Gom

Hamels was eligible for arbitration. Lester wasn't. My thing wasn't the Yankees, or even if the deal was good for the Sox. I said it's risky, but if he just stays healthy, it's a good deal for the Sox. It's just a bad deal for it's impact on other 2nd year pitchers [from a team perspective]. I never, ever said that locking up your players is a bad idea. For a team, it's a good idea. It's bad for baseball when the salaries escalate....and in this case, one of the teams that is pining for a cap is the one responsible. How can you not see that? The Yankees have done it with Cano. My thing is this...if, say, the Rays go out and sign Price to a 6 year, 66 million dollar contract after 2010 [assume he does as well as Lester did in his first two years], I'd say the same thing if they were screaming for a cap, like Henry does. List those players again, please, if you don't mind. I didn't say it was a crippling move for the Sox. It hurt the competitive balance of the sport, and coming from a team that is claiming to want a cap reeks of hypocrisy. With the exception of international scouting, I agree completely. The Yankees have done better there with Wang and Cano. In this one small example, the Yankees are better. The Red Sox have trumped them in every other area in the last 5 or so years. I fail to see this. I'm not above admitting I'm wrong, but I don't see it on this point. ORS applauds a deal that is significantly higher than previous precedents, yet calls for a cap. How does overspending by 60% jell with a structured cap? Explain. I usually shout alone on this board..I'm a Yankee fan who posts on a Sox board. There are only a handful of us Yankee fans who post here regularly, and I'll go on a limb and say that I'm probably the most objective one here. I rip my own team as much as you guys, and when I do, you guys applaud. When I rip your team, I'm a hated enemy. Come on already.... If Henry advocates a cap, and then exceeds the previous mark by 60% for a player he has that has no negotiating power...then he's full of s***. Not what I said. I would have said the same thing if the Brewers, who complained about the CC deal, went and signed Manny for the money the Dodgers shelled out. No, I despise steroids. I think Arod is a fraud. If you ask me, I think that baseball should take a stronger stand. If you want to talk about steroids, it should be a different thread, but I'll say this: You give everyone a clean slate. You can't punish players after the fact, and if there wasn't a test or penalty at the time. So everyone who did steroids is off the hook. Sad, but you can't witch hunt. So Arod, Bonds, Giambi, Pudge, etc...they are all off the hook. HOWEVER...if you get caught doing steroids NOW...you're banned. That's it. No 50 game penalty, no ********. You get caught cheating, find another profession. Playing baseball isn't a right, it's a privlege [did I spell that right?]. That's a big step towards cleaning the game.

85-90% from one of the best surgeons in the world at this particular surgery [from what I've read] is good enough for me.

You want to see fundamentals, watch the Little League World Series. ORS watches it for a completely different reason...but we won't get into that.

Because of the economics of the deal. The longer a pitcher pitches, the more data you have and the more reliable the extrapolation of the data. Basically, the player gives up some years of freedom and potential money for security. The more security you give a player, the less money you give him. It's simple economics, ORS. Lester probably figured, and rightfully so, that he would average a lot less than the 6 million in the next year or two, and given his affinity for the Red Sox and a lot of other risk factors [health, quality of play], and considering the new precedent he was setting, he took it. Also..please, if you quote me, don't edit my quote [unless you see a typographigal error]. I respect your posts, even when I don't agree with them. Bad example, ORS. We've all made them. I admit I'm wrong when I am wrong. Dojji just caught me in another post today saying so. I can't remember you ever saying you were wrong. Too many people equate debating a point, or rather losing a debate, as a personal affront to them. You do fall in this category. There have been times when people have made stronger points than me, and I've admitted it. That's how you learn. You're too rigid in your opinions somtimes...especially when your opinions have been shown to be lacking in logic. Why should there be hard feelings? You know I harbor no ill will toward you, and never have. :thumbsup:

Once again, Lester is inelibible. Sigh....because it's 60% higher than the next comparable pitcher...and this was signed in better economic times. I'm repeating myself here. Agreed. However, the Red Sox overpaid. There is no reason why they couldn't keep the salary down more. Risky is for the team. When I mentioned "bad", it was for baseball in general. A deal can be good for a team, and bad for baseball. Look at CC, Manny, and Lester...if the deal is official.

Yes, the trade would have been made. Remember, Soriano's woes in the post-season came up after 2001....the trade was 3 years later.

Good post Example1. I also agree with your notion of steroid players being rewarded. My only thing was the precedent set was bad. Lester's deal was a bad deal. Any time a big-market team blows out the competition or sets a new precedent is bad for small/medium market teams. However, what the Yankees do/did is not the question here. The Yankees have no qualms about what they do. The Red Sox's FO is a bunch of hypocrites, and so are a lot of their fans. Either you're for fiscal responsibility or you're not. The Lester deal is fiscal irresponsibility. They could have done the deal for much, much less. Then they complain about the salaries in baseball, i.e. what the Yankees do. You can't have it both ways. Notice..you only hear about a salary cap when the Yankees make a big splash and Henry tries to cover his ass by saying we should have a cap...yet him or his FO botched the deal....then they start throwing money around, like Dice-K, Drew and Lugo or now Lester...and then you hear...... crickets.....crickets.... I'm just trying to point out the hypocrisy in probably the most hypocritical organization in baseball..and a lot of the sheep, err fans....follow their pied piper. This isn't about you "defending" your home turf. I'm the most critical person on this board when it comes to my team's front office. I didn't rip the Brewers owner when he complained about the Yankees spending. He's got a right to...his team can't compete on the free agent market with the Yankees, or the Red Sox, et al. I shoot down Henry because he's disingenious. He says one thing, does another...and there are a lot of sheep who buy into it.

So you don't feel bad, Kilo... I'm really not for a floor, but I'm more for a floor than a cap. I agree with you on the union being too strong for the owners to put in a cap. However, when teams blow out the market that was set due to precedents, it defeats the very purpose of team control over the first few years. You're comparing hitters, which are more easily predicted, and pitchers with longer service times. However, your point is made that teams are locking up their players, which is a good thing. My point was never about locking up the players. I think Lester being locked up is a good thing for the Sox...I just question the dollars spent. Yes, it's a bad deal for baseball. You honestly don't think it wasn't?

I re-read it, and you're right, I just said what you said. My bad.

According to Dr. Marc Philippon, A-Rod came through the surgery fine. He is actually supposed to ride an exercise bike before the end of today. Dr. Philippon also said that there was "no doubt" they made the right choice. Seems like we have conflicting views on this...I say he's back May 1st, give or take a week either way.

Lester wasn't aribtration-eligible.

1) This is a Red Sox board, and generally we talk about Yankees and Sox. 2) The Red Sox owner [Henry] and certain Red Sox fans call for a cap whenever the Red Sox fail to get a player and then the Yankees get him [see Arod: 2004; Teixeira: 2009]. I, for one, do not want a cap. It gives my team a financial advantage that I like. Sorry if some of you don't see this as sporting, but that's just too bad. I'm consistent in my position. I'm just tired of the hypocrisy that goes around. Say what you want about me, but I'm consistent in saying what I say. No one here was complaining when every sign showed that Tex was going to Boston, and they were throwing 160-170 million around in the papers. When the Red Sox dropped the ball, I called it and said that the Yankees are primed to go in and steal away Tex, which is what happened. Once he signed, it was the big-bad Yankees ruining baseball. A lot of those same people commend the Lester deal without really understanding it. Lester's deal has done more damage than any deal the Yankees signed this off-season....and possibly worse than any signing this off-season. Why? Simple. The Yankees pay tax, a very large sum, and throw it back in the mix. These are elite players that have very few comparables. Lester's deal, however, affects all the teams, giving the players a comparable boost with no money thrown into the mix via luxury tax. The fact remains that the Red Sox overpaid considering the precedents set and have hurt the small market teams with this deal. As a Yankee fan, I couldn't care less as it will have a negligible, if any, impact on my team. Trying to look at it objectively, in which OBJECTIVITY here is sorely lacking, it's a bad deal for baseball...period. The way I see it, everyone I know who is for a cap whines when a team like the Yankees signs a player to a large contract. It is my belief that deals like Lester's are the ones that really hurt the market. It's like that year, escapes my memory, that Leiber got an absurd amount of money. Not every team is going to be in the market for a Tex or a CC. Realize that this is not comparing Lester's deal to bona-fide free agents, or whether he's worth what he got. Compared to the free agent market, he's a steal. That isn't the point. Joba's a steal. Wang is a steal. Beckett is a bargain. Once again, it isn't the deal, or how good a player Lester is [i think he's probably the best pitcher on your staff], it's about the deal itself and the precedent it sets. For all of you, take off your Red Sox glasses and look at it from an objective view point. I rip my team and front office because I see things, or at least try to, in an objective light. You guys rip Jacko for being a homer...but you guys do it yourself just as much. The Red Sox overpaid for Lester [once again, according to similar players, not the free agent market], and it hurt small-middle market teams. I can't see how you like deals like this if you really want competitive financial balance. [i.e. salary cap]. When you complain on the money spent by the big market teams, and your team overspends dramatically, and you applaud the deal...then, you're this.

I was comparing Hamels to Wang, not Hamels to Lester. Read my post ORS. The precedent was set by Carmona. If you can say that two rising star pitchers with a shade over 2 years service time are not comparable and the precedent isn't set by one when they sign..well, then....

I think it's hypocritical. You don't under the confines of the current system. I think it is precisely these types of deals that "break" the system. You think it's acceptable given the current system. I just think you can't have it both ways without being hypocritical. We agree to disagree. Now...off of that point.... Do you think it was a good idea for a) your team and baseball?

You guys are comparing two different things. Arod's injury and Belle/Jackson injury are two things. This is like comparing Tommy John surgery and rotator cuff damage for pitchers.

Your position hasn't changed on the cap, which is honorable. However, you still don't understand my point, which to be honest is baffling. Let's say I came out and said... "I like the CC deal, I like the Tex deal, and I like the AJ deal. I do want a salary cap." You would all call me a hypocrite...because if I like the deals, and I want a cap, then one of them would have to go. Same thing, ORS. No different. Not at all. I think it would be an excellent idea. I am not sure of Wang's status, but I wouldn't give him a 60% raise over say...Hamels deal [assuming their status is the same, which I don't believe it is]. Keep it in the ballpark. Finally...ORS take note, this is a well-thought out post. I'm not sure how you stand on a cap, Kilo, but it's these kind of deals that would not be "do-able" if a cap was in place. The reason I say it is worth than CC's deal is because of the precedent it sets. The big players will all get their money when being free agents. However, it's the smaller deals for the not as skilled or weaker negotiating points [such as 2 and 3 year players] that kill the market for small teams. The Yankees pay a luxury tax. The Red Sox upped the ante on all two year pitchers for all of baseball. That's why it was worse. Let's say that Joba goes out and has an awesome year. He can go to the Yankees and request 5 years, 30 million...or more. Then lets say he gets injured....well, the Yankees can take it. Not if there was a salary cap. What if this was the Royals, or Twins, or another small market team. The Red Sox upped the ante for no discernable reason. This is why it is worse, in my opinion. Go away. You're JHB without the intelligence.

Since he was hurt with this last year, and thought it was just stiffness, the possibility exists that he outperforms last year's numbers. The possibility exists that he turns into Mike Lowell as well.

Simply by looking at the players, I have to say that Arod is probably the better athlete. I realize it isn't all that scientific, but I would agree. They are relatively the same age, but Arod is faster, stronger [based on his # of homeruns and the distance they go]. As for recovery time, I don't base it on the players, but what the doctors say. They say it will be closer to six weeks than nine weeks, and taking into effect Arod's strong workout regimen [once again, from what I read], I guess he'll be back before the calendar turns to May, and probably play at a higher level than he did last year. A lot of wishful thinking, I know.

Dude...300+ posts..and not a single one worth reading. Go have another beer and play MLB 09. That's as close to baseball as you'll ever get. Where do you stand on this? For a cap or against one? If you're for it, defend this deal against the precedents. I never mentioned it because they are different. Hamels was going to arbitration and had some negotiating power. Lester did not. Didn't think I needed to qualify that, Kilo. So follow your own advice. I give you the point in which you call for a cap. You always have. I said that before. I just now realize you don't understand it as well as I thought you did. I didn't quote the rest of your post, because it's either strawman, idiotic, or both. However, I'll give you a chance to come out of this without looking totally clueless. Now...when you say beat the market...what exactly do you mean? Relative to free agents? That's a given....if you make the assumption that Lester continues at similar level of excellence for the next 5-6 years. I will go on record in saying that I wish the Yankees should follow suit and lock up their young players, and they've done it with Cano and Wang, and probably will follow suit with Joba after this season, and maybe even Hughes if he can put it together. That said...please explain to me how giving a pitcher an unprecedented amount of money considering their position? If you end up giving players double the money and a 60% higher salary than his peers, how is that fiscally responsible? With a salary cap, you've got to watch every dime. The point I'm making is that any team would never be able to give such a deal if there really was a cap in place. So if you applaud this signing, you really don't want or understand what a cap would do to your team. Certain signings hurt the game. CC does, in a small way. Lester does in a bigger way. Manny's deal was outright atrocious. How do players with Ibanez, Burrell, and Abreu sign for a combined total of nearly what Manny makes [yearly salaries]? Reward a guy who becomes such a divisive force in a clubhouse, force a trade, and you reward him with a ridiculous salary? For all Dodger fans, you can't really be for a cap if you applaud the Manny deal. I never once said I wanted a cap. For all of you John Henrys out there...to complain about the Yankees when your team sets precedents like doubling the highest bid for Dice-K, or the Lester deal...well...you're hypocrites, and you only complain when it serves you. ORS, I'm not putting you in this camp, just the senile one. So...if you are for a cap...please justify this deal using existing contracts for players. I'd love to hear a lucid counter-argument.

You, my good sir, are an idiot. Really. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and you are too mentally retarded to realize that. If you're looking at salary cap, that's one thing. The Red Sox, with all their whining and bitching...just like when they failed to make a deal for Arod, complain about salary cap. They did it in 2004, and now in 2008. Realize, that in both cases, with Arod, and now with Tex, they only cry salary cap after they, with first crack at negotiations, fail, and then the Yankees swoop in and make the deal. It's comic, and even funnier that you guys fall for it every year. The result is this...and all I'm saying is this. If you applaud this deal, and the precedence it sets, then you can't logically be for a salary cap...because such deals would kill caps. You can't see that, that's your mental deficiencies. I guess when I make a post about a bad precedence being set for fiscal responsibility, and you bring up my dating with women, and that's not strawman, well....go back to sleep. I'll wake you when the adults are done arguing. This next one...is a classic in stupidity. Read on for a good laugh. Ok, tough guy. I listed Carmona's deal, and not Pedroia. Why? I meant to say pitcher. Feel better dumbass? The argument still stands. I admitted I meant pitcher when I said player. That's why I didn't list player...dumbass. No dumbass. I meant pitcher. Want to go over it again? Figures when you're undressed and shown to be a mental midget. No, I wasn't because I was looking at PITCHERS. Shall we go to reminding you that you're a dumbass? Fine...but since we've clarified that we're talking pitchers, it's a moot point. I still have some for sale. Sadly, I don't think you could afford them. Hammels was considered a super two/three year player if I remember correctly....and was heading into arbitration. Apparently, this escapes your infantile mind. The rest of the post is a classic in utter stupidity. Would they have had to sign Lester for more next year? Of course. If they waited to sign him two years later, assuming similar numbers, they would have spent even more. So the entire section of listing all the pitchers is a waste of time. I left it there to show how clueless you are. This isn't about whether the deal was a good or bad one for the Sox. It was a bad one for baseball. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you. The fact remains. The precedent for 2nd year pitchers was set last year, in another bad deal I thought, for Carmona. There is no justifiable reason for giving a contract to a pitcher that is double the amount of money as the 2nd highest, and 60% more in AAV. These are exactly the kind of deals that are bad for baseball. I never care about deals like Burnett's deal. The Yankees offered a couple million more for AJ then their next best competitor. Same with Tex. However, CC's deal was bad for baseball. The Yankees so far outdistanced the competition, it really wasn't even fair. The Red Sox have done the same with Lester. You can't see that? I asked you not to bring in the Yankees payroll/spending habits, but you were too dense to see this...but I can't really complain, it's beyond you to have a logical argument about anything without your bias coming through. I expected better than that for you. From ORS, I guess he's just going senile, that's all. So...taking the vitrol out of this...let me try this another way so the Talksox panties don't get caught in a bunch. Are you for a salary cap? If yes, then how do you feel about the Red Sox deal with Lester? Was it a good deal for baseball where the Red Sox offer a deal that was worth for so much more than the precedents set for 2nd year pitchers? Please post what you think without your "fandom" coming into play [which pretty much leaves ORS out of this]. Reconcile this deal with how it fits in fairness and equality under the cap. If you ask me, it's deals like this that are more damaging than the CC deal. The fact that the Yankees are my team is not the point. It was a damaging deal for baseball. No one really complained of the Tex or AJ deals, just CC, and with good reason. I think the signing for the Sox is good if Lester stays healthy. I think it was bad for baseball. This one may have more of an impact because there are a lot of 2nd year pitchers who will benefit from this, a lot more than potential Sabathias.

Well, considering Arod was bothered by this last season and he missed 3 weeks on the DL last year, a return to 2008 form is very likely for Arod. Looks like we're still in play. I figured dumbass in the front office would make him play throughout and we'd have a Lowell redux in the Bronx.

You are, as usual talking out your ass. The deal is a five year deal, with a club option for a 6th year. So, if the Sox exercise the option, it's a 6-year, $43 million dollar deal. Once again, I really couldn't care less about the deal. I'm just showing how you're a hypocrites. Fact: The deal DOUBLES the previous high for 2nd year pitchers. DOUBLED. Even when you take into effect the one extra year, it is an average of $6 million a year over 4 years, where Carmona would have gotten $3.75 million over 4 years...and his deal was last year in a much better economic climate. I didn't equate it. However, there is ZERO precedence for what they've done. Give me one reason you give a pitcher recovering/ed from cancer DOUBLE the money of the next highest 2nd year pitcher AND the AAV being 60% higher than the highest 2nd year contract signed ever. There is none. My mistake on player, I meant to write "pitcher". It's the second highest deal ever for a pitcher with 2 years service time. Sox fans have no right to talk about this. They never have. I'm just showing that your team flaunts its money just as much as the Yankees do..they just have less of it. So to whine and bitch about it when you are ignorant of the fact shows that, well..you're an idiot. There is no precedence for doing what they did. Period. Secondly, this has NOTHING to do with the Yankees off-season deals, or their spending habits. I have ALWAYS acknowledged that the Yankees spend money like it's going out of style, and have in the past, given out some bad contracts and made poor business decisions. I am not saying that the Lester deal is a bad deal, it just set a new bar that was unnecessarily high, with no precedence in doing so. I took the liberty of editing your post to include just pitchers, and with similar service time. Please excuse my liberty in doing so. As you can see, no one is close. Also, in looking up Chris Young, I found the following information from Cot's Baseball Contracts. He signed a 4 yr/14.5 million dollar deal. I am not sure where you got 5 years/28 million. In this case, if Cot's is correct, he would have got MORE THAN DOUBLE. Ah....again...this has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE YANKEES SPENDING HABITS. You're also comparing a 2nd year player to a free agent. How does Brad Penny look against Lester? Compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges. To recapitulate, the Red Sox made a bad deal for baseball. How Lester does is irrelevant. They went abouve the previous high set last year for 2nd year pitchers by 60% in AAV, and doubled the overall contract value. If you compare Lester and Carmona's 2nd years, Carmona was better in my mind. Don't go off on a tangent and compare them, so for arguments sake, we'll say they're even in quality of player. This has nothing to do with baseball. The Red Sox have hurt the competitive balance of balance of baseball by offering an unprecedentedly high salary in a very weak economic time. To bring in your hated enemy, the Yankees do it all the time. Now, maybe you start to see that your team does it too. At the same extent? No. That wasn't the point. Do I think the deal is a good or bad one? It's irrelevant, but I think there's a lot of risk. He's a special player, at least so far, and if he competes at anywhere near that level, he'll be worth the money overall considering the going rate for pitchers on the market. However, there is no reason that they couldn't have done this deal for 20-22 million with a club option. I will say this....ORS, even though you had by far the biggest strawman response, at least you acknowledge your team's financial advantage, and would rather see a cap even though your team would be hit hard. I respect that. In that case, you're a more fair fan than me. I want my team to keep it's advantage. The rest of you, I'm not sure. Feel free to post your opinions. If you bring up the Yankees contracts, then...you're an idiot. Defend this signing, not the others. Want to know why? Because other 2nd year players will go to their teams and say..."Well, look at what Lester got". So the same argument will be made against your case when you try to bring up the Yankees. Let's hear what you have to say....

Funny...you guys are all HYPOCRITES. This deal DOUBLED the previous high salary for players with two years service time. The previous record was 4 years, 15 million signed by Carmona last year. I never say anything about the Yankees financial advantage and how the use it. I know, and acknowledge it. You guys are a bunch of hypocrites. It's only an advantage when the Yankees use it, or it benefits the Red Sox or their fan's point of view. When the Red Sox do it, it's a great deal. f***ing pathetic hypocrites, is what you are. That being said, it's a bit of a risky deal to give a pitcher with health problems that much money, if you ask me.