Nothing is pure, but the system that came into being as a result of the new CBA is taking more players off the market, particularly young pitchers, and more teams are involved in the bidding for them when they do hit the market.
———-
That’s something worth researching. IMO, think player retention/movement is about the same.

The point also remains that small-market teams will move players. The Marlins extended Ramirez, but at the same time, they moved Cabrera.
___

Nothing is pure, but the system that came into being as a result of the new CBA is taking more players off the market, particularly young pitchers, and more teams are involved in the bidding for them when they do hit the market.

Will there alway be a few players that only a handful of teams can afford? Maybe, but that doesn’t negate the larger point.

As for Santana, time will tell, but there may be good baseball reasons for not wanting to break the bank for him. While he is still effective, his velocity is down.

Baltimore is sui generis. There is no reason why they couldn’t be big players if they were run right, but instead they are dumping everyone. Maybe that changes if MacPhail builds up a young core and then has to spend to keep them or supplement the core from the outside.

Yes, Santana was traded, but that has become the exception (I don’t count Willis because he isn’t a top player anymore).
———
I included Willis because he was a “name” player that commands a decent salary.

The point also remains that small-market teams will move players. The Marlins extended Ramirez, but at the same time, they moved Cabrera.

Not sure where Baltimore & Toronto & Arizona fits, but they were active players in the FA market at one time or another.

Teams mentioned above let players go that they felt they were not able to afford. I find it hard to believe that the O’s, for instance, could not retain Ryan, if they so desired.

If it came down to a bidding war, Yanks, Dodgers, Boston, etc would win hands down.

Raf,

That’s my point. Giambi, Hampton, and Ramirez walked under the old CBA. The same holds true of Colon (pre-injury).

Yes, Santana was traded, but that has become the exception (I don’t count Willis because he isn’t a top player anymore).

The point remains. Small market teams are extending their best young players by buying out their arbitration years, and others are purchasing players (through trades or free agency) that in years past they would be unable to compete for.

As examples, Seattle traded for Bedard, Kansas City has been active in free agency, the Marlins just gave Ramirez $70 million, the Astros signed Oswalt to a big contract, the D’backs traded for Haren, the Rays gave Pena a big contract, the BJ’s have acquired players like Burnett and Ryan, and on and on.

That type of small market participation wasn’t happening in the mid-90s through 2000.

Yes it does because it limits the players from other teams that are available in free agency and/or in trades because small revenue teams use the Yankees’ money to sign their own players.
———
But there are teams that wont retain their own players. Oakland let Giambi walk. The Mets let Mike Hampton walk. The Giants let Barry Bonds walk. The Indians let Manny Ramirez walk.

Johan Santana was traded, Bartolo Colon was traded, Miguel Cabrera & Dontrelle Willis was traded.

Of course there are salary dump trades that the Yanks have made with the Dodgers (Kevin Brown), Blue Jays (Raul Mondesi) & Phillies (Abreu/Lidle).

The Yanks could’ve had many of the players listed, but for whatever reason did not go after them. They could’ve signed Mussina & Ramirez after the 2000 season. They could’ve acquired Beltran & RJ after the 2004 season.

Doesn’t mean as much as you think. Clearly it doesn’t have much affect on the Yanks, as they keep making the playoffs.
____

Yes it does because it limits the players from other teams that are available in free agency and/or in trades because small revenue teams use the Yankees’ money to sign their own players.

But for the luxury tax and revenue sharing the supply of these young assets would be increased which would lower the price (in terms of assets surrendered in trades).

That increase in available talent may have provided the player(s) that could have pushed the Yankees over the top.

Basura – it would be nice if you commented as often when you agree with what’s written too.
====================

Steve, I rarely agree with what’s written here or think while it might be “correct” (i.e., the Yanks aren’t as good without Arod) it’s really not worth it to me to write “Amen”. It’s the statements like Cashman’s failure to select Huston Street in a previous draft (2004?) as the cause of a current predicament I find outrageous enough to make me want to comment.

I don’t think you make outrageous (in my opinion, of course) comments to be outrageous – it’s only that they come out that way sometimes.

The RCAA’s and RSAA writings don’t do much for me. I appreciate Lee’s work but I think they’re used out of context many times just as on some websites Pythagorean Theory rules.

They might be accurate measures but until I see them listed in the official standings I’m going to be more interested in how wins and losses are achieved.

Well, enough going on from me. I only wanted to let you know why I (even though the question was directed at someone else) enjoy reading the site although I don’t agree with much.

But, maybe, if he picked up more good pitchers – instead of the bad ones – that would have offset the Mussinas, Vazquez’s, Browns, Johnson’s, Wangs, etc., who failed in October, no?
————-
eh?

2004 ALCS, Yanks up 3-0 and have homefield advantage. Lined up, you have Duque, Mussina, Lieber and Brown. I’m pretty confident with the odds of the Yanks taking at least one of those games.

Esteban Loaiza didn’t do squat during the regular season; are you suggesting, that maybe he should’ve gotten a start over the 4 guys previously mentionned?

2007; who do you start instead of Wang (2) and Pettitte. The Yanks lost games started by them.

But, maybe, if he picked up more good pitchers – instead of the bad ones – that would have offset the Mussinas, Vazquez’s, Browns, Johnson’s, Wangs, etc., who failed in October, no?

Raf – do you not agree that the Yankees pitching, as a team, has gone south following 2003 – and, at the same time, their post-season fortunes have been bad?
======
I agree.

Where we seem to disagree is on this part; “Cashman has picked-up more bad big league pitchers, than good, for the Yankees during the last handful of seasons. And, this is why the Yankees, despite being able to win games during the regular season, have failed in October since 2004.”

Linking the “bad” pitchers to October failures. I say this because “good” pitchers that Cashman acquired or inherited (Mussina, Pettitte, Rivera, Clemens, Duque, Wang, etc) have failed in the playoffs.