User Name

How is it pointless? A bad contract to n SP, a RP, and a LF are all bad contracts no matter what position they play. It's all about the parameters of the contract.

Because you don't quite understand the difference in comparing player to player and comparing contract parameters, at least in this situation.

I'm not comparing the players, i'm comparing the contracts. Do you know what the expression means?

The contracts can be compared. An example of twisting things is turning a history of examples of relievers flaming out into "he's a relief ace, he can't fail".

I wasn't.

They will field a competitive team. Judging the team by how it looks in November is foolish. But in the end, winning cures everything so if the team they assemble makes a strong run next year most of the complaining will stop, You still have your chronic bitchers who won't stop complaining no matter how the team does. The type of guy who complains about a team not winning 100 games after they won the WS. Those come with the territory.

Carl Crawford was an "ace", a "star", an "elite player". How's that working out for the Red Sox? No matter what, he's not going to be worth his contract anymore because 2011 was a lost year and the tail end of his contract is going to be smack-dab in the middle of his decline phase. Point is, overpaying for players is never a good idea. And don't tell me the Phillies paid market value for Papelbon, because they didn't, and had they upped that offer, the Sox wouldn't have paid market value either. Those instances of overpaying are the ones that create s*** situations like the one the Sox are facing right now.

Not that instance. When the Yankees extended an offer, Boras was holding out for more money and the Yankees pulled the offer back and went with Gardner in LF, forcing Damon to sign with the Tigers.

Didn't something similar happen to Johnny Damon with the Yanks a couple years ago?

Joe Nathan career versus the Yankees: 3.71 ERA, 1.23 WHIP, 10.1 K/9, 5 SV, 3 L in 17.0 IP.

Every time a team has given a relief pitcher a three year or more contract for 30 million or more, said pitcher has flamed out, with Mariano being the exception that proves the rule. With the roster full of underachievers and overpaid players like Lackey, Jenks, Crawford (so far) and Dice-K this was a risk that the Red Sox should not have taken if they were serious in their comments that they would be more careful with FA contracts.

He's the best closer the Red Sox have had, sure, but it doesn't mean he's bulletproof or anything of the sort. You don't know how he is going to perform in the future. Maybe the fact that Papelbon is a pitcher like the others who has his issues health-wise (he couldn't become a starter due to his shoulder and has never pitched 70 innings as a reliever) numbers wise (his 2010 could not have been an aberration but rather a sign of things to come) and money wise (no reliever is worth 5 years/60 + million). I think those are the things the Red Sox saw that you refuse to see because you see Papelbon as some historic failure-proof pitcher. He's very good, the best the Sox have had, but not worth another stupid contract that fickle fans are going to be bitching about until the end of time. Also, you still haven't responded my question: How can you ask for the Red Sox to stop handing out stupid contracts then in the same breath ask for them to improve on the contract he signed with the Phillies? Do you comprendes the question?

Agree with this. Bell should not be an option for three years.

You're not answering any of my questions. Where's the conservative approach about big bucks to pitchers? You're talking like you're certain he'll be worth the money. Have you seen the list of closers who flame out after signing for big bucks? Some of them had similar or better track records than Papelbon and flamed out. Your fondness for Papelbon is not consistent with what history has shown us about big bucks, long year contracts for relief pitchers. The funny thing is that had they signed him for that money, you would have probably been bitching about years/money for the contract anyways.

What i don't understand is how you can so easily throw the evidence of relievers flaming out on contracts under the table, while complaining of stupid contracts, while asking the Red Sox to to give a reliever a long-term, stupid contract. The continuous murder of logic here is killing me. If the Red Sox are going to stop handing out overpriced, overly extended contracts, they had to start somewhere.

Yet they never gave Rivera four-year security with an easily vesting option. Passion killing logic. Joe Nathan was great. Much better track record than Papelbon, then he blew up his elbow and became a sunk cost for two years. Not atypical of relievers.

They're both head cases. But nothing helps a ballplayer gain focus like the search for a new contract.