“A Rival Executive”

As one rival executive said of the Sox, "It’s like they’re buying a brand new Gulfstream jet and trying to negotiate the monthly payment down 10 bucks."

Meeeeeeow!!  I guess two titles in four years doesn’t sit well with some people in Tampa The Bronx a rival town…

49 comments… add one
  • Now the Yankees are your only rival? Wow, what a compliment SF. It’s an honor and a privilege to be considered the only rival of the recent two time WC. ;)

    John - YF December 12, 2007, 9:35 am
  • Who ever it is, it’s a pretty funny line and I think it has some truth to it.
    Just get it done or move on.

    LocklandSF December 12, 2007, 10:00 am
  • The funny thing is that quote doesn’t really apply yet. But if they ever get around to finalizing the deal, they better be willing to pony up for Santana. Not only would they have no leverage, but if they try to nickel and dime him, the deal falls apart and the Yanks swoop in with no other bidder. And since folks like to think Hank is an exact clone of his father (even as the facts show otherwise), how long before he releases a statement saying he went the extra mile for Yankee fans?
    Hmmm, kinda like the 2003 off-season?

    Mike YF December 12, 2007, 10:28 am
  • Hmmm, kinda like the 2003 off-season?
    Nothing at all like it. The Sox WON this year.

    SF December 12, 2007, 10:34 am
  • For the record Mike, I don’t think Hank is a clone of his father, but I do think they are both crazy loudmouths that should leave the GM job to, you know, the GM.
    They are very different kinds of loudmouths though.

    LocklandSF December 12, 2007, 10:41 am
  • Exactly. Even harder to see why this ownership group would go that extra mile now with a player when they wouldn’t in 2003.

    Mike YF December 12, 2007, 10:46 am
  • “Nothing at all like it. The Sox WON this year”
    Wait, you guys won the offseason? I didn’t think it was a “zero sum” contest…
    If this trade is made, and then falls apart because the sox try to nickel and dime(relative, of course) Santana, and he ends up with the yanks, this offseason will be remembered as “’03 The Sequel”.
    (And if that comes to pass, I hope we don’t see a repeat of what came in ’04 :)

    The Sheriff (Andrews) December 12, 2007, 10:58 am
  • I meant that the Sox won the World Series this year, not that they won the offseason, Sheriff. It was a joke – this offseason feels nothing like that offseason!
    (It still sounds a little odd addressing you as “Sheriff”, to be honest!)

    SF December 12, 2007, 11:05 am
  • I got the joke, SF. Just tried to respond with one of my own.
    My nickname (in real life) has been “The Sheriff” for a long time, btw

    The Sheriff (Andrews) December 12, 2007, 11:10 am
  • Andrews, if I may ask, how did you get that nickname?

    LocklandSF December 12, 2007, 11:24 am
  • Forget where I saw it mentioned, but apparently Santana will demand a 7-year deal. At $20M+…for a pitcher….that’s beyond insane. Will anyone really pony up that much dough?

    yankeemonkey December 12, 2007, 11:28 am
  • wow, sf attributing quotes to folks without substantiation…even in the name of humor, that’s not allowed on this site…while you didn’t specifically call out the yankees, the connection you’re making is obvious…shameful…
    aside from that, the quote from the “rival executive” is f-ing hilarious, and dead on…i’ve expressed that same sentiment about the sox here a number of times…it’s a wonder they get anybody to deal with them…
    hank dis’ of the day = “crazy loudmouth[s]”
    thanks lockland

    dc December 12, 2007, 11:28 am
  • DC, are you saying that the Steinbrenners AREN’T loudmouths? I have a great deal of respect for both George and Hank because they are dedicated to the Yankees and will do anything to make them win, and I believe they are both very smart.
    However, loudmouths they are. That’s not necessarilly a bad thing, though. It works for them.

    Atheose December 12, 2007, 11:53 am
  • “…DC, are you saying that the Steinbrenners AREN’T loudmouths?…”
    not at all atheose, i was just acknowledging the comment as the “dis’ of the day”…you have to admit it’s not a very flattering comment, even if there’s a tiny ;) grain of truth to it…

    dc December 12, 2007, 12:02 pm
  • Alright DC, I was just under the assumption that something isn’t a ‘dis’ if it’s truth acknowledged by pretty much everyone in baseball ;-)
    In other news, ARod has purple lips and mickey-mouse gloves.

    Atheose December 12, 2007, 12:07 pm
  • “Andrews, if I may ask, how did you get that nickname?”
    For upholding law and order on the bandstand, naturally… :)

    The Sheriff (Andrews) December 12, 2007, 12:20 pm
  • is it me, or does it look like jose molina is getting a little thick around the middle?
    ;)

    dc December 12, 2007, 12:22 pm
  • Curt Schilling is still King of The Loudmouths though.

    LocklandSF December 12, 2007, 12:29 pm
  • you have a mean streak in you lockland
    ;)

    dc December 12, 2007, 12:38 pm
  • Tejada traded to the Astros per MLBTR

    AndrewYF December 12, 2007, 12:47 pm
  • Holy crap, Andrew. Who did the Orioles get in return?

    Atheose December 12, 2007, 12:49 pm
  • The Baltimore Sun says Luke Scott, Matt Albers, Troy Patton, Dennis Sarfate and Mike Costanzo.
    Other than Scott and Albers, I must confess I have no idea who any of those guys are. But that’s a lot of players for a guy with the deminished stature of Tejada.

    Paul SF December 12, 2007, 12:55 pm
  • Yeah, a 5-for-1 deal centered around Tejada? The Orioles must be giving up a prospect or two.

    Atheose December 12, 2007, 12:59 pm
  • MLBTR likes the deal for the O’s. Here’s my conspiracy theory idea about this trade. This means that Tejada’s name is not on the list. Per Schilling’s interfview on EEI today, players who are on the list are finding out from mlb today. I’d imagine teams are finding out the names as well today. The Stros wouldn’t trade so much for a guy who is about to be outed.

    Nick-YF December 12, 2007, 1:01 pm
  • Agreed, Nick. I’m surprised, because I heavily suspected Tejada. Hell, I suspect anyone who was on the A’s in the 90’s!

    Atheose December 12, 2007, 1:04 pm
  • Man, the Astros are an awful team. They had next to nothing in their system and they just gave it all away for a guy who will likely be out of baseball in 3 years.

    AndrewYF December 12, 2007, 1:30 pm
  • Let’s all try to keep in mind that the Mitchell report is not the word of the lord. If a player isn’t in the report, it doesn’t mean that they never took PEDs.

    LocklandSF December 12, 2007, 1:52 pm
  • Agreed Lockland…though I think the more pertinent issue post-report-release won’t be whether the unnamed are innocent so match as whether all the named are in fact guilty…much grandstanding and a proliferation of lawsuits seems unavoidable.

    IronHorse (yf) December 12, 2007, 2:02 pm
  • I would personally like to nominate the Astros as the only current “lose-now and later” team in the majors.

    AndrewYF December 12, 2007, 2:34 pm
  • AndrewYF – I’m pretty sure the Pirates will figure out how to stay with the Astros in that category when they get around to trading Bay.

    FenSheaParkway December 12, 2007, 3:01 pm
  • IH, I totally agree. In fact, I won’t be surprised if there are VERY few names named in the report. They need to limit the legal backlash as much as possible while showing the public they really did try to do something about it.
    I don’t want to pass any judgment on this yet, but I’m worried there is very little good that can come out of this.
    Buckle up, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

    LocklandSF December 12, 2007, 3:20 pm
  • Poor Astros. Two years removed from a World Series appearance and they are awful (looks to me like they got hosed in this deal too). Too bad. They are my NL team (born and bred Texan, and a good friend of mine is a big fan, the way I am a Red Sox fan).

    Devine December 12, 2007, 3:20 pm
  • The sad part is that, in a shitty NL Central, they still have a chance to win their division…

    yankeemonkey December 12, 2007, 3:41 pm
  • AndrewYF – I’m pretty sure the Pirates will figure out how to stay with the Astros in that category when they get around to trading Bay.
    I dunno, the Pirates would at least be consistent in trying to rebuild. The Astros let Brad Lidge walk, but then acquired a big ticket item like Tejada? Are they trying to contend? Rebuild? At least the Pirates have some good, young pitching and actual prospects in their system.

    AndrewYF December 12, 2007, 3:43 pm
  • Lockland,
    I’m a lot more welcoming of the report and its consequences than it sounds like you might be, but I completely agree with your prediction of a very bumpy ride. To have at least 50 names as has been reported is a lot. At the same time, it will be very interesting to see how the report presents those names.
    For instance, if the report says, here is a list of players who had dealings with known providers of PEDs that go beyond mere acquaintance and into verifiable payments for delivery of PED products. Whether or not they used those products we do not know but when we asked the players, they could neither provide for us all of the materials they had purchased nor explain where they went.
    Would such a thing be legally out of bounds? I have no clue. But I would imagine that the report lists names in a way that stops short of saying they used PEDs unless they have proof positive of it. The report was developed within a law firm largely by a team of lawyers so I imagine they will have taken lots of precautions. Certainly will be interesting – and bumpy as you say…

    IronHorse (yf) December 12, 2007, 4:21 pm
  • Do you suppose there is a player (or ten) who, if listed in this report, would make the general public say, “well if HE was using them, then I bet everyone was and it probably isn’t so bad”? It seems to me that if someone like Jeter is “on the list”, it would start to legitimize PEDs more than discredit the player.

    rootbeerfloat December 12, 2007, 4:28 pm
  • rfb, I really don’t think so. I think for instance that there are enough haters of any player (certainly including Jeter) that their chants of “steroids” at games would drown the drugs-are-OK crowd. I don’t know. I think what is more than likely to happen if it gets to the level of true idol-tarnishing (for YFs, could you imagine Jeter, Paul O’Neil, Mo, etc….blech!) the likely reaction won’t so much be that maybe it’s OK/legitimate and will instead be, this whole sport and everyone in it just stinks.
    From a very parochial YF perspective I feel that there would be no more damaging hard to swallow name for the entire sport to have on that list than Jeter.

    IronHorse (yf) December 12, 2007, 4:38 pm
  • I think three players that would cause the most devastation across MLB if named are Vladimir Guerrero, Bernie Williams and David Ortiz. All are generally very happy, friendly guys who are liked by most people in the game. I wouldn’t go so far as to say it would legitimize PED’s, but it would certainly hurt Baseball Itself.
    (yes, Baseball Itself gets capitalized.)

    Atheose December 12, 2007, 4:49 pm
  • Does anyone think (and I read this thought elsewhere) that the contract stalling on behalf of the Yankees with re: to Mariano and A-Rod is to see the names and accusations on this report tomorrow?
    I doubt it, but then again, I can see it being the case..
    Any thoughts?

    Brad December 12, 2007, 5:03 pm
  • Doubt it brad. The yankees delayed the signing of the contracts initially to protect more players on the 40-man roster for the rule V draft. Apparently Mo’s contract is really close and A-Rod’s id guess is being vetted by teams of lawyers on both sides.

    sam-YF December 12, 2007, 5:21 pm
  • Also id be very surprised if A-Rod was on there but it would be utterly shocking if Mo was. He’d fall into that category of very damaging for baseball (and of course the yankees) if he were named.

    sam-YF December 12, 2007, 5:22 pm
  • I couldn’t care less about anyone else, but I’ll be crushed if Mariano is on that list.

    yankeemonkey December 12, 2007, 5:25 pm
  • Brad,
    I hadn’t really seen that theory elsewhere but while my initial reaction was “no way”, and with regard to Mo still is for a lot of reasons, I could see it in the A-Rod case for two simple reasons:
    1. One of his biggest pulls will be as the “clean” HR record-chaser. If that is gone then his value goes down significantly.
    2. He has demonstrated no ability to withstand fan scrutiny and ignominy and if he thought he got it before, he would get it ten-fold if his name is raised in this report.

    IronHorse (yf) December 12, 2007, 5:26 pm
  • ym: which would be worse to you, Jeter or Mo?
    It’s hard for me to decide…either would be crushing.

    Anonymous December 12, 2007, 5:27 pm
  • At the risk of stirring up the torch-and-pitchfork mob, I’ll admit that I don’t really like Jeter. So, while I’ll be a little sad if he’s named because he IS the face of the franchise, it won’t be nearly as upsetting as Mo.

    yankeemonkey December 12, 2007, 5:33 pm
  • What about Tony Gwynn or Cal Ripken? I think that would really blow everyone away.

    rootbeerfloat December 12, 2007, 5:57 pm
  • Wouldn’t it be ironic if Curt “Holier Than Thou” Schilling were listed in the Mitchell report?
    That twist would be worthy of an O. Henry short story.

    yf2k December 12, 2007, 6:11 pm
  • Santana’s agent was quoted today that the price to sign Johan was 7/140 and that the teams interested in acquiring him were informed of this. To me this is the most likely reason that Johan talks have slowed/stopped. Thats a chunk of change.

    sam-YF December 14, 2007, 11:51 am
  • and years. I think the last two years might scare off even high-spending teams.

    Nick-YF December 14, 2007, 11:55 am

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.