Sox Lester agree on 5 year deal

[ORS]

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. 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. [/quote']

Hamels is getting approx $4.5M, $6.5M, $9.5M in the respective 3 years. Explain how him "GETTING A RAISE NO MATTER WHAT" makes that incomparable to the breakdown of Lester's arb years once we find out the contract specifics. Quick hint, it doesn't. Yes, it's a difference, but it doesn't make them incomparable, and the difference is gone once you make the $500K adjustment.

 

nonsense

 

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.

It is a perfect correlation. Taking away the specifics, you are on record saying that it is hypocritical if a person cheers their team for doing something within the rules to be more competitive when that thing goes against what they think the rules should allow. You can fill in the blanks and make it about the DH or make it about the salary cap, but both fit in the generic form in the preceding sentence. I don't buy for a second that you don't see this. It's clear as day. What I do buy, is that you will never admit that you are wrong, no matter how obvious it is.

 

Here's an idea, and I'll admit it was a poor example if no affirmatives come in response. To the board, did my DH example work in your opinion? No matter your response, there are no hard feelings. Be honest if you wish to participate.

[Gom]

THAT'S WHAT ARBITRATION IS FOR.

Once again, Lester is inelibible.

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

Sigh....because it's 60% higher than the next comparable pitcher...and this was signed in better economic times. I'm repeating myself here.

 

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!

Agreed. However, the Red Sox overpaid. There is no reason why they couldn't keep the salary down more.

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

Risky is for the team. When I mentioned "bad", it was for baseball in general. A deal can be good for a team, and bad for baseball. Look at CC, Manny, and Lester...if the deal is official.

 

Not necessarily true' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

According to Cots...the deal is not official, they pulled it off. However, it was a straight 6 million across the board when I looked last time.

[Gom]

Hamels is getting approx $4.5M, $6.5M, $9.5M in the respective 3 years. Explain how him "GETTING A RAISE NO MATTER WHAT" makes that incomparable to the breakdown of Lester's arb years once we find out the contract specifics. Quick hint, it doesn't. Yes, it's a difference, but it doesn't make them incomparable, and the difference is gone once you make the $500K adjustment.

Because of the economics of the deal. The longer a pitcher pitches, the more data you have and the more reliable the extrapolation of the data. Basically, the player gives up some years of freedom and potential money for security. The more security you give a player, the less money you give him. It's simple economics, ORS. Lester probably figured, and rightfully so, that he would average a lot less than the 6 million in the next year or two, and given his affinity for the Red Sox and a lot of other risk factors [health, quality of play], and considering the new precedent he was setting, he took it.

 

Also..please, if you quote me, don't edit my quote [unless you see a typographigal error]. I respect your posts, even when I don't agree with them.

It is a perfect correlation. Taking away the specifics, you are on record saying that it is hypocritical if a person cheers their team for doing something within the rules to be more competitive when that thing goes against what they think the rules should allow. You can fill in the blanks and make it about the DH or make it about the salary cap, but both fit in the generic form in the preceding sentence. I don't buy for a second that you don't see this. It's clear as day. What I do buy, is that you will never admit that you are wrong, no matter how obvious it is.

Bad example, ORS. We've all made them. I admit I'm wrong when I am wrong. Dojji just caught me in another post today saying so.

 

I can't remember you ever saying you were wrong. Too many people equate debating a point, or rather losing a debate, as a personal affront to them. You do fall in this category. There have been times when people have made stronger points than me, and I've admitted it. That's how you learn. You're too rigid in your opinions somtimes...especially when your opinions have been shown to be lacking in logic.

Here's an idea, and I'll admit it was a poor example if no affirmatives come in response. To the board, did my DH example work in your opinion? No matter your response, there are no hard feelings. Be honest if you wish to participate.

Why should there be hard feelings? You know I harbor no ill will toward you, and never have. :thumbsup:

[ORS]

Because of the economics of the deal. The longer a pitcher pitches' date=' the more data you have and the more reliable the extrapolation of the data[/b']. Basically, the player gives up some years of freedom and potential money for security. The more security you give a player, the less money you give him. It's simple economics, ORS. Lester probably figured, and rightfully so, that he would average a lot less than the 6 million in the next year or two, and given his affinity for the Red Sox and a lot of other risk factors [health, quality of play], and considering the new precedent he was setting, he took it.

Hamels is a super-2, Lester is pre-arb-2. The difference in their playing time is in the 0.05 years range. Really, stop.

 

Bad example, ORS. We've all made them. I admit I'm wrong when I am wrong. Dojji just caught me in another post today saying so.

You did not say you were wrong, merely that your post was not necessary. Big difference.

 

I can't remember you ever saying you were wrong. Too many people equate debating a point, or rather losing a debate, as a personal affront to them. You do fall in this category. 1. There have been times when people have made stronger points than me, and I've admitted it. That's how you learn. You're too rigid in your opinions somtimes...2. especially when your opinions have been shown to be lacking in logic.

When?

 

When? It's never been done by you.

 

Why should there be hard feelings?

There aren't any. That was for others who may feel wary of taking sides in an argument.

[TheKilo]

Once again' date=' Lester is inelibible. [/quote']

 

He would have been under the Sox's control for the same period of time anyways. The Red Sox decided he was worth more. Other teams assign worth to their own accord.

 

The Red Sox signing has no effect on what other teams do because of the way the arbitration rules are set up, no more than throwing $400 million at three free agents.

 

Sigh....because it's 60% higher than the next comparable pitcher...and this was signed in better economic times. I'm repeating myself here.

 

It makes no difference because the arb rules allow for teams to keep their players for six years. I'm repeating myself here. They do not have to buy out their arb years....the Sox chose to do so. That's their call.

 

Agreed. However, the Red Sox overpaid. There is no reason why they couldn't keep the salary down more.

 

I agree.

 

This does not mean the Sox are ruining the game or those who call for a cap are hypocrites.

 

Risky is for the team. When I mentioned "bad", it was for baseball in general. A deal can be good for a team, and bad for baseball. Look at CC, Manny, and Lester...if the deal is official.

 

According to Cots...the deal is not official, they pulled it off. However, it was a straight 6 million across the board when I looked last time.

 

Tell me why it's bad for baseball then. What damage does it do to the small market teams?

 

They can do two things when confronted with a situation like Lester's:

 

1. Do not buy out arb years, go toa rbitration every year, judge rules on what a fair salary is for that particluar player and the team he plays for. Player gets paid, costs team reasonable salary. No competitive balance harmed. Player reaches FA and goes to highest bidder.

 

2. Team buys out arb years at mutually beneficial deal. Contract expires, player becomes FA, goes to highest bidder.

 

Where's the damage?

[rician blast]

To recapitulate' date=' the Red Sox made a bad deal for [b']baseball.[/b] How Lester does is irrelevant. They went abouve the previous high set last year for 2nd year pitchers by 60% in AAV, and doubled the overall contract value. If you compare Lester and Carmona's 2nd years, Carmona was better in my mind. Don't go off on a tangent and compare them, so for arguments sake, we'll say they're even in quality of player.

 

This has nothing to do with baseball. The Red Sox have hurt the competitive balance of balance of baseball by offering an unprecedentedly high salary in a very weak economic time.

 

I think you have to look at Lester a bit differently than other pitchers with similar years of service (because of his performance recently, because of his 2007 playoff accomplishments, because of the challenges he's overcome...this is a business, Lester is a Sox "asset" who has value beyond most in his situation).

 

That said, are you f***ing kidding, harping on the Sox going above the previous high? (By the way, I'd like to know where you read that opinion before espousing it here).

 

For the record:

The Yankees exceeded the previous highest salary for a shortstop some years ago.

The Yankees exceeded the previous highest salary for a 1B this past offseason.

The Yankees exceeded the previous highest salary for a SP this past offseason.

The Yankees exceeded the previous highest salary for a 3B a couple of years back.

The Yankees exceeded the previous highest salary for a catcher with Posada's last contract.

 

All of those moves, plus the fact that they're paying f***ing invalids like Damon and Matsui $13m a piece, must be absolutely horrible for MLB if Lester's deal is such a crime.

 

In fact I think a fair argument could be made that what the Sox have done here...rewarding a guy earlier in his career for all that he's accomplished and HOW he's done it and the challenges he confronted in doing so are all GOOD for baseball.

 

Don't worry GOM...if and when Lester hits FA...and assuming he's been a solid pitcher in the interim...the Yanks will get their chance to try and overpay for him, and you can be content that at least he doesn't only have 2 years of service under his belt.

[diony]

^ Is not about the Yankees.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

^ Is not about the Yankees.

Idiot.

[diony]

Idiot.

 

Amazing contribution to this thread and is your first post on it. :thumbsup:

[example1]

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.

 

Again, show me the precedent! Hamels had signed a larger AAV deal than Lester did not two months earlier. The precedent that has been set is the precedent for hard throwing lefties who hit the FA market. If Lester were to, say, win a Cy Young in 3 years, or multiple Cy Youngs, then wouldn't the precedent be that he would leave Boston for a 20+m contract in NY, like Santana and CC have? It seems to me that, if anything, they are responding to a precedent with this signing. It seems to me that, if anything, these types of deals are the answer to the precedent that teams like the Yankees have no problem setting, outbidding themselves by 40m to sign a pitcher who would rather play elsewhere.

 

I haven't seen you respond to the list of teams that I cited earlier who had done these types of deals. You got hung up in your "I mentioned PITCHERS", but I want you to step back and talk about players. Look at the teams who have signed these young players to deals to keep them from hitting FA: teams like PHI, NYM, TB, KC, CWS, etc., have all done it. Some of those teams are large market, some are smaller market, but financially it makes sense to all of them. Furthermore, these teams weren't going to be getting Lester in the next 4 years anyway so your "competition" point is moot. Now they won't be getting him for 6 years.

 

However, what the Yankees do/did is not the question here. The Yankees have no qualms about what they do.

 

Not as long as you say so, I suppose.

 

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.

 

Prove it. Do you have reason to believe that Lester was willing to sign for a lot less than that? Do you think they did this just to jab other teams, or because they truly believed Lester was worth paying 30m over 5 years for? I laugh when I write that, because you're trying to argue that 30m over 5 years is some crippling move, while FA steroid users leave their small market teams and go to NY for hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

Then they complain about the salaries in baseball, i.e. what the Yankees do.

 

I think the Red Sox would be at a distinct advantage if there were a salary cap. They have a better scouting department, better analysts, and a better minor league system. Their international scouting is on par or better than NYY, and they have a better MLB team (per recent records) for considerably less money. You and the Yankees better hope there isn't a salary cap or the Yankees could really struggle.

 

You can't have it both ways.

 

I think ORS has thoroughly schooled you in this topic. Discussing the merits of a system is different from saying you wished the system didn't exist. Your black/white approach to which topics people are able to discuss without being hypocritical is pretty narrow-minded.

 

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....

 

Usually when you're the only one standing in a room shouting about something, it is worth checking to see if there is something wrong with your assessment. In this case that would be wise.

 

Moves like Lester and Dice-K are SMART moves to make within the confines of a system that does not have a salary cap. Nobody is agreeing with you, because what you're asking for is:

 

a: John Henry cannot advocate for a salary cap and

b: John Henry cannot make moves that help his team win within the current system

 

The only solution in your non-hypocritical matrix is that the Red Sox roll over, take it from teams like the Yankees, and lose.

 

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.

 

Meanwhile you're spending, what, 8 grand or something to support a team with overpriced, admitted steroid users on it, like Pettitte and A-Rod? Did you ever see a game with Clemens or Giambi playing? You obviously LIKE steroids in baseball and the role they had, or else you wouldn't have spent your money to support it, right?

[example1]

To the board' date=' did my DH example work in your opinion? No matter your response, there are no hard feelings. Be honest if you wish to participate.[/quote']

 

Absolutely. A great example. I'm sure there are many others.

[redsoxsuperfan]

I liked when they signed Pedroia and Youk. Not so sure about this one' date=' we'll see.[/quote']

 

Whats not to be sure about? I'm thinking Lester as an early Cy Young sleeper before I consider this to be a bad deal. He's just hitting his prime and I really believe last year is only a small taste of the future with this guy.

 

He's going to be throwing a change up this year, which if it works, should be the pitch he needs to get those strikeout totals up to elite status. He previously threw a cutter and really only varied speeds with the curve ball, so this is a big step forward for him.

[MANNYHOF24]

Whats not to be sure about? I'm thinking Lester as an early Cy Young sleeper before I consider this to be a bad deal. He's just hitting his prime and I really believe last year is only a small taste of the future with this guy.

 

He's going to be throwing a change up this year, which if it works, should be the pitch he needs to get those strikeout totals up to elite status. He previously threw a cutter and really only varied speeds with the curve ball, so this is a big step forward for him.

 

lulz

[BoSox21]

ban the f***

[DrewDaGreat]

who woudn't like this deal? I am pumped.

[TheKilo]

BEST BLOG EVAR

[Gom]

Again' date=' show me the precedent! [/quote']

Carmona...again.

Hamels had signed a larger AAV deal than Lester did not two months earlier.

Hamels was eligible for arbitration. Lester wasn't.

The precedent that has been set is the precedent for hard throwing lefties who hit the FA market. If Lester were to, say, win a Cy Young in 3 years, or multiple Cy Youngs, then wouldn't the precedent be that he would leave Boston for a 20+m contract in NY, like Santana and CC have? It seems to me that, if anything, they are responding to a precedent with this signing. It seems to me that, if anything, these types of deals are the answer to the precedent that teams like the Yankees have no problem setting, outbidding themselves by 40m to sign a pitcher who would rather play elsewhere.

My thing wasn't the Yankees, or even if the deal was good for the Sox. I said it's risky, but if he just stays healthy, it's a good deal for the Sox. It's just a bad deal for it's impact on other 2nd year pitchers [from a team perspective]. I never, ever said that locking up your players is a bad idea. For a team, it's a good idea. It's bad for baseball when the salaries escalate....and in this case, one of the teams that is pining for a cap is the one responsible. How can you not see that?

I haven't seen you respond to the list of teams that I cited earlier who had done these types of deals. You got hung up in your "I mentioned PITCHERS", but I want you to step back and talk about players. Look at the teams who have signed these young players to deals to keep them from hitting FA: teams like PHI, NYM, TB, KC, CWS, etc., have all done it. Some of those teams are large market, some are smaller market, but financially it makes sense to all of them. Furthermore, these teams weren't going to be getting Lester in the next 4 years anyway so your "competition" point is moot. Now they won't be getting him for 6 years.

The Yankees have done it with Cano. My thing is this...if, say, the Rays go out and sign Price to a 6 year, 66 million dollar contract after 2010 [assume he does as well as Lester did in his first two years], I'd say the same thing if they were screaming for a cap, like Henry does. List those players again, please, if you don't mind.

Prove it. Do you have reason to believe that Lester was willing to sign for a lot less than that? Do you think they did this just to jab other teams, or because they truly believed Lester was worth paying 30m over 5 years for? I laugh when I write that, because you're trying to argue that 30m over 5 years is some crippling move, while FA steroid users leave their small market teams and go to NY for hundreds of millions of dollars.

I didn't say it was a crippling move for the Sox. It hurt the competitive balance of the sport, and coming from a team that is claiming to want a cap reeks of hypocrisy.

I think the Red Sox would be at a distinct advantage if there were a salary cap. They have a better scouting department, better analysts, and a better minor league system. Their international scouting is on par or better than NYY, and they have a better MLB team (per recent records) for considerably less money. You and the Yankees better hope there isn't a salary cap or the Yankees could really struggle.

With the exception of international scouting, I agree completely. The Yankees have done better there with Wang and Cano. In this one small example, the Yankees are better. The Red Sox have trumped them in every other area in the last 5 or so years.

I think ORS has thoroughly schooled you in this topic. Discussing the merits of a system is different from saying you wished the system didn't exist. Your black/white approach to which topics people are able to discuss without being hypocritical is pretty narrow-minded.

I fail to see this. I'm not above admitting I'm wrong, but I don't see it on this point. ORS applauds a deal that is significantly higher than previous precedents, yet calls for a cap. How does overspending by 60% jell with a structured cap? Explain.

Usually when you're the only one standing in a room shouting about something, it is worth checking to see if there is something wrong with your assessment. In this case that would be wise.

I usually shout alone on this board..I'm a Yankee fan who posts on a Sox board. There are only a handful of us Yankee fans who post here regularly, and I'll go on a limb and say that I'm probably the most objective one here. I rip my own team as much as you guys, and when I do, you guys applaud. When I rip your team, I'm a hated enemy. Come on already....

Moves like Lester and Dice-K are SMART moves to make within the confines of a system that does not have a salary cap. Nobody is agreeing with you, because what you're asking for is:

 

a: John Henry cannot advocate for a salary cap and

b: John Henry cannot make moves that help his team win within the current system

If Henry advocates a cap, and then exceeds the previous mark by 60% for a player he has that has no negotiating power...then he's full of s***.

The only solution in your non-hypocritical matrix is that the Red Sox roll over, take it from teams like the Yankees, and lose.

Not what I said. I would have said the same thing if the Brewers, who complained about the CC deal, went and signed Manny for the money the Dodgers shelled out.

Meanwhile you're spending, what, 8 grand or something to support a team with overpriced, admitted steroid users on it, like Pettitte and A-Rod? Did you ever see a game with Clemens or Giambi playing? You obviously LIKE steroids in baseball and the role they had, or else you wouldn't have spent your money to support it, right?

No, I despise steroids. I think Arod is a fraud. If you ask me, I think that baseball should take a stronger stand.

 

If you want to talk about steroids, it should be a different thread, but I'll say this:

 

You give everyone a clean slate. You can't punish players after the fact, and if there wasn't a test or penalty at the time. So everyone who did steroids is off the hook. Sad, but you can't witch hunt. So Arod, Bonds, Giambi, Pudge, etc...they are all off the hook.

 

HOWEVER...if you get caught doing steroids NOW...you're banned. That's it. No 50 game penalty, no ********. You get caught cheating, find another profession. Playing baseball isn't a right, it's a privlege [did I spell that right?]. That's a big step towards cleaning the game.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Amazing contribution to this thread and is your first post on it. :thumbsup:

You said 'is not about the Yankees'... Yankee fans are harping on the Red Sox for spending money and going a bit over the 'norm' for a guy like Lester at this stage in his career. Meanwhile, Yankee fans just watched their team go out and give obscene, way over-the-top contracts to three different players, spending half a million on them. They also made like a $300 million commitment to A-Rod not too long ago.

 

 

So saying that its not about the Yankees in a thread thats concerns the Red Sox supposedly 'overspending' is complete hypocracy.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

You give everyone a clean slate. You can't punish players after the fact, and if there wasn't a test or penalty at the time. So everyone who did steroids is off the hook. Sad, but you can't witch hunt. So Arod, Bonds, Giambi, Pudge, etc...they are all off the hook.

 

HOWEVER...if you get caught doing steroids NOW...you're banned. That's it. No 50 game penalty, no ********. You get caught cheating, find another profession. Playing baseball isn't a right, it's a privlege [did I spell that right?]. That's a big step towards cleaning the game.

 

I like that idea a lot. Too bad Selig's a dipshit.

[example1]

Hamels was eligible for arbitration. Lester wasn't.

 

Being a super-two is about acquiring service time. Lester missed at a considerable amount of time because he had cancer. Apparently the Red Sox don't strictly hold that against him when they value his playing time. That miniscule amount of 1 season difference between he and Hammels and Taylor Buchholz didn't make all the difference.

 

My thing wasn't the Yankees, or even if the deal was good for the Sox. I said it's risky, but if he just stays healthy, it's a good deal for the Sox. It's just a bad deal for it's impact on other 2nd year pitchers [from a team perspective].

 

And I would argue that the mere idea of teams signing their players to reasonable longer term deals is going to be good for baseball in general, as is the notion of not punishing a guy who missed nearly a season because he had cancer.

 

Your premise--that promoting teams investing in their own players is an anti-salary cap move--is something that most people here dispute. This is the kind of move that allows teams to keep their better players into their FA seasons, so those players stay with their home team and don't simply go to the highest bidder--which is the very behavior that a salary cap would be trying to elicit. The player gets what he wants, the owners get what they want, and the fans get what they want... at least in theory.

 

Here's the list of teams (from what I can tell) who have signed their younger guys (1+, 2+ 3+, 4+) to the highest deals. I posted it a few days back.

 

BOS

PHI

ARI

TB

HOU

LAA

CHA

FLA

KC

DET

LAD

MIL

 

I bolded the teams that I would consider to be 'big market' teams... and I think I was generous--clubs who undoubtedly have the $$ and the incentive to lock up their best young talent. You'll notice that Arizona, Tampa Bay, Florida, Milwaukee, and KC are also in the list. It's not an exclusively large market list.

 

What is interesting, IMO, is that each of those teams was contenders, with the exception of KC. The smart money--and the going theory in baseball--says that teams who are competing or on the cusp of competing benefit greatly by getting their young, high WARP guys signed up. Lester and Hamels both posted 7.9 WARPs last year.

 

It's bad for baseball when the salaries escalate....and in this case, one of the teams that is pining for a cap is the one responsible. How can you not see that?

 

I guess the part that I missed is why being hypocritcal matters. It doesn't make either the move, or the statement by Henry good or bad. You acknowledge that the move, in a baseball sense, was a good one for the team, which is Henry's goal. His goal isn't to pretend there's a salary cap and win. His goal is to win. Whether someone is hypocritical or not has nothing to do with the validity of their argument, and your attempts to point at hypocracy in this case, or homerisms in another case, are nothing but transparent smokescreens to anyone who has seen your work before.

 

The Ad Hominem Tu quoque. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

 

I usually shout alone on this board..I'm a Yankee fan who posts on a Sox board. There are only a handful of us Yankee fans who post here regularly, and I'll go on a limb and say that I'm probably the most objective one here.

 

Your objective analysis of yourself is that you just happen to be the most objective one here? Coincidence?

 

 

If Henry advocates a cap, and then exceeds the previous mark by 60% for a player he has that has no negotiating power...then he's full of s***.

 

But even if this were true, which is disputable, this has nothing to do with the merits of a salary cap or the merits of this deal.

Lester has plenty of negotiating power. He can say "sign me to roughly the same deal as Pedroia and I'll give you a FA season or two, otherwise, I'm out of here."

 

No, I despise steroids. I think Arod is a fraud. If you ask me, I think that baseball should take a stronger stand.

 

And as the most symbolic team in the sport, I suppose you believe that the Yankees are taking a really weak stand against steroids, right? So wouldn't you agree, then, that the Yankees are hurting baseball considerably more with their $32m salary for A-Rod, or the $200m they are spending on him over the next decade or so? In their signings of Giambi, Pettitte, their huge pro-rated contract for Clemens and their gross signing of A-Rod, haven't they actually said, basically, "steroid users are winners in NY"? It seems to me they have. So who are they, and who are you--a season ticket holder--to start talking about which team does more damage to baseball with its moves, and which fans are stupid, or too subjective to see the world as clearly as you? They're going to trot that loser out there into the newest, biggest stadium in one of the world's greatest cities, and you're going to talk s*** about whether or not a Red Sox pitcher who may have been a super two if not for cancer, who has a playoff track record and, by all accounts, is a really good kid with a winner's head on his shoulders, you're going to talk about the damage HE did to baseball? Then you're going to brag about how objective you are?

[CrespoBlows]

You are a delusional f*** tard. Yea they shouldve lowballed a guy who got over cancer, and then became of one the best lefties in baseball. f***ing pathetic hypocrite, thats what you are. OMG 5 years/$30 million, the FO is now in the shitter for this Kevin Brown type contract

 

Wtf dude yea sox fans talk about yankees getting the big free agents for half a billion... but somehow in your eyes, the Sox giving $44 million over 6 years to a young ace in the making. I havent heard of any Sox fans bashing the Yankees for extending their own prospects.... which has been far and few in between

 

And this deal isnt the biggest contract given to a player with 2 years service time. Pedroia got a $40 million deal

 

lol

[rician blast]

^ Is not about the Yankees.

 

 

It's about a contract that a poster here says is bad for baseball, yet I didn't hear him up in arms about the Yankees signings that I mentioned which are clearly worse for baseball based upon the criteria he's chosen to evaluate Lester's deal. The Yankees deals are absolutely pertinent and the absence of his outcry vs. the Yanks most certainly makes this about the Yankees.

 

You chose the convenient and cowardly response, but it is offbase.

[Dojji]

Delays free agency = Yankees can't sign him as soon = bad for the Yankees = bad for baseball.

 

I don't see why this is so difficult a concept.

[rician blast]

Delays free agency = Yankees can't sign him as soon = bad for the Yankees = bad for baseball.

 

I don't see why this is so difficult a concept.

 

Agreed. Let's suppose Lester averages 17 wins over the course of this contract, ERA is in the 3.50 range. Let's also assume he files for FA after these seasons.

 

I think it'd be a fair assumption that the Yankees would offer a pitcher of this ilk $$$ that would make Lester's current deal look like a joke. So when the Yanks outbid everyone and themselves by $15-$20m on a contract for a player like Lester, will the outrage be there?

 

Or will those outraged by Lester's current deal use some silly years of service excuse to explain why the 500 lb. Gorilla flexing it's might once again is somehow not so egregious?

[BSN07]

Delays free agency = Yankees can't sign him as soon = bad for the Yankees = bad for baseball.

 

I don't see why this is so difficult a concept.

 

This is exactly what it breaks down too. I was just hoping someone wouldn't have to dumb it down so much

[Gom]

Being a super-two is about acquiring service time. Lester missed at a considerable amount of time because he had cancer. Apparently the Red Sox don't strictly hold that against him when they value his playing time. That miniscule amount of 1 season difference between he and Hammels and Taylor Buchholz didn't make all the difference.

Come on example1...it makes all the difference in negotiating power.

And I would argue that the mere idea of teams signing their players to reasonable longer term deals is going to be good for baseball in general, as is the notion of not punishing a guy who missed nearly a season because he had cancer.

This has nothing to do with cancer...just that he hasn't put in major league time. I'd say the same thing if he had TJ surgery.

Your premise--that promoting teams investing in their own players is an anti-salary cap move--is something that most people here dispute. This is the kind of move that allows teams to keep their better players into their FA seasons, so those players stay with their home team and don't simply go to the highest bidder--which is the very behavior that a salary cap would be trying to elicit. The player gets what he wants, the owners get what they want, and the fans get what they want... at least in theory.

God..how many times do I have to say it's about the AAV of the salary...

Here's the list of teams (from what I can tell) who have signed their younger guys (1+, 2+ 3+, 4+) to the highest deals. I posted it a few days back.

 

BOS

PHI

ARI

TB

HOU

LAA

CHA

FLA

KC

DET

LAD

MIL

 

I bolded the teams that I would consider to be 'big market' teams... and I think I was generous--clubs who undoubtedly have the $$ and the incentive to lock up their best young talent. You'll notice that Arizona, Tampa Bay, Florida, Milwaukee, and KC are also in the list. It's not an exclusively large market list.

 

What is interesting, IMO, is that each of those teams was contenders, with the exception of KC. The smart money--and the going theory in baseball--says that teams who are competing or on the cusp of competing benefit greatly by getting their young, high WARP guys signed up. Lester and Hamels both posted 7.9 WARPs last year.

What's your point? Once again...I complained about the AAV of the contract.

I guess the part that I missed is why being hypocritcal matters. It doesn't make either the move, or the statement by Henry good or bad. You acknowledge that the move, in a baseball sense, was a good one for the team, which is Henry's goal. His goal isn't to pretend there's a salary cap and win. His goal is to win. Whether someone is hypocritical or not has nothing to do with the validity of their argument, and your attempts to point at hypocracy in this case, or homerisms in another case, are nothing but transparent smokescreens to anyone who has seen your work before.

Finally...some sense on what I'm saying. My thing is this...and has always been this...go back to my first post. If you're going to sign a player that you control that has similar numbers and there is a precedent in Carmona who signed during a better economic time, and you increase that AAV by 60%...then you're full of s*** when it comes to a whining about a cap, Mr. Henry.

The Ad Hominem Tu quoque. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Interesting read. Thank you.

Your objective analysis of yourself is that you just happen to be the most objective one here? Coincidence?

Not really. Considering the two big posters who are Yankee fans are Jacko and 26, it's not like I had much to compete with. Even you have to agree with me there.

But even if this were true, which is disputable, this has nothing to do with the merits of a salary cap or the merits of this deal.

Lester has plenty of negotiating power. He can say "sign me to roughly the same deal as Pedroia and I'll give you a FA season or two, otherwise, I'm out of here."

True. I was wondering when someone would bring that point up so I could debate it. The Red Sox could say to him...look, you'll make peanuts this year..why not take some money now and we'll reward you with some security. You are a pitcher, and historically there's more risk, and you are a cancer-survivor." No matter the negotiating, the team has the upper hand.

And as the most symbolic team in the sport, I suppose you believe that the Yankees are taking a really weak stand against steroids, right? So wouldn't you agree, then, that the Yankees are hurting baseball considerably more with their $32m salary for A-Rod, or the $200m they are spending on him over the next decade or so? In their signings of Giambi, Pettitte, their huge pro-rated contract for Clemens and their gross signing of A-Rod, haven't they actually said, basically, "steroid users are winners in NY"? It seems to me they have. So who are they, and who are you--a season ticket holder--to start talking about which team does more damage to baseball with its moves, and which fans are stupid, or too subjective to see the world as clearly as you? They're going to trot that loser out there into the newest, biggest stadium in one of the world's greatest cities, and you're going to talk s*** about whether or not a Red Sox pitcher who may have been a super two if not for cancer, who has a playoff track record and, by all accounts, is a really good kid with a winner's head on his shoulders, you're going to talk about the damage HE did to baseball? Then you're going to brag about how objective you are?

I hate steroids in baseball. I understand that players are humans who make mistakes, and I didn't want Pettitte back. I didn't care for Giambi coming back either, and if the Yankees could void Arod's contract and spread that money around to other players, I'd be all for it.

 

Yes, I'm a season ticket holder, because first and foremost, I'm a fan of my team, and then of baseball in general. I don't like steroids, and I've listed what I feel should be the punishment for it. I have season tickets because I'm not only a fan, but I am a businessman who sells them and gives some away to clients.

 

I never, ever said anything bad about Lester. From what I've seen on TV and read, he's a fine young man and I respect him for his talent, his heart, and his ordeal in going through cancer.

 

I think Henry, however, is a lying weasel who cries whenever his front office f***s up and blames the Yankees instead of looking in the mirror. The Red Sox should have got Arod. The Red Sox should have signed Tex. Every sign pointed that way, and only after it blew up in their face, and the Yankees swept in, he whined and bitched. Then he makes an offer for a player under his control that blows away a precedent..all the while crying about the Yankees spending money.

 

Don't kid yourself. Switch franchises, give Henry the Yankees...and he'd spend money just as bad, if not worse than the Yankees. That's why he's full of s***. He only cries because the one team he can't/won't compete with is in his division.

 

And...after all this...the deal never went through...Lester signed a one-year deal. Terms to be disclosed.

[MANNYHOF24]

Deal still could go down, they just had a wednesday deadline of signing players.

 

 

http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090310&content_id=3961314&vkey=news_bos&fext=.jsp&c_id=bos

[Gom]

Here is a Q&A with Rays owner Stu Sternberg:

 

Read this...and realize that unlike that hypocritical piece of s*** Henry, here's a guy who speaks the truth. I'd say enjoy, but heaven forbid I point out someone in Red Sox fantasy land is a dumbass. I wonder if he would have changed his tune if he tried to sign Burrell and then lost him to the Yankees after he offered him 100K less than he was asking.

 

Q: Some of the other owners have advocated a salary cap or zone. What do you think about that and how it would help you?

 

A: I don't know if it would help us. I'm not a believer in a salary cap. I believe in a salary structure, and unfortunately the word 'cap' has got a connotation to it. I would expect that we're going to have a much broader salary structure put in. Anything that's going to allow for more competitive balance, true competitive balance. It's not to say, yeah, this team got into the World Series one year and this team got into the World Series. While that's great and it meant the world to us and it'll mean the world to the next team that comes in or to the Rockies or whoever it is one year to the next, it's about sustainability. Clearly, there are a lot of teams that can't go into the season year in and year out expecting to have a five- or eight-year run of good times. There are a few that can, and the difference there is the amount that is spent on salaries. I don't begrudge players making what they can make. It's still America; people should be able to make what they make. It's got to be in the right interests of the sport and what can grow the sport and we need a whole new structure, I think.

 

Q: Are you talking about a higher luxury tax or some other specifics?

 

A: There's so many moving pieces to it that can be addressed. Clearly, a lot was done before we came in as owners, and if those changes had not been made we would not be here today. [such as] more revenue sharing. This franchise wouldn't be here today [without it] – or certainly it wouldn't be in this part of Florida. And it wouldn't be here, being able to get to the World Series if not for the enormous strides that were made in revenue sharing. But there's a long way to go yet. You can come up with a whole laundry list, but the issue with a laundry list is that every time you try to do one thing it's got an effect on the other side, so you have to be careful. You cap salaries, that's great. But if there's a minimum, I can't afford to run my business. So then you have to share more revenue, but teams don't want to share more revenue. If we think about it, not about money but about competition, I think we could come up with the right answers.

 

Q: So there's no specific plan that you're proposing?

 

A: I have one in my mind, but I'm sure 30 owners and a number of people in the commissioner's office have got ideas. Like anything else, whether you're dealing with what's going in Washington, you like part of the plan and you don't like another part of the plan, it's really about how the pieces fit together. You can attack it from the draft, from a tax, from how long players are with you, the union has got to be a part of it. But I think Bud Selig, the one thing that is so great, really, in what he does, is to just say you put the best interest of baseball first. I think, this being a microcosm of that, competition, I believe, is good for the best interests of baseball, and if we just look at it and say 'How can we improve competition?' as opposed to who gets paid what and when, I think we can make a lot of strides.

[example1]

I think Henry, however, is a lying weasel who cries whenever his front office f***s up and blames the Yankees instead of looking in the mirror. The Red Sox should have got Arod. The Red Sox should have signed Tex. Every sign pointed that way, and only after it blew up in their face, and the Yankees swept in, he whined and bitched.

 

I think an equally valid perspective is that John Henry dislikes bad deals and overspending on players and takes pride in fielding a competitive team despite that fact. I think that's a good precedent he has set. Look at the deals the Red Sox have signed that have made them competitive while also being cost effective, and their strong preference for minor league talent to FA talent.

 

Look at the deals that have not been signed in the name of setting a price and sticking to it--letting Damon, Pedro, Nomar, Manny, etc., go when their demands and popularity was high. The Red Sox could have had A-Rod if they had not tried to renegotiate his contract in 2004, or if they had topped the Yankees contract in 2007. They didn't. They set their price and they didn't go above it. Of course, these players are more valueable to the Sox than they are to many other teams, but they aren't worth as much as they are to the Yankees.

 

Similarily, the Red Sox could have had Teix if they had offered considerably more than they did. They didn't offer that. Not because they are stupidly cheap, and not because they didn't understand that Teixeira would sign for considerably more, but because they set a value and they try to stuck to it.

 

Then he makes an offer for a player under his control that blows away a precedent..all the while crying about the Yankees spending money.

 

The only parallell that I could draw here would be if Henry expressed concern--related to a salary cap or whatever--following the Yankees signing of Joba or Hughes (or another 2nd year player) for big money. If he complained about that I would understand your point.

 

Instead he complains about the Yankees spending nearly 10 times (not double, TEN TIMES) the salary of the MLB's lowest spending team. To most non-Yankee's fans your complaint comes off as petty and misguided--whether you claim to be objective, or claim to not be talking about the Yankees.

 

I've never heard Henry mention having any problem with a team spending 6m a year on a pitcher, whether a 2+ or a FA. That comment would be a meaningful precedent.

 

The precedent that I see is that the Red Sox paid players the 2nd highest average salary in 2008:

 

Avg Salary 08:

Red Sox: $4,765,716

Yankees: $6,744,567

 

The Yankees pay their players an average of 40% more than the second highest team. There's nothing deceptive or related to arbitration about that fact. The best way to counter it is by signing players like Lester to longer term deals and it seems to work pretty well.

 

Don't kid yourself. Switch franchises, give Henry the Yankees...and he'd spend money just as bad, if not worse than the Yankees. That's why he's full of s***.

 

This is why you're full of s***. What possible evidence do you have to back this up? The fact that he might be comfortable signing a pitcher to a $6m x 5 year deal? It seems to me that there are lots of things that Henry does to indicate that he's very interested in the 'real value' of players, not some arbitrary number ("I want more than 20m!"). Every step, from signing international FAs to resigning meaningful young players (pedroia, youkilis, maybe Lester) seems to show someone who does NOT like to throw around millions of dollars like they are monopoly money.

 

My guess is that if JOHN HENRY were with the Yankees, the Yankees would be running a much tighter financial ship and WOULD STILL BE WINNING. Honestly, there is NO precedent of Henry happily paying anyone more than 20m a year, so why should we believe that he would spend more than the current Yankees? I think that is absolute BS.

 

 

And...after all this...the deal never went through...Lester signed a one-year deal. Terms to be disclosed.

 

Such is baseball.... such is life.

[Gom]

I think an equally valid perspective is that John Henry dislikes bad deals and overspending on players and takes pride in fielding a competitive team despite that fact.

I didn't realize Henry was unique here. Come to think of...I think every owner in the history of all sports would want that...but what do I know?

I think that's a good precedent he has set. Look at the deals the Red Sox have signed that have made them competitive while also being cost effective, and their strong preference for minor league talent to FA talent.

Buddy...have you been paying attention to this thread? I didn't say they didn't make good deals, didn't build a good team...JEEZ...all I said was...hell...I'll give you a clue...he signed a deal that blew away the previous ______________ [rhymes witch "decadent"].

Look at the deals that have not been signed in the name of setting a price and sticking to it--letting Damon, Pedro, Nomar, Manny, etc., go when their demands and popularity was high. The Red Sox could have had A-Rod if they had not tried to renegotiate his contract in 2004, or if they had topped the Yankees contract in 2007. They didn't. They set their price and they didn't go above it. Of course, these players are more valueable to the Sox than they are to many other teams, but they aren't worth as much as they are to the Yankees.

Useless. Not up for debate.

Similarily, the Red Sox could have had Teix if they had offered considerably more than they did. They didn't offer that. Not because they are stupidly cheap, and not because they didn't understand that Teixeira would sign for considerably more, but because they set a value and they try to stuck to it.

Considering..and the games haven't begun yet...but imagine if you signed Tex, and now we find out about Arod's injury. We won't debate the Tex move, that was done before..and is actually irrelevant. You're setting a record for irrelevant topics, AKA "strawman".

The only parallell that I could draw here would be if Henry expressed concern--related to a salary cap or whatever--following the Yankees signing of Joba or Hughes (or another 2nd year player) for big money. If he complained about that I would understand your point.

OH MY GOD. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING. IF HE COMPLAINED ABOUT THIS...HE'D MAKE SENSE. THE YANKEES WOULD BE AFFECTING THE MARKET IN A NEGATIVE WAY FOR ALL TEAMS, ESPECIALLY SMALL AND MEDIUM MARKET TEAMS. CONSIDERING THE YANKEES PUT BACK 40% [i BELIEVE] OF EVERY DEAL THEY GO OVER THE LUXURY TAX, THOSE DEALS ACTUALLY HELP THE POORER TEAMS. A DEAL LIKE THIS WOULD HURT THOSE POORER TEAMS WITHOUT EVEN GIVING THEM THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDED INCOME FROM THE LUXURY TAX. HOLY s***!!!!

 

Instead he complains about the Yankees spending nearly 10 times (not double, TEN TIMES) the salary of the MLB's lowest spending team. To most non-Yankee's fans your complaint comes off as petty and misguided--whether you claim to be objective, or claim to not be talking about the Yankees.

I've never heard Henry mention having any problem with a team spending 6m a year on a pitcher, whether a 2+ or a FA. That comment would be a meaningful precedent.

Is there anyone here at Talksox who has a shred of objectivity besides Kilo? Anyone? All of baseball knew that the Yankees were going to throw big money at CC. Nothing was said. The Yankees and Braves bid pretty much the same money, but AJ wanted to stay in the AL East, so he chose the Yankees.

 

The Red Sox, in nearly everyone's opinion on this board, dropped the ball with Tex's dealing. The Yankees swooped in after the door was opened by the Red Sox's FO's "blunder" and grabbed Tex.

 

So...when does Henry complain? After the Tex signing. Who could have foreseen it?

 

Flash back to 2004.

 

Red Sox are in the news for potentially dealing for Arod all winter. For whatever reason, the deal falls through. The Yankees swoop in and make a deal for Arod on February 15. On February 22nd, Henry calls for a cap.

 

So...when does Henry complain? After the Arod signing. Who could have foreseen it?

 

Let's deal with some FACTS.

 

2004: Red Sox fail in their attempt for acquiring Arod, having a gap of approximately $1 million annualy [if memory serves me correctly] that he was unable to bridge. Yankees trade for him. Henry calls for a salary cap. FACT.

 

2006: Henry has one of the wildest spending sprees, if not the most expensive off-seasons ever at the time when his team spends over $250 million in signing and posting fees for Dice-K. No mention of a salary cap. FACT.

 

2009: In last week of December, after failed negotiations between Mark Teixeira and the Red Sox, the Yankees swoop in and sign Teixeira to a deal that is approximately $1 million more annually than the Sox did [does any of this sound familiar to you?]. Not a sound was heard from Henry after CC and Burnett signed, rather, the plea was made AFTER Teixeira chose the Yankees. FACT.

 

2009: Continued...according to reports, the Red Sox had agreed to a deal with Lester, a fine young pitcher and individual, that would have paid Lester 60% more than the precedent set the previous season by a pitcher who had nearly identical statistics [Carmona had a better ERA and WHIP, but played in the AL Central which was slightly less competitive than AL East]. Not a peep is heard about a cap.

 

Henry has called for a cap TWICE. Both times, after his team was unable to make a deal for a star player...and that same player ended up with the Yankees. THAT'S IT. When Henry loses, the f***ing egomaniac can't believe he botched the deal, so he looks to blame someone else for his organization's f*** up. I can tell you of a hypothetical time when Henry would have called for a cap. If the Yankees pulled off the deal for Santana. It's like clockwork. Red Sox botch negotiations. Yankees sneak in and grab the player. Henry calls for a cap. Rinse, repeat. When Matsui comes off the books after this season, and say the Yankees go get Holliday for roughly the same money...after the Red Sox have been rumored to get Holliday...he'll call for a cap again.

 

He made a $200 million splash getting Dice-K, Lugo, and Drew. He nearly DOUBLED the next highest bid for Dice-K. He, according to reports, was willing to give Lester 60% more than Carmona got the year before in better economic times.

 

No one has a right to say anything about the Yankees here. The Yankees are steadfastly against the cap. They spend accordingly. It is their right. They spend their money, and they pay the luxury tax. Say what you will, but you can't call them hypocrites in their spending habits. They say they will spend, and then they go out and do it.

 

The Red Sox are a well run organization. They have a right to spend their money the way they see fit. They have won the most World Championships this decade, and are a well-stocked team. They have made some excellent moves [and some bad ones too] and have a good nucleus, and from what I read, have a strong farm system as well.

 

This is not a comparison of the Red Sox and the Yankees in any way. This is not whether the deals are good for the Red Sox or not [i think locking up Pedroia, Lester, and Youkilis is a great move for the Red Sox].

 

What MY WHOLE POINT was that Henry is a hypocritical liar who has no problem throwing boatloads of cash to get his players [see Dice-K, Lugo, Drew, rumored Lester deal], but cries like a baby when his team drops the ball on a certain player that ends up going to the Yankees [see Arod, Tex]. In fact...THAT'S THE ONLY TIME HE'S EVER DONE IT. I could buy it if he didn't throw money around like crazy himself, and overbid/pay by 50% and over. I could buy it more if he makes the comments after ANY DEAL where his team didn't get burned. The most obvious case of sour grapes in Baseball Front Office history, and you guys are too blinded by your fandom to see it. You wouldn't know objectivity if it sat on your face and wriggled.

 

If you want to go around believing your owner is God's gift to baseball, that's your problem, not mine. I don't think the new Yankee owners are perfect. Hank was right on trading for Santana, and wrong to overbid on Arod. I call it as I see it. Hank is full of hot air, bluster, and bile...he's his father without his father's baseball acumen and cult of personality. It's too bad, because I do like Hank. George was bigger than life, so to speak, and I liked it. It was always entertaining. George was full of s*** [like anyone on Earth believed he would move the Yankees to New Jersey], but I loved him as an owner.

 

Henry seems like he has a lot of Old George's personality. However, he is completely and unadulteratedly full of s*** when it comes to his stance on a potential cap...and if there is a SINGLE Red Sox fan who after reading this post doesn't think so, then that fan is a complete moron, I'm sorry to say.