Is it time to prioritize 2010?

[Dipre]

When acquiring a player - all a GM should care about is performance on the field. So if I were a GM - I will gladly take A-Rod if his performance does not get impacted by his diva act of the field.

 

Winning is the best medicine. The players with the best of attitude become toxic in a loosing environment.

 

Hear' date=' hear.[/quote']

 

Manny Ramirez says hello.

 

And of course you do.

[jacksonianmarch]

When acquiring a player - all a GM should care about is performance on the field. So if I were a GM - I will gladly take A-Rod if his performance does not get impacted by his diva act of the field.

 

Winning is the best medicine. The players with the best of attitude become toxic in a loosing environment.

 

Exactly

[Dipre]

Lol that's not a very smart assessment.

 

But to each his own.

 

Winning is the best medicine, yeah right.

[jacksonianmarch]

Hey man, I am a yankee fan. Our teams are always filled with divas and negative press. Hell, we had Clemens throw a bat handle at Piazza in the world series in a fit of roid rage. But he won. Once he sucked, he was useless to us.

[das11209]

Lol that's not a very smart assessment.

 

But to each his own.

 

Winning is the best medicine, yeah right.

 

Noone likes to be associated with loosers.

 

Not the players - not even the fans.

 

I understand that you might have diff. opinion - but that's how most people will feel.

[Dipre]

Noone likes to be associated with loosers.

 

Not the players - not even the fans.

 

I understand that you might have diff. opinion - but that's how most people will feel.

 

Manny.Ramirez.Says.Hello.

 

Clubhouse cancers can f*** up a team's chemistry quick.

 

If you think otherwise, well, that's your problem.

 

Let's go ahead and sign Jose Guillen and every other clubhouse cancer out there.

 

As soon as we're winning it's okay, if we can keep winning that is.

[example1]

More to the point' date=' is 2009 even still the top priority? Has it become a situation where a playoff appearance would represent a pleasant surprise and the time has come to start building towards a serious World Series run in 2010?[/quote']

 

Jesus.

 

They have a two game lead in the WC and are in a very tough stretch of road games. Which other teams would essentially give up on a team in such a situation? You think Texas should give up too? Hell, Tampa Bay is 2.5 games back. They should just start planning for the future too.

 

What difference does it even make to do that right now? They won't trade for anyone, won't sign anyone for the future, won't rest players who need to be out there earning their money.

 

If things continue to spin for this team then perhaps they'll start resting players toward the end of the season when they're 6 games back of the wild card. Otherwise, this is a pretty absurd thread.

[jacksonianmarch]

he f***ed up your team chemistry to the tune of 2 titles

[das11209]

Manny.Ramirez.Says.Hello.

 

Clubhouse cancers can f*** up a team's chemistry quick.

 

If you think otherwise, well, that's your problem.

 

Let's go ahead and sign Jose Guillen and every other clubhouse cancer out there.

 

As soon as we're winning it's okay, if we can keep winning that is.

 

You are intentionally interpreting it the wrong way. I am saying go for the performers - you are saying go for the cancers.

 

In any profession - a skilled person will come up with a baggage. The only guy who will not give any problem is someone with little and less ability - because he knows the rope is little for him. It is the job of a manager to manage egos - I thought Tito is one of the best in doing that?

 

Unlike Football - baseball is more of a sport of individual players and not the team. Our team will not compete unless they get the best performers and keep them happy.

[Dipre]

he f***ed up your team chemistry to the tune of 2 titles

 

Then had to be run out of town because the team couldn't put up with his s*** anymore and it was showing on the field.

 

Your point being?

[Dipre]

You are intentionally interpreting it the wrong way. I am saying go for the performers - you are saying go for the cancers.

 

In any profession - a skilled person will come up with a baggage. The only guy who will not give any problem is someone with little and less ability - because he knows the rope is little for him. It is the job of a manager to manage egos - I thought Tito is one of the best in doing that?

 

Unlike Football - baseball is more of a sport of individual players and not the team. Our team will not compete unless they get the best performers and keep them happy.

 

I said it for the cancers in the first place.

 

You're the one interpreting it as you see fit.

[jacksonianmarch]

My point is that eventually, they may become a problem. But typically, divas are players who have a great amount of talent and therefore have more leeway. And when they produce, typically, the entire franchise benefits. I certainly dont think you would label Manny's signing in 2001 a failure. He only was the lead offensive force that got you to an ALCS and 2 world series titles.

[Dipre]

My point is that eventually' date=' they may become a problem. But typically, divas are players who have a great amount of talent and therefore have more leeway. And when they produce, typically, the entire franchise benefits. I certainly dont think you would label Manny's signing in 2001 a failure. He only was the lead offensive force that got you to an ALCS and 2 world series titles.[/quote']

 

However, the way the Manny signing ended is exactly what every FO tries to avoid when assessing whether to acquire a player.

 

You can say otherwise, but that's simply the way it is.

[jacksonianmarch]

they may try to avoid it, absolutely. But do you think Theo would undo that signing and give back the titles? Fact is, without the divas, you dont win a WS. You're still stuck with the 1918 chants

[Dipre]

they may try to avoid it' date=' absolutely. But do you think Theo would undo that signing and give back the titles? Fact is, without the divas, you dont win a WS. You're still stuck with the 1918 chants[/quote']

 

Holy s***, are you really this dense?

 

Stop with the strawmans.

 

Here's the question:

 

If you're the owner of a team, do you or do you not avoid at all costs signing Primadonna players?

[das11209]

Holy s***, are you really this dense?

 

Stop with the strawmans.

 

Here's the question:

 

If you're the owner of a team, do you or do you not avoid at all costs signing Primadonna players?

 

In theory yes. But practically it is impossible. Because unfortunately performers are Primadonna players whom a team needs to win.

 

The trick is managing the Primadonna players so they can keep their act off the field.

[Gom]

Then had to be run out of town because the team couldn't put up with his s*** anymore and it was showing on the field.

 

Your point being?

 

I don't know..maybe if you had given him the extension he wanted...do you really believe you wouldn't have gotten past Tampa last year? Then the Phillies?

 

Your ownership group [not the GM] is the biggest bunch of fools this side of the Dolans. Tex was all but signed and sealed to Boston until Henry got involved [which I called, and I'll give myself a shameless plug]. They dropped the ball on Damon [who I also recall Gammons saying that Coco Crisp would outproduce Damon by the end of Damon's contract...that one is almost as good as the Smoltz being the best pitcher in the AL East].

 

Henry twitters about Tex...every wonder why?

 

Don't get all bent out of shape about the ownership groups. Henry is a moron who impedes Theo. I may not agree with Hank and Hal, and I definitely don't agree with most of Cashman's moves, but at least they stay out of his way and let him run the team, right or wrong.

 

If they had locked up Ramirez in spring training, you'd have won 3 out of 5 in my mind. You also wouldn't have won ANY without him. Period. So...you malcontent player was a primary reason you won two championships...and then he becomes a cancer?

 

Last I looked, he wasn't a cancer in LA...and they're doing a shitload better than your team is right now.

[Dipre]

I don't know..maybe if you had given him the extension he wanted...do you really believe you wouldn't have gotten past Tampa last year? Then the Phillies?

 

Your ownership group [not the GM] is the biggest bunch of fools this side of the Dolans. Tex was all but signed and sealed to Boston until Henry got involved [which I called, and I'll give myself a shameless plug]. They dropped the ball on Damon [who I also recall Gammons saying that Coco Crisp would outproduce Damon by the end of Damon's contract...that one is almost as good as the Smoltz being the best pitcher in the AL East].

 

Henry twitters about Tex...every wonder why?

 

Don't get all bent out of shape about the ownership groups. Henry is a moron who impedes Theo. I may not agree with Hank and Hal, and I definitely don't agree with most of Cashman's moves, but at least they stay out of his way and let him run the team, right or wrong.

 

If they had locked up Ramirez in spring training, you'd have won 3 out of 5 in my mind. You also wouldn't have won ANY without him. Period. So...you malcontent player was a primary reason you won two championships...and then he becomes a cancer?

 

Last I looked, he wasn't a cancer in LA...and they're doing a shitload better than your team is right now.

 

This is not the point of the question, they did s*** the bed with Tex, and maybe they just didn't want Ramirez and his shenanigans around anymore.

 

The question is simply a hypothetical question:

 

If you own a ML team, do you or do you not avoid players who could potentially become clubhouse cancers?

[ManRam]

Last I looked, he wasn't a cancer in LA...and they're doing a shitload better than your team is right now.

 

Are you retarded?

 

He wasn't a cancer the first 2 years in Boston either.

[Dipre]

In theory yes. But practically it is impossible. Because unfortunately performers are Primadonna players whom a team needs to win.

 

The trick is managing the Primadonna players so they can keep their act off the field.

 

I'm not saying NEVER sign one.

 

I'm saying do you or do you not avoid them at all costs.

 

As in this:

 

Player A:

 

.287/357/458

 

 

Player B:

 

.290/360/470

 

Player B has a history of clubhouse altercations and addressing the media regarding the team's policies, and both will cost roughly the same amount of money.

 

Who do you sign?

[Dipre]

Are you retarded?

 

He wasn't a cancer the first 2 years in Boston either.

 

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[jacksonianmarch]

Holy s***, are you really this dense?

 

Stop with the strawmans.

 

Here's the question:

 

If you're the owner of a team, do you or do you not avoid at all costs signing Primadonna players?

 

The question is more complicated than that. You cannot just isolate one part of a player and ask a question based solely on that part. If I needed a starting pitcher badly, and the best pitcher on the market liked to punt puppies and urinate on pregnant women in his time off, then he's getting a contract. If he did those things while being mediocre or s*****, then no way. It is all about weighing the pluses and minuses. And yes, being a diva is a minus. But typically that attitude comes with significant performance pluses that outweigh the personality.

[Dipre]

The question is more complicated than that. You cannot just isolate one part of a player and ask a question based solely on that part. If I needed a starting pitcher badly' date=' and the best pitcher on the market liked to punt puppies and urinate on pregnant women in his time off, then he's getting a contract. If he did those things while being mediocre or s*****, then no way. It is all about weighing the pluses and minuses. And yes, being a diva is a minus. But typically that attitude comes with significant performance pluses that outweigh the personality.[/quote']

 

Oh sweet Jesus.

 

You really made it through med school?

 

Really Really?

 

Let me put it in kindergarten language for you.

 

If you're going to get a player who has a lot of baggage, but you find a comparable player who might cost a bit more, but is a good clubhouse, doesn't make headlines and contributes to the community:

 

Do you sign the douchebag?

 

Or do you sign the nice guy?

 

Remember, their performance is nearly identical.

[jacksonianmarch]

I'm not saying NEVER sign one.

 

I'm saying do you or do you not avoid them at all costs.

 

As in this:

 

Player A:

 

.287/357/458

 

 

Player B:

 

.290/360/470

 

Player B has a history of clubhouse altercations and addressing the media regarding the team's policies, and both will cost roughly the same amount of money.

 

Who do you sign?

 

you are talking about the exact same player except one has an attitude. Sorry, it never works that way. How bout we look at it this way....

 

Player A is a nice guy. Here is his line from the end of 2008. .293/.370/.527. Here is his career line. .279/.376/.514

 

Player B is a clubhouse cancer when things dont go his way. Here is his line from the end of 2008. .396/.489/.743. Here is his career line. .314/.412/.593. He also won two world series titles.

 

I am sorry, but the production difference is big enough for me to go with player B.

[Dipre]

you are talking about the exact same player except one has an attitude. Sorry, it never works that way. How bout we look at it this way....

 

Player A is a nice guy. Here is his line from the end of 2008. .293/.370/.527. Here is his career line. .279/.376/.514

 

Player B is a clubhouse cancer when things dont go his way. Here is his line from the end of 2008. .396/.489/.743. Here is his career line. .314/.412/.593. He also won two world series titles.

 

I am sorry, but the production difference is big enough for me to go with player B.

 

Sure, you can spin it your way all you want, but you're dead wrong.

 

You can usually find guys with comparable ages and comparable stat lines all over the FA market.

 

If you're talking about a certified superstar that your team NEEDS, enormous emphasis on NEEDS,then sure, you can put up with his ********.

 

But if it's a complimentary piece like Jose Guillen, you really gonna sign him, when there're a gazillion players who could offer his production?

[jacksonianmarch]

Oh sweet Jesus.

 

You really made it through med school?

 

Really Really?

 

Let me put it in kindergarten language for you.

 

If you're going to get a player who has a lot of baggage, but you find a comparable player who might cost a bit more, but is a good clubhouse, doesn't make headlines and contributes to the community:

 

Do you sign the douchebag?

 

Or do you sign the nice guy?

 

Remember, their performance is nearly identical.

 

 

for a lawyer, you dont read well. I said that being a diva is a minus. So obviously, the similar player who isnt the ******* gets the contract. That isnt the case here. You havent replicated the production with the nice guy. Bay is the nicest guy you will find and he is having a nice season. But Manny is the MUCH better player. When there is THAT much of a difference in production, you take the diva every time. If we are talking Melky Cabrera or Jose Guillen, thats easy, I'll take the Melkman. But when you are talking about one of the best hitters I have ever seen hit a baseball, then yeah, you put up with the antics.

[Dipre]

for a lawyer' date=' you dont read well. I said that being a diva is a minus. So obviously, the similar player who isnt the ******* gets the contract. That isnt the case here. You havent replicated the production with the nice guy. Bay is the nicest guy you will find and he is having a nice season. But Manny is the MUCH better player. When there is THAT much of a difference in production, you take the diva every time. If we are talking Melky Cabrera or Jose Guillen, thats easy, I'll take the Melkman. But when you are talking about one of the best hitters I have ever seen hit a baseball, then yeah, you put up with the antics.[/quote']

 

For a doctor, you have a serious problem with logic.

 

Again, we're creating a completely neutral scenario.

 

This is, after all, a hypothetical question.

 

That too hard for you, champ?

[a700hitter]

If the FO gives the fan base even an inkling that it is concentrating on 2010 whild hoping for the best in 2009,well then the fans should just stop going to Fenway. If the organization is giving up, well ... what's the point of attending a farce of a finish.

[Joe Pritchett]

I think you are going to sign players who will help you win, period. If a player's personality/off field conduct is going to affect team chemistry and the way the team plays on the field then that should throw up a red flag, and unfortunately sometimes it's hard to tell about how bringing a player in from the outside will affect the chemistry of a team, esp. a player who has a history of causing problems.

 

The bottom line is I think they are going to look for quality players who are going to help them win. V-Mart is a prime example. And if a player is becoming more of a hindrance than an asset, it's time to move on. Using the example of Manny, there was always some issues there, but when they reached their breaking point and were effecting the organization negatively, they moved on.

[jacksonianmarch]

Sure, you can spin it your way all you want, but you're dead wrong.

 

You can usually find guys with comparable ages and comparable stat lines all over the FA market.

 

If you're talking about a certified superstar that your team NEEDS, enormous emphasis on NEEDS,then sure, you can put up with his ********.

 

But if it's a complimentary piece like Jose Guillen, you really gonna sign him, when there're a gazillion players who could offer his production?

 

of course, why would you put up with s*** from a complimentary player. But typically, complimentary players arent divas because they will end up out of a job. The guys I put in my previous post were the core of your title run. Damon, Pedro, Schilling, Ortiz, Manny... Their personality and sometimes their requirement of respect made them aloof or really s***** to be around. But put on the uniform and their production made people not care.