Unofficial Adrian Gonzalez thread.

[Dipre]

OK' date=' but I want to clarify, just based on your response, that baseball is not only the same based on the fact that the games need to be played on the field, but based on the fact that the results are similar on the field.[/quote']

 

But that is mostly because of a factor that exists in baseball that doesn't exist in other sports.

 

Postseason crapshoot factor.

 

You know this very well.

 

In other sports, the best team is usually a safe bet to win, in baseball, in a short series, all bets are off.

[Palodios]

Winning attracts fans. You win, you get more fans. Fans buy tickets and watch tv. You make more money. Why do you think the sox have been so good this decade? They've won, sold out fenway for years at a time and have been able to keep revenue consistent.

 

The thing about baseball is that there are a ton more games, and there is a much bigger need to keep the parks full of fans. If someone were to make an investment in the pirates, and stopped trading away their big name players maybe they'd be able to charge more than five dollars a ticket. There is a lot more to it than just who has the money, its more about who makes better use of their money.

[Dipre]

Winning attracts fans. You win, you get more fans. Fans buy tickets and watch tv. You make more money. Why do you think the sox have been so good this decade? They've won, sold out fenway for years at a time and have been able to keep revenue consistent.

 

The thing about baseball is that there are a ton more games, and there is a much bigger need to keep the parks full of fans. If someone were to make an investment in the pirates, and stopped trading away their big name players maybe they'd be able to charge more than five dollars a ticket. There is a lot more to it than just who has the money, its more about who makes better use of their money.

 

That may help explain the disparity, but in no way justifies it.

 

The game needs to be played, and the crapshoot factor gives everyone who makes the playoffs a chance, but the fact is, no sport has an exploitable advantage as big as baseball's payroll issue.

[yankees228]

But that is mostly because of a factor that exists in baseball that doesn't exist in other sports.

 

Postseason crapshoot factor.

 

You know this very well.

 

In other sports, the best team is usually a safe bet to win, in baseball, in a short series, all bets are off.

 

But the crapshoot factor doesn't account for the fact that in all sports, you have your teams that consistently contend for a championship, your teams that don't, and your exceptions.

 

However, even if you want to talk about the crapshoot factor, it's still one of the things that creates parity in baseball, and causes it to be no different than other sports on the field, which has been my only contention.

[Dipre]

But the crapshoot factor doesn't account for the fact that in all sports, you have your teams that consistently contend for a championship, your teams that don't, and your exceptions.

 

However, even if you want to talk about the crapshoot factor, it's still one of the things that creates parity in baseball, and causes it to be no different than other sports on the field, which has been my only contention.

 

It creates a false sense of parity.

 

As i stated before, in no other sport can you assemble a group of mercenaries and win a championship.

[yankees228]

It creates a false sense of parity.

 

As i stated before, in no other sport can you assemble a group of mercenaries and win a championship.

 

I acknowledge all your points about baseball off the field. It's undeniable that baseball is different than other sports. Regardless, for whatever reason (and not just the crapshoot factor, because that doesn't account for what I talked about in my previous post), baseball does not yield different results than the other sports. This is also undeniable.

[a700hitter]

You don't get it. You simply don't get it.

 

They charge this much money and all you get is a perpetual 95-win team that has won two WS in the past 6 years. What was I thinking!??! That's right, they charge this much money and they should be better on paper than a team that charges a lot more. Got it.

 

Remember when you accused me of sounding "whiny"?

Except for last season, the Red Sox had the highest ticket prices for 13 straight years. I'm not complaining about the past. I am saying that there is no reason not to add another hitter in 2010, and I am not okay with them staying with the current roster, because IMO they have given up trying to construct a 2010 team that would have a realistic chance of beating the Yankees.

[Dipre]

I acknowledge all your points about baseball off the field. It's undeniable that baseball is different than other sports. Regardless' date=' for whatever reason (and not just the crapshoot factor, because that doesn't account for what I talked about in my previous post), baseball does not yield different results than the other sports. This is also undeniable.[/quote']

 

Then again, name me a lower-end team to win a championship since '95 besides the Marlins.

 

Parity does not mean the team who went batshit crazy getting pricey guys to make a run.

[yankees228]

Then again, name me a lower-end team to win a championship since '95 besides the Marlins.

 

Parity does not mean the team who went batshit crazy getting pricey guys to make a run.

 

No, but teams have won that weren't in that top payroll group.

 

Money is one of the big reasons why, in MLB, the league is split into the three groups I've mentioned. It not nearly as big a reason in other sports, but, for whatever reason, the results are similar. Again, that has been my only point all along.

[Gom]

It creates a false sense of parity.

 

As i stated before, in no other sport can you assemble a group of mercenaries and win a championship.

 

Apparently you don't watch basketball. Ask the Celtics. They brought in two players, and bingo...championship.

 

If the Knicks can get rid of Curry and then sign LeBron and Chris Bosh..guess what? Instant contenders.

 

Look Dipre, it's your right to want equality. The truth be told, the Red Sox will be a middle of the pack team eventually. They will rise and fall, like what you see in say football. Better run teams will stay good longer, and will decline less, but it will happen. Your FO is not the bunch of geniuses you think they are. They won't have the money to buy a Drew or outbid for a Matsuzaka. They won't be able to sign players to bigger bonuses and get better players in the draft.

 

I'm fine with your belief that you want a totally fair system, even if it means that you'd have to wait 30 years for a championship, on average. I'm not.

 

Meanwhile, the Yankees ownership, and Red Sox ownership, will pocket BILLIONS. I'd rather see my team spend that money on putting a winner on the field. You'd rather a fair system and the owners pocketing the money. To each his own.

 

However...the Red Sox FO cries poverty...claiming they can't compete. They can compete, much closer than they care to admit. However, by claiming poverty, or the gross inequities in the system, they a ) mollify their fan base while maximizing profit b ) set themselves up in a scenario if they are heroes since they were huge underdogs c ) if they lose, they point to the inequities of the system.

 

It's a no-lose situation for them, and most of RSN is a bunch of morons, which is why it works.

 

My point still stands. What happened between this year and last year that caused for a massive increase in salaries? Nothing. The ability was there, the desire wasn't. Which is why I'm calling them a bunch of hypocrites. This isn't the Brewers complaining, which have a very valid point. This is the Red Sox. The fact that any of you buy what they are saying shows your lack of overall intelligence. This is why Jacko says that Red Sox fans shouldn't complain. The deck is HEAVILY stacked in your favor....and most of you are too stupid to realize it.

[Dipre]

Refer to my earlier post to see my POV about your point.

 

Teams have a business model. They run with it.

 

The "Cry poverty" part you're making up.

 

All i have to say about that.

 

And apparently, you don't watch basketball either, if you did, you'd know it's not an apples to apples comparison. And some teams with middle of-the-pack resources (Atlanta comes to mind) have managed to build a contender from the ground up and will probably be able to retain most of their talent long-term.

[Gom]

Teams have a business model. They run with it.

I've given you their business model. You refuse to accept it.

 

The "Cry poverty" part you're making up.

After the Red Sox lost to the Yankees in a bidding war for Cuban pitcher Jos? Contreras, a frustrated Larry was quoted in the New York Times "No, I'll make a comment. The evil empire extends its tentacles even into Latin America."

"We met with Mr. Teixeira and were very much impressed with him. After hearing about his other offers, however, it seems clear that we are not going to be a factor."

Just to cite a few quotes.

 

Now, read on for a good laugh. This last one is priceless...

 

As i stated before, in no other sport can you assemble a group of mercenaries and win a championship.

 

Apparently you don't watch basketball. Ask the Celtics. They brought in two players' date=' and bingo...championship[/b'].

 

If the Knicks can get rid of Curry and then sign LeBron and Chris Bosh..guess what? Instant contenders.

And apparently, you don't watch basketball either, if you did, you'd know it's not an apples to apples comparison. And some teams with middle of-the-pack resources (Atlanta comes to mind) have managed to build a contender from the ground up and will probably be able to retain most of their talent long-term.

Brilliant.

[Dipre]

I've given you their business model. You refuse to accept it.

 

 

 

Just to cite a few quotes.

 

Now, read on for a good laugh. This last one is priceless...

 

 

 

 

 

Brilliant.

 

*sigh*.

 

You mean the players they traded for?

 

Everything else you've given is your usual babble. Babble is not a business model.

[Gom]

Not only do you not understand baseball, you don't get basketball either.

[jacksonianmarch]

This is fallacy. You would have a point if said teams didn't lose large portions of their impact talent to the big-money clubs. A sustained run by a mid/small market team is impossible. If it's possible' date=' show me an example.[/quote']

 

The Marlins are 17 games over .500 since 2001 and won a world championship.

 

Oakland won the AL West in 2002, 2003, 2006 and was 20 games over .500 in 2004, and 14 games over in 2005.

 

The Twins won the AL Central in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, and 2009 were 12 games over .500 in 2001, 4 games over in 2005, and 13 games over in 2008

 

These just name a few.

[example1]

Except for last season' date=' the Red Sox had the highest ticket prices for 13 straight years. I'm not complaining about the past. I am saying that there is no reason not to add another hitter in 2010, and I am not okay with them staying with the current roster, because IMO they have given up trying to construct a 2010 team that would have a realistic chance of beating the Yankees.[/quote']

 

I assume you think they should sign Matt Holliday? You know that's what I've wanted too, but I think adding Lackey puts them in better shape moving forward. The team has 5 very good pitchers who are signed for a number of years. That alone should get them to the playoffs year after year. We both know they desire another elite bat to anchor their lineup around, but they don't want just any bat.

 

Given your concerns mirrored in that Shaughnessy column last week, I would think you would be somewhat relieved that they spent a lot of money to land an ace and a 2-4 WAR OF. I agree that they need the bat to be "favorites" over the Yankees, and I'm quite confident that bat will come before too long and the results will be great. This team's young core and pitching staff are really good.

[Dipre]

Not only do you not understand baseball' date=' you don't get basketball either.[/quote']

 

Sure i do.

 

Points:

 

1) Unlike baseball, in basketball, premium talent usually doesn't go to the market unless going to a contender because of the soft cap. That helps promote teams' ability to sign their own talent, and not lose it to the market.

 

2) Unlike baseball, since most premium talent does not go to the market, teams are usually forced to trade when they want to fill needs, a perfect example of this are the Garnett/Allen deals, which you ignorantly mentioned in your previous posts. Sure, the Celtics got two marquee players who helped them win a championship, but unlike the FA market, they couldn't do it by simply forking over the cash and a draft pick, they had to send talent back to Seattle and Minnesota respectively, including Al Jefferson, Jeff Green,Wally-S, Delonte West (he was a bust though), amongst others, plus draft picks.

 

3) The restricted Free Agent system also helps teams keep their talent around, yet another measure that prevents players from reaching the open market.

 

4) A salary ceiling for players (helped by the soft cap) also helps teams retain their talent.

 

5) Not to mention the actual salary cap, which wouldn't allow a team to get fully loaded even if a bevy of impact talent did reach the market.

 

Instead of being smug, (like you) and tossing an immature comment like you do, i'll tell you two things:

 

1) You don't know what you're talking about.

 

2) Grow up.

[a700hitter]

I assume you think they should sign Matt Holliday? You know that's what I've wanted too, but I think adding Lackey puts them in better shape moving forward. The team has 5 very good pitchers who are signed for a number of years. That alone should get them to the playoffs year after year. We both know they desire another elite bat to anchor their lineup around, but they don't want just any bat.

 

Given your concerns mirrored in that Shaughnessy column last week, I would think you would be somewhat relieved that they spent a lot of money to land an ace and a 2-4 WAR OF. I agree that they need the bat to be "favorites" over the Yankees, and I'm quite confident that bat will come before too long and the results will be great. This team's young core and pitching staff are really good.

Of course I am happy about the Lackey acquisition, but I have been confounded by the Kotchman love by the FO and Tito since last season. Apparently, it is continuing as Tito gushed about him on Thursday. IMO, there are many better first base options. Kotchman is at best a bench player. I am also not a big fan of Cameron. He's 37, and he's just not an adequate replacement for Bay's bat. How important is defense in LF in Fenway?

[Gom]

Dipre, you talk about the deals as if they were anything but dumps/expiring contracts. Again...lost and confused.

 

Dude..MAKE A POINT. Logically. Holy s***.

[Dipre]

Dipre, you talk about the deals as if they were anything but dumps/expiring contracts. Again...lost and confused.

 

Dude..MAKE A POINT. Logically. Holy s***.

 

Typical Gom cop-out.

 

The point is that the trade made all the teams involved better.

 

That doesn't happen with FA signings in baseball, and what basketball avoids at all costs, it's what parity is about.

 

Also, you didn't touch any of my other points.LOGICALLY.

 

Please acknowledge you don't know what you're talking about so we can move on.

[Emmz]

Dipre, you talk about the deals as if they were anything but dumps/expiring contracts. Again...lost and confused.

 

Dude..MAKE A POINT. Logically. Holy s***.

 

You're blathering ignorance at this point. If you want to have a logical argument, backed up on facts, do that, otherwise stop wasting everyone's time with these poorly backed arguments. You could make a much better argument taking a little bit of time to research your argument.

[Dipre]

You're blathering ignorance at this point. If you want to have a logical argument' date=' backed up on facts, do that, otherwise stop wasting everyone's time with these poorly backed arguments. [b']You could make a much better argument taking a little bit of time to research your argument.[/b]

 

Ain't that the truth!

[Gom]

EMMZ TO THE RESCUE!!!

 

Dipre throws in the towel, again!!!

 

Notice that Emmz only talks when Dipre gets reamed?

As i stated before, in no other sport can you assemble a group of mercenaries and win a championship.

 

Apparently you don't watch basketball. Ask the Celtics. They brought in two players' date=' and bingo...championship[/b'].

 

If the Knicks can get rid of Curry and then sign LeBron and Chris Bosh..guess what? Instant contenders.

And apparently, you don't watch basketball either, if you did, you'd know it's not an apples to apples comparison. And some teams with middle of-the-pack resources (Atlanta comes to mind) have managed to build a contender from the ground up and will probably be able to retain most of their talent long-term.

 

Again..just in case you didn't understand it the first time. Spin it any way you want, you're still an idiot.

[Emmz]

Your point about LeBron and Bosh: They'd go over the cap most likely with the new rules placed for 2010. They'll be getting rid of guys to sign new ones, unlike with the Yankees, who can sign all the guys they want, because there's no cap. There's a big difference.

[yankees228]

Your point about LeBron and Bosh: They'd go over the cap most likely with the new rules placed for 2010. They'll be getting rid of guys to sign new ones' date=' unlike with the Yankees, who can sign all the guys they want, because there's no cap. There's a big difference.[/quote']

 

While it's a completely different scenario, it's worth noting that the only reason the Yankees were able to sign all three guys last winter was that they had so much money coming off the books. Now, if you look at this winter, they're clearly not able to do much of anything, in terms of spending money. So, at this point, they've reached their threshold, and they need to see players leave, before adding others.

 

It doesn't compare to the NBA, but it's worth noting, because your post does make it seem like the Yankees just add to what they already have.

[Dipre]

Again..just in case you didn't understand it the first time. Spin it any way you want' date=' you're still an idiot.[/quote']

 

You're stretching. Big time.

 

Please take the time to think.

 

In this case, when you talk about a team of mercenaries and discussing the detriments of the FA market, how can you come up with trades for two players who were not FA's and cost their team a s***-ton of talent.

 

The point of the argument has been how big-money teams can take talent away from the small-market teams.

 

The 2004 Red Sox had a ton of examples: Manny, Mueller,Damon, Foulke, Embree, among others.

 

When you talk about two player acquired through trades that put a team over the top, but costs them an enormous amount of talent that helped strengthen the other team instead of weakening it, you're not talking about an assembly of mercenaries.

 

If you thought it through, LOGICALLY, and didn't try to spin it around (Gom special) you'd understand that your argument is literally retarded. It's not an apples to apples comparison.

 

Reamed?

 

You just spouted one of the biggest mountains of idiocy i have ever seen.

[Emmz]

While it's a completely different scenario, it's worth noting that the only reason the Yankees were able to sign all three guys last winter was that they had so much money coming off the books. Now, if you look at this winter, they're clearly not able to do much of anything, in terms of spending money. So, at this point, they've reached their threshold, and they need to see players leave, before adding others.

 

It doesn't compare to the NBA, but it's worth noting, because your post does make it seem like the Yankees just add to what they already have.

 

Yeah, but the point is that the Yankees don't have a cap to work with, not that they just pile on to what they have. The NBA's just so different, and Gom's refusing to acknowledge that.

[yankees228]

Yeah' date=' but the point is that the Yankees don't have a cap to work with, not that they just pile on to what they have. The NBA's just so different, and Gom's refusing to acknowledge that.[/quote']

 

Agreed. Facts are facts. The only reason I brought up the NBA, initially, is because the results on the field (and court) do not differ that much from baseball. However, you'd be foolish to not acknowledge that the way teams work off the field is completely different.

[Dipre]

While it's a completely different scenario, it's worth noting that the only reason the Yankees were able to sign all three guys last winter was that they had so much money coming off the books. Now, if you look at this winter, they're clearly not able to do much of anything, in terms of spending money. So, at this point, they've reached their threshold, and they need to see players leave, before adding others.

 

It doesn't compare to the NBA, but it's worth noting, because your post does make it seem like the Yankees just add to what they already have.

 

Case in point: Boston Red Sox.

 

You think in the NBA the Celtics could afford to dump a contract to sign a new player?

 

In the NBA, the guaranteed contract is still a cap hit.

 

In MLB, you can dump as many SS as you want (Lol Red Sox) and sign new ones. There is no cap.

[Gom]

In this case, when you talk about a team of mercenaries and discussing the detriments of the FA market, how can you come up with trades for two players who were not FA's and cost their team a s***-ton of talent.

A s***-ton of talent? Who?

The point of the argument has been how big-money teams can take talent away from the small-market teams.

 

The 2004 Red Sox had a ton of examples: Manny, Mueller,Damon, Foulke, Embree, among others.

 

When you talk about two player acquired through trades that put a team over the top, but costs them an enormous amount of talent that helped strengthen the other team instead of weakening it, you're not talking about an assembly of mercenaries.

Fine. However, salary dumps are not real trades, in any league. Since the NBA doesn't have the same system of free agency, their M.O. is expiring contracts.

If you thought it through, LOGICALLY, and didn't try to spin it around (Gom special) you'd understand that your argument is literally retarded. It's not an apples to apples comparison.

Shall I quote it again?

Reamed?

Yes. Make sure Emmz puts vaseline on it next time.

You just spouted one of the biggest mountains of idiocy i have ever seen.

I was just quoting you, buddy.

 

Let's get back to the main debate here, before you tripped up on your words.

 

What happened that caused the Red Sox to increase their payroll?

 

Just a question...why, outside of a700, do you guys all take every word of your FO as the gospel truth? Why don't you take a step back and say...does this make sense?

 

I honestly never thought I would meet more delusional fans than Yankee fans until I met Red Sox fans.