Sox Lester agree on 5 year deal

[BoSox21]

I take it you agree?

[TheKilo]

CC does, in a small way. Lester does in a bigger way.

 

This sentence destroys your argument.

 

You say CC Sabathia's contract hurts the game in a small way. I assume you are referring to the Yankees giving the pitcher such an exorbitant contract with opt out clauses and no trades, etc. in addition to outbidding themselves by $40 million dollars over the course of the deal.

 

I assume you say it only hurts the game in a small way because even though only the Yankees could afford this deal, they are operating within the framework of the existing rules (free agents typically go to the highest bidder) then this is OK. It's only OK because there is no salary cap - if there was, pitchers like CC Sabathia would not get this kind of money, because "you have to watch every dime."

 

You say Lester's contract hurts the game more. Why? If Lester's deal was given to him next offseason, which would result in the same time frame Hamels' deal was given to him, it would be OK? Why is that?

 

The only case you can make for Lester's contract hurting the game at all is if there was a salary cap in place, but since there isn't debating what should be done if there was one in place is an exercise in futility.

 

If there was a salary cap, the Yankees couldn't have dropped 180 million on Mark Teixeira. If there was a salary cap, the Yankees couldn't have dropped 80 million of AJ Burnett. But there isn't so they can.

 

Arguing under a set of hypotheticals to "prove" your argument is about as intellectually dishonest as you can be. This is coming from someone who feels this deal may be rushed and unnecessary, but I'm not going to say it's killing the game.

 

Where was the outrage for Carmona's deal last year?

[italstallianion]

Dude...300+ posts..and not a single one worth reading. Go have another beer and play MLB 09. That's as close to baseball as you'll ever get. Where do you stand on this? For a cap or against one? If you're for it' date=' defend this deal against the precedents. .[/quote']

 

 

I'd rather have 300 boring but right posts than your 4,000 posts of crap that continually gets bombarded by the other posters. What's the point of having "entertaining" posts if everyone on the site exposes you as a moron? I'd rather be a mystery with my occasional trenchant insight and my sporadic posting idiosyncrasies than a clear dumbass who pretends to know something about everything but ends up knowing little at all.

 

Your blanket interchangeable insults don't help your cause either. This isn't middle school...you'll have to stop trolling before your stock will rise.

[Gom]

No, you didn't quote the rest of it because it pokes massive holes in your prior posts where you only recognize absolute positions.

 

 

Yeah, I do, and here we go 'round the mulberry bush again trying to get you to understand that being for a salary cap does not limit my thoughts on deals within the current system to only their impact on a nonexistant salary cap system. I'll break down in as simply as possible.

 

I am for a salary cap.

 

A salary cap does not exist.

 

Therefore, my consideration of the merits of a deal do not need to consider the impact a deal would have on a salary cap, which, again, does not exist at this time.

 

Get it?

 

Probably not.

Your position hasn't changed on the cap, which is honorable.

 

However, you still don't understand my point, which to be honest is baffling.

 

Let's say I came out and said... "I like the CC deal, I like the Tex deal, and I like the AJ deal. I do want a salary cap." You would all call me a hypocrite...because if I like the deals, and I want a cap, then one of them would have to go.

 

Same thing, ORS. No different.

 

It would be dumb to not extend Wang before he reaches free agency.

 

Not according to all that is Gom.

Not at all. I think it would be an excellent idea. I am not sure of Wang's status, but I wouldn't give him a 60% raise over say...Hamels deal [assuming their status is the same, which I don't believe it is]. Keep it in the ballpark.

 

This sentence destroys your argument.

 

You say CC Sabathia's contract hurts the game in a small way. I assume you are referring to the Yankees giving the pitcher such an exorbitant contract with opt out clauses and no trades, etc. in addition to outbidding themselves by $40 million dollars over the course of the deal.

 

I assume you say it only hurts the game in a small way because even though only the Yankees could afford this deal, they are operating within the framework of the existing rules (free agents typically go to the highest bidder) then this is OK. It's only OK because there is no salary cap - if there was, pitchers like CC Sabathia would not get this kind of money, because "you have to watch every dime."

 

You say Lester's contract hurts the game more. Why? If Lester's deal was given to him next offseason, which would result in the same time frame Hamels' deal was given to him, it would be OK? Why is that?

 

The only case you can make for Lester's contract hurting the game at all is if there was a salary cap in place, but since there isn't debating what should be done if there was one in place is an exercise in futility.

 

If there was a salary cap, the Yankees couldn't have dropped 180 million on Mark Teixeira. If there was a salary cap, the Yankees couldn't have dropped 80 million of AJ Burnett. But there isn't so they can.

 

Arguing under a set of hypotheticals to "prove" your argument is about as intellectually dishonest as you can be. This is coming from someone who feels this deal may be rushed and unnecessary, but I'm not going to say it's killing the game.

 

Where was the outrage for Carmona's deal last year?

Finally...ORS take note, this is a well-thought out post. I'm not sure how you stand on a cap, Kilo, but it's these kind of deals that would not be "do-able" if a cap was in place. The reason I say it is worth than CC's deal is because of the precedent it sets. The big players will all get their money when being free agents. However, it's the smaller deals for the not as skilled or weaker negotiating points [such as 2 and 3 year players] that kill the market for small teams. The Yankees pay a luxury tax. The Red Sox upped the ante on all two year pitchers for all of baseball. That's why it was worse.

 

Let's say that Joba goes out and has an awesome year. He can go to the Yankees and request 5 years, 30 million...or more. Then lets say he gets injured....well, the Yankees can take it. Not if there was a salary cap. What if this was the Royals, or Twins, or another small market team. The Red Sox upped the ante for no discernable reason.

 

This is why it is worse, in my opinion.

I'd rather have 300 boring but right posts than your 4,000 posts of crap that continually gets bombarded by the other posters. What's the point of having "entertaining" posts if everyone on the site exposes you as a moron? I'd rather be a mystery with my occasional trenchant insight and my sporadic posting idiosyncrasies than a clear dumbass who pretends to know something about everything but ends up knowing little at all.

 

Your blanket interchangeable insults don't help your cause either. This isn't middle school...you'll have to stop trolling before your stock will rise.

Go away. You're JHB without the intelligence.

[ORS]

Your position hasn't changed on the cap, which is honorable.

 

However, you still don't understand my point, which to be honest is baffling.

 

Let's say I came out and said... "I like the CC deal, I like the Tex deal, and I like the AJ deal. I do want a salary cap." You would all call me a hypocrite...because if I like the deals, and I want a cap, then one of them would have to go.

 

Same thing, ORS. No different.

I understand where you are coming from completely. Where you are wrong is that you keep trying to bind one's position on the salary cap to one's position on any given deal as if they are inseparable. There is no connection there. None.

 

I have, in addition to being consistent in my support of a salary cap, something you rightly credit me for, also been consistent in my position that a person's take on a salary cap is independent from his/her take on any given deal within the current rules. You can like the Yankee signings and still be in support of a cap. The reason being is that your feelings about the deal should be judged in the context of the current rules / system. Finding the system to be broken or inequitable is a completely unrelated matter.

 

This is like the 6th time I've articulated this point to you, each time in a different fashion. Everyone else seems to get it, what's taking you so long?

[BoSox21]

http://3alleypub.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/beating_a_dead_horse.jpg

[Paradisecity]

Y

 

 

 

 

Finally...ORS take note, this is a well-thought out post. I'm not sure how you stand on a cap, Kilo, but it's these kind of deals that would not be "do-able" if a cap was in place. The reason I say it is worth than CC's deal is because of the precedent it sets. The big players will all get their money when being free agents. However, it's the smaller deals for the not as skilled or weaker negotiating points [such as 2 and 3 year players] that kill the market for small teams. The Yankees pay a luxury tax. The Red Sox upped the ante on all two year pitchers for all of baseball. That's why it was worse.

 

Let's say that Joba goes out and has an awesome year. He can go to the Yankees and request 5 years, 30 million...or more. Then lets say he gets injured....well, the Yankees can take it. Not if there was a salary cap. What if this was the Royals, or Twins, or another small market team. The Red Sox upped the ante for no discernable reason.

 

This is why it is worse, in my opinion.

 

If you look though, a small market team actually set this precedent with its locking up star players YOUNG (some with less than a YEAR service time for long term deals). That team? The D-Rays.

 

In my opinion the best chance an organization with little resources has is to approach one of the two Florida team ways-

 

1) (Marlins) trade off young talent towards the end of their deals for prospects who you shall have locked up cheap for multiple years and continue over and over, never truly realizing a fan base but having decent players and a shot at a title every so often.

 

or

 

2) (D-rays) spending on scouting and developing players, then keeping those players and then signing them early to deals that are attractive to both parties. This carries greater long term risk due to injuries and players not panning out, but it also carries the greater reward of having stars locked up for long periods of time so that playoff runs can be sustained over multiple years, giving the team the best shot at long term success. This also builds a fan base and gives the team attractive trading chips of decent players under reasonable contracts later in their careers.

[Gom]

I understand where you are coming from completely. Where you are wrong is that you keep trying to bind one's position on the salary cap to one's position on any given deal as if they are inseparable. There is no connection there. None.

 

I have, in addition to being consistent in my support of a salary cap, something you rightly credit me for, also been consistent in my position that a person's take on a salary cap is independent from his/her take on any given deal within the current rules. You can like the Yankee signings and still be in support of a cap. The reason being is that your feelings about the deal should be judged in the context of the current rules / system. Finding the system to be broken or inequitable is a completely unrelated matter.

 

This is like the 6th time I've articulated this point to you, each time in a different fashion. Everyone else seems to get it, what's taking you so long?

 

I think it's hypocritical. You don't under the confines of the current system. I think it is precisely these types of deals that "break" the system. You think it's acceptable given the current system.

 

I just think you can't have it both ways without being hypocritical. We agree to disagree.

 

Now...off of that point....

 

Do you think it was a good idea for a) your team and baseball?

[ORS]

Not at all. I think it would be an excellent idea. I am not sure of Wang's status' date=' but I wouldn't give him a 60% raise over say...Hamels deal [assuming their status is the same, which I don't believe it is']. Keep it in the ballpark.....

 

Finally...ORS take note, this is a well-thought out post. I'm not sure how you stand on a cap, Kilo, but it's these kind of deals that would not be "do-able" if a cap was in place. The reason I say it is worth than CC's deal is because of the precedent it sets. The big players will all get their money when being free agents. However, it's the smaller deals for the not as skilled or weaker negotiating points [such as 2 and 3 year players] that kill the market for small teams. The Yankees pay a luxury tax. The Red Sox upped the ante on all two year pitchers for all of baseball. That's why it was worse.

Where do you get 60% over the Hamels deal? Hamels signed away his 3 arb years for $20.5M. Lester signed away 1 pre-arb year, 3 arb years, and 1 FA year for $30M. Now, assume $500K for the pre-arb year, and what is the difference from the Hamels deal? It's one FA year for $9M.

 

The market for a young top of the rotation LHP was set by Hamels, and Lester's deal is clearly in line with it. There is no precedent set by the Lester deal. What the Sox did different was to assume more risk in a longer duration, but this is not the first time this has been done, so there's no precedent there either. In terms of risk, the smaller market teams were already much more risk averse than the big market teams, so this is very unlikely to change that.

 

Really not much to see here, just a bunch of thoughtless bluster.

[Gom]

Where do you get 60% over the Hamels deal? Hamels signed away his 3 arb years for $20.5M. Lester signed away 1 pre-arb year, 3 arb years, and 1 FA year for $30M. Now, assume $500K for the pre-arb year, and what is the difference from the Hamels deal? It's one FA year for $9M.

 

The market for a young top of the rotation LHP was set by Hamels, and Lester's deal is clearly in line with it. There is no precedent set by the Lester deal. What the Sox did different was to assume more risk in a longer duration, but this is not the first time this has been done, so there's no precedent there either. In terms of risk, the smaller market teams were already much more risk averse than the big market teams, so this is very unlikely to change that.

 

Really not much to see here, just a bunch of thoughtless bluster.

 

I was comparing Hamels to Wang, not Hamels to Lester. Read my post ORS. The precedent was set by Carmona. If you can say that two rising star pitchers with a shade over 2 years service time are not comparable and the precedent isn't set by one when they sign..well, then....

[ORS]

I think it's hypocritical. You don't under the confines of the current system. I think it is precisely these types of deals that "break" the system. You think it's acceptable given the current system.

 

I just think you can't have it both ways without being hypocritical. We agree to disagree.

Yes, and if you wish to keep that mindset you have allow for the comparable example of the DH I brought up. Do you call people who grew up rooting for an AL team hypocrites if they are against the DH? It's the same exact mindset. Or do you regularly apply a double standard?

 

Do you think it was a good idea for a) your team and baseball?

a) I've already stated I think they beat the market, but this of course requires some assumption. One, I think he stays healthy because his only issue has been cancer, and he's had no arm issues. Two, he continues to pitch at a high level. I admit, there's probably some wishful thinking there, but if those hold true, it's a good deal. Also, assumptions realized, that final year, the FA year, is probably worth $18+M on the open market in 5 years.

 

What does this mean? The rules of the system / game are what is good or bad for baseball. Back to the DH. I prefer the game played with pitchers hitting. Therefore, I think the DH rule is bad. I don't think it's bad when an AL team uses the DH, as it's within the rules. Go to the cause of good / bad, the rule, not to the application of the rule.

[ORS]

I was comparing Hamels to Wang' date=' not Hamels to Lester. Read my post ORS. The precedent was set by Carmona. If you can say that two rising star pitchers with a shade over 2 years service time are not comparable and the precedent isn't set by one when they sign..well, then....[/quote']

Why do I have to go back to Carmona? Because it suits your s***** argument better? No thanks. I'll go back to the most recent example, as more recent is more relevant. Besides, in your own words upthread, Carmona jobbed himself on that deal, and I agree. Therefore, it isn't a true representation of the market.

[TheKilo]

Finally...ORS take note' date=' this is a well-thought out post. I'm not sure how you stand on a cap, Kilo, but it's these kind of deals that would not be "do-able" if a cap was in place. [/quote']

 

I'm for a salary floor more than anything else but since these are not the rules MLB plays by it seems t be a waste of time talking in hypotheticals.

 

We will probably never see a salary cap because of the pull of the union.

 

The reason I say it is worth than CC's deal is because of the precedent it sets. The big players will all get their money when being free agents.

 

Not if there is a salary cap in place.

 

However, it's the smaller deals for the not as skilled or weaker negotiating points [such as 2 and 3 year players] that kill the market for small teams. The Yankees pay a luxury tax. The Red Sox upped the ante on all two year pitchers for all of baseball. That's why it was worse.

 

That's not true, though - the teams would still have control of these two-year tenured pitchers all the way until they reach free agency, via arbitration. These rules are in place for that very reason - so small market teams can keep their best players.

 

And if you look in the cases of Evan Longoria, Ryan Braun, Cole Hamels, etc. teams with smaller resources than the Sox are pulling these deals off easily.

 

Is Evan Longoria's six year deal terrible for the game of baseball because it rewarded him for two weeks of MLB service time? Where was this outrage last offseason?

 

Let's say that Joba goes out and has an awesome year. He can go to the Yankees and request 5 years, 30 million...or more. Then lets say he gets injured....well, the Yankees can take it. Not if there was a salary cap. What if this was the Royals, or Twins, or another small market team. The Red Sox upped the ante for no discernable reason.

 

This is why it is worse, in my opinion.

 

See above - the player can request a larger deal but the team has every right to refuse as long as they own the players' rights - that's what arbitration is for.

[Gom]

Why do I have to go back to Carmona? Because it suits your s***** argument better? No thanks. I'll go back to the most recent example' date=' as more recent is more relevant. Besides, in your own words upthread, Carmona jobbed himself on that deal, and I agree. Therefore, it isn't a true representation of the market.[/quote']

 

Because they're both two year players ineligible for arbitration. Why not compare Joba and Sabathia. They're both pitchers, right?

 

I picked Carmona because he's the most recent, and his status was exactly the same as Lester. I didn't pick Hamels or Wang because they are not in the same position. So...to recapitulate what you said..the most recent and similar situation is Carmona. Period. Just because it hurts your "s*****" argument is not my problem. It's yours.

 

I didn't bring up hitters because hitters are more easily predicted than pitchers. I used only pitchers, and the most recent pitcher in the SAME situation was Carmona. You using Hamels is like me using Halladay, who signed for 1.2 million. You're losing it old man. You used to put up better arguments than this.

[TheKilo]

Where was the outrage last year then?

[Gom]

Where was the outrage last year then?

 

1) This is a Red Sox board, and generally we talk about Yankees and Sox.

2) The Red Sox owner [Henry] and certain Red Sox fans call for a cap whenever the Red Sox fail to get a player and then the Yankees get him [see Arod: 2004; Teixeira: 2009].

 

I, for one, do not want a cap. It gives my team a financial advantage that I like. Sorry if some of you don't see this as sporting, but that's just too bad. I'm consistent in my position. I'm just tired of the hypocrisy that goes around. Say what you want about me, but I'm consistent in saying what I say. No one here was complaining when every sign showed that Tex was going to Boston, and they were throwing 160-170 million around in the papers. When the Red Sox dropped the ball, I called it and said that the Yankees are primed to go in and steal away Tex, which is what happened. Once he signed, it was the big-bad Yankees ruining baseball. A lot of those same people commend the Lester deal without really understanding it. Lester's deal has done more damage than any deal the Yankees signed this off-season....and possibly worse than any signing this off-season.

 

Why? Simple. The Yankees pay tax, a very large sum, and throw it back in the mix. These are elite players that have very few comparables. Lester's deal, however, affects all the teams, giving the players a comparable boost with no money thrown into the mix via luxury tax. The fact remains that the Red Sox overpaid considering the precedents set and have hurt the small market teams with this deal. As a Yankee fan, I couldn't care less as it will have a negligible, if any, impact on my team. Trying to look at it objectively, in which OBJECTIVITY here is sorely lacking, it's a bad deal for baseball...period.

 

The way I see it, everyone I know who is for a cap whines when a team like the Yankees signs a player to a large contract. It is my belief that deals like Lester's are the ones that really hurt the market. It's like that year, escapes my memory, that Leiber got an absurd amount of money. Not every team is going to be in the market for a Tex or a CC. Realize that this is not comparing Lester's deal to bona-fide free agents, or whether he's worth what he got. Compared to the free agent market, he's a steal. That isn't the point. Joba's a steal. Wang is a steal. Beckett is a bargain. Once again, it isn't the deal, or how good a player Lester is [i think he's probably the best pitcher on your staff], it's about the deal itself and the precedent it sets. For all of you, take off your Red Sox glasses and look at it from an objective view point. I rip my team and front office because I see things, or at least try to, in an objective light. You guys rip Jacko for being a homer...but you guys do it yourself just as much.

 

The Red Sox overpaid for Lester [once again, according to similar players, not the free agent market], and it hurt small-middle market teams. I can't see how you like deals like this if you really want competitive financial balance. [i.e. salary cap]. When you complain on the money spent by the big market teams, and your team overspends dramatically, and you applaud the deal...then, you're this.

[BoSox21]

The deal that Lester signed doesn't necessarily set the bar for arbitration-eligible players anyway. Those deals are less about money than they are about financial security for several years when those players have yet to prove themselves over an extended period of time. As far as the team goes, it either works out because it buys out FA years or it blows up in their face because the player gets injured or craps the bed. Players who are concerned about maxing out their financial worth simply don't go for these deals, they go year to year until they become an FA like Papelbon.

[Gom]

Lester wasn't aribtration-eligible.

[BoSox21]

or pre-arb

[TheKilo]

Lester wasn't aribtration-eligible.

 

Way to completely ignore my other post.

[Gom]

So you don't feel bad, Kilo...

 

I'm for a salary floor more than anything else but since these are not the rules MLB plays by it seems to be a waste of time talking in hypotheticals.

 

We will probably never see a salary cap because of the pull of the union.

I'm really not for a floor, but I'm more for a floor than a cap. I agree with you on the union being too strong for the owners to put in a cap.

That's not true, though - the teams would still have control of these two-year tenured pitchers all the way until they reach free agency, via arbitration. These rules are in place for that very reason - so small market teams can keep their best players.

However, when teams blow out the market that was set due to precedents, it defeats the very purpose of team control over the first few years.

And if you look in the cases of Evan Longoria, Ryan Braun, Cole Hamels, etc. teams with smaller resources than the Sox are pulling these deals off easily.

You're comparing hitters, which are more easily predicted, and pitchers with longer service times. However, your point is made that teams are locking up their players, which is a good thing. My point was never about locking up the players. I think Lester being locked up is a good thing for the Sox...I just question the dollars spent.

Is Evan Longoria's six year deal terrible for the game of baseball because it rewarded him for two weeks of MLB service time? Where was this outrage last offseason?

Yes, it's a bad deal for baseball. You honestly don't think it wasn't?

[BoSox21]

How is it a bad deal for baseball when one of the cheapest teams in baseball shows the ability to keep one of their cornerstones?

 

Is it bad for baseball that the Marlins signed Hanley?

 

Is any move that doesn't result in a player going year-to-year only to be gobbled up by the Yankees once he hits FA bad for baseball?

[TheKilo]

1) This is a Red Sox board, and generally we talk about Yankees and Sox.

2) The Red Sox owner [Henry] and certain Red Sox fans call for a cap whenever the Red Sox fail to get a player and then the Yankees get him [see Arod: 2004; Teixeira: 2009].

 

Did the Carmona deal "cause more harm to the game than any other" last offseason? Or was it the 300 million dollar deal ARod signed?

 

I've already said Henry cannot complain operating under the current rules, him crying poverty hold no weight with me.

 

Would he like a cap? Probably.

 

I, for one, do not want a cap. It gives my team a financial advantage that I like. Sorry if some of you don't see this as sporting, but that's just too bad. I'm consistent in my position. I'm just tired of the hypocrisy that goes around. Say what you want about me, but I'm consistent in saying what I say. No one here was complaining when every sign showed that Tex was going to Boston, and they were throwing 160-170 million around in the papers.

 

That is correct - there were no outrages because the Sox were playing under the rules as they are currently set up. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

When the Red Sox dropped the ball, I called it and said that the Yankees are primed to go in and steal away Tex, which is what happened. Once he signed, it was the big-bad Yankees ruining baseball.

 

Links? Quotes?

 

I was incredibly frustrated they did not sign Teixeira, but my frustration landed with the FO and not the Yankees. They're operating under the rules as they currently exist. Nothing more, nothing less. I think a lot of individuals felt the same way.

 

Could a deal like Teixeira's help drive towards a salary cap? Yes - because if only the big market clubs can sign big time free agents, big time free agents will only go to the big market teams. As a fan of a big market team, I also enjoy this benefit but can see where someone says it is damaging to the competitive balance of the sport. In the long run, this may force a salary cap (although I am of the opinion a floor could be more effective).

 

A lot of those same people commend the Lester deal without really understanding it. Lester's deal has done more damage than any deal the Yankees signed this off-season....and possibly worse than any signing this off-season.

 

Why? Simple. The Yankees pay tax, a very large sum, and throw it back in the mix. These are elite players that have very few comparables. Lester's deal, however, affects all the teams, giving the players a comparable boost with no money thrown into the mix via luxury tax. The fact remains that the Red Sox overpaid considering the precedents set and have hurt the small market teams with this deal. As a Yankee fan, I couldn't care less as it will have a negligible, if any, impact on my team. Trying to look at it objectively, in which OBJECTIVITY here is sorely lacking, it's a bad deal for baseball...period.

 

This is just not true. Teams control young players for a certain number of years because of arbitration. If the player is good enough to warrant a longer-term deal, then the club has the option to buy out their arb years if they so choose.

 

It's clear you think giving Lester an AAV deal of $6 million per will hurt the competitive balance in the game - but arbitration will not allow that. Teams hold players under their control for their arb years and are only expected to pay them reasonable salaries. Teams can do so until they lose complete control of their players' rights, at which time they become free agents and go to the highest bidder under the current rules.

 

This will have zero effect on the competitive balance in this sport. If the team wants to buy out the player's arb years, they will do it. If they don't they control the player at a reasonable price for six years.

 

The way I see it, everyone I know who is for a cap whines when a team like the Yankees signs a player to a large contract. It is my belief that deals like Lester's are the ones that really hurt the market.

 

If you really, truly believe that you either (a) have no idea how arbitration works or ( are insane and won't be convinced one way or the other.

[TheKilo]

So you don't feel bad, Kilo...

 

However, when teams blow out the market that was set due to precedents, it defeats the very purpose of team control over the first few years.

 

THAT'S WHAT ARBITRATION IS FOR.

 

You're comparing hitters, which are more easily predicted, and pitchers with longer service times. However, your point is made that teams are locking up their players, which is a good thing. My point was never about locking up the players. I think Lester being locked up is a good thing for the Sox...I just question the dollars spent.

 

Why? Why is it bad for baseball? TheRed Sox felt Lester is a $6 million player over 5 years.

 

The other teams don't have to sign their players through arb! They get them for six years at a very cost-controlled price, with the exception of the superstars who make a lot and will just be off of the team when they hit FA anyway!

 

Yes, it's a bad deal for baseball. You honestly don't think it wasn't?

 

Risky does not equal bad. I think it was risky to sign Longoria so quickly and I felt it was risky signing Lester now.

 

I don't think it "ruins" the game.

[example1]

You're comparing hitters, which are more easily predicted

 

So you're saying that teams are okay to overbid on hitters if they're sure they'll be productive for a long time, but not on pitchers? What makes you think hitters are more easily predicted? The fact that statistics seem to bear it out and that this is common knowledge, right?

 

What if the Red Sox believe that THEY are privy to knowledge about players like Lester and how they will project out? If a team like the Red Sox sees reason to believe that a player like Lester projects well they should be allowed to sign them to long term deals. Their confidence in his future might be based on some sabermetric or medical edge that they have spent money to develop over the years. What is wrong with that?

 

and pitchers with longer service times.

 

Hamels and Lester have the same service time, at least according to Cot's. They both have 2.+ service time, and they both signed deals in 2009. Your other comparison was Carmona, who signed when he had 1+ service time, which is not the case with Lester.

 

However, your point is made that teams are locking up their players, which is a good thing.

 

To lock up a player before his arbitration years costs more on the front end, but saves it on the back end. That has been shown with pitchers and with position players. There is nothing precident breaking about this signing in the slightest.

 

Yes, it's a bad deal for baseball. You honestly don't think it wasn't?

 

I think that there are MANY things that are worse for baseball. For instance, the Yankees rewarding steroid users with enormous contracts and continuing to play those players after they have admitted. Do I think they should just dump the players? Maybe not, but I think the mere act of promoting such things with Giambi, Pettitte, Clemens and now A-Rod is worse for baseball than some nuanced view about setting precedent with signing pre-arbitration players.

[ORS]

Because they're both two year players ineligible for arbitration. Why not compare Joba and Sabathia. They're both pitchers, right?

 

I picked Carmona because he's the most recent, and his status was exactly the same as Lester. I didn't pick Hamels or Wang because they are not in the same position. So...to recapitulate what you said..the most recent and similar situation is Carmona. Period. Just because it hurts your "s*****" argument is not my problem. It's yours.

 

I didn't bring up hitters because hitters are more easily predicted than pitchers. I used only pitchers, and the most recent pitcher in the SAME situation was Carmona. You using Hamels is like me using Halladay, who signed for 1.2 million. You're losing it old man. You used to put up better arguments than this.

What a bunch of semantical nonsense. You mean to tell me you can't make adjustments to compare apples to apples for a 2 year vs. super 2 player? Really? Why then do you lump 2nd year and 3rd year players together in your example about why this move is worse for baseball than the Sabathia signing? I mean, according to you, their situations are so gloriously different (btw, for the able minded, an adjustment of only $500K is typical for the 3rd pre-arb year) that nobody would dare consider them comparable, right? Oh, I know why put them together, here's comes Mr Double Standard again.

[Gom]

Good post Example1.

 

I also agree with your notion of steroid players being rewarded.

 

My only thing was the precedent set was bad. Lester's deal was a bad deal. Any time a big-market team blows out the competition or sets a new precedent is bad for small/medium market teams.

 

However, what the Yankees do/did is not the question here. The Yankees have no qualms about what they do. The Red Sox's FO is a bunch of hypocrites, and so are a lot of their fans. Either you're for fiscal responsibility or you're not. The Lester deal is fiscal irresponsibility. They could have done the deal for much, much less. Then they complain about the salaries in baseball, i.e. what the Yankees do.

 

You can't have it both ways.

 

Notice..you only hear about a salary cap when the Yankees make a big splash and Henry tries to cover his ass by saying we should have a cap...yet him or his FO botched the deal....then they start throwing money around, like Dice-K, Drew and Lugo or now Lester...and then you hear......

 

crickets.....crickets....

 

I'm just trying to point out the hypocrisy in probably the most hypocritical organization in baseball..and a lot of the sheep, err fans....follow their pied piper.

 

This isn't about you "defending" your home turf. I'm the most critical person on this board when it comes to my team's front office. I didn't rip the Brewers owner when he complained about the Yankees spending. He's got a right to...his team can't compete on the free agent market with the Yankees, or the Red Sox, et al.

 

I shoot down Henry because he's disingenious. He says one thing, does another...and there are a lot of sheep who buy into it.

[Gom]

What a bunch of semantical nonsense. You mean to tell me you can't make adjustments to compare apples to apples for a 2 year vs. super 2 player? Really? Why then do you lump 2nd year and 3rd year players together in your example about why this move is worse for baseball than the Sabathia signing? Oh' date=' I know why, here's comes Mr Double Standard again.[/quote']

 

One is arbitration eligible, the other isn't. One WILL get a higher salary..and the other is stuck with what the team gives him. Lester had a salary in 2008 of $421,500. I'm not sure what his salary would have been this year, but let's assume $500,000. The Red Sox then, by estimation, gave him a 5.5 million dollar raise when he had no bargaining power. Fine.However, keep in mind..the big, big, f***ing HUGE difference between Lester and Hamels is that Hamels was going to aribitration and was GETTING A RAISE NO MATTER WHAT.

 

If you still see this as "semantical nonsense"...please go find JHB...and go post there instead. This conversation will then, at that point, be beyond your level of comprehending. Once again, it's worse for the precedence it sets. Rarely do the big salaries for the big time players cause problems. The Arod deal, the Jeter deal, the original Manny deal, Pujols, etc...those are special players who are elite players. When a big market team kills the market for smaller market teams, it's worse than when a big market team overspends for a big time player.

 

To answer your question about the DH, I don't like the DH, but the AL plays with it, and by not playing with a DH, my team will suffer. I don't see how your example has ANY correlation...but then again, you usually don't make much sense...and that's why I ignored the DH part. It's irrelevant, and has nothing to do with the point. One ignored the precedent and set a new, absurd one, and the other plays with the status quo. ORS, Kilo and example1 have made good points...and you're posting fluff here.

[TheKilo]

Good post Example1.

 

I also agree with your notion of steroid players being rewarded.

 

My only thing was the precedent set was bad. Lester's deal was a bad deal. Any time a big-market team blows out the competition or sets a new precedent is bad for small/medium market teams.

 

However, what the Yankees do/did is not the question here. The Yankees have no qualms about what they do. The Red Sox's FO is a bunch of hypocrites, and so are a lot of their fans. Either you're for fiscal responsibility or you're not. The Lester deal is fiscal irresponsibility. They could have done the deal for much, much less. Then they complain about the salaries in baseball, i.e. what the Yankees do.

 

You can't have it both ways.

 

Notice..you only hear about a salary cap when the Yankees make a big splash and Henry tries to cover his ass by saying we should have a cap...yet him or his FO botched the deal....then they start throwing money around, like Dice-K, Drew and Lugo or now Lester...and then you hear......

 

crickets.....crickets....

 

I'm just trying to point out the hypocrisy in probably the most hypocritical organization in baseball..and a lot of the sheep, err fans....follow their pied piper.

This isn't about you "defending" your home turf. I'm the most critical person on this board when it comes to my team's front office. I didn't rip the Brewers owner when he complained about the Yankees spending. He's got a right to...his team can't compete on the free agent market with the Yankees, or the Red Sox, et al.

 

I shoot down Henry because he's disingenious. He says one thing, does another...and there are a lot of sheep who buy into it.

 

A Yankee fan accusing anyone of this is the highest of high comedy.

 

Respond to my post.

[TheKilo]

One is arbitration eligible' date=' the other isn't. One WILL get a higher salary..and the other is stuck with what the team gives him. Lester had a salary in 2008 of $421,500. I'm not sure what his salary would have been this year, but let's assume $500,000. [b']The Red Sox then, by estimation, gave him a 5.5 million dollar raise when he had no bargaining power. Fine.[/b]However, keep in mind..the big, big, f***ing HUGE difference between Lester and Hamels is that Hamels was going to aribitration and was GETTING A RAISE NO MATTER WHAT.

 

Not necessarily true, depends on how the deal is structured. What if it is a 2-4-6-8-10 deal? Then he's only getting a raise of $1.5 million, and based off his performance last season is not out of line.