2010 MLB Season Discussion

[Jb1210a]

And if they signed both you'd be the first one bitching that the Yankees spend too much money. Classic moronic Red Sox fan logic. THE YANKEES SIGN EVERYONE ANYWAY LOLZ WHO CARES ABOUT TRADES WHEN YOUR PAYROLL IS 800 GAZILLION DOLLARZ!!!!one!!

Incase you haven't noticed, Santana's fastball velocity is way down and he hasn't looked like himself consistently, even going back to last year. Hughes may not turn out to be anything, but I'll take that chance. Admit it or not, the money they didn't use on Santana was used for CC, who last year proved what a horse he is. If you think the Yankees have no spending limit, you are a moron and letting Red Sox bias influence you, or something.

And just to remind you, the proposed deal wasn't just for Hughes and Melky. Kennedy (who they have since traded to get Granderson!) and Cano or Wang were rumored to be the asking price.

Nowhere in my post did I hint that I would be the first one to bitch about the money spent by the Yankees. If you want to assume that will be the case because you've encountered Red Sox fans that bitch about the Yankees spending money, then so be it, just don't include me in that group. I know what life is like in the AL East, I know that the Red Sox are in the top 3 in payroll spending every year, I also know not to bitch about money in any way shape or form. For you to draw a conclusion based on the simple fact that I am Red Sox fan is misguided and completely wrong. What we can do is argue facts and let the outcome be based on those facts.

1. Melky Cabrera as a centerpiece in a deal for Johan Santana is not a loss for the Yankees based on his performance from 2009 and the very beginnings of 2010.

2. Phil Hughes is a good pitcher, will he be a great pitcher, only time will tell, but in 2008, a year when the Yankees didn't make the playoffs the addition of Johan Satana would have surely enabled them to reach the playoffs.

3. Additional (Rumored Pieces):

Robinson Cano: Good player, honestly the best chip in this deal had it happened. Reminds me of Hanley Ramirez for Beckett trade.
Wang: Great pitcher but no longer on the team, not the same quality as Santana.
Kennedy: Never was an amazing pitcher, if your argument is that it's good now that they didn't trade Kennedy to the twins for the sake of Granderson in 2010, then it's a weak argument at best. I'd be willing to bet that the Tigers would have pulled a trade off with the Yankees for another minor league player if Kennedy wasn't on that team.

4. Santana's performance in 2010 is notwithstanding, the argument of Santana in 2008 vs. Hughes and Cabrera is a no brainer. Knowing then what we know now, how many Yankees fans would pull the trigger on that trade if it meant they wouldn't miss the playoffs? Also, 2010 Santana can be argued to be the second best starter on the current Yankees rotation. Am I wrong there? Any way you slice it, Santana is a better pitcher than Vazquez and a better pitcher than Hughes.

Sabathia, Santana, Petite, Burnett is arguably the best rotation in baseball in 2008 and in 2010, you know it, I know it, Yankees fans know it. Hughes, lolMelky and 150 million for is nothing for the Yankees.

[Akiyama]

Honestly.. Baseball (and I guess football for certain positions to an extent) are the only sports where you can be fat, beer drinking slobs and still get paid millions. Try that shit in soccer, baseball, actual athletic spots in football, etc.. and you're fucked lol

[Jb1210a]

You can split hairs and say you weren't bitching, but the whole tone of your post was negativity toward the Evil Empire and their payroll, while you root for Evil Empire v2.

The whole tone of my post was that knowing what we know now, it would have been smart for the Yankees to make that trade to acquire Santana. Nowhere did I mention that I disliked the Yankees for their ability to pay the best talent available. Learn2read.

[Akiyama]

Hey now, no need to throw out those fighting words there. Disagree sure, but let's not go back and forth.

Anyway.. who cares about money and shit. Yankees spend tons of money yearly, yet won their first WS title last year after how long? It's about how you use the money as well.

[*Shinzon*]

Speaking about use of money, Maine is apparently due to be pulled from the rotation if he has another terrible start sunday. So we're gonna be short a reliable starter. Hurrr thanks alot minaya. We coulda gotten garland at the right price and had a guy who could at least eat innings.

[Bregor]

I mad

It's cool brah, I'd be mad too if I became what I hated.

[Jb1210a]

Just saying why I prefer CC to Santana, considering we were never going to get both no matter how delusional certain Red Sox fans are >_>

Are you trying to tell me that if the Yankees made the trade for Santana in 2008, that they wouldn't sign Sabathia in 2009? There's no way the Yankees would let the biggest free agent in 2009 go to anyone else, especially the Red Sox. The Yankees signed Burnett, Sabathia, and Teixera in 2009 to huge contracts, the money was there and had always been there.

[Jb1210a]

It's cool brah, I'd be mad too if I became what I hated.

Smart and witty reply, trendy even. I concede, I was bitching about money in all my posts, thanks for pointing it out.

[Cephius]

Are you trying to tell me that if the Yankees made the trade for Santana in 2008, that they wouldn't sign Sabathia in 2009?

That's exactly what I'm saying.

There's no way the Yankees would let the biggest free agent in 2009 go to anyone else, especially the Red Sox.

Like... say.. John Lackey? Why didn't they sign him again? Oh. Right. They have a payroll limit.

The Yankees signed Burnett, Sabathia, and Teixera in 2009 to huge contracts, the money was there and had always been there.

It was there then because they had a ton of expiring contracts. There's no way they sign those guys if they had Santana money on the books.

As for your other points, what it boils down to was that Brian Cashman didn't want to trade players and then have to pay Santana huge money on top of that. They knew Sabathia was available next year and decided they'd take the money they would have spent on Santana (and knowing they had Giambi, Mussina, etc money coming off the books) to get him in 2009. Your idea that they could have just signed both could not be further from the truth. Whether the Santana trade would have worked out is irrelevant. They made a choice that you don't appear to believe was a choice to begin with.

[Jb1210a]

Hey now, no need to throw out those fighting words there. Disagree sure, but let's not go back and forth.

Anyway.. who cares about money and shit. Yankees spend tons of money yearly, yet won their first WS title last year after how long? It's about how you use the money as well.

No I agree, this was originally an argument over the talent that is Melky Cabrera and Javier Vazquez. True intelligent baseball decisions are those made within the boundaries of a budget and smart evaluation of minor league players.

I'm well aware that the Red Sox spend a good amount of money every year, having said that, I wish there was a salary cap imposed. Luxury tax does nothing to teams with the money to pay it, it doesn't keep teams from spending. Look at the NFL, true disparity every year in terms of who wins the championship, but there's always a few teams that stay at the top every year.

[Akiyama]

That's exactly what I'm saying.



Like... say.. John Lackey? Why didn't they sign him again? Oh. Right. They have a payroll limit.



It was there then because they had a ton of expiring contracts. There's no way they sign those guys if they had Santana money on the books.

John Lackey's not exactly a guy I'd go blow CC type money on, really. Losing him tot he Sox isn't that big of a deal.

Then again Lackey is >>>> Vazquez, so you're right there. If they were truly limitless, then no one would get a free agent ever, Lol

[Cephius]

John Lackey's not exactly a guy I'd go blow CC type money on, really. Losing him tot he Sox isn't that big of a deal.

Then again Lackey is >>>> Vazquez, so you're right there. If they were truly limitless, then no one would get a free agent ever, Lol

Exactly. If the Yankees payroll was truely limitless they could have signed both Lackey (as a 4th starter) and Bay or Holliday (to play LF). Cashman basically told everyone straight up during the offseason that they wanted to keep the payroll at or under 200 million. I can see how that looks limitless to some fans, but it isn't.

[*Shinzon*]

No I agree, this was originally an argument over the talent that is Melky Cabrera and Javier Vazquez. True intelligent baseball decisions are those made within the boundaries of a budget and smart evaluation of minor league players.

I'm well aware that the Red Sox spend a good amount of money every year, having said that, I wish there was a salary cap imposed. Luxury tax does nothing to teams with the money to pay it, it doesn't keep teams from spending. Look at the NFL, true disparity every year in terms of who wins the championship, but there's always a few teams that stay at the top every year.

There's no way a salary cap could ever be imposed with the way teams like the Yankees and BoSox are comprised. Hell no team aside from small market teams would benefit from a salary cap system anyway because teams would have to drop players to meet the cap. To further that, there aren't any small market teams in football. Stadiums around the league are always sold out. Some small market teams rely on the revenue sharing fees and luxury tax fees that the yanks pay out. I think something like 92% of all revenue coming in from those fees comes from the yankees.

[Cephius]

Luxury tax does nothing to teams with the money to pay it, it doesn't keep teams from spending. Look at the NFL, true disparity every year in terms of who wins the championship, but there's always a few teams that stay at the top every year.

Couldn't be more wrong. Big payrolls aren't the issue, it's the teams who don't spend anything because they can simply pocket the luxury tax/revenue sharing money and make a profit without fielding a decent team. Look at the controversy surrounding the Marlins during the offseason, Selig basically told them to start spending some cash.

As for the NFL, since 2000 the MLB has had more unique champions than the NFL. Not that it proves anything in terms of salary, but in terms of parity... yeah.

[Jb1210a]

Exactly. If the Yankees payroll was truely limitless they could have signed both Lackey (as a 4th starter) and Bay or Holliday (to play LF). Cashman basically told everyone straight up during the offseason that they wanted to keep the payroll at or under 200 million. I can see how that looks limitless to some fans, but it isn't.

Right, because they also make people sign against their will. Money in baseball isn't the end all be all. Lots of players have taken a home town discount to stay with their current teams when a bigger pay day was looming on the horizon. I remember Steinbrenner saying that he wanted to sign a Hall of Famer at every position in 2008, clearly the intent was there.

Granted, they have shown restraint in signing people last year, clear example is Damon. They showed no restraint in 2009 in signing players (yeah I know, expiring contracts), but Santana is much better than Burnett and we both know that they would have been able to pay the difference between Burnett and Santana's salary all while paying Teixera and Sabathia.

If we go back to the original argument without judging the implications of the past, would you rather have Vazquez and Hughes, or Santana?

[Bregor]

I was bitching about money in all my posts

No, just the one.

If the Yankees payroll was truely limitless they could have signed both Lackey (as a 4th starter) and Bay or Holliday (to play LF).

This. Christ, they didn't even pony up the money for Damon. These aren't your father's (or maybe older brother's) Yankees throwing money at every Carl Pavano that comes down the pike.

Also, what is with the Vazquez hate? It's two starts, people. I guess Jon Lester and Justin Verlander suck balls too.

And for the record, the NFL salary cap is all well and good, but every summer you see teams cutting All-Pro players because they don't have guaranteed contracts outside of their signing bonuses, which is really fucked up. I'm sure the Cubs would cut Soriano if they could, but they have to reap what they sew at this point, unless they put him on waivers and some team Rios's them out of his contract.

[Trichocyst]

I think Kyle Kendrick is afraid to throw strikes.

[fren.]

What does Sabathia have to do with Santana? If you're telling me that the money intended for Santana is what you used to sign Sabathia then that's a terrible argument.

They weren't signing two pitchers to two $130million+ contracts. No one would, it's bad business. They sure as fuck weren't gonna trade an elite pitching prospect (Hughes) on top of paying Santana an ass-ton of money.

I never wanted Santana.

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/33...l_Velocity.png

[Jb1210a]

Couldn't be more wrong. Big payrolls aren't the issue, it's the teams who don't spend anything because they can simply pocket the luxury tax/revenue sharing money and make a profit without fielding a decent team. Look at the controversy surrounding the Marlins during the offseason, Selig basically told them to start spending some cash.

As for the NFL, since 2000 the MLB has had more unique champions than the NFL. Not that it proves anything in terms of salary, but in terms of parity... yeah.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?...=.jsp&c_id=nyy

A few relevant excerpts: "The Yankees have crossed the threshold in all seven years since the tax started." and "George M. Steinbrenner's club has been billed $174 million of the tax's $190 million total since 2003."

Oh, and this is for Bregor "The only other teams to pay have been the Red Sox ($13.9 million for 2004-07)"

The Luxury Tax has done nothing to stop the 2 big market teams from spending, the Red Sox, and especially the Yankees have ignored it. I understand that lots of small market teams don't use these kickbacks to put a better product on the field, but that's another issue.

[Cephius]

Right, because they also make people sign against their will. Money in baseball isn't the end all be all. Lots of players have taken a home town discount to stay with their current teams when a bigger pay day was looming on the horizon. I remember Steinbrenner saying that he wanted to sign a Hall of Famer at every position in 2008, clearly the intent was there.

Everyone has a price, everyone can be bought. If your reasoning about the Yankees spending is true, then they can buy anyone. You'd have to hate New York a fucking ton to refuse millions of dollars to come here and play baseball.

they would have been able to pay the difference between Burnett and Santana's salary all while paying Teixera and Sabathia.

No, no they could not.

If we go back to the original argument without judging the implications of the past, would you rather have Vazquez and Hughes, or Santana?

Assuming Hughes becomes anything close to a serviceable starter, then it's Hughes and Vazquez.