example1

In sports, when you are negotiating any deal, the price of the player directly correlates to his value. Players' values are WINS vs. COST. I know you don't care about overall cost, but to me that says a lot about how much you understand about business. You oscillate between "Any good businessman completes the deal" and "I'm a fan, I deserve for them to overpay. They have my money and a lot of money, so they should spare no expense and not care how much money they have in the end." See what I'm saying? You can't both espouse the tenants of sound business and demand that they not pay attention to how much things cost. Do you think they could sell Scott Boras on the contract they offer and not the one demanded by a Boras client? That's what you're asking for Henry to have done here. That's not what most people are saying. Most people are saying that without knowing the price he demanded when Henry was at his house, it is impossible to know what happened and therefore whether the result was reasonable or not. You fly to assumptions about Henry's negotiation skill and the cheapness of the FO instead of offering the benefit of the doubt. To make matters worse, Boras is the guy you're siding with. The reason you cite for siding with Boras actually has to do with the Red Sox unwillingness to pay other players, all of whom are only arguably worth what you propose the Sox pay them. If you don't care about costs overall, then how can you know that $ wasn't the issue? What is $10m worth? What exactly should John Henry spend to field a winning team? I agree with you that losing out on Teixeira was a big blow. I simply disagree that it represents some huge strategic flaw, given what I don't know about the negotiations themselves. I have lots of reason to be suspicious any time that Scott Boras is involved. So you would rather have had Abreu than JD Drew over the past 3 seasons? Between 2007 and 2008 Abreu put up 4.2 Wins Above Replacement. Drew put up 5.4 WAR. Between 2007 and 2008 Abreu cost about $31m. Drew cost $28m. Over the past four years 2006-2009: Abreu: 10.2 total WAR (2.55/yr) Drew: 14.4 total WAR (3.6/yr) Abreu wasn't worth the cost of his contract, Drew was. Which player would you rather have? The better, cheaper one, right? You're a business man.

I don't see a thread on this young Cuban SS, so I figured I would start one. Signed for 4 years with a $6m signing bonus. He could be up quickly. Some video from the AFL. He's got a reputation for being a very smooth fielder and he looks comfortable fielding them in practice. should be interesting to see where he goes with this franchise.

Who says they are infallible? I think they have a system that they use, consistently. That system pays off at times and it doesn't at others. For the most part it has been really, really impressive. You know the track record. Combine that with the young core of this team and moving forward they are in really, really good shape. System = Good. Not infallible. I'm asking seriously and for the purposes of this discussion please answer: would you actually want the Red Sox to pay him $33m/yr over 8 years? If not, do you know what he asked for from the Red Sox? Why do you believe this? It might give us a better context to discuss our thinking on this issue. Yes. The Yankees spent about $33 million to get a RF who mysteriously couldn't hit HRs anymore. Then they proceeded to lose in the first round of the playoffs for two consecutive years, and then miss the playoffs entirely. Now Abreu is on a different team. Meanwhile, those stupid Red Sox won a WS in 2007 and made it to the ALCS in 2008 without Bobby Abreu. What the hell are you talking about?

Without knowing what the offer was that Teixeira put in front of the Red Sox we are all left guessing (even if some here think they can read minds and have inside information). Given that we don't know and are all guessing, it comes down to a judge of character. *We have reason to believe that the Red Sox did a detailed analysis of Teixeira's worth to the franchise over the length of his contract, not just 2009. *We have reason to believe that the Red Sox offered something like $20.5m/yr to Teixeira over 8 years. *We have reason to believe that the Sox were genuinely interested in making Mark Teixeira a member of their team and that they truly want to win. --- If you assume the FO to be cheap and unwilling to go the extra mile then you're more likely to take Scott Boras's side that Henry was simply cheap and unwilling to do what it takes to win. If you assume the FO actually has a successful business model then you're more likely to take Henry's side that the negotiations at some point became really ugly, and it probably correlated strongly with Teixeira's so-called "offer". Given this team's recent success, and Boras's penchant for being a complete ass, I have no reason to give he and horse-faced-douchebag Teixeira the benefit of the doubt.

I just have a hard time believing that a700 is supporting such an obvious ageist *******: "How old is Mr. Henry?" Teixeira asked of Henry, who is 59. "There is no reason for me to get into any war of words with some 70-something-year-old man. It doesn't make sense." Perhaps if Mr. Henry were 30-something he would be worthy of arguing with.

Who are you talking about JE? Explain yourself.

No offense taken. I figured if you posted articles earlier then it would be easier for you to find them again with a quick google search, highlight, copy, paste, routine.

Wow. Powerful stuff. What was the offer a700, since you have been saying this all along? Was it what the Yankees paid, or 10yr/240m?

He posted that information before. You should search through the 80+ pages (50+ if you do the LONG pages) and find what he said... you know, so you won't keep being wrong.

I'm assuming you posted them around the trade deadline then?

I believe you, but I would like to see some links, especially about Theo trying to get him from SD without trying to get Felix. (i.e., Theo prefering to just get Gonzo but 'settling' to get Gonzo and trade him to Seattle).

If they make the playoffs its because the Angels and Rangers have faltered badly. They had a 75-87 pythag this year, out performing it by 10 games. I see a very flawed team with little of substance coming through the ranks (Dustin Ackley looks to be good though). I will politely turn down your request to stick to reality, my good sir. I get that other teams are not feeding tubes for the Yanks and Sox. That doesn't mean that occasionally the Sox don't aim very high and score. I think Josh Beckett, Daisuke Matsuzaka and Curt Schilling were all examples of the Sox going hard after elite SP. If Felix fits that profile--and Theo said he is the pitcher he would start a franchise with--then why would it be unreasonable for me to think the Sox are going to resume trying to get him? If it was worth trying during the season I imagine it is at least as worth trying now. If the Mariners learn soon that he won't be resigning with them for any reasonable price, they will undoubtedly start fielding offers. I think the Sox could be a good choice because I'm very doubtful that there are many potential replacement arms that are better than Buchholz, and Buchholz could easily be used in a different deal. Seattle has to jump on whatever makes the most sense for them longterm if they know Felix isn't coming back in 2 years. It is similar to the Papelbon situation, but Felix is more valuable and Seattle is in much worse shape than Boston is.

How do you know this? You think Toronto will hold onto Halladay if other teams aren't willing to give up true ace-potential pitchers for one year of a player at something like $13m/season? I don't. I think they are desperate to shed payroll and that Buchholz (and his salary) straight up for Halladay would be a steal for the Jays at this point. Let alone a number of other players. Last trade deadline it might have made more sense, in that he would be contributing to 1.5 seasons and would have impacted 2 playoff runs. Not now.

The point of the post is actually that the Yankees are in such a situation where it benefits them to spend ungodly amounts of money. Read a book or two about how finances work in baseball. As soon as the idea of privately owning media outlets started and the YES network was created, the Yankees started making money hand over fist. The ONLY factor that will impede that succes is having a noncompetitive team. All teams that own a private network (like, say, NESN) are in a similar situation, but the media market drives the income, and the media market in NY is substantially larger than all the rest of them. I'm sorry you found the whole discussion whiny and boring. I think you lack any understanding about how the business of baseball works, and you are much more interested in the Sox producing a winning team at all times, sparing no expense and paying no attention to the financial implications of the moves you propose. It has been going on for years, so honestly your comment about it being whiny and boring is not shocking. You're commonly understood around here as someone who doesn't "get" the business side of baseball and therefore you have been "stuck" on 50% of the decisions this team has made from the first time we encountered each other. "Whiny and Boring" or "over your head", that's for the rest of us to decide. Given how often you complain about your money being wasted (as if you--or anyone else here--have contributed, throughout the course of your life, enough money to pay for ONE AB by David Ortiz) I'm going to encourage you to just not read my posts. Also, I find your attempt to make this a political discussion pathetic and juvenile. The reason i chose China is because it is one country that clearly has an economy bigger than the output of New York City, and it isn't close. If you want to compare NY and Kansas City I think that jumping to one of the biggest non-US economies is a useful comparison in the other direction. Other people apparently agreed, since they didn't get caught up in the specific country and they certainly didn't take it as an opportunity to jump on someone else about their political beliefs. You're not going to change my mind from being a compassionate member of society who would rather observe "waste" than "suffering", and I'm not going to convince you that you should be more compassionate with how you observe people spending their money and time. You will paint me as China/Socialist/Maoist/Totalitarian/Communist and I will paint you as insensitive and selfish. It could go on for a long time, but the pages and pages we've already discussed (in appropriate political forums) should suffice for now. I'll leave it at that, regardless of your response (which I'm learning to care less and less about as I realize that your only intention in interacting with me is to take underhanded shots at my entire philosophy on life).

I'm generally okay with it too. Lowrie should get a shot to take the job and can act as a good substitution in at least 3 positions and on both sides of the plate. I still have hopes for him to be an above average SS.

You throw away the last part as if it doesn't matter. It's the point. It's what everyone focuses on. Bought championships include: All of them ever. Every team is owned, every player is owned, therefore, every championship was 'bought'. Thought experiment: Can you imagine if the entire country of China bought a baseball team? And they decided that their payroll cap was about $500m in any particular season. Thus the payroll numbers would be: Chinese Team: $435m Yankees: $208m Some combination of Mets, Dodgers, Red Sox, Cubs, etc.,: $100-130m No big deal, I'm sure you're thinking. Now imagine how you would respond if, when that Chinese team inevitably won its WS, their lowlife fans started talking s*** about the Yankees and how superior the Chinese team was over the other franchises because of their baseball prowess... Just think about it for a second... Are you saying that at no point would you bring up the monetary differences as a reason why the Chinese team was better--rather than the implied differences in 'character' or 'city' or 'fans' or 'ghosts of the stadium' or any other 'mystique' based s*** that the Chinese team would like to gloat about? I bet you would. The Yankees have no chance of catching up to China in overall income or media market. The CSN (Chinese Sports Network) is worth $3.5 billion, they have plans for a new stadium and this year, although $100m is coming off the books, they're thinking of really pushing that payroll advantage. They just signed Pujols AND Mauer to $40m/yr contracts, but they realized that Roy Halladay and Josh Beckett were avaialble (the Yankees stopped their bidding at $25m/yr for each and thought they had it sealed, but the Chinese Warriors always get the last call by agents and they decided that they could manage to absorb another $50m/yr. It seems dick, it seems like its against the competitive nature of the sport, yet its totally legitimate. Deal with it. The Chinese team's relationship to the Yankees (roughly twice as big) is only the relative difference between the current Colorodo Rockies and the real Yankees. Middle of the pack. For a team to have the spending advantages over the Yankees that the Yankees have over the Marlins, it would have a payroll of $1.236 Billion (to the Yankees $208m). Would you be okay with a 31st team coming in and having a $1.236B payroll? Or are you only okay with it as long as your team has a 5x advantage on the lowest teams?

No deal to announce or anything, just about Sammy Sosa's skin condition: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/07/sammy-sosas-skin-photos-p_n_349602.html WTF?

He's already done the "extend for less" thing. That's the contract that's ending. I imagine he will want his maximum payday, and he will probably deserve it as much as just about any other player recently. Think about it this way: if he were coming off of the Mariners or D-Backs right now would you want him? I bet you would, pretty badly. I would too. He would be much more coveted than Jon Lackey is around here, and a lot of us wouldn't be angry to see them spend $16-18m/yr on Lackey. If the Sox sign him to any longterm deals they will be confident that he's healthy enough to maintain his health throughout. That would be my main concern.

Pujols is a first ballot HOF in his prime, hitting at levels that surpass most in the HOF. Zobrist would need to have seasons like 2009 for the next 10 years to be in the same discussion, but even then he wouldn't be seen as Pujolsian. Let's talk about something else...

The hope is that he does put it together as a leadoff hitter, and the only way he will learn is to get comfortable with the role on this team. Consistently setting the table is a hard thing to do, a definite skill. Ellsbury was clearly more comfortable with most MLB pitching as the season wore on. I think predictions for a .370 OBP as he approaches his prime years iarereasonable and something Theo will gladly build a lineup around.

What am I supposed to rethink? The notion that Hermida has value to other teams? I think he absolutely does. Lots of trade discussion recently has centered around making a big trade to get a premier impact player. The ability to add someone like Hermida to the deal is a good one to have. He's certainly more valuable in that sense than the pieces he was traded for.