Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, August 24, 2012

Dodgers reportedly win waiver claim on Gonzalez

The Los Angeles Dodgers have been awarded the waiver claim on Boston Red Sox first baseman Adrian Gonzalez, Bill Shaikin of The Los Angeles Times reported Friday. The report has been confirmed by CBSSports.com insider Jon Heyman

“This would make the race in the NL West more interesting and I wonder what effect this would have on the Dodger clubhouse”

The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: August 24, 2012 at 03:18 PM | 351 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: boston, los angeles

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.

Page 4 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4
   301. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: August 25, 2012 at 02:21 AM (#4217644)
@JonHeymanCBS carl crawford has approved the trade to #dodgers.
   302. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 25, 2012 at 02:21 AM (#4217645)
That is exactly what is happening. The new TV deal is going to be enormous and they don't have to pay revenue sharing on the increase.


This is not a justification for stupidity.
   303. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: August 25, 2012 at 02:22 AM (#4217646)
@JonHeymanCBS josh beckett has approved the trade to #dodgers. 2 for 2. getting close.
   304. GregD Posted: August 25, 2012 at 02:34 AM (#4217647)
With even the Yankees seemingly determined to decrease payroll because of the new harsh luxury tax is now really the time to pick up the plan they themselves have now abandoned?
You're asking if I think it's a wise use of someone else's money? I don't care.

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.
   305. Dale Sams Posted: August 25, 2012 at 02:34 AM (#4217648)
How are the Giants not beating down Seligs door screaming about "All but buying players for cash"?
   306. Jeff Frances the Mute Posted: August 25, 2012 at 02:43 AM (#4217649)
This is not a justification for stupidity.


Indeed. This move will definitely ruin the Dodgers chances of winning the Beane dollars per win efficiency championship.
   307. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: August 25, 2012 at 03:27 AM (#4217652)
This is not a justification for stupidity.
I know! This may be the first stupid, irrational thing anyone's ever done!
   308. jyjjy Posted: August 25, 2012 at 03:43 AM (#4217654)
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.

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.
   309. jyjjy Posted: August 25, 2012 at 03:47 AM (#4217655)
How are the Giants not beating down Seligs door screaming about "All but buying players for cash"?

How on earth would trading for players whose salaries you are willing to pay be against the rules?
   310. God Posted: August 25, 2012 at 03:50 AM (#4217656)
Terry Crowley's lucky he's in &$%£ing baseball.
   311. tjm1 Posted: August 25, 2012 at 04:26 AM (#4217659)
As for why this move makes sense for the Dodgers: it's the same as the only cause for concern with the Red Sox making it. The free agent class this winter is pretty thin. If a team will be able to have a huge payroll next year, and wants to put the best team on the field it can for that money, players who are good, but overpaid aren't such a bad thing to have. It's a good short-term move for the Dodgers. They're a contender right now, and those three guys will improve them next year more than any group of three players they could expect to get on the FA market, regardless of price. Looking ahead say 3 years, it could come back to bite them, but at least Beckett's deal will be over by then.

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.

   312. Swedish Chef Posted: August 25, 2012 at 04:48 AM (#4217660)
I don't think this is very stupid. The Dodgers are overpaying by 40-50 million or so*, concentrated in the out years. They don't give up talent of note. It's not value for money, but if their aggressive spending spree breaks the NL West and turns them into the Yankees of the West Coast it will be worth it. I think it's pretty much impossible to spend 200 million dollars efficiently in baseball.

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.
   313. God Posted: August 25, 2012 at 05:01 AM (#4217663)
De la Rosa is definitely talent of note, by the way. At worst he's a #3 starter or lights-out closer. At best he's a potential #1. Guy is throwing 99 after TJ surgery, this after a good rookie season at age 22.
   314. valuearbitrageur Posted: August 25, 2012 at 05:05 AM (#4217665)
Millions of dollars make people do ugly things. Right now the Dodgers have won the waiver claims for Adrian and Beckett. If the Red Sox want to stick it to them they can and there isn't a thing the Dodgers can do about it except whine.


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.
   315. Greg K Posted: August 25, 2012 at 05:45 AM (#4217668)
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.

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.
   316. tjm1 Posted: August 25, 2012 at 05:48 AM (#4217669)
Whether the Red Sox can just stick the Dodgers with the contracts depends on how the deal went down. If the Sox just put the guys on waivers and the Dodgers just claimed them, then the Sox should feel welcome to let the claims stand. If the Dodgers only made the claims because a deal was in the works, then the Sox FO reputations would be at stake.

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?
   317. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: August 25, 2012 at 06:11 AM (#4217671)
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.


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.
   318. God Posted: August 25, 2012 at 06:13 AM (#4217672)
316 - He could demand a trade, but why would he? He's in the best possible situation he could be in: A winning team with deep pockets and a respected players' manager, close to his home in a city where he can become an icon. Any trade would automatically put him in a worse situation.
   319. tjm1 Posted: August 25, 2012 at 06:42 AM (#4217673)
316 - He could demand a trade, but why would he? He's in the best possible situation he could be in: A winning team with deep pockets and a respected players' manager, close to his home in a city where he can become an icon. Any trade would automatically put him in a worse situation.


I agree it would be unlikely, but the downside of him doing that would be huge for the Dodgers.
   320. OCD SS Posted: August 25, 2012 at 08:50 AM (#4217687)
The right of players to demand a trade if they are traded in the middle of a multi-year contract was removed 2 CBAs ago. IIRC the last player to be able to exercise that was Javier Vasquez.

Now, I'm confused. You were saying that the trade was good because it opened a path for Middlebrooks. But in fact Middlebrooks was still blocked. That's all that I was getting at.


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...
   321. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 25, 2012 at 08:59 AM (#4217689)
I don't think this is very stupid. The Dodgers are overpaying by 40-50 million or so*, concentrated in the out years. They don't give up talent of note. It's not value for money, but if their aggressive spending spree breaks the NL West and turns them into the Yankees of the West Coast it will be worth it. I think it's pretty much impossible to spend 200 million dollars efficiently in baseball.
This is not an unreasonable evaluation. But to put some numbers behind the "what are the Dodgers doing?" point, I estimate the Red Sox contracts as overpays by ~$130M. At some point, paying lots and lots of money to get talent requires further explanation.
   322. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 25, 2012 at 09:10 AM (#4217695)
Heyman and Rosenthal are both reporting that all the necessary parties have signed off - Beckett, Crawford, Selig.

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.
   323. tjm1 Posted: August 25, 2012 at 09:23 AM (#4217699)
This is not an unreasonable evaluation. But to put some numbers behind the "what are the Dodgers doing?" point, I estimate the Red Sox contracts as overpays by ~$130M. At some point, paying lots and lots of money to get talent requires further explanation.


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.
   324. Rafael Bellylard: Built like a Panda. Posted: August 25, 2012 at 09:31 AM (#4217701)
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).


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.
   325. jmurph Posted: August 25, 2012 at 09:34 AM (#4217704)
Done and done according to mlbtraderumors (sorry can't link). Best trade in Sox history.

Can we put Ray on timeout? Just a constant stream of wrong from that guy.
   326. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: August 25, 2012 at 09:37 AM (#4217705)
Will the Dodgers be up against the luxury tax if this goes through?
   327. tjm1 Posted: August 25, 2012 at 09:46 AM (#4217710)
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.


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.
   328. Dale Sams Posted: August 25, 2012 at 09:49 AM (#4217711)
Best trade in Sox history.


####...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
   329. Rafael Bellylard: Built like a Panda. Posted: August 25, 2012 at 09:52 AM (#4217715)
Will the Dodgers be up against the luxury tax if this goes through?


I read somewhere (can't remember where) the Dodgers will have a little over $193M in committed contracts for 2013.
   330. jmurph Posted: August 25, 2012 at 09:54 AM (#4217718)
Dale: schilling is a good call. You may be right. I just think you're dramatically underrating how bad the Crawford contract is.
   331. Jeff Frances the Mute Posted: August 25, 2012 at 09:56 AM (#4217721)
Dodgers payroll is likely to be around $170 million for 2013 after competing this trade. So they still have a little wiggle room before they hit the luxury tax, but they will exceed it if they go after a big arm in free agency.

Gonzalez jerseys are going to be very popular in LA.
   332. Swedish Chef Posted: August 25, 2012 at 09:58 AM (#4217723)
Heathcliff Slocumb for Derek Lowe and Jason Varitek was a pretty good trade.
   333. PJ Martinez Posted: August 25, 2012 at 10:06 AM (#4217733)
Tony Armas Jr. and Carl Pavano for Pedro Martinez was a pretty good trade.
   334. jmurph Posted: August 25, 2012 at 10:08 AM (#4217738)
Yeah Pedro really is the final answer. Okay I'll put myself on timeout. I'm perhaps a bit overly enthusiastic about saying goodbye to Crawford.
   335. MHS Posted: August 25, 2012 at 10:33 AM (#4217763)
If the last thing that needs to be agreed to is money, at least one set of these baseball executives have no clue how to best exchange ang value assets.
   336. Dale Sams Posted: August 25, 2012 at 10:34 AM (#4217764)
No, you're right that Crawford is an awful, awful contract.

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.
   337. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: August 25, 2012 at 10:37 AM (#4217768)
If the Sox are willing to let LA, or anyone, just have him...


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.

Whether the Red Sox can just stick the Dodgers with the contracts depends on how the deal went down.


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.
   338. Benji Gil Gamesh Rises Posted: August 25, 2012 at 10:43 AM (#4217777)
You heard it here first: this deal is not happening. It hinges on the money, and the Red Sox would have to be crazy to kick in a lot of money, and the Dodgers would have to be crazy to take on this much age-30 payroll.

The deal is DOA.

It's also bizarre to me that Sox fans are relieved to maybe get out from under Josh Beckett's contract. He's owed all of $31 million for 2013-2014, which is basically nothing - essentially a short two-year deal for not-outrageous money - and there's a good chance he'll be worth it anyway.

Much ado about nothing, all of this is.
You should really offer subscriptions to "What's Over Next: The RDP Newsletter" -- as long as the predictions are things on which wagers can be placed, you'll be a rich man.
   339. jack the seal clubber (on the sidelines of life) Posted: August 25, 2012 at 10:48 AM (#4217784)
I can't believe the Dodgers are not getting more money from Boston here. Hate to say it but I think the Sox are the winners here. Gonzales is the only one who could be an impact guy, and LA is taking on a shitload of dead payroll; Loney is a total blank but DeLaRosa could be really good.
   340. Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant Posted: August 25, 2012 at 10:53 AM (#4217790)
(GONZALEZ, CRAWFORD and BECKETT prepare to exit the plane. LACKEY turns to join them.)
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.)
   341. phredbird Posted: August 25, 2012 at 10:57 AM (#4217801)
How are the Giants not beating down Seligs door screaming about "All but buying players for cash"?


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.
   342. Benji Gil Gamesh Rises Posted: August 25, 2012 at 11:04 AM (#4217807)
#340, nicely done.
   343. toratoratora Posted: August 25, 2012 at 11:05 AM (#4217809)
(GONZALEZ, CRAWFORD and BECKETT prepare to exit the plane. LACKEY turns to join them.)
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.)


Oh, well played.

ahem coke to Benji
   344. The District Attorney Posted: August 25, 2012 at 11:22 AM (#4217822)
Texas is getting good, cheap production out of Moreland these days (but not Young so Gonzo works there I guess). Possibly Seattle as a bolt out of the blue.
Heck, if Colletti is right, every team in baseball should have claimed Gonzalez. I mean, even Colletti can't think Beckett is underpaid. He probably thinks Beckett is fairly paid (and that's most likely factoring in a Josh Beckett, Postseason Hero bonus). And surely even Colletti thinks Crawford is at least somewhat overpaid. That means that he thinks Gonzalez is so undervalued at $127 million over the next six years as to justify the overpaying of Crawford, plus a bunch of good prospects.

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 have every confidence that Magic Johnson knows how to do that kind of marketing.
I suspect Magic Johnson runs the Dodgers as much as Jerry Seinfeld runs the Mets...
   345. andrewberg Posted: August 25, 2012 at 11:37 AM (#4217830)
Safeco and its deep alleys/spacious lf would make agonz look bad. The only lefty power hitters who can beat the park are dead pull hitters. He'd probably be 290/350/450.
   346. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: August 25, 2012 at 11:39 AM (#4217831)
"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."

I like how you've lopped three wins off that total since last night.
   347. valuearbitrageur Posted: August 25, 2012 at 11:48 AM (#4217846)
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).


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.

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.


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.
   348. The District Attorney Posted: August 25, 2012 at 01:25 PM (#4217949)
Jon Heyman @JonHeymanCBS

#dodgers have sent a plane. a-gon, beckett & punto are now in the air to LA. #trade
The Red Sox better get that plane back on the ground, I think they forgot somebody important...
   349. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: August 25, 2012 at 04:08 PM (#4218093)
Why are people acting like Sands isn't any good? He's been basically a league-average hitter in half a season of ML play, and he's done nothing but rake in the minors.
   350. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: August 25, 2012 at 04:20 PM (#4218101)
Why are people acting like Sands isn't any good?
Because no one is certain that's not an illusion of Albuquerque and the PCL.
   351. Non-Youkilidian Geometry Posted: August 25, 2012 at 04:37 PM (#4218110)
The Red Sox better get that plane back on the ground, I think they forgot somebody important...

Crawford had TJ surgery on Thursday and won't be able to play for 6 months, so they're making him walk.
Page 4 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
JPWF13
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogBrisbee: Rusney Castillo reminds us how screwed amateur players can be
(24 - 9:28pm, Aug 22)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogReddit AMA: Thad Levine (Rangers assistant GM)
(2 - 9:26pm, Aug 22)
Last: BDC

NewsblogDRays Bay: Rays to Montreal? “Smart chronicler” says yes
(31 - 9:20pm, Aug 22)
Last: An Athletic in Powderhorn™

NewsblogPete Rose’s Reckless Gamble
(5 - 9:14pm, Aug 22)
Last: bobm

NewsblogOT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video
(4968 - 9:13pm, Aug 22)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 8-22-2014
(22 - 9:11pm, Aug 22)
Last: CFBF Is A Golden Spider Duck

NewsblogManny Machado Likely Out For Season
(13 - 8:41pm, Aug 22)
Last: escabeche

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 8-22-2014
(44 - 8:02pm, Aug 22)
Last: Batman

NewsblogCuban outfielder Rusney Castillo to sign with the Red Sox for $72 million
(55 - 7:57pm, Aug 22)
Last: toratoratora

NewsblogFG: Ben Revere and the Emptiest Batting Average Ever
(26 - 7:32pm, Aug 22)
Last: shoewizard

NewsblogDowney: Let Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame already
(75 - 7:07pm, Aug 22)
Last: Booey

NewsblogPosnanski: The Royals might actually know what they are doing
(98 - 7:00pm, Aug 22)
Last: The District Attorney

NewsblogPhillies have decisions to make heading into '15
(25 - 6:47pm, Aug 22)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogVotto appears. . .and speaks | The Real McCoy | Cincinnati Reds baseball news
(11 - 6:40pm, Aug 22)
Last: The Duke

NewsblogA Look Inside Baseball's Ever-Evolving Stimulant Culture | Bleacher Report
(40 - 5:33pm, Aug 22)
Last: zenbitz

Page rendered in 0.3523 seconds
52 querie(s) executed