"We have no money to spend this offseason, except for Freddy Garcia!"

From MLB:

Each Club will be assigned an aggregate Signing Bonus Pool prior to each draft. For the purpose of calculating the Signing Bonus Pools, each pick in the first 10 rounds of the draft has been assigned a value. (These values will grow each year with the rate of growth of industry revenue.) A Club’s Signing Bonus Pool equals the sum of the values of that Club’s selections in the first 10 rounds of the draft. Players selected after the 10th round do not count against a Club’s Signing Bonus Pool if they receive bonuses up to $100,000. Any amounts paid in excess of $100,000 will count against the Pool.

B. Clubs that exceed their Signing Bonus Pools will be subject to penalties as follows:
Excess of Pool Penalty (Tax on Overage/Draft Picks)
• 0-5% 75% tax on overage
• 5-10% 75% tax on overage and loss of 1st round pick
• 10-15% 100% tax on overage and loss of 1st and 2nd round picks
• 15%+ 100% tax on overage and loss of 1st round picks in next two drafts

Competitive Balance Lottery

A. For the first time, Clubs with the lowest revenues and in the smallest markets will have an opportunity to obtain additional draft picks through a lottery.
B. The ten Clubs with the lowest revenues, and the ten Clubs in the smallest markets, will be entered into a lottery for the six draft selections immediately following the completion of the first round of the draft. A Club’s odds of winning the lottery will be based on its prior season’s winning percentage.
C. The eligible Clubs that did not receive one of the six selections after the first round, and all other payee Clubs under the Revenue Sharing Plan, will be entered into a second lottery for the six picks immediately following the completion of the second round of the draft. A Club’s odds of winning the lottery will be based on its prior season’s winning percentage.

And the rules have changed for International Free Agents as well (which is how the Yankees signed Ivan Nova and Jesus Montero, for example)

For the 2012-13 signing season, each Club will be allocated an equal Signing Bonus Pool.

3. For each signing period after 2012-13, Clubs will be allocated different Signing Bonus Pools, based on reverse order of winning percentage the prior championship season (i.e., the Club with the lowest winning percentage the prior season shall receive the
largest Pool).

4. Bonus Regulation of International Amateur Players

A. Beginning in the 2013-2014 signing period (July 2, 2013 - June 15, 2014), Clubs may trade a portion of their Signing Bonus Pool, subject to certain restrictions.
B. Clubs that exceed their Signing Bonus Pools will be subject to the following penalties in the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 signing periods:

Excess of Pool Penalty (Tax on Overage/Draft Picks)
• 0-5% 75% tax
• 5-10% 75% tax and loss of right to provide more than one player in the next signing period with a bonus in excess of $500,000.
• 10-15% 100% tax and loss of right to provide any player in the next signing period with a bonus in excess of $500,0000.
• 15%+ 100% tax and loss of right to provide any player in the next signing period with a bonus in excess of
$250,000.

Debate has erupted from these changes as to who benefits the most from the new rules -- big market teams or small market teams?

People like Dave Cameron of Fangraphs, Tom Verducci of SI, and Scott Boras of I Robbed the Yankees on the Rafael Soriano contract are among those who believe the changes benefit large market teams.

Verducci:

The one piece of this CBA that doesn't make sense is how the owners swung their hammer at amateur players -- specifically, penalizing teams for overspending on draft bonuses according to newly established thresholds. Tamping down the ability of teams to evaluate the value of draft picks is a strike against the heart of competitive balance. This rule doesn't harm the Red Sox, Yankees and Phillies. It harms teams such as the Pirates, Nationals and Royals, who spent the most money on draft bonuses over the past three years and are better positioned because of it. (The Red Sox, Yankees and Phillies rank 10, 16 and 20 in bonuses over the same period.)

Moreover, the reward for small- and middle-market teams that do well, such as Tampa Bay and Milwaukee, is to be given less money to spend in the draft because they will be drafting later. And if they do exceed a threshold, they can be penalized with the loss of draft picks -- the very important currency that helped create parity. And are not some drafts -- such as 2005 (perhaps the best ever) -- stocked with more great players than others? Of course. So why should spending be treated the same every year?

It makes no sense, and it is why many teams, such as Oakland, Kansas City, Cleveland, Tampa Bay and Pittsburgh, consider this cap on draft spending to be counterproductive.

Boras:

His reasoning: With a set amount of money to spend on draft picks each year, it will take longer to accrue superior talent and improve.

"Before, you'd do it by using the draft effectively and scouting aggressively," he said. "It's going to take (the Astros) even longer now to get good. You have to add three or four years on now because you cannot use the draft to supply the team talent, which decreases the franchise value."

He said the current system was "working beautifully," citing the recent uptick in talent and interest of clubs that spent big money on marquee players in recent drafts, such as the Pittsburgh Pirates (pitchers Jameson Taillon and Gerrit Cole) and Washington Nationals (who signed Boras clients Stephen Strasburg and Bryce Harper to major league contracts, another practice eliminated by the CBA).

"Where would Kansas City be without their draft?" Boras said of the Royals, who had nine of Baseball America's top 100 prospects this past winter. "They were getting the best players in the draft, and were paying for them.

"Look at what the draft did for Milwaukee. They drafted Ryan Braun and Prince Fielder and Rickie Weeks. Just those three have meant more than $100 million in value for the franchise."

Finally, in a concept he's driven home before, Boras says the drag on signing bonuses will drive elite athletes to other sports. At Tuesday's news conference, Selig said he had "no concerns about that at all. ... I don't believe that's a possibility."

For those who believe the new rules benefit small market teams, the arguments are as follows.

Due to the severe taxation penalties and essentially the elimination of "signability" cases, the top draft talents will go to the worse teams -- just like in the NBA and NFL. Big market teams will no longer be able to game the system and sign talented "signability" cases who've dropped in the draft. Also, Boras used Gerrit Cole and Stephen Strasburg as example of smaller-revenue teams using the draft to build, but those players would still be available to those same teams and wouldn't require nearly as much money to sign.

There's also the addition of 12 picks in what's termed the "Competitive Balance Lottery" which will be given to the smallest-revenue teams.

Lastly, in regards to international free agents, teams will be able to spend based on their prior season's winning percentage -- the worse the record, the more money available for IFAs.

So the debate rages on. At NoMaas, we'll do our best to bring you thoughts from Yankee decision-makers and get their opinions on these changes. Until then, we ask...

The NoMaas opinion? Bring Cash back, because in general terms...

He has made great strides with the farm system, emphasizes homegrown players, doesn't overpay for mediocre free agents, spends appropriately for elite free agents, makes very good trades, understands the bullpen should be fluid and cost-effective, is open to modern statistical evaluation, doesn't cater to legacy players, and at least voices his opinion when Randy Levine starts jizzing on the organization. Overall, he's done a very solid job.

Obviously, there have been mistakes, which is why we stated he's been a high-quality GM in "general terms." If he has an Achilles heel, it's pitching. The AJ Burnett signing was dumb. Joba Chamberlain was a completely wasted asset. The Marte and Feliciano deals should have never happened. Vazquez was a disaster. And it seems like the Yankees are often in a position of scrambling to fill out a rotation or have question marks surrounding their starters. For a team with the Yankees' resources, the rotation is often an issue. It shouldn't be.

On the aggregate though, we say "Bring Back Ca$hMoney."

It will be a shocker if Ca$hMoney doesn't return to New York.

In a rotation full of pleasant surprises, there is no denying that Colon has been the biggest (insert weight joke here) and best of the bunch -- a bunch which includes Freddy Garcia and Ivan Nova.

The numbers speak for themselves:

Barring injury or gastric bypass surgery, it's a simple decision for us. We want the guy who's been the best Yankee starter outside of Sabathia.

Posada believes he can still catch even though the Yankees have not permitted him to do so this season.

“Could I catch? I could catch,” he said. “I could have (caught) this year. I could have been a backup somewhere, back somebody up. I think so, yeah. You got to spring training, you got six weeks to get ready.”

Francisco Cervelli: .245/.314/.319, 71 OPS+, .297 wOBA, 8% Caught Stealing

We ask...

There are concerns about the pixie dust surrounding Freddy Garcia, the fact that Bartolo Colon could pull a muscle when he gets up to pay the Chinese food delivery guy, the continued laboring of Phil Hughes, and the clap on/clap off nature of AJ Burnett.

Not to go all Joe Torre, but there seems to be a lack of trust in everyone not named CC...

So we ask...

If the Yankees trade for a starting pitcher, that means a current pitcher will be booted from the rotation. The question is who. The starting rotation has been a pleasant surprise this season. Let's look at everyone not named CC.

ERA/FIP/xFIP:
AJ Burnett - 4.15/4.55/3.86
Bartolo Colon - 3.40/3.77/3.37
Freddy Garcia - 3.38/3.94/4.21
Phil Hughes - Only pitched 21 innings this season