A Plaque with a Sox Hat

The Boston Globe reports that Curt Schilling is on the verge of re-signing with the Red Sox.  Curt himself says "it’s close".  Should this be the case, we have no doubt that Schill will end up wearing a "B" when/if he ends up in Cooperstown, something that becomes much more of a possibility with each postseason victory. We’d welcome this signing, for both practical and sentimental reasons.

[EDIT: Looks like a deal is done.]

88 comments… add one

  • makes sense to me too sf

    dc November 6, 2007, 7:19 am
  • A Boston hat over a Phillies hat? I’d be a little surprised, I think.

    Kazz November 6, 2007, 7:53 am
  • Curt’s going in with a Schilling hat. Also, he’s going to have an animatronic plaque so he can tell visitors to the Hall all about his accomplishments, address political issues. and discuss the merits of the latest WarCraft release. Seriously. It’s gonna be awesome.

    YF November 6, 2007, 8:23 am
  • Re: WoW
    It would be kind of cool if he went in with a mace and a knight’s helmet, in lieu of a baseball cap.

    SF November 6, 2007, 8:35 am
  • RE: WoW
    …And a copy of the new video game he’s in charge of producing. According to E:60, it’s gonna be off the hook! (he said with tongue in cheek)

    rz-yf November 6, 2007, 9:06 am
  • Let’s say the big three come back (JBec, CSch, DMat) … Does anyone else think that the Sox may want to land an additional starter?
    Or do people feel comfortable with Lester and Buccholz rounding out the rotation, with Wakefield as a spot starter/middle reliever?
    It seems almost every year at least one starter either turns out to be a bust, or gets injured for part or most of the season.
    Is Wakes adequate insurance?

    Hudson November 6, 2007, 9:14 am
  • P.S. The Globe article says that Tavarez will be on the Sox roster also. Did I miss something?

    Hudson November 6, 2007, 9:17 am
  • Since yesterday was such a quiet day around here, I figured I may as well at least start the converstation about if Schilling is indeed a sure-fire hall of famer. (for the record, i think he gets in) HIs regular season numbers are borderline for induction:
    216-146, 3.46 ERA, 3116 K
    Great numbers indeed but there are others with similar lines that we wouldnt be having this converstation about (e.g. Kevin Brown, Orel Hershiser). That begs the question how important should his post-season dominance be to HOF voters and how important will it actually be? I dont think there are many examples to go on of cases like this but I do think he is not a shoo-in for the hall still just because of the fickleness of the voters who decide.
    Thoughts?

    sam-YF November 6, 2007, 9:32 am
  • Orel was also very good in the postseason..
    But that’s why they wait 5 years after you retire – so that much of it isn’t just momentum.
    On the flip side, Billy Martin got in, but Curt is definitely less liked, so..

    Lar November 6, 2007, 9:48 am
  • Considering Schilling has the highest postseason winning percentage (11-2, 2.23 ERA), I think he gets in. Does anyone else come close?

    Atheose November 6, 2007, 10:07 am
  • Also, I think Lester and Buchholz both are starters, with Wakefield in the ‘pen for long relief. This also allows him to be a spot starter, and allows us to get rid of Dougie Miriabelli.

    Atheose November 6, 2007, 10:13 am
  • I really do hope Schilling comes back…I think he’s a good bet considering all the inexperience (Lester, Buchholz) or question marks (Matsuzaka’s second year, Wakefield’s getting older). It would be nice if there were another front-line starter, but this rotation would at least be a solid “good” with Schilling in it in ’08.

    Devine November 6, 2007, 10:23 am
  • Bernie Williams has the most RBI in postseason history, and 2nd in a lot of categories (to Jeter, and just lost HR to Manny..) Does this means he’ll get in? ;)

    Lar November 6, 2007, 10:24 am
  • Buster Olney is reporting that the Schilling deal is done, pending a physical exam: “a one-year deal worth about $8 million in base salary and another $2 million in potential incentives.”
    http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3096549

    academic-SF November 6, 2007, 10:32 am
  • But Lar, Bernie had 12 postseasons to accumulate those statistics. Schilling did it in 5 dominant postseasons, one of which was one of the greatest postseason performances of all time (2001: 4-0, 1.12 ERA, 56 K’s in 48 innings).
    Bernie was one of my favorite Yankees players, but having the most RBI’s isn’t terribly indicative of being successful. A ground-out is an RBI if there’s a man on 3rd.

    Atheose November 6, 2007, 10:33 am
  • El Duque was 12-3 2.55 ERA in the post-season, id say thats close
    Koufax 3-1 0.95 ERA!
    David Cone was 12-3 too.
    Thats just a few guys i looked at.
    Schilling has certainly been among the best in the post-season but there are many who havent had nearly as many shots as him. Being there is certainly partly due to him but does he get extra votes because he’s been on great teams?
    How many HOF pitchers never won a Cy Young?

    sam-YF November 6, 2007, 10:39 am
  • Sam and Lar, we did a long post about this last year, and the case I made comes down to this: Every pitcher with 3,000 strikeouts either is in the Hall of Fame, will be in the Hall of Fame or should be in the Hall of Fame (poor Burt Blyleven). Add the postseason accomplishments, and it’s pretty easy to vote him in.
    To me the hat choice is now between the Sox and D-Backs. I don’t know whether two rings with the Sox outweighs the amazing seasons he had in Arizona.

    Paul SF November 6, 2007, 10:40 am
  • Yes! Another season of Schilling!
    I honestly believe that he will do well now that he has accepted his “finesse pitcher” role, and I believe he’ll get more in-shape in the offseason. This may all be wishful thinking, but who knows.

    Atheose November 6, 2007, 10:40 am
  • Also, what if schillling has two bad starts in the post-season next year to bring down his over all numbers? Does that make him less dominant? Of course not, but thats not what the HOF looks for, its about numbers right?

    sam-YF November 6, 2007, 10:41 am
  • Here’s the link to that thread.

    Paul SF November 6, 2007, 10:42 am
  • fair enough Paul, i actually remember that post now that you mention it. As I said from the start, I think Schilling will be in but Id rather discuss all things baseball than do work so i figured Id bring it up!

    sam-YF November 6, 2007, 10:48 am
  • Can someone explain to me how a pay cut with incentives isn’t insulting to Curt, especially after two rings in four years?
    Just saying…

    Pete November 6, 2007, 11:30 am
  • Because Schilling spent over a month on the DH, and was worse physically than in any other year. Ask Curt himself, he’ll tell you that he weighed more this year than he had hoped.
    Torre’s job, however, has nothing to do with physical fitness, though some say his managing skills have decreased.
    Also, the Red Sox haven’t threatened to fire Schilling, where as Torre was threatened several times, the most notably when they were down 0-2 in the ALDS this season.

    Atheose November 6, 2007, 12:27 pm
  • I meant to say he spent over a month on the DL, not DH.

    Atheose November 6, 2007, 12:28 pm
  • Atheose, assuming Wake is healthy, I see no situation where he wouldn’t slot in as the #4/5 starter. They’re not going to use him out of the pen unless it were a playoff situation. He even said last season that he’s not up to it at this age.
    I think what happens now is that Buch or Lester starts the season at AAA throwing 3-4 innings every 5 days to keep their IP and pitch count totals down. This way, we’re able to use whichever one stays more rested this way (probably Buch) deep(er) into a possible postseason run.
    Or, look at it this way.
    Becks
    Dice-BB
    Schill
    Wake
    Lester
    With Tavarez as ML backup and Buch waiting for injury/til he’s become so much better than everyone but the first one(two, maybe?) to leave at AAA anymore.
    Seems strange to start someone who pitched well last season including a no-hitter at the AAA-level, but it may be the best way to keep his workload under control.

    QuoSF November 6, 2007, 12:38 pm
  • Yeah, you may be right QuoSF. I didn’t realize Wake had said he wouldn’t be up for pitching solely in relief. I’ve got such a man-crush on Buchholz that I’m itching to see him start.

    Atheose November 6, 2007, 12:43 pm
  • You and me both, Atheose. But if he simply fills in the inevitable times when Schill or Wake go down, or when Lester needs a break, we’ll see him quite a bit, and he’ll be ready to go for any postseason games we might play. Or maybe he and Lester’s roles will be flipped, or they’ll be clearly competing in ST against each other for the 5-spot.

    QuoSF November 6, 2007, 12:47 pm
  • Of course, aside from Buchholz, the really bad news is that if Wake is back and healthy to start, we’re almost guaranteed another year of Mirabeast.

    QuoSF November 6, 2007, 12:48 pm
  • Yeah, that was something I was hoping we could get rid of. Or maybe we’ll give Varitek some more off-season practice at catching the knuckler.
    Nah, that’s probably too much wishful thinking.

    Atheose November 6, 2007, 12:51 pm
  • I don’t think they’d do that Atheose, unless we had someone on-hand to be kind of the 1A catcher. Blocking ALL those knucklers has to be tiring. It’d probably automatically limit him to 3 starts per rotation. If we had that, though, it might not be such wishful thinking. Say, if Kottaras had torn up AAA, you could to this:
    Beckett-’Tek
    Dice-Kottaras
    Schill-’Tek
    Wake-’Tek
    Lester/Tavarez/Buch-Kottaras
    Too bad he had to go and have that May “hitting” performance that he had: .164/.190/.182

    QuoSF November 6, 2007, 12:59 pm
  • Yeah, you’re definitely right Quo. In addition, we need ‘Tek to be the catcher for Lester/Buchholz, because they need that veteran guidance while pitching. Having Kottaras catch them would greatly reduce their confidence, I believe.
    And I have high hopes for Kottaras this year. He has always been scouted as a great-hitting catcher, and I think he will rebound this season.

    Atheose November 6, 2007, 1:02 pm
  • Well, I put him with them because he’s caught them before in Pawtucket. Well, I assume he has anyway, though I guess they might’ve fallen to someone else. Felt better to put him with them than with Beckett or Schilling, in that ridiculous hypothetical of mine.

    QuoSF November 6, 2007, 1:04 pm
  • I have high hopes for him too. At 24, he’s still not old for a catching prospect.
    My high hopes = .900 OPS despite a .245 BABIP and with defensive scouting reports from opponents like: “looks like he could block sharp breaking pitches bare-handed with his eyes closed”.

    QuoSF November 6, 2007, 1:06 pm
  • Does 3,000K = dominant stuff? Yes, i think it does. Striking out that many batters means that for a long period of time, you had dominant stuff. You got hitters out, over and over again. Hall of Fame, to me, means that you were dominant over a long period of time, during your “era.” Since the early 1990s, the last 15 or so years, Curt Schilling has been a dominant pitcher.
    But. There is always a but. Each of those years in which he was striking out hitters, he only had 3 20 win seasons. The two masterful seasons in Arizona, and one recently in Boston. I think wins are a product of your team, not just your pitcher, but I do know that voters seem to think of 20 win seasons as somehow important.
    Thats really the only argument against Schilling. No Cy Youngs. Thats really all he lacked; it being the arbiters of “dominant” create problems for him, but I think its one of this missing the forest for the trees situation. I’d vote for him, but I think the voting will be close because of the lack of “Automatic Credentials” such as a Cy Young. I’m curious how many HOF pitchers don’t have one…
    On a similar note, I know this has probably been done, but i want to crunch some numbers.
    Stat Curt Schilling/Pitcher A
    Yearsplayed 19(3 reliever), 16
    W-L 216-146, 250-144
    Winning% .597, .635
    ERA 3.46, 3.70
    K 3116, 2663
    20Ws? 3, 0 (10+ Ws 15 straight)
    A little deeper:
    Curt Pitcher A
    K/BB 4.4, 3.5
    K/9IP 8.6, 7.1
    BB/IP 2, 2
    CG 83, 57
    Shutout 20, 23
    Curt has better numbers, no doubt. And is the better pitcher, those K and Walk numbers are remarkable. As well as the CGs. Curt may be more risk/reward. Some exemplary seasons, some so-so seasons, injured more often, but always with the “stuff.” The other pitcher has been very consistent for a very long time, but never reached the usual declarations of dominant. That being said, if his next two years is like his last two years, he’d blow by 3000K and be 20 Wins shy of 300. Unlikely as he’s currently 38 years old.
    Curt, in a decade of good pitchers (the atlanta crew especially, and randy johnson) was dominant. I hope that the HOF voters realize that Curt shouldn’t be penalized for having to play in the same league as Maddux, Smoltz, Glavine and Johnson. It might come down to how many times he got Cy Young votes.
    The other pitcher, by the way? Mike Mussina. Poor Moose.

    Carlos November 6, 2007, 1:08 pm
  • Doh!
    typepad doesn’t allow html? My table is all screwy. Sorry.

    Carlos November 6, 2007, 1:08 pm
  • The only reason Schilling does not have 2 Cy Youngs right now is because of his teammate, Randy Johnson. They both finished 1-2 in voting two consecutive years, both of which would have earned Schilling the Cy Young in most other years.
    Moose never won 20 games, which is one of the things holding him back from the HOF.

    Atheose November 6, 2007, 1:21 pm
  • My bad Carlos, you mentioned the 20-win thing. Sorry for posting before reading thoroughly ;-)

    Atheose November 6, 2007, 1:26 pm
  • the only reason alot of players didnt win a cy young was because there was someone better than them in the league. The only reason Wang doesnt have one is bc Colon won it. IMO its a binary thing, either you have one or you dont. I dunno if this should knock him out or not but the fact remains that he had none.

    sam-YF November 6, 2007, 2:20 pm
  • sam, don’t you mean the only reason Rivera doesn’t have one is because Colon won it? It’s not like Wang got jobbed out of it against Johan F’in Santana last year.

    QuoSF November 6, 2007, 2:42 pm
  • yeah Quo i was mixing my years. Wang doesnt have one bc Santana won. Rivera bc Colon won. Schilling bc Johnson won.
    I dont think Wang got jobbed out of anything last year nor do i think Curt did the years Randy won.

    sam-YF November 6, 2007, 2:56 pm
  • Mussina really can’t be blamed for not having a 20-win season (not that anyone here was). He had 16 wins in 1994, when the season ended in early August, and 19 wins in 1995, when the season began in late April.

    Paul SF November 6, 2007, 3:03 pm
  • I agree that Cy Young is not the be-all-end-all, except whenever this conversation come up, the voters grouse over the lack of Cy Young award.
    Again, i don’t buy it. There are only so many awards to go around; I refuse to believe that there were only two great pitchers last year…there were only just two awards to give out. To me, being in contention, being in the Cy Young conversation is required. You have to regularly be one of the best players in the game during the game you play it, and so when the year ends and people look back at it, folks have to think of you. And they have to do it regularly.
    Thats my personal though, but the HOF voters always seem to care deeply about who won the Cy Young, or if he won an MVP, and so on.

    Carlos November 6, 2007, 3:05 pm
  • I think as the HOF voters become younger and more stats-savvy, you see more people discussing not the number of Cy Youngs but the number of, say, Top 3 finishes. This is a major part of the case in the Blyleven camp, and it has gained more and more support (though last year was a disappointment).
    Looking at the top three in an MVP race certainly and the top two for Cy Young makes a lot of sense to me. Sometimes you just get screwed over or unlucky and wind up blocked behind fluke players with monster years and wind up with your own consistently great performance overshadowed…

    Paul SF November 6, 2007, 3:12 pm
  • Another great measure is Award Shares, which takes as a decimal the percentage of the maximum possible points a player received of the Cy Young or MVP voting. So pedro in 1999 with 140 points gets a 1.00 share because he got all 28 first-place votes, the max possible. Add all the shares for each year together, and you have a better look at who Cy Young voters over a period of time thought were the best.
    Ranks are here. Curt Schilling is 16th all-time, ahead of Cy Young winners Spahn, Jenkins and *a-hem* non-Cy winner Nolan Ryan.
    Mussina’s 50th, so he’s gotten not nearly the same amount of love — probably unfairly — from the writers.

    Paul SF November 6, 2007, 3:18 pm
  • Call me crazy (“Hudson, you’re CRAZY”) but I think Curt Schilling just made sports history.
    How?
    By becoming the first player in I don’t know how long to choose team and family over money.
    I say that based on a number of Schilling’s published comments *before* the signing. He gave clear signals that not moving his kids, sticking with the charitable work he and his wife have begun in New England, and standing with his teammates actually were factors.
    Of course, it’s not like he’s going to the poorhouse with this contract.
    Schilling almost certainly could have gotten more money if he’d waited to make a decision. 99 out of 100 of today’s players would have kept their name in play through the dealmaking season and tried to squeeze another $1-$2 million out of it… while uprooting their families and abandoning the town that had embraced them as local heroes.
    (Or maybe, Schilling’s wife is just a lot more persuasive than most. Anyone familiar with Lysistrata?)

    Hudson November 6, 2007, 3:42 pm
  • i think he also made history by having incentives based on his weight throughout the season.
    this is not a joke…
    http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2007/11/schilling_has_w.html

    sam-YF November 6, 2007, 3:49 pm
  • Hudson, I don’t think you’re crazy… I was actually fairly shocked that Schilling accepted a ‘lowly’ $8m base (although he can get that up to $10m simply by laying off the Dunkies over the offseason… $3m of incentives are tied to performance, but $2m are tied to his weight.)
    I’m wondering whether the FO also made an argument about needing payroll flexibility to go after other key FAs (i.e., if you take less base we can make a more aggressive offer to Mike Lowell)?
    The family thing makes sense though. You’re already pretty damn rich, you’re going to retire in a year… what’s worth more to you, $1M or not uprooting your family and tarnishing your legend with the team? It’s just a shame that more athletes don’t think that way.

    Jackie (SF) November 6, 2007, 3:53 pm
  • Regarding Schilling’s possible entry into the HoF, it’s worthwhile to note that of baseball-reference’s 4 measures of probable Hall-worthiness, none of which factor the postseason, Schilling is well within the “probable” range of 3, and is pretty close in the 4th. Take that for what it’s worth.
    See here: http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/schilcu01.shtml (about 3/4 down the page)
    And count this Sox fan among those very glad he’ll be back, and in better shape next year.
    I’d guess they keep Buccholz in Pawtucket, where they’ll limit his pitches/IP, until he’s needed.

    Zulu.as.SF November 6, 2007, 4:24 pm
  • “i think he also made history by having incentives based on his weight throughout the season.”
    It was pointed out on SoSH that others have had weight/fitness incentives in their contracts, most recently Carlos Lee.

    Zulu.as.SF November 6, 2007, 4:25 pm
  • Far be it for me to argue anythign on CS’s behalf, but re: “…he only had 3 20 win seasons”, is 3 20-win seasons considered not alot?? Seems to me one is considered great but possibly flash-in-the-pan; 2 is considered great and clearly a sign of more than a lucky year, and 3 would have to be considered great, period.
    Are there any modern-era pitchers with 3 20-win seasons that are not HoF-worthy?

    IronHorse (yf) November 6, 2007, 4:26 pm
  • Oh – another thing in Schilling’s HoF favor: it’s been noted that he’s never won a Cy Young, but he did come in second three times. HoF voters do note that sort of thing (or so I’ve heard).

    Zulu.as.SF November 6, 2007, 4:36 pm
  • The “hall of fame monitor” index on baseball-reference.com does take into account post-season starts and stats. The other 3 do not. Interstingly, Schilling is behind moose in 2 of the 4 HOF indexes.

    sam-YF November 6, 2007, 4:48 pm
  • Youk got the GG!

    LocklandSF November 6, 2007, 4:49 pm
  • Hudson November 6, 2007, 4:59 pm
  • Tim Wakefield also chose family/team over money, so Curt’s not the VERY first.

    Paul SF November 6, 2007, 5:00 pm
  • over-rated pudge wins again at C but Chavez is finally unseated at 3b, i cant believe they didnt give it to lowell. At least they also realized Jeter’s range sucks.
    i hate the gold glove awards, they are often so poorly researched by the voters….

    sam-YF November 6, 2007, 5:07 pm
  • also re: GGs, I’m a little sulky that Torii Hunter got it over Coco, despite having fewer putouts (albeit in fewer chances), more errors, a lower zone rating and a lower range factor.

    Jackie (SF) November 6, 2007, 5:10 pm
  • I’m pretty sure most players and managers in MLB don’t study intently the range averages and zone ratings for all the probable candidates.

    Paul SF November 6, 2007, 5:15 pm
  • Posted the news up top. Sorry it’s short, but it’s Election Day…

    Paul SF November 6, 2007, 5:15 pm
  • Curt’s not even the first Sox player (re: weight bonuses). Didn’t one or more of Dougie’s recent contracts have such clauses involved?

    QuoSF November 6, 2007, 5:44 pm
  • I just want to know where all the self-righteous outrage is? Pay cut!? After three post-season wins!? Incentive clauses? For weight!? How insulting!?
    Kornheiser and Wilbon just brought up the same comparison. Torre let his pride get in the way. If Schill did too, he wouldn’t have been back either.
    So funny that there was so much outrage over Torre’s “treatment”. But now Schill chose family over money. By that same logic, Torre chose money over family.
    Here comes the self-righteous “fans” again…

    Pete November 6, 2007, 5:51 pm
  • Hunter over Coco? Boooooooooooo!

    Devine November 6, 2007, 5:58 pm
  • Pete – Curt was the one who suggested the weight clauses as a way to ‘bridge the gap’ between what the Sox wanted to offer and what he wanted to accept. Basically he acknowledged that he showed up to camp out of shape this year and that it was a valid concern for the FO. So I see no reason to be outraged.

    Jackie (SF) November 6, 2007, 6:03 pm
  • PeteYF: There’s clear ways to measure that Curt isn’t the pitcher he was, and that his age has been a factor which has contributed to some decline.
    That’s not as clear with a manager.

    QuoSF November 6, 2007, 6:08 pm
  • Also, Curt made it clear for a long time that he was willing to remain in Boston for one year at a discount.
    Had he simply gone free agency and it came out the Sox had only offered him $8 mill, with weight incentives, then I would definitely call that an insult and be outraged they hadn’t made a better effort to keep him.

    Paul SF November 6, 2007, 6:15 pm
  • Quo, I know what you’re saying but ultimately managers’ performances are based on results. There is a qualitative difference between what the Yanks did in the first part of Torre’s tenure and what they have done recently. No?

    Nick-YF November 6, 2007, 6:22 pm
  • Nick, that is true, but ultimately the results that Torre is/was judged on lie further out of his hands than the results that Schilling (or any player, really) are judged on.
    I’m not saying that Torre is a perfect manager by any means and I think most of the criticisms of him are valid (bullpen management, etc etc). But the incentives that he was offered were for playoff performance, something that I think is much more out of his control than weight is for Schilling. Torre can’t help it if Jeter hits .180 in an LDS, or if Rivera blows a 2 run save opportunity on adequate rest. Schilling CAN work out in the postseason and lay off the junk food to make weight.
    There is also much more of a precedent for athlete performance declining with age, whereas I don’t think this has been established conclusively (at least, not at Torre’s age) for managers.
    I don’t know why I’m even arguing this, since I wasn’t vehemently in the “Joe got dissed!!!” camp, but it seems obvious to me that contracts for players and managers are very different.

    Jackie (SF) November 6, 2007, 6:50 pm
  • See, I don’t really care about all this noise. But I had to read a lot of SF’s on this site (with SF and Paul pretty loudly) bemoan the injustice to Torre. With all this talk about Mussina vs Schilling in this thread, Mussina is now making a guaranteed 11 million a year. And he’s never won anything. I have no doubt that Schill chose family over money. But then the same logic applies to Torre. Problem is, hypocrites abound.

    Pete November 6, 2007, 7:01 pm
  • Jackie, by your logic Tito can’t be considered a genius this post-season. But how many here said exactly that? See, there are double standard running crazy around here. Let’s at least stick to some principles rather than let homerism rule the arguments.

    Pete November 6, 2007, 7:03 pm
  • Again, Pete, with the unnecessary, antagonistic condescension. Torre was a bounce away from likely winning the 2004 ALCS, and then we’re not having any of these conversations about him.
    Francona meanwhile outmanaged Hurdle in 2007, made all the right moves, etc. Granted, Torre’s weaknesses as a manager did likely contribute to the ’04 collapse, but luck factored heavily into Torre’s non-LDS losses.

    Paul SF November 6, 2007, 7:33 pm
  • See, Paul you keep trying to have to both ways based on your fan affiliation. With Torre you stressed the pay cut. With Schilling though he should willingly take a pay cut? For family?
    Now, the thing with managers is that it’s luck. Except when it’s not? Pick a principle and stick to it.

    Pete November 6, 2007, 7:47 pm
  • I hesitate to get involved with Pete on this, but since he called me a hypocrite (or at least not-so-passively implied as such) I have to articulate why the Schilling case is almost nothing like the Torre case.
    Schilling acted as his own agent. He negotiated personally with the Sox, who apparently treated Schilling with respect in working out a mutually agreeable situation where both parties made concessions to close a deal. This was exactly what Torre did not get: a negotiation. The Yankees presented an offer after waiting a long period of time and made their initial offer a best and final offer. That’s not negotiation, clear and simple, and it shows little respect for a supposedly trusted employee.
    I see nothing at all common to the two cases, unless you use simpletons’ logic.

    SF November 6, 2007, 7:47 pm
  • And just in time, heeeeerre’s SF!
    Of course you find a way to avoid all principle. Schilling is getting 8 million guaranteed. That’s an insult. He may not see it that way, but that’s exactly the point. He’s willingly taking a pay cut. Torre did not. It’s really as simply as that, except when you guys want to let your principles twist in the wind with your fandom.
    See, I could give a crap about either. But it is hilarious you guys try to gerrymander distinctions where there are none. Torre took money he was comfortable with (but somehow to SF it’s less) and so did Schilling. End of story.

    Pete November 6, 2007, 7:53 pm
  • Whatever, Pete. You can go back and go through what I was discussing during the Torre walk-off and see if I have contradictory statements, go for it.
    There are distinct differences in the two cases, and what has always interested me was the business aspect of things, not the merits of the offers. Find where I argue otherwise, I challenge you.
    Otherwise just go away, seriously, you are a drag on the debate at this site, you are nothing but a grenade-chucker.

    SF November 6, 2007, 8:00 pm
  • Yup, then when I don’t agree with you, you call me names. That’s happened a few times before. Homer!
    You keep insisting there are distinctions, except there aren’t. I see a pay cut and incentives. Those are both facts in both cases. You can blather on about other extraneous bits all you want, but that doesn’t change the facts. The only difference is the pride each person brought to the table. That’s how Kornheiser and Wilbon saw it today and I agree with them 100%.
    Seriously, get some principles or your arguments are always going to sound absurd.

    Pete November 6, 2007, 8:06 pm
  • Club reaches out to player immediately after season concludes? Check. Player responds to club’s initial offer? Check. Club responds to player’s counter? Check. Player suggests incentives, not club? Check. Negotiations involve mutual concessions, discussion, good faith? Check.
    It’s really not that complicated.

    SF November 6, 2007, 8:27 pm
  • You said it. The only difference is how the person responded. Torre was insulted. Schill wasn’t. But the offers were almost identical.
    Problem is, you and others, disagreed mightily with the offer (Pay cut!? Incentives!? What? How dare they!). That’s hypocritical. Schill could have easily been insulted that they wanted base salary at a 40% decrease. Indeed, Paul harped on the 30% decrease for Torre. Or Schill could have been insulted about the weight suggestion, that he somehow had to prove he was going to get in good shape after 3 post-season wins.
    The only difference is how the offers were received. You insisting there’s a difference is just an end around any principles you *might* have.

    Pete November 6, 2007, 8:35 pm
  • you…disagreed mightily with the offer
    No, I didn’t. I never rendered a judgment on whether the offer was fair or not, not once. I only offered opinions on what the offer meant.
    And Schill offered the weight incentive clause himself, it wasn’t suggested by the club, according to both Epstein and Curt. Get your facts right, at least.

    SF November 6, 2007, 8:41 pm
  • What the offer “meant”?
    By that reasoning, the Schill’s contract means he’s a fat ass and one who deserves to make less than Clement.
    Schill only offered the clause because they brought up the issue AND they were offering an even lower base rate.
    Please. It’s exactly that psychobabble I’m railing against. Torre and Schilling got extremely similar contract offers. One let pride get in the way of business. The other didn’t. It’s really that simple, even for a simpleton.

    Pete November 6, 2007, 8:48 pm
  • Pete, why do you visit this site, exactly?

    SF November 6, 2007, 8:59 pm
  • Oh, I see. You point out hypocrisy like it’s your duty. But when any one calls you on it you can’t handle it.

    Pete November 6, 2007, 9:32 pm
  • Homer… we talking ‘The Simpsons’ or what?
    First off, Schilling really wanted to stay with the Sox, that much is obvious.
    What was not so obvious was just how much the Sox wanted him back.
    But according to RedSox.com:
    “It was a pretty smooth process,” Red Sox general manager Theo Epstein said. “I think both sides wanted to make it happen. The terms were right. It only took a few days to come to fruition. I think Curt wanted to stay here and we wanted him back, as long as we could get some protection in the contract and we were able to accomplish that, so it happened pretty quickly.”
    So, the fact is, the Sox were willing to come to a MUTUAL agreement that, in the end, both sides felt satisfied their positions.
    That’s called negotiations.
    Curt probably could have gotten himself a bunch more guaranteed elsewhere, but as it is if he gets and stays healthy the incentives for Curt are readily reachable and it might even be possible for him to get a raise if he has a monster year.
    Whereas… it is obvious to me, and everybody else, that the Yankees were done with Torre IF he did not bring home a WS title this year.
    Basically, they fired Joe during the ALDS, and when that ended badly for the Yanks it was then a foregone conclusion.
    But of course the Yankees decided they didn’t want a backlash of bad PR for canning him, so they offered to cut his salary by a third, a THIRD, and his only ‘incentive’ was in getting a second year, keeping his JOB (not regain his salary level, his J. O. B.), and that incentive is: win another World Series.
    Oh, and TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT, that’s all you get.
    Pete, even you aren’t capable of seeing this as anything but an insult to Joe Torre.
    Curt accepted that he didn’t perform to his own high standards this year and should he do so next year he will earn the 13 Million he was seeking, and if he garners just ONE Cy Young vote he will earn himself a million dollar raise, everybody came away happy.

    Brian November 6, 2007, 10:12 pm
  • Ooops my bad, Torre WAS offered salary incentives too I didn’t know that, I finally found the details. The fact remains that the Yankee front office made it clear that if Torre accepted, not only was he on a short leash, he could only earn an equivalent paycheck if the Yanks made it to the WS and only earn a second year if they won. It’s not as BIG of an insult but it’s still an insult.
    AND they already made it known PUBLICLY that he was done.

    Brian November 6, 2007, 10:24 pm
  • Homer… we talking ‘The Simpsons’ or what?
    First off, Schilling really wanted to stay with the Sox, that much is obvious.
    What was not so obvious was just how much the Sox wanted him back.
    But according to RedSox.com:
    “It was a pretty smooth process,” Red Sox general manager Theo Epstein said. “I think both sides wanted to make it happen. The terms were right. It only took a few days to come to fruition. I think Curt wanted to stay here and we wanted him back, as long as we could get some protection in the contract and we were able to accomplish that, so it happened pretty quickly.”
    So, the fact is, the Sox were willing to come to a MUTUAL agreement that, in the end, both sides felt satisfied their positions.
    That’s called negotiations.
    Curt probably could have gotten himself a bunch more guaranteed elsewhere, but as it is if he gets and stays healthy the incentives for Curt are readily reachable and it might even be possible for him to get a raise if he has a monster year.
    Whereas… it is obvious to me, and everybody else, that the Yankees were done with Torre IF he did not bring home a WS title this year.
    Basically, they fired Joe during the ALDS, and when that ended badly for the Yanks it was then a foregone conclusion.
    But of course the Yankees decided they didn’t want a backlash of bad PR for canning him, so they offered to cut his salary by a third, a THIRD, and his only ‘incentive’ was in getting a second year, keeping his JOB (not regain his salary level, his J. O. B.), and that incentive is: win another World Series.
    Oh, and TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT, that’s all you get.
    Pete, even you aren’t capable of seeing this as anything but an insult to Joe Torre.
    Curt accepted that he didn’t perform to his own high standards this year and should he do so next year he will earn the 13 Million he was seeking, and if he garners just ONE Cy Young vote he will earn himself a million dollar raise, everybody came away happy.

    Brian November 6, 2007, 10:25 pm
  • Oops, I just found out that Torre did have salary incentives as well as the extra year, I didn’t know that. But listen, the Yankees told the guy: Make it to the world series and you get what you made last year, win and we’ll hire you for a second year. Take it or leave it!
    The guy helped bring 4 titles to your organization and you make it KNOWN that he can take it or leave it, final offer?
    Torre obviously wanted a longer term contract and he’s now gotten that with the Dodgers.
    The truth is Torre felt insulted and nearly everyone agrees with that sentiment.

    Brian November 6, 2007, 10:59 pm
  • I do not know why, but somehow my previous posts doubled for some reason…I didn’t do it
    Sure screwed things up though.

    Brian November 6, 2007, 11:04 pm
  • Not to mention the fact that Steinbrenner threatened to fire Torre several times, which is completely disrespectful especially after the success Torre brought the Yankees.
    The Red Sox never disrespected Schilling. Geez Pete, don’t be such a firestarter.

    Atheose November 6, 2007, 11:49 pm
  • I don’t know why I’m bothering, but…
    by your logic Tito can’t be considered a genius this post-season
    Sorry, but why not? I actually don’t agree with all of the things Tito did in the postseason (thought he was overly quick with the hook in some situations and might have completely burned out Okajima as a result; waited too long to sub Ellsbury for Coco), but that isn’t the point.
    My point is this: A manager can “make all the right moves” and still have them not work out. That doesn’t make him a bad manager. Similarly, a terrible manager can get lucky and have a stupid move work out, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it was a good move. It makes much more sense to judge/reward a manager based on the underlying rationale for the moves that they make than for whether they work out perfectly in the small sample size of the playoffs.

    Jackie (SF) November 7, 2007, 11:47 pm

Leave a Comment