Page 2 of 6
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 8:41 pm
Here's a pretty funny chart.

Someone, somewhere in New York is screwing up.

Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 8:50 pm
davidmarver wrote:Someone, somewhere in New York is screwing up.

Well done, you've proved the Yankees have problems. What you haven't proved, however, is that the people screwing up are in New York, rather than say, I dunno, Tampa.

Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 8:54 pm
WharfRat wrote:
davidmarver wrote:Someone, somewhere in New York is screwing up.

Well done, you've proved the Yankees have problems. What you haven't proved, however, is that the people screwing up are in New York, rather than say, I dunno, Tampa.

Exactly. DM, your point has nothing to do with Cashman. All you're doing is stating that the Yankees get less wins per dollar than other teams. That's obvious. You don't need a graph to prove that.

Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 8:58 pm
WharfRat wrote:
davidmarver wrote:Someone, somewhere in New York is screwing up.

Well done, you've proved the Yankees have problems. What you haven't proved, however, is that the people screwing up are in New York, rather than say, I dunno, Tampa.

Are you trying to pinpoint the Yankees problems on George Steinbrenner?

What are you going to do, fire him?

Please, the reason I related money and wins is because there really is three factors involved.

Wins is dependent on Torre/Players while Money is dependent on Cashman/Players. The players Torre recieves is dependent upon Cashman. Either Torre or Cashman has screwed up and there really isn't much of an argument against that.

Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:01 pm
BronXBombers51 wrote:
WharfRat wrote:
davidmarver wrote:Someone, somewhere in New York is screwing up.

Well done, you've proved the Yankees have problems. What you haven't proved, however, is that the people screwing up are in New York, rather than say, I dunno, Tampa.

Exactly. DM, your point has nothing to do with Cashman. All you're doing is stating that the Yankees get less wins per dollar than other teams. That's obvious. You don't need a graph to prove that.

And wins/dollar isn't a big factor in how well a manager/general manager is performing?

Haha, then how in the world could you ever determine how good they are? How?

The general manager gets people to sign (that's the dollar part) and then they win games based upon the talent that GM has given the team and how well managed they are. THAT'S THE FUNDAMENTAL RELATIONSHIP OF THE GM AND MANAGER.

Quit trying to dodge the blame game because someone (Torre or Cashman) is screwing up big-time.

Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:06 pm
in fairness, david, \$/W is only a reasonable assesment of GM performance (sounds like a car commercial, no?) if you're in a system where teams have at least a somewhat similar amount of cash to spend. In the case of the yankees, they can afford to over-pay quite a bit in order to bring in the premium talent. it's the reason that, say, arod would be a horrible signing for the Rangers but is a good one for the yanks: while he isn't as "efficient" a signing, the yankee's don't need to be efficient.

don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean the yankee's arn't full of unarguably "bad" contracts (brown... ), it just means that their GM is measured by a different yardstick than other ones, and rightfully so.

Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:09 pm
RocketsDWM wrote:Didnt Cashman develop the farm system that included Rivera and Jeter - the building blocks of the Yanks? Not sure but I thought I heard that somewhere.

Yes and to keep Jeter there he had to shell out the 2nd longest contract in baseball, which had, before this season, 146 million still unpaid.

In fact, the Yankees have 566.7 million dollars of contracts they still have to pay. To put that in comparison, the second place team in that statistic, the Cardinals, have 164.6 million dollars of contracts they still have to pay. 1/5th (20%) of the remaining dollars to be paid are in Yankee contracts.

Don't worry, Cashman is doing well.

Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:09 pm
davidmarver wrote:
WharfRat wrote:
davidmarver wrote:Someone, somewhere in New York is screwing up.

Well done, you've proved the Yankees have problems. What you haven't proved, however, is that the people screwing up are in New York, rather than say, I dunno, Tampa.

Are you trying to pinpoint the Yankees problems on George Steinbrenner?

What are you going to do, fire him?

Please, the reason I related money and wins is because there really is three factors involved.

Wins is dependent on Torre/Players while Money is dependent on Management/Players. The players Torre recieves is dependent upon Management. Either Torre or Management has screwed up and there really isn't much of an argument against that.

I fixed it. Cashman is not the only person involved in these decisions, nor is it a Steinbrenner/Cashman situation. There are multiple individuals contributing to player management decisions. Don't you read threads you post in?

I'd like to see an "exchange rate" between teams, to see who values a dollar more than who. The Yankees are worth roughly 750 million, and that's roughly 300 million more than the next-highest team. If you want to talk about true value, and the value that a GM gets from his resources, adjust for franchise assets, the same way you adjust for ballparks, etc. I'd be interested to see that result.

Edit: And actually, I imagine the Yankee effect extends beyond simple payroll ratio to franchise value. Even if they're not worried about current payroll, the decreased ratio of value-per-dollar applies to future transactions as well. Not only can they say, "let's get Kevin Brown," but the decreased value-per-dollar of future payment of another player to replace the failed venture might be additional incentive to take those financial risks. I would gamble too if I knew it didn't matter much in the long run. I could be wrong of course.