Jacoby_Ellsbury

Holy f***, did I ever deny that both could play a factor? Winning can be a factor, but for a quality free agent, it almost never topples top dollar. lol I don't need to know everyone to know that 99% of them want the money. That is what we call 'common sense'.

G-MONEY YO JAJAJAJAJAJA f***in wiggers annoy the piss out of me. Okay, thin. Better? There's a difference between not having any meaningful prospects likely to debut this year, and not having any meaningful prospects. Bud. Why do you think the jacko table exists? Do you know what it is? I'd make one up for you, but every post of yours is barely comprehensible slobber no matter what the discussion/context. Yes. She also apparently doesn't understand a farm system isn't thin if it has a year or two gap in between OMGWTFBBQ prospects making debuts. Trying wayyy too hard.

The best shortstop ever (or would have been)? You actually believe that? What the f*** did you think I meant? Dipshit.

lolwut? Because he disagreed with the way Boras handled the situation (bypassing Yankee management, announcing during the clinching WS game, etc.). Also because he wouldn't have gotten that money anywhere else. Yankees = top dollar. Because New York provides him the most money.

Show me where I used the term disagree or implied that he was disagreeing with me, slugger. lrn2reed

Gom says... I'm probably in good shape, then. OH GOD 26 TO 6 IS VIEWING I BETTER RUN N HIDE

Exactly, so its moot. They offered a record contract to him and that team had zero pitching. I'm combining other people's mindsets with common sense. Common sense and history dictate that money is the selling point. 99% of the time, occasionally there is an outlier.

Yes, he did favor winning in that particular instance. Why wasn't that the case before or since? Keep in mind, I'm not saying insisting on top dollar is a bad or malicious thing.

Is it enough to topple top dollar? Yes?

So you're saying our system is thin based on your trademarked jacko analysis of who will be good and who won't be, which of course is heavily influenced by what organization the players are in. I repeat, table please.

Well, obviously. Problem is, the only players who value winning over money are old players in their twilight who just want to latch on to a contender before they're finished and won't provide anything terribly useful. Players like Holliday, in their prime, forget about it. Of course that doesn't mean the Yankees are out of the picture, not by a long shot. But winning won't be the selling point, it might be a small bonus. What actions? Taking $30 million per year (something no one else really felt like paying) for the next decade means he's a true gentleman who only wants to win? He went to the Rangers a few years back because Tom Hicks had a total brainfart and offered him a then-obscene contract (that merely looks like a small stretch today). They weren't winning anything and didn't win anything, then A-Rod opted out and jumped to New York because he saw the opportunity to make even more money. There is no 'greedy ballplayer'. This is their job, they have every right to seek top dollar for what they do, especially since this phase of their life is over when they're 40, probably sooner. I too used to be one of the fans that thought every free agent who didn't come to my team was a greedy poophead, but then I turned 16 and grew out of that thought (not at all implicating you here, for the record). Its conjecture that these players auction off their talents to the highest bidder? Money is the common denominator. 99% of the players who have anything meaningful to offer you only go for top dollar.

Abreu over Damon, easily. Abreu gets on base much more, Damon's been playing in NYS, and neither one of them would be a big bat in the lineup, meaning we'd have to acquire a middle-of-the-order bat anyways.

Table.

Since this management took over, they've been nothing but consistently successful. By this measurement, some random 2006/2007 free agent would value and prefer the Braves over the Cardinals, since the Braves had a longer, more consistent streak of division titles and fairly minor success (especially recently), while the Cardinals were the ones with the recent bigger success (2 world series tripsk, one being a victory, 100 win season, etc.). Money is the dictator. EDIT: This is a tangent anyway. The point is, money talks for 99% of the players out there.

Hey, you described the Red Sox. Yes. And the Red Sox have an ocean of depth in the minor leagues, along with a major league team that annually wins 95 games. And more recent playoff success than the Yankees. Just sayin'. The fact that you think this counts for anything is reason enough to discount your argument.

99% of the time, money is the beginning and the end of the discussion. Winning is a distant second. They don't care. See above (lol dats funnie u say winning as if ur the teem to win 2 titlez tis dekade). They don't care. They don't care. The same fans that boo A-Rod every year? The same fans that boo players when they're in slumps? Ya, thats the deal closer alright! :lol: This is the stupidest thing I've read in I don't know how long. Money doesn't hurt? MONEY DICTATES EVERYTHING TODAY. This is a business, slugger. Maybe baseball was a philanthropist league 30 years ago, but today it's different. They say they dreamed of playing for the Yankees because its the right thing to say when they've signed that contract for the big bucks. What would you rather they say, 'I signed with this team because they offered me the most money'? Holy f*** are you naive. Pull your head out of the clouds.

Hello.

From the weather forecast I peeked at, not great.

http://www.boston.com/sports/columnists/massarotti/ Ewwww, Bobby Abreu as the fallback to Jason Bay and Matt Holliday? Then again, what options would we have? lol Massarotti