MLB OFF-SEASON HOT STOVE THREAD

You can make arguments all day either way. With all the statistical analysis available they should be in a position to make the appropriate decision. Boston added one major piece to their lineup last year and it transformed their offense and that guy doesn't even play defense.

Bottom line is ownership wiling to spend the dollars when the analytics say go. This is the bigger question mark. They seem to be doing a lot more show than substance over the last 5 years.

That's a really poorly written (and considered) article.  But its RAB, so I expect that.

But that aside, I agree with you that there isn't a need to steer clear of big FA contracts. 

However, there also isn't a compelling need to pursue them. 

Part of the cherry picking involved with the article is that because he's talking about the biggest contracts and salaries continue to inflate, these are the most recent and in recent years under Cashman they've been pretty good at placing these bets.  However, not flawless - Hank's big idea to extend Roidriguez and Cashman's gamble on Ellsbury stand out.  But they also were close to signing Shin Soo Choo to a 7 year $140m deal but they turned it down.  That wouldn't have looked so great right about now.  And they also offered Cano quite a big contract before he left.  Add in guys like Burnett who they literally paid to go away and they're definitely not quite as flawless on this topic as the author presents.

They've thrown money around when they've needed to.  Before the spending splurges of 2009 and 2014  they had pretty clear needs that could not be addressed internally.   They haven't had a homegrown inexpensive influx of talent like the one they're enjoying now since the mid 90s.  And presumably they'd like to keep some of these kids who people are lining up to see play in the Bronx.  The situation is different.

I also think if Mike Trout were available right now, they'd have already signed him.  The premise of the article seems to be that the author thinks there's a belief by the Yankees that long term contracts are inherently bad.  I don't think we have a reason to know that to be true, and if the right player were available to address the right need, I think we'd see the team willing to make a long term top dollar offer.

Five or six years ago, when typical highly ranked FAs we’re getting 8-10 years, there was no choice but to offer those terms. What it seems several posters and scads of fans don’t realize (along with players and agents) is that the market no longer shows those contracts to be a wise investment. Times have changed, so why would the Yankees, or any team just “go ahead and get it done”? If they do, they’re foolishly reopening the door to those terms as acceptable on the market.
Perhaps, if I were a GM who was enamored with either of these players, I might offer up a 5-6 year deal, which would take these guys to age 32-33, when peak production tends to end...

"If you just stop signing free agents you are putting yourself at a disadvantage."

I think, having watched Yankee free agency purchases since the 70's we would do better to develop our own talent and keep them - this would still involve signing your own free agents. I don't believe most big ticket free agents the Yankees brought over were worth it. If you have a serious need which you can not fill then occasionally that might make sense, but not on a regular basis as we have and particularly not when many of their years are past 35.

Something else that does not get mentioned is that (in my opinion) lots of free agents disrupts the chemistry of the team and leads to worse play than had they not been signed. Because people are not robots - this is something the Yankee administration long ignored I feel.

I think you have to think very carefully about the age of players you bring in over the length of the contract. What made the 2nd Arod contract idiotic to me is that no one was making a major effort to get him and we still massively upped the contract. Its like going once for 10 million, going twice for 10 million, sold to the Yankees for 20 million. We should have offered him far less than we did, he had few (really no) alternative. Of course I can't stand criminals/jerks on the Yankees and that biases my views.

For what its worth I think most teams have adapted many of these views, or their would be more offers and longer contracts.

www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mlb/pros-and-cons-of-harper-signing-1-year-deal/ar-BBTfmxy?ocid=U147DHP

It appears that Realmuto is heading to the Phils,  so the Sixers aren't the only team Philly making trades.