The Boston Red Sox are good...good enough to poop on!

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Sun Feb 15, 2004 4:38 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2004-02-15 09:35, Jason wrote:

On 2004-02-15 09:22, Leebo33 wrote:
 It is about the Yankees money (and the Red Sox for that matter) because there are very few teams in MLB that could even make that trade offer. How many teams could even afford to pay A-Rod´s salary?
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 With the amount of money Texas is supposedly picking up for A-Rod´s contract and with the Yankee´s loss of Soriano´s contract, a lot of teams is baseball could afford the difference to pay A-Rod´s salary.

I disagree. I do not think many teams in MLB could afford to pickup $16M a year and $112M in total.

Post by **Jared** » Sun Feb 15, 2004 6:48 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2004-02-15 11:32, Leebo33 wrote:
 
 Baseball is very far from a free market. Just the term "anti-trust exemption" should tell you that. The Yankees wouldn´t do nearly as well in a truly free market. How many teams would end up in NY if the market was truly free?
 
 If there is nothing wrong with the economics in baseball I don´t see why more ambitious people don´t go out and buy small market teams and build them into perennial champions. You would think there would be plenty of "Steinbrenner´s in waiting" if it was just as easy to do it in KC as it is NY.
 
 [ This message was edited by: Leebo33 on 15-02-2004 11:41 ]
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 Well, there would only be so many major league teams in NY, then the market would saturate. If it were truly a free market, there might be one more.
 
 But I don´t think that baseball is a true "free market" (although that holds true for most businesses). A team in New York City will always have an advantage over Kansas City. That´s why expansion teams end up in large media markets that don´t have teams and not in cities like Green Bay (big fan support, no media market). If you want the advantages of a big market, you pay a premium in purchasing that team (why the Dodgers and Yanks are worth so much).
 
 What I don´t understand is that there is by definition something wrong with the economics in baseball. If you believe that complete NFL-style revenue sharing is the only way, then yes. But Steinbrenner´s complaint (as well as others) is that if you have money and want to use it to better your team, you should. Small-market teams will ALWAYS have a financial disadvantage, and it takes time and smarts to overcome those disadvantages.
 
 And the Yankees spend a lot of money, but they make relatively good decisions. The Yankees payroll is $180 million, while the Mets payroll (in the same market) is $116 million (2nd highest in baseball). They´re not spending as much as the Yankees, but they´re not getting results either. And the Yankees used to be pretty terrible (1989-1991), but then started building up their farm team and made smart decisions that got them where they are today.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:33 am

Baseball in 2004 is not that different from baseball in 1904. In a "league" of teams all with equal abilty to compete, the reality is that only the biggest market club has the economic resources to overload the roster with talent.
 
 It´s easy to say nothing is stopping other teams from boosting their payroll but teams with payrolls less than half the Yankees, maybe a third of the Yankees, are barely scraping by. Even with attendance of over 2.5 million, in some cases over 3 million. The difference is the local TV contracts.
 
 I´m no fan of NFL parity and the salary cap era but at least New York isn´t able to buy Superbowls...

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:15 pm

Parker:
 
 I agree with you on Beane. But I think your Bosox leanings are jading your opinion of Epstein. He´s been GM for a year, and you´re already ordaining him as one of the top two GM´s in baseball?
 
 That´s a stretch. I know he´s a Beane disciple, but Lord, it´s been one year. A good year, nonetheless.
 
 If I could pick one person to build my team from scratch, I´d lure Sandy Alderson back into a team front office and out of the MLB offices.
 
 Take care,
 PK

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:49 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2004-02-15 09:38, Jared wrote:
 Why do people think there should be a salary cap? If Steinbrenner has more money because his team is in a better market and draws more fans, why shouldn´t he be able to spend that money to build a great team? Isn´t that the free market at work?
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 Sports is not and should not be a free market. Sports is about competition. This is the sport of baseball, not a game of Monopoly.
 
 And a big F-U to all those calling people like me whiners because we don´t live in New York or LA. You don;t like the Milwaukees and Pittsburghs, then fine, shut them all down. Pare the league down to 20 teams and let´s see some real competition. Oh, and then when teams like the Yankees actually have some real competition (due to the consolidation of talent), watch all the Yankee fans start crying about how they can´t make the WS every other year.
 
 Let´s take this hypothetical situation. The Yankees are chosen to play a team of Japan all-stars. Now let´s say that here in the US steroids are illegal, and so the Yankee players must be drug-free. Now lets also say that the Japanese players are allowed to juice up for a couple of years prior to the games. Now when the Japan team kicks the crap out of the Yankees, how much do you want to bet all hell breaks loose in NY with fans screaming "it´s not fair". Well, those are rules, so quit crying about it, is what Japan would say. It´s not our fault you can´t use drugs to help your performance, just like it´s not the Yankees fault the Brewers can´t afford to buy any free agents.
 
 Now it´s true that the Brewers are screwed up for reasons more than money, but when the Yankees screw up they just buy another player tomake up for it. The Brewers don´t have that option, and as a result are at a distinct disadvantage, all other things being even.
 
 This is about the sport of baseball, not a giant game of Monopoly.
 
 -Matt

TheFormerBrett44 · Post by **TheFormerBrett44** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 1:37 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2004-02-15 12:38, Leebo33 wrote:
 I disagree. I do not think many teams in MLB could afford to pickup $16M a year and $112M in total.
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 Well it´s only $11 million at the end of the day due to the loss of Soriano´s $5 million. And lots of teams have 3 or 4 players making that much a year.
 
 Brett

TheFormerBrett44 · Post by **TheFormerBrett44** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 1:47 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2004-02-16 08:49, matthewk wrote:
 [Sports is not and should not be a free market. Sports is about competition. This is the sport of baseball, not a game of Monopoly. </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 I think pro sports are more about Monopoly than competition. These franchises are big business, and in many cases winning comes second or third.
 
 <TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 You don;t like the Milwaukees and Pittsburghs, then fine, shut them all down. Pare the league down to 20 teams and let´s see some real competition. </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 I believe there were only 16 teams in the 1950´s when the Yankees reeled of 5 World Series Championships in a row. They did pretty good with that ratio of teams.
 
 <TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>Oh, and then when teams like the Yankees actually have some real competition (due to the consolidation of talent), watch all the Yankee fans start crying about how they can´t make the WS every other year.</BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 Only the bandwagon fans will cry and complain. Many Yankees fans like myself suffered through the 1980´s and early 90´s when we couldn´t when the East to save our lives.
 
 Brett

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:00 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 Well it´s only $11 million at the end of the day due to the loss of Soriano´s $5 million. And lots of teams have 3 or 4 players making that much a year.
 
 Brett
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 Lots of teams have 3 or 4 players making over $11M? I´m just wondering which other teams have at least 3 players making that much and could afford to add a 4th or 5th. The most I can think of is maybe 5-7 teams. Maybe our definition of "lots" is different, but it certainly isn´t 10 teams or half the league is it?
 
 Soriano´s contract is up when? You´d have to add it back in at the end of the day after a couple years because A-Rod´s is much longer, right? Maybe teams could absorb A-Rod´s salary for a year or two, but not many can make that $100 plus million dollar commitment. [ This message was edited by: Leebo33 on 16-02-2004 10:01 ]

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:09 pm

LOL, this is the dumbest arguement ever by all you Yankee supporters.
 
 I, being a Braves fan, understand about having a lot of money to buy players and win with them (a least the div.) but come on...
 
 You guys (Yankee Fans) are saying that any team could have traded for them if they are willing to pay the 11M a year it would take to pay A-Rod over the rest of his contract...fine, that may be true. But how many teams can afford the 20 mil per year luxury tax that George is going to be paying? NONE...well maybe the Dodgers and Sox but that´s about it. That is where my beef comes in.
 
 Fine, buy all the players you want, until you hit the luxury tax threshold...go crazy...you´re still going to have more than 3x the payroll of other teams. But just not caring and going in upwards of 200 mil and not giving a s***...that´s plain stupid and unfair to the rest of the league. No other team is willling to spend 20 mil on NOBODY...they aren´t getting a damn thing for that 20 mil except writers cramp from all the zeros on the end of that check sum.
 
 I´m all for the big market teams spending more, that´s the nature of the beast...it´s all pro sports really. But like you all have argued (till you´re blue in the face), the money doesn´t always win. I agree (see Braves as example). But keep it under the threshold, so that no one is spending anything on the luxury tax, and you´ll have a little more parity in baseball. Who´s to say that if George doesn´t win it this year, that he´s not going to up the ante and spend 25-30 mil in luxury tax penalties next year? I´m sure there are a lot of Sox fans hoping they win it this year so that they have a chance NEXT year.
 
 Can anyone say Vladamir to the Yankees for a dozen bats and a batting practice pitcher?

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:28 pm

(YAWN)
 
 Pitchers and catchers are reporting. Who has time to carp about the Yankees "unfair advantage"??? There´s really not much to actually argue about. MLB needs to add local TV $$ to the revenue-sharing pot. Avoid a salary cap at all costs and let the chips fall where they may.
 
 Big markets will still have an advantage, but I think the argument that it´s an insurmountable one (even in the current economic environment) has been long relegated to the dustbin and really isn´t worth debating anymore. [ This message was edited by: RobVarak on 16-02-2004 11:28 ]

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:56 pm

It´s great that the Marlins broke through last year but they´ve lost IRod already and will lose Beckett and Cabrera in a few years probably.
 
 Does anyone know what it costs to see the Yankees on local TV in NY? I´m sure a number of games are broadcast on free TV but what does the YES network cost to subscribe to?

tsunami · Post by **tsunami** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 5:00 pm

This debate can be argued until we´re all blue in the face. I´ve been in quite a few of these discussions back at the old SR. You pretty much have your Yankee fans (of which I am one) and everyone else.
 
 I´m still of the belief that there is nothing wrong with what the Yankees are doing. It´s the sport that needs to change, not one team. Money doesn´t guarantee anything. And if people are so sick of baseball, then don´t watch it. But, don´t watch and complain about it the whole time.
 
 Once the season starts and the players are playing, it´s all about the games themselves. There aren´t dollar bills running around the field. The players play the game and try to win. And you watch and enjoy the competition because anything can happen. Either team can win. Otherwise, what´s the point of playing at all? If every team favored to win would win, there would be no point in playing at all. They could just look at a piece of paper and determine beforehand who would and should win. But they don´t...they play the games. And that is what it is all about.
 
 Peter Gammons wrote a good article today (of which I will post a part) about this whole A-Rod thing and the notion of "fair" play:
 
 "Fairness is not the issue because the rules are the rules. When the Red Sox worked their deals with Curt Schilling and Keith Foulke, they did what the Blue Jays or the Indians or the Padres couldn´t afford to do. Just as what the Yankees did to get Alex Rodriguez was something only they could afford. That´s just the way it is, good old-fashioned Republican baseball, and six strikes haven´t changed the fact that the Yankees are in a different world from the Red Sox, who have a huge advantage over the Rangers or the A´s, just as George W. Bush and John F. Kerry were born with an advantage because they were born rich."
 
 (the rest is linked here:http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/gammons/story?id=1736367)
 
 
 If money is the determining factor of what is "fair" or not, then only the team with the lowest overall payroll can honestly say they are being totally "fair" since they would be the only team that isn´t spending more than any other team.

tsunami · Post by **tsunami** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 5:18 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2004-02-15 12:09, Parker wrote:
 Sorry, but I would hardly put Cashman in the elite category of GMs. He is very good at carrying out orders, but if he was ever alone in a room with a possible FA signing without a boatload of money to offer, I´d much rather have a Beane or Epstein running things. He has good business sense, but just doesn´t have the personality to charm/entice a player for signing a contract when the player could perhaps get a better deal elsewhere.
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 I think I saw a quote like this on the old SR (maybe by the same person) and I still can´t understand how one comes to this conclusion. Are you somehow privy to private contract negotiations with FA with both Epstein and Cashman to even make statements like this? How can you possibly qualify those statements unless you are actually involved in the negotiations yourself? Do you know Cashman and Epstein and how they deal with negotiations or any aspect of their jobs?
 
 And, is this the same Epstein (who apparently doesn´t take orders from ownership) who couldn´t close the deal with A-Rod for weeks while Cashman and his team closed it in seemingly 72 hours? This is another excerpt from the Peter Gammons piece (someone who probably has just a little more insight into actual negotiations):
 
 "Yankee officials have taken pains to point out they were fortunate in that several circumstances just happened here: Aaron Boone´s rebound playing hoops could clear more than 80 percent of his salary off the books, Drew Henson went off to be the next Tom Brady clearing another $10 million to $14 million, and with the Rangers chipping in $40 million over seven years (as well as picking up the $27 million in deferrals, which Rodriguez restructured so the pay schedule doesn´t start until 2016), the cost to Steinbrenner was calculated as $90 million for seven years. Hey, he already had five of the 12 biggest contracts in the sport ... why not take a sixth, when it´s the best player on the planet.
 
 What they don´t point out is how fortunate Steinbrenner is to have one of the game´s best general managers, one who works through the beating he takes. When Boone went to the hoop, Cashman called Oakland about Eric Chavez. No harm, no foul. He called the Cardinals about Albert Pujols. He called the Rangers about Rodriguez. But unlike the other rejections, the player and his agent got involved, and when A-Rod found out the Yankees were interested, he and Scott Boras pushed for it knowing that Steinbrenner wouldn´t do what Boras claimed the Red Sox did, namely "walk away from the best player in the game."
 
 What the Yankees privately say they learned from the Red Sox-Rodriguez negotiations was how not to handle them. "Those negotiations were all public, on both sides," says one New York official. "When a deal like this is negotiated publicly, it has too many ways for it to fail. So we tried to keep it under the radar screen, and work it privately, and nothing came out until the last 48 hours."
 
 
 Brian Cashman kept the talks under everyone´s radar.
 
 The Boston-Texas negotiations did turn into a fiasco, between Billy Sol Estes, er Tom Hicks, leaks to the Metroplex papers, meaningless deadlines and statement after statement by both sides, including the infamous Lucchino reaction to Gene Orza´s initial rejection of the contract adjustment agreed to by Epstein and Rodriguez, which personally assaulted Orza and separated A-Rod from his fellow guild members and essentially eliminated what both Boras and Rodriguez believed would be a difference-splitting compromise between the original $28 million agreement and Orza´s $12 million suggestion."
 
 
 Sounds to me like a front office and GM that knows what they are doing. Besides having to work for one of the most difficult bosses in all of baseball. I´d like to see Epstein work for a guy like Steinbrenner for 6 years before I comment on how well he can or cannot do his job. Or, win at least one AL East title, AL Pennant, or World Series.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 5:24 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 That´s just the way it is, good old-fashioned Republican baseball...
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 I do find it midly amusing that the same people that advocate taking from the rich and giving to the poor in "real life" are totally against it in baseball.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 6:10 pm

"It´s the sport that needs to change, not one team."
 
 True. I´m not blaming the Yankees. There are other teams that spend freely as well. However, for the good of the sport, some kind of salary cap is needed. Either that or trim back down to 20 teams, which will never happen for $$$ reasons. The Yankees are simply the best example of what is wrong with the sport today.
 
 "Money doesn´t guarantee anything. And if people are so sick of baseball, then don´t watch it. But, don´t watch and complain about it the whole time. "
 
 Dont watch it. Always the simple answer anytime someone complains about something. Well, I happen to love baseball. I grew up collecting cards and watching games, and even going to games back when they were affordable for those not fortunate enough to "know somebody" who gets them free tickets.
 
 I guees that blacks should have just not watched MLB in the 40s and 50s and stuck to the negro leagues. After all, if you´re not happy with the way it´s being run, just to participate.
 
 I´d rather stand up, voice my opinions, and fight for the sport I love. When I see something that I think is broken, I try and fix it, not walk away from it.
 
 Money may not guarantee wins, but it sure makes it a lot easier. Just like using steroids helps hit the ball farther. It doesn´t guarantee a HR, but it sure helps.
 
 -Matt

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 6:40 pm

People are going to stop watching baseball, especially if the Yankees win the next 3 or 4 WS in th enext 4 or 5 years. They will conclude that their team just can´t compete economically and it´s pointless to support a team which can´t increase its payroll to the levels of the Yankees and the other AL East teams.

TheFormerBrett44 · Post by **TheFormerBrett44** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 10:10 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2004-02-16 14:40, wco81 wrote:
 People are going to stop watching baseball, especially if the Yankees win the next 3 or 4 WS in th enext 4 or 5 years. They will conclude that their team just can´t compete economically and it´s pointless to support a team which can´t increase its payroll to the levels of the Yankees and the other AL East teams.
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 I´m gonna call bullshit on this one Chicken Little. Did fans leave the NFL when the Steelers won 4 Super Bowls in 6 years? How about when the 49ers ruled the 1980´s? Did fans give up?
 
 How about hockey when Montreal was winning the Stanely Cup every other year?
 
 The Yankees won 5 World Series in the early 50´s, did the fans leave?
 
 Seems to me the Lakers and Celtics took turns winning the NBA title for a decade and basketball got more popular.
 
 Before this past season the Cubs have been mediocre year in and year out...it didn´t look like there was much room out there in the bleachers was there?
 
 You underestimate the diehard fan who won´t give up on their team no matter what.
 
 Brett

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 10:40 pm

If I heard correctly, the Reds and Pirates cut payroll with brand new stadia. Attendance at the new parks just aren´t supporting it.
 
 Now with less talent on the rosters, is attendance likely to increase for those teams?
 
 Fans are seeing only a handful of teams able to sign the best talent. If they are not fans of those handful of teams, how much are they going to support their teams? Sure they may go to some ball games but will they go to as many as they would if their teams were perceived to be contenders?
 
 I´m guessing like everyone else. I know after the last strike, attendance only came back with the McGuire-Sosa HR race. Not sure how it´s done since then. Lot of new parks have opened but new stadia haven´t resulted in increased attendance in all the cities.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 11:40 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2004-02-16 18:40, wco81 wrote:
 If I heard correctly, the Reds and Pirates cut payroll with brand new stadia. Attendance at the new parks just aren´t supporting it.
 
 Now with less talent on the rosters, is attendance likely to increase for those teams?
 
 Fans are seeing only a handful of teams able to sign the best talent. If they are not fans of those handful of teams, how much are they going to support their teams? Sure they may go to some ball games but will they go to as many as they would if their teams were perceived to be contenders?
 
 I´m guessing like everyone else. I know after the last strike, attendance only came back with the McGuire-Sosa HR race. Not sure how it´s done since then. Lot of new parks have opened but new stadia haven´t resulted in increased attendance in all the cities.
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 For the love of God, guys! Nobody should be talking about the economic climate of baseball without reading Moneyball by Michael Lewis, Andrew Zimbalist´s May the Best Team Win and especially Doug Pappas´ Business of Baseball blog (http://roadsidephotos.com/baseball/)...just for starters.
 
 There are SO many misconceptions, misperceptions and falsehoods being propogated in this discussion that it´s just ludicrous!
 
 We´re all entitled to our opinions, of course. But I think that the level of discourse on this forum is such that the participants would welcome the opportunity for a little edu-ma-cation.
 
 Everyone, read these things if you like baseball...PLEASE!
 
 
 Keeping up with Baseball Prospectus wouldn´t hurt, and David Pinto´s Baseball Musings also covers the game well on both sides of the lines. www.baseballprospectus.com and www.baseballmusings.com respectively.

JeffBarnes · Post by **JeffBarnes** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 8:55 am

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2004-02-15 09:38, Jared wrote:
 Why do people think there should be a salary cap? If Steinbrenner has more money because his team is in a better market and draws more fans, why shouldn´t he be able to spend that money to build a great team? Isn´t that the free market at work?
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 I would go as far as to say that the Yankees may win the division before Opening Day. Do you realise they are also signing Greg Maddux?
 
 The trade was strictly for cash and Soriano was a throw in! The Texas owner knows that the West Division and its other 3 teams will still be competitive w/his team anyhow.
 
 Yes Jesus Loves Me
 Yes Jesus Loves Me
 Yes Jesus Loves Me
 The Bible Tells Me
 
 so.
 
 Amen.
 
 A nice trumpet solo on Cathode Ray Tube now.
 
 Gotta run.

Parker · Post by **Parker** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 9:33 am

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 
 I would go as far as to say that the Yankees may win the division before Opening Day. Do you realise they are also signing Greg Maddux?
 
 The trade was strictly for cash and Soriano was a throw in! The Texas owner knows that the West Division and its other 3 teams will still be competitive w/his team anyhow.
 
 Yes Jesus Loves Me
 Yes Jesus Loves Me
 Yes Jesus Loves Me
 The Bible Tells Me
 
 so.
 
 Amen.
 
 A nice trumpet solo on Cathode Ray Tube now.
 
 Gotta run.
 
 
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 Texas will not be competitive with the other AL West teams for a while.
 
 And NY will not win the division by opening day when you have the kind of pitching and defense that Boston has. Even if they sign Maddux, but I´m not entirely convinced that it´s going to happen. [ This message was edited by: Parker on 17-02-2004 05:33 ]

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:46 pm

Was John Hart the Rangers GM when they signed ARod in the first place? And when they signed some other high-priced free agents in the last 2-3 years, during which time they had 3 straight last place finishes in their division?
 
 And now they make this deal where they are paying the Yankees almost $10 million a year to take ARod off their hands?
 
 How does this guy keep his job?

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:57 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 How does this guy keep his job?
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 He´s lived for a decade on his reputation as the rebuilder of the Indians franchise...one he did not especially deserve IMHO.
 
 He´s a typical dinosaur "good baseball man" in that he talks the right way, knows the right people and avoids pissing off the wrong people.
 
 The good news is that these types, who have had a lock on front office jobs for 100 years, are finally on their way out. The New Generation of GM´s weaned on Bill James and objective analysis are coming, and the "revolution" is proceding apace. DePodesta is just the latest in what will be a long string.
 
 They may not be perfect, but the Ricciardis, Beanes, Epsteins etc. are certainly an improvement.

tsunami · Post by **tsunami** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 12:28 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2004-02-17 18:46, wco81 wrote:
 Was John Hart the Rangers GM when they signed ARod in the first place? And when they signed some other high-priced free agents in the last 2-3 years, during which time they had 3 straight last place finishes in their division?
 
 And now they make this deal where they are paying the Yankees almost $10 million a year to take ARod off their hands?
 
 How does this guy keep his job?
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 Actually, Doug Melvin was the GM when A-Rod was signed. He was replaced by Hart a year later and is now the GM of the Brewers. Melvin is also the guy who shipped Juan Gonzalez to Detroit before he could become a free agent. Incidentally, Hart brought Gonzalez back to Texas a few years later.
 
 I think it´s hard to blame the GM when it comes to a contract the size of A-Rod´s. Tom Hicks made all the calls when it came to signing and eventually trading A-Rod. He made a colossal blunder when he first signed him by actually bidding against himself and raising the value of the contract. The fans of Texas should place the blame squarely on the shoulders of Tom Hicks for this fiasco.
 
 Also, you brought up "buying" players like Texas did a few years back. They had Rafael Palmeiro, Carl Everett, Pudge Rodriguez, A-Rod, and Juan Gonzalez in their lineup and still finished last. Just another indication that spending money doesn´t guarantee anything. Especially when you don´t spend it wisely. Sure the Yankees spend money, but they seem to get the right players for their team and continue to win.