-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Yankees sign Sheffield
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
PlatinumGold
Lifer
yup, every year for the last 12 years people have predicted the demise of the braves because the loss of one or two big FA.
we'll see. i expect the braves will probably sign millwood and one or two decent Outfielders (not great just good). then they will let vinny go and chipper will probably go back to 3rd. hopefully Derossa will get a roster spot this year as he deserves one and will develop into a fine player. I seriously doubt they will sign Javy, so estrada will be our starting catcher next year.
overall, i would be surprised if the braves didn't win the NL East again next year.
hawkeye81x
Golden Member
Overpay? I think it a fair deal if not a good one. $12mil/year for what he produces is pretty damn good.
Of course they should have been trying to get Colon or some other top tier pitcher not more hitting.
Then again I hate the Yankees and wish a pox on their house.
BeauJangles
Lifer
Boston's payroll is still $40 - $50 million lower than the Yankees and is more in line with other teams in the league (read: mets, etc).
PlatinumGold
Lifer
he's an OK center definitely not a good center. how much of an upgrade over bernie would he be, he has most of the same negatives that bernie does. he doesn't have top notch speed, he doens't have a great arm.
but hey, i'm not a yankees fan so, no biggie.
RabidMongoose
Lifer
And that's supposed to be a good thing? I think this contract is OK for Sheffield.
But if he has a .370 OBP/25 HR (which I guess you're predicting a not so great SLG), then that would be a huge disappointment and then he would be overpaid.
I guess now the Yankees must have around $90-$100 million in dedicated payroll for 2006? It's possible that they could have the highest payroll in baseball without signing anyone in the next 2 offseasons. I haven't looked at the details, but I know they have a ton in backloaded contracts. It'll be interesting to see who else they sign.
RabidMongoose
Lifer
Yeah, let's ignore the $50-$60 MILLION difference between the Yankees payroll and the projected Red Sox payroll.
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Yeah, let's ignore the $50-$60 MILLION difference between the Yankees payroll and the projected Red Sox payroll.
When will people give up on the payroll argument? Clearly, payroll didn't do anything for the Mets, Dodgers, or Rangers last year (#2, #3, and #4 payrolls in MLB), nor did it win a championship for the Yankees ($180 million) or the Red Sox ($105 million). I'm starting to think that fans go around playing the payroll card so that if their team loses to a club with a higher payroll, they can just blame the loss on "buying championships". Meanwhile, they conveniently neglect the fact that Oakland fields solid teams every year with one of the smaller payrolls in MLB and the World Series champion Marlins had a $60 million payroll.
In summary, the payroll argument is stale at best.....give up on it.
-Tom
SP33Demon
Lifer
My explanation cut and pasted from another thread which proves payroll plays a SIGNIFICANT part of whether a team WINS or not:Originally posted by: Soccer55
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Yeah, let's ignore the $50-$60 MILLION difference between the Yankees payroll and the projected Red Sox payroll.
When will people give up on the payroll argument? Clearly, payroll didn't do anything for the Mets, Dodgers, or Rangers last year (#2, #3, and #4 payrolls in MLB), nor did it win a championship for the Yankees ($180 million) or the Red Sox ($105 million). I'm starting to think that fans go around playing the payroll card so that if their team loses to a club with a higher payroll, they can just blame the loss on "buying championships". Meanwhile, they conveniently neglect the fact that Oakland fields solid teams every year with one of the smaller payrolls in MLB and the World Series champion Marlins had a $60 million payroll.
In summary, the payroll argument is stale at best.....give up on it.
-Tom
"What happened in 1996-2000? How much did the Yankees spend those years? To say that the team with the most money spent will win every time is like saying the House will win in a hand of blackjack everytime b/c odds are in their favor 52-48%. Of course it's not going to happen every year. List the World Series winners and their opponents for the past 10 years (this takes the 2 best teams from each year in the MLB) and plot out where they ranked in money spent. Funny how at least one of the finalists is in the top 5 payrolls in the trend (remember, it's not going to happen EVERY year). Examples:
1992 - Toronto wins, 1st in payroll, Atlanta - 4th in the NL.
1993 - Toronto wins, 1st in payroll.
1994 - Strike
1995 - Atlanta - 4th in the league.
1996 - Yankees - 1st in the league.
1997 - Marlins - 5th in the league.
1998 - Yankees - 2nd in the league.
1999 - Yanks 1st, Atlanta 3rd.
2000 - Yankees 1st, Mets 5th.
2001 - Yankees 1st.
2002 -anomaly - Giants 9th.
2003 - Yankees 1st.
It's not a coincidence. Correlation: Higher amount of $$$$ Spent = Championships = Fake Championship = Yankees = Higher amount of $$$$ Spent.
😉 "
What do you think of this? Curious... -Rob
bigdog1218
Golden Member
Red sox fans do realize that their team has been trying to buy a championship for years now, they just suck at it. I can't believe people are bitching about the Yankees signing sheffield right after their team drops a bunch of young prospects and picks up a fat contract.
CubicZirconia
Diamond Member
SP33Demon - that's some significant ownage you have going there on the last post, nice work.
Down with the Yankees, I root for the Twins.
Down with the Yankees, I root for the Twins.
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
My explanation cut and pasted from another thread which proves payroll plays a SIGNIFICANT part of whether a team WINS or not:Originally posted by: Soccer55
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Yeah, let's ignore the $50-$60 MILLION difference between the Yankees payroll and the projected Red Sox payroll.
When will people give up on the payroll argument? Clearly, payroll didn't do anything for the Mets, Dodgers, or Rangers last year (#2, #3, and #4 payrolls in MLB), nor did it win a championship for the Yankees ($180 million) or the Red Sox ($105 million). I'm starting to think that fans go around playing the payroll card so that if their team loses to a club with a higher payroll, they can just blame the loss on "buying championships". Meanwhile, they conveniently neglect the fact that Oakland fields solid teams every year with one of the smaller payrolls in MLB and the World Series champion Marlins had a $60 million payroll.
In summary, the payroll argument is stale at best.....give up on it.
-Tom
"What happened in 1996-2000? How much did the Yankees spend those years? To say that the team with the most money spent will win every time is like saying the House will win in a hand of blackjack everytime b/c odds are in their favor 52-48%. Of course it's not going to happen every year. List the World Series winners and their opponents for the past 10 years (this takes the 2 best teams from each year in the MLB) and plot out where they ranked in money spent. Funny how at least one of the finalists is in the top 5 payrolls in the trend (remember, it's not going to happen EVERY year). Examples:
1992 - Toronto wins, 1st in payroll, Atlanta - 4th in the NL.
1993 - Toronto wins, 1st in payroll.
1994 - Strike
1995 - Atlanta - 4th in the league.
1996 - Yankees - 1st in the league.
1997 - Marlins - 5th in the league.
1998 - Yankees - 2nd in the league.
1999 - Yanks 1st, Atlanta 3rd.
2000 - Yankees 1st, Mets 5th.
2001 - Yankees 1st.
2002 -anomaly - Giants 9th.
2003 - Yankees 1st.
It's not a coincidence. Correlation: Higher amount of $$$$ Spent = Championships = Fake Championship = Yankees = Higher amount of $$$$ Spent.
😉 "
What do you think of this? Curious... -Rob
Now THIS is a well formed payroll argument. Point taken and well done Sp33Demon. I don't necessarily agree with the fake championship statement, but it's all good.
High payroll = championship is not ALWAYS true. Sure, it increases the likelihood of that team winning a championship and as Sp33Demon points out, it happens more often than not; however, a higher payroll team does not always win. Again, I point to the Mets, Dodgers, and Rangers of this past year, and I'm sure there are many teams that spent boatloads of money for a last place finish in years past. I just feel like many fans are quick to play the high payroll card as an excuse for losing instead of actually having a well thought out argument to support their claim. It is also interesting to note that in my experience, many times the first people to scream "high payroll" when their team loses are the first ones to say "my team has a lower payroll and you still couldn't beat us" when their team wins.
-Tom
RabidMongoose
Lifer
Originally posted by: Soccer55
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Yeah, let's ignore the $50-$60 MILLION difference between the Yankees payroll and the projected Red Sox payroll.
When will people give up on the payroll argument? Clearly, payroll didn't do anything for the Mets, Dodgers, or Rangers last year (#2, #3, and #4 payrolls in MLB), nor did it win a championship for the Yankees ($180 million) or the Red Sox ($105 million). I'm starting to think that fans go around playing the payroll card so that if their team loses to a club with a higher payroll, they can just blame the loss on "buying championships". Meanwhile, they conveniently neglect the fact that Oakland fields solid teams every year with one of the smaller payrolls in MLB and the World Series champion Marlins had a $60 million payroll.
In summary, the payroll argument is stale at best.....give up on it.
-Tom
Who said that a payroll guaranteed a playoff spot? It helps an incredible amount and is an amazing advatange.
Also, the ONLY reason the A's have a solid team is because they had THREE aces develop at almost the SAME time. That is a very very rare incident and if that's the only way that a small market team can be competetive for 4-5 years, then something is definitely wrong. Let's even see if the Marlins have the payroll to even return to the playoffs next year...hell, they already traded their starting 1B b/c of payroll problems.
In summary, payroll is a huge advantage...I'm also a fan of one of these incredibly bloated payroll teams, but I'm also a fan of baseball...for once baseball needs to get their act together and learn to compete against the NFL, NBA, etc and not against each other so much to hurt the game.
RabidMongoose
Lifer
They do? Are you kidding? Jeter, Hitchcock, Morales, el Duquecito, Henson, Contreras, Weaver, etc...all overpaid players/prospects and there's still more...and you could go further depending on where you want to go.
I wouldn't count Matsui as he probably evens his salary out with his marketing.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
