Yoan Moncada and the Yankees Odd Spending Habits
When the New York Yankees make a signing, it is big news in baseball. When the Yankees fail to make to a big signing, it is even bigger news. The Yankees targeted Yoan Moncada. They worked him out multiple times. They offered the potential star $25 million, willing to commit $50 million with penalties, showing they believed in his talent. Yet they let the rival Boston Red Sox outbid them by $13 million.
The Yankees are rich and they spend like it. In 2015, their payroll will grow past $200 million for the sixth time in seven years. One offseason ago, the Yankees made $483 million in salary commitments to free agents. Just last summer, the Yankees blew past the international spending limits to sign the biggest international free agent class in Major League Baseball. The high level of spending is confusing when the difference in offers to Moncada is less than the amount they committed to pay a 39-year old Carlos Beltran in 2016 and the total cost is roughly one-third of the commitment they made to obtain Masahiro Tanaka.
As Miles Wray pointed out earlier this month, with the exception of last offseason, the Yankees have used considerable restraint in free agency since winning their last World Series in 2009. The first few sensible years made sense. They went on a spree after 2008, signing Mark Teixeira, CC Sabathia, and A.J. Burnett to big contracts that helped them to the World Series. They continued winning, putting up 95 wins in 2010 and followed that season up with 97 wins and 95 wins the next two years. Even before the 95-win 2012 season, Yankees ownership put a plan in place to save the team millions of dollars.
The New York Times reported prior to the 2012 season that the Yankees aimed to get payroll under $189 million in 2014 due to potential luxury tax savings of around $50 million. As Miles noted, the Yankees were “borderline frugal.” Here is the chart from that piece showing the team’s offseason spending.
| Player | Years | Total (in $M) |
|---|---|---|
| David Aardsma | 1 | 0.5 |
| Eric Chavez | 1 | 0.9 |
| Raul Ibanez | 1 | 1.1 |
| Hiroki Kuroda | 1 | 10.0 |
| Andruw Jones | 1 | 2.0 |
| Freddy Garcia | 1 | 4.0 |
| Russell Martin | 1 | 7.5 |
| Total | 7 | 26.0 |
No long term commitments or big signings resulted in a 95-win season, and the Yankees repeated the same tactics that seemed to have worked the previous offseason. Again, from Miles’s post, here are the moves the Yankees made after 2012.
| Player | Years | Total (in $M) |
|---|---|---|
| Brennan Boesch | 1 | 1.5 |
| Travis Hafner | 1 | 2.0 |
| Ichiro Suzuki | 2 | 13.0 |
| Kevin Youkilis | 1 | 12.0 |
| Mariano Rivera | 1 | 10.0 |
| Andy Pettitte | 1 | 12.0 |
| Hiroki Kuroda | 1 | 15.0 |
| Total | 8 | 65.5 |
Another round of low-spending for the Yankees had them commit just $6.5 million beyond 2013. They let Russell Martin depart to the Pittsburgh Pirates for just two years and $17 million, a move that looks much worse with the benefit of hindsight. At the beginning of 2013, the Yankees had just $84 million in salaries committed to 2014 along with arbitration raises for David Robertson and Brett Gardner. The Yankees were two years into their plan to reduce payroll in 2014, but the Yankees found considerably less success in 2013, winning just 85 games. Age, injury, and a lack of fortification over the previous few years from either the minor leagues or free agency caught up with the Yankees. At the time, they were just one offseason away from meeting their goal of getting under $189 million in 2014.
The Yankees should have been prepared for losses in 2013. Large payrolls do not guarantee victories when the money is devoted to aging, injury-prone players. They still won 85 games, but their margin for error to make the playoffs was lower than it had been in previous seasons. Considering the offense had a wRC+ of 85, beating only the Chicago White Sox and Miami Marlins, they were lucky to win as many games they did. Here is the wRC+ by position player in 2013 for the Yankees.
| Position | wRC+ |
|---|---|
| 2B | 144 |
| CF | 117 |
| LF | 87 |
| 1B | 86 |
| RF | 76 |
| 3B | 73 |
| C | 62 |
| SS | 61 |
| DH | 56 |
Robinson Cano did his part and Brett Gardner chipped in, but the Yankees got poor production from every single other position. Dropping below 95 wins should have been expected in 2013, and their plan should have made them prepared to miss the playoffs again in 2014.
After two years of cutting costs and refusing to hand out long term contracts, the Yankees abandoned their plan. With Robinson Cano and Curtis Granderson declining qualifying offers, the Yankees were in position to reload through the draft and save a great deal of money through avoiding the luxury tax in 2014 and paying less into the luxury tax in the following years even if they completely reloaded.
The Yankees did miss the playoffs in 2014, and they did let their only star hitter go as Cano left for the Mariners. However, only winning 85 games appeared to be too much for management to take, and another year like 2013 would not be accepted. The Yankees were even given a golden opportunity to add some payroll without going over $189 million when Alex Rodriguez was suspended for the 2014 season. Instead, the Yankees decided to make a splash.
To join Derek Jeter on his victory tour, the Yankees signed Masahiro Tanaka, Jacoby Ellsbury, Brian McCann, Carlos Beltran, and others to contracts worth a total of $483 million. The Yankees hit slightly better in 2014, putting up a wRC+ of 92, and the Yankees pitching staff survived injuries to key players. Ultimately, the effort was not enough and the Yankees won 84 games. Refusing to re-stock the team after 2011 and 2012 likely cost the team the playoffs in 2013, and their mad bid for recovery fell short in 2014; it may in 2015 as well, given that they look like a middle-of-the-pack team this year.
Yoan Moncada was not going to help the Yankees this season, but letting him go after they set themselves up to make a run at him is confusing. The Yankees were one of a few teams — along with the Red Sox, Los Angeles Angels, Arizona Diamondbacks, and the Tampa Bay Rays — that had already blown past their international spending limits. By giving out roughly $15 million in signing bonuses last summer, had already paid $30 million for international talent in the past year, considerably more than any other team. They had already forfeited the right to sign any other international player for over $300,000 for the next two seasons. Without a top draft pick, Moncada was the last chance the Yankees had to sign a legitimate top international prospect until 2017.
There is no shame in being outbid. Most of the time, the winner’s curse means the highest bidder will come to regret the decision. In this case, the amount was a relatively small one. When the amount the Yankees refused to spend means very little to the bottom line, it is a reminder of their recent history when it comes to failing to follow-through on their last spending plan.
The Yankees decided the free agent model of the last decade was not working and great savings could be had by avoiding free agents, until they had one sub-90 win season. They decided a great advantage could be had by outspending rivals on international free agents and accumulating a ton of talent, until a player they wanted cost $13 million too much. The Yankees have incredible resources, and for the most part they are using them, but how and when they choose to spend causes befuddlement. Yoan Moncada may not be worth $63 million, but for a team that seems focused on getting younger and building up through the farm again, this seems like an odd place to start worrying about overspending.
Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.
As the data in this link shows, the Yankees are not spending to levels commensurate with the past. Also, the team’s expenditures at the end of the 2013 season continue to be inaccurately portrayed as a deviation from their stated intention to implement cost cutting because it ignores all of the money that departed.
The bottom line is the Yankees have an increasing revenue base and a decreasing commitment to spending, which has resulted in a gradually diminishing percentage of revenue spent on player costs (also depicted in the link). In other words, the Yankees are not spending for a strategic reason, but because they desire to improve their profit margin. The franchise’s priorities have shifted. No longer are the Yankees a team wanting to win at all cost.
http://www.captainsblog.info/2014/12/20/with-yankees-no-longer-paying-top-dollar-dodgers-become-baseballs-biggest-spender-a-historical-look-at-team-payrolls-luxury-tax-payments-and-revenues/22368/
Except… “Win at all costs” never actually worked. It wasn’t a real thing, and it was only even remotely applicable to the 2009 season.
“Lose in the division and league championship series at all costs” is actually a thing they did though.
They need to spend smarter, not harder.
That’s kind of silly, unless you think the best formula for winning the World Series isn’t building a team capable of winning 95 games every year.
What part of “spend smarter” implies “not winning more games”? Why are you trying to imply that signing Moncada would have made the Yankees a 95 win team?
THAT is kind of silly.
Simply spending “more” is wasteful and not a plan that any team should be employing regardless of their financial situation.
Maybe you should do some research about how many times the biggest spenders were actually the biggest winners.
Why are you trying to imply that signing Moncada would have made the Yankees a 95 win team?
What the hell are you talking about?
Hal Steinbrenner has more Bill Giles in him than his father George.
Did Arod’s salary really not count against luxury tax? My understanding was that the Yankees still paid his salary, just not to him but to MLB instead; and that it did count. If that is the case, it becomes a lot harder for the Yankees to stay under $189 million last year, so might as well go all out.
The only portion of Arod’s salary that counted against the luxury tax in 2014 was the approximately $3mn they paid him for his off days. When players are suspended, they only lose the portion that applies to games not played (salary is based on total days during season, including games played and off days).
I continue to believe that the one-time signing bonus nature of this deal would throw off these organizations, as it would any business. My understanding is that the majority of that 63M is being paid basically at signing and all of it is paid within a year. I do not know what the yankees annual profits are (Forbes thinks they’re negative), but I would be amazed if they make enough profit in a year to where a one-time $63M hit isn’t a huge burden to the organization. Say they make $50 a year as an example – now you’re going to your owner and asking him to not only forgo his nice cash stream this year, but also to pull some additional cash out of his own pockets from outside the operations of the business.
Imagine a public company with an established dividend announcing that it was going to get rid of the dividend for a year and return no money to shareholders, in order to invest in some big project. No matter how important the project is, pretty sure the reaction from investors would be a resounding hell no.
Don’t be fooled by Forbes operating profit numbers (EBITDA). Those are team based, and doesn’t consider the revenue that is basically transferred to team holding company entities (while the costs are mostly pooled at the team level). In the case you described, the Yankees wouldn’t have to forgo payments to LPs or cut back on other team operations; they instead dip into the revenue being funneled to the Holding company.
Cash is cash, the accounting treatment isn’t really the point. The larger point is that businesses have organizational processes and stakeholder obligations that generally are not aligned to function in one-time hits.
Operating profit is not cash, and the accounting treatment is extremely relevant. Clearly, large expenditures require special considerations, but there’s nothing to suggest the Yankees would need special approval from their limit partners (Steinbrenners hold 70% of the teams limited partnership of about 30 members). Besides, they bid $25mn, so were prepared for a $50mn one-time hit.
$13M is another 25% above the $50M they were prepared to bid, not exactly chump change.
I’m not really sure what your point is anyway – are you arguing that a $50M+ one-time expense was as simple as getting any other signature? Or are we just debating details?
While the signing bonus and the fee are paid nearly all up front, from an expense standpoint, the $63mm is amortized over a number of years so only a portion of the fee is reflected in EBITDA. The cash outlay creates an asset on the balance sheet that depletes as the expense is recognized.
They are basically throwing money on a dumpster fire until they get under the $189 and reset their tax penalties. It makes a LOT of “cents” for them to do so… like billions of cents.
To further that point, the Yankees have paid a quarter of a billion dollars in luxury tax penalties since 2003. That’s almost 2 full seasons worth of payroll for most teams. And you don’t think they are justified in trying to reduce their spending to get that under control?
I don’t see anyone making that argument. The article here and its comments generally back the Yankees strategy of cutting costs to reset the luxury tax, especially during a time when the team is waiting its way through the contracts of high-cost non-productive aging players. The argument the article makes is that it was very bizarre for the Yankees to adopt this strategy, then suddenly abandon it to sign Ellsbury and McCann, only to go back to being thrifty.
Add in the additional consideration of the fact that Moncada’s bonus and penalty are not at all factored in to the luxury tax. Signing Moncada, who scouts predict will be in the big leagues in ~2 years or less, would actually be incredibly helpful to the team, as he would likely be a very valuable asset for the team at a very low cost, luxury tax wise. Now that they did not sign him, and they still went over the international spending threshold, they won’t be able to sign international prospects at all, greatly limiting their available future talent. The more and more I chew on it the more and more silly being outbid by $13M looks.
$13M amounts to less than $2M dollars a year if you see Moncada as a 7 year (more or less) asset. In the current market, that’s 5th outfielder or Everth Cabrera money.
The data I provide in the link takes into account the luxury tax and all player-related expenses. Again, the bottom line is the Yankees revenues are rising faster than player expenses, so by cutting costs, they are making profit margin the priority. Do they have a “right” to do that? Well, that’s subjective, but I would point out that the Steinbrenners inherited the team tax free, enjoy a protected NY market, were gifted tax free financing of the bonds used to build the new YS, and benefit because the oligopoly that is the cable/satellite industry. In other words, all sports teams, and especially the Yankees, are able to take advantage of unique circumstances that most businesses don’t enjoy, so you can’t play “it’s a business” card too strongly.
If only there was some way you could get a lump sum of money from some company now with the promise that you will repay the sum in instalments. Some sort of “loan” perhaps, from some kind of “bank.”
But don’t worry Yankees fans, Sabathia showed up to spring training over 300 pounds.
You know the wishful thinking has begun when it’s being reported like a guy breaking back over 300 pounds while suffering from a recent history of serious issues with his plant knee is a good thing…
He heard 300 was the magic number to get into the HOF.
I’m glad this was written, because this storyline has mystified me as well.
If history has proven anything (especially in baseball), one of the worst things you can do is abandon a long-term plan before allowing it to come to fruition. For example, the Pittsburgh Pirates were for years plagued by having a new front office plan every few years, and it prevented the team from truly building towards something.
When the word came out that the Yankees were taking aim at finishing (just once, but that’s all it takes) under the luxury threshold for 2014, I thought it make a ton of sense. There is no need to just throw away money, especially when it goes to teams you’re competing with, so a little austerity goes a long way. To boot, the Yankees were already in position to need some retooling anyways due to too many aging/underperforming players, so the timing was perfect. Plenty of contracts set to come off the books by 2014.
And then the final gift: ARod suspended anmost of his salary removed from the luxury tax in the same year that you were targeting. $20M+ more wiggle room. It couldn’t have been more perfect.
But NY just couldn’t resist, in the same way that Hank Steinbrenner forced Brian Cashman to resign ARod after the latter once opted out. The Yankees SHOULD have focused on two acquisitions: retaining Cano (letting him leave was frankly inexplicable and remains so), and signing Tanaka (a perfect fit at a major position of need and at a perfect age for short and long term success). Two moves, then no Beltran, no McCann, no Ellsbury, etc. Fill in the gaps cheaply for one year, and then go crazy in 2015.
I’m no Yankee fan, but for their sake, to me it’s a shame.
McCann, Beltran and Ellsbury were a part of, not an exception to the Yankees cost cutting plan, as the data above shows.
The premise that the Yankees need an austerity plan to readjust their finances. The team’s revenue has been increasing at a higher rate than player costs (which have been declining). The Yankees have no need to reign in spending. On the contrary, they can add a significant amount more and still be on par with the levels of the recent past.
The real question is why has Hal Steinbrenner implemented a budget. I believe the answer has less to do with establishing a strong organization and more with ensuring a sustainably higher profit margin (factored into the equation is how good does the team need to be in order to sustain revenue growth).
It’s a fair point to some extent, but the problem with such analysis is it ignores the actual acquireable assets in any given offseason. Had they passed on McCann and Ellsbury (perhaps even Beltran) who would they have turned to in this offseason to fill those slots and “go crazy”?
Secondarily there is the point of aging / injury proneness. There is certainly a correlation normally, but if you look at the injuries sustained, particularly in the rotation, they hit younger players (Tanaka, Nova, Pineda) more than the elders. The only starter making more than 20 starts was Kuroda – their oldest.
On the position player side this line of reasoning holds more true (Teixeira, Beltran for example), but underperformance was a larger issue.
Finally, luxury tax payments don’t go to competitors. In this regard the Yanks are better served by paying for players, reducing their revenue sharing bite, and absorbing a larger luxury tax bill – which goes to MLB.
Finally re Cano – I might agree but if it was going to take a 10 year commitment I’m not so sure. That may have been just the next burdensome contract for a near to post 40 YO by the time they got out from under some of the prior ones.
If there was ever a player on the open market that the Yankees really needed, Moncada would seem to be it.
This I do agree with – curious to see if it ever comes out how this decision making process went down. It seems ownership is trying to avoid responsibility. Lot of mixed messaging going on here.
$100mil for a 19-year-old question mark… or $100mil on an established major league ready player?
The question is not nearly as cut and dry as you suggest.
I scroll down only to find another misinformed comment.
$100M? The total pricetag for Moncada comes to $63M. Experts expected it to be even higher.
Assuming you simply made a mistake there, the same hypothetical is $63M for a 19 year old question mark or $63M on an established, major league player.
1) Moncada is a “question mark” but in the same way a first round draft pick is. Teams have seen him play and have assessed his tools and probability. Like many prospects, maybe he never lives up to his billing, but the overwhelming consensus is that he is very likely to, which is why his price is what it is. Teams feel like Moncada will produce millions and millions in surplus value, something especially important for teams like the Red Sox and Yankees who are up against the luxury tax threshold.
2) Big ticket free agents of the ilk you’re referencing have failed many, many times over. Think Pujols, Hamilton. Think of all of those ugly Yankee contracts coming home to roost. That’s what investing in players entering their mid-30s on long-term deals gets you. Not to mention, $63M nowadays doesn’t even get you that guy. It’s gets you a 4th starter.
Your sour grapes and questionable assessment of the Moncada situation give off a bitter Yankee fan vibe. True?
“$100M? The total pricetag for Moncada comes to $63M. Experts expected it to be even higher.”
No, the total price tag for Moncada is $31.5mil + 100%tax on the signing bonus bonus + major league salary. 5-6 years of arbitration raises will cost the RedSox $25-$35mil.
That’s where my $100mil mark comes from, because it’s the ACTUAL total cost of signing Moncada. The $31.5 number is only relevant to Moncada and the $63mil number is ONLY the signing bonus.
That’s true. He’s not a sure thing, like Sabathia and Teixeira.
Or Crawford, or A-Gon… or JD Drew…
Why pretend like the Yankees are the only team that gets burned by FA signings?
The list of 19-year-old failed “stud” prospects is considerably longer than the list of 30 year old bust free agent signings. It’s not even close.
Who pretended any such thing? Who brought any of that up? You are projecting so bad.
YOU brought up Teixeira and Sabathia as examples of FA’s that bust… not me. You only brought those names up to imply that spending the same money on a 19 year old is somehow smarter or less likely to burn you in the long run.
I merely suggested that the Yankees are not the only team that get’s burned by older FA signings like you seem to have tried to make a poor joke about. Are you having trouble following this conversation? I’ll repeat the important point for you again, since you seem to have missed it….
*** The list of 19-year-old failed “stud” prospects is considerably longer than the list of 30 year old bust free agent signings. It’s not even close. ***
YOU brought up Teixeira and Sabathia as examples of FA’s that bust… not me.
And what does that have to do with the Red Sox, you nut? People like you are the absolute worst. You see your own biases in everyone else and blame them for it.
You only brought those names up to imply that spending the same money on a 19 year old is somehow smarter or less likely to burn you in the long run.
No, what I said did not imply that in any way shape or form. You notice you are constantly accusing people of “implying” things, rather than responding to what they say? That’s because they don’t say any of it and you attribute it to them by way of projection.
You are a hilarious little boy.
Why did you bring them up then? Don’t try to backpedal out of your stupid little joke without an explanation.
Do you have any reading comprehension abilities? 63, not 100. What is the current value of one win above replacement? Just say 7.5 million. He only needs to have have an 8 WAR to be a break even.
Ehh not quite correct, seeing as in you would have to factor in his eventual arbitration salaries. But your point is more or less correct. As a Yankee fan, this miss definitely left me scratching my head in confusion.
$63mil + ~$30mil in arb salary = …. come on now. it will be even higher if he plays well or gets called up earlier.
Do people really think of homegrown players as costing $30? I’ve never heard that number applied to draft bonuses or anything. Seems oddly Moncada-specific.
Earl – It’s simply math. If he is going to be major league ready for say… 5 of the 7 years he is under team control… they are going to have to pay him 4 years worth of arbitration raises.
If he turns out to be any good, those raises will be in the millions of dollars each.
So signing Moncada is not simply “pay the $31.5mil + the 100% tax” and be done with it, you still have to pay the player to play the games.
I’m not saying your adding $30M is wrong necessarily, just highly idiosyncratic. I’ve never seen any other amateur contract described that way. Do you really think of every amateur contract as being their bonus + $30M? If you look at it that way, then even the tiniest amateur contract is $30M, minimum.
Nah, I really only keep it in my mind for top IFA signings… mainly because those are real dollars that very much have to be paid out by the team doing the signing. If you don’t think the teams are taking it into consideration before signing a player like this, then you are just fooling yourself.
He’s not just a regular prospect or a regular FA either, he’s a top-flight, young cost controlled FA projected to perform very well. Young players that perform very well tend to get paid very well in arbitration.
I’m not saying that it’s a “deal-breaker”… but you have to take it into consideration when looking at why a team may or may not have bid on a player. They don’t have to merely recoup the signing bonus, or the signing bonus + the tax… but they will have to recoup the entirety of his arb contracts PLUS the signing bonus PLUS the tax before they can start actually turning a profit on this signing.
Just an addendum, the reason you don’t see contracts spoken about in this way is because (well, not everyone is that smart, and…) it is extremely rare to sign an IFA to a minor league contract with such a huge signing bonus.
They are usually signed directly to major league deals, so when you hear the dollar figures (ex. Abreu, Cespedes, Tanaka/every other japanese pitcher) the signing bonus and major league salary are both included in the numbers you see written about.
It did seem quite strange that the Yankees missed their man, especially in view of their need for MI. This is a team that was willing to spend 45M on Beltran’s age 37-39 seasons. I had pretty much assumed as fact that Moncada was going to the Yanks with an outside shot of the Dodgers sweeping in.
I heard speculation (not a rumor) that the Steinbrenners are planning on selling soon. They are only worried about very short term, and any money spent for 2-8 years in the future is just wasted. So they are more concerned with the balance sheets for a prospective buyer than winning.
I can’t think of a single other reason why they let Moncada slip though their fingers.
That’s doubtful for two very important reason: (1) When the family inherited George’s portion of the team, they did so without a stepped up basis, so they would be in line for a massive tax hit if they sell and(2) the Yankees need deal with YES (now 80% owned by FOX) calls for escalating fees for nearly 30 years. In other words, it’s more financially beneficial to own the team than sell it.
Would the buyer somehow be unaware of the deal with YES? That would be factored into the price of the franchise. The taxes they would be required to pay is a good point and makes a sale much less likely.
So had the Yankees actually outbid Boston and spent nearly $70mil up front for a 19-year-old prospect (without including contract costs, real-world total costs are upwards of $100mil and WAY more if he turns out to be good)… you wouldn’t be writing this article talking about how they always overpay for things and ruined baseball? Please.
They bid $50mil on a basically unknown 19-year-old talent and are getting killed for it… what crazy world is this? Damned if they do and damned if they don’t, those damned Yankees.
Can you point to a single article on this site about how the Yankees are ruining baseball? Did you come from a Yankees blog or something?
Not one actually says so (duh), but far too many imply it.
So you can’t find any actual examples is what you’re saying.
This article is not about how the Yankees always overpay for things and ruin baseball at all. It is about how the Yankees wisely cut back on spending, then spent wildly on McCann and Ellsbury, and then worked out a 19-year-old top 10 prospect in all of baseball a bunch of times and then came up short in their bid for him.
It’s okay for you to be frustrated that you didn’t get him. The point of the argument is that the Yankees spending behavior is indefensible and likely suggests that there are “too many cooks in the kitchen” when it comes to their philosophy. You don’t need to defend them, even if you are a fan.
I guess I am just failing to see how signing 2 premiere FA’s at 2 key positions is “spending wildly”. Would they be some how better off with Moncada, but without a starting catcher or a CF?
Not saying the signings were bad or dumb or anything — but shedding payroll to reset the luxury tax for two years and then bailing on that strategy in the last year before the plan would be complete to sign Ellsbury and McCann is absolutely questionable. It becomes questionable even moreso when the next year, after starting back at zero, they decide to assemble a roster on the cheap again. To recap: spend spend spend spend, cut back for luxury tax 1/3, cut back for luxury tax 2/3, spend, cut back for luxury tax 1/3 again.
Would it have made more sense to not sign them, win like 70 games, and lose fans and attendance money for the last 2-3 months of the season? And then still be short 2 starting players while only having a stud minor league SS in 2015?
It’s unfortunate that they had to reverse gears in the middle of this, but I guess I don’t understand how that’s a bad thing. Would you rather root for a team that is stuck in the mud with a 5 year old stale plan, or a team that is dynamic and constantly evaluating the FA market and adjusting accordingly? I pick the latter every time.
How long has it been since the Yankees won a WS?
while George had his share of mistakes ( randy Johnson, kevin brown, danny tartabull etc) I do believe if he were still calling the shots Cano would still be at 2nd base…scherzer would be the ace and most likely he would have bought out arod and said adios…and also signed this Cuban kid…he always thought winning and fans were number one and two over the books and ledgers
They have not once “bought” a player like that since the luxury tax penalties were implemented. This myth of the old Steinbrenner “win at all costs” mantra actually comes from a different era where the rules on spending were COMPLETELY different.
The post-opt-out A-Rod contract, Sabathia, Ellsbury, McCann. Teixeira and to a lesser extent, Burnett. That wasn’t a different system.
Other than the buffoonery behind the A-Rod deal, they didn’t really overpay for any of those other players. It’s simply incredible bad luck that they have all turned out bust to this point.
That Ellsbury contract is pretty crazy.
ellsbury makes less than hanley, for one year longer.
Ellsbury signed a $153MM contract. Hanley an $88MM contract. That’s a pretty huge difference.
Also, attacking Boston is, again, not the same thing as defending New York.
Hanley makes more per year than Ellsbury… You know that, yet you decided to ignore it anyway.
Yes, Hanley makes $857,000 more per year. For four years. And then Ellsbury makes $21,143,000 more per year for the following three. (Plus $5,000,000 more the following year.)
Still, I don’t think Ellsbury is a disastrous contract. I think his injuries were flukes and he’s going to age well, and he’s off to a good start with one excellent year in the books.
But the amount of money guaranteed the two players is hugely different, and pretending the per year is all that matters is pretty dumb.
The Yankees worked Moncada out a lot. Maybe they just didn’t think he was as good as everyone else?
This.
The Yankees priced him at a certain amount. It’s not necessarily that they decided that they were at their limit for expenditures. They don’t simply pay the most for every free agent out there. They pick and decide which ones to spend their money on, then they do it.
When other big-market teams do this, they’re called ‘smart’. When the Yankees do it, they’re called ‘stupid’. Welcome to the wonderful world of so-called baseball analysis.
Not that I agree with the decision. I think the Yankees are incredibly stupid for not spending the money that they have, that’s not really going towards anything else other than the net value of the franchise. I also think other teams are incredibly stupid for the same reason.
The Yankees simply have more resources than other teams. Other bigger markets are still operating in a tighter budget where they must make choices where the Yankees don’t need to make the same choices. There is such a thing as being penny wise and pound foolish.
You made that up. *You’re* biased, so you see imagine you see bias everywhere else.
Then why were they willing to go to $27m for him? If they didn’t think he was good, I get that. If they didn’t want to spend tens of millions on a 19 year old? Fine. But they DID think he was good, and they WERE willing to spend, but they held back and let themselves be outbid by $4.5m for a guy that, to most eyes, the sort of player they desperately need. This is a team that spent that much money on Stephen Drew.
Right. The Yankees apparently valued Moncada quite a bit less than the Redsox did.
Also, comparing the difference in money to Stephen Drew is not quite fair for two reason, first, the difference between what the Yankees offered and what the Redsox paid is more than $4.5m. Second, Drew has an MLB track record, and a place on the 2015 roster. Moncada is a gamble. There is very low risk with Drew.
correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the yanks finish 13gms ahead of the sox last year, even though their entire pitching staff died?
and don’t they both have the same kind of financial commitments this year and going forward?
are we sure we’re criticizing the right team in this moncada bidding war?
Yes.
The article is about the rapidly changing short-term/long-term planning of their spending habits.
The only times the Sox have changed their spending habits have been when logically trading off their assets in losing seasons.
Please let’s not pretend that the Red Sox are in any way immune to this level of organizational disarray. They’ve changed their spending philosophy just as many times as the Yankees, they were just lucky enough to have every possible thing work out for them in 2013. If that doesn’t happen, these articles would be written about the Red Sox, and how they lost their way at the end of Theo’s tenure, and how nothing has changed since then.
Winning, even once, cures a lot of ills. Even the sheer amount of illness the Red Sox suffered in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2014.
Raising your payroll before the season and then trading off assets if you’re not doing well is a strategy, not the kind of wildly swinging philosophies that the author is arguing the Yankees have had.
Attacking Boston for trading off assets is not a defense against this article’s argument.
don’t really see it.
one thing seems clear with the yanks – they’re willing to pay for position players as long as they come with elite D like McCann ells and headley do. they’ve learned their lesson not to pay for no-D bats. the contracts also don’t extend much past the 35yr serious decline age mark.
they’ve also clearly targeted young power arms for the rotation.
I don’t see how refusing to overpay for a 19yr old question mark says anything about their spending habits.
refusing to overpay
lol
$28M was their offer. He signed for 32. So you are saying it’s exactly a $5M overpay or admitting that you are completely and totally full of shit, as usual.
Nah, you are flat out wrong K. Just like the other 15 posts you just made. Don’t be so fucking defensive, no one here is knocking the RedSox for signing him.
The Yankees were outbid by $5mil on paper, which is actually $10mil in the real world when the 100% tax is considered.
That’s not chump change, chump.
and hey, aren’t the yanks as old or younger than the sox, too?
SP1 Tanaka 26 — Porcello 26
SP2 Pineda 26 — Buchholz 30
SP3 Eovaldi 25 — Miley 28
SP4 Sabathia 34 – Masterson 30
SP5 Nova 28 —– Kelly 27
CL Betances 27 — Uehara 40
SU Miller 30 —- Tazawa 29
SU Warren 27 —- Ogando 31
MR Carpenter 29 – Varvaro 30
MR Rogers 29 —- workman 26
MR Whitley 26 — ross 26
MR Capuano 36 — breslow 34
CF Ellsbury 31 —- CF Castillo 27
LF Gardner 31 —– 2B Pedroia 31
DH Rodriguez 39 — DH Ortiz 39
C McCann 31 ——- LF Ramirez 31
3B Headley 31 —– 3B Sandoval 28
1B Teixeira 35 —- 1B Napoli 33
RF Beltran 38 —– RF Victorino 34
SS Drew 32 ——– SS Bogaerts 22
2B Gregorius 25 — C Vazquez 25
UT Jones 34 ——- UT Craig 30
OF Young 31 ——- OF Nava 32
IF Ryan 33 ——– IF Holt 27
C Romine 27 ——- C Hanigan 34
X Refsnyer 24 —– X Betts 22
X Flores 23 ——- X Bradley 25
X Pirela 25 ——- X Marrero 24
X Murphy 24 ——- X Swihart 24
If you look at the players getting most of the playing time (9 position players plus 5 SP), Boston is, on average, 1.5 years younger than New York.
Of course, that’s with the guys you’ve picked, and who knows how much playing time Betts will get vs. Victorino, A-Rod vs. Jones, Beltran vs. Young, Vazquez s. Hanigan, Capuano vs. Nova/Pineda, etc.
Anyway, 1.5 years is pretty significant.
fair enough, though I’d probably include the top 3 rp too.
either way, closer than you’d think given the storylines.
Adjusted for play-time, last year:
BOS 29.2 vs NYY 32.5
The differenece between the oldest team [Yankees] and the *2nd* oldest in the AL [Tigers] was 2.8 years. The gap between #2 and #14 [!] was only 2.1 years.
Think about that bit– the Tigers, as the second oldest offense were much closer to being the second *youngest* than the oldest!
And since it was adjusted for play-time, A-Rod didn’t even count in that.
—
On the pitching side, Boston was older; the oldest in the AL, but the Yankees were third and only 0.6 years behind.
Swihart is 22 now and will be 23 for the majority of next season, not 24.
Also while Victorino may nominally be the starter, everyone expects Betts to start there sooner or later, probably sooner.
Finally, there’s not a single position in which the Red Sox have a starter who’s younger than the Yankees’ starter (Hanley and Ortiz are both younger than Gardner and ARod).
While Grant has an unfortunate typo in the last sentence, his point is good and provides a better way to visualize the difference than doing it by lineup.
C McCann 31 Vazquez 24
1B Teixeira 35 Napoli 33
2B Drew 32 Pedroia 31
3B Headley 31 Sandoval 28
SS Gregorius 25 Bogaerts 22
LF Gardner 31 Ramirez 31
CF Ellsbury 31 Castillo 27
RF Beltran 38 Victorino 34
DH Rodriguez 39 Ortiz 39
And that’s excluding Betts, who is probably more likely to have more playing time than Victorino.
There is not a single position at which the Yankees have a younger player.
And as Eric points out, a difference of 1.5 years on average is HUGE. It’s the difference between an old team and a young team.
now do the pitchers.
and no, 1.5yrs is not the difference between an old team and a young team.
the sox’ starting 25 man roster will have an average age of 30.0yrs old. that is an old team.
I have these as the average age of the two starting 25 man rosters:
NYY: 30.4
BOS: 30.0
Look at the gaps in ages among teams: http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/2014.shtml
It’s not like one team is at 25 and another 35. Click through 2013, 2012, etc. 1.5 years is huge.
There is some evidence that Cashman wanted to bid more, but Hal Steinbrenner said no. There has been a lot of ownership-GM tension in NY.
Chashman said he didn’t want to sign A-Rod/R. Soriano or trade for A Soriano. He pushed to resign Martin, but was shot down. I’m curious if Cashman will take off once a team offers him a Team President job.
I am a Red Sox fan just as befuddled (though thrilled) at the strange decisions the Yankess have been making lately – including Beltran and even the enormous Ellsbury contract that I am happy is not on the Sox’ books.
I searched the whole page for ‘Red Sox’ after reading many of the comments and was surprised that no one mentioned how they are managing their money and choosing talent in a way that is head and shoulders above the Yankees.
Part of their motivation had to be preventing what could have been 20 more years playing against another dominant Yankee shortstop. Keeping him out of the division is almost as important as getting him on their own team. And, on the flip side, not only did the Yankees lose the prospect, they let are going to have to see him 20-30 times a year once he is ready. Double loss.
Can everyone hold off on the Red Sox (aka The Model Franchise) worship? I agree they’ve got a pretty smart front office, but even with big money advantages, they have more last place finishes in the last three years than the Yankees do in the last 25, and have missed the playoffs more times in the last 5 seasons than the Yankees have in the last 20.
They fell into one of the flukiest and luckiest WS wins of all time in 2012, and have otherwise flat out stunk for 5 years.
I’m not saying that some people don’t go WAY overboard in glorifying the Red Sox. They have three wins in 10 years, which is really good, but they’ve had PLENTY of disappointing seasons in there.
But I will say that they have not flat out stunk for five years. They’ve had two losing seasons in the last 17. They missed the playoffs for three years in a row (2010-2012), but were one win from a playoff spot two of those three.
TLDR: disappointing by missing the playoffs by a game for two consecutive years is not the same as stinking for five.
They missed the playoffs in 4 of 5 years with 2 last place finishes. Had a great and lucky 2013. Highest BABIP in MLB since 1930. Almost everyone exceeded projections. Stars were aligned. Made possible by the gift from LA taking away 3 bad contracts in their feverish desire for team leader Punto
As a fan, I gotta say, the awesomeness of championships really makes up for the bummer of not making the playoffs. All “not making the playoffs” seasons are basically the same (in my fan experience) whether your team is in 2nd or last.
If you’re gonna lose, I say lose big and build for next year.
In the last 5 years, which is the worst streak of 5 years for them in recent memory, they averaged 83 wins.
That is not 5 years of sucking.
gift from LA
Biased idiocy. The Red Sox are “lucky” that their players performed well and one of the better trades of the last decade they get no credit for pulling off; it was of course just a random “gift” from another team.
Embarrassing nonsense.
In what way has the Red Sox management of money “head and shoulders” above the Yankees?
We haven’t seen Han-Ram, Pablo, or Moncada play a single inning for the Red Sox. The Pedoria extension looks like a disaster. Victorino had a career year in 2013, but doesn’t look like he’ll provide much other than that. They massively overpaid Drew last year to stunt Boegarts’s growth.
The Red Sox have NOT done well with FA recently. They have done extremely well with scouting and player development (including trades) – Castillo, Boegarts, Betts, Porcello, Miley, and other looks to be the best contributors this year. In terms of FA, the only real success story I can think of in recent years was Napoli.
Castillo was a FA. Victorino has actually been a success so far, though he’ll have to contribute some this season to fully justify his contract. Drew was a success on his first contract, enough to actually make his whole time with Boston a success even if you count his second contract. Uehara was a success. Daniel Nava was a success. Beltre was a success. Cody Ross was a success.
They’ve had some bad contracts in there too! And they’ve definitely done better via development, trades, and extensions. But that’s true of every team. And that development, trade, and extension history is why people praise Boston.
they haven’t developed any of their own draft picks into full time quality mlb regulars since the 2005 draft.
though three of their picks since 2006 – rizzo, masterson, reddick – were developed into quality mlb regulars by other teams.
some of their current kids show promise but so did other kids that failed.
you sure they deserve praise for development?
Yes.
The draft is not the only place from which to develop players. You’re ignoring IFAs.
But sticking to Rule 4 players alone: to suggest that Rizzo, Masterson, and Reddick were developed elsewhere is… strange. Rizzo spent a bunch of minor league time with the Padres and Cubs, so you could argue, I suppose, that the Padres and Cubs are the ones who made him a star, not his time in Boston’s minor league system. (Though how you go about making that argument one way or another, I’m not sure.) But Masterson spent no time in Cleveland’s minor league system, and Reddick only rehab time. So I’m not sure how they aren’t points for Boston in terms of drafting and developing players. (If certainly not points for fitting them onto their roster.)
What’s more, players are not evenly distributed among years of a draft for most teams. You don’t just get one player every year. 2005 netted Boston a ton of successful players, 2006 netted them Masterson and Reddick, and 2007 netted them Rizzo. But while ’08, ’09, and ’10 haven’t done much for them, 2011 appears to be a banner year. Obviously we have to wait, and you’ve picked a time to post this when they haven’t established themselves, but Boston is in the top 5 farm systems right now because, in large part, of that 2011 draft, and many of them are about to hit the majors.
Pretending that they haven’t developed a full time quality mlb regular since the 2005 draft takes a lot of wriggling between the facts. You have to pretend that none of their current crop is about to become major league regulars and that they don’t get credit for the guys from ’06 and ’07 because they didn’t play full seasons for Boston before being traded.
that’s a lot of words to say nothing.
the red sox system has produced 3 quality regular mlbers since 2006. almost a decade.
how is this worthy if praise?
Because you’re once again ignoring that drafts take a while to produce. All you’re really saying is that they did not get basically anything from their ’08-’10 drafts. ’04-’07 were successful drafts, and it’s too early to judge ’11-’13 (though they look like they could be another run of successful drafts).
So yes, you would say that the franchise under the Theo/Cherington has, on the whole, done a good job drafting and developing players from ’04-’10. And that’s not counting the ’11 draft players (Bradley, Owens, Barnes, Betts, Swihart), some of which should probably establish themselves as major league regulars.
Put another way: how many teams have drafted and developed more major league regulars since the ’04 draft? There are a few. But not that many.
everyone can acknowledge they had a sweet 5yrs of drafts from 01-05. they drafted 5 championship studs and a bunch of other useful players.
but what does that have to do with now?
if we have to resort to looking at 30+ yr olds to praise a team’s development….odds are they haven’t been doing much developing.
It takes a while to figure out whether a draft has been successful. Deciding to throw out the ’04-’07 drafts, which look pretty successful, while focusing on the last drafts that can be judged reasonably fairly, ’08-’10, is pretty myopic and a clear case of cherry picking. And a conveniently timed criticism, considering their 2011 draft is one of the best drafts of any team’s from ’08-’11, and is the main driver behind Boston having one of the top 3-5 farm systems in baseball.
You’re basically just saying that they had crappy drafts for a three year period five years ago. Expanding from that to saying they haven’t been good at drafting and developing players is disingenuous and flat out wrong.
yes it takes a while, but can we at least exclude 30+ yr olds from a discussion of a team’s current development system?
No 30+Yr Olds – we’ll call it the Ari Collins rule.
I believe you’d call that the everdiso rule. I believe you’d also call it an arbitrary way to exclude players who were drafted and developed by a franchise you’re looking to cherry-pick against. Why is Pedroia not a drafting and developing success for the Red Sox? Because he has TOO MANY established major league years? He is a current player playing at a high level that was drafted and developed by the organization in question.
The reason you’d include the ’03-’07 drafts is that, in terms of judging a draft, you want to wait at least five years, since players typically spend 2-4 years in the minors. Unless you want for some reason (like you really like to criticize the Red Sox) to have a tiny sample, some players from earlier drafts will be 30 by the time the players from later drafts are ready for an early assessment.
There are only so many drafts we could look at to establish whether Boston has been good at drafting and developing players. Limiting it to ’08-’10 is at best using too small a sample and at worst cherry-picking to attempt to back up a baseless claim.
Not to mention their deals with Agon, Crawford and Beckets extension turned out badly and they were saved by the Dodgers. A rare opportunity since they waved the white flag on their season despite still having a chance for a WC spot, something the Yankees never due since its cheating the fans who have bought tickets
The deal with Gonzalez not only wasn’t bad, it is precisely what enabled them to move Beckett & Crawford *while still receiving prospects*, a trade you just finished praising as a “gift”.
Like everdiso, you’re a hack. You have nothing at all invested in the truth here. You’ll abuse any data, shift any goalpost, divert any conversation to anything you can think of to malign that team you don’t like. Gradeschool nonsense.
I’m sorry but the A-Gon deal was absolutely bad… and still is… unless you think that he is being paid $22mil/year to be a 3 WAR player. (LOL)
Just because they were lucky as fuck to be able to flip it to the Dodgers who were desperate for a veteran bat and a 1B at the time doesn’t instantly absolve them from giving out those bad contracts. They made a few bad decisions, they were lucky enough to correct those mistakes. Not every team is that lucky.
Let me know when you have something to bring to the conversation other than attacking people.
“When the team I hate does something good, it’s luck. When it does something bad, it reflects their talent.”
Homerism 101
I’m a Red Sox fan, so obviously there’s some bias there. But I’m not sure why people are trying to equate Boston’s decision-making with New York’s. New York made a decision to try to save money, then reversed direction just as they were about to reap the benefits, instead spending big, then reversed direction again this offseason and restrained spending.
I’m not sure the article’s argument is valid (I think it’s simplifying things too much by far), but I’m also not sure how you could accuse Boston of the same thing.
Let’s try a reverse spin on the sox’ cuban adventure:
“Last place team with $200m payroll panics, overreacts to two cuban hitters’ short term success in mlb, spends $135m on two lesser and riskier Cubans in redundant roles instead of paying their proven Ace.”
So after reading a bunch of these arguments (and the hilarious posters who think attacking Boston is the same thing as defending New York’s strategies), here’s what I think is the main issue here.
This article’s view of the timeline is, approximately:
1. New York spends a lot of money.
2. New York cuts costs to try to get under the tax threshold.
3. New York abandons that plan just as they’re about to complete it, spending a ton of money in the 2013-2014 offseason.
4. New York shifts again, barely spending any money in the 2014-2015 offseason, culminating in not getting Moncada.
I would argue the timeline is more like this:
1. New York spends a lot of money.
2. New York cuts costs to try to get under the tax threshold.
3. New York decides that missing the playoffs costs them more money than the luxury tax, and decides to spend money on free agents again, while avoiding the late-30s contracts that have been so cost-inefficient recently.
If you look at the last two offseasons, the only post-age-36 seasons they’ve spent on are Beltran’s.
The Moncada thing is definitely a little odd, but while he’s young, and I think he’ll be easily worth the high cost, reasonable people can think he’s not worth $60MM+. And perhaps those some of those reasonable people work for the Yankees. It doesn’t need to be a case of penny-pinching; it can simply be a matter of different evaluations of the player among different front offices. Time will tell whether Boston just got a Winner’s Curse type contract or a steal.
But either way, Moncada is not a data point on a graph that proves that New York is crazy.
Meh, pretty simple. They had a plan but it was always unrealistic. You can’t charge your biggest fans $3K per seat and then put a subpar product on the field. So the plan was pretty much dooomed from the get-go unless they miraculously refrained from spending AND managed to put a playoff-caliber team on the field while doing so.
Now they’ve just extended the pain by abandoning the plan right when it was reaching the reward stage and now they seem completely unsure what they are or what to do.
The Yanks get credit for being consistent in terms of leaderhship personnel but they don’t act like an organization with well thought out strategies.
Actually, if you look at Yankees spending on payroll after Hal took over full control following 2009, and adjust for payroll inflation (5% PA), you will see that Yankees spending has declined in real dollars by 50 million from the 2003-2009 adjusted averages.
They are using less resources than ever, despite being cash flush from their YES deal where they sold off a 14% stake (valued at almost 1 billion) and extended their TV deal to 2042 with higher escalators which is worth more than the Dodgers TV deal (385 million average over the length of the deal). Not to mention the higher revenues in the new stadium compared to the 2003-2009 period
The Yankee attendance has been dropping. They lost roughly 270K from 2012 to 2013, the first year they missed the playoffs, and regained just about 120,000 of that last year, with the Jeter farewell tour. With an average ticket price of over $130, just the 150K difference from 2012 would mean about $20M in gate receipts, before they sell a beer or a hot dog. We also don’t know about pressure from advertisers as well. The Yankees feel a need to play winning baseball. They may be more frugal under Hal, but they are still spending. I think I would have gone after Moncada, but…
I gotta say, I’m enjoying the Yankee-fan derangement syndrome on full display in this thread.
I’m enjoying how defensive and seemingly worried the RedSox fans in this thread are. It’s as if they already know this deal is going to haunt them for years. 🙂