OT - I'm bored, Part Pangos & Bell!

[Cobiemonster]

It's also harder to get people to the gate when fewer people live in the gate's area, which is also plain and simple.

Plus, larger markets get bigger TV deals, because there are more people to reach on the television.

And more money makes it easier to eat mistakes, which is the big thing. The Dodgers, for example, were able to deal with a bad contract to Kemp (and then deal him, eating salary, for new assets) because they had the surplus money to fill out the lineup around him and despite him. If Rusney Castillo doesn't work out for the Red Sox, whatever, they can go out and get a new guy. And of course there's the huge benefit in the international market, where only teams with massive revenue streams can sign the top talent, because the top talent costs twice the contract they sign due to the fines for exceeding international signing budgets. (Again, see the Dodgers.)

The Pirates are succeeding because they've been able to home-grow some regulars from amateur talent sources (cheap signings on the international market, the cost-controlled entry draft, trades), and their Major League scouts have been outstanding at finding undervalued sources of production (Martin, Burnett, Cervelli, Liriano). The Athletics do a tremendous job of using roster turnover and good scouting in the high minors to remain competitive. The Royals have exploited market inefficiencies as well in building their team, predicating it on speed and defense instead of pitching and power. The Cards are a mid-market team, so they don't fit entirely into the "small market success" narrative, but they also have outstanding amateur scouting and a methodical and effective development system in the Minors. The Twins are kind of a fluke, and I don't expect them to keep this up for the rest of this year or certainly into next.

The Yankees, on the other hand, have been able to eat a lot of injury time from Tex, a massive mistake contract to Sabbathia, and still sign a guy like Ellsbury because they just have so much money. And they have room to add salary, too. Lots of it. The Dodgers can go get whatever talent they want in whatever market they want to get it. Same with the Angels, who have also eaten some rough contracts and continued to add despite it.

Imagine if the big-market teams also employed the savvy of the successful small market teams! Well, the Cubs are now, and we're about to see the fruits of it. The Yankees are, too, but they'll not peak again for a few years, I think. The Dodgers do, too, they just use it on the higher-priced markets. As the small market teams discover market inefficiencies, the large market teams will destroy them, and the small market teams will be forced to find new ones. Eventually, that will get harder and harder.

Hopefully the Phillies were learn to mix in some good drafting and developing with the $ because they have all the tools to be great if they had a scouting staff that knew what they were doing and would go out and sign more players from the international market - they don't have a lot of top prospects right now, but Aaron Nola was promoted a week ago and he's 1-1 in 2 starts so far(he's looked real good) while J.P. Crawford is a stud and should be the shortstop of the future - Mikael Franco is a stud as well and those are three guys that are homegrown and can be great contributors to the future - this is how the Phillies were great the first time around, all their superstars were homegrown and it allowed them to go out and sign some other guys to complement the roster

 

[Cobiemonster]

Jokes aside, we'll wait and see if this is official, but why are the Braves trading Alex Wood? He's a good young pitcher and that's something I thought the Braves valued

 

[Darkstone42]

Jokes aside, we'll wait and see if this is official, but why are the Braves trading Alex Wood? He's a good young pitcher and that's something I thought the Braves valued

He's got wonky mechanics, so they might fear his shelf life will be short and want to flip him at maximum value.

 

[Cobiemonster]

He's got wonky mechanics, so they might fear his shelf life will be short and want to flip him at maximum value.

Possibly, but if they're trading him because of his mechanics, then that would be pretty sad - lots of top pitchers have mechanics that aren't perfect

Ken Rosenthal hinted if this deal happens, they could flip him for Cole Hamels or David Price - if the Phillies do move Cole, I think adding Alex Wood would be a good addition - they need a young, controllable starting pitcher and if they can get some other real good prospects, that might not be a bad deal - but I'll still be sad if and when they move Cole

 

[Cobiemonster]

Wow!

 

[Darkstone42]

Possibly, but if they're trading him because of his mechanics, then that would be pretty sad - lots of top pitchers have mechanics that aren't perfect

Ken Rosenthal hinted if this deal happens, they could flip him for Cole Hamels or David Price - if the Phillies do move Cole, I think adding Alex Wood would be a good addition - they need a young, controllable starting pitcher and if they can get some other real good prospects, that might not be a bad deal - but I'll still be sad if and when they move Cole

Wanting Wood back would make sense for the Tigers or the Phillies. And obviously, the Dodgers love their aces.

But there's a difference between imperfect mechanics and potentially risky mechanics. Wood's are pretty wild, and his injury risk is high. That's a reason to try to get "safer" prospects back from the Braves' perspective.

 

[Cobiemonster]

Wanting Wood back would make sense for the Tigers or the Phillies. And obviously, the Dodgers love their aces.

But there's a difference between imperfect mechanics and potentially risky mechanics. Wood's are pretty wild, and his injury risk is high. That's a reason to try to get "safer" prospects back from the Braves' perspective.

I think there's a fine line between acknowledging that his delivery is wild and then having a team trying to completely change it - he's a real good young pitcher and I don't know if I'd want to try and re-invent him, it would be a lot of work and you could risk making him a lesser quality pitcher - maybe the Braves get safer prospects back in return but it will not necessarily mean they are going to be better for it going forward

 

[Darkstone42]

I think there's a fine line between acknowledging that his delivery is wild and then having a team trying to completely change it - he's a real good young pitcher and I don't know if I'd want to try and re-invent him, it would be a lot of work and you could risk making him a lesser quality pitcher - maybe the Braves get safer prospects back in return but it will not necessarily mean they are going to be better for it going forward

No one's going to reinvent him. He's going to keep using the odd mechanics. The Braves are passing the injury risk to someone else, that's all.

 

[Nasty_Magician]

Unofficial: Carlos Gomez to the Mets for Zack Wheeler and Wilmer Flores. I hate parting with Wheeler but one of the young arms had to go if we wanted a big piece. Flores is a decent player but certainly replaceable.

 

[Cobiemonster]

Holy shit he's going to be a riot for them

 

[pixburgher66]

I can see that small market teams like the Royals, Twins, Cards and Pirates are truly struggling this year.

Wait a minute...

Yeah, because they have savvy leadership. They're succeeding despite the disadvantages the system has built in. DS pretty much laid it out. Moneyball shifted the mentality and gave small markets something, but all it really meant was big markets could throw money at these fancy stats. You cannot sincerely believe the MLB is a fair system. Even with all these small market teams having success right now, some of them fade in a few years most likely, because they'll lose talent due to money. Small market teams have a much smaller window to have success. Again, my point about it this time of year is these albatross contracts for good, not great, players can be absorbed by teams like the Dodgers, allowing them to hold on to a better asset. They basically get to pay to keep their assets.

 

[dare2be]

Again, my point about it this time of year is these albatross contracts for good, not great, players can be absorbed by teams like the Dodgers, allowing them to hold on to a better asset. They basically get to pay to keep their assets.

Plus, these bloated albatross contracts also drive up the market salary rates for the entire league, causing small market teams to tighten their purse strings even more, and cause even more pressure on their short success windows.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Yeah, because they have savvy leadership. They're succeeding despite the disadvantages the system has built in. DS pretty much laid it out. Moneyball shifted the mentality and gave small markets something, but all it really meant was big markets could throw money at these fancy stats. You cannot sincerely believe the MLB is a fair system. Even with all these small market teams having success right now, some of them fade in a few years most likely, because they'll lose talent due to money. Small market teams have a much smaller window to have success. Again, my point about it this time of year is these albatross contracts for good, not great, players can be absorbed by teams like the Dodgers, allowing them to hold on to a better asset. They basically get to pay to keep their assets.

This argument isn't grounded in fact. The teams that are suffering for longer amounts of time these days are teams giving out those fat contracts once players his the UFA market at 28-31. The Yankees had a lot of down years after giving deals to A-Rod, Tex, CC etc. (even if two of those guys are having good years now). The Red Sox, minus that seemingly miraculous WS in 2013, have been bad since the turn of the decade despite having all the money on earth. The Angels have spent big for years and gotten nowhere. The Mariners gave out some big contracts and are still one of the bigger jokes in the league. The Jays went and acquired big money guys and have the league's longest playoff drought. The Dodgers have been spending crazy since they were sold and haven't sniffed the World Series since the 80s. Meanwhile, teams that manage talent and money well - the Giants, Cards, Orioles, Tampa, Oakland, Atlanta, Minny for a long time - are the ones who have been in the playoffs nonstop and have systems designed to maximise the distance their dollar can take them.

If your beef is that the Dodgers have more money than everybody else, okay then. If your beef is that 3 or 4 teams are making all the big-money deals, you're wrong.

2014 MLB Baseball Free Agent Tracker - Major League Baseball - ESPN

Last winter the top 6 spenders were Washington, Boston, the 2 Chicago teams, the Yankees and th Jays. The winter before it was the Yankees, Mariners, Texas, Mets, Twins, KC. 2012 it was the Dodgers, Angels, Cleveland, Detroit, Boston, SF. Out of 18 positions over 3 years there were 16 different teams amongst the top 20% in offseason spending, more than half the league. The teams with wise management aren't spending to the gills anymore, they're simply picking and choosing their time to spend.

 

[Cobiemonster]

Good luck in Texas, Cole!

So sad to see him leave and I hate that it came down to this, Ruben Amaro Jr. mishandled this team horribly and they had to end up trading Cole because of it - he was a big game pitcher and the best homegrown pitcher they have had in a LONG time - he was the one who put this team over the top because they started making the playoffs once he came in

I hope the prospects turn out to be good but they are prospects and you never know what you get out of them

 

[dare2be]

Here is my compiled data for your perusal. I only wish I could go back even further in time for a larger sample size.

               Total Salary    Wins   Salary  Wins
                2009-2015      Total   Rank   Rank
Yankees      $1,454,554,800     616      1      1
Dodgers      $1,134,604,880     591      2      3
Red Sox      $1,101,307,200     555      3     10
Phillies     $1,080,934,100     557      4      9
Tigers         $959,385,500     581      5      4
Giants         $878,432,890     579      6      7
Cubs           $805,139,390     481      7     29
Angels         $762,573,550     523      8     15
Mets           $758,580,590     505      9     23
White Sox      $747,252,460     515     10     18
Cardinals      $744,348,160     606     11      2
Rangers        $731,182,800     571     12      8
Nationals      $692,193,270     540     13     13
Blue Jays      $647,401,600     521     14     17
Braves         $641,760,600     581     15      5
Mariners       $641,255,750     492     16     28
Reds           $641,085,200     555     17     11
Twins          $639,521,430     498     18     26
Orioles        $632,709,740     523     19     16
Brewers        $629,946,830     536     20     14
Royals         $613,402,690     514     21     19
Rockies        $591,662,950     495     22     27
Marlins        $586,584,420     507     23     22
Diamondbacks   $529,719,020     503     24     25
Indians        $518,458,380     504     25     24
Padres         $466,504,730     512     26     20
Athletics      $460,726,460     553     27     12
Rays           $450,271,310     581     28      6
Pirates        $435,667,490     510     29     21
Astros         $347,129,700     471     30     30

 

[dare2be]

The Yankees had a lot of down years after giving deals to A-Rod, Tex, CC etc. (even if two of those guys are having good years now). The Red Sox, minus that seemingly miraculous WS in 2013, have been bad since the turn of the decade despite having all the money on earth.

The numbers don't support that. Does "bad" mean still being in the top 10 in wins? Sure, their expected performance suffered with these bad contracts, but both teams were still #1 and #10 in wins over the last 7 years. What you are describing is the short windows of failure that the top-salaried teams are subject to, mirroring the short windows of success the bottom teams have. Of course there are a few outliers (Rays, A's, Cubs, Mets)

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

The numbers don't support that. Does "bad" mean still being in the top 10 in wins? Sure, their expected performance suffered with these bad contracts, but both teams were still #1 and #10 in wins over the last 7 years. What you are describing is the short windows of failure that the top-salaried teams are subject to, mirroring the short windows of success the bottom teams have. Of course there are a few outliers (Rays, A's, Cubs, Mets)

Of the ten teams at the top of that list after the Yankees, all but two are higher in the salary rank than they are in wins. Of the bottom ten excluding the Astros, all but two are higher in the win ranking than salary. This chart is showing that teams that don't spend as much are punching above their weight class on a regular basis while teams that spend are not winning commensurate with their spending.

 

[dare2be]

Right, because the top have nowhere to go but down, and the bottom have nowhere to go but up, generally speaking. But the top half tier in salary remain in the top half tier in wins, and vice versa, with only a handful of exceptions. Most of the differences in rank between wins and salary are within a few numbers, again with some exceptions.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Right, because the top have nowhere to go but down, and the bottom have nowhere to go but up, generally speaking. But the top half tier in salary remain in the top half tier in wins, and vice versa, with only a handful of exceptions. Most of the differences in rank between wins and salary are within a few numbers, again with some exceptions.

Wouldn't this back me up in that the difference in success between haves and have-nots is rather small?

I don't think big-spending teams don't have an advantage, I just believe that advantage is negated by the strategy of drafting and developing and trading talent with expiring contracts for more prospects to develop that small-budget teams tend to employ. It creates a good balance.

 

[dare2be]

Where the difference in haves and have-nots gets magnified is in the divisional alignments. Teams in the AL East who aren't the Yankees or Red Sox have a much higher disparity in playoff appearances compared to those two. Same goes with the NL West (Dodgers/Giants), and to some degree the NL Central (Cardinals, 11th in spending). The more equitable a division is in salary range top-to-bottom, the more leveled-out the playoff appearances become.

Outside a salary control/cap, maybe we should re-align the divisions based on historical spending, and do a re-alignment every 10 years.