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

Monday, May 01, 2006

ESPN.com - MLB - Red Sox reacquire Mirabelli to catch Wakefield

Great! I was getting really tired of seeing Bard’s backside.

The Boston Red Sox have finalized a trade to obtain catcher Doug Mirabelli from the San Diego Padres in exchange for catcher Josh Bard, minor-league pitcher Cla Meredith and cash, ESPN The Magazine’s Buster Olney is reporting.

Jim Furtado Posted: May 01, 2006 at 04:20 PM | 136 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: padres, red 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.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. salvomania Posted: May 01, 2006 at 04:26 PM (#1998697)
So it worked out to be Loretta for Bard and Meredith, plus some cash....
   2. More Dewey is Always Good Posted: May 01, 2006 at 04:28 PM (#1998700)
So it worked out to be Loretta for Bard and Meredith, plus some cash....

Which is still a win for the Red Sox, but not an absolute steal. Meredith has some potential.
   3. Spahn Insane Posted: May 01, 2006 at 04:29 PM (#1998701)
Hilarious.
   4. Old Matt Posted: May 01, 2006 at 04:34 PM (#1998702)
Wow.

My friends and I were just saying at lunch how they need Mirabelli back.
   5. TVerik - Dr. Velocity Posted: May 01, 2006 at 04:34 PM (#1998703)
This is actually marginally bad news for the Yankees, tonight! If MiraSmelly gets to the Fens in time.
   6. TVerik - Dr. Velocity Posted: May 01, 2006 at 04:38 PM (#1998706)
*RTFA*

Mirabelli, Tim Wakefield's normal catcher last season when Mirabelli was with the Red Sox, will be in the starting lineup Monday night against the Yankees.
   7. The Ghost, Live at The Epicenter Posted: May 01, 2006 at 04:40 PM (#1998708)
I was asking if Corky Miller (Pawtucket AAA) could catch a knuckler.

The other option I figured the Sox had was to have Varitek catch Wake and let Bard fill in for other games. Would that have been workable?
   8. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: May 01, 2006 at 04:41 PM (#1998709)
YAY BELLI!
   9. The Balls of Summer Posted: May 01, 2006 at 04:46 PM (#1998717)
The other option I figured the Sox had was to have Varitek catch Wake and let Bard fill in for other games. Would that have been workable?

Why won't the Sox have Varitek learn to catch the knuckler? It would be pretty useful come playoff time.
   10. Kevin Sweet Child Romine (aco) Posted: May 01, 2006 at 04:47 PM (#1998718)
The other option I figured the Sox had was to have Varitek catch Wake and let Bard fill in for other games. Would that have been workable?

Probably, but this is a lot better. Part of the Boston backup catcher job description is to be Wakefield's caddy. Bard couldn't cut it; plus, he ain't much of a hitter. Mirabelli probably has the most experience catching the knuckler of anyone in the majors and he can hit a little. I'm happier about this trade that I thought I'd be.
   11. Horatio Funderburke Posted: May 01, 2006 at 04:49 PM (#1998721)
Why do teams continue to give the Red Sox a discount like this? Given how badly Bard has fared catching Wakefield, couldn't and shouldn't the Padres have held the Red Sox over a barrel for Mirabelli?
   12. Psychedelic Red Pants Posted: May 01, 2006 at 04:54 PM (#1998728)
Epstein slipped Towers and Alderson some GHB.
   13. Law Boy Posted: May 01, 2006 at 04:55 PM (#1998730)
Why do teams continue to give the Red Sox a discount like this? Given how badly Bard has fared catching Wakefield, couldn't and shouldn't the Padres have held the Red Sox over a barrel for Mirabelli

Because they're not the Yankees. Sox fans don't like to hear that, but it's true.
   14. TVerik - Dr. Velocity Posted: May 01, 2006 at 04:57 PM (#1998736)
The Padres were in a bit of a mess - if memory serves, they signed Mirabelli with the intention of making him their #1 guy. But then Piazza was available and they signed him as well. In the non-DH league, that pretty much meant that one of them had to go.

Had SD not signed Piazza, I don't think there's much chance that this would have happened.
   15. TVerik - Dr. Velocity Posted: May 01, 2006 at 05:01 PM (#1998740)
So what are the Josh Bard totals when catching Wakefield? I assume they are final now.
   16. Boots Day Posted: May 01, 2006 at 05:05 PM (#1998744)
Because they're not the Yankees.

I'm sorry, remind me again who the Yankees traded for Shawn Chacon? One of them will be hard to remember, since he's already been DFA'd.
   17. RobertMachemer Posted: May 01, 2006 at 05:07 PM (#1998746)
I hate this. Mirabelli struggled against the knuckler too when he first started catching Wakefield. Bard is younger. Bard is healthier (Mirabelli's back has been bothering him so far this season). Bard has outhit Mirabelli so far. The Sox already had Bard and didn't need to trade Cla Meredith to get him. That's all I've got off the top of my head. If Bard was truly deemed to be irrecoverably horrific, Varitek shoulda stopped his "It's too hard for ME to catch Wakefield," and let Bard catch someone else.
   18. The Original SJ Posted: May 01, 2006 at 05:09 PM (#1998747)
I have heard the Yankees made an offer to grab Mirabelli. I am not sure what they offered, but it certaintly wasn't a 23 year old with a 5.50 ERA in AAA.

Then again, Meredith has thrown over 50 professional innings in 3 years.

How could the Padres say no? I am suprised they were able to get Meredith without giving up Peavy.
   19. The Original SJ Posted: May 01, 2006 at 05:11 PM (#1998750)
The Yankees also got Karim Garcia for nothing, literally, nothing, in 2004.

Darren was very upset about that.
   20. Josh Posted: May 01, 2006 at 05:12 PM (#1998752)
SD traded a mid-30s backup C (the most expensive in ML history, iirc) with back problems for a cheap 27 year old switch hitter and a MR who has a decent chance to a cheap ML caliber MR (not a good one, but a decent one). Granted, neither are world beaters and they were redundent on the Sox (the Sox have no real depth at C, but I doubt many teams do). But, players like Doug aren't worth more than that.

The real rip off was trading a starting 2B for a backup C.
   21. The Original SJ Posted: May 01, 2006 at 05:14 PM (#1998756)
The real rip off was trading a starting 2B for a backup C.

Yeah exactly, so when the Sox came calling for him back, why try to recoup some of the talent differential?
   22. The Original SJ Posted: May 01, 2006 at 05:17 PM (#1998758)
The Boston front office has made some very nice trades. They have also been great at fluffing their nonprospects to the level where they can be spun for real major leaguers.

A lot like the Yankees did in the mid 90's (the Fielder and Cone deals, for example)

For that I give them credit.
   23. Josh Posted: May 01, 2006 at 05:18 PM (#1998759)
Yeah exactly, so when the Sox came calling for him back, why try to recoup some of the talent differential?

In February I buy a house for $500k when the market sat at $400k. In April I look to unload the house. The fact that I paid $500k informs some buyers, but if the market is clearly at $400k I ain't gettin' any more than that - unless I find another sucker. Looks like there just weren't any more suckers.
   24. The Original SJ Posted: May 01, 2006 at 05:18 PM (#1998760)
ESPN reports they had at least 1 more offer.
   25. Josh Posted: May 01, 2006 at 05:21 PM (#1998761)
Do you think Cashman should have been a sucker? I'd be OK with Cano for Dougie :D
   26. SantoFan Posted: May 01, 2006 at 05:23 PM (#1998763)
Interesting that they'd acquire a guy who can't catch a knuckle; Piazza certainly can't. Woody Williams has been tossing a knuckle more and more lately (esp since this spring training)... true, he uses it as a knee-buckler, every-now-and-again pitch, and not as a full-time pitch, but he's been very effective when throwing it. Could even stand to reason that he'd convert to a full-time knuckler to extend his career (and extend it with the Padres; would do well in that park). Should be interesting to see how that goes, with the catchers they have, if WW stays on and becomes the next oldie-knuckler.
   27. TVerik - Dr. Velocity Posted: May 01, 2006 at 05:23 PM (#1998767)
It's kind of funny how October 2004 has flipped the paranoia roles of the two teams.

The Schilling trade is the first time I really heard this. Was that November of 2003?
   28. The Original SJ Posted: May 01, 2006 at 05:23 PM (#1998768)
Well, I am sure the yankees could have offered 2 arms that will amount to nothing rather than just the 1.

That is 100% more crap!
   29. Law Boy Posted: May 01, 2006 at 05:39 PM (#1998787)
I'm sorry, remind me again who the Yankees traded for Shawn Chacon? One of them will be hard to remember, since he's already been DFA'd.

No one wanted Chacon. The same cannot be said about Loretta. This trade cannot be viewed apart from that trade.
   30. Adam S Posted: May 01, 2006 at 05:44 PM (#1998790)
Good trade for the Sox. This article (possibly RR) in the NYT really did a great job of describing just how hard it is to catch Wakefield. Some great quotes from Flaherty in there.
   31. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq., LLC Posted: May 01, 2006 at 05:53 PM (#1998799)
The Schilling trade is the first time I really heard this. Was that November of 2003?

There was the Floyd trade, too.
   32. Boots Day Posted: May 01, 2006 at 05:53 PM (#1998800)
No one wanted a league-average starter, two years removed from the All-Star team?

My theory is that the Rockies were so flattered that the lordly Yankees actually wanted one of their guys, they didn't really stop to think what they were getting for him.
   33. RobertMachemer Posted: May 01, 2006 at 05:56 PM (#1998804)
Why do teams continue to give the Red Sox a discount like this?
This is a discount?!!

The Sox traded their backup catcher AND a 22-year-old in AAA AND cash AND a player-to-be-named-later for an over-30 catcher whose back has been acting up and who hasn't hit a lick so far this year. Thank you, but I'd prefer the Yankees get these sorts of discounts.
   34. MM1f Posted: May 01, 2006 at 06:03 PM (#1998812)
A little unimportant but... Doug Mirabellis day

i liked it anyway
   35. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: May 01, 2006 at 06:09 PM (#1998818)
Yeah, Rich's 2004-induced psychosis is a wonder to behold.

His team got Alex Rodriguez for nothing, but he perceives persecution around every corner.
   36. MikeinMI Posted: May 01, 2006 at 06:21 PM (#1998825)
#35 is the best link of the year. I have no prior knowledge of Mirabelli beyond the basics so they could have used anyone as far as I care but that was funny.
   37. The Original SJ Posted: May 01, 2006 at 06:27 PM (#1998832)
His team got Alex Rodriguez for nothing, but he perceives persecution around every corner.

But you guys could have had ARod for nothing, if you were willing to pay a little more money! He was yours first.
   38. Harold can be a fun sponge Posted: May 01, 2006 at 06:32 PM (#1998845)
The same cannot be said about Loretta. This trade cannot be viewed apart from that trade.

Why not? If the Padres totally undervalued Loretta, why is that relevant in a Mirabelli-Bard-Meredith trade?
   39. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq., LLC Posted: May 01, 2006 at 06:33 PM (#1998847)
No one wanted a league-average starter, two years removed from the All-Star team?

No one wanted a guy with a record of 24-45, 5.20, an ERA+ of 95? SHOCKING.

His team got Alex Rodriguez for nothing

Alfonso Soriano was an All Star the two season before the trade, and the two seasons afterwards. Sure, player-for-player it wasn't even, but the money balanced it out. Soriano's a flawed player, but if a second baseman who slugs .500 and steals 30-40 bases a year at an 85% rate is nothing, sign me up for some nothing.
   40. Flynn Posted: May 01, 2006 at 06:34 PM (#1998849)
Why won't the Sox have Varitek learn to catch the knuckler? It would be pretty useful come playoff time.

Because he can't. No one can, except The Stud Who Hits Bombs (see #35, which has entered SoSH lore).
   41. Law Boy Posted: May 01, 2006 at 06:35 PM (#1998851)
But you guys could have had ARod for nothing, if you were willing to pay a little more money! He was yours first.

Really. For some reason, Sox fans have trouble assimilating that incontrovertible fact.
   42. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: May 01, 2006 at 06:35 PM (#1998852)
But you guys could have had ARod for nothing, if you were willing to pay a little more money! He was yours first.
To avoid rehashing that insanity, and because I basically kinda agree, ok, let's grant that.

The fact that the Yankees made a similar trade to the Red Sox, but probably at least somewhat better, kinda suggests that there is no bias.
   43. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: May 01, 2006 at 06:39 PM (#1998857)
Agreed on #35. Classic stuff. Dougie is going deep tonight!
   44. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: May 01, 2006 at 06:40 PM (#1998858)
Is there any single person here, anyone at all who is not personally a Yankee fan, who agrees that a major motivating factor behind some moves made by their team's front office is an anti-Yankee bias? I mean, no one actually thinks that, right?

And most of hte Yankee fans here also disagree. We've practically got concensus on this issue.
   45. PJ Martinez Posted: May 01, 2006 at 06:48 PM (#1998870)
"Sure, player-for-player it wasn't even, but the money balanced it out."

Except the money went from Texas to New York. Now that's insanity.

The bias issue stems at least partly from the relative quality of the farm systems, it seems to me. The Yankees used to have a better one than the Sox, and so people probably saw their prospects through somewhat rosier glasses. For the last few years, this situation has been reversed. First, every team asked for Soriano and Johnson, because the Yankees had little else to offer. Then they started asking for Cano and Wang, for the same reason. If some of the Yankees' low-level talent pans out, this situation may change yet again.
   46. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq., LLC Posted: May 01, 2006 at 06:50 PM (#1998873)
Except the money went from Texas to New York. Now that's insanity.

Uh... no. The vast bulk of the money in that deal was in Rodriguez's contract. Texas picked up a part of it, but the Yankees were still paying more for Rodriguez than they were for Soriano.

Texas made that move to cut their costs, and they did. That's how it balanced out.
   47. The Original SJ Posted: May 01, 2006 at 06:55 PM (#1998879)
The only anti-Yankee bias was the Schilling deal. The Dbacks asked for the moon, because they did not want to deal Schilling to NY. I believe that was because of the Wells deals.

Getting Beckett for the minor league versions of Wayne Tolleson and Tony Armas Jr had nothing to do with the Yankees.
   48. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq., LLC Posted: May 01, 2006 at 06:58 PM (#1998885)
Chacon's ERA+ with the Rockies last year was 116. Overall, it was 133. I thought it was steal getiing him and I don't remember any Red Sox fan screaming "conspiracy".

And his career ERA+ at the time was 95. What's the problem here?

His 2005 seasons stands out like a massive fluke. Now, Coors Field does stuff to pitchers who rely on curveballs like Chacon, so he could be really good, but all indications were before that trade that he was at best league-average, and at worst, a bag of suck.
   49. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:00 PM (#1998889)
That'd be the Wayne Tolleson hitting 304/379/489 in a pitcher's park in the NL as a 22-year-old?
   50. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:01 PM (#1998890)
Getting Beckett for the minor league versions of Wayne Tolleson and Tony Armas Jr had nothing to do with the Yankees.

Hanley has an .868 OPS!
   51. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq., LLC Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:03 PM (#1998894)
And by a little, I guess you mean 150 mil.

Yeah, it was $150 million. When the Rangers said they wanted the Red Sox to pick up some of Ramirez's contract, they meant ALL of Ramirez's contract, plus about $40 million more. That's exactly right.
   52. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:04 PM (#1998895)
Foiled by Matt Clement! Which is a bit embarassing, since Clement hasn't been foiling many people this season.
   53. 185/456(GGC) Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:06 PM (#1998902)
Hey, this beats trading Wakefield to the Padres to solve the problem.
   54. The Original SJ Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:07 PM (#1998905)
I thought it was steal getiing him and I don't remember any Red Sox fan screaming "conspiracy".

No, every Sox fan laughed at the deal.

Hanley has an .868 OPS!

Maybe Wayne Tolleson was a bit harsh, but Hanley is no Burleson!
   55. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:07 PM (#1998907)
Foiled by Matt Clement! Which is a bit embarassing, since Clement hasn't been foiling many people this season.
I tried to post that response three different times earlier, but I kept missing the thread. I think one ended up on televisionwithoutpity.
   56. Law Boy Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:09 PM (#1998909)
Yet, the Sox put Manny on waivers the year before and no team picked him up. So it's not just about the 40 homers and 130 RBIs.
   57. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq., LLC Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:10 PM (#1998912)
Oh, well. If it was just Manny and 40 mil, that's nothing. Guys who average 40 homers and 130 RBI's grow on trees.

Apparently second basemen who hit 40 homers with 100 RBIs do too, since he's "nothing".

You said the Red Sox had to pick up $150 million to get A-Rod. They didn't. You were wrong.
   58. The Original SJ Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:10 PM (#1998913)
Sigh, why are we fighting. I don't think anyone thinks there is a yankee bias.

But I think had primer been around in the mid90s, there would be a 700 page thread about how the Yankees picked up David Cone for nothing.
   59. Law Boy Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:11 PM (#1998914)
Chacon has never been able to regain the low 90s velocity he had on his fastball. As a result, his margin for error is very small.
   60. The Original SJ Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:12 PM (#1998917)
Why? He's still a young guy who has an AS appearnace under his belt. The best might very well be yet to come for Chacon. He has very good stuff.

Can someone find the Chacon threads from last year?

I believe this is not what Kevin truly believes.
   61. The Original SJ Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:15 PM (#1998920)
Yup. The Yankees could have had Manny for nothing if they were just willing to kick in a little more cash.

No, I think they values ARod a little more.
   62. The Original SJ Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:15 PM (#1998922)
valued.
   63. Sean McNally Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:16 PM (#1998923)
For some historical context, here is the thread for Chacon's trade to NY.

Its funny to see how low our (Yankee fans) expectations were.


As for the all the Yankee-Red Sox p*ssfighting - we're arguing about the trades of at-best a fifth starter and a backup catcher. Think about that.
   64. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:17 PM (#1998926)
I tried to post that response three different times earlier, but I kept missing the thread. I think one ended up on televisionwithoutpity.

Niiiiiice.
   65. Flynn Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:17 PM (#1998927)

And by a little, I guess you mean 150 mil.

Christ, stop your whining.


A-Rod is like a hot girl with an STD that you couldn't close the deal on but your buddy did. He won't admit the mistake, so he tries to make you admit you made one.

This jab at A-Rod was bought to you by Flynn
   66. Law Boy Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:17 PM (#1998928)
Yup. The Yankees could have had Manny for nothing if they were just willing to kick in a little more cash.

A mere $80 to $100 million. Contrary to what many people like to believe, the Yankees do have a budget.
   67. The Original SJ Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:17 PM (#1998929)
Mik??l Posted: July 28, 2005 at 10:04 PM (#1506564)
What purpose at all does this serve for the Rockies?

Chacon's cheap (2.5M salary), and Ramirez and Sierra are worthless.

I frickin' hate it when other teams suddenly decide to give the Yankees something for nothing.


Heh.
   68. Sean McNally Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:19 PM (#1998931)
Kevin did not post on either the Chaco trade thread of the TO thread.

I also agree with SJ that kevin is being disingenuous about his beliefs about the Chacon deal.

It was a nothing deal at the time, then he and Small sipped from the Super Awesome Magic Pixie Dust Fountain™ for a couple months and now it's a steal.

At the time it was widely played as lack of a move by the Yanks more than a significant move.
   69. Law Boy Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:21 PM (#1998936)
Rich and Larry certainly seem to. Think there's an anti-yankee bias, that is.

IMO, the biggest indication of an anti-Yankee bias is that George is often blamed for driving up salaries, when in fact he almost never has in recent years, choosing instead to pay more later rather than setting the market early on. That happened with both Bernie's and Jeter's contracts.
   70. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq., LLC Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:21 PM (#1998938)
Rich and Larry certainly seem to. Think there's an anti-yankee bias, that is.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said there was an anti-Yankee bias. I pointed out there were complaints before 2004, when Boston traded for Floyd. I think there's a slight "screw Steinbrenner" attitude out there, but I don't think teams give away players to screw the Yankees.
   71. Flynn Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:24 PM (#1998941)
I pointed out there were complaints before 2004, when Boston traded for Floyd.

Shouldn't it be noted that the Expos, for all intensive purposes, won that trade?

Floyd didn't do very much and wasn't resigned, while Tomo Ohka had a couple good years for the Expos/Nats. Unless that draft pick became Jonathan Papelbon, the Expos won the trade.
   72. The Original SJ Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:28 PM (#1998945)
That happened with both Bernie's and Jeter's contracts.


I think Rivera was the highest paid closer in the game, before that, you have to go back to '91 when Mattingly was the highest paid 1b in the game.

Giambi's contract didn't set any records right?
   73. More Dewey is Always Good Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:29 PM (#1998948)
for all intensive purposes

I'm goint to be a grammar nazi here and point out that it's all intents and purposes.
   74. The Original SJ Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:30 PM (#1998953)
If you check the chatters after the trade, I think I made some statments in there about how it looked to me that Chacon had good stuff. He certainly pitched like he had good stuff.

If this is true, (there was certainly much discussion of Chacon) I apologize.

Last year there may have been over 100 threads about how lucky Chacon and Small were
   75. ekogan Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:31 PM (#1998955)
Larry Bowa Posted: July 28, 2005 at 11:46 PM (#1506833)
[some ranting cut]
What ****ing drunk is running the Yankees anyway? If Chacon starts a playoff game I will eat an empty bottle of Bushmills on live TV and **** glass shards at Ed Wade.


Here's the real reason Larry Bowa is not on Primer anymore. He's afraid someone will ask him for video proof.
   76. The Original SJ Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:32 PM (#1998960)
I'm goint to be a grammar nazi here and point out that it's all intents and purposes.

My boss insists on saying "mute point" about 30 times a day.

I want to strange him.
   77. Flynn Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:33 PM (#1998961)
I'm goint to be a grammar nazi here and point out that it's all intents and purposes.

I'm going to be a spelling and grammar Nazi and note that you spelled "going" wrong and that Nazi, as a proper noun, is to be capitalized.
   78. More Dewey is Always Good Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:35 PM (#1998966)
I'm going to be a spelling and grammar Nazi and note that you spelled "going" wrong and that Nazi, as a proper noun, is to be capitalized.

Yes. I'm making a ton of typos lately.
   79. Law Boy Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:35 PM (#1998968)
Giambi's contract didn't set any records right?

Delgado made more than Giambi in 2002.
   80. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq., LLC Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:42 PM (#1998983)
Shouldn't it be noted that the Expos, for all intensive purposes, won that trade?

Yeah, that's fine. My point was that there were complaints about how little the Red Sox seemingly gave up for Floyd at the time, so it has nothing to do with 2004, as kevin so desperately wants to believe.
   81. The Original SJ Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:42 PM (#1998984)
LOL is beneath you kevin, use RDF.
   82. Nasty Nate Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:44 PM (#1998985)
I'm reading this thread, and thinking "why is everyone so agitated at each other?".

Then I realize its that time of the schedule again.

God I love baseball.

Ten bucks says Ortiz takes Wang deep tonight unless he's walked every plate appearance against him.
   83. MM1f Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:45 PM (#1998987)
It doesnt matter what the draft pick became. It just matters where it was.
   84. Boots Day Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:49 PM (#1998992)
His 2005 seasons stands out like a massive fluke.

No, the year he spent badly miscast as a closer is the one that looks like a fluke. Chacon's ERA+ seasons as a starting pitcher go 103, 85, 103, and 116 up to his trade to the Yankees. That 116 isn't a massive fluke, or even a little bit of a fluke.

He was a 27-year-old starter with a bit of success behind him who had been gradually improving. And he was still cheap. I find it hard to believe there weren't any other teams that would have given the Rockies something for him.
   85. pkb33 Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:52 PM (#1998996)
IMO, the biggest indication of an anti-Yankee bias is that George is often blamed for driving up salaries, when in fact he almost never has in recent years, choosing instead to pay more later rather than setting the market early on. That happened with both Bernie's and Jeter's contracts.

Unless you think that those contracts (and Mussina, and Rivera, and Giambi) aren't part of "the contract market" you are badly mistaken. There's a lot more to driving up prices across the board than just the single highest contract at a point in time---and the Yankees are a big part of that.
   86. The Original SJ Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:55 PM (#1999002)
Moose was a bargain in that offseason, the offseason of Dreifort, Hampton and Neagle.
   87. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq., LLC Posted: May 01, 2006 at 07:58 PM (#1999006)
No, the year he spent badly miscast as a closer is the one that looks like a fluke. Chacon's ERA+ seasons as a starting pitcher go 103, 85, 103, and 116 up to his trade to the Yankees. That 116 isn't a massive fluke, or even a little bit of a fluke.

Yeah, that 116 doesn't stand out there at ALL.
   88. covelli chris p Posted: May 01, 2006 at 08:02 PM (#1999013)
Apparently second basemen who hit 40 homers with 100 RBIs do too, since he's "nothing".

but you guys had a future hall of famer almost ready to take his spot so it was ok.
   89. Law Boy Posted: May 01, 2006 at 08:02 PM (#1999014)
Unless you think that those contracts (and Mussina, and Rivera, and Giambi) aren't part of "the contract market" you are badly mistaken. There's a lot more to driving up prices across the board than just the single highest contract at a point in time---and the Yankees are a big part of that.

According to reports, the Yankees did not offer Mussina the most money. Rivera, given his accomplisments, is sui generis. Granted, the Yankees bid against themselves for Giambi.

The "contract market," however, is a consequence of previously established yearly salaries. Paradoxically, Jeter's and Bernie's aggregate contracts would have been significantly less if George had been willing to set the market with regard to yearly salaries. That practice would have saved him money, but it was his prerogative not to do that.

The real market busting contracts have been given by people like Tom Hicks (e.g., A-Rod, Park) and Minaya (e.g., Benson).
   90. covelli chris p Posted: May 01, 2006 at 08:03 PM (#1999016)
LOL is beneath you kevin, use RDF.

that's like rss, right?
   91. pkb33 Posted: May 01, 2006 at 08:03 PM (#1999017)
The issue isn't whether it was a better signing than some others; the issue is whether paying what the Yankees did contributed to rising salaries. Just because you are spending a lot of money doesn't mean you are spending it poorly, in other words.

Paying a set-up guy closer money (Gordon, then Farnsworth) escalates salaries. Paying marginal starters $8-$10 mil recently escalates salaries. Paying guys not considered "number one starters" number one money escalates salaries.

The Yankees have done a lot of things which escalated salaries---that's why they get cited for doing things that escalate salaries. They have the money, and they've made some very good decisions on some of these moves, even at their cost. But suggesting there's an "anti-Yankee bias" because the Yankees haven't always offered the single highest contract of an offseason is not a very well-considered position, imo.
   92. Mattbert Posted: May 01, 2006 at 08:06 PM (#1999025)
(LOL) Strange that you want to do that instead of strangle him.

What is stranging,anyway, sj? Is that kind of like shunning? You won't acknowledge you know him? You treat him like a stranger?
If you need 4 sentences to explain the joke, that's usually a sign that the joke might be best left unmade.

-1 Snark Point for kevin, and Damon gets to begin the game with a 2-0 count.
   93. Law Boy Posted: May 01, 2006 at 08:07 PM (#1999027)
I hate that the Yankees spend as much money as they do, and I think they spend it poorly, but most of their expenditures have been in response to the pre-established market.
   94. pkb33 Posted: May 01, 2006 at 08:08 PM (#1999028)
The "contract market," however, is a consequence of previously established yearly salaries. Paradoxically, Jeter's and Bernie's aggregate contracts would have been significantly less if George had been willing to set the market with regard to yearly salaries. That practice would have saved him money, but it was his prerogative not to do that.

Again, whether they are doing things that cause salaries to rise across the league is different from whether they made good decisions or not.

It's also not at all the case that Jeter and Williams' salaries would have been less if he had "set the market" they'd have been more. What I think you mean to say is "if he'd been willing to lock them up earlier he'd have gotten a better deal" which is true but neither here nor there as to the inflationary pressure the Yankees put on salaries overall. What they did was sign those guys to very large contracts, and those contracts become comps for other teams. Bernie's deal was basically a one-up on Boston's offer, and I'd never suggest the Yankees are the "sole" cause of salaries going up---they aren't. But they are a major contributor each year because they are consistently paying top dollar to a number of FAs, and they are willing to pay more than the 'other guy' to get who they want oftentimes.

I'm not saying it's wrong for them to do so, either. I'm just saying factually, they absolutely do contribute to the rising salaries, and almost certainly more than any other team over a multiyear period. In any one year, sure...someone else may top them. But not across a longer timeframe.
   95. Mister High Standards Posted: May 01, 2006 at 08:12 PM (#1999033)
Yankee fans are funny. No wonder I disklike so many. Very looney.
   96. pkb33 Posted: May 01, 2006 at 08:14 PM (#1999034)
I hate that the Yankees spend as much money as they do, and I think they spend it poorly, but most of their expenditures have been in response to the pre-established market

Let me put it to you this way. Are you comfortable saying that payrolls for the other teams (excluding the Yankees) would be at the same level leaguewide if you replaced the Yankees with a team that spent only league-average money each year for the last ten years?

I think there's no question that the answer is "no" I think the total expenditures of the other teams would be less, because the Yankees signing so many high-dollar guys creates an upward pressure each offseason. It's absolutely true that there's other teams who have, at points in time, done it. But across the last decade, only the Yankees are there every year.
   97. Fridas Boss Posted: May 01, 2006 at 08:16 PM (#1999039)
Can we change the BBTF sub-header to "Baseball for the Snarking Fan"?
   98. Nasty Nate Posted: May 01, 2006 at 08:18 PM (#1999045)
Speaking of "setting the market" did the Sox do that for SP's with the Pedro extension after they traded for him? I think it might have paved the way for the K-Brown deal and Randy Johnson pimple-greasing his way out of Seattle.

Or was there some big deal prior to that which I am forgetting?
   99. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: May 01, 2006 at 08:19 PM (#1999047)
Paying a set-up guy closer money (Gordon, then Farnsworth) escalates salaries. Paying marginal starters $8-$10 mil recently escalates salaries. Paying guys not considered "number one starters" number one money escalates salaries.

I think you should check the terms of the Gordon and Farnsworth contracts, then check the salaries of some run-of-the-mill closers, and tell me if you really think those contracts support your point. Boston paid Keith Foulke more money in 2005 than New York paid Gordon for two seasons, and that's just one example. Gordon was a bargain. I don't know who you're talking about with the "number one starter" thing. Vazquez maybe?

Bernie's deal was basically a one-up on Boston's offer

No, it wasn't. Boston offered more. You should get a fact checker.

What I think you mean to say is "if he'd been willing to lock them up earlier he'd have gotten a better deal" which is true but neither here nor there as to the inflationary pressure the Yankees put on salaries overall.

How can it be neither here nor there? It's evidence that someone else drove up the market price in the interim. Which was sort of the entire point.
   100. The Original SJ Posted: May 01, 2006 at 08:22 PM (#1999050)
I thought Mikeal's point from the old Chacon post was sort of funny.

He was ripping on the Yankees for getting something for nothing. Then they Yankees defended that deal.

And the reverse is occuring here.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Infinite Yost (Voxter)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogEmpty Stadium Sports Will Be Really Weird
(4429 - 1:34pm, May 30)
Last: AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale

NewsblogOT – NBA CoronaThread 2020
(3121 - 1:20pm, May 30)
Last: BaseballObscura

NewsblogMLB Network to celebrate Derek Jeter's career with 64 consecutive hours of Jeter programming
(24 - 12:15pm, May 30)
Last: The Mighty Quintana

NewsblogRoy Steele, the A’s ‘Voice of God,’ dies
(2 - 12:03pm, May 30)
Last: A triple short of the cycle

NewsblogWe Can Show Baseball Reruns, Too
(64 - 10:39am, May 30)
Last: Hysterical & Useless

NewsblogNot in Missouri anymore: Royals move legal home to Delaware
(5 - 10:36am, May 30)
Last: Steve Parris, Je t'aime

NewsblogOT Soccer Thread - Spring 2020
(245 - 9:29am, May 30)
Last: Fancy Pants Handle struck out swinging

NewsblogA's Tell Minor Leaguers They Won't Be Paid for the Remainder of the Season
(34 - 7:27am, May 30)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogThe Chinese Professional Baseball League OMNICHATTER
(404 - 6:35am, May 30)
Last: Weekly Journalist_

NewsblogMLB owners sending latest plan to MLBPA that includes sliding pay scale for players
(88 - 1:31am, May 30)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 5-29-2020
(16 - 11:26pm, May 29)
Last: Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome

NewsblogBatting .400? A sub-1.00 ERA? Here are the MLB records that could be threatened in an 82-game season
(48 - 8:38pm, May 29)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogSon of Agassi, Graf could be a future ace
(5 - 8:03pm, May 29)
Last: Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66)

NewsblogESTEBAN LOAIZA'S WRONG TURN
(39 - 7:49pm, May 29)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogFormer Braves catcher Biff Pocoroba dies at 66
(9 - 5:27pm, May 29)
Last: Itchy Row

-->

Page rendered in 0.6141 seconds
46 querie(s) executed