RANT: It's not even November Yet and...

[osfan83]

That's the only way to get extra picks. Letting top FA's walk.

And how did they get those top players to begin with.

[LookinUp]

And how did they get those top players to begin with.

The signed Damon as a FA. I'm not sure who else walked though.

[osfan83]

The signed Damon as a FA. I'm not sure who else walked though.

So..it's easier to have more early round picks, if you have more money to sign top FA's, that you then let walk after their contract is up.

[LookinUp]

What teams cannot take this kind of approach? Maybe some have to do with a 60-80m payroll which means signing a couple fewer developed players and trading more but there isn't a team out there that couldn't take this kind of approach unless they simply aren't willing to spend any money at all.

I conceeded that point like 2 pages ago. I know they can all take that approach and many are starting to try. That's the point, it's not like what every team can do represents a competitive advantage for the have nots. Indeed, even with your approach above the have nots are at a disadvantage.

When I'm referring to what other teams cannot do, I'm referring to the ability to acquire big FAs, sign more draft picks above slot, invest in very robust scouting, and whatever else helps develop those talented players from within in the first place.

They can fill holes that other organizations can't.

[LookinUp]

So..it's easier to have more early round picks, if you have more money to sign top FA's, that you then let walk after their contract is up.

In theory, maybe. You're assuming that most top FAs remain top FAs at the end of their big contract. I find that unlikely these days. I don't have stats on it though.

[geschinger]

So..it's easier to have more early round picks, if you have more money to sign top FA's, that you then let walk after their contract is up.

Many were trades, one was a bigger name FA like Damon, some were cheap stop gap signings. Nothing that many other teams couldn't have done. The FAs were mostly short term deals and not overly expensive... Guys like Alex Gonzalez, Keith Foulke, Billy Mueller, etc... We're not talking about signing the Tex's and Sabathia caliber players and getting picks for 'em 8 years later.

[olehippi]

Rather than imposing a salary cap, MLB should drop about a half dozen or so franchaises, which in turn would strengthen the quality of the player pool. With more quality players available, the price for their services would likely drop except for the elite of the elite.

[Intimidator301]

Sure having money makes it easier for Boston. They are able to take players that are going to be too expensive for the poorer teams to keep.

Pedro from Montreal- Then signed him to a huge extension.

Beckett from Florida- Took on an expensive Lowell to get a deal done.

Bay from Pit- Basically got him for money, on their part.

I can't remember if they signed or traded for Damon, but either way they paid him a lot of money.

Signed Schilling for a lot of money.

Signed Manny to a ton.

Matsuzaka - what, nearly $100 mil. after you figure in the bid.

Drew- A ton of money.

Their smartest move was Ortiz, then they gave him a huge extension that most teams couldn't have afforded to give.

I think I read they have 8 or 9 guys making $10+ mil a year. That's a 80 or 90 mil. payroll for a 1/3 of their team. That doesn't even include Bay and Lugo, who are making $7 or 8 mil. A year.

[geschinger]

Rather than imposing a salary cap, MLB should drop about a half dozen or so franchaises, which in turn would strengthen the quality of the player pool. With more quality players available, the price for their services would likely drop except for the elite of the elite.

I'd like to see real revenue sharing and the elimination of arbitration. We don't need to get rid of any teams.

[Intimidator301]

Rather than imposing a salary cap, MLB should drop about a half dozen or so franchaises, which in turn would strengthen the quality of the player pool. With more quality players available, the price for their services would likely drop except for the elite of the elite.

Sadly enough, that wouldn't help us, since I could see Baltimore as one of the cities to lose a team. I could see the half dozen you suggest as..

1. Baltimore

2. K.C

3. Washington

4. Pittsburgh

5. Florida

6. T.B

The first four have amazing stadiums to watch a game, and TB is in the playoffs. Miami may be the only one that really doesn't deserve a team.

[LookinUp]

Sure having money makes it easier for Boston. They are able to take players that are going to be too expensive for the poorer teams to keep.

Pedro from Montreal- Then signed him to a huge extension.

Beckett from Florida- Took on an expensive Lowell to get a deal done.

Bay from Pit- Basically got him for money, on their part.

I can't remember if they signed or traded for Damon, but either way they paid him a lot of money.

Signed Schilling for a lot of money.

Signed Manny to a ton.

Matsuzaka - what, nearly $100 mil. after you figure in the bid.

Drew- A ton of money.

Their smartest move was Ortiz, then they gave him a huge extension that most teams couldn't have afforded to give.

I think I read they have 8 or 9 guys making $10+ mil a year. That's a 80 or 90 mil. payroll for a 1/3 of their team. That doesn't even include Bay and Lugo, who are making $7 or 8 mil. A year.

Check and mate.

[hoosiers]

I don't disagree with a word of this, but I think you've just cemented my argument.

Do we really want a system where it takes a long run of terribleness (good word ) to be able to compete? Do we want teams like the Marlins to "buy" a winner only to sell those players shortly thereafter?

Are you implying that teams that stink in other sports with salary caps still don't have a multi-year commitment to a lower position in the standings? I do not believe the run of terribleness (your phrase) is so different in baseball than other sports. Quality of management is so much more important a factor than the amount of $ to spend it's really not close.

BTW, when I left this board, I went to the amature draft board. Notice the BA mock draft thread. In there they start talking about how Boston spent so much on draft prospects.

It's starting to get worse guys. It won't stop until they change the rules?.

The BoSox and NYY are only playing within the rules. We should be doing the same. It's not like we have so much fewer resources than the BoSox if our franchise were running at peak strength. When the Oakland As pony up $4+M for an international signing and the Os are at $0, one should look to the front office to allocate resources better LONG BEFORE one asks for revenue parity in baseball.

[Intimidator301]

Are you implying that teams that stink in other sports with salary caps still don't have a multi-year commitment to a lower position in the standings? I do not believe the run of terribleness (your phrase) is so different in baseball than other sports. Quality of management is so much more important a factor than the amount of $ to spend it's really not close.

BTW, when I left this board, I went to the amature draft board. Notice the BA mock draft thread. In there they start talking about how Boston spent so much on draft prospects.

It's starting to get worse guys. It won't stop until they change the rules?.

The BoSox and NYY are only playing within the rules. We should be doing the same. It's not like we have so much fewer resources than the BoSox if our franchise were running at peak strength. When the Oakland As pony up $4+M for an international signing and the Os are at $0, one should look to the front office to allocate resources better LONG BEFORE one asks for revenue parity in baseball.

I agree with you. But, while the A's are a well run franchise, the main point is still money. That $4 mil. the A's spent on one international signing, likely inhibits them from another move. If that guy is a bust, its a big financial hit. Where as, if the Red Sox or Yankees make a signinging like that, and he's a bust, they just move on and sign the next guy.

Look at Kei Igawa for example. I think he cost the Yankees $26 mil? Now, he has been a bust, and spent most of the time in the minors. That would cripple a team like the A's for years. But what do the Yankees do? Move on with plans to go after Sabathia, Sheets, Burnett, etc.

Like I said. Boston and both NY teams get a lot of credit for how smart their GM's are, but money covers up a lot of mistakes. Especially in Omar Minayas case.

[hoosiers]

I agree with you. But, while the A's are a well run franchise, the main point is still money. That $4 mil. the A's spent on one international signing, likely inhibits them from another move. If that guy is a bust, its a big financial hit. Where as, if the Red Sox or Yankees make a signinging like that, and he's a bust, they just move on and sign the next guy.

Look at Kei Igawa for example. I think he cost the Yankees $26 mil? Now, he has been a bust, and spent most of the time in the minors. That would cripple a team like the A's for years. But what do the Yankees do? Move on with plans to go after Sabathia, Sheets, Burnett, etc.

Like I said. Boston and both NY teams get a lot of credit for how smart their GM's are, but money covers up a lot of mistakes. Especially in Omar Minayas case.

Why does it matter if the As spent the $4M on one guy or 4? If they had used it for four, people would complain the BoSox and NYY always get the best.

Besides, that's just missing the point. Other teams, with less deep pockets than our favorite franchise, are able to dig deeper and allocate $ in a much better way that ensures long term success. Why is that?

My issue here is that people only want to blame the system and argue with the BoSox and NYY are ruining the game when they fail to acknowledge that our franchise has been so poorly run for so long that it is impossible to understand exactly what the advantage those teams have over us truly are - especially when the Rays just beat out both of those teams at the major league level AND have a comparable or better minor league system. It is completely within the financial capability of this organization for our front office to spend the additional $5M-$8M in international and supplemental draft $ to keep up with the BoSox and NYY in these markets. With the Bundy signing and the increased commitment to the international market, it appears AM is going to bridge this gap soon.

[Intimidator301]

Why does it matter if the As spent the $4M on one guy or 4? If they had used it for four, people would complain the BoSox and NYY always get the best.

Besides, that's just missing the point. Other teams, with less deep pockets than our favorite franchise, are able to dig deeper and allocate $ in a much better way that ensures long term success. Why is that?

My issue here is that people only want to blame the system and argue with the BoSox and NYY are ruining the game when they fail to acknowledge that our franchise has been so poorly run for so long that it is impossible to understand exactly what the advantage those teams have over us truly are - especially when the Rays just beat out both of those teams at the major league level AND have a comparable or better minor league system. It is completely within the financial capability of this organization for our front office to spend the additional $5M-$8M in international and supplemental draft $ to keep up with the BoSox and NYY in these markets. With the Bundy signing and the increased commitment to the international market, it appears AM is going to bridge this gap soon.

It doesn't matter, but if it had been $4 mil. spread out over four players, the chance of success would have been better. My point was, if that one player is a bust, it hurts them a lot more then the RS, Mets, Yankees, Cubs, or whatever deep pocket team.

I agree with your points, but the RS and Yankees already spend big $ on the draft and international scouting, while also spending on big money FA. You can't deny that's a huge disadvantage for the teams with lesser money. Which again brings up my original point. How can the O's close the gap, when NY and Bos already have the foreign market cornered, already pay over slot to sign draft picks, and are able to sign FA?

They can do things better and smarter as a franchise, but in the end, there always behind playing catchup, and I sont see that changing anytime soon. I hope I'm wrong.

EDIT: Also, the reason why I bring up the RS and Yankees, isn't to single them out. Its because they are the two biggest spending teams, that just happen to be in our division. They are who we have to catch up with, and eventually pass if we ever what a shot at winning the Division. I just don't see TB sustaining their success, without increasing their payroll. No way they can keep going with a payroll of $44 mil. Eventually, there looking at doubling their payroll, maybe even a little more. And I don't think that team, in that city can support a $85-100 mil payroll. And how good will they draft picking out of the top 5, when the players aren't as much of a sure thing, or fall because of signability? Will they take the risk and/or can they spend to pay over slot? I mean, David Price, Evan Longoria, and BJ Upton were easy choices. It was smart to lock up Longoria, but in 5 years when he's a FA again, they have no shot at keeping him, unless they gut the rest of the team around him. JMHO.