Add new comment

Matt,
I agree with your assessment that the 'spare' parts are likely to suffer in the current market, while the superstars will continue to thrive.  I think your conclusions of "why" this is true are not even remotely close to reality.
The notion that the Civics approach doesn't work is patently false.
The Tampa team of 2008 was a pure Civics team.  The Anaheim club os 2009 was an even greater expresion of a Civics team.  Quick - can you name the best hitter by OPS+ for the Angels in 2009?  Answer:  Kendry Morales.  The Twins were another AL playoff team.  How on earth can the Twins org NOT be considered a Civics minded plan.  They replace Santana with Pavano. 
Heck, the Phillies, for YEARS attempted to win by getting the shiniest FA batter on the market, and failed over and over again.  Today, their roster consists of DEVELOPED stars, (not acquired ones), and CIVIC pickups, (like Ibanez).  Colorado was another Civics team that made the playoffs in 2009.
Outside of the Yankees, it's hard to find a club who is actually thriving with a "stars & scrubs" approach to their hitting lineup.  And in many cases where you might describe the lineup as stars & scrubs, the "stars" in production aren't actually the ones getting the big money.  The "stars" are the young guys who have exploded on the scene and HAVEN'T yet landed the big money contracts, but are at the tweener stage, where they're making good money for stellar production.
The two NL teams that went "all in" with the concept of Stars & Scrubs?  The Mets (70-92), and the Cubs (83-78).  In the AL, Detroit went from "developing young talent" to Stars & Scrubs, and went backwards. 
Yes, teams with bigger budgets have an advantage.  But, over the past decade, MOST of that advantage has not been in assembling the team -- but in having money to go and spend to fix the holes when they appear. 
Mostly, the perception of S&S vs. Civics is based on what people want to see.  Teixeira was a major pickup for the Yankees, and they won this year ... conclusion, you need to acquire big named bats to win.
In 2008, Giambi posted a 128 OPS+ at 1B.  In 2009, Tex had a 149.  That's a nice increase of 21 points.
In 2008, Cano posted an 86 OPS+, and in 2009 he posted a 129.  THAT is an increase of 43 points ... more than double the extra that Tex brought.
In 2008, Melky posted a 68 OPS+ and in 2009 he posted a 99.  That is an increase of 31. 
The Yanks had 8 hitters posting a 126 OPS+ or better.  They were not, in the slightest, "driven" by the offensive exploits of the one shiny acquisition. 
In 2008, the Yanks were stars & scrubs production-wise, and they got to watch the playoffs.  In 2009, they were stars and stars and stars.  The YANKEES themselves disprove the notion that "stars & scrubs" is the "winning" model in baseball.
=============
However, MLB is a business, and because most people "believe" that stars are vastly more important than they are ... they will BUY TICKETS to see stars.  A Tex or AROD is going to put more fannies in the seats than a Wilson or Gutierrez.  But, over the past decade, the numbers of the WORST two players on the team have been a better indication of ultimate fate than the numbers of the best two. 
=============
That said -- spending big bucks on a big time PITCHER.  That is a different conversation.