Repost from previous thread (my timing sucks):

Sabathia has been everything we’d hope he’d be so far. He wasn’t so hot in the playoffs in 2010, but I think we won both games he started against Texas. With Buehrle and a bunch of question marks as FA’s for 2012, he’d sort of be crazy not to opt out. Re: Cashman’s quote about giving Sabathia the opt out, makes you wonder why it was at the 3 year mark and not, say, after 2 years (when Lee was an FA) or 4 years (can’t seem to find a 2013 FA list.)

Makes you also wonder about all those people (myself included) pining for a good team with a more controlled payroll. Let’s say Sabathia and Soriano both opt out - that puts payroll obligations at ~$117M + ~6 arb cases (most of which are higher arb years.) The problem is, there’s no one to spend it on. Given the market, Phila likely will pick up Oswalt’s option. Prince Fielder as a DH? Pujols as a DH? Jeter to DH and sign Jose Reyes?

Considering this situation, 2010 is going to be quite interesting re: Burnett, Hughes, Betances, Brackman, Banuelos, Nova, and (fingers crossed) Chamberlain. That’s sort of why I hope the leash is quite small for Garcia and Colon. If this is aN 89 win team, I’d rather it be an 89 win team and have a bunch of MLB data on these guys to go on. Chance for the player development part of the organization to really shine or fall flat on it’s face if you ask me.

If he opts out I really hope they let him walk.

If CC opts out, Jay-Z is kicking him out of the VIP room…

If he opts out I really hope they let him walk.

How difficult will it be for Yankee management to admit that the ARod contract after his opt out was a mistake?

Chance for the player development part of the organization to really shine or fall flat on it’s face if you ask me.

I dunno. I guess I prefer to see it as the team has options, too. We have CC until we might not “need” him as much, providing our young pitchers deliver on their potential. And if they don’t, then hey, you gave it a shot and go ahead and sign CC et. al.

They will absolutely need CC next year. Even if a few of the kids emerge, how do you replace 230 Cy Young quality innings?

If he opts out I really hope they let him walk.

Why?  I mean, if he asks for 8/200 sure let him walk.  But you don’t yet know what he’ll be asking for (NY papers are just speculating).  E.g. if he asks for 6/144 (2 more years, slight raise) after pitching as well this year as the prior two, what would be the purpose in not signing him?

[6] The only remotely possible scenarios would involve fairy-tale debuts from at least one of the youngins, and Cano running amok in the clubhouse biting Wolf-AJ, and Wolf-Fuse. Plus injury/implosion by CC going into the option year, in which case he would decline to exercise.

Yeah, he’s gonna A-Rod us. Maybe they’d be smarter to lock him up in August and convert his options, if only to avoid the public process in the offseason.

E.g. if he asks for 6/144 (2 more years, slight raise) after pitching as well this year as the prior two, what would be the purpose in not signing him?

Because like Cliff Lee this year, age would no longer be on his side.  You could swallow his original contract because of his age at the start.  Basically the same contract again starting at 31?  No thanks.  In fact, when his original contract was signed I said I hope he opts out.  3 years for C.C. in his prime is a freakin’ steal.  Of course I hoped to be in a better position right now but Cash had 3 years to make keeping C.C. a luxury and really botched that.  His two targets A.J. and Lee were very poor choices.

Because of that, unfortunately it doesn’t look like they have a choice.  However given the choice between giving C.C. that contract and giving Lee what they offered him I’d much rather give it to C.C.

Assuming Cash’s points posted at LoHud are an accurate read on CC’s mindset before the contract was signed, and even knowing that CC would opt-out, I would still have given him the same contract.

I agree with [7].

The Times: Jeter will hit leadoff.

Oy.

I don’t mind Jeter leading off until he gets to 3,000 and then re-evaluating things after that.  With the expected differences we are talking about between the lineup with Jeter leading off and a lineup with Gardner leading off who really cares?  Give Jeter the opportunity to bounce back, let him have his moment, and then look at things at that point.  It’s really such a small issue it isn’t really worth talking about.

I don’t blame him if he opts out:  If he turns in another year like the last two, he can clearly command a better contract going forward than he has now, whether from the Yankees or another team.  I’d rather see him have that 3d good year and opt out than, for example, see him fall apart and thus transform the remaining contract into a huge albatross. 

If he does opt out, it’s still more likely than not he’s going to remain a Yankee.

It’s really such a small issue it isn’t really worth talking about.

What are you doing here?

[11] Yeah I don’t mind Jeter hitting leadoff to start the year.  As long as performance dictates where he’s hitting in the 2nd half (if not sooner).  If he can do 2007’s OBP (388) he’ll be fine there.  Heck if he can do 2008 (363) that’s probably fine - yeah Gardner is better, but they may be better w/ Gardner 2 and Jeter 1 than flipped, or Jeter down in the lineup and…Swisher? as #2.  Definitely though, if Jeter’s OBP is below 350, he shouldn’t be in the top-6 of the lineup.

Just for reference, last year Jeter got his 74th hit on June 6th.

Because like Cliff Lee this year, age would no longer be on his side.  You could swallow his original contract because of his age at the start.  Basically the same contract again starting at 31?

6 year deal?  Yes, I’m okay with that.  8 year deal?  No, I’ll pass thanks.  I’m not that concerned w/ a contract taking him through age 36.  Sure, anything can happen.  But he’s been durable, he’s been good, and the Yankees will likely be better off having him those 6 years than not.  However, I would fully expect him to be a #3 starter by age 36 and on the downslope.  Sure, 20+ million for a number 3 is too much, but partly they’ll be paying later for extra performance now.  But ages 37 and 38 he’ll be falling further towards #5 starter, and I’d rather not have that on the team.

I can’t believe people would rather the Yankees have a lower payroll than win.

That is what you are saying when you want CC to leave and the Yankees to not sign him, because like someone said above, there’s pretty much no one else worthwhile on the market to spend the money on.

Better Jeter leads off then bats 2nd and lays down those annoying 1st inning bunts or hits into a DP.  In realpolitik those were the only 2 choices.  Wait till next year.
Statistically speaking isnt it probable that at most one of the Bs develops into a 1 or 2?

What’s a better deal? 

Pujols for 10/270 or Sabathia for 7/130?

[20] - I don’t think you could get C.C. for a $38/3 extension.  It’s probably closer to a $54/3 minimum (front loaded).  A new deal at $144/6 (as Mike suggested) or a $168/7 deal is more realistic.  If Texas was willing to go to those number for Lee, why not C.C.?

As a side note, why do people list contracts as 6/$144 instead of my way?  Is years per million really more informative then millions per year?  I know it’s stupid but as someone with a degree in math it always bothered me. (happy Frog?)

[18]  I totally agree.  People seem to assume that the Yankees’ current payroll represents about the upper limits of what they can afford, and thus if they were to give CC an extension that raises his AAV by, say, $5 million, that means they won’t be able to afford other great players that may want in the future.  I just don’t see any evidence that aggregate payroll is a significant limiting factor now or in the foreseeable future.  If they are currently around $200 million in aggregate payroll, who’s to say they couldn’t, in theory, afford another $50-100 million in total AAV and still make money?  It’s not the total payroll, but the availability of great players to spend it on, that seems to be the main limiting factor.

Hypothetically, if they extend CC and raise his AAV by $5 million, that’s only something like a 3% bump in their total payroll.

Also, while people generally assume that handing out big contracts now means less money for big contracts in later years, I think the opposite is more accurate.  As we’ve already seen with Soriano, for example, the fact that the Yankees already have a $200+ million investment in the team makes them MORE wlling to go after expensive free agents in order to protect that investment.

As a side note, why do people list contracts as 6/$144 instead of my way?  Is years per million really more informative then millions per year?  I know it’s stupid but as someone with a degree in math it always bothered me. (happy Frog?)

I’ve also got a degree in Math (though mine was a secondary), and it doesn’t bother be.  Though I see your point.  I guess I write it as short-hand for the way *I* would say it.  That is, I would sign CC for a “six year contract for one-hundred forty-four million dollars”.  So I abbreviate that to 6yrs/$144M, or if I’m in a hurry/lazy 6/144.

I imagine this thread is about to die w/ a new post up, but I just wanted to agree w/ [18] and [22].  Until we get to a point where the Yankees are passing on talent b/c they can’t afford them, the payroll thing is overblown.  When was the last time they passed on a player?  Beltran.  Huge mistake, of course, but it hasn’t happened again.  And there just aren’t that many players out there in the near future.

If they are currently around $200 million in aggregate payroll, who’s to say they couldn’t, in theory, afford another $50-100 million in total AAV and still make money? It’s not the total payroll, but the availability of great players to spend it on, that seems to be the main limiting factor.

I think they could afford to spend $50m more a year and still make a healthy profit, but they likely won’t do that because there is a very real concern that if they raise the payroll beyond what it is now that there will be a significant increase in the onerous Yankee tax in the next CBA.

Could it be because some contracts are front or backloaded?

I just don’t see any evidence that aggregate payroll is a significant limiting factor now or in the foreseeable future.  If they are currently around $200 million in aggregate payroll, who’s to say they couldn’t, in theory, afford another $50-100 million in total AAV and still make money?

A few points. 

1) We’ve already seen that there are limits.  Cash had to go to Hal and ask for borrowing against 2010 to sign Teix in 2009.  And then was denied trading for Mike Cameron at the deadline in 2009.  I don’t know how Hal comes to the budget number, and sure maybe the number for 2012 will be $240M so no big deal what they’re giving out.  But then again, maybe it will be $197.5 million. 

2) One of the issues that only gets talked about occasionally - new CBA.  If Yankees continue to flout the luxury tax too much, it’s possible ownership will push for new rules.  E.g. maybe a graduated tax so that every $ over 175M will be a 100% tax instead of current (I think 40% tax).  Keeping the payroll lower may prevent that, which ALSO may allow them to really splurge for a year or two in the future.

3) Different people different concerns.  My concern would be potentially owing CC $50M or so in his age 37 and 38 years, when he’s potentially a 1 WAR (or worse) player.  I don’t mind overpaying for talent.  But sinking potentially 1/10th of their payroll in a player who provides no value WILL be a problem.  If they’re overpaying for someone that is going to be on the team anyway, that’s fine (to a point).  Paying a ton for someone you want to give the same treatment you’re giving Garcia?  Problem.

As we’ve already seen with Soriano, for example, the fact that the Yankees already have a $200+ million investment in the team makes them MORE wlling to go after expensive free agents in order to protect that investment.

While true, the doesn’t mean they should spend willy-nilly.  For example, if $15M was already tied up in a BAD player, maybe they wouldn’t have even been in the running for Lee.  And they ALSO wouldn’t have gotten Soriano.  As bad as Soriano’s contract was, I’m sure we’d rather have him for 2011 than say Barry Zito for the next several years (well, most would).

The downfall of writing a book like I did - Rich summed it up in a couple of sentences.

[21] I’m not sure why I write it 5/100 or 6/120, but if I had to guess it would be that I look at the number of years first.  I’m a Cubs fan and when I saw the Cubs signed Marmol I first wanted to know for how many years.  I understand what you’re saying though.  Expressing it 100/5 probably makes more sense.

[24] - Holliday and Crawford are upgrades over Gardner/Swisher.  They passed on both in consecutive seasons.  Now you could say they wanted to get Lee and didn’t so they aren’t as close to that limit anymore but there is a limit and they did pass on players that could help them because of it.

Holliday and Crawford are upgrades over Gardner/Swisher.

Upgrades in a total value sense, yes, but not upgrades when you consider value per dollar. When you mix that in with the fact that Gardner and Swisher are above some minimum threshold that they provide enough value to contribute to a championship caliber team, passing o Holliday and/or Crawford makes total sense.

“but not upgrades when you consider value per dollar”

Which is a bad thing to do if you have an infinite budget.  One thing Gardner and Swisher have regardless is short contracts.  Though I guess in the infinite budget world if you want flexibility to e.g. start Laird you can just DFA A-Rod.

[31] - Only if you have the ability and opportunity to spend the money more efficiently elsewhere.  However as rilkefan said, if you are assuming and unlimited ability and willingness to spend (as you are assuming) then concerns like that aren’t an issue.

Holliday and Crawford provided real upgrades.  This team would be significantly better with one or both of them.

[18] Andrew, I agree it’s pretty annoying to come to a Yankees site and read NY fans argue that CC should walk if he opts out.

Yanks are nothing without that big guy.

[34] - This is the 35th post in the thread (assume none sneak in before me) and only 1 post has said let him walk and he didn’t even try to argue it.

I don’t admit to knowing much about what’s around the corner with the CBA.  That said, the free agent market is thin ahead, so saving money for another FA star isn’t likely much of a motivation for letting CC walk.  To my way of thinking I would do something they don’t normally do and sit down before this season and tack on some money and another year or so and be done with it.  If not and this is a bad season for Yanks it may make the west coast more attractive again to CC.  I’m sure the SF Giants look more attractive since when he signed with NY.

I’m sort of tired also about debating the A-rod contract issue.  Doesn’t anyone appreciate that without A-rod the 27th flag doesnt go up?  Most teams will position themselves and sacrifice for one championship every 20 years. He is overpaid no doubt, but I think he’ll still put up 25 homers per year over the remainder of the contract.

I live in the midwest and the papers are full of high predictions for the KC Royals in 2012-15 due to their no. 1 rating with farm propects.  Sometimes I think there are those out there that believe youth is the end all to everything.  The article also predicts that minor league projections are a very long way from major league stardom.  A good minor league system provides hope for the future but guarantees no certainty.  I am glad Cashman has re- built the Yankee farm, but I would hate to depend solely on it for pennant contention in the years to come as so many other teams are forced to do.

“I would hate to depend solely on it for pennant contention in the years to come as so many other teams are forced to do.”

What I failed to add is that the Yankee advantage is the fiancial ability to keep our own Free Agent players but getting other teams star FAs is more difficult going ahead as most teams are locking the young proven stars up.

“[34] - This is the 35th post in the thread (assume none sneak in before me) and only 1 post has said let him walk and he didn’t even try to argue it.”

Yeah, god forbid people have ideas some disagree with.  Here’s an actually controversial opinion: I would rather the Yankees win slightly less with a much lower budget.  It would make for more interesting strategy discussions and - to me - sweeter triumphs.

[32] I imagine MC in VA reading this and thinking, “There are tangible costs to DFAing veteran stars who can still start - you won’t be able to sign any again”.

In the infinite budget world, Cashman could have offered another $5m/y to Lee.  Or whatever was necessary.  The fact that he didn’t seems like pretty good proof to me that we’re not in that world.

I am glad Cashman has re- built the Yankee farm, but I would hate to depend solely on it for pennant contention in the years to come as so many other teams are forced to do.

Of course not.  There are some of us that think the BETTER way to build a long-term contender is to build your team through the minors, and supplement with FA or trades.

More than cost savings - where there is also value - you have the fact that you’re getting 4-5 prime years out of the player.  Maybe more if you lock the player up a little early (like Cano).  Or like w/ Jeter (or Bernie or Mo or…), when you can afford to get the player to buy into wanting to be in pinstripes, and then you can get 10-15 good years.  That’s where the Yankees advantage lies over other teams.  *Not* importing the biggest FA.  But if they can get that next young core to build off of, they can afford to keep that core together for a decade.  But buying FA, usually you get them after turning 30, and only have a few years where they are key contributors.  And as we saw this last off-season, if you NEED to get the FA to complete your team, you might not.

Here’s an actually controversial opinion: I would rather the Yankees win slightly less with a much lower budget.  It would make for more interesting strategy discussions and - to me - sweeter triumphs.

I think mine is slightly different - I’d rather the Yankees miss the playoffs for a year or two and build a solid core from within to begin the next dynasty. Sure, flags fly forever.  But this isn’t a team that should put all their eggs in the basket to get one more championship.  I WANT them to make the playoffs in 2011.  But if they miss the playoffs b/c they don’t trade Montero, Banuelos, and Phelps for Hanley (Jeter sucks by ASB) and trade Betances, Romine, and Laird for Liriano, well, I’m okay with that.  Some of those guys will form the next core.  The others will either be used to get important complimentary pieces (e.g. guys like Justice), or will be important role-players themselves.

[31] - Only if you have the ability and opportunity to spend the money more efficiently elsewhere.

You mean, like starting pitching?

Hey SD2528, maybe you should work on your reading comprehension and what a writer infers with tone up until to #35…I count 5. Is that a good enough sample size for you, you freaking anal retentive small penis math wiz?

2. Posted at 9:49:59 am on Tuesday, February 15, 2011 by dakranker
If he opts out I really hope they let him walk.

5. Posted at 10:22:44 am on Tuesday, February 15, 2011 by Pinstriper
Chance for the player development part of the organization to really shine or fall flat on it’s face if you ask me.

I dunno. I guess I prefer to see it as the team has options, too. We have CC until we might not “need” him as much, providing our young pitchers deliver on their potential. And if they don’t, then hey, you gave it a shot and go ahead and sign CC et. al.

9. Posted at 10:52:22 am on Tuesday, February 15, 2011 by sd2528
E.g. if he asks for 6/144 (2 more years, slight raise) after pitching as well this year as the prior two, what would be the purpose in not signing him?

Because like Cliff Lee this year, age would no longer be on his side.  You could swallow his original contract because of his age at the start.  Basically the same contract again starting at 31?  No thanks.  In fact, when his original contract was signed I said I hope he opts out.  3 years for C.C. in his prime is a freakin’ steal.  Of course I hoped to be in a better position right now but Cash had 3 years to make keeping C.C. a luxury and really botched that.  His two targets A.J. and Lee were very poor choices.

Because of that, unfortunately it doesn’t look like they have a choice.  However given the choice between giving C.C. that contract and giving Lee what they offered him I’d much rather give it to C.C.

17. Posted at 12:04:06 pm on Tuesday, February 15, 2011 by Mike K.
Because like Cliff Lee this year, age would no longer be on his side.  You could swallow his original contract because of his age at the start.  Basically the same contract again starting at 31?

6 year deal?  Yes, I’m okay with that.  8 year deal?  No, I’ll pass thanks.  I’m not that concerned w/ a contract taking him through age 36.  Sure, anything can happen.  But he’s been durable, he’s been good, and the Yankees will likely be better off having him those 6 years than not.  However, I would fully expect him to be a #3 starter by age 36 and on the downslope.  Sure, 20+ million for a number 3 is too much, but partly they’ll be paying later for extra performance now.  But ages 37 and 38 he’ll be falling further towards #5 starter, and I’d rather not have that on the team.

27. 3) Different people different concerns.  My concern would be potentially owing CC $50M or so in his age 37 and 38 years, when he’s potentially a 1 WAR (or worse) player.  I don’t mind overpaying for talent.  But sinking potentially 1/10th of their payroll in a player who provides no value WILL be a problem.  If they’re overpaying for someone that is going to be on the team anyway, that’s fine (to a point).  Paying a ton for someone you want to give the same treatment you’re giving Garcia?  Problem.

“I’m sort of tired also about debating the A-rod contract issue.  Doesn’t anyone appreciate that without A-rod the 27th flag doesnt go up?”

Many posters here don’t actually care about individual seasons when they’re posting. They care about long term budget flexibility and giving young guys a chance to play.

As rilkefan says, it’s all about the “SWEETNESS” of victory, not actually winning.

“Yeah, god forbid people have ideas some disagree with.”

Not all opinions are equal. The Yanks without CC is one ugly scenario, unless you guys fell in love with pictures of Andrew Brackman, and you can’t think str8.

I’m sort of tired also about debating the A-rod contract issue.  Doesn’t anyone appreciate that without A-rod the 27th flag doesnt go up?

It’s also possible that they could have retained A-Rod, but signed him to a contract for significantly less money and years.

But if you ask me if one WS is worth 10 years/$275M, I would say no.

But if you ask me if one WS is worth 10 years/$275M, I would say no.

I respect your view but would suggest that there are a number of teams that would pay that price over 10 years to guarantee their first ever World Series championship or their first one in say nearly 100 years. Perhaps the fact that Jeter and company had four in the bag before 2009 has shaped your opinion of the price.

I’m old enough to very clearly remember the years of decline of the Yankees from 65-76 after the draft was established and prior to free agency.  At that time real parity didn’t work out to well for Yankee fans.  Part of that was due to some really poor drafting and scouting.  We had a lot of cheap young so-called stars that never amounted to anything over that period. Roger Repoz, Steve Whitaker, Bill Burbach.  I can’t believe we had the number one choice in the nation in 67 and drafted the first designated hitter.  Point is, rebuilding is overated.  I like re-loading a lot better.

Shelley Duncan facts!

Is that a good enough sample size for you, you freaking anal retentive small penis math wiz?

Am I on rlyw, an espNESN board, or halosheaven?

The real reason to keep CC - even if he insults the Might Stienbrenners by using a clause they agreed to in his contract (the NERVE of the ba*tard!) - is:

CC and Hughes are two well above average front line pitchers - almost ready are the 23 year old (same age as Drabek for instance) Betances, a 6’8” 245 Clydesdale, with two plus-plus pitches, Banuelos, or Tiny Tim, a little lefty with three plus pitches and Brackman with above average stuff and who significantly improved in 2010.

IF - two of these guys are frontline guys - and they just might be - how hard is it going to be to get one more by trade, free agency or - as my 12 year old niece would say by “Whatever.”

The loss of CC would waste the zillions being spent on Arod, Tex, Cano, etc. There is too much GOOD money being spent to get into a snit and not re-up CC. Personally, I think he wants to re-sign and it will only take a few million bonus + the rest of the existing contract to get him on board.

You’ve got the cash Cash - just do it! (When the time comes).

You have a loose definition for “well above average front line”.

Can we please argue about the statements we disagree with without insulting the posters who made them?

How does anyone know what anyone else is carrying around anyway…Wait, I probably don’t want to know.

I respect your view but would suggest that there are a number of teams that would pay that price over 10 years to guarantee their first ever World Series championship or their first one in say nearly 100 years. Perhaps the fact that Jeter and company had four in the bag before 2009 has shaped your opinion of the price.

No, my view is that no other team would have offered $275m over 10 years, so there was no reason for the Yankees to do so.

I don’t think anyone has to have lived through the days of Horace Clarke and Jerry Kenney to appreciate the four rings of the ‘90s (even though I did).

For me it’s about process as well as product. I like to follow players from the time they are drafted (or signed) through the course of their development, and then watch them acclimate themselves to MLB.

It’s more enjoyable than watching a rotisserie team of other teams’ former stars win WS.

That doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t sign or trade for some veterans, but my priority would be to develop from within.

I’m old enough to very clearly remember the years of decline of the Yankees from 65-76 after the draft was established and prior to free agency.  At that time real parity didn’t work out to well for Yankee fans.  Part of that was due to some really poor drafting and scouting.  We had a lot of cheap young so-called stars that never amounted to anything over that period. Roger Repoz, Steve Whitaker, Bill Burbach.  I can’t believe we had the number one choice in the nation in 67 and drafted the first designated hitter.  Point is, rebuilding is overated.  I like re-loading a lot better.

The ‘60s teams declined because too many of their players got old at the same time. My view is that long-term contracts given to veterans in their 30s makes that experience more, not less, likely because it risks having to retain too many veterans well into their decline phase, which could limit the financial flexibility of even the deep-pocketed Yankees.

Young cheap assets aren’t fungible. The talent that the Yankee are accumulating in the mL system is almost universally highly-rated. Granted, that doesn’t guaranteed ultimate success, but there is also no guarantee that, for example, A-Rod or Jeter won’t be in a deep decline in two years.

So really I think you’re imposing a false choice. A franchise can make significant but prudent expenditures while they simultaneously develop prospects and regularly integrate a few of them on to the ML roster.

[41] - Right but SP in 2010 wasn’t the need it was this year.  True they tried to get it in 2011 but failed and when they were trying to get it in 2011 they WEREN’T trying to get Crawford.  It was one or the other, not both.  Hardly the mark of a team with either no budget or at least no where near their budget limit.

[42] - You realize you quoted me trying to tell me I don’t comprehend what I’m saying?  If you read all of my posts I you’d see I acknowledge they need to sign C.C., I just wish that they were in the position where they could let him walk.  Similarly, it seems Pinstriper is still hopeful they could be in a position next year where they don’t “need” him.  If that’s not the case he said sign him.  If you read Mike K he isn’t against resigning him either, he is just saying there are limits where he’d change his mind.  That leaves 1 left.

Why am I seeing an ad for ExtenZe at the bottom of the page?

[53] ExtenZe was initially going to buy ad space on SPMW.net, but that site is too small to exist, so here they are.

as someone with a degree in math it always bothered me

But it’s not a mathematical expression.  Nobody writes 6/$144M meaning “years per dollar.”  It’s shorthand for “a six year contract worth one hundred and forty-four million dollars.”

I imagine MC in VA reading this and thinking, “There are tangible costs to DFAing veteran stars who can still start - you won’t be able to will have to pay even more outrageous salaries if you want to sign any again”.

FTFY.

[56] I actually thought of commenting that I imagined you reading my update and thinking, “This is silly in the infinite salary limit”, but my solipsism is bounded.

Can we please argue about the statements we disagree with without insulting the posters who made them?

I wonder how Watson would answer this question.

Also, Whole Foods chocolate milk is awesome.

I was only a Math minor, but I would like to register an objection to [42] wherein my post was characterized as “let him walk”. My attitude was distinctly “meh, if he opts out we get to choose whether to pursue him based on the development of our youth, so let’s let it play out”.

Also, all this small penis talk has chased the trampy t-shirt tramp away. Thanks for nothin’.

Watson doesn’t answer questions, he provides them.

/nerd

Yeah but at least I can get my free FICO score.

[45] To build on what Rich said…no, I don’t remember the bare post-Dynasty years (my birth in 76 foretold the coming of the Bronx Zoo successes).  I *do* however remember the lean years from 85-94, in particular 89-92.  Some of the things that characterized that was consistently signing expensive, past-30 FA, often forfeiting 1st round picks.  And the few times they *did* have a bonafide good prospect, he was quickly traded away for an older, more expensive player.  The team quickly found that it couldn’t sign enough FA to fill all the holes, no longer had the youth to trade, AND didn’t have anyone of quality in the farm system to call up.  THAT is what I don’t want to go back to.

I don’t care to rebuild, either.  At least, not in the sense of the rebuiling they went through after the last drought, b/c that takes several years.  I *am* okay if they don’t make the playoffs this year, and instead hold on to some of the young players that could instead be traded.  Also if we get to the point where Garcia looks to be a 1.5 win player, and say Phelps (or pick any of the other kids) is a 1 win player, I’d rather go with Phelps this year.  And would stick with that being the right idea even if they miss the post-season by a game.  Phelps would likely be better next year and at least a solid mid-rotation pitcher for several more years.  Garcia they would be hoping he could be a back-of-the-rotation pitcher for one more year, or just need to go out and find another one.