Yanks acquire Nady, Marte from Bucs for 4 prospects .

[BudLight]

Would that be collusion as in - J.D. Drew signs with the Red Sox

[ORS]

Would that be collusion as in - J.D. Drew signs with the Red Sox

I think the correct term there would be tampering.

[BudLight]

I think the correct term there would be tampering.

 

Okay, still an honorable practice.

[yankees228]

If Major League Baseball thought it could benefit from having the Yankees in the playoffs then don't you think they could also benefit from having them move on the in the playoffs. In the years you guys are referring to, 2005 through now, the Yankees have been in the playoffs three times and have lost in the first round all three times.

 

Not only that, but in game five of the 2005 ALDS a particular bad call went against the Yankees when Robbie Cano was called on for running out of the baseline after a strike out by Joe West which all replays showed to be incorrect. That ended an inning and a Yankee threat with them down 5-2 (IIRC).

 

Also, last year, Game two against the Guardians was not stopped in the eighth inning with the Yankees up 1-0 and the bugs clearly bothering to Joba. I want it to be known that I'm not saying it should have been stopped, all I'm saying is that if the umpires were trying to help the Yankees this would seem to be a logical chance to do just that.

 

**I know this thread has been about trades, but this just focusses more on the overall picture so I found it relevant.**

[ORS]

It certainly isn't, but a tampering case has a tough obstacle to overcome in the person of Scott Boras. Particularly when that person went into his negotiations with the Dodgers knowing full well that the Red Sox, the #2 spending team in the league, coveted his player but couldn't justify a signing at the time while Trot Nixon was still under contract. Is it any wonder that the opt-out clause took effect in the same year Nixon's contract expired?

 

Sure, you could make your case there, but I suspect you'd have a hard time getting around that. Present me with an equally difficult obstacle to a collusion charge, and I'll gladly drop the discussion.

[ORS]

Not only that' date=' but in game five of the 2005 ALDS a particular bad call went against the Yankees when Robbie Cano was called on for running out of the baseline after a strike out by Joe West which all replays showed to be incorrect. That ended an inning and a Yankee threat with them down 5-2 (IIRC).[/quote']

This would be a good point if it agreed with the rules of the game. No, he wasn't out of the baseline, but he was inside the actual 1st baseline, putting him outside the protected running lane. That meant Joe West was free to determine intent, and he felt Cano did intentionally to interfere with the throw, which it did. Cano should have been between the lines.

[rician blast]

Took a few minutes for me to find this:

 

 

 

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/sports&id=6286350

 

OK...they were asking for a total of

 

One sure thing

 

One good prospect

 

One "iffy" prospect

 

Two prospects better than a first round pick and a sandwich pick

 

That's a total of FIVE players, including a "sure thing," three more first-round types, and one "iffy" prospect.

 

The Pirates accepted from the Yankees Tabata--looking to be an "iffy" prospect after his miserable 2008, but possibly (maybe, optimistically) filling the role of "good prospect/first-round pick"--and three mid-20's AAA/AAAA starting pitchers, none of whom could be expected to contribute to a contending team now or ever. The Pirates accepted a deal from the Yankees that didn't include a "sure thing" and that fell at least two more first-round picks short of what they were rumored to be demanding. The value received by Pittsburgh was maybe a quarter of what it was rumored they were asking. That's not even close--and that explains quotes like these:

 

 

 

http://www.courant.com/services/newspaper/printedition/sports/hc-skinnystory0728.artjul28,0,3209072.story

 

:dunno:

 

 

Thanks Hawk, this is exactly where I was going...but I couldn't find a lot on just who the Bucs supposedly wanted from the Sox. I'm of the opinion that the stated wish list of the Pirates is much higher than the actual return they received and it doesn't surprise me in the least. We've seen this occure all too frequently in recent years.

[BudLight]

It certainly isn't, but a tampering case has a tough obstacle to overcome in the person of Scott Boras. Particularly when that person went into his negotiations with the Dodgers knowing full well that the Red Sox, the #2 spending team in the league, coveted his player but couldn't justify a signing at the time while Trot Nixon was still under contract. Is it any wonder that the opt-out clause took effect in the same year Nixon's contract expired?

 

Sure, you could make your case there, but I suspect you'd have a hard time getting around that. Present me with an equally difficult obstacle to a collusion charge, and I'll gladly drop the discussion.

 

 

I'm not foolish enough to believe you would drop your discussion, but here's a scenario:

 

Six days before the end of the season, Drew told Bill Plunkett of The Orange County Register that he was happy in Los Angeles and had not thought about the opt-out clause. He said he did not plan to use it.

“At some point,” he remarked, “you make those commitments and you stick to them.”

 

(sometime in early December 2006) Larry Lucchino, the Red Sox chief executive, went to Japan to meet with Matsuzaka’s team, the Seibu Lions, for the stated purpose of establishing a working agreement between the teams. MLB has read with interest Boras’s view that there is no rule barring the Lions from sharing part of the posting fee with the player, thus making it easier for the Red Sox to sign him for less of their own money.

 

Did Boras and the Sox have an under the table agreement that if the Sox signed Drew at $3M more per year than the Dodgers that he would ensure the Seibu Lions "kicked back" some the the $51.1M to Dice-K, who would then in-turn lower his salary demands with the Sox.

 

What other teams made a salary offer to Drew???? None that I know of.

[ORS]

Please help me out here. What is Seibu's motivation for kicking back funds to Matsuzaka, if and only if Drew gets signed for more money than an arbitrary figure you think is fair? I can understand why a kickback would be in their interest. They get nothing if Matsuzaka doesn't sign with the Sox, but then again neither does Matsuzaka. I don't get why Seibu gives two turds about Drew's contract and it would be a condition for them protecting their interest?

[Gom]

A case for collusion could be made. I've made no specific accusation, so I've got nothing to backtrack from, but I do feel this trade was a bit spurious. The Pirates did not, in any way, get better by this trade. They got crap in return for two marketable players at the trading deadline. You said so yourself. Hell, the draft pick compensation, which the Pirates would have gotten anyway, will be a better haul than that group, only now the Yankees will get it. They got smoked in that deal, and according to some reports (without specific names being included), they were offered more from other contending teams. Something stinks, so it's worthy of discussion, which is all we are doing at this point.

 

As far as you ripping anything to shreds, you can try, but you'll step all over your junk in the process like usual.

As always, your logic is far up your ass. There is no "old boy network" in baseball. As you like to point out, I ALWAYS value NOW over LATER. I would trade every prospect I have to win now. Jacko, my esteemed, but clueless fellow Yankee fan disagrees. You have said that part of the fun is seeing how Jacko and I disagree as literally polar opposites.

 

Teams will always saw that they offered more AFTER the deal is done. Why, I have no idea, but the Pirates are really high on Ross Ohlendorf. I don't think anything stinks. Was it collusion with the Phillies when we got Abreu? If anything, getting back Mirabelli stunk worse because you had just lost him.

 

All teams try to get better. The Pirates talent evaluation is not that great. However, the Yankees were heavily involved with Sabathia, but the Brewers offered a better haul. If what you're saying has any semblance of truth to it, Sabathia would have pitched against you guys last night instead of Ponson.

 

There is no conspiracy. When we beat you, it's because we're better. When the reverse happens, the reverse is true. No one is trying to "fix" anything here. That would be like me saying that the Twins let go of Papi so you could get him, knowing that he'd be a superstar in Boston and end the curse. See how ridiculous that sounds?

 

Except for Bonds, there is no collusion.

[rician blast]

That would be like me saying that the Twins let go of Papi so you could get him, knowing that he'd be a superstar in Boston and end the curse. See how ridiculous that sounds?

 

 

What curse? You honestly did not ever believe there was a curse, did you? That does sound quite ridiculous.

[Jayhawk Bill]

There is no conspiracy. When we beat you' date=' it's because we're better. When the reverse happens, the reverse is true. No one is trying to "fix" anything here. That would be like me saying that the Twins let go of Papi so you could get him, knowing that he'd be a superstar in Boston and end the curse. See how ridiculous that sounds?[/quote']

 

Pretty ridiculous, especially given that Big Papi was released, not traded--any team could've landed him. He wasn't offered arbitration because the Twins were worried about the amount he'd command and they couldn't afford to pay that for a malcontent who couldn't play any position but DH, especially when they thought that they had cheaper players almost as good to play that position. Big Papi got a little better in 2003, too...

 

There is no "old boy network" in baseball.

 

:lol:

 

FWIW, "Old Boy Network" MLB got 1,780 Google hits...

 

Why, I have no idea, but the Pirates are really high on Ross Ohlendorf.

 

The words "are really high" might be relevant...or, there might be collusion, just as was rumored back with the Lidle-Abreu trade.

 

Was it collusion with the Phillies when we got Abreu?

 

Dunno. Let's check contemporary discussion of that trade:

 

Clearly, the offer of Bobby Abreu and Cory Lidle for a bucket

of balls, a few rosin bags and a pine tar rag was too tempting for Brian Cashman to turn down.

 

Hmmm...well, I guess that collusion could be possible...:dunno:

 

I don't think anything stinks.

 

We know! It's hilarious watching you purposefully ignore every shred of sober logic and research to stick blindly to your cherished beliefs!

 

As always, your logic is far up your ass.

 

Roughly a meter up from my ass, centered in my brain...yes, that's quite far up my ass.

 

I'm not sure of your point...I gather that yours may be centered closer to your ass? :dunno:

[ORS]

Was it collusion when they got Abreu? I don't think it was. The clear motivation there was salary relief. I do find it curious that the lone projectable player Philly received, a first round draft pick in 2005, was released one year later by Philly. He didn't even require protection on the 40 man roster, as it was after only his 2nd pro season. Guess who signed him to minor league contract? That part is kind of fishy.

 

What that has to do with the Pirates trade is a mystery to me. Is your point that a previous trade looked to be more on the up and up, so therefore this one must be too? What a complete non sequitor. Come on, you have to be able to do better than that.

 

Told you you'd step on your junk.

[jacksonianmarch]

The Abreu and Lidle deal took 23 mil off the books for the Phil.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Was it collusion when they got Abreu? I don't think it was. The clear motivation there was salary relief. I do find it curious that the lone projectable player Philly received' date=' a first round draft pick in 2005, was released one year later by Philly. He didn't even require protection on the 40 man roster, as it was after only his 2nd pro season. Guess who signed him to minor league contract? That part is kind of fishy.[/quote']

 

So what we need to do is to check Abreu's performance level, contrasted to that of a similar player who entered free agency after 2006, to see if the "salary dump" explanation holds up.

 

Luckily, we have such a player: JD Drew.

 

[table]Player | 2006 WARP

Abreu | 7.0

Drew | 7.6[/table]

 

Hmmm...pretty close. Given Drew's well-known erratic pattern of good and bad seasons, maybe just about even. Now let's check contracts:

 

[table]Player | 2007 Salary | 2008 Salary

Abreu | $15 million | $16 million

Drew | $14 million | $14 million[/table]

 

About the same...until you consider that Abreu's 2008 was a club option and that Drew has THREE MORE YEARS guaranteed at $14 million per annum. Bobby Abreu was a BARGAIN compared to what Boston had to recruit from the free agent market in just two more months. Trot had only hit 7 HR all season and he'd hit just .171/.250/.214 since the Fourth of July--Theo and the FO knew that they needed help.

 

A half-dozen teams were after Abreu. The Phillies were asking for a couple of good (not superstar) prospects for Abreu. All the GMs asked Philly to eat some salary. Then the Yankees agreed to eat the salary IN RETURN FOR LIDLE. Philly pulled the trigger, leaving all of the other GMs mystified--Lidle hadn't been part of the package for them, just for the Yankees.

 

The history's been rewritten to emphasize that Boston got cheap, but Boston ate extra salary for a bunch of other players that August. It appears to me that Boston never got the Lidle-Abreu combo deal...there's little other explanation, given that Boston was using Jason Johnson and Kevin Jarvis as starting pitchers, and that they certainly could've used Lidle as well as Abreu.

[ORS]

Or, as I mentioned earlier, it's possible that Boston still held Drew in high regard, knew his agent would get him to use the option, and punted until the offseason. There is a plausible reason why the Red Sox would stay out of the deal with Philly.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Or' date=' as I mentioned earlier, it's possible that Boston still held Drew in high regard, knew his agent would get him to use the option, and punted until the offseason. There is a plausible reason why the Red Sox would stay out of the deal with Philly.[/quote']

 

Except that they thought that they had a deal, at least for Lidle:

 

The day before the Abreu deal, the Phillies proposed a trade to the Red Sox in which Boston would have acquired Lidle for a couple of mid-level prospects. The Sox were agreeable and told the Phillies they hoped they had a deal.

 

At the same time, the Sox were talking about Abreu.

 

:dunno:

[yankees228]

This would be a good point if it agreed with the rules of the game. No' date=' he wasn't out of the baseline, but he was inside the actual 1st baseline, putting him outside the protected running lane. That meant Joe West was free to determine intent, and he felt Cano did intentionally to interfere with the throw, which it did. Cano should have been between the lines.[/quote']

 

Whether you agree with the Joe West's call or not what is clear is that the umpires are not going out of their way to help the Yankees move through October. Again, why would they do it in the regular season but not in the postseason?

[Jayhawk Bill]

Whether you agree with the Joe West's call or not what is clear is that the umpires are not going out of their way to help the Yankees move through October.

 

Why is making a correct call failing to help the Yankees? :dunno:

[Gom]

It's ok. If the Yankees win, it's a conspiracy. If the Sox win, it's overcoming such amazingly high tremendously stupendously insurmountable odds. Yeah I get it. It never ceases to amaze me how you [primarily JHB and to a lesser extent, ORS] can make such nice posts and top it off with the most illogical assumptions.

 

I think what the Mets gave up for Santana was garbage. Since it wasn't the Yankees, it was ok. If it was the Yankees who offered the same package, it would be collusion, or MLB sanctioned tampering, or whatever.

 

Deal with it. Was it collusion/tampering/etc that allowed you guys to let Damon go and sign Crisp? If it was another team, it would be collusion.

 

Go ahead...keep trying.

 

Like I said, every team always seems shocked when the deal goes to the OTHER team. The Yankees FO tried to do it when the Mets got Santana. It's a PR move designed to make the team that got the deal seem like they got a "steal" that their team didn't get a chance at.

 

********. I don't buy it when "other" GMs say it, as well as ours. The Yankees were heavily involved in Sabathia? ********. If they were, they would have gotten the deal done. Sometimes it just doesn't work out for you.

[Jayhawk Bill]

It never ceases to amaze me how you [primarily JHB and to a lesser extent' date= ORS] can make such nice posts and top it off with the most illogical assumptions.

 

Put up or shut up. Challenge the veracity of a particular post or retract your direct personal insult.

[yankees228]

Why is making a correct call failing to help the Yankees? :dunno:

 

The call was, in my opinion, questionable. It would have been an oppurtunity for the umpires to swing a call in the favor of the Yankees...as some are claiming they have been during the regular season.

 

Besides, what is clear is that the umpires are clearly showing no bias towards the Yankees in the postseason. My initial point was that if Major League Baseball is helping the Yankees in the regular season why would they not help them in the postseason?

[ARod2212]

The Pirates haven't had a winning season in like 45 years. The Pirates have s***** management.

 

Why is this still a discussion?

[Jayhawk Bill]

The call was' date=' in my opinion, questionable. It would have been an oppurtunity for the umpires to swing a call in the favor of the Yankees...as some are claiming they have been during the regular season.[/quote']

 

There's a large leap from pointing out actual, verifiable counts of missed calls that favor the Yankees by significant margins each game to using a single perfectly good call that you subjectively find questionable and extending that single call as if it were a trend supporting your position.

 

Besides, what is clear is that the umpires are clearly showing no bias towards the Yankees in the postseason.

 

BS. Let's check the game of last October 8th:

 

[table]Team Pitching | Gifted Strikes* | Balls Called In Strike Zone* | Net Benefit

Yankees | 7 | 1 | +6

Guardians | 3 | 6 | -3[/table]

 

In this one game, this one umpire (Fieldin Culbreth) clearly showed bias. Point disproven.

 

I concede that the margin usually seems slighter in the postseason, however.

 

 

My initial point was that if Major League Baseball is helping the Yankees in the regular season why would they not help them in the postseason?

 

Two possible reasons:

 

1) A whole lot more people are watching the postseason, and bad umpiring is more likely to become a national issue.

 

2) The New York media market is already engaged right through the regular season and into the postseason by October--the benefits of favoring the Yankees then are less, just as the chance of getting caught is higher.

 

 

* Graphic tools used...normal disclaimers if I'm off by a pitch or two.

[Jayhawk Bill]

The Pirates haven't had a winning season in like 45 years. The Pirates have s***** management.

 

Why is this still a discussion?

 

Cheez, to quote your own sig block, "Just because it's a rivalry doesn't mean you have to make retarded arguments."

 

If the issue were the Pirates, one could take their trades and find a pattern of lost value in their dealings with all teams. You haven't done that--just as you've ignored or overlooked the nine playoff spots and two World Championships earned by the Pirates in the last 45 years.

 

The pattern is that the Yankees have won a net of 12 games--roughly 120 runs of value--in their deadline trades from 2005-2007, and that this year they accomplished another trade where they completed a deal for roughly one quarter of the value of the two players received. For at least the third time in four years, other GMs are shaking their heads because the Yankees are getting a deal far better than the established market price for the players in question.

 

Address the issue with the Yankees--don't try to insult the Pirates by making s*** up and consider it a credible position.

 

 

***

 

 

Hmmm...the Yankees fans are getting blustery. I think that I've hit upon something.

[ORS]

The Pirates have horrible management? Yeah, 15 straight losing seasons would be a good indicator that they are a bit deficient at putting a winning mix together. However, look at their last two big trades prior to this one, both executed under the same ownership.

 

Oliver Perez (2-10, 6.63) & Roberto Hernandez (2.93 in 43 relief IP) to the Mets for Xavier Nady (.264/.329/.487) - For an older, but performing well at the time, RP and struggling young starter who had one big breakout season, they get an established COF with decent power.

 

Mike Gonzalez (2.17, 24 SV in 54 IP) & Brent Lillibridge (light hitting CF-type prospect) to the Braves for Adam LaRoche (.285/.354/.561 with 32 HR) & Jamie Romak (.247/.369/.471 with 16 HR as a 20 y/o in A-ball)

 

They had already established a market value for Nady in 2006, and to their benefit, Nady had improved, going .278/.330/.476 with 20 HR in 2007, and was hitting .330/.383/.535 with 13 HR before the deadline in 2008. The market value was something greater than a young pitcher who had already had a breakout season and a good MRP.

 

They had already established a market value for a good LH closer, and to their benefit, there were no concerns about injury with Marte like there were for Gonzalez. The market value was an all-star level CIF (I consider the prospects a wash and throw-ins to the deal).

 

By the calculus established by the Pirates themselves, Nady and Marte were worth a promising young starter who had already broken out at the MLB level, a decent MRP, and an all-star level corner infielder. What did they get in return? Three AAAA fodder pitchers and a headcase 19 y/o COF with no power.

 

Not making any accusations, but there's meat on the bone if one wants to talk suspicious behavior there.

[yankees228]

I just watched the replay of the call in question again, and, to me, it seems like an awful call. For one, he was not outside the baseline as ORS stated. Second, to say he showed intent is just wrong. He was running a straight line without looking back. I don't see how he could have intentionally made contact with the baseball.

 

On top of that, the play happened at the bag, meaning it didn't matter what route Cano took to get to the bag (see Game 2 1998 ALCS judgement involving Travis Fryman and Chuch Knoblauch).

 

I was citing this play because I felt like it was a series changing play that went against the Yankees.

 

As for the umpires showing bias towards the Yankees, you cited one game. Unfortunately right now I don't have the time to do the research on the other 12 games that took place between 2005 and 2007. However, I admit I'm not in any position to question your analysis because I haven't done any of the appropriate research.

 

And as for the fact that it's easier to cover up in the regular season, that's true, but if teams felt they were at a disadvantage when they were playing the Yankees (regardless of whether it is the regular season or the postseason) you would think they would mention it. Because of this, it is extremely risky to do it in the regular season or postseason in my opinion. All it would take is one team to mention it and everyone would be thinking about it.

[Jayhawk Bill]

As for the umpires showing bias towards the Yankees' date=' you cited one game.[/quote']

 

Whoa.....

 

YOU said:

 

Besides, what is clear is that the umpires are clearly showing no bias towards the Yankees in the postseason.

 

My task was to disprove "showing no bias," not to prove a regular pattern of bias. I selected one game and found bias. I didn't have to find a regular pattern of bias; furthermore, I readily conceded that bias seemed to be less in the postseason because of a shift in the risk-return calculus.

 

Unfortunately right now I don't have the time to do the research on the other 12 games that took place between 2005 and 2007. However, I admit I'm not in any position to question your analysis because I haven't done any of the appropriate research.

 

It's tough to research before Pitch f/x and to find a pattern. Yes, there are game-changing calls, but it's tough to claim one call constitutes a pattern of bias rather than a mistake.

 

Most of the Yankees-Guardians games last year weren't too badly called at the plate. I did find an exception.

 

And as for the fact that it's easier to cover up in the regular season, that's true, but if teams felt they were at a disadvantage when they were playing the Yankees (regardless of whether it is the regular season or the postseason) you would think they would mention it. Because of this, it is extremely risky to do it in the regular season or postseason in my opinion. All it would take is one team to mention it and everyone would be thinking about it.

 

All it would take would be one MLB team calling into question the integrity of the game to jeopardize the entire future of MLB. Things are bad enough with an NBA referee going to prison for his officiating--can you picture the scandal that would result if it were found that Bud Selig had suggested to umpires that they lean in a certain direction regarding close calls? Can you picture how any sportswriter reliant upon his or her contacts would be ostracized were she or he to write of this pattern of bias?

 

If this pattern of bias is to be corrected, it'll be corrected from the blogosphere, not from MLB, and not from the major media.

[yankees228]

OK, I had forgotten the exact words I choose. Fair enough.

 

As far as people in the media not writing about it, I'm not really sure. Everyone is so quick to jump on the steroid scandal, I'm not so sure that if they actually thought something was up they wouldn't mention it.

 

And as far as members of an actual team mentioning it, if they felt that during a series the umpires were giving a distinct advantage to the opposing team, I feel like they might make some mention of it...or at least ask Major League Baseball to have a look at it.

[Jayhawk Bill]

It's ok. If the Yankees win' date=' it's a conspiracy. If the Sox win, it's overcoming such amazingly high tremendously stupendously insurmountable odds. Yeah I get it. It never ceases to amaze me how you [primarily JHB and to a lesser extent, ORS'] can make such nice posts and top it off with the most illogical assumptions.

 

I think what the Mets gave up for Santana was garbage. Since it wasn't the Yankees, it was ok. If it was the Yankees who offered the same package, it would be collusion, or MLB sanctioned tampering, or whatever.

 

Deal with it. Was it collusion/tampering/etc that allowed you guys to let Damon go and sign Crisp? If it was another team, it would be collusion.

 

Go ahead...keep trying.

 

Like I said, every team always seems shocked when the deal goes to the OTHER team. The Yankees FO tried to do it when the Mets got Santana. It's a PR move designed to make the team that got the deal seem like they got a "steal" that their team didn't get a chance at.

 

********. I don't buy it when "other" GMs say it, as well as ours. The Yankees were heavily involved in Sabathia? ********. If they were, they would have gotten the deal done. Sometimes it just doesn't work out for you.

 

I waited a day, and I waited until I was sure you'd been online at Talksox. You're not planning to support your insult with explicit fact, Gom.

 

See, Gom, the issue is that you cannot dispute what I'm writing. You're used to countering others' opinions with your bluster and bias, and on most sports forums it works. It may be rude to act that way when you're a guest at another team's site, but it's usually adequate to the level of discourse.

 

This is different. I cite facts. You're failing to answer those facts.

 

Yes, the insinuation is extraordinary--but extraordinary does not begin to mean "impossible" in an era where NBA referees are sentenced to prison for selling their impartiality. Furthermore, trades are business decisions, not directly part of the game, and even the MLBPA has accused MLB of collusion in its business decisions. Once upon a time, in the days of Babe Ruth, it was perfectly acceptable to sell away star players if it fattened the owners' pockets. The St Louis Browns stayed profitable by doing just that. Now there are alleged protections against such sales, but there are no public audits of the books of the privately-held teams or their owners that would reveal a pattern of monetary transfers...bribes...that parallelled these repeated absurdities labeled as trades.

 

You cannot prove your point. I can quote journalists' and GMs' astonishment at many of the trades, and I can point out a pattern of unusually favorable results for the Yankees. The jury of the readership looks at these facts brought together, and it realizes that this last trade is not a single mistake but rather part of a pattern, and they come to understand that we cannot be getting the full story on why these trades happen.

 

You respond with unsupported allegations of illogical posting.

 

Here's the truth: your posts are illogical. Your posts are unresearched. Your posts are unnecessarily rude. And here the truth behind it all: your team, their owners, and their fans are spoiled by your resources and your past successes earned on a playing field far from level.

 

Hank Steinbrenner, this month:

 

"There's a lot of excitement around here from the Rays fans, but almost to a point of arrogance," he says. "They better be careful. They'll learn this (expletive) can change real quick."

 

The Yankees have been subsidizing the Rays and other teams with their revenue-sharing and luxury-tax payments, Steinbrenner says, so they should be thanking the Yankees.

 

"People in baseball know it, whether they want to admit it or not," Steinbrenner says. "It helps everyone when the Yankees are good. The Red Sox, whether they're good or not, doesn't necessarily matter, nationally. … Let's face it: The Yankees are baseball history. You're talking about 26 championships."

 

Hank Steinbrenner alleging arrogance on the part of Rays fans...is there a better example of irony?

 

But consider the moral implications of this quoted sentence: "It helps everyone when the Yankees are good." If Steinbrenner truly believes that--and one is challenged to conceive of why he would utter such arrogant words on record were he not to believe them in his soul--then he can be at this very moment excusing himself for whatever else it took besides prospects to acquire Marte and Nady. Were there any transfer of wealth unreported to MLB and the public, it was only for the good of MLB...not just the good of his franchise, the good of all of MLB.

 

At least in his own mind.

 

***

 

The Marte-Nady trade stinks, Gom. Any objective party, knowing all of the facts, comes to that conclusion despite the absence of the Pirates' owners explaining for ESPN and SI, on the record, why they sold two of their best players in a sale thinly disguised as a trade.

 

Live with the disgrace, Yankees fan.