It Is Not Always About the Money

Please stop getting on the Yankees for spending money. There are so many better things to make fun of them for. Hank, Hank, well ... Hank.

Okay, I'm stealing a little from Jason here, but while writing a comment in his blog, it started getting incredibly long. I hope he doesn't mind because I just brought it back here.

As a Yankee fan, Jason receives his share of grief from people because his team has the highest salary cap. People believe that having the most money makes the sport unfair. The logic is that they can buy up all the talent in the world and win championships. Let's throw some logic in the lunacy.

First, the Yankees haven't won since ... ? I rest my case. Sure, they make the playoffs, but having the highest payrolls and the media makes a World Series a necessity. Every time they don't make it, it is a failure.

Second, money makes you stupid. It makes you feel like you can buy success. Well, you can't buy happiness, either. Having money makes free-agency more attractive. The problem with free-agents is obscured by the fact that they are well-known and proven commodities (well, some anyway). You forget that they are most often at least 31 or 32 and past their primes and have played their best years. You forget that the older you are the more likely you are to get hurt and the harder it is to recover. You forget that they don't add that many wins to a team (Tex, Sabathia, and Burnett probably added about 15 wins total, but you also have to account for the wins they lost with Mussina, Giambi, and Pettite). You forget about your farm system because heck, you can just buy your replacement (when the prospects don't come, it forces you to take on suspect replacements through free-agency). This is what happened to the Yankees (and I'll even throw the Braves in considering their mid-to-late '90's spending spree). At first, they built through their farm system (a long process but one that at least leads to a good foundation with good scouting and development), but then, they decided to really spend. They bought and bought and bought. Forget the Paul O'Neills. Add on Johnny Damon. Age, decline, and injuries made winning the World Series, and now getting into the playoffs, more difficult. Cashman has realized the error and has devoted more time and energy and, most importantly, money (okay, so it usually is about the money) to the farm system. Sure, they don't have a great one yet, but he didn't really start to build it until about three years ago. The Red Sox are a nice example of how to run things. They spend a lot, which is good to keep good players and buy free-agents when the appropriate ones come along, and they pour a lot of money into the farm system. We forget that free-agency is only 30 years old. You have to try a few things to get it right. Certain unforseen things happen (the skyrocketing salaries) and you have to adjust (pay more attention to the market). Long-term contracts seem like a good idea, but then they fail and long-term contracts become more infrequent. You have to learn. This is a complicated process, and 30 years is not enough to master it. Hell, we're still trying to figure out capitalism and that's how old?

Third, there's always a yin to the yang. When you try to do one thing, there's always a way around it. The Yankees figured out that using their money helped, and they did it. It led to success. Tampa can't do that. Instead, they build from within, pouring money into scouting, player development, the draft, etc. It takes (took) awhile, but look where they are. Not that it's that easy. Just throwing money at prospects doesn't work either (see -- NOT always about the money). You have to find the right players and the right coaches to help them. Then, it works.

Fourth, money makes you lazy. It makes the front office lazy. Why freak out about the draft when Teixeira's available? This guy (not Tex, but free-agent in general) has had these great stats, so let's not look at the injuries, age, or situation. It makes the player lazy. Why work hard if you just hit your big payday? What else do you have to work for? It's one of the negative aspects to guaranteed contracts. They know it's coming no matter what they do. The thing is, not having guaranteed contracts leads to the mystery of the NBA and NFL and people getting really upset.

Fifth, a salary cap is a bad idea (just read Jason's post -- do it now). Money does not equal wins (as proved above). If the Yankees want to spend $200M or $500M, let them. It doesn't guarantee them anything but a lot of risk on aging players with a lot of miles on them. Sure, now they have talent, but will it work out? There's risk everywhere. If you spend on free-agents, you risk tying up salary available on aging players. If you go through the draft, then you run the risk of not getting good players or having them break down anyway. If you follow the Red Sox model, you're risking both, but less than the other two in each category but it evens out. What happens when Pedroia gets hurt, Lowell declines, Drew can't make it through another season, Dice-K regresses, and Lester gets hurt from the huge jump in innings pitched? If a number of those things happen (don't believe they can -- look at the Braves rotation last year), the Red Sox will fail. A salary cap would just screw the Yankees and teams above the line as they would have to rapidly reduce their payroll, leaving them probably without good players or enough prospects. Adding in the floor would only make the Marlins spend a lot on guys they may not want or need. Just let the teams play. The Marlins will continue to win a World Series every five years. The Yankees will have their occasional dynasty. The Braves will have their once-a-century dynasty.

Money does not equal wins. It does not equal championships. Luck equals championships. Luckily guessing which (okay, we're not exactly guessing with sabermetrics, but even the most stats and the best people understanding and utilizing those stats will fail as well) players will succeed/not get injured is an inexact science. We don't like luck. It means people shouldn't receive credit. Sure, Epstein has made a lot of good decisions, but he got lucky, too. What happens if those prospects got hurt? It was possible. They did their homework and took down the luck from 100% to 80%, but I guarantee it's at least 80% luck. Does he deserve credit for building an outstanding team? Does Andrew Friedman? Sure. They made good decisions, but Lady Luck has done her fair share. Does Sabean deserve criticism? Does Dayton Moore? Sure. They've made some bad decisions, but Lady Luck could have smiled on them as well. Good luck figuring out which gets smiled on next year because I want to know who called the White Sox and Twins being 1 and 2 in the AL Central. I want to know who called the Rays making the World Series. Considering the number of predictions out there that were wrong, forget about the money. Let teams run their teams the way they want.

I told you that was long. See why I didn't post that on your comment wall, Jason? :) Even as long as this was, I probably didn't do it justice. This is way more complicated than money.

Okay, I'm really done now. What? You didn't expect me ramble?