2012 Baseball Season/Off-Season Discussion

[GeorgeSteele]

Things do certainly look bleak for the Yanks.  When a team brings a batting slump into the playoffs, it's tougher to get out of it because there's no series around the corner against a weak team with sub-par pitchers that you can batter around, get your confidence back and return to your swing fundamentals. 

[AxlsMainMan]

So...because you buy an Ipod, or an Iphone, or an Ipad, or a Nano...you get to tell Apple how much they can pay their workers?  And you take issue, when something like the Maps fiasco happens with Iphone 5, with the mid-level executive who's getting paid above market value?  Or take issue with a specific building component because of how much they decide to pay for a processor or a transistor?

Of course not.  You can buy their product or not.  You can complain about function.  You can complain about the product and it's features.  You can complain about it's pricing (as it relates to YOUR cost).  But the rest...those are business decisions made by Apple, a privately held company who can do business any way they want to.

Last I checked, it's a free country where I can choose to complain about anything I see fit. I'd be shocked if Apple didn't even have a division within their company simply entitled Customer Complaints where - you guesssed it - their sole purpose is to field complaints from customers. Apple, much like pretty much any other business or corporation, actively pursues feedback from customers. What better way to ensure customer satisfaction both in the present and the future?

The Yankees are no different.  They are a business.  The team they field (and it's related revenue sources) is their product.  You are a consumer of that product.  Once you CHOOSE to buy that product...it's not your money any more.  It's the Yankees money...to use as they see fit.  YOU can then decide if you think their product is still worth buying.

My money doesn't necessarily stop being my money the instant it goes from my pocket to Hal Steinbrenner's. Since I've enriched both him and his business, I remain more than entitled to criticize how my money is spent and managed. That includes both contracts and on-field production, the two are not mutually exclusive. If the Yankees were a self-sustainable organization then what would they want our money for? If they were self-sustainable then you're entirely right that I would have no right to criticize business decisions, but since that's not so I am more than within my right.

If I hire a construction company, you're saying once the money changes hands I'm no longer able to have a voice in how my money is spent or managed? Moreover, once the project I hired the company to do is finished, I am entitled to satisfaction with the product. It doesn't matter that money has already changed hands. The only difference is that I can't demand a refund from the Yankees if I feel my hard-earned money is not being spent the way I think it should be, but I can actively voice my discontent. Isn't sports talk radio suited to helping fans do just that?

Schools have parent groups to help oversee and manage how their child's school is run. When they pay for the school through taxes, their money really doesn't stop being their money as they still have a vocal say in how the school is managed. Just like the Yankees, parents can't really demand their money back if they no longer like the school or final administrative decisions, but they are still within their right to be be vocal and critical if they see fit.

Sure, the fans should expect a quality product.  And if they don't get it....they can stop buying it. 

"Accountability" from the team, in terms of how they're spending their money? No...as long as they're not defrauding you.  They're not shareholders or members of the ownership. The fans are not not part of their labor force, either.

But you take away the fans and where does the 3.3 billion the NHL is in a lockout over go? It doesn't matter if they're shareholders or members of ownership. Without the fans, just like in baseball, the whole operation is kaput.

A PLAYER should be accountable for his performance on the field....but not for his paycheck.

I thought one of the classic phrases by sports pundits was "not living up to their contract"? Alfonso Soriano, Jason Bay, and Albert Haynesworth are all classic examples of players "not living up to their contracts." They're awarded contracts based on performance, and so when their performance is lacking it's hard to say that they're living up to their contract. When players have stellar years they usually want a raise in their contract (MJD comes to mind). So in that case you have an athlete who actively wants his performance to account/justify not just his paycheck but an enlarged paycheck.

You are not required, by any law, to buy Yankee tickets or Merchandise.  The Yanks are not owned by the fans (unlike the Green Bay Packers), the government, or any municipality.  They are owned by the Yankee Ownership Group.  You are not a stockholder of that group.

No, but fans greatly contribute to the bottom line of the Yankees just like any other sports team. Without loyal, satisfied fans stock value inevitably goes down. Stockholders alone aren't paying A-Rod's contract, fans are. If they feel their money being funneled into his contract is going to waste, they have every right to voice that opinion. If the Yankees were an entirely self-sustainable organization then you'd be absolutely right in me strictly having a right to criticize on-field performance. If they don't like/want fan criticism, don't take money from fans.

Holding one athlete more responsible than another, simply because he's getting a larger check, isn't.  And it makes no sense.

We often hold CEOs to more responsibility than other employees simply because their check is largest and their large check generally affects the bottom line more than the checks of other employees. How is that any different than holding A-Rod accountable for having the largest contract on the Yankees roster? Just like a CEO, his check ultimately affects the bottom line more than the check of any other player. With his contract, there's less wiggle room to resign other players or bring in big name free agents (especially with the Yanks now eager to get under a payroll of $189 million).

But it was the Yankees decision to make.  And it's not the FANS money.

Then where exactly does my money go if I go to a Yankees game or buy their merchandise? How do I pay to get into the game if not with my own money?

I agree...they're stuck with a player who will have questionable impact over the term of his contract.  But that issue is related to his on the field performance, not the money he's making.

He was largely given the contract based on performance, so how exactly is his performance not related to the money he's making? Did the Yankees just pull an arbitrary number from thin air?

BUT, as we can all see....Cano, Swish, and Granderson are just as unproductive this year.  I would say they are just as much to blame as Arod is for the teams failings on offense.

But they don't have great big $275 million dollar contracts to justify. Moreover, they're not getting paid large sums of money to sit on a bench and be a cheerleader. If you don't think you or I could hit MLB pitching, surely being a cheerleader is well within our capabilities, no?

[pilferk]

Last I checked, it's a free country where I can choose to complain about anything I see fit. I'd be shocked if Apple didn't even have a division within their company simply entitled Customer Complaints where - you guesssed it - their sole purpose is to field complaints from customers. Apple, much like pretty much any other business or corporation, actively pursues feedback from customers. What better way to ensure customer satisfaction both in the present and the future?

You're right.  You're free to make any crackpot, non-sensical complaint you want.

Even if they make no sense.

Apple, I'm sure, takes into account customer feedback on their product.

And soundly ignores crackpot complaints about their executive/worker salary structure or their material costs to produce their product...from their customers Because a) they're not constructive and b) they're not fully informed.

From their stockholders? Different story.

THAT'S the point.

My money doesn't necessarily stop being my money the instant it goes from my pocket to Hal Steinbrunner's.

In point of fact, it does.  The minute you buy their product...it's their money.

Try to get that money back and see what happens.  As long as they haven't defrauded you (and they haven't) or the product isn't "faulty" (which is irrespective of how much the product cost them to make)....the only way you're getting it back is if their CS department is feeling nice and thinks they can make more money off you down the line.

File a complaint that says you want your money back because their highest paid player is over paid, considering production.  File a complaint with Apple saying you want your money back because you think they paid too much for a processor or the flash memory they included.

They will, I promise, laugh at you (maybe behind their hands).  As will every court in the land.

Since I've enriched both him and his business, I remain more than entitled to criticize how my money is spent and managed. That includes both contracts and on-field production, the two are not mutually exclusive. If the Yankees were a self-sustainable organization then what would they want our money for? If they were self-sustainable then you're entirely right that I would have no right to criticize business decisions, but since that's not so I am more than within my right.

It's no longer your money. Period.  Ask the courts.  Go up to a Steinbrenner, grab their wallet, snag a hundie out of it, and explain to the cops how you weren't stealing it because it's your money.

Again, you're "entitled" to say any crackpot bit of non-sense you want.  You can bellow about CC's cap being off center when he throws pitch 190.

But the Yanks are under no obligation to listen to you. Nor should they.

Because, unless you're a Harvard graduated MBA, or have proven your knowledge of their business or have inherited some share of ownership (or some combination of such)...the criticism isn't really relevant.

Self sustaining has nothing to do with it.  That's the point of the market....buy or don't buy.  The business will succeed or fail based on the quality, pricing,and appeal to the consumer.

You are not a stockholder/owner.  The money they spend has little to do with how the product performs...and isn't, really, any of your concern.  You can MAKE it your concern...but it makes no sense to do so.

If I hire a construction company, you're saying once the money changes hands I'm no longer able to have a voice in how my money is spent or managed? Moreover, once the project I hired the company to do is finished, I am entitled to satisfaction with the product. It doesn't matter that money has already changed hands. The only difference is that I can't demand a refund from the Yankees if I feel my hard-earned money is not being spent the way I think it should be, but I can actively voice my discontent. Isn't sports talk radio suited to helping fans do just that?

You can complain about the product, quality of work, craftsmanship, timeliness of completion, etc. LEGALLY, you have a right to question those things, as a customer.  But, assuming they stick to the budget, do good work, and use the materials that you approved when you contracted with them....no, you can't really complain about how much they're paying their workers OR what they pay for the materials they're using.  Or rather, you certainly can...and the business owner will politely (or not so politely) tell you to go scratch. Because it's their business...and THEY are entitled to run it any way they see fit.  Just as you are entitled to do business with them or not, as you see fit.  And the legal system soundly agrees with all that.

If the Yanks give you a seat, and field a team...they've done exactly what they promised to do when they sold you a ticket.  Complaining about how much it costs THEM to pad that seat, bolt it to the concrete, staff the stadium, or pay the guy you're watching to play?  Not really any of your business (if you'll excuse the obvious pun) and, really...not anything for you to worry about.  Your concern is to buy a ticket, or not.

Sport talk radio call in segments are the arm pit of sports media.  They're the home (with some exceptions) of ill-informed fans who have a case of verbal dissentary who wouldn't know how to run a successful franchise if one was thrown into their laps.  Hosts are looking for either someone they can yell at (because of their stupidity) or someone that can make a sensationalistic topic of conversation that, often, has no basis in reality.  They get great ratings, though....for largely the reasons the same sorts of pandering in mainstream media gets eyeballs.

Case in point: This very topic, which gets brought up ad nauseum...and has no basis in logic or reality.

[pilferk]

Schools have parent groups to help oversee and manage how their child's school is run. When they pay for the school through taxes, their money really doesn't stop being their money as they still have a vocal say in how the school is managed. Just like the Yankees, parents can't really demand their money back if they no longer like the school or final administrative decisions, but they are still within their right to be be vocal and critical if they see fit.

Most schools are municipally owned and supported, directly, by the taxes you pay. Taxes you, through the budget approval process in every town, are allowed to help allocate.  Again, a bad analogy. You are REQUIRED to pay taxes.  You are NOT REQUIRED to buy the Yankees product.

A business is a business.

A government institution is a government institution.  They are not remotely the same thing.  They are not run the same way.  They are not set up to support remotely similar goals. They are not LEGALLY required to provide the same level of accountability in form, function, or process. 

But you take away the fans and where does the 3.3 billion the NHL is in a lockout over go? It doesn't matter if they're shareholders or members of ownership. Without the fans, just like in  baseball, the whole operation is kaput.

Yup.  That's called market economics in a capitalist society.

So...what's the problem?

None of that speaks to why they should listen to the fans when it comes to business decisions or expenditures.

Or how a larger pay check should be the reason someone gets "more blame" than other, similarly performing players.

I thought one of the classic phrases by sports pundits was "not living up to their contract"? Alfonso Soriano, Jason Bay, and Albert Haynesworth are all classic examples of players "not living up to their contracts." They're awarded contracts based on performance, and so when their performance is lacking it's hard to say that they're living up to their contract. When players have stellar years they usually want a raise in their contract (MJD comes to mind). So in that case you have an athlete who actively wants his performance to account/justify not just his paycheck but an enlarged paycheck.

Again, there's no correlation between that and "blame". Or, rather, there shouldn't be.

One is a metric of a players performance based on relative value vs actual cost.  It's a business discussion.  And, since players are the MLB labor force...just like any labor force they're entitled to try to get as much money, at any given point (with the MLB rules of FA), as they can. 

The other is a metric, completely, of an individuals on the field performance.

The pundits blur the line all the time..but that's my point.  They shouldn't.  They're not related.

The Yanks could pay ME, tomorrow, 3 million a year.  I would SUCK at the dish.

But I'd suck at the dish if they paid me $30 a year, too. Or 30 million a year.

How much they pay me has no bearing on how I'm going to perform.

Now...you can argue "worth" and play armchair CEO.  As in "why would the Yanks sign a 38 year old guy with no MLB playing experience for 3 million a year".  But the fact is..they decided to do it...for whatever reason.

And you can boo me because I'm hitting .000 in 30 plate appearances.

Now, you can decide if you want to go to the ballpark and watch me play, or not.

But what does my paycheck have to do with it, ultimately?

No, but fans greatly contribute to the bottom line of the Yankees just like any other sports team. Without loyal, satisfied fans stock value inevitably goes down. Stockholders alone aren't paying A-Rod's contract, fans are. If they feel their money being funneled into his contract is going to waste, they have every right to voice that opinion. If the Yankees were an entirely self-sustainable organization then you'd be absolutely right in me strictly having a right to criticize on-field performance. If they don't like/want fan criticism, don't take money from fans.

Stock values?  Not one MLB team, that I know of (or professional sports team) is directly traded on the stock market. 

Fans are not paying A-rod.  Fans are paying the Yankees, for a good or service.  The YANKEES are paying A-rod. It's an enormous difference. Again, walk up to a Yanks ticket booth and try to "re-appropriate" your money.  When NY's finest catches you, use the exact explanation you're giving above to justify it.  Enjoy the metal bracelets and the psych eval.

If I buy something at Walmart...and someone works for Walmart...am I paying their salary?  NO, I'm not.  Walmart is. 

Indirectly, the money out of my wallet eventually, somehow, made it the persons bank account....but by that point it wasn't "mine" anymore.

And, rather, the assertion you make in the last line is the polar opposite:  If YOU, as a consumer, don't like the way the Yanks do business..don't GIVE them your money. 

TAKING your money doesn't obligate the Yanks to listen to your "suggestions" on how they should run their business.  Only owning part of their company (or working for them, to a lesser extent) does that.

We often hold CEOs to more responsibility than other employees simply because their check is largest and their large check generally affects the bottom line more than the checks of other employees. How is that any different than holding A-Rod accountable for having the largest contract on the Yankees roster? Just like a CEO, his check ultimately affects the bottom line more than the check of any other player. With his contract, there's less wiggle room to resign other players or bring in big name free agents (especially with the Yanks now eager to get under a payroll of $189 million).

While not as bad as the government analogies..this one is close.

You hold a CEO responsible not because he's got one of  the largest checks in the office, but because he's THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.  It's his JOB to be held SOLELY responsible for the entire company, it's profits, its losses, it's successes and it's failures.  The buck, literally STOPS there. It doesn't matter how MUCH or how LITTLE he makes.

The Yanks Equivalent?  Cashman.  Who is NOT the highest paid guy on the payroll.

You want to take Cashman to task for the money he and the Steinbrenners (equivalent to the Board of Directors) have paid out?  More power to you.  It's tough to argue with their decisions given the sheer amount of money they bring in every year.

Arod asked for money...the YANKS AGREED to pay him that salary.  It makes ZERO logical sense to take a guy to task because he got the most out of his employer as possible.  He can't force them to pay an amount they weren't comfortable with.  The Yanks Ownership group OWNS the team!

Then where exactly does my money go if I go to a Yankees game or buy their merchandise? How do I pay to get into the game if not with my own money?

It WAS your money.

You paid for something with it.

It's not your money any more.  You lose all say in how it can, will, and should be used the minute it is exchanged for a good or service.

Go buy a gallon of milk.  The minute you hand the money to the cashier...it's not your money.  Again, if you don't believe me...try to take it back.

If you can prove to them the product you had was defective or whatever, they might give you the money back.  But until they approve that transaction, open the register, and hand that money back to  you, it's their money.

The minute the money is back in your hands..it's THEN yours.

He was largely given the contract based on performance, so how exactly is his performance not related to the money he's making? Did the Yankees just pull an arbitrary number from thin air?

Look at tenses, there.

He was given, based on past performance, a salary.

That salary is not an indication of how he will, could, or should perform in the future.  They're unrelated.  Given the duration and money involved...pretty safe bet the Yanks were widely aware of worst case scenario/risk-rerward when they signed it.  But that's the point.  THE YANKS signed it.  Their money, their decision how to spend it.

He had a certain value in the marketplace, when he asked for money.  They paid it.  His value has decreased, in the market...no argument there.  Lucky for him, he got his money before that happened.

It doesn't make him more responsible for the lineups failing than Cano, Swish, and Granderson are.

But they don't have great big $275 million dollar contracts to justify. Moreover, they're not getting paid large sums of money to sit on a bench and be a cheerleader. If you don't think you or I could hit MLB pitching, surely being a cheerleader is well within our capabilities, no?

Which is my point.  The contract isn't relevant to level of responsibility or to performance level on the field.

My ability, or inability, to do what A-rod is doing to earn his salary is irrelevant to my judgement of his play and responsibility.  You're talking about jealousy, now, not accountability.

And the fact is: You or I could, most certainly, not have done what A-rod did up to the point he SIGNED the contract...which is what gauged his market worth.  Again, going to "previous performance", not a predictor of future performance OR amount of responsibility for the teams failings.

[sandman]

Pilferk - i disagree with you 100%. and i'm wondering if you don't understand this issue because your favorite sports team is the yankees.

all teams are on a budget. therefore, they have a limited amount of dollars to spend. so in fielding a team, it is absolutely critical that your players are living up to (or exceeding) their value. that is how the team is run by management. so from a fan's perspective, salary is a factor in their view of that player. because if you have too many players NOT living up to the expectations of their salary, then you have very little chance for success.

Jason Werth was a great player for the Phillies. He outperformed his contract (i think he was making around $3-$4 million per year). he was really popular among fans, but everyone agreed he wasn't worth what he got from the Nationals. so most people were ok with him leaving. now if i'm a naitonals fan, his contract jumps out at you and you expect him to be a great player. management is counting on him living up to that deal. if he doesn't, it hurts the team. because you can only have so many players not living up to their contract.

i think it's easier to appreciate this issue in sports where there is a cap and the value you get from a player is even more critical. because for a team like the yankees, they have much more cushion to make mistakes and not have players live up to their contract. but for most teams its critical that the majority come close to living up to it and some outperform their contract.

[pilferk]

Pilferk - i disagree with you 100%. and i'm wondering if you don't understand this issue because your favorite sports team is the yankees.

I can confidently say it does not have anything to do with the fact they're the Yanks.

In fact..all things considered..you'd think it would be the opposite.  Because, lets face it...the Yanks have hardly given much consideration to value. 

And Yanks fans, with the exception of where it concerns A-rod, have not really complained much about it (and there have been other high paid players, with albatross type contracts, in the past).

But I can easily turn it around on you:  Is it Ryan Howards SALARY'S fault that the Phillies stunk this year?  Or is it the fact he had the lowest OPS, SLG% and BA of his career...and only appeared in 71 games?  Is it Cliff Lee's SALARY'S fault that he couldn't win a game early in the season? Or is it because he turned out a close to 4 ERA, gave up 43 earned runs, walked 20 batters and got no run support in the first half?

all teams are on a budget. therefore, they have a limited amount of dollars to spend. so in fielding a team, it is absolutely critical that your players are living up to (or exceeding) their value. that is how the team is run by management. so from a fan's perspective, salary is a factor in their view of that player. because if you have too many players NOT living up to the expectations of their salary, then you have very little chance for success.

There is no hard cap in baseball.  So "budget", in baseball, means "what they can afford to pay and still make a profit".  Again, that all goes to business decisions.  Not performance on the field by a specific athlete.

It is critical that most of your players on your roster perform. Period. End of sentence.  Especially those that have performed in the past. What they're being paid, for that performance......really not relevant.  If you hit .300...you're doing good...whether you're making 1 million per or 30 million per.  If you hit ..067...likewise, what your pay check says at the end of two weeks isn't going to effect that number.  If Brett Gardner were hitting .025 in the post...he'd be having a miserable post season.  And he makes comparitive peanuts to most of the guys he'd be sharing the field with.

When SIGNING players in the offseason....you have a marginal point when discussing potential new aquisitions.  But again, that goes to business decisions and value at an ORGANIZATIONAL level.  It's interesting theorycrafting to keep you warm in the hot stove season.

IN season, on the field....it simply has no place in the discussion.  Either the player is playing well, or they're not.  The number of 0's on their check is irrelevant..because you're not actively constructing a team to play RIGHT NOW.  That time is done and gone.

Jason Werth was a great player for the Phillies. He outperformed his contract (i think he was making around $3-$4 million per year). he was really popular among fans, but everyone agreed he wasn't worth what he got from the Nationals. so most people were ok with him leaving. now if i'm a naitonals fan, his contract jumps out at you and you expect him to be a great player. management is counting on him living up to that deal. if he doesn't, it hurts the team. because you can only have so many players not living up to their contract.

But that's my point.  The fans are allowing the contract to color their ideas of how he should perform.  That they do doesn't mean they SHOULD.  His contracted salary is not an accurate indicator, on any level, of performance. Not now, not 3 years into a contract, not in the last year of the contract.   It's only an indicator of what one team, when evaluating all the factors involved, thought he was worth, on the open market, at the time they signed him.

Essentially, it's a business decision.  Just like the decision about how much they should pay for the padding that goes on the seats, or the wholesale costs of hot dogs.

That's it.

Fans are not the GM of the team....no matter how much they'd like to be.

i think it's easier to appreciate this issue in sports where there is a cap and the value you get from a player is even more critical. because for a team like the yankees, they have much more cushion to make mistakes and not have players live up to their contract. but for most teams its critical that the majority come close to living up to it and some outperform their contract.

There is no cap in baseball.

Professional sports, and baseball in particular, are a business.  They operate like businesses do.  The problem is: fans want them to operate in completely different ways and don't understand why they don't.  They don't want to take into consideration the various myriad of factors that go into those decisions.  I get that, to them, it's all about wins and losses, in that specific moment.  But they have to realize that...when it comes to certain decisions made by an organization...that's NOT the primary thought process.  Yes, they want to win.  But more than that..the organizations want to make money.  They want to turn a profit.  And most signings need to be looked at through THAT lens, and not a "this player is responsible for everything wrong because he managed to sign a big contract" lens.

Instead, they want to consider things that, really, are non-factors and correlations that simply don't exist.

Let me be clear:  I have no issue discussing business decisions as they pertain to THE ORGANIZATION.  That's a different path.

My issue is relating salary to a specific player and their specific level of performance, in season (and not just when theorycrafting FA signings, etc).

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

Pilferk = Randy Levine

[sandman]

Pilferk - i disagree with you 100%. and i'm wondering if you don't understand this issue because your favorite sports team is the yankees.

I can confidently say it does not have anything to do with the fact they're the Yanks.

In fact..all things considered..you'd think it would be the opposite.  Because, lets face it...the Yanks have hardly given much consideration to value. 

exactly, so since your team does not factor in value, you and most yankees fans do not have any appreciation for it. if your team essentially has an endless budget, than contracts DO NOT matter. the organization fields the best team possible and no contract affects any others. that's exactly my point.

you have to consider it from the perspective of the other sports where there is a cap to fully appreciate this point. then consider the fact that most MLB teams essentially operate under the same principle, only it is a self-imposed cap. i loved Jason Werth, but i would have been disappointed, angry even, if the phillies re-signed him at $150M+ because i know he's not worth it and it would significantly hurt the team.

i'm not saying its the most important factor when assessing a player. i rarely think about player's salaries. but there are some instances, where someone is grossly underperforming their contract, that it becomes obvious and it is an issue. and then there are times when players outperform and you give them a major thumbs up. the best teams in the NFL for the last 15 years were the ones that were able to ensure they had very few players that were underperforming their contract and ensuring that value was recongnized for every dollar spent within the cap. big dollars bring big expectations. i don't know how you just ignore those expectations, whether they are due to past performance or a big contract or both.

[pilferk]

exactly, so since your team does not factor in value, you and most yankees fans do not have any appreciation for it. if your team essentially has an endless budget, than contracts DO NOT matter. the organization fields the best team possible and no contract affects any others. that's exactly my point.

But, likewise, I wouldn't care one way or the other...because value is, as you point out, a non-factor. So if it were at all linked to my Yankee fandom...I'd have no opinion.

This is less a "sports" position than it is a "business" position.  It's also the same argument as "Moneyball"...just from a slightly different perspective.

No comment on the Phillies examples, eh? 

you have to consider it from the perspective of the other sports where there is a cap to fully appreciate this point. then consider the fact that most MLB teams essentially operate under the same principle, only it is a self-imposed cap. i loved Jason Werth, but i would have been disappointed, angry even, if the phillies re-signed him at $150M+ because i know he's not worth it and it would significantly hurt the team.

Oh, I've considered it from pretty much every position I can think of.  Still comes up with the same conclusion.

Again, above, you're talking about assessing ORGANIZATIONAL needs within that context, in the off season and an effective use of limited resources by that business. It's a consideration every business makes. Still not really your concern, in terms of how the team chooses to spend it's money..but interesting theorycrafting.  And, again, there's no reason to expect the team will share (or care) about your concerns...or see them remotely the same way.  The phillies overpaid for Howard because of his organizational worth, the fact he puts butts in seats, and not how they think his production is going to age.  Ditto on the Yanks with Jeter.

You're NOT talking about assessing a specific players performance, in a specifc game (or series of games), and skewing your rating simply based on how much money they make.  That's the genesis of the conversation.

Here's the challenge.

Show that a .300 hitter, who then gets paid more, gets better simply because their salary was increased.

Show me a .300 hitter, who then gets paid less, gets worse simply because their salary was decreased.

I don't think you can.

That's the point.

Salary is a non-factor in terms of actually accessing their individual performance.  And it's certainly a non-factor in how much "blame" they get for a teams failings.

Show me an objective, logical reason that Arod, because he makes more money, is more to blame than Cano, Swish, or Granderson are, for the lack of hitting coming out of the Yanks lineup in the ALDS and ALCS. 

And not just more A-rod hate.

Before you say: Because they'd have more money to sign other players...you've just proved my point.  That's not A-rods fault.  That's the organizations decision. You're no longer measureing A-rods culpability or performance, you're playing armchair GM/CEO, and lending subjective, uninformed assessment to that decision.  And we've pretty firmly established....they don't care or want to hear it.

i'm not saying its the most important factor when assessing a player. i rarely think about player's salaries. but there are some instances, where someone is grossly underperforming their contract, that it becomes obvious and it is an issue. and then there are times when players outperform and you give them a major thumbs up. the best teams in the NFL for the last 15 years were the ones that were able to ensure they had very few players that were underperforming their contract and ensuring that value was recongnized for every dollar spent within the cap. big dollars bring big expectations. i don't know how you just ignore those expectations, whether they are due to past performance or a big contract or both.

It's not A factor, unless you're simply talking about considering signing them as a FA.  Once that contract is signed...$$ is past discussion in terms of the PLAYER.

As for the rest,  expectations don't lend you any objective measure of anything.  And sports fans expectations are almost uniformly unrealistic. Basing those expectations on something as arbitrary as what the team has decided to pay them seems to lack sense.  It would mean that you expect less from,  say, Mike Trout next year (who's making comparable peanuts) then you do from, say, Carl Crawford (who's making a ton of money).  You really think that's realistic?   And before you start listing all the different reasons why it's NOT realistic....that's my point.

Add to that the fact I don't let salary dictate expectations (or predictions).  I let the back of a players baseball card do that.  Because historical performance (especially recent historical performance and trending) is a lot better indicator than simply how many 0's are put on their paycheck.

The truth in all this is that, really, the salary is NOT why A-rod gets the lion share of the blame.  It's because he's an unlikeable, phony, dickhead (well, he is).  Luckily for him, the game is not about personality (though, the way he's swinging the bat, he might do better with his dickhead personality than he is with the bat).  But his salary is just another thing to pile on top...because everyone loves to hate on Arod.  It's a convenient excuse.  It's not actually realistic...but so long as it's a fun tag line, who cares about realistic, right?

The NFL (non-gaurenteed contracts) and the NBA (midlevels, longevity, max contracts, etc) are SO different than baseball..but largely the point is the same.

When KG goes out and puts up a triple double...he's performed well.

When he goes 2-15 with 4 reb and 1 block....he's had a tough night.

Neither has anything to do with how much they're paying him.

[pilferk]

Pilferk = Randy Levine

Not even close.

But I do favor logic, substance, and realism over sports talk sensationalism with no basis in fact.

[tim_m]

Cano is just getting victimized by the umps in this series with bad calls. Yesterday when he was called out on a play that would've scored a run then today in the 8th inning the runner was called safe when he was clearly out when Cano tagged him. It wasn't even close either he was 2 feet off the damn base.

There have been a bunch of bad calls on the base paths this series.  

But...1-0 or 3-0...if you don't score any runs, you can't win.

Ump did admit it: http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/10/14/umpire-admits-bad-call-joe-girardi-calls-for-more-replay/related/

They've had SOO many chances (bases loaded 1 out, bases loaded, 2 outs, guys on 2nd and 3rd, NO outs) to score runs the past couple games...and just epically failed at it....it's tough to point to the bad calls and inconsistent strike zone as reasons behind their losses.

Agree, even if he gets the call right i'm not sure they win, but coming back from 1-0 is easier than 3-0. Also, the bad call on Cano at first base in game 1 would've been the difference in the game. A run would've scored and the 2 homeruns in the 9th would've given us the 5-4 win and were 1-1 right now not 0-2. So the bad calls have cost us a win.

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

Pilferk = Randy Levine

Not even close.

But I do favor logic, substance, and realism over sports talk sensationalism with no basis in fact.

Then why do you talk the way you do?

[faldor]

The truth in all this is that, really, the salary is NOT why A-rod gets the lion share of the blame.  It's because he's an unlikeable, phony, dickhead (well, he is).  Luckily for him, the game is not about personality (though, the way he's swinging the bat, he might do better with his dickhead personality than he is with the bat).  But his salary is just another thing to pile on top...because everyone loves to hate on Arod.  It's a convenient excuse.  It's not actually realistic...but so long as it's a fun tag line, who cares about realistic, right?

The NFL (non-gaurenteed contracts) and the NBA (midlevels, longevity, max contracts, etc) are SO different than baseball..but largely the point is the same.

When KG goes out and puts up a triple double...he's performed well.

When he goes 2-15 with 4 reb and 1 block....he's had a tough night.

Neither has anything to do with how much they're paying him.

I don't think anyone has said that how much a player makes has an impact on how he performs.  Although you could argue players time and again career it in their contract year and get signed to a huge contract and never live up to it.  Happens all the time.  A case of "take the money and run".  They're motivated to earn that big paycheck, but once they get it, the motivation is gone.  I'm not suggesting that's the case here with A-Rod.  He's just getting older and isn't nearly as good as he used to be. 

How much a player makes certainly does have an impact on how fans judge him, especially when it's upwards of 25 million a year.  I'll agree with you that A-Rod is just not well liked, so he'd probably get heat regardless of his salary.  But if he decided to give the Yankees a hometown discount and took 2.5 million a year, I don't think the scrutiny would be quite as bad.  But I'll agree with your overall point that A-Rod is a dick.  But fans have every right to be upset with the player, and the organization for doling out bad contracts.  Trust me, I've seen plenty recently by the Red Sox.  Carl Crawford seems like a genuinely good guy, tries real hard.  He was a great player for Tampa and got severely overpaid by the Red Sox.  I don't blame him one bit for taking the money.  I blame the Red Sox for giving him that contract, yet they're now off the hook thank god.  Fans for the most part took it easy on Crawford, and aimed their displeasure towards the front office who signed him.  In A-Rod's case, it's tough to boo Brian Cashman when Alex strikes out with the bases loaded, or at least direct the boos his way.  It's shared displeasure in that case.  I don't think people put all the blame on A-Rod.  He took what was offered to him.  It's the Yankees fault for offering it. 

Whatever the case may be, it appears it could be a long 5 years for A-Rod the Yankee.  I'm sure when they made the deal they hoped they'd reap the benefits of his home run chase, and hopefully some more October magic.  Instead they've gotten more offensive slumps in October and a guy who can't seem to stay healthy in the regular season.

The bigger question is, will the Yankees change their philosophy on building a team?  Their pitching has been surprisingly good, so that's actually a strong starting point.  But their offense has failed them time and again in the post-season, minus the one World Series win, with their all or nothing approach.  They have far too many hitters who hit .250 and can hit 40 homers.  At least that's the way it seems.  I'd be tempted to let Granderson walk.  I might think about keeping Swisher, but he's been a disaster in his career in the post-season and since the Yankees are always in the post-season, he might not be a good fit for that reason.  I mean, it's not like Baltimore was throwing out Cy Young material in the ALDS.  And Fister is alright, Sanchez isn't all that great.  They're struggling against good pitching at best, and even that might be a stretch.  Also, struggling is an understatement.

[AxlsMainMan]

Scutaro had a big night courtesy of Holliday.

[pilferk]

Then why do you talk the way you do?

Because I have an opinion?

[pilferk]

I don't think anyone has said that how much a player makes has an impact on how he performs.  Although you could argue players time and again career it in their contract year and get signed to a huge contract and never live up to it.  Happens all the time.  A case of "take the money and run".  They're motivated to earn that big paycheck, but once they get it, the motivation is gone.  I'm not suggesting that's the case here with A-Rod.  He's just getting older and isn't nearly as good as he used to be. 

Really?

I could give you 25 million reasons why A-Rod is taking most of the heat for his offensive offensive performance.

If his salary has no impact on the actual performance...then there's no reason to have any influence on how much heat he takes.

You can "argue" anything you want.  But you can't really prove it.  As for "it happens all the time"...again, prove it.

I'd suggest age (or regression back to their historical averages) is a lot more likely, a lot more logical, and a lot more able to be quantified than a theory that these players lose motivation.

Do YOU lose motivation after you get a raise at work?

How much a player makes certainly does have an impact on how fans judge him, especially when it's upwards of 25 million a year.  I'll agree with you that A-Rod is just not well liked, so he'd probably get heat regardless of his salary.

I realize it does.

It shouldn't.

That's the point.

  But if he decided to give the Yankees a hometown discount and took 2.5 million a year, I don't think the scrutiny would be quite as bad.

A) We don't know if he did.  In fact, if you look at the actual yearly dollar amounts (and not the total average annual value), you'll see the contract $$'s decline as the contract progresses.  There are some pretty team friendly (other than the sheer number of dollars) provisions (like the declining value) in the contract.  It sure looks like there was at least some "hometown" considerations, there.

B) Would you give an employer, assuming all things are equal, a "discount"?

He did what anyone would do: Looked for the most amount of money he could get from a prospective employer.  And they, of their own free will, gave it to him...in a BUSINESS transaction. The amount of money he was "worth" on the open market, though, was more than pretty much any of us would command in the labor market. 

  But I'll agree with your overall point that A-Rod is a dick.  But fans have every right to be upset with the player, and the organization for doling out bad contracts.  Trust me, I've seen plenty recently by the Red Sox.  Carl Crawford seems like a genuinely good guy, tries real hard.  He was a great player for Tampa and got severely overpaid by the Red Sox.  I don't blame him one bit for taking the money.

BINGO!

  I blame the Red Sox for giving him that contract, yet they're now off the hook thank god.  Fans for the most part took it easy on Crawford, and aimed their displeasure towards the front office who signed him.  In A-Rod's case, it's tough to boo Brian Cashman when Alex strikes out with the bases loaded, or at least direct the boos his way.  It's shared displeasure in that case.  I don't think people put all the blame on A-Rod.  He took what was offered to him.  It's the Yankees fault for offering it. 

I would change "fault" in that last sentence to "decision' but, ultimately, BINGO! again.

I would, however, disagree with the fact that most fans (and haters) don't put all the blame on Arod.  In fact, if you listen to the fans talk...they do.

And, in season, during games (or a series) his paycheck has nothing to do with his performance or his abilities.  There are 8 other guys in that lineup...3 of which are hitting as bad or worse than he is.

Whatever the case may be, it appears it could be a long 5 years for A-Rod the Yankee.  I'm sure when they made the deal they hoped they'd reap the benefits of his home run chase, and hopefully some more October magic.  Instead they've gotten more offensive slumps in October and a guy who can't seem to stay healthy in the regular season.

Yes, but that's the point.

They offered him the extra $$, beyond what they though his on the field production would be, with an eye toward the "Bonds fervor".  They hoped the chase for the HR title would sell tickets, merch, etc. 

I would be shocked if they thought he would be a .300/30 guy for the back half of that contract.  They're not stupid.  Nobody else who looked at that contract thought it was likely he'd be a 40 year old guy putting up those numbers.

The bigger question is, will the Yankees change their philosophy on building a team?  Their pitching has been surprisingly good, so that's actually a strong starting point.  But their offense has failed them time and again in the post-season, minus the one World Series win, with their all or nothing approach.  They have far too many hitters who hit .250 and can hit 40 homers.  At least that's the way it seems.  I'd be tempted to let Granderson walk.  I might think about keeping Swisher, but he's been a disaster in his career in the post-season and since the Yankees are always in the post-season, he might not be a good fit for that reason.  I mean, it's not like Baltimore was throwing out Cy Young material in the ALDS.  And Fister is alright, Sanchez isn't all that great.  They're struggling against good pitching at best, and even that might be a stretch.  Also, struggling is an understatement.

They really HAVE changed their philosophy over the past couple years, and they've "promised" they're going to hit that 189 million (for at least 1 year) by 2014.

In the PS, since 2009..really...the players that have consistently failed are Swish, Tex (except this year) and Arod (minus 2009).  Last year, they scored runs...right up until Tex got hurt.  Then Nova got hurt.  And they were bitten in the last game of the ALDS by 1 run..with RISP and A-rod at the dish to end the game. In 2010, they had a great ALDS against the twins.  In the ALCS...remember the Texas pitching that year?  Even then, they managed to score runs.  Their pitching was just lousy.

I agree: They're struggling against less stellar pitching.  And if you look at the ABs....it's not the pitching.  It's the inability to make contact on good pitches to hit, and the fact they're swinging at balls and watching strikes in the zone.

[faldor]

If Yankee fans solely blame A-Rod for his contract and not the organization, then that gets back to sandman's point about the "limitless" payroll. Yankee fans don't care what they spend because they figure they can just cover it up. I used to feel the same way until the Red Sox got hamstrung by too many bad contracts. Maybe if it gets to that point, Yankee fans will feel differently. I sure do. Avoid signing big ticket free agents to long term deals in their 30's. More often than not it doesn't work out well.

I still disagree about a fan having no right to take salary into account when evaluating a player. This is big business and MAJOR money we're talking about. If we all made 25 million a year maybe we'd feel differently. But when someone makes that insane amount of money and doesn't "earn" it, it doesn't go over well. Nor should it. A guy can have a bad day, a bad month even. Guys go through slumps, it happens. But when it becomes the norm, that's when it becomes a major issue. Such is the case presently for A-Rod.

[sandman]

No comment on the Phillies examples, eh? 

what are you insinuating?

as for the discussion....so you let the "back of a card" determine your expectations for a player. and if the player doesn't live up to those expectations, then it is ok for fans to criticize him? if so, i definitely agree with that.

[GeorgeSteele]

I think baseball (and sports in general) is somewhat different than a typical business because there's a 'product' loyalty that doesn't quite apply in other businesses.  For example, if my favorite local pizzeria starts topping its pizzas with shit, I will cease patronizing them.  Whereas, Jason Bay and his $66M contract can continue to take a dump on the field night after night and I will still stand by the Mets.  Of course, team loyalty is completely irrational and makes no sense whatsoever (we all root for laundry --- and even that changes), but it is what it is and we're all guilty of it.  Teams obviously exploit that, so fans get pissed.

Regarding Jason Bay, yes, the organization is ultimately to blame for that decision, but the decision was made based on expectations of performance.  I don't doubt his motivation or effort, but it's a results-based business and he has not lived up to those expectations. I doubt that there were any material business considerations that went into signing him outside of his field performance.  It's not like Jason Bay is a guy that was going to create a marketing buzz for the team where he'd be a regular in the NY gossip columns, sunbathe shirtless in Central Park or date Madonna.

[Bodhi]

I think baseball (and sports in general) is somewhat different than a typical business because there's a 'product' loyalty that doesn't quite apply in other businesses.  For example, if my favorite local pizzeria starts topping its pizzas with shit, I will cease patronizing them.  Whereas, Jason Bay and his $66M contract can continue to take a dump on the field night after night and I will still stand by the Mets.  Of course, team loyalty is completely irrational and makes no sense whatsoever (we all root for laundry --- and even that changes), but it is what it is and we're all guilty of it.  Teams obviously exploit that, so fans get pissed.

Ha, good point.  I remember a sociology professor of mine once talked about how silly it is to root for sports teams, which of course we all disagreed with at the time.  He said we are essentially just blindly rooting for big corporations like Sony or Apple no matter what type of business decisions they make or products they produce.  There is some truth to that.  For example if for the last 10 years,  Sony only made terrible products that were always worse than their competitors,  would I continuously buy Sony products?  Of course not.  However, I still pour money into the Oakland Raiders.