example1

Cameron for one year, plus Pettitte for, say, 2 years, would be 30 million. Manny for 3 years would be 60 million. That's how the rest of us would look at it. I see your reasoning, but you have to admit that you don't really think about the finances of these things. Most of them on this board won't. Everyone knows Manny is a baffoon in the OF, but his hitting and patience at the plate more than makes up for it. Couldn't he be a DH for the Yankees if they wanted him to be anyway?

It's funny how the discussion of money or value never comes into your discussion about the differences between Cameron and Manny. In a world where money doesn't matter, I'd take Manny every time. What the hell, I'd take Manny AND Pettitte.

I would include Brandon Webb in the discussion of guys with Santana and Peavy over the past 3 years: VORP, AVG over past 3 seasons (06, 07, 08) Santana: 2008: 73.6 2007: 57.7 2006: 79.6 (AVG: 70.3) Sabathia: 2008: 77.4 2007: 65.2 2006: 46.5 (AVG: 63.03) Webb 2008: 51.0 2007: 66.1 2006: 68.9 (AVG: 62) Peavy: 2008: 50.6 2007: 77.0 2006: 39.2 (AVG: 55.73) Otherwise, you're right. The list is pretty short.

I can understand your excitement about getting Burnett, but I find your defense of his dominance and your implied tone about how that reflects on your favorite club kind of sickening. Ben Sheets has averaged 178.5 IP through the 8 years that he has been in the league. Over the same 8year period AJ Burnett has averaged about 156 IP. I simply don't see how that justifies him getting the 6th highest AAV contract among pitchers in history. I would love to get into a discussion about how Burnett and Beckett are similar (which they are), or I could mention that Beckett is considerably younger, or I could mention that he will make about 6.5m less per season than Burnett, but I can't get over the contract that he got and how much the Yankees are willing to spend to field a competitive team. I think the thing that gets me about the Yankees spending isn't how much they spend. It's the fact that I don't think they could win if they were constrained by the same values that every other team seems to have. Go ahead everyone, lambaste me, remind me that it is the owner's money and that they can spend as much as they want. Remind me that the Sox spend a lot too, blah, blah. That's all true; but no other team opts to spend above and beyond the luxary cap over and over, without regard for it and the blatent inefficiency that doing that reveals. From 2004 to 2007 the Sox paid 13.9 million in cap penalties, total. THey spent about 9 million in penalties in their two WS years. There wasn't a single year in that period where the Yankees paid less than that 13.9m, paying 25.9, 33.9, 26, and 23.9m in 04-07. That's a total of 121.6. They were over the cap by 54 million in 2008. I guess my point is that I will be impressed by a 21st century Yankees team and any bragging their fans do about their club when they: a) put the best team in all of baseball on the field and do it with roughly the same resources as other teams by "roughly" I mean within, say, 25 million of the rest of the top spending teams in baseball. Is that too much to ask? Does that require too much strategy? Is it really that hard to get people to play with pinstripes on? 2008: 1) New York Yankees: $209,081,577 2) New York Mets: $137,793,376 3) Detroit Tigers: $137,685,196 4) Boston Red Sox: $133,390,035 5) Chicago White Sox: $121,189,332 Tell me, what is impressive about that? If the Red Sox and the Mets combined their payroll they would total $271,183,411. That would be $62,101,834 more than the Yankees spend. By comparison, in 2008 the Yankees spent $71,288,135 more than their closest competition. Again, what is difficult or impressive about what the Yankees do, other than that their owner spends more than anyone else? Where's the pride in that? Just for shits and expensive giggles here's the lineup the Sox and Mets combined team would have (with every other player and both farm teams sitting on the bench): Jose Reyes-SS Dustin Pedroia-2B David Ortiz-DH David Wright-3B Carlos Beltran-CF JD Drew-RF Kevin Youkilis-1B Jason Bay-LF Jason Varitek-C SP-Johan Santana SP-Josh Beckett SP-Daisuke Matsuzaka SP-Jon Lester SP-Pedro Martinez We could go through the bullpens, but needless to say it would entail the best players from each team and would be pretty impressive. What's the point? Well, do you see how unimpressed you are? That's about how I feel when you brag about the occasional impressiveness of AJ Burnett--who currently makes more than any Red Sox player--as your team's new trophy. Again, he's averaged fewer IPs than Ben Sheets who is the poster boy for injury plagued pitchers who don't deserve $16m a year. Sorry Jacksonian. Your long post was very well researched and, as usual, grounded solidly in facts. Burnett is a good pitcher and will make their staff better every time he is on the mound instead of Rasner or Pettitte or whoever else they had last year. I just can't get over their spending. Granted, they will likely have a smaller payroll in 2009 than they did previously, but I'm also a Sox fan. This kind of thing is what I do on a Sox board. Thank you for your patience Jacksonian.

Given that you have given no legitimate reasons for your distate of Theo I just have to assume you're just trying to start s***. Usually when someone makes a claim like this they have something to back it up. You could provide a detailed analysis of why you see it this way, something beyond "matt clement, Wily Mo Pena" etc., Those might be legitimate critiques if the Sox weren't the only two-time winner of the World Series this century. Given that they are the only two-time winners, nobody takes your claims seriously. If I were Gom I would renounce your endorsement.

CC Sabathia, $23,000,000 (2009-15) Johan Santana, $22,916,667 (2008-13) Carlos Zambrano, $18,300,000 (2008-12) Barry Zito, $18,000,000 (2007-13) Jake Peavy, $17,333,333 (2010-12) A.J. Burnett, $16,500,000 (2009-13) Andy Pettitte, $16,000,000 (2008) Jason Schmidt, $15,666,667 (2007-09) Mike Hampton, $15,125,000 (2001-08) Roy Oswalt, $14,600,000 (2007-11) I see a lot of premier pitchers who have been signed as FAs over the past few years, and only Santana got over 20m, which I think still represents an elite threshold for players payment. Top 10 contracts AAV in history: Roger Clemens, $28,000,022 (2007) Alex Rodriguez, $27,500,000 (2008-17) Alex Rodriguez, $25,200,000 (2001-10) CC Sabathia, $23,000,000 (2009-15) Johan Santana, $22,916,667 (2008-13) Roger Clemens, $22,000,022 (2006) Manny Ramirez, $20,000,000 (2001-08) Miguel Cabrera, $19,037,500 (2008-15) Derek Jeter, $18,900,000 (2001-10) Carlos Zambrano, $18,300,000 (2008-12) 7 of the 10 are NY players, 6 of those are Yankees. Only one player from Boston, one in Detroit and one in Chicago otherwise. The one from Detroit is a likely Hall of Famer in his mid 20s, Zambrano is the rock of a high-value franchise, and Manny is a first ballot HOF player in a top market. I don't see any huge swing toward really expensive contracts, I've seen a slight increase in AAV over time, but nothing suggesting that by 2011 it will be commonplace for a pitcher to make 25m a year like A-Rod does. A-Rod's contract will likely be the cap for a long time, given that he is (supposedly) a 5 tool player in his prime, possibly the best of all time by the time he is done.

Really? You think that at age 31 he'll get more than 23m a year on the open market? He may, but the only team that will be paying him more than that will be the Yankees. What do you suspect will happen over the next 3 years that will make him suddenly worth MORE than 23m a year, when no other team was willing to go that high at 29 after two years of dominance? It seems to me that if he opted out he will be taking less money to go somewhere he likes more, and the money will have to be very favorable to whatever team he signs with. It seems unlikely to me, but I suppose it could happen.

Jeter and A-Rod were the "maybe two" I was thinking of. If Jeter weren't a beloved Yankee he wouldn't deserve it. He's not a 19m a year player.

Absolutely. I think a 7-8 year deal is appropriate for one, maybe two players on a team, probably just one. It is your franchise player, the guy you just know will be with the team for that long.

You can just leave. You're just wasting everyone's time with arguments that are so obviously wrong and off base that its clear you're doing it on purpose. If you're going to actually bash Theo for deals that he has tried to make then take "Redsox20042007" off your f-ing title. While you're at it, why don't you bash Kevin Garnett and say he's never won the title, slam Tom Brady and say he's never proven himself, say that NY Giants management doesn't have a clue about how to build a winning team, Michael Phelps continues to make stupid swimming decisions in the olympics and Barack Obama's campaign team has never won a single campaign in its life. It's assanine and single handedly reduces the quality of this otherwise decent board.

If you're wrong will you leave?

Right, but they didn't have those guys, and the results were what they were. A team is only as good as its W-L record and that was my point. A team can look really nice on paper but if its guys get injured or if they have a down year then they fail to live up to 'expectations' and all the writing you do doesn't matter. The Rays beat a healthy Sox team in the playoffs and they were at least as good or better than the Sox. They're a good team. But he was there in 2001, and 2002 and 2003 and 2004 and 2005 and 2006, right? Yes, it is. It is a 162 game season and all of the games matter. I could go down the list of Red Sox players and talk about why they are a good team and could justify why they are better than just about every team except the Yankees, but that would do nothing about the fact that every team loses 50 games, wins 50 games, and has 50 games that are toss ups that make the season a success or a failure. It actually helps even if they don't spend it wisely. We all know that they haven't spent it wisely, but then you write about them making the playoffs for a decade and a half. The two are not unrelated. Sabathia is a young, hard throwing pitcher, yes. But he still wasn't a 'wise' purchase at the price and # of years it cost the Yankees. It isn't just the money... the Yankees have money. They had to increase the number of years to the point that he could be there well beyond his 'ace' status. I understand the move and think it was necessary, but if they hadn't been loaded with elderly pieces of crap the past decade or so they could have had younger, less aged arms for a whole lot less. I agree. They are better than Pavano. If they're healthy then it will be impressive and the Sox will be happy to win 2 of 4 games against them. But you have to realize, that the Yankees have always been intimidating to Sox fans. This is nothing new. This is no different than when they went and got Giambi after his MVP season and added A-Rod when nobody could believe it. It just went on and on with them getting the top available FAs out there and the Sox having to fight against them despite that. Every year the Yankees have an all-star lineup. It's not like we haven't seen dominant Yankees teams in the past. I didn't. In fact you quoted me saying precisely that. They were coming for the east title every other year, weren't they? I love your passion for your team, and I appreciate the thought you put into their moves. I really do. But the Red Sox seem to put patience and thoughtfulness into just about every move they make, and I appreciate that aspect of it as much as winning. They weigh options and are very considerate, even when there are very strong factors influencing a quick or irrational move. The move to get Sabathia, though "sox like" in its push to get a power pitcher, is very much unlike a Sox move because they wouldn't pay a pitcher like Sabathia that much money. They just wouldn't. They would look around for better deals and not compromise the flexibility of the team simply to fill the need. Honestly Jacko, I think the Yankees are a better team now. I just think they spent an assload of money to get there, and in a few years we may be talking about the weight of Burnett and CC's contracts and how that is limiting them. without a WS to show for it. I'm a pretty firm believer that any FO has a responsibility to create a team that can win 95 games or so and get the team to the playoffs. What happens in the playoffs is basically a crap shoot, or is at least very dependent on an impossibly small sample size. If CC has two bad games in those series over the next few years, the Yankees could still be without a WS, but could have still been successful with over 100 wins. Look at the Angels. They crushed both the Sox and the Yankees last year during the regular season, and acquired Teixeira when they had a 10 game lead in the AL West... but they were basically non-existent when they met the Sox in the playoffs. Who knows why? That's not the front office's fault, and probably couldn't have been prevented with 'better' acquisitions. It's just the way the game happens. I personally think the Yankees were good enough without having to land both Sabathia and Burnett, and that the Yankees heavy spending on these two pitchers shows that they don't understand the amount of luck involved. It seems like the Yankees are trying to buy away the luck factor, and it seems shockingly brazen and ill informed IMO. I'm honestly not trying to talk s*** about the Yankees. I hope you know that. Ultimately, I think they are good for baseball and I respect Yankee fans like yourself who truly love the game. I understand the Sox also outspend 90% of teams. I just think they also acknowledge that they aren't going to blow their budget or spend money stupidly (i.e., above the luxary tax threshold) to placate their fans.

It is also a team that should have won a few more based on run differential. They had one of the best run differentials in all of baseball.

I think it is fair to say that both teams have great lineups and solid rotations. If the Yankees didn't have a good rotation and lineup then they would have wasted a shitload of money. Jacko, this isn't a debate that is winnable, because the best team is the one that wins on the field, not the one that looks best when phrased this way or that. The Yankees have a good team, but the Red Sox won the WS two years ago and almost got there last year while the Yankees sat home spanking it. Nobody here is going to bow down to the dominance of guys like A-Rod and Jeter and Posada because those guys weren't enough to get them there last year and they're a year older. Meanwhile, nobody is going to tremble at the idea of facing CC or Burnett, because we've seen them before too; just like you won't shake at the Sox having Beckett or Dice K because the Yankees have beat both of them in the past. I think you should maybe just give up these attempts to pat yourself on the back for being a fan of a good baseball team. Your team spends more money than any other team in baseball and it isn't close. Your team is playing the playstation game on "easy" while other teams are playing on "medium" or on "difficult". The Sox take pride in maximizing their players' value, the Yankees take pride in showcasing the best the world has to offer. Two different approaches with the same goal in mind: to win. The last few years your team hasn't been as successful at that as the Red Sox have, and ultimately winning is what speaks the loudest. Do I think the Yankees have a great team? Yes. I think they underperformed last year, but they had a great team last year too. Their pitching is much improved, but only because they got the good pitchers from other teams, not because they did anything particularly impressive. They said "here CC, we're going to give you more money than just about any athelete in any sport", then they said "here Burnett, we're going to pay you more money than any Red Sox player makes, and the Red Sox are universially seen (correctly) as being big spenders." It isn't impressive, it's a playstation team, year in and year out. If you like that kind of thing then great, but it isn't like they're winning some chess match here. They're buying supermodels. I'm saying that with full knowledge that the Sox have purchased a number of marquee players to get where they are too, they just don't whore themselves out quite as blatently.

I generally like Peavy and think that his splits are somewhat overblown. He's still had 4 seasons of significant IPs where he's getting more than 1 K/IP against MLB hitters. He has the same career ERA+ as CC, and although he pitches in a pitcher's park, I think at 17m he's a better deal than Burnett, but that he probably isn't worth 17m on this Sox team. If the Sox could land him without moving Buchholz or Anderson then I think it is absolutely worth a shot. The chances of that happening are nil, so I don't see Peavy coming to Boston any time soon. A refreshed Buchholz and a still dominant Lester should be what this team needs to compete in the AL East.

I dont know man... I don't think Pedroia's year was "probably" a career year. Most players don't have their best season at 24. Manny's VORP in BOS was worse than Bay's VORP in PIT (34.9 vs. 34.3), and Bay's combined 2008 VORP of 49.4 was better than Manny's 2007 VORP of 34.6. They are comparable players and Bay is in his prime. Giambi had a 29.8 VORP last year, Nick Swisher had a 3.4 VORP. If I were you I would be much more concerned with that drop off than any Sox fan should be with any drop between Manny and Bay. Ortiz's injury was last year, not 2009. Perhaps he will continue to get worse, or maybe he will progress toward his average year, which would be a significant boost. I think there is reason to think the Sox SPs will be better next year 1-5, as Buchholz or the #5 option probably won't be the worst pitcher in the league.

I can see why they love him, he's got very good stuff. What would overvaluing Buchholz land the Sox? A catcher and something else? I don't know what I would want from the Rangers at this point, and Buchholz's trade value probably isn't as high as it was last year at this time.

That would be funny, except that the Sox don't need a free agent. See, what you seem to be missing is that the Sox aren't going after Teixeira because they need an offensive FA, or because they want to make a splash on the market. They are going after Teixeira because they think he would be an ideal fit for their team for the next 5-10 years and because he is currently available. They wouldn't sign Manny because they have Jason Bay in LF. They also have JD Drew in RF, Youk at 1B and Lowell at 3B. Teixeira makes them considerably better, but if they don't get him they are the same team that came within a few runs of being in the WS last year. No Manny, no biggie.

I think an interesting thing about these older japanese starters is that they may require a few times through the league to be figured out. If a veteran japanese pitcher can come in and throw strikes without giving up lots of walks then the Sox can likely get something servicable out of them. Even good teams can struggle with pitchers they haven't seen before, even if those pitchers aren't very good. If this report is true it seems that they either don't think that the 5 SP options they have now are going to work, they are fearing injuries, or they are looking to move someone... Beckett Dice Lester Wake Buchholz/Bowden/Kawakami... if they're also interested in names like Smoltz and Lowe then I can't help but wonder what future the Sox see for Wake, Buchholz and Kawakami. Bowden might need a bit more time before being ready, but they seem to have a lot of options there. I really like the idea of getting Smoltz too, and don't like Lowe so much, but that's a lot of pitching options. Beckett Dice Lester Wake Buchholz Smoltz Kawakami... They need catching, but would they be willing to move Buchholz to get it? I doubt it.

hopefully he will get 5-6 starts against the Red Sox!