The Horse Race Begins

Daisuke Matsuzaka was indeed posted yesterday afternoon. Teams have until 5 p.m. Wednesday to bid. The Red Sox and Yankees are considered by most, I think, to be the frontrunners — assuming the Mariners are truthful in their stated desire to pursue pitching elsewhere.

YFSF Poll: What will the winning bid be, and which team will post it?

I guess $32 million, by the Yankees.

68 comments… add one
  • $40mil, Yanks.

    YFinBeantown November 3, 2006, 9:18 am
  • $32,000,001.76 (price is right/eBay style)

    Yankee Fan In Boston November 3, 2006, 9:20 am
  • Whatever it is, I hope it’s the Yankees. I’d rather not have another Irabu on the Red Sox, making Theo look terrible. Go with known talent, and let other teams put up with someone’s first year in the bigs.
    Irabu was the Japanese Roger Clemens if I remember correctly. Hard to top that hype.

    Brad November 3, 2006, 9:42 am
  • 27.75M, Mets.

    SF November 3, 2006, 9:50 am
  • $28.6234567453627829M, Yankees

    Nick-YF November 3, 2006, 9:58 am
  • Wow, wtf. I was going to guess 20M by the Yanks, but jeebus, everyone’s topping me.

    Lar November 3, 2006, 10:07 am
  • It’s interesting to see how guys like Lackey are getting the best of the best over there right now, and how the manager of their team says that the American pitching is so good. The Japanese batters said that it feels like their is so much weight on the balls from the American pitchers that it’s hard to drive it.
    Um, it’s John Lackey…. I just have the terrible feeling that this kid is going to struggle big time his first season or two, and we’re talking about a lot of money to invest in a struggling pitcher.

    Brad November 3, 2006, 10:24 am
  • their = there.

    Brad November 3, 2006, 10:27 am
  • Why aren’t the Mets being mentioned? Are they faking everyone out by not talking about Matsuzaka? Seems like they fit the bill for being in the mix: very short on reliable starting pitching, they are rich, in a big market, new stadium coming, with possible draw to already prevalent Japanese media (built-in for Matsui). Why is it all Yanks/Sox? The Mets have to be on everyone’s contender list for this guy, as far as I see it.

    SF November 3, 2006, 10:49 am
  • yah, I think the Metros are definitely lying in wait, keeping their mouth shut.

    Brad November 3, 2006, 10:53 am
  • Or, maybe they fell a bit burnt from their last “great Japanese player” who could barely reach first base from the hole and couldn’t hit a basketball with a fungo bat. That Matsui was supposed to be the next Ozzie and Jeter wrapped into on. Funny how the hype never works out with these guys. I think it’s the same as when teams are trying to pawn off prospects – each one of them is the next great thing, with uncanning ability when it comes time to trade them.
    If Japanese ball players are so good, why is it that all of our old, depleted, can’t make the cut players go there to play, and dominate once there?
    It’s TOO RISKY!

    Brad November 3, 2006, 10:57 am
  • Brad: I think you are under-crediting the Japanese ballplayers who have come over. Suzuki, Matsui, Nomo, Sasaki – these are all guys who have had/are having really fine ML careers. There’s a pretty good hit rate for the guys who have signed and come over, as far as having serviceable stints in the Majors. One shouldn’t underestimate that value. Looking only at failures like Irabu and Kaz Matsui is unfair, in my opinion.

    SF November 3, 2006, 11:01 am
  • I agree, to a point.

    Brad November 3, 2006, 11:02 am
  • I think a high bid is the best thing the yanks can do.
    Then hardball him on the contract. 5 years $25 Million or something.
    Worst that happens is he does not take it. You get your bid back if he walks and you prevented other teams from getting him.
    posting bid also does not get hit on luxury tax.

    Seth November 3, 2006, 11:38 am
  • Seth:
    Your strategy is probably right, and I imagine that’s what most teams are thinking. On the other hand, playing hardball with Scott Boras isn’t a cakewalk. Usually Boras cakewalks all over ownership. I don’t see DM making anything less at least half what Zito’s ballpark is, which right now is being whispered (or shouted) as $60-70M for 5 years. I seriously doubt DM signs for $25M, unless it is for no more than 3 years. It’s Scott Boras
    Over/Under on total value of DM’s actual contract with a team should start, in my opinion at 4/36.5M, not including posting. Anybody have any other guesses?

    SF November 3, 2006, 11:54 am
  • Matsuzaka geta at least 4 years, $10 mil per. Without a doubt.
    Sorry, I should have mentioned the Mets. In fact, my first guess was to pick the Mets until I realized that it’s the Yankees.
    I for one do want to see the Sox make a strong bid for Matsuzaka. The posting fee is not susceptible to luxury tax, and that means the money can come from anywhere John Henry wants it to. While it’s unrealistic to expect Matsuzaka to equal his Japanese stats in the bigs, the projections I’ve seen — even assuming the Japanese leagues are equivalent to AAA baseball in the states (most agree they’re somewhere between AAA and NL quality) — still show him at a 3.50-4.00 pitcher. And he’s what? 28? Sign me up for one of those. I think at $10-15 mil per year, 4 years, it’s a better deal with similar risks and much higher upside than you’d get with Zito or Schmidt.
    If the Sox are going to outbid the Yanks for a player, blind auction is the only way to do it. I think the Red Sox will be very competitive, and that they have a very good chance. Still, in any kind of bidding war, you have to give the edge to the Empire.

    Paul SF November 3, 2006, 12:38 pm
  • But it’s not a traditional bidding war, Paul. It’s blind. Different dynamic. In fact, it’s not even a bidding war. It’s more like a bidding gunshot.
    Though of course the Yankees could seal an over-the-top bid in an envelope that nobody could match, I assume they also don’t want to throw money away indiscriminately when they don’t have to, no matter what their coffers hold. They likely are gauging and guessing what the high bid will be, then icing it with 15-20% extra over that number. But the Mets and Sox are probably doing the same thing based on their own needs and internal limitations, and no party really has an idea of the inner discussions of the other teams. So the blind bid is a tough thing. It will certainly be interesting to see what happens. I can’t feel confident with any specific prediction, though of course the richest team is at an advantage. But everyone knows that.

    SF November 3, 2006, 1:00 pm
  • paul sf- the kid JUST turned 26.
    watch the way this kid pinpoints his pitches to the corners. my knees buckle just watching the clips…
    i also heard that while the mariners’ bid on ichiro was $13 M, they were rumored to have secretly worked out a deal with his japanese team so that they just paid $4M. i’m not sure if that is true, as i have no connections to anyone involved, but if that is the case and is a somewhat common practice, a similar deal could be in place.
    …then who comes out on top?

    Yankee Fan In Boston November 3, 2006, 1:19 pm
  • Will we ever find out what the winning posting bid is? I don’t think so. Which makes the guessing, while fun, somewhat futile.
    I think the fix is in and the Yanks win the bidding, regardless of who offers what. He’ll then sign for about the 5/60 that Zito’s expected to receive. And then we’ll the division series against Cleveland next year…

    Sam November 3, 2006, 1:21 pm
  • Even if the red sox, or anyone for that matter, does not want DM they should still try to bid high so their competitors do not get him. What is the downside of the red sox posting $50 million then lowballing the offer just to prevent the yankees from getting him?
    I think he signs for $10 mil per year range.
    I also think the yanks are only outbidding themselves on the posting. $15 million would win the post.

    Seth November 3, 2006, 1:25 pm
  • seth- the downside is pissing of scott boras, having a terrible standing the next time you try to sign an international player, and giving matsuzaka a reason to sign with your team’s biggest divisional rival when he shows up stateside in ’08.

    Yankee Fan In Boston November 3, 2006, 1:29 pm
  • Seth, isn’t the downside that you spent $50 million for nothing? Or does a failed negotiation mean you get the bidding money back?

    Nick-YF November 3, 2006, 1:36 pm
  • you get it back if there’s no agreement, but i don’t think anyone would be willing to risk their reputation to play games with this kid.
    plus, matsuzaka just said yesterday that he prefers to play for the yankees.
    if somebody lowballs, he plays in japan for a year and then can choose where he goes…

    Yankee Fan In Boston November 3, 2006, 1:41 pm
  • Where did he say that, YF in Boston? I missed that somewhere. Last I heard, he wanted Seattle over all others?

    Brad November 3, 2006, 1:45 pm
    it could just be a case of him playing with the minds of GMs, but this is the latest.

    Yankee Fan In Boston November 3, 2006, 1:47 pm
  • Seattle is out of it according to LoHud.
    Point taken on the 08, but I think he will go who gives him the most money. Money not spent in the posting will go towards him, though they will get crushed on the luxury tax. The yankees need the blind bidding the least to actually sign the player.
    Is the blind bidding happening 1, to give other teams a shot at him, 2, to give the yankees a luxury tax break, or 3, to give Seibu some cash?
    I think its 2.

    Seth November 3, 2006, 1:53 pm
  • i think they post players to get the maximum return for the talent they’re giving up. …like trading a star in the last year of his contract at the trade deadline… better than letting him walk.
    (and hopefully the other 2 options as well.)
    and according to the guy who writes the blog from japan devoted entirely to matsuzaka, seatlle aren’t the only teams out of the hunt:
    “The other news beyond the withdrawl of the Mariners is the apparent withdrawl of the Orioles, Angels, Padres, and Dodgers from the bidding. More teams may follow.”
    i’m assuming this info was released in japan and not over here, but i am also just accepting it because i want it to be accurate.

    Yankee Fan In Boston November 3, 2006, 2:00 pm
  • What I don’t understand is why Seattle, LA, Baltimore, et al. would let anyone know they had withdrawn from the bidding. For what reason? The only way they’d be helping themselves is if they were bluffing. Otherwise, they’re helping out the remaining bidders. And aren’t these bidders their competitors on the field and in general?

    Nick-YF November 3, 2006, 2:03 pm
  • i don’t understand, either. the only explanation i have read is that they don’t want to disappoint their fans by allowing them to get their hopes up.
    …but i don’t buy that.

    Yankee Fan In Boston November 3, 2006, 2:06 pm
  • …another explanation is that these teams contacted seibu and told them they were out, and then someone leaked it in japan…
    but this is just a theory i just made up with nothing at all to back it up. (but it would explain why these teams are being named in japan and not over here.)

    Yankee Fan In Boston November 3, 2006, 2:08 pm
  • Or teams are hoping that Cashman and Theo (with a few others) buy into the thought that those teams are out therefor allowing that team to sneak in bids that otherwise were not expected to be offered. If the Yankees, Mets and Red Sox believe that Seattle isn’t in it, Seattle could sneak in a bombshell and end up with the player- which I hope is the case. I really hope it.

    Brad November 3, 2006, 2:20 pm
  • and i finally found where i read about the sneaky & shady possibilities that i hope ca$hman is aware of and will utilize:
    “But there may be loopholes. It can be in the Japanese team’s best interest for the winning bid to come from a team with which the player wants to sign, since that is the only way the Japanese team gets money. So a Japanese team could make an under-the-table deal with a U.S. team in which only a portion of the winning bid would have to be paid.
    When the Seattle Mariners won the rights to sign Ichiro Suzuki in 2000, there were rumors they paid just $4 million of the $13 million winning bid to the Orix Blue Wave.”

    Yankee Fan In Boston November 3, 2006, 2:20 pm
  • The problem is Matsuzaka hasn’t said he won’t play anywhere. Sure, he wants to play for the Yankees. Who from overseas doesn’t? The team has that cache. But does that mean he won’t sign with another team? If he’s said so, Boras and the Lions clearly wouldn’t say because that hurts them for anyone to know that.
    I think, in response to someone’s question, that the winning bid and team will be made known. The fun will be in all the leaks soon after about which teams came close, etc.

    Paul SF November 3, 2006, 2:30 pm
  • matsuzaka hasn’t mentioned any teams he wouldn’t play for to the media, for the reasons you bring up, but that isn’t to say that he hasn’t told the lions that he doesn’t want to play in colorado or kansas city.
    (or boston or for the mets?)
    (i realize that this is a longshot to say the least, but i am clinging to all i can, hoping that he lands in the bronx and be a solid #2 or 3.)

    Yankee Fan In Boston November 3, 2006, 2:40 pm
  • On one hand, it’s tempting to say that a situation like this is how the Yanks should be leveraging their wealth. But on the other, logic suggests that this process is going to make Matsuzaka a wildly overpaid player. It’s the perfect storm for him this year, with so little other talent available. So if you put up 25 million, and sign the guy for 5 years at 10 million, which is looking like the kind of investment required here, you end up with a guy with zero ML experience costing you 75 million over 5 years. That’s a lot of risk. Yeesh.

    YF November 3, 2006, 2:52 pm
  • …unless the “winning” bidders pay only a fraction of the bid price.

    Yankee Fan In Boston November 3, 2006, 2:59 pm
  • It is a lot of risk, but is it any more risk than signing Zito (dropping peripherals and performance) for 75 mil over five? Or Schmidt (old, NL-only) for 60 over four?
    In reality, the posting fee is a sunk cost, particularly for the Bostons and New Yorks of the world, where they make far more money in other ventures (TV, radio, merch, investments, other aspects of their personal business) than they do in baseball. They can easily (well, as easy as it can be to come up with tens of millions of dollars) pull the posting money from other areas, and let the baseball ops people then use baseball money to determine the contract price.
    I think in that sense it’s misleading to factor the posting fee as part of the long-term acquisition cost. The fee may not be borne by the team itself at all — but rather by whatever source John Henry or Steinbrenner choose to pull from.
    This system to my mind disproportionately benefits big-market teams with many different streams from which to pull revenue, even as it helps small-market teams by keeping the bidding secret.

    Paul SF November 3, 2006, 3:02 pm
  • good points, Paul. The more I think about it in that light, the more I think it’s a no-brainer for the Yanks to try to blow everyone out of the water with their bid. The upside of this signing is too high on the field and in the market place (think the Hideki Matsui effect) to ignore.

    Nick-YF November 3, 2006, 3:05 pm
  • Hehe, Nick. It’s also why I think (hope? dream?) the Sox might go the same route. I guess we’ll see before the end of the month…

    Paul SF November 3, 2006, 3:08 pm
  • 3 Years at 10.5 mil a year and a 4th option year at 13 Mil, bringing the total to 44.5 mil.

    walein November 3, 2006, 3:39 pm
  • That’s my guess. I used the same crystal ball I used to pick my winning lottery ticket and I only missed that drawing by 5 numbers!

    walein November 3, 2006, 4:32 pm
  • I hope that loophole works. In Yankee’s favor.
    Supposingly the Mets are making a push.. how serious are they?

    Lar November 3, 2006, 6:30 pm
  • …unless the red sox have changed their philosphy, they have shown to be less likely to part with the money, and may blink on this one in the end…if history is true to form, the yanks will probably overbid, get the rights, and force us to get excited about and defend a guy who has zero ml experience, and is therefore as unproven as any minor leaguer…i know he had some success on a big stage [the world tournament, or whatever they call that thing], but hardly the long haul of a ml regular season…we’ll see i guess…

    dc November 3, 2006, 7:34 pm
  • The Red Sox have shown they don’t mind spending if they believe in the cause (they were big on Contreras, remember, and it’s not like Schilling was signed to a bargain-basement contract). They do favor a philosophy that sets a value on someone and don’t go higher (Pedro, Damon), but depending on what they think about Matsuzaka, they might decide they value him quite a bit. But maybe not. I think either is equally likely at this point.

    Paul SF November 4, 2006, 12:52 am
  • …i agree the sox always want the big fish, but they don’t always use the right bait or enough of it…point is they lost out on contreras [don’t underestimate how much of their bluster on these misfires is fan appeasement]…as for shilling, i don’t think they had any real competition [i.e. yanks, mets]…

    dc November 4, 2006, 1:01 am
  • So in dc’s world the Sox:
    Don’t spend enough money
    Don’t have any competition when they actually do spend money to obtain big-name players.
    Don’t entice players properly to join the team
    dc apparently doesn’t remember the Manny signing, or the Keith Foulke signing, or the Johnny Damon signing, or what actually happened with the Schilling trade and extend, or…I could keep going.
    dc: your recollection of Sox history is basically terrible.

    SF November 4, 2006, 8:09 am
  • …i agree the sox always want the big fish, but they don’t always use the right bait or enough of it…
    dc, exactly which “big fish” are you talking about here? Randy Johnson? Kevin Brown? Pavano? Wright? Abreu? Contreras? Vasquez?Farnsworth?
    I’m just curious as to why you think that the Red Sox should have EVER given up what the Yankees did in some of those cases, or why the missed the boat on any of them? Wouldn’t you rather have a nice young capable catcher then RJ now?
    Since the Red Sox new ownership has taken over, I’m wondering which fish they really wanted and did not get? I guess you could say Damon, but then I’d counter that the only person in the world that thinks he’s worth that kind of contract is Steinbrenner and himself.
    When you say that the Red Sox are less likely to part with the money, don’t you really mean that the Red Sox are much less likely to spend the money stupidly (see above signings). Every team makes mistakes, but when it comes to dishing out the dough to soon to be grandfathers and never-were’s the Yanks steal the show.
    So, I’d rather the Red Sox kept the money and used it wisely than to employ the Yankee alternative.
    For example, Crisp was signed to a contract this year that’s affordable to nearly every team in the bigs. This allows the Red Sox to put together a nice package of gifts for some team, like Atlanta, who will be taking offers for their centerfielder – you’ve heard of him right? That’s smart, long term thinking for the Red Sox. When and who exactly can take Damon’s contract when that time comes next year or the year after?
    Don’t let the Red Sox not spending insane amounts of money on players clearly not worth it be confused with the Red Sox not spending money. When the player is right, the Red Sox get the job done (see SF’s post).
    In the end, if a team does the smart thing, there are a few less big, errr, dead fish floating around on the roster. ie. Gary Sheffield, Randy Johnson, Mike Myers, Jason Giambi, and to some extent Hideki and Damon in time. Who can take those contracts?
    A: nobody except the red sox, who opted to not go fishing the first time around.

    Brad November 4, 2006, 3:12 pm
  • Brad, of that group, the Sox wanted Contreras, Vazquez and Pavano. They were reportedly interested in picking up Sheff if he had been available this off-season. It’s overly simplistic to call of these signings dead-weight pick-ups. They aren’t.

    Nick-YF November 4, 2006, 3:16 pm
  • My argument wasn’t that the Sox didn’t want them, Nick. My argument is that the Sox are not as willing to give a player the money that absolutely no other team in baseball is willing to match. It’s not that the Sox were not in the hunt for thos teams, it’s just that the Yankees out-did even themselves with those signings. Getting the players was not the stupid part, but the money thrown at them sure was.
    All I was doing was pointing out to AG that with all of those players, the Yanks had to reach up into the statosphere to stop the Red Sox from winning them, and thankfully, it’s all worked out for the best in the end. The Yankees have spend billions (?) of dollars on players that have basically amounted to nothing once in NY.

    Brad November 4, 2006, 5:21 pm
  • I meant to say DC, not AG.
    Sorry Gerbil.

    Brad November 4, 2006, 5:22 pm
  • But the Sox offered more to Pavano, and they were right up there with Contreras. Remember, that both the Sox and Yanks wanted Vazquez over Schilling. It was just that the D-Backs liked the Yanks’ package of prospects more at the time.
    It’s also a gross oversimplification to say they spent billions of dollars for nothing. Really? Sheffield has played poorly? Giambi’s been a complete bust? Damon didn’t play up to his contract last season?

    Nick-YF November 4, 2006, 5:54 pm
  • Nick, I’m curious here. If given the chance, would you still sign Giambi and Sheffield knowing all the problems they’ve caused and money they eat? It’s fine if you would, but I’m curious to know if maybe you wouldn’t have liked to have other options with everything that’s transpired.
    And, you are correct about Pavano. That’s a big laughing point avoided on Boston’s behalf. But, on the same note – we’re not talking about how much Boston wanted those players, we’re talking about how much more money NY threw at them to get them, and it blew up in their faces each time. Wanting or spending “almost” as much isn’t the same as grossly overspending.

    brad November 5, 2006, 11:21 pm
  • I think the Sheffield contract has been fine. I think the problems he presents are way overblown. His first two seasos with the Yanks were great, perhaps underrated by some. Giambi’s contract is another issue. He hasn’t exactly been a bust (his first year with them, for instance, was one of the best by a Yankees free agent pick up ever) and he’s had very good years with the Yanks. But they bud against no one and way overpaid. It’s not a great contract but it doesn’t seem to have hamstrung the Yanks too much. Way more regretable are the Pavano and Wright contracts. Overpaying great players is one thing; overpaying mediocrity is much worse.

    Nick-YF November 6, 2006, 6:45 am
  • But hey, Giambi’s got a great clubhouse presence — he can tell Miguel Tejada the way the game’s SUPPOSED to be played!

    Paul SF November 6, 2006, 10:37 am
  • Giambi had a monster year up to the contract, and there really was no indication that he was going to slow down, at the time. Hindsight’s 20/20…
    I was pretty upset when the Yanks got Shef instead of Vlad. And the problems were well known, so I guess we got what we paid for.
    By the way, when will we find out about the results of this posting system?

    Lar November 6, 2006, 4:13 pm
  • Lar, posting ends Wednesday, at which point MLB informs the Lions of the winning bid, and the Lions have 14 days to decide whether they will accept (which they will) — at which point, IIRC, the winning team and bid become public knowledge and the negotiations begin. That would put it somewhere around or before Nov. 22.
    I could be wrong though. That’s just off the top of my mind in the middle of a busy workday.

    Paul SF November 6, 2006, 4:58 pm
  • …my only original point was that your management sometimes cheaps out, while still puffing out their chests and crying foul when they get beat out, trying to convince the sheep that they are trying hard to build a championship…you sf’s are all wet on this and you know it…you keep talking about the long term, but i guess that’s the thinking when you finish in 2nd or 3rd every year…it’s the brainwashing your team’s management has done with you fans…i feel bad for you…i won’t bother telling you which of the contracts you were wrong about, my colleagues did that for me, but for all the yankee’s mistakes they have had a number of free agent successes, including stealing your leadoff hitter from you…that must hurt, and i understand…but stick to the point for crying out loud…
    …as for brad’s post, i wasn’t sure where to begin, but he’s a small piece:
    “So, I’d rather the Red Sox kept the money and used it wisely than to employ the Yankee alternative.
    For example, Crisp was signed to a contract this year that’s affordable to nearly every team in the bigs. This allows the Red Sox to put together a nice package of gifts for some team, like Atlanta, who will be taking offers for their centerfielder – you’ve heard of him right?”
    …you’re kidding right?…use the money wisely?…where has that gotten you in the free agent era?…and don’t insult me by trying to convince me that you signed crisp to dangle him, when just a few weeks ago you were trying to convince me of the tremendous potential he [and beckett, among others] had…you know, sacrifice today for tomorrow’s promise…is theo already abandoning the youth movement with this “nice package” to get dru jones?…geez….

    dc November 6, 2006, 10:33 pm
  • “trying to convince the sheep that they are trying hard to build a championship…you sf’s are all wet on this and you know it…you keep talking about the long term, but i guess that’s the thinking when you finish in 2nd or 3rd every year…”
    Or when the Sox, um, win the World Series — which is more than the Yankees have done with their billions since the dawn of the new century.
    “but for all the yankee’s mistakes they have had a number of free agent successes,”
    Even George Steinbrenner would not consider a free-agent signing a “success” unless it resulted in a championship — which to this point they have not. Mussina. Contreras. Wright. Pavano. Johnson. Giambi. Sheffield. A powerhouse in the regular season, primed to stumble and collapse in the postseason. What’s that record now? 3-10 since 2004 Game 3?
    “you’re kidding right?…use the money wisely?…where has that gotten you in the free agent era?.”
    Um, it’s gotten the Sox a World Series ring, and made them one of the most successful franchises in baseball, so I’m not sure what the point is there. Former Red Sox management did not use their money wisely — at once crying “small-market team!” while throwing money at has-beens like Jack Clark and Jose Canseco. It got the Sox several playoff appearances and quick exits — sound familiar? The only difference between those Sox teams and the current Yankee ones is that the Yanks don’t use the silly small-market claim.
    Frankly, I find it amazing that we’re having the debate over who of late has spent their money the best. Over the six past years, the Yankees have spent more money with fewer rings. End of discussion.
    Meanwhile, dc, feel free to provide an example of where Sox’ management cheapening out in free agency prevented the team from competing this year. Johnny Damon would have used his Jesus complex to heal the five hitters and four starting pitchers who went down with injuries, I suppose? He would have won 20 games by himself?

    Paul SF November 7, 2006, 12:22 am
  • …you got me paul, the sox have won more ws championships than the yankees since the dawn of the new century, if you don’t count the yanks win against the mets in 2000, or you don’t count 2000 as part of the new century…and, the sox were indeed the most successful franchise in 2004 but, the “free agent era” extends further back than just the past couple of years, and this isn’t the longest dry spell between championships…did you know that the fla marlins have won more ws than the sox in the past 10 years…so what?…the yankees have more championships than any other team in the entire free agent era…sf arguments are so confusing i’m not sure if that’s because the yanks spent all that money, or in spite of it…

    dc November 7, 2006, 12:48 am
  • DC, the century began Jan. 1, 2001. Just so ya know. There was a big discussion about it about six years ago. It was about the dawn of the new century, in case you missed it.
    Meanwhile, you completely miss/distort my point about the free-agent era. I did not argue that the Red Sox have spent money wisely since the beginning of free agency. You categorize the Sox as if they are a constant team with no change in management style, and I was pointng out that it’s silly to criticize the current Sox management for not succeeding the past 30 years when they’ve only been on the job the past four. Since they’ve taken over, they have spent their money more wisely than the Yankees. Since the dawn of the century (see above) the Red Sox have been more successful where it counts than the Yankees, thus spending their money more efficiently (bigger bang, less buck) if not more wisely. This is indisputable.
    Your insistence in using 10-year-old transactions (Clemens) and six-year-old championships to show how the Yankees somehow spend their cash better than the Sox management of the last four years is the argument that’s confusing.

    Paul SF November 7, 2006, 5:49 pm
  • I don’t even respond to his posts when they’re that silly.

    Brad November 7, 2006, 6:02 pm
  • I’m not going to argue that the Yanks have spent more wisely or more efficiently than the Sox. That’s just not the case. It’s almost a moot point given the revenue that the Yanks generate each year. But I also don’t think the rings argument holds much water, or is of much relevance to the debate. Especially after this year, it’s pretty apparent that the best team, or the best-designed team at least, doesn’t always win the whole thing. It’s a crap-shoot a lot of the time.

    Nick-YF November 7, 2006, 6:21 pm
  • Sure, Nick. Absolutely. I was going a bit overboard to point out that the following statement was completely baseless, considering the Red Sox do have more rings than the Yanks since the Sox’ new ownership took over:
    “…my only original point was that your management sometimes cheaps out, while still puffing out their chests and crying foul when they get beat out, trying to convince the sheep that they are trying hard to build a championship…you sf’s are all wet on this and you know it…you keep talking about the long term, but i guess that’s the thinking when you finish in 2nd or 3rd every year…”
    Absolutely amazing that apparently to dc, winning a division and falling flat on your face in the playoffs is now acceptable, as long as the Sox finish in 2nd (even if they go on to win the World Series).

    Paul SF November 7, 2006, 6:33 pm
  • The assignment of the actual date of the century/millenia is an esoteric debate, and relating seasonal baseball experience has dubious value as a metric or an argument. It is a fact that New York has been remarkably successful during the regular season for the last 11 years; tying it to a numerical curiosity is inconsequential.
    The NY Yankees post-season experience in the past six years has been disappointing from a YF’s perspective, but they have delivered post-season experience for eleven years, and it has been a fun ride. It speaks to the recent nature of the game that there have been no repeat champions since New York.
    “Falling flat on your face” is a gracious way to state the Yankee’s performance this post season. It was absolutely deplorable in most of games 2-4, but that is the nature of the post-season. Most expected that Detroit squad to mop the floor with the hovel that was the Cardinal’s roster and their limp into the Serious. Didn’t happen. It almost made the games worth watching, except the Tigers were completely out of the picture; all I wanted was a challenging series at that point.
    I am not happy that the New York Yankees have not put it together in the post-season recently. I am grateful that they have given me the chance to hope they will. Credit to the teams that have. That 2004 Boston run is something frozen in my mind forever. Sometimes, it’s worth a little more than what I want from the team for which I root. It makes the game worth playing.

    attackgerbil November 7, 2006, 10:22 pm
  • …no, what’s amazing is that one of you actually pounced to “correct” me about whether 2000 is in or out of the century…i guess i shouldn’t be surprised…
    …i believe i acknowledged your team’s recent success paul…and i agree that gives you bragging rights for awhile [6 years is apparently the shelf life, or until the yanks win again?]…
    …i’ve agreed on this site before that the yankees blew several acquisitions in the past few years, but you still seem intent on characterizing all of them as failures because the team didn’t win the ws…the argument that the ws is the only thing that matters to yankee fans is getting stale, so before you trot that one out again, i’ll spare you the trouble by reminding you that it has already been debunked by nearly every yf on this site….individuals can succeed even though the team doesn’t, and we can find some enjoyment within a season that doesn’t necessary produce a championship…[some of the failed players that the yankees acquired would have wound up on the sox if the mgmt had their way as someone pointed out earlier…luck and a tighter budget, not smarts intervened in those cases]…that’s ok, whether a particular player is a good pickup is a matter of opinion [just like we couldn’t agree a few weeks back on whether coco and beckett were good pickups [so far]]…and a lot of other factors have to line up for a team to be successful in the post season…
    …your management has done a good job in recent years, no debate there, but please don’t spin what was my original point, which was that the yanks are the most successful team of the free agent era, which spans a longer period of time than you wanted to acknowledge…it was a simple statement of fact, nothing more…i wasn’t debating that theo has had more championships in the past few years than cashman…that’s as indisputable as the fact i presented…but, apparently, it’s unacceptable to make a comment that puts the sox in a less admirable light, or give the yankees any deserved credit without inciting a riot on this site…you conveniently morphed my point into a tirade about the current state of affairs, in an attempt to prove me wrong, and your buddies went right along with you…also predictable…would it kill you to acknowledge a pro-yankee point without lashing out about cheating, overspending, and generally denigrating the players who, in your opinion, haven’t achieved?…after all, you’re quick to point out that the “cheaters” haven’t helped the yanks win, so why continue to harp on it?…
    …and i’ll tell you what, if history doesn’t matter, can we stop being reminded of your 1 win?…if so, i may be inclined to stop reminding you that you continue to finish 2nd to the yankees, and out of the playoffs just 2 short years after you made history…doesn’t seem like progress to me…

    dc November 8, 2006, 12:28 am
  • Yeah, just to clarify, I’m not trying to take away from the fact that the Yanks as a whole have been the dominant team in the division — indeed, baseball — for the past decade. They’ve gone to the playoffs more times, won more World Series, I’m sure have the best overall win-loss record. They spend a lot of money, and it helps them win a lot of games. The Red Sox do the same thing and have been less successful during the regular season. (Although the current ownership only took over in 2003, and since then, it’s a much closer race — which is part of my overall point that it’s unfair to compare the current Red Sox team to the Yankee teams of 10 years ago, when the Sox teams back then were run, with great mediocrity, by the Harrington/Trust/Duquette management team).
    I also fully recognize the somewhat arbitrary use of the 1/1/01 date, except that it’s a turning of a decade and it happily coincides with the last time the Yanks won the World Series. So I’m not trying to just say, “Yankees suck, Red Sox rule, argument over” or anything like that.
    But I will fight this ridiculous notion that the Red Sox have somehow been unsuccessful simply because they haven’t won the division recently, as dc intimates over and over again, or that the current management team is a failure because they finished in third place this season when they already have a ring to their credit.
    It’s particularly galling from a Yankee fan who clearly has shown he knows little to nothing about Red Sox history (or current events, for that matter). Love ya, dc. It’s fun to debate with you, but you need to know the facts before acting like you know everything that makes a team and its fans tick.

    Paul SF November 8, 2006, 12:40 am
  • “please don’t spin what was my original point, which was that the yanks are the most successful team of the free agent era”
    Ok, but what about this, which you said before you mentioned the free-agent era?
    “…my only original point was that your management sometimes cheaps out, while still puffing out their chests and crying foul when they get beat out, trying to convince the sheep that they are trying hard to build a championship…you sf’s are all wet on this and you know it…you keep talking about the long term, but i guess that’s the thinking when you finish in 2nd or 3rd every year..”
    So which was your original original point?

    Paul SF November 8, 2006, 12:55 am
  • …actually i stand by both points…they are mutually exclusive if you follow the thread from the beginning…
    …the point about your management not spending money, then crying foul was a comment on their resolve to make a serious attempt to go after matsuzaka…in fact, here’s exactly what i said:
    “…unless the red sox have changed their philosophy, they have shown to be less likely to part with the money, and may blink on this one in the end…if history is true to form, the yanks will probably overbid, get the rights, and force us to get excited about and defend a guy who has zero ml experience, and is therefore as unproven as any minor leaguer…i know he had some success on a big stage [the world tournament, or whatever they call that thing], but hardly the long haul of a ml regular season…we’ll see i guess…”
    …at the time i didn’t think the comment was inflammatory, but i apparently offended you based on the posts that followed…
    …as for the point about success in the free agent era, that was in response to a post that the yanks do not spend their money as wisely as the sox…sure we can cherry-pick individual years, or brief periods of time and make a point with them, just like we can take individual player acquisitions and make a point with them, but overall, the yanks have probably made the most free agent mistakes, while winning the most championships in the free agent era…i thought the result was what was important…
    …i have to agree with you that it is unfair to penalize this sox team and management for the sins of the prior regime, but it is part of the not too distant past, and is occasionally relevant…just like struggling through the mattingly years ending in the first half of the 90’s [not his fault] with barely a div. title is relevant for yf’s who enjoyed the 2nd half of the 90’s…
    …i love ya too paul, but it is getting tiring to continue to correct your misrepresentations [and in some cases complete disregard] of my comments: i have given your team credit for winning the world series in other posts, and i have not called the current management a “failure”…i have also given credit to the players on your team that deserve it…i’ve tried get you to consider that there are other measures of improvement and success than just the world series, but to be honest that is the one that matters in the end…i’ve also tried to convince you unsuccessfully, that yf’s have a baseball life outside of the world series…that i will look at things from a different angle once in awhile to give someone another perspective shouldn’t be perceived as such a negative, unless it’s not going to be tolerated on this site, which i’ve suspected all along…i thought it would be good to have a little balance and make some provocative and unpopular statements at times, but that right seems to be reserved for the sf’s…i may be guilty of fanning the flames too aggressively at times, but it’s not all bad, there’s been a couple of times when you guys thought someone hijacked me because i gave you and your team some much deserved credit…frankly though, i’m beginning to think it may be time to move on…
    …finally, i’m not angry about it, but i have to admit that your personal attack in the last paragraph of your 12:40 post is a bit disappointing…i’m sure you don’t have an example or you would have presented it, but it’s a moot point now…worse things have been said about me and my opinions in self-defense on this site, and i understand the motivation…

    dc November 8, 2006, 2:57 am

Leave a Comment

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