User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.3766 seconds
50 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
This is not a justification for stupidity.
The Steinbrenner kids--Hal--decided they wanted to take more money out of the business and this met the luxury tax threshold, and so they have cut spending so the family can make more money. That's their right. But they didn't do it because they thought spending money didn't work.
If the Dodgers owners either don't care about their profit margins or think that they can get increased return by investing in wins now, why shouldn't they do it? I"m not going to worry about their profit margins or spending efficiency. And I do think that spending money still works, even if it doesn't always work.
Indeed. This move will definitely ruin the Dodgers chances of winning the Beane dollars per win efficiency championship.
They didn't really do this until the new CBA though which does have some killer penalties. This deal doesn't put LA over the luxury tax so it remains to be seen if they are willing to take on those penalties or this is just a moronic way of using most of their leeway before hitting the same ceiling the Yankees don't seem willing to cross.
How on earth would trading for players whose salaries you are willing to pay be against the rules?
The Red Sox might get lucky with a Daubach-like find, but they're unlikely to be able to replace Gonzalez with an above-average major league 1B in free agency. I'm not even sure there will be a guy better than Mauro Gomez available. They might be able to make a trade, but that probaby involves giving up talent. It's a little sad to see them punting on the end of Ortiz's career, but maybe this just makes sense. Maybe it even makes sense to offer Ortiz arbitration again and hope he signs elsewhere and the Sox get the draft picks. This deal makes sense for the Red Sox in the long term, but it's likely to prevent any real chance of contention next year. I suppose they could load up on starting pitching, but I agree with the other people that making Greinke deal with the Boston media isn't a good idea, and isn't something he'd be likely to agree to do.
It is obviously a good trade for Boston, but turning that money into wins is going to be hard on the current FA market, they will have to overpay too.
*) I think Gonzales and Beckett are value for money. I'd risk giving Crawford a 3/45 contract.
Millions of dollars make people who don't have millions of dollars do ugly things. People who already have millions often do honorable things. The Red Sox front office would be committing not only career suicide, but wouldn't ever be able to pull off a deal that required any level of trust while still there. Trustworthiness matters in business and elsewhere.
I play poker with guys who borrow thousands from each other at the table just based on reputation and trust, and some have owed each other many times that for significant periods. I've never heard of any not paying, if they didnt they might as well quit playing cause their credit would be finished, and they wouldn't be very welcome even if they showed up with cash. I find it hard to believe that the Red Sox would try to take advantage of a one time opportunity to defraud another team at the expense of their long time reputation.
Reminds me of a story. One night a player I had never played with showed up at the casino and wanted to play 100-200 Holdem, but needed to borrow money to do it. He said he normally borrowed from another regular, but that reg wasnt around that night. So I text the reg. The reg texts back telling me to lend the guy whatever he wants, that the reg would vouch for him, and that I'd enjoy playing with guy. We played all night, I ended up lending the stranger $10,000 in cash, which he lost entirely, unfortunately not to me. I tried to sleep in, but my phone kept buzzing, and finally I was forced to check voicemail. The guy had gone to work at 9 am, and was leaving me anxious voicemails every hour because he had stopped at te bank to get the cash and wanted to pay me back that day. I was forced to drive cross town on 3 hours sleep and follow him into the back room of his business where he made me to count a roll of hundred dollar bills twice to prove he wasn't shorting me (I believed him, I just wanted to get the money and go back to bed).
If people who regularly play games together take their reputations that seriously, I think people who regularly conduct significant business together usually do the same.
This actually sounds somewhat like London in the 17th century. When pretty much the entire economy runs on credit your name and reputation are pretty damn important. It' probably one of the reasons everyone then seems so touchy about honour to our 21st century eyes.
The other big question here is this: Gonzalez is in the first year of a multi-year deal. Can't he demand a trade at the end of the season? Is there any way the Red Sox can give the Dodgers assurances that that won't happen?
First of all, you are assuming a couple of facts that aren't in evidence here. If the Red Sox had made an agreement prior to the waiver deadline, to let the Dodgers make the claims, and then negotiate a package, then they should honor that agreement. If the Dodgers made a speculative claim rather than one agreed to by the Sox however, then they have cost the Sox the opportunity to make other deals for Beckett, and in that case, I don't think dropping Beckett's contract on them would be wrong.
Also it assumes that the Dodgers wouldn't want Beckett's contract straight up. Sure, Adrian's contract is the big ticket here, but it comes with the considerable millstone of Crawford's. It seems hard for me to believe that the Sox would walk away from the deal, if it was exactly the same minus Beckett. I reckon Beckett is in the deal, because the Dodgers want that contract.
Secondly, your notion that rich people are super honorable when it comes to large sums of money, while the unwashed masses will do absolutely anything for a few bucks, is one of the more ridiculous and pathetic things I have read. There are of course innumerable counter examples (e.g. Dykstra, Lenny; Madoff, Bernie; and Wall Street, all of it).
But the funny thing is that your little poker analogy doesn't even show that. It shows some guy acting in rational self interest, who values not facing the negative consequences of not paying over a couple of grand. Me paying my mortgage, because I would rather pay it than have my house foreclosed, does not make me a paragon of virtue.
I agree it would be unlikely, but the downside of him doing that would be huge for the Dodgers.
Sorry Darren. I think the order of trades did not leave WMB blocked because Youks only had 2 years left on his contract (and there was no way WMB was going to be ready the first year). Even this year it was just a matter of him being ready earlier than the FO might have expected, but there's always some overlap in these transitions...
Rosenthal says the money isn't settled, though. (Which doesn't make sense, if Selig has already signed off, but who knows.) The money is the part that makes or breaks this trade. Ray could be right yet.
Sure. But there are several key factors here:
(1) I would guess that on the revenue side, the Dodgers are more variable than just about any other team. They have a huge stadium in a huge market. There's another good team in the metro area, and LA area fans are much more prone to liking both teams and paying more attention to the better one than are fans in New York or Chicago. The Dodgers attendance dropped by 8000 fans a game from 2010 to 2011. Even if those are mostly $15 tickets with no concessions added in, that $9 million right there - but when you have a winning team you can also get away with raising ticket prices more, etc. Plus, playoffs versus no playoffs is a big deal on the revenue side. I'd suggest that turning a playoff contender into a playoff team is probably worth more money to the Dodgers than to any other team.
(2) It shows that they're not pinching pennies any more. The good free agents coming out next year are mostly outfielders and starting pitchers, and there aren't even many of those. The Dodgers need a 1B and a 3B (unless you believe Luis Cruz is for real) more than anything else. There's just no one to sign at those positions.
(3) These guys are all well-suited to playing in LA. Beckett's a fly ball pitcher - well, Dodger Stadium with three pretty good defensive outfielders is a good situation for a fly-ball pitcher. Crawford and, increasingly, Gonzalez, are line drive hitters. Their numbers will get worse, but not by all that much. Crawford's base-stealing ability will be more valuable in a low run-scoring environment, and his ability to run down fly balls will be more valuable in a huge left field. Finally, Gonzalez will be the first Mexican-American star to play for the Dodgers, at least that I can remember (I'm not counting Nomar because he was clearly on the down-side of his career by the time he went to LA). If they market that right, it can be worth even more money. I have every confidence that Magic Johnson knows how to do that kind of marketing.
I don't think the fan base in L.A. is going to see much difference between Mexican and Mexican-American, so Valenzuela will still come first to most of them.
Can we put Ray on timeout? Just a constant stream of wrong from that guy.
I think there is one: Valenzuela didn't really speak English. Gonzalez speaks English and Spanish, and is outgoing and involved with charities, especially for children. He can connect with the 10-year old American born kids, and also with their Mexican-born parents. Aside from that, it's been 30 years since then, and the Mexican/Mexican-American community in LA is much bigger now than it was back then, and Valenzuela was a huge deal back then - a great ballplayer, but an even better draw.
####...Sox got Schilling on a trade and won the World Series. They'll be lucky to win 80 games next year.
"We gott a get Teixiera we gotta gotta spend eget em!!!...we gotta get AGon!! We gotta!! Trade Rizzo spend big!! We got him we're gonna win 100 games!! Best team ever!! BLOW IT UP BLOW IT UP!!!!"
I hope Papi tells the Sox to #### off at the end of the year
I read somewhere (can't remember where) the Dodgers will have a little over $193M in committed contracts for 2013.
Gonzalez jerseys are going to be very popular in LA.
All I know is that when the Sox come back in a few years, it will be because of the farm they have now and not the financial flexibility to sign BJ Upton. Sox kicked the tires on pitching last year. There wern't players they let walk because of money. Everyone thought paying CJ Wilson Lackey money was a bad bad idea.
It's 2009 all over again except they have a wad of money and a 69 win team to improve on instead of a 93 win team...and with Bobby Valentine and Ben 'please take my good players for peanuts and relievers' Cherington.
And if he was only put on waivers because the Sox were already negotiating a specific trade with a specific team, then maybe they aren't willing to let anyone just have him.
More importantly, what either side would consider bad faith on the part of the other side depends on a lot of details about how the deal evolved that we don't know and probably never will.
Gonzalez: No, they expect one of us in the wreckage, brother!
Lackey: Have we started the fire?
Gonzalez: Yes, the fire rises.
(GONZALEZ turns to RED SOX NATION.)
Gonzalez: Calm down, Boston. Now is not the time for fear. That comes later.
(GONZALEZ presses the trigger. The plane starts to fall with LACKEY and the 2012 Red Sox season in it.)
ida know, maybe if selig actually did something about it, then what would the giants do when they want to buy players for cash?
not being snarky, just thinking maybe the other owners are standing around waiting to see what happens and filing it away for future reference.
Oh, well played.
ahem coke to Benji
Anyway, Colletti isn't right, and although I think it would have been smart for Texas or Seattle to claim him (imagine if Seattle had an actual hitter!), I'm unfortunately not surprised that no one was ballsy enough to do it.
I suspect Magic Johnson runs the Dodgers as much as Jerry Seinfeld runs the Mets...
I like how you've lopped three wins off that total since last night.
I wasn't trying to say rich people are trustwortthy and poor people arent. I was responding to someone who thought people can't be trusted when it comes to millions, that the Sox might behave dishonorably to save a few million. My point was solely that when you deal with millions on a regular basis your reputation is very important and going back on a verbal agreement to stick the Dodgers with a bad contract probably doesnt even occur to Cherington (but obv. cant be put past Luccino :).
There are outlier counter examples, and youve hit a few, but i think that I'm right the vast majoriry of time. The OPs assertion that people are likely to renege on deals to make a few million is much less likely to be true when they already have millions, and isn't even likely to be true for the large majority of middle class/poor people. Stories of nearly destitute finding thousands or millions lost by someone else and returning the money happen every day. People in general are far more trustworthy than is generally believed, despite the Dykstras and Madoffs.
in my story, the funny part was the guy rarely played. He was a small businessman, successful obviously, and could have stiffed us without consequence. But he hated owing anyone money, or even making them wait for it, I imagined some of his customers have made him wait or stiffed him and he simply refused to do it to others. Some guys character is easier to judge than others, this guy was obviously trustworthy in all the little ways, just as some are obviously untrustworthy in the very same ways (Dykstra could never borrow in our games, he was too obvious) My friend, the reg., knew the small businessman long enough that vouching for him over a text was the easiest thing in the world.
And its not entirely self interest, again my point is that most people are simply trustworthy. One of my friends lost $175,000 one night playing in Vegas a few months ago. When i expressed shock at the huge number, he told me not to worry, that he was backed for half of his action by some out of town friends, and he had texted them his results and they knew they owed him $87,500 for their share, and they would pay him: aand they did.
But i thought, what better time to take advantage of someone. Either he could lie about his loss, or they could refuse to pay (after free-rolling him, obv. they would have accepted $87k from him had he had won that much). But the reason they trusted each other is that neither party thinks that way, and if they ever showed evidence they did, their relationship would have always been cash only. I remember my friend worried about how it was going to affect his reputation during a stretch where he seemed to win every time he played his own money, and lost every time he was backed. But no one ever questioned it, because he was the type of guy who would worry about his reputation in situations like that was part of the reason he was so trustworthy.
Crawford had TJ surgery on Thursday and won't be able to play for 6 months, so they're making him walk.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main