Dipre

Three year downward trend? 2008 was arguably Papelbon's best overall season since it represented his actual talent level (Normalized BABIP) and he still had excellent numbers and peripherals. Papelbon has had two bad seasons: 09 and 10, and both have one thing in particular, which is a sky-high BB/9. If they fix his control, there's no reason not to believe he would continue to be successful, and one more year of success in the AL East is enough, for me, to not go out and gamble on an NL West pitcher or move Bard from a spot where he has already become one of the best in the business.

So if Papelbon re-discovers his split and posts 2008 numbers, then decides he wants to stay or build up his value some more and is willing to sign a reasonable two-year contract, it would be a bad idea to keep him around with Bard and Jenks? I don't follow. We are working under the assumption that he fixes whatever is wrong.

Wait, so not "liking" Papelbon means he should be gone even if he pulls his s*** together? If they manage to fix whatever is wrong with him and he wants to stay at a reasonable price, then by all means, keep him. Liking or disliking a player shouldn't correlate when making an honest assessment as to his performance. On the Bard to the rotation topic, it makes no sense IMO, the Sox have all five rotation spots locked down, and as Jacko said (i'm regurgitating as i type this) he's a two-pitch pitcher, meaning his stuff doesn't currently translate to the rotation, and developing a pitch is not an easy thing.

And, as we all know, Girardi isn't half the manager Torre was. To some extent, the Yankees win in spite of Girardi, just like the Sox win in spite of Tito, but right now, the talent scale is clearly tipped in the Sox favor. There's just no other way to slice it.

Didn't see this mentioned anywhere, so: This is from Boston.com by the way. (Insta-boner for Palodios.)

Wait, did i not say several times that the Sox abuse the system as well? The problem is that each individual "overpay" means more to the Red Sox than the Yankees because of their self-imposed "ceiling" (right around the salary cap) making certain signings prohibitive after a certain amount of money has been spent. If the salary cap stands at 168 mill, and the Sox are at 160, signing Jenks for 6 million makes sense, but signing him at $11 million doesn't (also because he's not worth the money). The point is that the Sox and Yankees operate under different financial parameters than most of the other teams, but the Yankees are on an island all their own. With the Sox, overspending on multiple players adds up and creates budget issues (that 3% can become 10 or 13% with a couple more players), while the Yankees can just move their "cap" a bit higher as they have been known to do in the past. The Yankees are on a different spectrum of spending, and the Sox, while powerful on their own, have certain constraints that allow them to make an excess here and there, but with a limit. I just don't see why this is something so difficult to acknowledge.

My question is , what does it mean for Cashman that the higher-ups are once again overriding his authority? Money-wise, this means nothing for them, but it directly interferes with their new-found player development approach which had been paying significant dividends. If they start going for a strict "win-now" approach again, they're going to get burned by the current market because teams are locking up elite talent through their prime years at a historic rate (since FA started).

Logic lesson 101: The Yankees do not have budgetary concerns, therefore, spending exorbitant amounts of money do not bring them negative repercussions on future acquisitions. The real downfall of the Soriano acquisition lies in the 1st round pick, but money is not a problem, and if you follow baseball (hence the question) you'd know that it has been this way with the Yankees for years. They can afford Soriano, Petitte (if he wants to return) and a big contract like Carpenter's without flinching. And no manner of foot-stomping or telling yourself otherwise will alter this fact. On Pavano: Because of the way things ended with the Yankees, do you really think they would go back to attempt and sign Pavano, or, for that matter, with the amount of negative publicity Pavano got from the Yankees, would he sign with them? "Get over their differences and play baseball" is not how it works on the real world. Sorry. By the way, Pavano's not a good fit for that team or stadium anyways. On to the Red Sox, who dropped 6 million on Jenks, not only to secure themselves against possible ineffectiveness from Papelbon, but to fix an actual problem. Not to mention that comparing Jenks' contract to Soriano's is stupid, because one is making twice as much money as the other. And yes, i am a narcissist, i love to look at myself in the mirror and say "Damn, that's hot!". But at least i'm not a homer. Homers piss me off, because they try to twist the truth in order to justify the logical fallacy of their opinions. /endrant.

It may not be that bad for closers, but 11 million on a set-up man is out-of-this-world crazy. However, it's the Yankees. They will spend that and more and suffer no repercussions from it, no matter how you try to twist the truth. They have the money, the system doesn't have a hard cap, and they will abuse the system. The problem is, that us, as Sox fans, no longer have the moral standing to complain after this year's spending spree. Sure, it came after a number of high-profile FA's left the club, but goddamn.

My opinion doesn't lack consistency, don't be stupid. The Yankees don't have budgetary concerns like everyone else in baseball. If the Sox threw 11 mill at a reliever i'd probably have a heart attack right then and there, because they're not the f***ing Yankees. Do you follow baseball at all? And by the way,do your research, this wasn't a Cashman move, but an ownership move, you know, the people that handle the money, proving yet again that they just don't give a f*** about spending money. They simply have no limit and will stretch the budget as needed. My problem with your opinion is that you are being a homer, and are looking for ways to criticize the Yankees for looking for ways to improve their ballclub when there really aren't many other options available. They do so by abusing the systeam, but so do the Sox to a certain extent. And also, Carl Pavano back to the Yankees? Let me re-ask you: Do you follow baseball at all?

Which areas need much more addressing than the bullpen? It's basically the starting rotation, and there really aren't any worthwhile options out there that would offer security in the back-end of their rotation, so shortening games and securing leads that the rotation does give them seems logical to me. Also, they have 20 MM left to spend. They have enough money to do whatever they want. The move makes sense.

So wait, signing Soriano and giving the Yankees the best back-end of the bullpen for a full season is somehow not a good thing? Since when have "budget" concerns been real in the Bronx? Sounds like looking for things to criticize where there are none.

Name me one closer with s***** peripherals who has been a dominant closer over his career and i'll give you 10 which have had great peripherals who have been dominant throughout their careers. Every one of the top-ten leaders in saves have been guys with very good peripherals, and guys like Todd Jones and Roberto Hernandez had fantastic numbers for a significant stretch of their career but tailed off towards the end. It's not even debatable.

So wait, you're arguing that over a career, which in a full-time closer's case, can cover over 1,000 IP (5-7 seasons for a starter) said closer's peripherals, which would not be a SSS, but rather a very significant sample size, don't matter? I think i may just develop an aneurysm. You pretty much just said that Roberto Hernandez' career is comparable to Rollie Fingers'. Peripherals matter, and voters look at them, if they didn't, Bert Blyleven wouldn't have been inducted into the HOF. What you're saying makes as much sense as making steak-flavored ice cream.

That's absolutely asinine. Saves, by themselves, are not even close to indicative of how dominant a pitcher is. If you're going to sit there and tell me that Mariano Rivera's ability to not allow runners to score and keep runners of the bases is not part of his resume as it pertains to his HOF candidacy, you live in Mars. Furthermore, voters do look at peripherals, because they should, since save% by itself is not indicative of dominance, which is what they look for in any pitcher. Even worse, if you're a shaky closer giving up runs and baserunners left and right, you're not going to be a closer for long, defeating the very purpose of that statement.

So Rivera's 2001 and 2004 high-profile blown saves don't count against him? I highly doubt 13 IP of postseason pitching are going to affect a guy who was a dominant closer for pretty much 16 years. Voters are showing an increased knowledge of advanced statistics and their worth, so the trend is positive for guys like Hofman, not negative. Just ask Bert B.

Hoffman should be, at most, a second ballot Hall of Famer. Having a boner the size of Texas for Mariano (who is obviously superior) doesn't disqualify the accomplishments of other players who played the same position.

Every rule has its exceptions.

That's not a problem. I already hate all of you.

For the Pineiro pick, i did my research ahead of time, not only has he pitched relief innings before, but prospects Tyler Chatwood, Trevor Reckling and Garret Richards all bound to start at AA next year, and all having higher ceilings than Pineiro, if one of them separates from the pack (and they likely will) and knocks on the door to the big club, if the Angels can't find a taker for Pineiro, who would be the logical choice (seeing as he had prior relief experience) to pitch long innings for the club? This is not like some of the other guys who have a secure year-long spot in the rotation and no one pushing from behind them with higher potential.

Which team is more popular in Boston is only a small part of the equation. What's really important is which team is more popular worldwide, and that team is the Red Sox, and none of the other teams are even close.