Yankees Respond to Cliff Lee move

[AZ_]

Inept is s strong word to use- the Yankees have made some good moves in these past 10 years. ARod for starters (dumped Soriano at the perfect time), Cano, signing CC, etc. To me, I think of the Pirates or Royals when I think of inept. But that is splitting hairs.

What the Yanks have done, and I think one would have to have rose-colored glasses the size of dinner plates to dismiss this, is squander a huge resource advantage. They have consistently drafted poorly and signed poorly in international signings, despite spending ample amounts in these areas.

Sorry, but if I was a Yanks fan, I would expect my team to be more like the BoSox- two World Series in the last 7 years, terrfic drafting, frugal FA signings, building from within- than what the Yanks have morphed into. They are turning back into the baseball retirement community that they were in the 80s, when they didn't develop talent internally and continually had to splurge on every good FA at the end of their peak. You would think Yankees fans would expect better, but maybe it will take a couple years of poundings at the hands of the BoSox to actually expect something out of the best-supported FO in baseball.

I believe the Red Sox are leaps and bounds a better run organization, even though they're not small market.

Inept is a strong word, but signing ARod and CC aren't moves that make me say "WOW What a great move" because they were simply the best free agents out there and they basically made it rain on them because they good. That's not intelligence, that's having more money than anyone else and it paying off.

Cano is a great player, but aside from him their farm system has been more or less a joke over the past years...not that they need one. Even the guys they dealt away by and large haven't been great players. They've also spent big money in Latin America with few benefits.

They're a team who can make a ridiculous amount of dumb moves (Pavano, AJ Burnett, ect.) and just spend their way out of the problems when they arise.

 

[macbdog]

I believe the Red Sox are leaps and bounds a better run organization, even though they're not small market.

Inept is a strong word, but signing ARod and CC aren't moves that make me say "WOW What a great move" because they were simply the best free agents out there and they basically made it rain on them because they good. That's not intelligence, that's having more money than anyone else and it paying off.

Cano is a great player, but aside from him their farm system has been more or less a joke over the past years...not that they need one. Even the guys they dealt away by and large haven't been great players. They've also spent big money in Latin America with few benefits.

They're a team who can make a ridiculous amount of dumb moves (Pavano, AJ Burnett, ect.) and just spend their way out of the problems when they arise.

Oh, I agree on all your points- I was just noting that to me, to be inept, they would have to IMO fail regardless. That is, still have whiffed on ARod (remember, they beat out the BoSox in trade to get him), somehow bungled the CC signing, etc. Again, splitting hairs and semantics.

But yeah, Boston is run much, much, better. They are the Evil Empire of baseball at this point- a club with a considerable resource advantage that develops talent internally as well as any team in baseball and to that adds the ability to sign top FAs. The Sox are the club that scare me long-term and will continue to for the next 3-4 years after what they pulled off this past and upcoming year. Hell, they traded for Vic Martinez, let him walk, and are still a better team. That is how you run an organization.

 

[Steve_424]

4 in 11, 2 in 9, it makes no difference, both support my point. Really, makes no difference to me whatsoever. The Indians have lost consistently. Fact. b00bie contested this point, and I posted that to prove him wrong. Your rebuild cycles and Dolan Defenses are irrelevant to this.

Nope, that's an opinion...again...just three years ago they were one win away from the Series...two years prior they were a 95 win team. They've lost during a rebuild, which is expected. They have not lost consistently over the past decade though.

 

[Chris]

Nope, that's an opinion...again...just three years ago they were one win away from the Series...two years prior they were a 95 win team. They've lost during a rebuild, which is expected. They have not lost consistently over the past decade though.

wtf? How is that an opinion? You don't get to magically not count "rebuild years" just because the Indians have had a ton of them over the past decade. Jesus, I don't want to call anybody a shill or an apologist, but this lunacy has gone too far.

 

[PIP]

wtf? How is that an opinion? You don't get to magically not count "rebuild years" just because the Indians have had a ton of them over the past decade. Jesus, I don't want to call anybody a shill or an apologist, but this lunacy has gone too far.

I would call him a shill and an apologist.. The last 3 seasons for the tribe has been unacceptable...

 

[Chris]

I'm not even trying to bash the Indians or Dolans or anybody right now. I was just stating that they have lost consistently, simple as that. I didn't think anyone in their right mind would argue it, but apparently we are allowed to pick and choose certain years that do not count, seasons where our record is not recorded or something as being "losing." Instead they simply put a big REBUILD stamp over those years and don't count it.

Boggles my fuckin mind.

 

[Gunther]

I'm not even trying to bash the Indians or Dolans or anybody right now. I was just stating that they have lost consistently, simple as that. I didn't think anyone in their right mind would argue it, but apparently we are allowed to pick and choose certain years that do not count, seasons where our record is not recorded or something as being "losing." Instead they simply put a big REBUILD stamp over those years and don't count it.

Boggles my fuckin mind.

It boggles my mind that you need it explained to you every two days.

 

[Chris]

It boggles my mind that you need it explained to you every two days.

"baseball isnt fair!!! wah wah wah wah wah!"

Yes. We get it. I don't need it explained to me. For the record, I agree with that. It isn't fair.

But sorry guys, "rebuild" years still count. Shapiro doesn't send a letter to Selig every season and tell him to strike the season for the Tribe because he expects it to be a rebuild year. Go ahead, keep defending that ridiculous and asinine logic.

 

[Gunther]

"baseball isnt fair!!! wah wah wah wah wah!"

Yes. We get it. I don't need it explained to me. For the record, I agree with that. It isn't fair.

But sorry guys, "rebuild" years still count. Shapiro doesn't send a letter to Selig every season and tell him to strike the season for the Tribe because he expects it to be a rebuild year. Go ahead, keep defending that ridiculous and asinine logic.

cmstophe, I'm really trying to understand your logic. Maybe you can help me out. I've made a list of reasons why I think you could possibly continue to argue this. Do any of these ring true to you?

1. You understand the competitive disadvantage the Tribe faces, but refuse to concede that it is impossible for a small market team to remain relevant year in and year out.

2. You understand the competitive disadvantage the Tribe faces, but you expect the Tribe to be perfect on all fronts (trades, drafting, free agency, dealing with arbitration years) AND remain injury-free so that they could possibly be relevant every year.

3. You really don't understand the competitive disadvantage the Tribe faces, even though you say you do.

4. You are bored and seeking attention.

5. You are not a Cleveland Indians fan, and you are just beginning to realize it.

There are only a few teams of the same general market size that I can think of this century, under the current revenue structure, that have done a significantly better job overall than the Indians with respect to being competitive year in and year out.

One is Minnesota. They certainly have had a better draft record. But even so, they haven't made it to the playoffs every season either. And they've only made it out of the first round once in this time frame.

Another is Colorado, who has done a nice job the last five seasons, but the five seasons before that were losing seasons. It’s part of the process small market teams must face.

The only other team I can think of is Oakland, who follows a small market model, but they have had rebuilding seasons as well in this time frame.

In fact, the Indians have arguably done as well as or better than some teams that are in bigger markets in this same timeframe: The Atlanta Braves, The Detroit Tigers, The Arizona Diamondbacks, The New York Mets, The San Diego Padres, The Seattle Mariners, The Tampa Bay Rays, The Texas Rangers, The Toronto Blue Jays.

Even San Francisco, who won the World Series last year, had four straight losing seasons recently where they were not relevant.

The only franchise that does not face this disadvantage is the Yankees, who can buy their way out of anything if they choose to. Some could argue Boston as well, but I would say the YES network revenue makes the Yankees unique in the timeframe being discussed.

Do I think the Indians are perfect? Hell no! They’ve made lots of mistakes across the board – this has been documented and discussed in numerous threads over the last couple of years. But because they are in a small market, and also because they have an owner who chooses not to lose money, they have disadvantages that the Yankees simply do not face. And before you rail against Dolan for choosing to run the franchise without losing money, take a look at the revenues that the Steinbrenners have to be pulling in, even though they have the equivalent of a shopping spree every season and off-season. Probably something like a billion dollars a year. With the Dolans, it's more like a million.

If you still don’t see the disadvantages, then I’m at a loss as how else to explain it to you.

 

[Chris]

Wow, is this real life?

You are wasting your time. Turn off the auto pilot "Spew rhetoric about competitive imbalance in baseball" mode. Everybody understands that.

Despite this, the Indians have lost consistently. 4 winning seasons in 11. Just how it is. Do they play in an unfair system? Yes. Have they lost consistently? Yes. Could it be partly because they play in such a system? Of course. Does that make it any less true?

NO. It doesn't. Facts are facts. Don't argue them. Could the Indians have done better than 4-11? Answer: yes. You act like I am doing this to bash the Indians or make a point. For once, I'm not. I didn't make my original comment to do anything of the sort, simply stated a fact when somebody else claimed that the Indians had not lost consistently. I feel they have.

Simple. Easy. You're making mountains out of mole hills. But if asking me if I truly am a "fan" and all this other Mickey Mouse crap is more productive ... then by all means, continue with that. *shrug*

 

[The Oi]

17-145

 

[Steve_424]

wtf? How is that an opinion? You don't get to magically not count "rebuild years" just because the Indians have had a ton of them over the past decade. Jesus, I don't want to call anybody a shill or an apologist, but this lunacy has gone too far.

I guess it all depends on your definition of "consistently". When I think of losing consistently, I think of the Pirates, Royals, and Orioles. Teams that haven't been good in a long time and lose every year, not teams that were one game away from the World Series three years ago, and a 95 win team two year's prior to that. For that reason, it is not a "Fact" that they lose consistently.

I posted the generic rebuild pattern for a reason. Most rebuilds take three years, and then allow a 3-4 window for that team to contend. The first rebuild was 2002-2004, with the first contending window being 2005-2008. During that span, they won 95 games but missed the playoffs (2005), had an utterly disappointing year (2006), had a great year in which they almost reached the ultimate goal (2007), then had .500 year in which they were decimated by injuries (2008). Then they blew it up, with 2012 being the first year of the next window.

This is a "window" mid-market team, not a consistent loser. The last group didn't get the job done when they had the talent and the opportunity (2007)...let's hope this next group, built around pitching, gets the done job sometime between 2012-2015.

For the record, I think you're a frustrated Indians fan, but still a fan. You wouldn't be here in this debate otherwise. You have good points, I just respectfully disagree with them. I'll take that over Jeter fallatio and idiotic arguments any day. :chuckles:

 

[Chris]

I guess it all depends on your definition of "consistently". When I think of losing consistently, I think of the Pirates, Royals, and Orioles. Teams that haven't been good in a long time and lose every year, not teams that were one game away from the World Series three years ago, and a 95 win team two year's prior to that. For that reason, it is not a "Fact" that they lose consistently.

I posted the generic rebuild pattern for a reason. Most rebuilds take three years, and then allow a 3-4 window for that team to contend. The first rebuild was 2002-2004, with the first contending window being 2005-2008. During that span, they won 95 games but missed the playoffs (2005), had an utterly disappointing year (2006), had a great year in which they almost reached the ultimate goal (2007), then had .500 year in which they were decimated by injuries (2008). Then they blew it up, with 2012 being the first year of the next window.

This is a "window" mid-market team, not a consistent loser. The last group didn't get the job done when they had the talent and the opportunity (2007)...let's hope this next group, built around pitching, gets the done job sometime between 2012-2015.

For the record, I think you're a frustrated Indians fan, but still a fan. You wouldn't be here in this debate otherwise. You have good points, I just respectfully disagree with them. I'll take that over Jeter fallatio and idiotic arguments any day. :chuckles:

I appreciate that, but like I said before, this wasn't even about me trying to vent frustration. I feel like they have lost consistently, having 4 winning seasons out of 11 and having contended twice in the last six years. Sure, the Orioles, Royals, Pirates fit the model more in that they never contend...but by this logic, aren't they partly exempt too (yes, I know they don't ever contend, whereas the Indians had 2 good years) because they aren't in upper markets? I'll say this: you better hope this next "window of contention" is a little more successful than the last, in that they actually CONTEND throughout the window instead of having "off" years every other season. Shit, we all better hope so.

 

[Steve_424]

I appreciate that, but like I said before, this wasn't even about me trying to vent frustration. I feel like they have lost consistently, having 4 winning seasons out of 11 and having contended twice in the last six years. Sure, the Orioles, Royals, Pirates fit the model more in that they never contend...but by this logic, aren't they partly exempt too (yes, I know they don't ever contend, whereas the Indians had 2 good years) because they aren't in upper markets? I'll say this: you better hope this next "window of contention" is a little more successful than the last, in that they actually CONTEND throughout the window instead of having "off" years every other season. Shit, we all better hope so.

One or two things go differently (like Lofton being sent home) and the Indians, in my opinion, would have won it all in 2007. I'm sure people will say I'm making excuses, but two of the four years they had a team good enough to win it all that just didn't. That happens pretty often in rebuilds (Tampa is a good example here).

The Pirates have had 18 consecutive losing seasons. The Royals (16 out of the last 17) and Orioles (13 in a row) are right behind them. That is consistent losing to me...the "endless rebuild"...not the Indians.

We certainly agree that the next window of contention is a better one. The biggest problem in the last one was the lack of an "ace" that delivered in the postseason (Sorry CC, you are your 4.66 Playoff ERA don't apply). Hopefully White, Knapp, Hagadone, Carassco, Pomeranz, or one of the other high-upside youngsters the Indians have turn into that guy (or a few of them do).

 

[Gunther]

One or two things go differently (like Lofton being sent home) and the Indians, in my opinion, would have won it all in 2007. I'm sure people will say I'm making excuses, but two of the four years they had a team good enough to win it all that just didn't. That happens pretty often in rebuilds (Tampa is a good example here).

The Pirates have had 18 consecutive losing seasons. The Royals (16 out of the last 17) and Orioles (13 in a row) are right behind them. That is consistent losing to me...the "endless rebuild"...not the Indians.

We certainly agree that the next window of contention is a better one. The biggest problem in the last one was the lack of an "ace" that delivered in the postseason (Sorry CC, you are your 4.66 Playoff ERA don't apply). Hopefully White, Knapp, Hagadone, Carassco, Pomeranz, or one of the other high-upside youngsters the Indians have turn into that guy (or a few of them do).

Skinner, BTW, is finally out of the organization this season. The curse is lifted.

Actually, I happen to blame CC and Fausto more than him, but I didn't like seeing him hang about in the minors all this time.