, and cared little for profits. I don't think his free agency policy really did win often, but that was not his view. |
|
|
|
Post by kaybli on Feb 5, 2019 20:21:05 GMT -5
I am questioning whether profit maximization is the reason the Yankees are not investing more in free agents or if its their view that purchasing free agents does not produce on the field success that is driving their decisions. If of course that is their view (personally I think Cashman is more skeptical about going after big ticket free agents from other teams than GS was which is why he did not pursue Harper or Machado).
I don't think profit maximization was really what GS was about. He wanted to win, and cared little for profits. I don't think his free agency policy really did win often, but that was not his view. Read this article, Noetsi:
|
|
|
|
Post by noetsi on Feb 5, 2019 20:28:37 GMT -5
I disagree that Arod or Tex were worth the money after 2009. If they had been worth the money we would not have stunk as bad as we did during those year. By the end of their careers they were so wretched it was painful to watch them. I would add other names to the list starting with Randy Johnson and Carl Pavano although the list of Yankee free agents that did not work out, particularly during the 80's would be a very long one. Cano would have been on that list, but we were not stupid enough to sign him again to a long term contract.
Regardless of what I think, I think that the present Yankee ownership does not believe in investing in big name free agents on other teams which is why we go after few first tier free agents compared to the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by inger on Feb 5, 2019 20:31:51 GMT -5
I am questioning whether profit maximization is the reason the Yankees are not investing more in free agents or if its their view that purchasing free agents does not produce on the field success that is driving their decisions. If of course that is their view (personally I think Cashman is more skeptical about going after big ticket free agents from other teams than GS was which is why he did not pursue Harper or Machado).
I don't think profit maximization was really what GS was about. He wanted to win, and cared little for profits. I don't think his free agency policy really did win often, but that was not his view. Read this article, Noetsi:
Bobby Montano has my undying love as a fiction writer. I can’t wait for his next work of fiction where he puts the spin on Tony Womack’s value to the Yankees. Anybody that can find a positive spin to Jacob Ellsbury’s contract deserves every penny he makes... Organizational failure my ass... hilarious... Hey, he’s pretty good at comedy writing, too!!! |
|
|
|
Post by inger on Feb 5, 2019 20:34:33 GMT -5
Navin Johnson: “I get it now! It’s a PROFIT GAME”!!! He hates these cans! Just one more for me, and I PROMISE to quit. Navin’s Mother: “Navin, I’d love you if you were the color of a baboons ass”... |
|
|
|
Post by noetsi on Feb 5, 2019 20:39:41 GMT -5
I completely disagree with the logic used in the article, but I will cite only one example.
"Despite the fact that the second contract was scandalized by more steroid allegations, a lawsuit against the Yankees, and a full-season suspension, A-Rod actually hit .269/.359/.486 (123 OPS+) with 178 home runs over those final years, and had one final great campaign in 2015. Even during his down years, A-Rod was better than most other players in the league. Given his repaired relationship with the Yankees, it’s fair to say that the team and player have both moved on from any hostility—and fans should too."
When you make someone one of the highest paid players in baseball history you don't expect someone to be [marginally]better than most players. You expect him to be an elite player, one of the best in the league. That is who you compare him to, not the league average. You expect him to help you win world series or at least get you there.
They set an artificially low standard and pick a single year (2009) to judge player off success by and chose a handful of players ignoring entirely their performance at the end of their career (when they were still costing us fortunes and taking up bench space better players could have used). Bad logic and bad facts.
|
|
|
|
Post by inger on Feb 5, 2019 20:47:45 GMT -5
I completely disagree with the logic used in the article, but I will cite only one example. "Despite the fact that the second contract was scandalized by more steroid allegations, a lawsuit against the Yankees, and a full-season suspension, A-Rod actually hit .269/.359/.486 (123 OPS+) with 178 home runs over those final years, and had one final great campaign in 2015. Even during his down years, A-Rod was better than most other players in the league. Given his repaired relationship with the Yankees, it’s fair to say that the team and player have both moved on from any hostility—and fans should too." When you make someone one of the highest paid players in baseball history you don't expect someone to be [marginally]better than most players. You expect him to be an elite player, one of the best in the league. That is who you compare him to, not the league average. You expect him to help you win world series or at least get you there. They set an artificially low standard and pick a single year (2009) to judge player off success by and chose a handful of players ignoring entirely their performance at the end of their career (when they were still costing us fortunes and taking up bench space better players could have used). Bad logic and bad facts. I would also add that like most writers, this one speaks in terms of offensive performance only and forgets that A-Rod had become nearly a statue at 3B in final seasons... It would seem to me that despite the spin in this story and despite the belief of many fans, a single championship or even multiples shouldn’t excuse overpaying for future seasons of poor performance. Does society in general get retained in years past their peak value to their employers? Heck no! As soon as you hit 60 they start to find ways to push you closer to the door... |
|
|
|
Post by kaybli on Feb 5, 2019 20:48:01 GMT -5
I agree Ellsbury and A-Rod contract 2 were bad (even though we won a championship in 2009). I don't see the need to steer clear of big FA contracts though. Randy Johnson was only a two year deal. Pavano was a four year contract for 40 million. Hardly crippling.
|
|
|
|
Post by noetsi on Feb 5, 2019 20:53:04 GMT -5
What about Cano once he went to Seattle? Or Pujol? Or Tex?
The point is you have to analyze how good a player will be by the last half of their contract. If they are spending fortunes by then and taking up useful places in the line up while not producing they are not worth it. And I think they commonly do. I think that is a big reason we struggled after 2009. To say nothing of the draft picks you lose.
More importantly than what I think, I think teams have decided this, which is why big name free agents who want long term contracts are having few takers.
|
|
|
|
Post by kaybli on Feb 5, 2019 21:07:05 GMT -5
What about Cano once he went to Seattle? Or Pujol? Or Tex? The point is you have to analyze how good a player will be by the last half of their contract. If they are spending fortunes by then and taking up useful places in the line up while not producing they are not worth it. And I think they commonly do. I think that is a big reason we struggled after 2009. To say nothing of the draft picks you lose. More importantly than what I think, I think teams have decided this, which is why big name free agents who want long term contracts are having few takers. We didn't sign Cano or Pujols. Tex was not a terrible contract over the course of his term here.
You can't just analyze the last half of a player's contract. You have to take the whole time frame into consideration. You may have to pay a premium to get those first few good years and just put up with the end of the deal. I agree players are overvaluing their worth now, which makes it a good time to get a relative bargain by jumping on Machado or Harper who are both only 26. You could give them a 8 year deal and get 6 prime years out of that. If you just stop signing free agents you are putting yourself at a disadvantage. Developing your own players doesn't always work out and you may need to fill gaps in the team through free agency.
|
|
|
|
Post by inger on Feb 5, 2019 21:42:49 GMT -5
What about Cano once he went to Seattle? Or Pujol? Or Tex? The point is you have to analyze how good a player will be by the last half of their contract. If they are spending fortunes by then and taking up useful places in the line up while not producing they are not worth it. And I think they commonly do. I think that is a big reason we struggled after 2009. To say nothing of the draft picks you lose. More importantly than what I think, I think teams have decided this, which is why big name free agents who want long term contracts are having few takers. We didn't sign Cano or Pujols. Tex was not a terrible contract over the course of his term here.
You can't just analyze the last half of a player's contract. You have to take the whole time frame into consideration. You may have to pay a premium to get those first few good years and just put up with the end of the deal. I agree players are overvaluing their worth now, which makes it a good time to get a relative bargain by jumping on Machado or Harper who are both only 26. You could give them a 8 year deal and get 6 prime years out of that. If you just stop signing free agents you are putting yourself at a disadvantage. Developing your own players doesn't always work out and you may need to fill gaps in the team through free agency.
I’m not sure what kind of offers are on the table for any of the four top free agents...From somevof what I’ve been reading, it sounds like if these guys are looking for longer years, they’re being offered lower dollars. There have been some writers suggesting that high dollar contracts for shorter years may be on the table. The owners made their own problems by over-competing with the 10-year contracts at premium prices. I think they were fooled into believing this was correct because of PED usage that was allowing players well into their late thirties and even early forties. Now that we’re seeing human beings begin to lose their reflexes and age like the rest of the population, the owners are adjusting. As with most adjustments in life or business, they may be over-steering and will be forced to adjust within the next few seasons to compete for talent, In any event, it is a new day and a new age. We can believe whatever we want, but all we can personally do is watch from the sidelines as the players and owners sort this out. I just hope they can keep it out of the courts and do it without the ugliness of strikes and threats of strikes. We deserve better... |
|
|
|
Post by goodyear on Feb 5, 2019 22:03:29 GMT -5
I'd have to agree if you can get either Machado or Harper, preferably Harper on an 8 year deal then you get it done period. Adding either of them to their lineup would make them far better than what they have now, which is pretty awesome already.
|
|
|
|
Post by inger on Feb 5, 2019 22:17:45 GMT -5
I'd have to agree if you can get either Machado or Harper, preferably Harper on an 8 year deal then you get it done period. Adding either of them to their lineup would make them far better than what they have now, which is pretty awesome already. Everybody likes to improve the lineup, of course. But we have to remember that there is another “lineup” on the field that has to catch the ball. Harper is well below average defensively. So what do we do with him? Does he DH? Will his ego allow that? What if someone else gets nicked and is capable of DHing but not playing their position? What if Andujar continues to struggle in the field and is batting .340? We’d like to see him DH perhaps, but there stands Harper... In the end, does another big bat actually make this a better team? It means we score more runs, but if we allow more, are we improved enough to justify the signing?... |
|
