Johnny Damon signs with Yankees

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
Sublime,
You did a good job here valuing each deal. However, this type of analysis works best in a salary cap environment, where every team only has x number of dollars to spend in order to achieve maximum production.

clearly, this isn't the case in baseball, or with the NYY.

which is why paying a premium for potentially extra production makes sense for them.

And, why having a potentially bad 4th year to deal with isn't a disaster, since they can probably eat some of the contract in a trade, or afford to have a $13M guy as 4th outfielder.

[/ QUOTE ]

thats the issue though. i dont give the yankees more leeway because they have more money, its a poor way to evaluate the deals they make. they need to be held to the same grading system as the red sox, and as the san diego padres. a good deal (giles) is a good deal and a bad deal (wagner, damon) is a bad deal.

look at it this way. lets assume your neighbor makes twice as much money as you. you both go out and buy the same car, and while conversing about your purchaces, you find out he paid 35k, while you paid 29k for the same exact product. are you not going to assume hes a sucker, just because he makes more money than you? of course not! you both entered the same market place and got the same product, yet mr jones paid more money because he went to the fancy dealership which is in place to fleece guys like mr jones.

baseball is a marketplace, and the product that is being sold (either runs created, or prevention of them) have a fair market value. those that pay less than the market value are schrewd and those that pay more are suckers.

there is no premium for runs 25-30. they are worth the same as runs as 20-25.

another rant-

this moronic argment that damon is worth more money because the yankees are in the 'win now' more. LMFAO! they have a payroll that will lekely never go under 200m again, every single season is a win now for them!

the deal SUCKS. its bearable for year 1, tolerable for year 2, awful for year 3, and putrid for year 4. i have shown with MATH that the deal is bad for even 2006 and yet people will say its an ok deal. amazing.

[kenberman]

[ QUOTE ]
thats the issue though. i dont give the yankees more leeway because they have more money, its a poor way to evaluate the deals they make. they need to be held to the same grading system as the red sox, and as the san diego padres. a good deal (giles) is a good deal and a bad deal (wagner, damon) is a bad deal.

look at it this way. lets assume your neighbor makes twice as much money as you. you both go out and buy the same car, and while conversing about your purchaces, you find out he paid 35k, while you paid 29k for the same exact product. are you not going to assume hes a sucker, just because he makes more money than you? of course not! you both entered the same market place and got the same product, yet mr jones paid more money because he went to the fancy dealership which is in place to fleece guys like mr jones.

baseball is a marketplace, and the product that is being sold (either runs, or prenetion of them) have a fair market value. those that pay less than the market value are schrewd and those that pay more are suckers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I agree with all of this. However, whether or not your neighbor is a sucker really doesn't matter. he has the same car, and paid more, but he has more money, so so what?

The real life affect (or downside) to being a sucker in this case is pretty negligable, or non-existent.

as long as your neighbor - or in this case, the NYY - continues to have more money than you, then the amount they overpsend simply becomes an academic issue.

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
thats the issue though. i dont give the yankees more leeway because they have more money, its a poor way to evaluate the deals they make. they need to be held to the same grading system as the red sox, and as the san diego padres. a good deal (giles) is a good deal and a bad deal (wagner, damon) is a bad deal.

look at it this way. lets assume your neighbor makes twice as much money as you. you both go out and buy the same car, and while conversing about your purchaces, you find out he paid 35k, while you paid 29k for the same exact product. are you not going to assume hes a sucker, just because he makes more money than you? of course not! you both entered the same market place and got the same product, yet mr jones paid more money because he went to the fancy dealership which is in place to fleece guys like mr jones.

baseball is a marketplace, and the product that is being sold (either runs, or prenetion of them) have a fair market value. those that pay less than the market value are schrewd and those that pay more are suckers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I agree with all of this. However, whether or not your neighbor is a sucker really doesn't matter. he has the same car, and paid more, but he has more money, so so what?

The real life affect (or downside) to being a sucker in this case is pretty negligable, or non-existent.

as long as your neighbor - or in this case, the NYY - continues to have more money than you, then the amount they overpsend simply becomes an academic issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

i am not talking about the NYY going bankrupt. i am talking about *this* deal they signed johnny damon to. its a bad deal, just like the rich neigbor paying more for the same product as you, despite having more money than you.

[kenberman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
thats the issue though. i dont give the yankees more leeway because they have more money, its a poor way to evaluate the deals they make. they need to be held to the same grading system as the red sox, and as the san diego padres. a good deal (giles) is a good deal and a bad deal (wagner, damon) is a bad deal.

look at it this way. lets assume your neighbor makes twice as much money as you. you both go out and buy the same car, and while conversing about your purchaces, you find out he paid 35k, while you paid 29k for the same exact product. are you not going to assume hes a sucker, just because he makes more money than you? of course not! you both entered the same market place and got the same product, yet mr jones paid more money because he went to the fancy dealership which is in place to fleece guys like mr jones.

baseball is a marketplace, and the product that is being sold (either runs, or prenetion of them) have a fair market value. those that pay less than the market value are schrewd and those that pay more are suckers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I agree with all of this. However, whether or not your neighbor is a sucker really doesn't matter. he has the same car, and paid more, but he has more money, so so what?

The real life affect (or downside) to being a sucker in this case is pretty negligable, or non-existent.

as long as your neighbor - or in this case, the NYY - continues to have more money than you, then the amount they overpsend simply becomes an academic issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

i am not talking about the NYY going bankrupt. i am talking about *this* deal they signed johnny damon to. its a bad deal, just like the rich neigbor paying more for the same product as you, despite having more money than you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it's probably a bad deal, in strict value terms.

but I don't think that that really matters - that's where we disagree I guess.

[rwperu34]

[ QUOTE ]
you find out he paid 35k, while you paid 29k for the same exact product. are you not going to assume hes a sucker, just because he makes more money than you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if Mr. Jones lives in New York and I live in San Diego.

[ QUOTE ]
there is no premium for runs 25-30. they are worth the same as runs as 20-25.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a topic for another thread. Suffice it to say, if there were a salary cap, there would be even more of a superstar premium.

[ QUOTE ]
this moronic argment that damon is worth more money because the yankees are in the 'win now' more. LMFAO! they have a payroll that will lekely never go under 200m again, every single season is a win now for them!


[/ QUOTE ]

Exatamundo!

[ QUOTE ]
i have shown with MATH that the deal is bad for even 2006 and yet people will say its an ok deal. amazing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately for the math wizzes, the best team isn't who gets the most wins per dollar spent. It's who gets the most wins.

Any time a team gets close, they should go for it. If that means taking the risk of being stuck with Johnny Damon at the whopping age of 35, then so be it. And when I say any time a team is close, I mean the Yankees, the Red Sox, the Phillies, the Giants, the A's, the Blue Jays (ala '92-'93), the Braves. Any time you get close* as a team.....GO FOR IT!!!!

* By close, genrally I mean if you are already a playoff caliber team you should try and push yourself over the championchip hump. The exeption to the rule could be a team like the Milwaukee Brewers in 2006. This will be thier best chance to make the playoffs for ten years, so they should GO FOR IT!!!!

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
thats the issue though. i dont give the yankees more leeway because they have more money, its a poor way to evaluate the deals they make. they need to be held to the same grading system as the red sox, and as the san diego padres. a good deal (giles) is a good deal and a bad deal (wagner, damon) is a bad deal.

look at it this way. lets assume your neighbor makes twice as much money as you. you both go out and buy the same car, and while conversing about your purchaces, you find out he paid 35k, while you paid 29k for the same exact product. are you not going to assume hes a sucker, just because he makes more money than you? of course not! you both entered the same market place and got the same product, yet mr jones paid more money because he went to the fancy dealership which is in place to fleece guys like mr jones.

baseball is a marketplace, and the product that is being sold (either runs, or prenetion of them) have a fair market value. those that pay less than the market value are schrewd and those that pay more are suckers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I agree with all of this. However, whether or not your neighbor is a sucker really doesn't matter. he has the same car, and paid more, but he has more money, so so what?

The real life affect (or downside) to being a sucker in this case is pretty negligable, or non-existent.

as long as your neighbor - or in this case, the NYY - continues to have more money than you, then the amount they overpsend simply becomes an academic issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

i am not talking about the NYY going bankrupt. i am talking about *this* deal they signed johnny damon to. its a bad deal, just like the rich neigbor paying more for the same product as you, despite having more money than you.

[/ QUOTE ]

....looking at it in the narrow focus that you've presented, you are correct IMO.

However, the other mitigating conditions for all 3 parties (Yankees, Sox & Damon) make it a correct decision for ALL of them. (I'm not saying that I agree with it; simply that I understand the prevelant perspective of the 3 parties involved).

In pure baseball terms......The Yanks got stronger & the Sox got weaker for 2006.....net = a 2fer for Georgie & the Boys from the Bronx.

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately for the math wizzes, the best team isn't who gets the most wins per dollar spent. It's who gets the most wins.

[/ QUOTE ]

just say this and you will have made your point very well. the rest is kind of irrelevant/borderline wrong.

[sublime]

i dont get into the politcs of the deal, because i dont care!

the deal is not good from a pure marketplace perspective. i dont care about the rest [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[bugstud]

I just am more pessimistic about jones's output than damon's. I also am the kinda guy that believes that the extra runs that the superstars create are harder to get elsewhere, especially when you're the yankees and need aas many extra runs as you can get to cover the key players getting ooooooooooold.

I was fine with the Cubs doing a Jones deal for 1 year, but 3 seems a little excessive. I won't mind being wrong though [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

edit - this is bp's blurb on jones

The Damon deal wasn’t the worst signing of an outfielder with an 11-letter name yesterday, though, The Cubs--and you just knew it was going to be the Cubs--inked Jacque Jones to a three-year deal to play right field. Jones, 31, is a completely inadequate corner outfielder with the bat who doesn’t make up for that by being a plus defender. Since a two-year peak at 27 and 28 (.300 with power), Jones has settled in as a .250 hitter who walks once or twice a week and pops an extra-base hit about that often. He doesn’t have very good speed (13 steals a year the last three years, six triples total, double-digit GIDPs from the left side) and while his range is good, his arm is poor.

Jones is basically a fourth outfielder, about as good a player as Michael Tucker or Ricky Ledee or someone like that. His 2002-03 peak, and the Twins’ lack of better players, branded him as something more, but he’ll be a disappointment for the Cubs, who continue to have an organizational blind spot when it comes to on-base percentage.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
i dont get into the politcs of the deal, because i dont care!

the deal is not good from a pure marketplace perspective. i dont care about the rest [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Politics? Which politics are you referring to?

In the end, I also don't care about the politics....I care about the product on the field.

Surely you are not inferring that your point of view is the only legitimate point of view in this case?

The +/- aspect of the makeup of the two competitive teams involved after this deal is obvious and speaks for itself.