Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Sox Therapy > Discussion
Sox Therapy
— Where Thinking Red Sox Fans Obsess about the Sox

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.

   1. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: January 04, 2005 at 05:56 PM (#1056027)
YEAR TWO-THOUSAND!
   2. Plastic Bag and a Rubber Band Posted: January 04, 2005 at 06:07 PM (#1056069)
Clap-Clap-Clap-Clap-Clap!

I somehow screwed up the link on my first RST. But here it is. Some intresting stuff:

HERE HERE HERE CLICK ME!
   3. Mister High Standards Posted: January 04, 2005 at 06:09 PM (#1056073)
That was me. Thats what I get for not wanting a lounge post to show up on google as me.
   4. SacBunt Posted: January 04, 2005 at 07:20 PM (#1056344)
While the gulf between our two payrolls continues to widen, we’ve somehow managed to go toe-to-toe with them in some of the most exciting baseball ever.

I'm a big a Red Sox fan as any, but this is just silly. "Somehow managed?" With the second highest payroll in the majors? Yes, the Yankees spend more, and will continue with their increasing acceleration, but this sounds like crying poor, which just doesn't fly.

Sorry. Reading Faithful right now, and Stephen King made a comment about the Yankees' mercenaries winning them a game. Oh come off it.
   5. Darren Posted: January 04, 2005 at 07:43 PM (#1056460)
What does being 2nd highest have to do with anything? The Yankees have had payrolls of $40-$60 Mil more than the Sox each of the last 2 years. In each year, the Sox have fielded teams that were similar in quality to New York's. It is a big accomplishment and 'somehow managed' is entirely appropriate, some might even say self-deprecating.

Yes, the Yankees spend more, and will continue with their increasing acceleration, but this sounds like crying poor, which just doesn't fly.

To me, crying poor would mean spending $50 mil a year and saying you couldn't afford Renteria or something.
   6. SacBunt Posted: January 04, 2005 at 08:31 PM (#1056634)
Sorry, DDD, I just have to disagree. If this came out of Steve Schott's mouth, then I wouldn't blink. But the Red Sox can pick up free agents far more easily than other teams, which is the primary means by which the Yankees compete. For me, "somehow managed" is Henry's way of saying "somehow managed by using our copious money wisely."

It's not that I don't acknowledge the Yankees' absolute monetary advantage, and the challenge that advantage poses to other teams, it's that Henry sounds to me as though he's purposely omitting the Red Sox's financial capabilities.

Like I said, it's probably from reading Stephen King's comment in Faithful.
   7. villageidiom Posted: January 04, 2005 at 08:54 PM (#1056702)
I think you're reading too much into it. To the extent that he's saying, "somehow managed by using our copious money wisely," I think the emphasis is more on "wisely," as in, "they outspent us by a lot last year, and it didn't seem to matter much in the end."

In short, I think he was trying to find a polite way to say, "They're not as bright as we are, and ignorance has a cost."

P.S. From what I've read of Faithful so far, Stephen King is a big whiner.
   8. Darren Posted: January 04, 2005 at 09:01 PM (#1056726)
But the Red Sox can pick up free agents far more easily than other teams...

But far less easily than the Yankees, who he was comparing them to. People have a hard time wrapping their mind around this, but the Red Sox are an underdog when compared to the Yankees. That $50 Mil advantage means when the Sox are tapped out, the Yanks can still add Sheffield, ARod, Mussina, and still have 7 mil to completely waste.
   9. Kevin Sweet Child Romine (aco) Posted: January 04, 2005 at 09:05 PM (#1056738)
Is it me, or is Lucchino been really quiet this offseason? He doesn't seem to be rousing the rabble as much as last year.
   10. TVerik, who wonders what the hell is "Ansky" Posted: January 04, 2005 at 09:24 PM (#1056779)
While the gulf between our two payrolls continues to widen, we’ve somehow managed to go toe-to-toe with them in some of the most exciting baseball ever.

really, throw that "somehow" out the window and I don't have any problem with it.

In my opinion, Henry is disingenuously casting his team as paupers just from that word. It's like Pepsi calling themselves David to Coke's Goliath. The smaller cola makers (is RC still around?) aren't crying.
   11. Smiling Joe Hesketh Posted: January 04, 2005 at 09:27 PM (#1056786)
It's marketing, kids. Henry's pointing out that he's directly with the Goliath in MLB, and is doing it for less money. Nothing wrong with saying that.
   12. SacBunt Posted: January 04, 2005 at 09:41 PM (#1056820)
TVerik - I think you're right. Toss the "somehow" and the puffery loses its puffiness.

Anyhow, doesn't matter. Stephen King is a whiner, has an absurb crush on Jayme Parker, and the Red Sox did beat a team with a much higher payroll.
   13. wdichtel Posted: January 04, 2005 at 10:08 PM (#1056874)
Henry has every right to point this out as a shot across the bow at Steinbrenner, who was very condescending in his statements about the Red Sox ownership not closing the ARod deal.

This is probably as directly as Henry is going to respond. I got a laugh from it.
   14. The Original SJ Posted: January 04, 2005 at 10:34 PM (#1056931)
This is probably as directly as Henry is going to respond. I got a laugh from it.

No, Henry responded more directly last offseason, in a press release when he called for a salary cap.
   15. Pingu Posted: January 04, 2005 at 11:01 PM (#1056979)
So 15 posts and no mention of the Big Unit. Who is that a nickname for? Did the Yankees make a trade?

May Randy Johnson enjoy the path of Weaver, Vazquez, and Brown, and stay off the John Lieber bandwagon.
   16. Buster Olney the Lonely Posted: January 05, 2005 at 01:25 AM (#1057246)
Stephen King is a whiner, has an absurb crush on Jayme Parker...

hold on. Where was this mentioned? In Faithful?
   17. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: January 05, 2005 at 02:52 AM (#1057482)
Oh, yeah, Randy Johnson...

Look, the Yankees are going to the playoffs in 2005, either as the division winner (better than 50-50 chance, I'd say) or the wild card. They won 101 games last year, with Brown and Jeter missing time, Cairo at 2B, Giambi being Giambi, Vazquez, Quantrill, Brown, Williams declining, and so on. Whether or not they get Beltran, it is hard to see the Yankees not winning 95+ games, right?

Meanwhile, the Red Sox, who won 98 games, had Nixon hurt most of the year, Mueller out for a while, Millar was horrible in the first half, we had no shortstop for half the year, Lowe was pretty bad, and we had no bullpen after Foulke, Timlin, and Embree (Myers? Leskanic? Mendoza?) Then we sign Renteria, and improve our bullpen and starting depth, as well as our bench. Does anybody think the Sox will likely win less than 95 games?

With the AL central remaining weak, and Toronto and Baltimore not ready to compete, the question for BOS and NY comes down to the AL West. If the best team in the AL West is Los Angeles (Anaheim? California?), and you agree that Seattle will be better than 2004, but not 90-win level, then it's either Oakland (who will be pretty good, but may suffer some growing pains along the way) or Texas (does anybody really think they will be better than last year, when they finished 9 games behind Boston?). I don't think either of those two win 92 games, and if you can't get to 92, 95 wins, you're not beating BOS or NY.

So, the question is not how the Red Sox compete with the Yankees in 2005. To me, the likely question to ask is who matches up better in a short series, NY or BOS. And that is where Johnson does help the Yankees, who can throw the Big Unit out twice in a series, instead of Vazquez.

Of course, unless Leo Mazzone is traded to NY, Wright is going to make Vazquez look like Tom Seaver...
   18. SacBunt Posted: January 05, 2005 at 03:24 AM (#1057605)
Nobody's - yes, it's all over Faithful (at least through the first 200+ pages). He calls her "very, very attractive" early in the book, and notes on page 239 that she was "looking cool and beautiful this morning in off-the-shoulder black." Hmm.
   19. Darren Posted: January 05, 2005 at 03:24 AM (#1057609)
If you're payroll is $130 and you're keeping apace with a team with a payroll of $190, you have every right to say "somehow." Who the hell cares if the other teams' fans are not crying for you? It doesn't make it any less true.
   20. SacBunt Posted: January 05, 2005 at 03:36 AM (#1057664)
Following on wdichtel's and kevin's comments about the shot at Steinbrenner, I suppose I don't like the "somehow" thing because I just don't like trash talking. And that is what it looks like to me. Winning is the ultimate put-down, and any verbal chicanery lessens the victory. (The constant self-congratulation in football is one of the reasons I don't like it.) Others - and I don't fault them for it - like the back-and-forth jabbing of the two front offices.
   21. TVerik, who wonders what the hell is "Ansky" Posted: January 05, 2005 at 04:01 AM (#1057753)
If an exec from (to use my earlier example) Pepsi said something about "somehow keeping up with Coke", would you have any problem with it, Darren?

I concede that arguing about a single word in a statement is very pedantic. Like SacBunt said, it's a matter of personal taste.
   22. SacBunt Posted: January 05, 2005 at 04:15 AM (#1057782)
"very" pedantic? WhyIoughtta...
   23. The Original SJ Posted: January 05, 2005 at 04:17 AM (#1057793)
I find this statement fine. Somehow, the plucky small, poor Red Sox are keeping up with the big bad yankees. It's true.
   24. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: January 05, 2005 at 04:24 AM (#1057807)
Leskanic? Mendoza?)

Leskanic Adams and Mendoza: The Bulpen Trifecta from hell.

I am sad to see Myers go. I like him as a LOOGY.
   25. Dave Cyprian Posted: January 05, 2005 at 04:42 AM (#1057832)
Man I hope Wade Miller pans out, in 2005.

ESPN reporting Pokey got a 1 year deal with SEA. Good luck to him.

Remember our roster has one more significant upcoming trade or change: Minky or Millar for XXX? What do we think Theo is dreaming up for that one? We have plenty of starters and infielders, so I suppose either an outfielder or a reliever... Especially if we trade Minky I guess it could be another 1st base/2nd base defensive guy.
   26. Flynn Posted: January 05, 2005 at 05:49 AM (#1057960)
I'll feel sorry for other teams if they marketed themselves well as the Red Sox have.

Boston has 600,000 people. How big is your team's city?
   27. SacBunt Posted: January 05, 2005 at 05:52 AM (#1057963)
Flynn - Boston might have 600,000, but metro Boston is far larger - more on the order of 3 million. Not that it's anything when compared to New York City, but...

OK, I'm going to bed now.
   28. Greg Franklin Posted: January 05, 2005 at 05:59 AM (#1057970)
Doesn't anyone think both Henry and King were speaking tongue in cheek in their comments? I mean, Henry knows he has a huge-payroll team that nevertheless is "somehow" puny in comparison to NYY's ... that was directed to the sane SoSH denizens.

And King's Jayme Parker stuff was not a harbinger of any sort of stalking problem. Just a bit of fun.
   29. covelli chris p Posted: January 05, 2005 at 06:04 AM (#1057982)
What do we think Theo is dreaming up for that one?

We're not going to get much, but we don't need much. I would love to get a left handed relief prospect that is currently toiling away in the minors unappreciated. Or even a right handed one.
   30. TVerik, who wonders what the hell is "Ansky" Posted: January 05, 2005 at 06:35 AM (#1058046)
Greg, I interpreted Henry's comments as directed at the baseball fanbase at large, mostly those who don't know the payroll numbers.

A guy in my office who hated baseball is now a Red Sox fan because of this last postseason. He would certainly take that comment as "David vs. Goliath".
   31. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: January 05, 2005 at 09:53 AM (#1058160)
I don't even know who Jayme Parker is.
   32. Darren Posted: January 05, 2005 at 02:26 PM (#1058217)
If an exec from (to use my earlier example) Pepsi said something about "somehow keeping up with Coke", would you have any problem with it, Darren?

I don't think the analogy works for a number of reasons: Coke and Pepsi don't have the regional limitations that baseball teams do, I don't have nearly as good of a feel for their finances as I do for the Sox and Yanks, etc.

But how about something like Apple vs. Microsoft? I'd have no problem with Apple saying "Look, we've got nowhere near the resources that Microsoft has, yet we somehow manage to put out a competitive software!" Sure, there are other software companies out there that are even smaller than Apple, but it doesn't change the fact that Apple has accomplished something by competing with Microsoft.

Remember our roster has one more significant upcoming trade or change: Minky or Millar for XXX? What do we think Theo is dreaming up for that one?

It's obvious that Minky will be dealt to the Mets for Petit and Milledge or to the Pirates for Bay and Perez.
   33. Danny Posted: January 05, 2005 at 02:26 PM (#1058218)
That's the way I read it, wdichtel.

I liked it for two reasons, it twisted the knife a little on Steinbrenner and the crying poormouth is good business strategy. It always helpts to be thought of as the underdog, even if you're not.


Kevin, you sing a much different tune when Beane or Schott say something similar.
   34. Darren Posted: January 05, 2005 at 05:14 PM (#1058590)
Okay, maybe not Petit and Milledge, maybe only Petit and Bladergroen.
   35. The Original SJ Posted: January 05, 2005 at 09:42 PM (#1059248)
It was obvioulsy hypocritical since he had the Sox job in his back pocket and reneged at the last minute.

No it isn't. It is essentially saying, the A's are at a payroll disadvantage.

And they were, but he was killed by Sox fans for saying that.
   36. The Original SJ Posted: January 06, 2005 at 12:27 AM (#1059551)
do you not see the irony in this?
   37. Danny Posted: January 06, 2005 at 01:06 AM (#1059607)
Really? I hardly ever comment on things Beane says. You must have me confused with someone else.

No, I'm talking about your response to the $50M comment.

When Henry says it, you call it a good business strategy. When Beane says it, you call it whining. It's an extremely obvious double standard.

You also don't seem to understand the difference between Beane talking about the A's and talking about himself. When Beane turned down the Red Sox, it was all about his quality of life. He said he wanted to be closer to his family. There are all kinds of things that are more important to an individual's quality of life than the total payroll of his employer.

When Beane talked about the $50M, he wasn't commenting on his job. He wasn't complaining about being paid too little or about being on the wrong coast. If he was complaining about these things, then you would be right to point out that he had an opportunity to change these things. But he's not talking about himself; he's talking about the A's.

The A's would be more competitive with $50M more in payroll. Pointing that out has nothing to do with which team Beane would rather work for, it's just a fact. It's not about Beane, it's about the A's.

It's pretty funny that you're still bitter that he turned down the Sox job.

I'm also disappointed with Rauseo. When Beane makes this type of comment, he claims that it's a poor business move for the A's and whiney of Beane. I saw no such comment here.
   38. The Original SJ Posted: January 06, 2005 at 01:12 AM (#1059616)
Forget about it Jake, its.... Sox Therapy.
   39. covelli chris p Posted: January 06, 2005 at 01:35 AM (#1059654)
Beane gets attacked on a personal level by some old-timey "baseball people" and so he has to defend himself personally. It sucks. He clearly doesn't appreciate it. He seems to deal with it by giving sarcastic canned answers ... which some people might interpet as talking himself up. Is that accurate?
   40. Darren Posted: January 06, 2005 at 03:25 AM (#1059839)
Forget about it Jake, its.... Sox Therapy.

Well, that's a problem with the new site. The whole point of Sox Therapy was to get all this Red Sox-centric stuff away from the other stuff. But, unfortunately, it all shows up in the blogpen with no distinction from other articles.

Also, just because it's Sox Therapy doesn't mean everyone's as biased as kevin. Beane's comment was at least as reasonable (more perhaps) as Henry's. He was probably being asked why his team had again failed in the postseason, and since he had been skewered for giving the real answer (it's a crapshoot), he decided to give another true answer. Any reasonable person could see his point.
   41. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq., LLC Posted: January 06, 2005 at 04:02 AM (#1059904)
Well, that's a problem with the new site. The whole point of Sox Therapy was to get all this Red Sox-centric stuff away from the other stuff. But, unfortunately, it all shows up in the blogpen with no distinction from other articles.

There's three types of posts: original articles, links, blogs and game chatters. The orginal articles go right up on the front page, game chatters go into Game Chatter, links go into the newsblog, blogs go into the blogpen.

Most stuff goes into Primer, which is a catch-all, Sox Therapy usually doesn't. If you read through Primer, you'll get pretty much everything other than the Game Chatters and the original articles, without the Sox Therapy stuff.
   42. The Original SJ Posted: January 06, 2005 at 04:06 AM (#1059911)
Also, just because it's Sox Therapy doesn't mean everyone's as biased as kevin.

I was just making a chinatown joke, I realize you all aren't out of control kevin-biased. There is some bias, as is the case with us Yankee fans, who skew things NY's way.
   43. Danny Posted: January 06, 2005 at 03:44 PM (#1060502)
Just to beat a dead horse...

Kevin: He wasn't talking about the A's. He was talking about himself. He used the I word.

Beane:``Do you want to give us $50 million more? I promise we won't blow a 2-0 lead.''

He did say "I", but he also said "we" and "us." It's clear he's talking about the A's.
   44. villageidiom Posted: January 06, 2005 at 06:59 PM (#1061056)
kevin, I'm with everyone else on this one.

Even if you want to spin it as hypocritical that Beane had the opportunity to work for a team that had the extra $50 million, and turned it down, you're still stuck. Henry was once a part-owner of the Yankees. (A 1-2% share, IIRC.) If he wants to complain about his team having a disadvantage, it's just as hypocritical. He once owned part of the team with the advantage, and chose to give it up.

Having said that, again I think everyone is reading too much into it. I don't think Henry is whining about the poor, cash-strapped Red Sox as much as he's trying to point out that the growing payroll disparity between the Sox and Yanks hasn't affected the two teams' relative competitiveness. And I think he's saying it more as a matter of pride... kind of like, "George can spend as much as he wants, if he's just as stupid about it as he has been."

In other news, they've agreed on a 2/$32 extension. Johnson is theirs for 3/$48, minus 3/$25.5 owed Vasquez (it's really $34.5, but the Yanks are picking up $9 mil), plus two prospects. Let's say the whole thing translates into a net of 3/$24. That still seems high, even for the Yankees, considering what they gave up.

Vasquez for RJ at a net of 3/$24 could be more justifiable, but it seems to me that throwing in Halsey/Navarro should return more, wouldn't you?
   45. covelli chris p Posted: January 06, 2005 at 08:38 PM (#1061396)
In other news, they've agreed on a 2/$32 extension. Johnson is theirs for 3/$48, minus 3/$25.5 owed Vasquez (it's really $34.5, but the Yanks are picking up $9 mil), plus two prospects. Let's say the whole thing translates into a net of 3/$24. That still seems high, even for the Yankees, considering what they gave up.

Are you calling Vazquez a sunk cost? If he comes back and pitches near to what he did in Montreal, I would say that the cost of Johnson is 3/48 + 3/9 + prospects ... 3/57 for Johnson + prospects is pretty expensive.
   46. Darren Posted: January 06, 2005 at 11:04 PM (#1061830)
Yes, I agree with Chris's math, but I would add in Vazquez.

They traded Vazquez at 3/34 + prospects for the right to pay Johnson 3/57. That's kind of cuckoo. It's reminiscint of the Weaver dump and hopefully it will work out just as well.
   47. Darren Posted: January 06, 2005 at 11:08 PM (#1061838)
There's three types of posts: original articles, links, blogs and game chatters. The orginal articles go right up on the front page, game chatters go into Game Chatter, links go into the newsblog, blogs go into the blogpen.

I know how the system works, but a lot people don't. They go to the main page and click on stuff from the news. I've had people reply to stuff I post in Sox Therapy and say "Why are you calling the Red Sox 'we'? It's confusing for people, is all.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Chicago Joe
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Let’s Get Off-Seasoning!
(7 - 8:45am, Nov 19)
Last: villageidiom

The Greatest Red Sox Team...EVER!!!!
(76 - 8:14pm, Nov 15)
Last: villageidiom

Let’s Get World Serious!
(69 - 5:26pm, Oct 28)
Last: Toby

American League Champions!!!!
(32 - 5:17pm, Oct 20)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

ALCS Thoughts
(94 - 5:37pm, Oct 18)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

Damage Done
(46 - 12:18pm, Oct 11)
Last: Answer Guy, without side hustles.

Sox Therapy ALDS Preview
(81 - 4:49pm, Oct 10)
Last: covelli chris p

WOW
(11 - 8:31am, Oct 09)
Last: SandyRiver

Hope Springs Eternal (Sox Therapy Predictions)
(33 - 7:40pm, Oct 01)
Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...)

Decisions Decisions
(32 - 8:39am, Oct 01)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature

Finishing Up - The Sox Therapy Concernometer
(82 - 3:58pm, Sep 26)
Last: Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head

IT’S OVER
(7 - 4:31pm, Sep 23)
Last: Darren

11 Days Later
(89 - 10:40am, Sep 22)
Last: Nasty Nate

6,036 Days
(15 - 2:49pm, Sep 20)
Last: Nasty Nate

11 Days To...Something
(49 - 12:28am, Sep 13)
Last: Nasty Nate

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.3386 seconds
37 querie(s) executed