I enjoy these daily columns of "Yankees future not as good as Team X". They can offer gobs of money at every Dominican with a curveball and can pay overslot every round of the draft. They can buy any free agent they want. My guess is they'll be okay.

Yes. An ability to carry a $200MM payroll means never losing hope.

Hughes, Joba, IPK, Melancon, A-Jack, Tabata, Montero, Brackman, Almonte, Cox, Horne, McCutchen, Romine, Angelini...

They can use their financial resources to tread water until some of these kids are ready.

One of the points I made, however, is that the free agent market seems on the verge of completely drying up in terms of young, premium talent.

The Yankees are old. We think of the 1964 team as one that simply expired, but it had an average age of 28.2 compared to 31.4 for the 2008 Yanks.

Well, the key there was replacing Yogi with Keane. Huge mistake.

Speaking of that, has there ever been a more staggering surprise of a managerial move, hiring the guy away from the team that beat you in the world series?

I was thinking about this earlier - the Yanks/Mets game got rained out on Friday night, and SNY ran the very first interleague tilt between these two teams, in 1997.

During the game, the announcers said, "This Yankee team is a better team right now, but I'd take the Mets going forward." I think there's a version of this statement literally every single time the Yankees and Mets face off.

That Yankee team, of course, ran off three World Series titles the next three years. One of these was over the Mets, who didn't sniff a title otherwise in ten years.

But let's talk about talent on the field instead of organizations, just for the sake of argument. The Mets of 1997 featured future stars Todd Hundley, John Olerud, Carlos Baerga, Edgardo Alfonso, Rey Ordonez, Bernard Gilkey, Lance Johnson, and Butch Huskey. The 1997 Yankees featured a very young Jeter, a very young Posada (a backup at that stage), a very young Rivera, an in-prime Bernie Williams, and a few others. Depending on how you look at HoF, that's four young to prime HoFers for one ledger, zero for the other.

Tabata makes Felix Martinez look like Ted Williams by comparison and Martinez is actually younger (and hurt again). I talked about some of those other guys. The key with Montero is can he catch. The answer is probably not.

I don't disagree that the team is old and that it (and every team) would be improved by replacing mediocrities and fading oldsters with star players. But I think this article is still a bit more pessimistic than it ought to be about the Yankees' chances. Few teams have the buildup of young talent that the Devil Rays now appear to have (on their present team and in the high minors); in other words, most teams will look bad by comparison. But the Yankees have more talent than their current sub-.500 record might suggest.

Replacing Ensberg and Molina with Rodriguez and Posada, even allowing for quite a bit of regression on the part of the two veterans and for the relatively short amount of time they've been out, is still probably the difference between their current record and .500. And unless you believe that Hughes and Kennedy are "true-talent" cannon fodder, their young starters are likely a wee bit better than what they've produced so far this year.

And, while it's hard to know where "merely good" stops and "great" begins, I myself find "merely good" insufficient to describe Robinson Cano's last two years. Good-fielding second basemen who sport 120 OPS+s (roughly what Jeff Kent has done in his average season) are borderline Hall-of-Famers. (That's not an argument for Cano for the Hall of Fame -- he'd need a lot more 120 OPS+s and probably more than a few beyond that -- but a guy who hits for a 120 OPS+ at second base for long enough is at least HOVG unless he's a butcher in the field, and Cano isn't one, so far as I can tell).

Again, this is not to say that the Yankees shouldn't look to improve their team. Obviously they should. They've only two starting position player on the good side of 30 and only one of those appears (to my eyes, your mileage may vary) to be a guy you can build a championship team around (just as soon as he remembers how good he is). An overhaul has to come, yes. They're just not as bad as they've looked so far this year. I'd still be willing to take the Yankees (with the right odds) to beat out the Devil Rays. Heck, I still think they have a damned good chance of catching the Red Sox, though I'd prefer it to be otherwise.

Derek Jeter turns 34 next month and can’t hit well enough any longer to make up for his tremendous defensive shortcomings.

Jeter's got a 115 OPS+ and is playing better defense than last year by any metric you can dig up, but yeah, you're right, he's never overcome a slow start before, he should probably retire today to avoid embarrassment. The putouts and assists thing is obvious cherry picking since he's missed time and you know that those numbers aren't really representative of anything other than ball distribution.

Johnny Damon and Hideki Matsui will need to be replaced soon.

Yeah, they both look awful out there, one playing great D and hitting respectably, the other tearing the cover off the ball. It's also too bad the Yanks don't have a couple top 100 OF prospects in AA to prepare for their departure.

Robinson Cano is merely good.

What an awful thing, to be one of the two or three best second basemen in the majors.

While Sonnanstine could be replaced by quality power arms like David Price, Wade Davis and Jacob McGee in the very near future, Kennedy is expected to be the Yanks' No. 4 starter behind Chamberlain, Chien-Ming Wang and Phil Hughes -- two of whom are totally unproven in the rotation.

The Yankee young starters are unproven, the Rays are quality power arms.

Scouts think Brett Gardner is a fourth or even fifth outfielder, so we'll ignore his decent sabermetric profile at Triple-A Scranton.

We'll ignore the numbers for Gardner and focus on them for Jackson (who is 21 in AA and is doing everything except hitting for power). Good call. McCutchen is dominating AA, Rasner looks like a serviceable Major League starter, Betemit hit well once he got his vision sorted out, Miranda may be a serviceable Major League 1st baseman even with his late start and Gonzalez's glove has looked special at SS. But none of that fits the story, so why mention it?

Since when do you listen to the announcers, TVErik? Baerga was washed up when the Mets got him. Ordonez a carnival act. Gikey, Johnson, Huskey? Come on, no one took those guys seriously in any future sense. And Olerud and Hundley were approaching 30.

This is a different world now. Money isn't likely to matter nearly as much now as it did then. After next year, FA dries up. The teams with lots of money and no young talent of their own to lock up are going to be like fantasy owners who held on to their money too long at the auction. Too much dough and nothing left to buy.

The key with Montero is can he catch. The answer is probably not.

Based on what?

The Yankee young starters are unproven, the Rays are quality power arms.

That's your one fair criticism, in context. Or at least your best one. But Price > Joba, Hughes = (at best) whoever works out best out of Davis and McGee and whichever one of them who's left smashes Kennedy, who is a righty finesse guy, let's be honest. Of course, I'm not even mentioning Kazmir and Shields, either of who likely represent Joba's upside as a starter. And forget about Garza and Jackson and Sonnenstein on the sidelines.

The key with Montero is can he catch. The answer is probably not.

Hey, it's in the piece. But he was 3-for-32 throwing out baserunners last year and many scouts don't think he projects there. He may have made strides this year; I couldn't get those stats prior to deadline and it wasn't worth waiting for.

You are viewing every ambiguous fact in the light most negative to the Yankeees.

That's your one fair criticism, in context.

Whatever, you keep writing these things and you always turn out to be wrong.

[Steinbrenner's Office]

SALFINO: You, uh, wanted to see me, Mr. Steinbrenner?

STEINBRENNER: Yes Salfino, I did. Come in, come in. Salfino, the word around the office is that you're a Communist.

SALFINO: C-Communist? I am a Yankee, sir, first and foremost.

STEINBRENNER: You know, Salfino, it struck me today me that a Communist pipeline into the vast reservoir of Cuban baseball talent could be the greatest thing ever to happen to this organization.

SALFINO: Sir?

STEINBRENNER: You could be invaluable to this franchise. Salfino, there's a southpaw down there nobody's been able to get a look at; something Rodriguez, I don't really know his name. You get yourself down to Havana right away.

SALFINO: Yes, sir. Yes sir, do my best.

STEINBRENNER: Good, Merry Christmas Salfino. And bring me back some of those cigars in the cedar boxes, you know the ones with the fancy rings? I love those fancy rings. They kind of distract you while you're smoking. The red and yellow are nice. It looks good against the brown of the cigar. The Maduro, I like the Maduro wrapper. The darker the better, that's what I say. Of course, the Claro's good too. That's more of a pale brown, almost like a milky coffee. I find the ring size very confusing. They have it in centimeters which I don't really understand that well...

Hey, it's in the piece. But he was 3-for-32 throwing out baserunners last year and many scouts don't think he projects there. He may have made strides this year; I couldn't get those stats prior to deadline and it wasn't worth waiting for.

He's spending the entire season at Charleston to work on his catching. Again, I think you are looking to emphasize every npossible negative.

This is a different world now. Money isn't likely to matter nearly as much now as it did then. After next year, FA dries up. The teams with lots of money and no young talent of their own to lock up are going to be like fantasy owners who held on to their money too long at the auction. Too much dough and nothing left to buy.


I wasn't trying to imply that the guys on TV know all and see all, just that I've heard the "I'll take this team's future over the Yankee present" for years and years and years, and it's never really come to pass.

And I won't stipulate to your "after next year" FA statement. It's all cyclical; there are weak classes and strong classes. As you state in the article, more teams are locking up their young players early. But once that business model starts to show age by teams still paying albatross contracts to never-were players, teams will wait until arbitration and free agency in order to make these commitments.

We'll ignore the numbers for Gardner and focus on them for Jackson (who is 21 in AA and is doing everything except hitting for power). Good call. McCutchen is dominating AA, Rasner looks like a serviceable Major League starter, Betemit hit well once he got his vision sorted out, Miranda may be a serviceable Major League 1st baseman even with his late start and Gonzalez's glove has looked special at SS. But none of that fits the story, so why mention it?

Betemit? Please. Rasner? The YANKEES didn't even believe in him in November. McCutchen is going to be 26 this year so who gives a crap what he does in AA? At least you had the sense to not defend Tabata.

Hughes, Joba, IPK, Melancon, A-Jack, Tabata, Montero, Brackman, Almonte, Cox, Horne, McCutchen, Romine, Angelini...

Well, you throw a whole bunch of them at the wall, some will stick.

And I won't stipulate to your "after next year" FA statement. It's all cyclical; there are weak classes and strong classes.

Even if this doesn't happen, I think there will always be teams looking to dump a good player whose salary is swamping their budget. The Yanks can stay competitive just by vulturing those contracts.

Again, I think you are looking to emphasize every npossible negative.

Here's what I wrote about Montero:

The best news right now on the farm is Low-A catcher Jesus Montero, who is 18 yet currently sports a .823 OPS. However, there are serious questions about whether Montero can stay at the position; he was 3-for-33 throwing out baserunners last year. If he must move to first, he loses a good bit of his luster.

That's not emphasizing the negative, it's reporting the facts. There are questions about whether he can play the position. And if can't his value is diminished. You can't assume I write what Cowboy Popup implies I write.

McCutchen is going to be 26 this year so who gives a crap what he does in AA? At least you had the sense to not defend Tabata.

McCutchen can be a very effective ML reliever.

Yeah, why defend a 19 year old coming off hand surgery? Sheesh.

But once that business model starts to show age by teams still paying albatross contracts to never-were players, teams will wait until arbitration and free agency in order to make these commitments.

I agree. I made that point, too, to be fair. But there's going to be some very dry years at least after 2009. Maybe three or five or maybe those deals will work out on balance and free agency will never be the same.

That's not emphasizing the negative, it's reporting the facts. There are questions about whether he can play the position. And if can't his value is diminished. You can't assume I write what Cowboy Popup implies I write.

Shields "represents Joba's upside" is a fact?

Hughes, Joba, IPK, Melancon, A-Jack, Tabata, Montero, Brackman, Almonte, Cox, Horne, McCutchen, Romine, Angelini...

They can use their financial resources to tread water until some of these kids are ready.

This is not meant as a snark, but I would have replaced "tread water until some of these kids are ready" with "if some of these kids don't pan out". I see no probable major-league Yankee-quality regulars among this group with the exception of Joba and Hughes (the latter of which continues to get hurt). Probably Jackson too, despite the erraticness. The rest are too unproven at this point.

Yeah, why defend a 19 year old coming off hand surgery? Sheesh.

That was harsh, I admit. But the surgery was supposed to fix the power, which is nonexistent at the moment.

The Yanks can stay competitive just by vulturing those contracts.

It worked great for Isiah Thomas.

It's bad enough that the Red Sox young two starters have outperformed the Yankees young two starters, 2 no hitters to 47 ERA+, but now the Rays are getting more love in the NY blogosphere than the Yankees generation WHY. Won't you have some mercy, Salfino?

This is not meant as a snark, but I would have replaced "tread water until some of these kids are ready" with "if some of these kids don't pan out". I see no probable major-league Yankee-quality regulars among this group with the exception of Joba and Hughes (the latter of which continues to get hurt). Probably Jackson too, despite the erraticness. The rest are too unproven at this p

Melancon could well be a staple in the pen this season. A-Jack will likely be the Yankees' CFer by mid-2009. Of course, they're unproven. Prospects by definition are unproven.

It worked great for Isiah Thomas.

A Knick/Yankee analogy is on point given any reasoned analysis. One team hasn't won a championship since '73 and the other since '00. One team hasn't made the playoffs since '03, the other has made the playoffs every year since '96.

It worked great for Isiah Thomas.

But Isiah was a singular FO talent.

Shields "represents Joba's upside" is a fact?

I didn't write that in the article. I wasn't referring to that. I was talking about what I wrote about Montero. The stuff I write here is just conversational. But I'm enjoying it because I'm home sick today and it's either this or the Paula Abdul reality show marathon on Bravo (she's crazy!).

Of course, some of the stuff I actually write might prove to be ill considered, too.

Shields is pretty damn good. He did what he did in '07 on a team with a piss-poor defense. If I was a Yankees fan I'd sign for Shields's '07 and '08 when he's moved to the rotation. Of course, stylistically, they're very different. Remember, Joba's Ks are likely to come down to 7-8/9 innings when he converts (in about 2011).

McCutchen looks like every jerk you hated in high school, or is it me?

Top Yankee rookies, 2000-2006: Alfonso Soriano, Ted Lilly, Nick Johnson, Robinson Cano, Chien-Ming Wang, Melky Cabrera - six players in seven years

Yankee finish in AL East, 2000-2006: 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st (tied), 1st

This isn't a team that needs even particularly good production from their farm system to be competitive. They just need to spend their massive, massive piles of cash with an average level of ability. The Dolan Knicks are a terrible comp both because the knicks have shown significant incompetence in managing their money and because the NBA salary cap makes most of the best free agents off limits to the Knicks.

The Dolan Knicks are a terrible comp both because the knicks have shown significant incompetence in managing their money and because the NBA salary cap makes most of the best free agents off limits to the Knicks.

But the initiative that teams are showing in locking up their best players past free agency is just as likely to keep top talent away from the Yanks (beyond November 2008) as the salary cap does from the Knicks.

McCutchen looks like every jerk you hated in high school, or is it me?
Our work nanny screamed at me because of the pop-ups. They must have been something...

It's also very funny how we can't compare the Yanks front office to the Knicks. I think if Isiah had no salary cap, he'd have been just as good as the Yanks FO (I won't blame Cashman because I never know who really calls the shots). Pavano? Farnsworth? Giambi? Igawa? Stop me when I get to $200 million. Oh, wait. I'm already there. Randy Johnson? Roger Clemens?

Jeter's got a 115 OPS+ and is playing better defense than last year by any metric you can dig up

Let's not get too hasty here. He's tied for 3rd worst in baseball and was dead last 2 weeks ago. I doubt he's going to acquire much range any time soon. His defense in the recent past was nullifying his offensive contributions. If his offense declines appreciably, and at his age it very well might, if it hasn't already, then he's a not a championship caliber player.

If his offense declines appreciably, and at his age it very well might, if it hasn't already, then he's a not a championship caliber player.

Strap five bowling balls to the arms of a heavily declining Jeter, and he would still have a better overall year than Julio Lugo did in 2007.

The Dolan Knicks are a terrible comp both because the knicks have shown significant incompetence in managing their money and because the NBA salary cap makes most of the best free agents off limits to the Knicks.

I'm with Salfino on this. Even with the cap, the Knicks were the biggest spenders in the NBA and blew their wad on incredibly overrated players like Marbury, Randolph and Francis.

I don't think you can compare the Knicks and the Yankees for two reasons:

1. The NBA and MLB salary structure, collective bargaining agreement and trade restrictions are radically different from each other.

2. The Knicks have sucked and the Yankees have been very successful.

You know, I hate the Yankees, too. I can't believe I'm defending them. Truth before sentiment, I guess. As to the larger point of your article, the Rays are much more stocked with young talent than the Yanks and I wouldn't be surprised to see them finish ahead of the Yanks this year. I just don't think we're going to see a 1990 level meltdown from the Yankees again. The economics of the game are radically different for MLB as a whole and for the Yankees in particular. They really do have the capacity to spend their way out of a lot of stupidity and this should keep them competitive even if they aren't dominant again. In other words, their window of opportunity, unlike other teams, never really closes.

Strap five bowling balls to the arms of a heavily declining Jeter, and he would still have a better overall year than Julio Lugo did in 2007.

Ha! I might have to steal that one.

It's also very funny how we can't compare the Yanks front office to the Knicks.

Nobody's doing that. The issue is how likely the Yankees are to stay competitive. The rest of your post proves everyone else's point; you obviously don't think very highly of the Yankees' front office, going back at least seven years, and yet they've been somewhat competitive in that time, as mentioned in #35.

I'm with Salfino on this. Even with the cap, the Knicks were the biggest spenders in the NBA and blew their wad on incredibly overrated players like Marbury, Randolph and Francis.

I didn't write that. My position is that if even Isiah Thomas was freed from the constraints of a salary cap to the extent the Yankees are, the Knicks would have at least made the playoffs every year of his tenure. They spent three times the cap on crap because overpaid guys were all they could get. Of course, Isiah is an idiot for doing this. But my point is that the Yanks don't get credit for their acumen in acquiring talent, which is mixed, at best. They need a vibrant FA market to spend their way out of mistakes and I don't think that market is going to exist beyond January of 2009, for at least two or three years.

you obviously don't think very highly of the Yankees' front office

I don't know who the Yanks front office is or has been. They've done a good job overseas and just okay in the draft. They've reaped the benefits of decisions made more than a decade ago during this recent run. Cano might be a borderline impact position player. But that's it since when? They have one guy who looks like an impact pitcher during that time -- Chamberlain. Wang is very solid, but not special. Definitely championship caliber though. I give them props for him. But that's not a hearty resume, don't you agree? Again, I'm not questioning the results. But if the Yanks FO was a mutual fund, how much stock would you put in even the recent past performance?

They need a vibrant FA market to spend their way out of mistakes and I don't think that market is going to exist beyond January of 2009, for at least two or three years.

I actually agree with you on this point, though I still think the Yankees will be able to leverage their spending power to lift still productive, yet relatively overpaid, players from other teams.

Melancon could well be a staple in the pen this season. A-Jack will likely be the Yankees' CFer by mid-2009. Of course, they're unproven. Prospects by definition are unproven.

Well, what I really meant was that everyone else has yet to put up minor-league stats that suggest a probable Yankee-level regular. Jackson did so last year, but that's his only year of doing so thus far. He may well become an excellent CF for them, but he's had one bad year, one good year, and one okay year so far. I know less about the bullpen arms, although those tend to be fungible by nature. Tabata has done nothing so far. Montero is hitting fairly well but is doing so in the Sally League, and it is an open question as to whether or not he can catch.

I see a lot of maybe's in the Yankees' system. Has anyone else in there consistently put up numbers that suggest an above-average regular?

though I still think the Yankees will be able to leverage their spending power to lift still productive, yet relatively overpaid, players from other teams.

But don't you agree that this is a very dangerous game to play even if you don't care about the money because, by definition, you're getting disappointing players.

I see a lot of maybe's in the Yankees' system. Has anyone else in there consistently put up numbers that suggest an above-average regular?

No.

But don't you agree that this is a very dangerous game to play even if you don't care about the money because, by definition, you're getting disappointing players.

I'm not sure that lying in the weeds and letting the Pirates ink contracts which you later purloin with more information and leverage is more dangerous than trades or other "traditional" team-building methods. Sure, the Red Sox gave up significant talent a few years ago. But the upside of Beckett/Lowell was easily seen by all.

You're not getting "disappointing" players, you're getting players who the original team decided are not worth the money. Not only could the organizations be wrong about this, but a simple "change of scenery" could be good for the player in question. But most significant is that similar amounts of sunk cost are just not the same for the big fish as they are for the guppies.

Let's look at this team position by position:

Of the Yankees' starting nine, only two were acquired as true free agents.

Again, hardly an indication that the Yankees stock their team with coveted free agents.

The Yankees leverage their money in so many more ways than the free agent market. In fact, they've generally fielded good teams despite mediocre performance in free agent signings. If you look at the Yankees' (supposedly) big acquisitions over the last few years many, if not most, have come via trade: Weaver, Vazquez, Johnson, A-Rod, etc. The free agent market drying up would not appear to hurt them that much, if it actually happens.

Anyways, that's my $0.02.

But don't you agree that this is a very dangerous game to play even if you don't care about the money because, by definition, you're getting disappointing players.

Sure. It means they'll never get their money's worth, though they can't be too displeased with A-Rod's production or Abreu's. And again, I don't think this is the way to build a dominant team, but it's enough to keep them from being also-rans. As long as they can outspend all but a couple of other teams 2 to 1, they should be in the mix. It's very possible I give their FO too much credit, though. I hope this is the case every day, believe me.

Which isn't to say that I think a few of those guys won't pan out. But it's hardly pessimistic to say that I wouldn't expect any one individual (apart from Hughes and Joba) to pan out.

By the same token, as a Red Sox fan, I can hope that Ryan Kalish & Mark Wagner pan out, but based on what they've done so far, they're going to have to show me a lot more for me to believe they'll be above-average regulars.

I don't know who the Yanks front office is or has been. They've done a good job overseas and just okay in the draft. They've reaped the benefits of decisions made more than a decade ago during this recent run. Cano might be a borderline impact position player. But that's it since when? They have one guy who looks like an impact pitcher during that time -- Chamberlain. Wang is very solid, but not special. Definitely championship caliber though. I give them props for him. But that's not a hearty resume, don't you agree?

I'm not arguing for or against the Yankees' front office. I'm saying that whatever their front office acumen is, the team's recent past performance is 1, 1, 1, 1...

They need a vibrant FA market to spend their way out of mistakes and I don't think that market is going to exist beyond January of 2009, for at least two or three years.

Can someone clue me in on all these big ticket free agents are that the Yankees have been signing? Since Mussina & Giambi, I see two old guys - Damon & Sheffield - plus a bunch of trades of the type mentioned by shooty (Vazquez, RJ, ARod, Abreu, Brown, Mondesi) and some big contracts to their own guys (Jeter, Posada, Rivera). The argument would have a bit more heft if there were some examples of guys the Yankees have snarfed up in the past right after six years of service time.

Edit: John Lynch beat me to it.

I don't know who the Yankee Front Office is.

I don't know anything about it!

Sure, the Red Sox gave up significant talent a few years ago. But the upside of Beckett/Lowell was easily seen by all.

Technically, Lowell was viewed as probably washed-up. And, in the Red Sox org, Hanley was viewed as something of a malcontent who hadn't proven much in the minors. Indeed, his composite minor-league OPS was .297/.350/.430. Even though these are the untranslated numbers (and don't take into account that his *last* year in the minors was at age 21), it was still far from sure that he'd be a star.

Anyone see a comp between the early-90s Yankees and this year's Tigers? It's not perfect by any means, but the 2008 Tigers *do* have a collection of highly-paid free agents all over the diamond--and they're stagnating.

I don't know who the Yankee Front Office is.

I don't know anything about it!

I always picture a Stonecutters meeting for some reason.

Technically, Lowell was viewed as probably washed-up.

If it'll make you feel better, I can Google up some quotes from the Sox FO at the time. They said all the stuff about "change of scenery", and it was mentioned here that there was a good chance that his bat would love Fenway. And no one questioned his ability to play the hell out of 3B.

It wasn't Lowell and Beckett for Hanley and some other parts. It was Lowell, Beckett, and salary relief in exchange for Hanley and some other parts. The Sox were able to leverage their cash in a way that few teams would have been able to in pursuit of the best available talent. Free agency had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Of the Yankees' starting nine, only two were acquired as true free agents.

But Matsui, ARod and Abreu were snagged by the Yankees being able to outbid others or just plain afford to overpay.
"Acquiring from Japan" is a code word for "Free Agent".
Abreu was acquired for a handful of non-magic beans (and that was pretty well known at the time). Deep pocket acquisition.
ARod was the only player for whom the Yankees gave up anything of value and that value was way short of ARod's value. A deep pocket acquisition. Then ARod opts out and... another deep pockets signing.

Look the Yankees have done smart stuff and dumb stuff. But short of hiring Isaiah Thomas, any marginal Front Office could keep them in contention. I don't know how to judge the relative merits of the Yankees vs. any other FO because the $ are such a big part of how they can operate.

But Matsui, ARod and Abreu were snagged by the Yankees being able to outbid others or just plain afford to overpay.

I don't speak for everyone in the thread, but I certainly agree with this. I disagree with Salfino - I feel that the way you build your team has virtually no predictive value for how your results will go in subsequent years. We assume that the Yank FO can only build a winner in one particular way - one of the reasons they are playing with the big boys is that they can adjust to fit the market conditions.

In this game, it certainly doesn't pay to live in the recent past. Any number of bad contracts show us that. But it also doesn't pay to live in the future too much. Potential is not production.

Edmundo, with all due respect you're missing the argument. See Salfino's #36 for what everyone (you included, apparently) is arguing against.

But Matsui, ARod and Abreu were snagged by the Yankees being able to outbid others or just plain afford to overpay.
"Acquiring from Japan" is a code word for "Free Agent".
Abreu was acquired for a handful of non-magic beans (and that was pretty well known at the time). Deep pocket acquisition.
ARod was the only player for whom the Yankees gave up anything of value and that value was way short of ARod's value. A deep pocket acquisition. Then ARod opts out and... another deep pockets signing.

Well, yes. My argument is decidedly not that the Yankees don't leverage their money to outbid others. It's that they don't need the traditional free agent market to do it. When they sign their own free agents or give extensions to players that they control, they are using their financial clout in a different and powerful manner that does not depend on other teams failing to sign their own talent.

With respect to Matsui, that's not the market that Salfino is talking about. Yes, he was a free agent of sorts, but not the kind that other MLB teams can lock up to a long term deal before he hits the market. That's why I'm not counting him the same way as a Damon or a Giambi.

**EDIT** Fixed typo.

Kurt, I was picking a different argument. :) I don't agree with what John wrote in #52.

Without doing an exhaustive list of potential FAs, #36 does look like a cogent argument.

John (#63), thanks, I see where you are going now.

Jeter's got a 115 OPS+ and is playing better defense than last year by any metric you can dig up

I happen to think Jeter is fine, and will continue to be a valuable player for at the very least this year, but STOP LOOKING AT DEFENSIVE STATS FROM 40 GAMES TO MAKE A POINT!!! THEY ARE USELESS!!! HUGE ASS ############# SAMPLE SIZE ISSUES!!!!

Okay, sorry about that, rant over. I chose your quote, CP, but that's not just directed at you, it is nothing personal I promise you - it's been going on all the time around here lately.

As you state in the article, more teams are locking up their young players early. But once that business model starts to show age by teams still paying albatross contracts to never-were players, teams will wait until arbitration and free agency in order to make these commitments.

You assume this will happen. It may not, especially considering the relatively low amounts of guaranteed money being offered in the contracts. If even half of the very early signings turn out to be good deals (not even great deals) that they have the potential to be then I think you'll see the trend continue. The Rays had the Baldelli contract bomb completely on them and it hasn't made them hesitant to sign players even earlier than they signed him. Not the best example, the injuries he already had helped them structure it to pretty low guaranteed payments, but it's the best available right now.

Jim, why did teams see Cleveland do this in the Nineties and not adopt it themselves? Signing potentially good players young certainly seems like a good idea. But I find it kind of suspicous that none of the very bright people inside the game have really given it a sustained spin in the last fifteen years.

If it'll make you feel better, I can Google up some quotes from the Sox FO at the time. They said all the stuff about "change of scenery", and it was mentioned here that there was a good chance that his bat would love Fenway. And no one questioned his ability to play the hell out of 3B.

It wasn't Lowell and Beckett for Hanley and some other parts. It was Lowell, Beckett, and salary relief in exchange for Hanley and some other parts. The Sox were able to leverage their cash in a way that few teams would have been able to in pursuit of the best available talent. Free agency had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

True enough. It was definitely a buy-low on Lowell, and the Sox had the ability (or willingness) to take on his $8 million that year. I think I was remembering the boston.com forum vitriol about the trade...

You assume this will happen. It may not, especially considering the relatively low amounts of guaranteed money being offered in the contracts.

Right. I said in the article the most shocking thing to me was the Rays committing $44 million to Longoria for nine years (with options) after he was in the majors for three weeks. That's very likely to be a winner. Look at it this way: it might be half of what it costs the Yanks for five years of A.J. Burnett.

I don't know anything about it!

TVerik's not putting his name on the line for something that doesn't work.

Jim, why did teams see Cleveland do this in the Nineties and not adopt it themselves? Signing potentially good players young certainly seems like a good idea. But I find it kind of suspicous that none of the very bright people inside the game have really given it a sustained spin in the last fifteen years.

Beats me. I've never looked at the details of the contracts they gave out and the level of performance from the players afterwards but I always hear about how it was a great thing for the Indians and a major part of their success. If that's ineed the case then I have no idea why nobody else has really tried it, you'd think that they would if they saw it working in Cleveland.

I think that the current financial state of the game makes it more attractive these days though. Considering how much money it can cost to retain a well above average player on a free agent contract it makes more sense to run some risks and try to keep costs within reason.

Right. I said in the article the most shocking thing to me was the Rays committing $44 million to Longoria for nine years (with options) after he was in the majors for three weeks. That's very likely to be a winner. Look at it this way: it might be half of what it costs the Yanks for five years of A.J. Burnett.

I read an SI article about ten years ago in which the GM of the Texas Rangers was on a minor-league field and was talking about a hard-throwing Rangers prospect. He said that he could sign the kid to a 10-year contract for nothing in particular right now, but that it didn't make business sense.

I wonder if the rules have changed so much in that way. I wouldn't go so far as to say that all pre-arb commitments are bad, but I do have to wonder what KC would have ponied up early in Mark Quinn's career. Or what the Rockies would have given Barmes.

but I do have to wonder what KC would have ponied up early in Mark Quinn's career. Or what the Rockies would have given Barmes.

The competence of the front office in evaluating the talent on hand is important too though. If Bill Bavasi suddenly starts adopting this practice then it will sure as hell look like a disaster. With Baldelli the Rays either misevaluated his injury state or just didn't care about the risk because only $9 million was guaranteed. Crawford on the other hand has turned out quite well, despite his hacktastic ways and probably being generally overrated some by the mainsteam he has certainly been and should continue to be worth the money he's owed from his early contract. If they're as smart as they look in general right now then the Rays should probably have enough success with these contracts to keep on doing them.

Your point is valid though to an extent about other teams possibly being scared off in the future if these go wrong, if the Bavasis of the league started doing this then they might very well frighten off competent GMs from trying the same thing even if the competent guy could do it right (or frighten the owner/team president into telling their GM not to go that route).

I think that the current financial state of the game makes it more attractive these days though. Considering how much money it can cost to retain a well above average player on a free agent contract it makes more sense to run some risks and try to keep costs within reason.

This. Baseball salaries are not growing as fast as its revenues. Locking up young players for the amounts teams are doing it lately is essentially risk free. 10-15 years ago, I don't think that was the case.

wonder what KC would have ponied up early in Mark Quinn's career

There's a reminder of fantasy auctions gone bad. In my home league once you could sign guys within a month of the draft for one, two or three years at his present salary. $25 for Jim Abbott killed one team for years, as did $30 for Duane Ward for another. The same type of thing will happen in the majors but the real GMs, not surprisingly, seem to be proceeding a lot smarter than we did.

Also, paying young players now means that they're less likely to re-enlist... oops! Been watching the news about the GI bill.

I don't know anything about it!

TVerik's not putting his name on the line for something that doesn't work.

Gary Busey as Hank Steinbrenner needs to happen -- I don't care if it's in a low-rent ESPN biopic or in that Oliver Stone Bush movie or The Dark Knight, it just needs to happen.

But the initiative that teams are showing in locking up their best players past free agency is just as likely to keep top talent away from the Yanks (beyond November 2008) as the salary cap does from the Knicks.

The next step is for those "best players" to transform into "still good players, but now overpaid and on teams that are going downhill", and have the Yankees trade for them. I could see this happening with Ryan Braun, Chase Utley, Michael Young, any number of guys, if something happens to make them less reliably awesome than once seemed inevitable.

My position is that if even Isiah Thomas was freed from the constraints of a salary cap to the extent the Yankees are, the Knicks would have at least made the playoffs every year of his tenure.

OK then, I don't agree with you because Isiah's ineptitude was of such a magnitude that no matter how big a budget he was given, he lacked the capacity to flip it into a winning combination. That he gave 19 mil per to a guy like Marbury, even after Marbury had already come over and proven he wasn't worth it, is an indication of how clueless Isiah was.

So, then I guess I'm with Shooty because at leaast the Yankees have remained somewhat competitive, good enought o make the playoffs anyway. Isiah is hopeless.

"Scouts think Brett Gardner is a fourth or even fifth outfielder, so we'll ignore his decent sabermetric profile at Triple-A Scranton."

Of course, scouts are always correct. I really don't see a vast difference between Jacoby Ellsbury and Gardner, and that's no slam at Ellsbury. Garnder's OPS in Triple AAA is .868.

For all the excitement he brings Ellsbury is carrying a .773 OPS this year, which is fine. He never dominated in the minors except for a 17- game stint at Double AA Portland.

Ellsbury's numbers at AAA in 07.
2007 Pawtucket AAA 23 .298 87 363 66 108 14 5 2 28 33 6 32 47 .360 .380 .740 OPS

Garnder's AAA numbers in 08.

SWB INT .291 42 148 35 43 6 6 3 21 70 27 32 14 6 .395 .473 .868 OPS

Gardner strikes out more than Ellsbury, but both are good defensive centerfielders that cover a lot of ground. Both walk quite a bit and are utter demons on the basepaths.

I'm not saying that Ellsbury isn't better but to pretend that it's some gaping chasm is just nonsense.

I make this argument because scouts have proved, in a wide variety of instances, of showing no idea what the hell they are talking about. So taking a scout's view of Gardner and therefore dismissing him as a player is a little silly.

So, then I guess I'm with Shooty because at leaast the Yankees have remained somewhat competitive, good enought o make the playoffs anyway. Isiah is hopeless.

I will stipulate to this because I've concluded I must draw a line at even seeming to defend Isiah Thomas.

I make this argument because scouts have proved, in a wide variety of instances, of showing no idea what the hell they are talking about. So taking a scout's view of Gardner and therefore dismissing him as a player is a little silly

I agree that Ellsbury is overrated by most. And Gardner might be a regular; I can see that. But he's never going to be a cornerstone guy (neither is Ellsbury, IMO). But scouts have a very good idea of what they're talking about. They're often wrong because forecasting talent is very hard. I think you're dismissing them in a silly way.

"Derek Jeter turns 34 next month and can’t hit well enough any longer to make up for his tremendous defensive shortcomings."

So you don't think Jeter will carry about an .840 OPS this year, pretty much, just like always? Really? I don't get it. Based on a 44-game sample?

"Cano is just merely good"

Says who? Being one of the tope three second baseman over the last two years I guess means nothing. He's sucked in a 44-game span so he's merely good now. Geez.

That he gave 19 mil per to a guy like Marbury, even after Marbury had already come over and proven he wasn't worth it, is an indication of how clueless Isiah was.

Not sure where to find out, but I believe he came with that contract. Either NJ or PHX gave it to him. Either way, Isiah took it on, which was stupid enough.

"I agree that Ellsbury is overrated by most. And Gardner might be a regular; I can see that. But he's never going to be a cornerstone guy (neither is Ellsbury, IMO). But scouts have a very good idea of what they're talking about. They're often wrong because forecasting talent is very hard. I think you're dismissing them in a silly way."

I'm not dismissing all scouts, and I appreciate that forecasting talent is difficult. But I think to make a judgement on a player in your column because scouts "say so" is being too dismissive of Gardner's numbers in the minors.

I mean, Billy Beane? Moneyball? Haven't we learned by now that scouts views aren't the end all, be all of how to determine a player's ability to excel in the majors?

But I think to make a judgement on a player in your column because scouts "say so" is being too dismissive of Gardner's numbers in the minors.

I've seen him play up close in the AFL. He's a runty guy who big league pitchers will challenge because he's only going to single anyway. Since so much of his OBP is tied to his average, what's left? Plus he Ks too much. Try to think of slap hitters who generated a lot of value based on their ability to draw walks. Big league pitchers aren't stupid.

But I think to make a judgement on a player in your column because scouts "say so" is being too dismissive of Gardner's numbers in the minors.

Dismissive of Gardner's numbers in the minors??

Gardner's career numbers in AA and AAA:

AA: 420 AB, 286/331/367
AAA: 329 AB, 274/331/395

It seems to me like you're making way, way too much out of 148 minor league ABs this year, and not recognizing the profound weakness of Gardner's overall statistical record.

Great job by those who clearly demonstrated how comparatively insignificant the FA market has been in sustaining the Yankees success. They've generally leveraged their huge financial advantage much through the trading market and Salfino should have taken a good look at the facts. That being said, the basic premise of the article--that the Yankees have a lot of work to do moving forward, and that the competitive landscape will make the easy domination of the 90s and early 2000s impossible to repeat, is pretty much true.

The Yankees are going to free up a ton of money this offseason, and there will be high value targets worth pursuing both in the FA market as well as the trade market. They could have one more short term success burst in them while the Jeter/Posadas/Rivera old guard still has something left.

Melky Cabrera is underrated but likely no more than a complementary player and certainly not a cornerstone.

I would say both this sentence and the truth of the matter suggest he is overrated, because most people in MSM and places like BTF keep suggesting he's about to be a cornerstone...and it simply isn't based on anything he's actually done. Sure it's possible...but it isn't very likely. What he is is a nice complimentary player who is cheap.

I will stipulate to this because I've concluded I must draw a line at even seeming to defend Isiah Thomas.

You're a wise man, Salfino. A very wise man.

Murph, I think Isiah extended Marbury as part of the trade. Don't hold me to that, though. I could be wrong.

Big league pitchers aren't stupid.
Brett Myers would say hello, but even he is smart enough to try to overpower an overmatched hitter.

"I was thinking about this earlier - the Yanks/Mets game got rained out on Friday night, and SNY ran the very first interleague tilt between these two teams, in 1997.

During the game, the announcers said, "This Yankee team is a better team right now, but I'd take the Mets going forward." I think there's a version of this statement literally every single time the Yankees and Mets face off.

That Yankee team, of course, ran off three World Series titles the next three years. One of these was over the Mets, who didn't sniff a title otherwise in ten years.

But let's talk about talent on the field instead of organizations, just for the sake of argument. The Mets of 1997 featured future stars Todd Hundley, John Olerud, Carlos Baerga, Edgardo Alfonso, Rey Ordonez, Bernard Gilkey, Lance Johnson, and Butch Huskey. The 1997 Yankees featured a very young Jeter, a very young Posada (a backup at that stage), a very young Rivera, an in-prime Bernie Williams, and a few others. Depending on how you look at HoF, that's four young to prime HoFers for one ledger, zero for the other."



I think the bottom line is that this statement was indefensible in 1997, not just in hindsight. The Yankees clearly had the better club and the better foundation to build on. And the Mets, without getting Leiter and Piazza and Hampton and some others from outside the organization don't sniff the playoffs in 1999 or 2000. Which is why the Mets "late 90s run" was doomed to sputter out from the beginning - it relied too heavily on old mercenaries. Sound familiar?

Great job by those who clearly demonstrated how comparatively insignificant the FA market has been in sustaining the Yankees success. They've generally leveraged their huge financial advantage much through the trading market and Salfino should have taken a good look at the facts.

I'm not sure what the big distinction to made there really is unless you're solely fixated on who is literally an FA signing. The Abreu acquisition, for instance, was a free agent signing in all but name. There was more substance going the other way (in the form of Soriano) in exchange for A-Rod obviously, but again that is not a trade that could have been made by very many MLB teams. (Their rivals in Boston are one of them of course, as are the crosstown Mets.)

Great job by those who clearly demonstrated how comparatively insignificant the FA market has been in sustaining the Yankees success.

On the other hand, at this point in their careers, Derek Jeter, Jorge Posada, and Mariano Rivera are all earning free-agent market rates from the Yankees, and hence could just as reasonably be lumped into the "Free agent" group.

On the other hand, at this point in their careers, Derek Jeter, Jorge Posada, and Mariano Rivera are all earning free-agent market rates from the Yankees, and hence could just as reasonably be lumped into the "Free agent" group.

Yes and no. There was an interesting thread about how it doesn't really make much sense for the Red Sox to start locking down its players to long-term contracts, forestalling FA eligibility. I imagine the same logic has to apply to the Yankees, perhaps even moreso.

Yes and no. There was an interesting thread about how it doesn't really make much sense for the Red Sox to start locking down its players to long-term contracts, forestalling FA eligibility. I imagine the same logic has to apply to the Yankees, perhaps even moreso.

But in at least the cases of Posada and Rivera, they actually filed for free agency last offseason (as did A-Rod, of course, as well as Andy Pettite). That's not a case of "locking down players to long-term contracts, forestalling FA eligibility." That's a case of signing the best available free agents to market contracts.

I'm not sure what the big distinction to made there really is unless you're solely fixated on who is literally an FA signing.

Oy. The distinction is that Salfino argued that the Yankees are in trouble for the next few years because teams are "locking up" good young players like Longoria, so the free agent market will be weak for the next few years, so the Yankees won't have a chance to reload.

The Abreu acquisition, for instance, was a free agent signing in all but name.

Exactly. Abreu was "locked up", until he wasn't.

Where the argument goes in a circle is that the big-spending teams will be in a great position to pick up a cost-controlled Longoria (for example) if he becomes productive-but-not-quite-a-star later in his contract with years remaining.

As long as marginal dollars mean far less to some teams and far more to others and as long as salary trades are legal, richer teams will purloin talent from poorer teams.

Abreu was "locked up", until he wasn't.

Abreu = Stephon Marbury