TheKilo

A Yankee fan accusing anyone of this is the highest of high comedy. Respond to my post.

THAT'S WHAT ARBITRATION IS FOR. Why? Why is it bad for baseball? TheRed Sox felt Lester is a $6 million player over 5 years. 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! Risky does not equal bad. I think it was risky to sign Longoria so quickly and I felt it was risky signing Lester now. I don't think it "ruins" the game.

Did the Carmona deal "cause more harm to the game than any other" last offseason? Or was it the 300 million dollar deal ARod signed? I've already said Henry cannot complain operating under the current rules, him crying poverty hold no weight with me. Would he like a cap? Probably. That is correct - there were no outrages because the Sox were playing under the rules as they are currently set up. Nothing more, nothing less. Links? Quotes? I was incredibly frustrated they did not sign Teixeira, but my frustration landed with the FO and not the Yankees. They're operating under the rules as they currently exist. Nothing more, nothing less. I think a lot of individuals felt the same way. Could a deal like Teixeira's help drive towards a salary cap? Yes - because if only the big market clubs can sign big time free agents, big time free agents will only go to the big market teams. As a fan of a big market team, I also enjoy this benefit but can see where someone says it is damaging to the competitive balance of the sport. In the long run, this may force a salary cap (although I am of the opinion a floor could be more effective). This is just not true. Teams control young players for a certain number of years because of arbitration. If the player is good enough to warrant a longer-term deal, then the club has the option to buy out their arb years if they so choose. It's clear you think giving Lester an AAV deal of $6 million per will hurt the competitive balance in the game - but arbitration will not allow that. Teams hold players under their control for their arb years and are only expected to pay them reasonable salaries. Teams can do so until they lose complete control of their players' rights, at which time they become free agents and go to the highest bidder under the current rules. This will have zero effect on the competitive balance in this sport. If the team wants to buy out the player's arb years, they will do it. If they don't they control the player at a reasonable price for six years. If you really, truly believe that you either (a) have no idea how arbitration works or ( are insane and won't be convinced one way or the other.

Way to completely ignore my other post.

Where was the outrage last year then?

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3962115&name=bell_stephania In the article she also said typical recovery time is about 10 to 16 weeks.

Yeah can't fault Dunn for the lack of contending teams wanting to sign him.

Not if there is a salary cap in place. That's not true, though - the teams would still have control of these two-year tenured pitchers all the way until they reach free agency, via arbitration. These rules are in place for that very reason - so small market teams can keep their best players. And if you look in the cases of Evan Longoria, Ryan Braun, Cole Hamels, etc. teams with smaller resources than the Sox are pulling these deals off easily. Is Evan Longoria's six year deal terrible for the game of baseball because it rewarded him for two weeks of MLB service time? Where was this outrage last offseason? See above - the player can request a larger deal but the team has every right to refuse as long as they own the players' rights - that's what arbitration is for.

This sentence destroys your argument. You say CC Sabathia's contract hurts the game in a small way. I assume you are referring to the Yankees giving the pitcher such an exorbitant contract with opt out clauses and no trades, etc. in addition to outbidding themselves by $40 million dollars over the course of the deal. I assume you say it only hurts the game in a small way because even though only the Yankees could afford this deal, they are operating within the framework of the existing rules (free agents typically go to the highest bidder) then this is OK. It's only OK because there is no salary cap - if there was, pitchers like CC Sabathia would not get this kind of money, because "you have to watch every dime." You say Lester's contract hurts the game more. Why? If Lester's deal was given to him next offseason, which would result in the same time frame Hamels' deal was given to him, it would be OK? Why is that? The only case you can make for Lester's contract hurting the game at all is if there was a salary cap in place, but since there isn't debating what should be done if there was one in place is an exercise in futility. If there was a salary cap, the Yankees couldn't have dropped 180 million on Mark Teixeira. If there was a salary cap, the Yankees couldn't have dropped 80 million of AJ Burnett. But there isn't so they can. Arguing under a set of hypotheticals to "prove" your argument is about as intellectually dishonest as you can be. This is coming from someone who feels this deal may be rushed and unnecessary, but I'm not going to say it's killing the game. Where was the outrage for Carmona's deal last year?

THISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

It was packed for the Canada game.

I'm with you, took them out for now and put tOSU in.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/postedsports/archive/2008/06/19/jays-notebook-ricciardi-trashes-adam-dunn-on-radio-show.aspx

Maybe he was drunk this morning. Wouldn't be the first time.

Adam Dunn is so awesome, and there's a healthy dose of lulz of him raping pitches in Toronto considering Ricciardi's comments last season.

I think Florida's history in the NCAA tournament gives them the edge.

Michigan beat UCLA and Duke though, two marquee wins Ohio State doesn't have. OSU, on second glance, has a pretty good resume. Sweep of Michigan, wins against Butler and Purdue. Maybe I change my thought and put them in over Providence, whose signature win was against Pitt.

BC is 100% without a doubt stone cold locked into this tournament. 21-10, 9-7 in the ACC, beat Duke, UNC, and Florida State. Even if BC loses to Virginia in the ACC tournament they're in. If they aren't it's a HUGE snub. I don't see how you can take Ohio State or Minnesota before Michigan, Michigan is super close to lock status in my eyes. Arizona is certainly a debatable selection, lots of struggles on the road, but I think they'd sneak in today (of course this changes if there are upsets in the conference tournaments). If they beat ASU Thursday I'd say they are in.

RPI 64, SOS 72 Best Wins: Tennessee, LSU Worst Losses: Mercer (?!), Vanderbilt, Mississippi Not enough of a resume to get in IMO

Gom read this in the Yahoo story: This is disingenuous because Hamels signed a contract this offseason for 3/20. So it's not only incorrect that Lester's is the highest total value since Carmona (since 20>15), but Hamels' AAV is also higher. In short, Gom's been proven wrong, so he can STFU.

39 "locks" plus 18 "one-team auto bids" = 57 selections. Out of the following bubble teams, I can select 8. Selections are bolded: Siena Utah State Creighton Rhode Island Saint Mary's UNLV Davidson Maryland Virginia Tech Providence Michigan Minnesota Penn State Wisconsin Ohio State Oklahoma State Texas A&M Arizona California