Off Topic · Yankees Talk thread (page 155)

Garcia and Jones would both be very low cost moves that could have a good reward and are worth getting.

I wouldn't offer him a guaranteed deal in which we'd have to make a 40 man roster move. I'd offer Jones a minor league deal to get him into camp with an agreement that they have to offer him a major league deal by mid March or he can look elsewhere. Obviously any major league deal would have a low guarantee with lots of incentives based on games played and performance. I think Jones would be interested since the Yankees have an obvious need for a CF and they have a good lineup where Jones could put up numbers with an eye towards free agency at 32.

I'd like to see if they can get Sheets on the cheap before Garcia. Maybe even Randy Wolf too just to get another lefty in the rotation.

i agree w/that plan isles... i think Jones would invite an opportunity to show if he can bounce back from last year's horrific season... the guys on MLB network were saying he's fully recovered from his knee surgery & that was the major cause of his drastic change in batting stance last year & why he couldn't get low to drive the ball the way he was doing in ATL when he smacked 50 & 41 HR's in back to back seasons.

as for Garcia, i don't think he's getting anything more than a minor league deal either... at least i hope he isn't... he's a big risk to take also & not worth a guaranteed contract until he shows he can bounce back from his horrific last season.

Sheets on a 1 year deal would be perfect if we can't convince Andy to accept that offer... Wolf i'd stay clear from, i think i'd rather go w/the kids than him.

Posted by TMS:

i agree w/that plan isles... i think Jones would invite an opportunity to show if he can bounce back from last year's horrific season... the guys on MLB network were saying he's fully recovered from his knee surgery & that was the major cause of his drastic change in batting stance last year & why he couldn't get low to drive the ball the way he was doing in ATL when he smacked 50 & 41 HR's in back to back seasons.

as for Garcia, i don't think he's getting anything more than a minor league deal either... at least i hope he isn't... he's a big risk to take also & not worth a guaranteed contract until he shows he can bounce back from his horrific last season.

Sheets on a 1 year deal would be perfect if we can't convince Andy to accept that offer... Wolf i'd stay clear from, i think i'd rather go w/the kids than him.

Guarantee Sheets $5M for 20 starts, $10M for 27 and $15M for 34 with an club option for a guaranteed $15M in 2010 that vests at 30 starts.

I'd also prefer Andy at $10-12M but if Sheets can stay healthy, he's better than Andy at this point. If they can get Wolf for nothing I'd take a flier. They need more starting pitching depth and he'd be nothing more than a 5th or 6th starter.

i'd be OK w/giving Sheets the same contract we offered Andy... Wolf i'd only take on a 1 year $3-4 million dollar deal... nothing more than that... i think he could probably get more on the open market tho.

red sox owner wants cap in baseball:

"TC: At least one other owner has said this is further proof that the sport needs a salary cap. Do you see that happening?

Henry: It’s difficult to predict the future in baseball or in anything. A salary cap would certainly be great for competitive balance within baseball."

but this article argues against it:

Unconventional Wisdom: Busting the myth of the salary cap
By Shawn Hoffman, Baseball Prospectus

Small-market teams love salary caps. Or rather, they think they do. At least on paper, caps stop teams in New York, Boston and Chicago from oligopolizing the free-agent market, and should therefore help level the economic playing field. And, to a certain extent, they do; a small-market team in a capped league is more likely to acquire or retain top-tier talent. But there's a catch. That same small-market team will need to win, and keep winning, just to stay financially viable. And sometimes, winning might not even be enough.

Let's say, in some far-off universe, MLB owners and players actually did agree on a salary cap. With it would come the normal provisions: a salary floor at around 75-85 percent of the cap, and a guaranteed percentage of total industry revenues for the players. Since the players have been taking in about 45 percent of revenues the past few years, we'll keep it at that figure (the other three major sports leagues, which are all capped, each pay out over 50 percent).

Using 2008 as an example, the 30 teams took in about $6 billion (not including MLB Advanced Media revenue), for an average of $200 million per team. Forty-five percent of that (the players' share) is $90 million, which we'll use as the midpoint between our floor and cap. If we want to make the floor 75 percent of the cap (a low-end figure, relative to the other leagues), we can use $77 million and $103 million, respectively.

With a $103 million cap, nine teams would have been affected last year, and a total of about $286 million would have had to be skimmed off the top. Since total salaries have to remain at existing levels, the bottom 21 teams would have had to take on this burden, which had previously been placed on the Yankees, Red Sox, et al. On the other end, 14 teams would have been under the payroll floor, by a total of $251 million. Even discounting the Marlins' $22 million payroll, the other 13 teams would have had to spend an average of $15 million more just to meet the minimum. Some of those teams might be able to afford it; most wouldn't.

Imagine being Frank Coonelly in this situation. Coonelly, the Pirates' team president, has publicly supported a cap. Had our fictional cap/floor arrangement been instituted last year, the Pirates would have needed to increase their Opening Day payroll by $28 million. Not only would the team have taken a big loss, but G.M. Neal Huntington's long-term strategy would have been sabotaged, since the team would have had to sign a number of veterans just to meet the minimum payroll.

Now fast forward to 2009. Let's say the Pirates' sales staff runs into major headwinds, with the team struggling and the economy sinking. The team's top line takes a hit, falling $10 million from 2008. The Mets and Yankees, meanwhile, open their new ballparks, and each team increases its local revenue by $50 million. If the 27 other teams are flat, total industry revenues rise by $90 million (not including any appreciation in national media revenue). Forty-five percent of that, of course, goes to the players. So even as the Pirates' purchasing power decreases, the payroll floor actually rises.

In other words, without a more egalitarian distribution of income, the system crumbles.

Until recently, the NFL has been uniquely fit for this type of model, since most of its revenues have come from national television contracts. But now, with local revenues rising, small-market teams are feeling the pinch. This past May the owners unanimously voted to opt out of their CBA, which was supposed to run through 2012. Some blamed the players' share of revenues. Others, including Dan Rooney of the Steelers, cited the need for more local revenue sharing.

But sharing local revenue has a major drawback: It is a tax, which inevitably lowers incentives and decreases output. If the NFL shared all (or even most) local intake, why would an individual team ever look to maximize revenues at its own cost (i.e. by hiring a sales staff, or cleaning its own stadium)?

The NHL, which also has a hard cap, does very little revenue sharing, partly thanks to an overly convoluted system. On a league-wide level, the results have been very positive; the NHL has had record revenues every year since its 2004-05 lockout, and commissioner Gary Bettman has been very positive about this season as well. But the NHL is a great example of why caps and capitalism don't mix: As the league grows, it ends up leaving teams behind. Small-market clubs such as the Columbus Blue Jackets and the Nashville Predators are forced to spend almost two-thirds of their revenue on player payroll. And the Phoenix Coyotes, after years of hemorrhaging money, are on the verge of going bankrupt.

So what's the best solution? Certainly not the NBA's soft-cap system, which has too many problems to even count -- imagine having to take on Luis Castillo or Carl Pavano every time you wanted to unload a high-priced veteran.

So instead of these models, what if there was an uncapped league, with limited local revenue sharing to support small-market teams, and a postseason system that naturally created tremendous parity? Does this sound familiar? It should. It's what MLB has had in place for more than a decade, leading to record growth in both attendance and revenue.

The expanded postseason is key. More than in any other sport, MLB's playoff system acts as an equalizer. Fair or not, in broad strokes, a team that wins 83 games in a bad division has as much chance of winning the World Series as the Yankees or the Red Sox. Seemingly, no matter how much those teams spend over the winter, that competitive advantage is neutralized come October.

So while the capped leagues all struggle to find the right balance between capitalism and socialism, baseball continues to prosper by operating within a much more free-market system. Teams in big markets and small markets alike are making money, and everyone has a chance to win it all.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And right now, baseball is anything but broke.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And right now, baseball is anything but broke.

exactly... STOP YER WHININ' UNLESS U WANNA GIVE BACK THOSE REVENUE SHARING DOLLARS U CHEAPSKATE SMALL MARKET CRYBABIES!

So the 2 owners talking salary cap are the owner of the small market Brewers, who are upset that they couldn't re-sign an elite pitcher for 60 cents on the dollar based on the market value set by Johan Santana, and the owner of the big market Red Sox, who is upset that his team couldn't sign a player for $170M simply because he preferred another team over the Red Sox.

Does the Brewers owner mind all the money that his team receives from revenue sharing, the luxury tax and the overall financial prosperity that baseball enjoys when big market teams like the Yankees are competitive and popular. When baseball is doing well, it increases the value of ALL franchises. And everybody knows that high payroll doesn't guarantee a winning team, in any sport.

If they want a salary cap, they should limit revenue sharing to revenue that all teams participate in, like national tv rights, and obviously abolish the luxury tax. How soon before those same teams start crying about not getting a piece of the Yankees pie and having their franchises value diminishing?

As for the Red Sox owner, he should shut his hypocritical mouth. If they signed Texeira to a $170M contract, would they be crying about a salary cap? Somehow I doubt it. When the time comes and they replace Fenway Park, do you think they'll feel bad about using their increased revenue streams to their advantage?

Posted by TMS:

anybody think it's worth our while to bring in Andruw Jones on a 1 year contract? he's gonna be released by the Dodgers according to the MLB network & he's only 31... his skills have fallen off the table w/a quickness but i personally think it's worth our while to bring him in & give him a look during Spring Training... he looks like he's trimmed down some from the film they showed of him working out w/Chipper Jones in Atlanta.

I wouldn't do it. Bringing in a guy who's skills have dropped off, just to give it a chance is not a real need met in my book. It's a chance, one I don't want to waste a spot on. Especially if we can give some of our minors a look.

The tiny print kills my eyes.

Unconventional Wisdom: Busting the myth of the salary cap
By Shawn Hoffman, Baseball Prospectus

Small-market teams love salary caps. Or rather, they think they do. At least on paper, caps stop teams in New York, Boston and Chicago from oligopolizing the free-agent market, and should therefore help level the economic playing field. And, to a certain extent, they do; a small-market team in a capped league is more likely to acquire or retain top-tier talent. But there's a catch. That same small-market team will need to win, and keep winning, just to stay financially viable. And sometimes, winning might not even be enough.

Let's say, in some far-off universe, MLB owners and players actually did agree on a salary cap. With it would come the normal provisions: a salary floor at around 75-85 percent of the cap, and a guaranteed percentage of total industry revenues for the players. Since the players have been taking in about 45 percent of revenues the past few years, we'll keep it at that figure (the other three major sports leagues, which are all capped, each pay out over 50 percent).

Using 2008 as an example, the 30 teams took in about $6 billion (not including MLB Advanced Media revenue), for an average of $200 million per team. Forty-five percent of that (the players' share) is $90 million, which we'll use as the midpoint between our floor and cap. If we want to make the floor 75 percent of the cap (a low-end figure, relative to the other leagues), we can use $77 million and $103 million, respectively.

With a $103 million cap, nine teams would have been affected last year, and a total of about $286 million would have had to be skimmed off the top. Since total salaries have to remain at existing levels, the bottom 21 teams would have had to take on this burden, which had previously been placed on the Yankees, Red Sox, et al. On the other end, 14 teams would have been under the payroll floor, by a total of $251 million. Even discounting the Marlins' $22 million payroll, the other 13 teams would have had to spend an average of $15 million more just to meet the minimum. Some of those teams might be able to afford it; most wouldn't.

Imagine being Frank Coonelly in this situation. Coonelly, the Pirates' team president, has publicly supported a cap. Had our fictional cap/floor arrangement been instituted last year, the Pirates would have needed to increase their Opening Day payroll by $28 million. Not only would the team have taken a big loss, but G.M. Neal Huntington's long-term strategy would have been sabotaged, since the team would have had to sign a number of veterans just to meet the minimum payroll.

Now fast forward to 2009. Let's say the Pirates' sales staff runs into major headwinds, with the team struggling and the economy sinking. The team's top line takes a hit, falling $10 million from 2008. The Mets and Yankees, meanwhile, open their new ballparks, and each team increases its local revenue by $50 million. If the 27 other teams are flat, total industry revenues rise by $90 million (not including any appreciation in national media revenue). Forty-five percent of that, of course, goes to the players. So even as the Pirates' purchasing power decreases, the payroll floor actually rises.

In other words, without a more egalitarian distribution of income, the system crumbles.

Until recently, the NFL has been uniquely fit for this type of model, since most of its revenues have come from national television contracts. But now, with local revenues rising, small-market teams are feeling the pinch. This past May the owners unanimously voted to opt out of their CBA, which was supposed to run through 2012. Some blamed the players' share of revenues. Others, including Dan Rooney of the Steelers, cited the need for more local revenue sharing.

But sharing local revenue has a major drawback: It is a tax, which inevitably lowers incentives and decreases output. If the NFL shared all (or even most) local intake, why would an individual team ever look to maximize revenues at its own cost (i.e. by hiring a sales staff, or cleaning its own stadium)?

The NHL, which also has a hard cap, does very little revenue sharing, partly thanks to an overly convoluted system. On a league-wide level, the results have been very positive; the NHL has had record revenues every year since its 2004-05 lockout, and commissioner Gary Bettman has been very positive about this season as well. But the NHL is a great example of why caps and capitalism don't mix: As the league grows, it ends up leaving teams behind. Small-market clubs such as the Columbus Blue Jackets and the Nashville Predators are forced to spend almost two-thirds of their revenue on player payroll. And the Phoenix Coyotes, after years of hemorrhaging money, are on the verge of going bankrupt.

So what's the best solution? Certainly not the NBA's soft-cap system, which has too many problems to even count -- imagine having to take on Luis Castillo or Carl Pavano every time you wanted to unload a high-priced veteran.

So instead of these models, what if there was an uncapped league, with limited local revenue sharing to support small-market teams, and a postseason system that naturally created tremendous parity? Does this sound familiar? It should. It's what MLB has had in place for more than a decade, leading to record growth in both attendance and revenue.

The expanded postseason is key. More than in any other sport, MLB's playoff system acts as an equalizer. Fair or not, in broad strokes, a team that wins 83 games in a bad division has as much chance of winning the World Series as the Yankees or the Red Sox. Seemingly, no matter how much those teams spend over the winter, that competitive advantage is neutralized come October.

So while the capped leagues all struggle to find the right balance between capitalism and socialism, baseball continues to prosper by operating within a much more free-market system. Teams in big markets and small markets alike are making money, and everyone has a chance to win it all.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And right now, baseball is anything but broke.

All I gotta say is 'why are smaller markets allowed to play in the bigs, if they can't afford it in the first place'?

Posted by 4949:

Posted by TMS:

anybody think it's worth our while to bring in Andruw Jones on a 1 year contract? he's gonna be released by the Dodgers according to the MLB network & he's only 31... his skills have fallen off the table w/a quickness but i personally think it's worth our while to bring him in & give him a look during Spring Training... he looks like he's trimmed down some from the film they showed of him working out w/Chipper Jones in Atlanta.

I wouldn't do it. Bringing in a guy who's skills have dropped off, just to give it a chance is not a real need met in my book. It's a chance, one I don't want to waste a spot on. Especially if we can give some of our minors a look.

i have to disagree only if it were done as a non roster invitee type of thing, i mean no minor leaguer we will be looking at has ever proven he can hit 50 HR's during the ML season the way this guy has, & he's only 31 years old so his body still has a lot of baseball left in it... it's just a question of him making the right adjustments at the plate to get back to where he was before... i doubt we can get him to come here under those terms tho, but there doesn't seem to be a big market for him just yet so i guess he'll continue to work out & see how things develop & maybe his agent will contact teams whose CFers go down to an injury after the season begins, who knows.

here's some more info on the situation from the Braves' camp & some comments on Jones by Chipper that seem to corroborate w/my take here:

http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2009/01/17/andruw0117.html

Andruw Jones is there if they want him, but the Braves haven’t decided if they want him enough to make any significant commitment to the former Atlanta center fielder.

“We’re going to have some internal discussions about his situation,” general manager Frank Wren said of Jones, 31, who was released Thursday by the Los Angeles Dodgers. Jones worked out a deal with his agent to defer most of the remaining $21.1 million they owe him.

But they will eventually pay it all —- $32.2 million in a two-year contract they gave Jones when he left the Braves as a free agent following the 2007 season.

Agent Scott Boras said eight teams called Friday about the center fielder, but he wouldn’t say what level of interest the Braves had expressed.

Jones hit .158 with three home runs, 33 hits and 76 strikeouts in 209 at-bats in 2008. He spent time on the disabled list after knee surgery and was booed at Dodger Stadium.

Any team is free to sign Jones, who will get what he’s owed from the Dodgers in addition to what his next employer pays him.

He made it known he’d like to return to the Braves, but they’re reluctant to offer him anything more than a minor-league contract and invitation to spring training.

Braves third baseman Chipper Jones has watched his former teammate hit frequently this winter at Turner Field and at a facility in Suwanee.

“Andruw looks good, but he’s still got the pull-first mentality,” Chipper Jones said. “It sounds like wherever Andruw lands, he’s going to fall in someone’s lap. It’s a matter of what he’s willing to accept to come start over. I don’t think there’s any doubt he can still play center field, but people are a little leery of his last two offensive years.

“Until Andruw decides to make the adjustment at the plate, the necessary adjustments, people are going to continue to be leery.”

Jones wants a major league deal. The Braves seem inclined to see if a market develops for him before deciding whether to make an offer.

Aren't the Yankees looking to unload an outfielder? I doubt they add another one.

that's only because neither Nady nor Swisher are ideally CFer options... Jones would be a no risk option to take on a Spring Training invite... if he doesn't play well, we cut him, no big loss... Nady & Swisher can net u back prospects & they're both making guaranteed salaries, so it makes sense to unload 1 of them if u're trying to free up money to allocate towards pitching, something Jones on a non roster invite wouldn't cost us in the least... again, this is all assuming he'd even be open to coming on as a non roster invitee at this point... i don't see much of a market out there for him on a guaranteed deal at this point until he shows he's no longer an automatic out at the plate.

Jones is virtually no risk. There's no reason to object to giving him a minor league contract. I'm surprised things have been a bit quiet the last 3 weeks. I assume there will at least be some minor moves.

looks like given a choice Jones' preference is to go back to ATL, but he definitely has just as good a shot at winning the starting CFer job in NY as he does in ATL along w/a better shot at reaching the postseason.

They probably got Swisher because they weren't expecting to get Tex. He was a good pick up then and I wouldn't mind keeping him but he'll have a limited role unless there are major injuries. We probably cannot get much in a trade involving him. He may end up just being our backup OFer/1st baseman.

Nady's the much more tradeable of the 2 because of his expiring contract & the fact he put up solid #'s last season... Swish is coming off a career worst season & is on the books for another $24 mil over the next 4 seasons w/a team option for a 5th set at $10.25 mil w/a $1 mil buyout in 2012... i think of the 2, Swisher's the harder one to trade by a wide margin.


but then Swisher's wife is hotness so that's a plus in his favor.

WOW!

i can sorta understand why he might have been distracted last season.

holy crap, Larry Fitzgerald is having the game of his life... what a player!