Re: ***yankees official offseason thread*****
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The yankees can spend the money almost as effectively now
[/ QUOTE ]
This is where we have the disconnect. I don't see how the Yankees can spend $25MM-$35MM for the near future as effectively as they can on A-Rod.
[/ QUOTE ]
These are my thoughts, condensed [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
[/ QUOTE ]
Lowell + Hunter will cost about $30m per year. Lowell better defense offsets some of the lost offense, Hunters better defense and offense over Melky gives you the rest. And you can sign Lowell for four years and Hunter for probably five or six, giving you much less risk and more flexibility, i.e. More than $100m remaining to spend on another free agent like Santana during A-Rods least valuable years. Plus you the get A draft picks for A-Rod and can use Melky as trade bait.
[/ QUOTE ]
FOr 29 other teams, this is sound reasoning. For the Yankees, there is nothing to preclude them from signing A-Rod AND Hunter. Then they could either trade Melky or let him be the 4th OF. That would make Damon the most expenisive 5th OF in baseball, and the Yankees would still have monies left over to trade for/sign Santana in 2007/2008 AND Miguel Cabrera 2008/2009!
[/ QUOTE ]
this presumes the Yankees have unlimited monies, and that Hank/Hal have the same appetite/willingness to spend these monies as George did.
I'm not sure both of those are true. here is the Yankee opening day payroll since 2000
2000 $93 million
2001 $112 million
2002 $126 million
2003 $152 million
2004 $182 million
2005 $208 million
2006 $198 million
2007 $195 million
so after doubling from 2000 to 2004, they've been very stable, basically increasing at the same rate as inflation. perhaps after huge luxury tax bills, they've hit a ceiling.
now, the new stadium will indeed change that - I've read estimated of $50m PA in incremental revenue. but that still doesn't give them all the money in the world to throw around; it appears there is some limit and they are close to it
on top of this, you have new ownership who may just be to content to roll in the money they have and not be aggressive.
|