Forum: base
Page 16101
Subject: A-Rod for Ramirez with Nomah to SoCal?

  Posted by: KrazyKoalaBears - Leader [517553018] Sat, Dec 06, 2003, 22:57
TEX and BOS owners are talking.

If it can all get worked out, it looks like A-Rod goes to BOS, Ramirez goes to TEX, and Nomah is sent packing to a SoCal team (ANA or LOS).

The article says the deal is likely to happen this week, before the winter meetings, if it is to happen.

 
1Razor
      Donor
      ID: 190612
      Sat, Dec 06, 2003, 23:53 		The rumor is that if LA gets Nomar, the package would be Odalis and prospects (NOT Jackson or Miller). Boston would then turn around and trade Odalis for hitting, inexplicably. I'm sure Boston won't trade for A-Rod until they have a deal in place to move Nomar. Otherwise, they get Sheffielded or Griffeyed (i.e. lose all bargaining power).
 
2Punk42AE
      ID: 36635522
      Sun, Dec 07, 2003, 00:22 		Wonder what they would trade Odalis for? An OF or 2B.
 
3The Great One
      ID: 91133420
      Sun, Dec 07, 2003, 07:32 		I haven't read it, but maybe Odalis becomes part of the Texas deal? I did read that Texas was saying that it needed Boston to eat part of Manny's contract so they can use it for pitching. Maybe the Sox include Perez and Texas includes Kevin Mench or someone?
 
4Khahan
      ID: 36113276
      Sun, Dec 07, 2003, 07:36 		Hey Great One, when you get the chance, jump over to the baseball standings forum and check out the Dirty Dozen Keepers thread. We could use your input on some stuff.
 
5Mattinglyinthehall
      Sustainer
      ID: 217351118
      Sun, Dec 07, 2003, 07:55 		Can you almost smell Steinbrenner countering by offering Soriano for ARod straight up? George will not sit idle and watch Boston acquire ARod.
 
6Mattinglyinthehall
      Sustainer
      ID: 217351118
      Sun, Dec 07, 2003, 08:00
Mike Lupica
Somehow George Steinbrenner's grudge against the people who run the Boston Red Sox gets worse even though his team won the American League Championship Series.

Apparently, in Steinbrenner's increasingly agitated world, only the Yankees are supposed to make big trades and big plays for free agents at this time of year.

Only the Yankees are supposed to do whatever it takes to win.

So when the Red Sox make a trade for Curt Schilling, Steinbrenner of course makes the whole thing insanely personal. With him, it's that old deal where it's not enough that he succeeds, it's that his enemies have to fail, and fail miserably.

It will only get worse if Alex Rodriguez ends up in Boston, which sure might happen.

Larry Lucchino, one of the Red Sox owners, talked about the Yankees being the Evil Empire a year ago, and Steinbrenner has been hysterical about that ever since. He can say whatever he wants about anybody, from his shortstop to his manager to umpires to other teams to other owners. But nobody is ever supposed to insult him.

Or better-deal him.

So as soon as the Red Sox sign Schilling, Steinbrenner goes right out and gets one starting pitcher, two relief pitchers, is all set to sign Gary Sheffield.

Steinbrenner has created a culture with his fans, and with the Yankee media, where turning over a third of his team between one season and the next is part of the natural order of things, instead of him just being piggish. And everybody in town is expected to fall immediately and hopelessly in love with all the new faces on what will eventually be the first $200 million professional sports team in history.

Rotisserie baseball has become the rule with the Yankees instead of the exception, whether the Yankees lose in the first round of the playoffs or make it to the sixth game of the World Series before getting just absolutely hammered by a kid like Josh Beckett.

And when they do get hammered by a Beckett, or upset by the Angels, all that does is make Steinbrenner spend more. While the crowd cheers.

Except that while all this goes on, A-Rod is still on the board for the Red Sox. It is hardly a sure thing that the Red Sox can make the deal that sends Manny Ramirez and some pitching to the Rangers in return for A-Rod. But the Red Sox are working this deal all day, every day, Lucchino from Boston, John Henry from Florida, general manager Theo Epstein on the phone.

This story does not go away. Already the Red Sox are talking about creative ways to move the money around at the back end of Rodriguez's contract. And then make a move with the Angels - involving Nomar Garciaparra - that would be one more thing to knock Steinbrenner back on his heels.

Ramirez is a tremendous run producer, even if he is a knucklehead. Rodriguez is much more: The best all-around player in baseball. Best. Barry Bonds is the best on the Senior Tour. Rodriguez is still just 27 years old. You wonder what how The Madness of George III would continue to play out if the Red Sox add A-Rod on top of Schilling.

You think Steinbrenner won't go after Vladimir Guerrero, too, if A-Rod ends up in Boston? You think he won't add another $18 million in payroll and move Sheffield to left and Hideki Matsui to center and Bernie Williams to DH?

Why, because it would put him slightly over budget?

And while he stews and threatens behind the scenes, the Red Sox get Schilling and believe they have a great shot at Alex Rodriguez.

Always in the past, the Yankees were supposed to put everybody away when they signed two big names like Vazquez, the best pitcher Yankee fans have never seen, and Sheffield. Not anymore.

Not if the Red Sox walk away with A-Rod, too
 
7blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 331038201
      Sun, Dec 07, 2003, 11:13 		I'm starting to get annoyed by the Red Sox too, actually. They're doing exactly what the Yankees are doing, but not quite as well.
 
8Farn
      Sustainer
      ID: 451044109
      Sun, Dec 07, 2003, 11:56 		bh- not quite as well?

They added Schilling, and are now trying to add the game's best all around player. What exactly do you mean by not as well?
 
9Pi314159
      Donor
      ID: 4734146
      Sun, Dec 07, 2003, 14:05 		The part about the Sox trades that annoys me is not that they're doing the same thing as the Yanks (that just makes it more fun), but that they're not being called on it like the Yankees always are. Who called the Yankees the Evil Empire? Who is calling Boston Evil Empire No. 2? Nobody.

In any event, I'm not sure I see the short term or long-term wisdom of this trade for the Sox, at least until we know who ends up replacing Manny. The Schilling trade was a great upgrade for the Sox -- replacing a five starter with an ace of any other pitching staff. But getting AROD is not the biggest upgrade when you already have Nomar and you're losing one of the best RBI men in the game. AROD is definitely better than Nomar, but that upgrade alone won't have some amazing impact. On the other hand, we don't know yet what they are going to end up losing in the outfield? Manny may have an attitude, but he's an RBI machine. AROD is too, but it's not really an AROD for Manny comparison, but an AROD plus ???? for Manny plus Nomar. If the Sox end up with a second tier outfielder, the trade may be a net loss.

Long term, Nomar may not have stuck around after next year, but the Rangers learned the hard way that even 25 mill is an awful lot of money to devote to one player, and it could be worse if they end up eating part of Manny's salary. If the sky's the limit and they adopt George's philosophy about never worrying about salary again, then the Sox are better off long term with this deal. But if, two years from now, they start pinching pennies and complaining about how much money George is spending on his team, this will not be looked at as a good move. All in my Yankee-fan tainted opinion, of course.

One possibility that the Sox may be banking on, that could make this deal really worth it, is if the salary freedom for the Rangers means the Rangers can make a real bid for Petitte. If George doesn't sign Andy soon, that could happen, and Theo will be smiling his way to Spring training.
 
10blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 331038201
      Sun, Dec 07, 2003, 15:26 		Pi hit it on the nose on all counts. It's not that the Red Sox aren't making good trades, or that they aren't winning, because they're doing both. It's that they are spending almost as freely as the Yankees and not being called on it (and not advancing as far).
 
12Da Bomb
      ID: 339511119
      Sun, Dec 07, 2003, 16:55 		I just wouldn't understand if the Sox made this
deal. Whose better, Arod and Gabe Kapler or Nomar
and Manny? I'd take the latter any day.
 
13KrazyKoalaBears
      Leader
      ID: 517553018
      Sun, Dec 07, 2003, 19:44 		Da Bomb, it's all about the contracts.
 
14Tree
      Donor
      ID: 61127610
      Sun, Dec 07, 2003, 19:47 		It's that they are spending almost as freely as the Yankees and not being called on it (and not advancing as far).

1. key word being "almost"...additionally, the Yankees have been doing it for years. just because someone is finally taking the game to them, instead of letting them run away with things is no reason to call them on it, unless you're a whiney Yankee fan.

2. advancing doesn't mean dick. winning the world series does. by that measuring stick, and really, that's the only one that counts, the yankees and red sox are on equal footing.
 
15Mattinglyinthehall
      Sustainer
      ID: 217351118
      Sun, Dec 07, 2003, 21:10 		Lets get this straight, tree. You don't hate the Yankees because of the impact that their gluttony has on the rest of the league. If you did, you would be calling the Red Sox and all other overspending big market teams to task as well and you certainly wouldn't call anyone who does so a "whiney Yankee fan". You sound like conservatives who call all war protestors unpatriotic. You just hate the Yankees because they have the resources to play the "overspending game" better than everyone else, and because they do. You're perfectly fine with the rules the Yankees play by, because you encourage other teams to outplay the Yankees by those same rules.
 
16The Great One
      ID: 91133420
      Sun, Dec 07, 2003, 21:46 		The Sox are even starting to annoy me. I wish they would add a complimentary part or two and continue to build their organization from the ground up rather than from the top down.

The ARod thing really gets me because:

1) I don't see why you really need to upgrade a perennial MVP candidate middle infielder. I know ARod is an upgrade, but something should be said for having players like Nomar play their entire career in one uniform.

2) They are emulating the Steinrenner way of doing things when it isn't even working for the Yankees. They have not had good success when they have tried buying players. They were at their est when they built their team from the ground up.

The most under-reported aspect of this postseason (Gammons is the one guy who I have seen write on it) is that the union and agents are messing everything up. Manny wants out of Boston and Boston wants Manny gone, but they can't just either tear up the contract or revise it so that Manny can go somewhere he'd be happier. Instead, the Sox are going to have to deal a potential HOF shortstop (albeit for another HOF shortstop) just to move a guy who doesn't even want to be there.
 
17R9
      ID: 7115044
      Sun, Dec 07, 2003, 22:21 		You just hate the Yankees because they have the resources to play the "overspending game" better than everyone else.

Couldn't have said it any better myself. You finally got it. Although from your tone you make it sound like its not justifiable. I guess its still progress though. ;)

-------------------------------

Ok, I just don't see the Red Sox 'playing the Yankee game'. They traded for an ace and gave up absolutely nothing. (shame on you Arizona!) Thats it. No FA's, no other trades... just one guy and a new manager.

Oh sure, they've 'talked' to Texas about Arod. But the media has speculated and reported it to death. The only comment Epstein will make is "No comment. What part of 'I'll never comment on trades/FA's' did you guys not understand back in October?" For all we know Epstein called up Texas and said "Arod for Manny, you in? What?? Eat some of his salary?? Buh Bye." Sure Tom Hicks has said the sides are still talking, but thats exactly what your supposed to say when your trying to fleece someone out of tens of millions of dollars. Doesn't mean Boston is about to bite. Even assuming they get Foulke, which is by no means certain, their payroll will be what, 120 mil? The Yankees are looking to push 200 if they sign Pettitte, Colon and Sheff. So lets tone down the comparisons a bit...
 
18Mattinglyinthehall
      Sustainer
      ID: 217351118
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 07:01 		They traded for an ace and gave up absolutely nothing. (shame on you Arizona!) Thats it. No FA's, no other trades... just one guy and a new manager.

R9, all of the posts since #9 that are critical of the Red Sox are based on the assumption that this trade goes through.

Although from your tone you make it sound like its not justifiable. I guess its still progress though.

No, I don't see how it's justifyable, but so long as you are happy to admit that you are a hater just for the simple sake of being a hater and not some greater ethical reasoning about how the Yankees' spending affects other teams, well, at lest you're not a hypocrite.
 
19Khahan
      ID: 3127107
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 09:28 		Ok, were the Red Sox over the luxury tax thresshold last year?
Are over it right now?
Have they been over it multiple years in a row?
The Red Sox are free spending, but still under the cap.
There is no comparison between what they are doing and what the yankees have been doing. Yet.
 
20Pi314159
      Donor
      ID: 21311112
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 09:38 		Tree,
I assume I'm included in the "whiney Yankee fan" comment, so in my/our defense, I should make clear that I'm not thrilled about the overspending Yankees strategy. It is what it is, and I'm not abandoning my team because of it, but that strategy hasn't been working too well lately and I'd rather see the Yanks build more from the ground up than top down, as TGO put it. I'm trying to be fair by saying that the Schilling deal was brilliant but that I just see the upgrade from Nomar to AROD as pure gluttony and not necessarily a smart move in the end (unless they end up with a good replacement for Manny). If the Yanks did the same thing, I'd admit that was gluttonous too.
 
21Catfish
      Leader
      ID: 35262811
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 09:45 		Vlad is now defintely available, not that there was much doubt. Expos are not offering arbitration.
 
22Mattinglyinthehall
      Sustainer
      ID: 1629107
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 09:52 		OMG

k Ok, were the Red Sox over the luxury tax thresshold last year?

Khahan, The people who decided what the luxury tax threshold would be made the decision to place it below what the Yankees and Mets were already spending and above what every other team was spending. The Mets lowered their payroll by moving Burnitz and Alomar to avoid paying the tax. If they would have chosen to make the threshold $100mil, then Boston, LA, Tex and maybe some other teams would have had to pay it, too. But they chose to make it higher than any of those teams were already spending, but not more than the Yankees were already spending.

k Are over it right now?

I'm not sure, there's a good chance they might be.

k Have they been over it multiple years in a row?

You're kidding, right? The luxury tax has only been in effect for one year. Nice try.

k There is no comparison between what they are doing and what the yankees have been doing. Yet.

And they call me an apologist. Pathetic.

Note that I'm not (nor have I ever) complained about the placement of the tax threshold, but to claim that the Yankees are doing something that the Red Sox and other big spending teams are not is bunk.
 
23blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 710321114
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 10:23 		I'm not a whiney Yankee fan, that's for sure. Just do a search on "It's always the Yankees" right here on the Guru boards. And I actually think the Mets are even worse, since they spend so much and don't even win.

Khahan 19 is dead wrong, but MITH already took him to task for it. There's a clear comparison between what the Yankees and Red Sox are doing. It's all a measure of degree.

You know who else we haven't talked about? The Phillies. They definitely need to be spanked for their recent actions, although more direct blame goes to the Twins and Astros.
 
24Khahan
      ID: 3127107
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 10:45 		How is it dead wrong? yankees were over the tax last year. They are over it currently. that is 2 years in a row.
Other teams that were close or over trimmed payroll last year so they were not. The Yankees simply added more.
Also, I like how everybody ignores the last part of my post: Yet.
No, the Red Sox are not doing what the yankees have done, yet.
All I'm saying is that is a little unfair to start calling Boston to task right now. A little premature.
Sure, maybe after 2-3 years of moving like this and adding payroll like this, that comparison will be perfectly valid and legit.
But to start ranting and raving about it now...well lets just say its a candle compared to a bonfire.
 
25Mattinglyinthehall
      Sustainer
      ID: 1629107
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 11:09 		Khahan, I ignore the last part of your post because I didn't disagree with it. Further, as I said in post 18, any criticism over the Red Sox in this thread (as I've understood it) is made on the assumption that this deal goes through.

But I guess the main problem here is that you use past and present tenses and singular and plural forms interchangeably. You say, "Other teams that were close or over trimmed payroll last year".

But that's not true. Just one team - the Mets fits that category.

You wrote, "yankees were over the tax last year. They are over it currently. that is 2 years in a row."

For someone who makes such a big deal over the word, "Yet", you sure are loose with your own use of verbal tenses. In post 19 you asked "Have they been over it multiple years in a row".

You can't have it both ways pal.

19 was dead wrong. If you want to amend what you origionally said, by all means go ahead, but don't try to claim that you were right by changing around what you origionally wrote. You think people won't call you on that?
 
26Khahan
      ID: 3127107
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 11:19 		Ok, what I intend and what you interpret are 2 different things Mith. Though, in this case I do see your point about what I wrote.
So, like I meant to say, the tax was put into place for 2003 season. yankees ignored it and kept going. Now, come 2004, they are again ignoring it and adding more and more and more payroll.
I was trying to be succint.
Boston stayed under in 2003. They appear as if they are going to breach it in 2004. However, even if the A-rod deal goes through, they will follow that up with a Nomar trade which will affect payroll.
So again, its too early to say if Boston will be over the tax. However, even if they are over in 2004, it does not mean they are going to continue to be over in 2005 and 06.
 
27R9
      ID: 7115044
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 11:27 		R9, all of the posts since #9 that are critical of the Red Sox are based on the assumption that this trade goes through.

Fair enough. Yet I still have a hard time blasting the Sox (or even the Phillies as hen said) when they make a lot of moves in the 1-2 year span that they have a chance to win it all. Lots of teams do that. Hell, even Cleveland did it back in the mid 90's, and they're obviously not big market. The Yankees on the other hand ALWAYS have a chance to win it all, and thus spend big every year. If Boston is still doing this 4-5 years from now, fine. But so far I just don't see it.

No, I don't see how it's justifyable, but so long as you are happy to admit that you are a hater just for the simple sake of being a hater and not some greater ethical reasoning about how the Yankees' spending affects other teams, well, at lest you're not a hypocrite.

I guess hate is a strong word here. I'd prefer dislike, or that they 'annoy' me. Simply put, they outspend everyone else by a wide margin and I think it sucks for competetive balance. When another team reaches 175 million I'll dislike them too, assuming of course that there are still a number of teams below 60-70 million. That kind of 100 million discrepency is just terrible.
 
28Mattinglyinthehall
      Sustainer
      ID: 1629107
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 11:36 		Khahan, don't you see that if you insist on using the luxury tax threshold as the mark for payroll irresponsibility you can't blame the Yankees for being over that threshold in '03. The threshold was deliberately placed so that the Yankees had no choice but to pay it without removing themselves from contention. They could have placed it at $145 mil (just below the Yankees payroll at the time when the tax and threshold were set in place), and perhaps they would have tried to get and stay under it. Or they could have put it at $100m and saw to it that all of the big spending teams would pay their share into the system. But they CHOSE to put it where we all knew that only the Yankees were likely to be affected (everyone knew the Mets would be paring salary after their disaster in '02).

Further, using the threshold as this marker for something to bitch about makes no sense, whatsoever. I was put where it was put for the specific purpose of making the Yankees pay and no one else. Why in the world (as you apparently suggest) are the Red Sox not deserving of criticism untill they breach that threshold? What's the significance with that particular number?
 
29Khahan
      ID: 3127107
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 11:56 		Significance of that particular number, Mith?
I guess none really. Other than the fact that it gives people a hard concrete $$$ figure to work with.
But luxury tax aside, just refer to the main point I'm making and the point R9 is making:
The Yankees have been doing this for years and years and years.
Boston is starting to push the limits of 'reasonable' spending (meaning they are going out signing the big names and spending the big bucks pretty freely) this year. If they continue to do so over the next 2-3 years, then call them out for it.
Until then, there is no real comparison. Right now its a 1 year act vs a long term habit.
 
30Mattinglyinthehall
      Sustainer
      ID: 1629107
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 11:58 		R9

When another team reaches 175 million I'll dislike them too, assuming of course that there are still a number of teams below 60-70 million. That kind of 100 million discrepency is just terrible.

So you weren't annoyed by the Yankees until their payroll hit $175 mil during the '03 season? I'm not trying to be wise, just trying to get a feel for exactly what your gripe is.
 
31Mattinglyinthehall
      Sustainer
      ID: 1629107
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 12:02 		Boston is starting to push the limits of 'reasonable' spending (meaning they are going out signing the big names and spending the big bucks pretty freely) this year.

And that's the issue right there. Who are you to say what the limits of reasonable spending are?? Any Royals or Pirates fans will resent that statement as if it were made about the Yankees. They will point out the Manny signing and flip you off for saying that. You use the luxury tax threshold as the difference between responsible and irresponsible for one reason only - it suit you to do so.
 
32blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 710321114
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 12:23 		Being over the limit isn't the point. That's why it's there and teams that go over are duly punished, in cash form.

The issue is more about always going after the big names. Jason Giambi. Mike Mussina. Gary Sheffield. Hideki Matsui. Even Roger Clemens (via trade). The Yankees have always been quite free to sign whatever big name free agent filled their need (or perceived need) without any danger of losing their own free-agents (Bernie Williams, Derek Jeter, etc) and even overpaying those same free agents.

Now the Red Sox have obtained Curt Schilling and are talking about upgrading the 2nd best shortstop in baseball. They paid way too much for Manny Ramirez. The guys they don't sign are the Todd Walkers of the world - emminently replaceable. The Red Sox aren't THAT bad about all this, but they are definitely 2nd place in that department, and all they can do is throw eggs at the Yankees.
 
33James K Polk
      ID: 51010719
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 12:46 		The threshold was deliberately placed so that the Yankees had no choice but to pay it without removing themselves from contention.

Without removing themselves from contention?
 
34Mattinglyinthehall
      Sustainer
      ID: 1629107
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 12:48 		JKP, in the pre 2003 AL East, the Yankees couldn't have possibly pared $33mil without removing themselves from contention, if they could have at all.
 
35biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 13:26 		They chose to bench Jason Giambi in the playoffs for jeepers' sakes! Of course they could have contended while spending 33mil less. Absurd.
 
36R9
      ID: 7115044
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 13:32 		So you weren't annoyed by the Yankees until their payroll hit $175 mil during the '03 season? I'm not trying to be wise, just trying to get a feel for exactly what your gripe is.

My gripe is with one team (or even several, just right now to me its one) having a huge financial advantage over others. I think that sucks. Last year it was 175 million with the Yanks, and in hockey it was Detroit and the Rangers. Other years and other sports it might be different teams.

I love the game of baseball, but more and more I find myself disinterested in watching games. I didn't even watch one WS game this year. The main thing I find interesting about baseball now is the economics. I'm Majoring in Economics now, and I've always followed the markets with interest. So I watch how teams spend, how the market forces shift... but the actual GAME, the one I grew up playing, is losing interest for me, mainly because my teams can't be competitive. And that just plain sucks. :(
 
37James K Polk
      ID: 51010719
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 13:34 		The threshhold was $117 million. So what you're telling me is that the Yankees could have cut to that point, which would have still left them the highest-paid team in all of baseball, and yet you Yankees fans would have been as hopeless as Pirate fans are?

I'm not quite sure what that says about the way the Yankees are built.

I also think it's hard to get sympathy as a "target" when your team's payroll is 155% of the second-biggest spender.
 
38Mattinglyinthehall
      Sustainer
      ID: 1629107
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 13:39 		That's a load, Bili. You act like paring $33mil off your salary is as easy as blinking and wiggling your nose. Any knowledgable baseball fan knows that these prohibitive contracts are added to payrolls much more easily than they are shed. Exactly what could the Yankees have done to rid themselves of $33mil prior to the start of the '03 season? You think people were lining up to take on Bernie's and Jeter's contracts? They coud have moved Clemens' 1 year, $10mil deal. That leaves $23mil to shed. Before this season, word was that Posada was in serious decline so no one would have considered taking on his remaining 4 years at $32mil (including the $4m buyout of the 5th year, which would otherwise cost $12m). Perhaps you think Mussina's $10mil 2003 salary ($59.5m for 4 years) was one they could have moved. If so, they'd still need to move anoter $13mil, and at still that far away from getting under the threshold, the 2003 Yankees don't make the playoffs without Clemens and Mussina.
 
39Mattinglyinthehall
      Sustainer
      ID: 1629107
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 13:43 		I'm not quite sure what that says about the way the Yankees are built.

No argument from me on that, Polk. This team wasn't built to be easily torn down.

I also think it's hard to get sympathy as a "target" when your team's payroll is 155% of the second-biggest spender

Who's looking for sympathy? My only point was that you can't blame the Yankees for being over the threshold in it's first year of existance when that magic number was determined based on what the Yankees were already spending.
 
40biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 49132614
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 14:35 		I never said it would easy to pare down, MITH. I just called you on the rediculous argument that they couldn't have contended with 33mil less in payroll. That any team would struggling futily im MLB while restricted the a pitiable $117 million payroll was the gigantic, stinking, steaming pile of nonsense. (sorry. just walked my dog, and the imagery is not hard to conjure up).
 
41Mattinglyinthehall
      Sustainer
      ID: 1629107
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 14:58 		I just called you on the rediculous argument that they couldn't have contended with 33mil less in payroll.

You are attributing to me something different from what I said. Fromm the beginning all I said was that they couldn't have pared $33mil from their payroll and remained in contention. If you want to make a case that this is ridiculous, I'm all ears. If your going to swich the semantics around to try to make me look foolish, I'm not interested in what you have to say.
 
42biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 49132614
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 15:25 		I don't I have any idea how I switched anything around. I didn't intend to, nor do I now see, any material difference from what I said and what you said. Your statement didn't highlight the difficulty of cutting 33 million from the payroll, it said if they did so they wouldn't remain in contention if they did. Precisely what I said was absurd and untrue. If you'd said "It would be difficult to pare down $33 million in a short time period because there are few potential trading partners that can afford such lofty contracts besides the Yankees" I wouldn't have argued the point.
 
43James K Polk
      ID: 51010719
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 15:25 		MITH, you're saying that because of the way the Yankees chose to dole out their contracts, cutting $33 million would have badly hurt them. We are saying that any team spending $117 million has no excuse not to be a contender.
 
44Mattinglyinthehall
      Sustainer
      ID: 1629107
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 15:38 		Your statement didn't highlight the difficulty of cutting 33 million from the payroll

Huh? My original statement from post 28:
"The threshold was deliberately placed so that the Yankees had no choice but to pay it without removing themselves from contention."

In other words, in order to get DOWN to the threshold, they would have had to remove themselves from contention.

My explanation of that initial statement, after it was challenged by JKP:
the Yankees couldn't have possibly pared $33mil without removing themselves from contention, if they could have at all.

Do you not understand "pared"? The difficulty of cutting $33mil is exactly what I've been talking about all along, and I really don't see how you could have misunderstood me. Polk, who disagrees with me on another level, clearly understands what I meant.
 
46Mattinglyinthehall
      Sustainer
      ID: 1629107
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 15:45 		Polk
We are saying that any team spending $117 million has no excuse not to be a contender.

No, you are saying that much. Bili is saying some other thing. I agree with that statement of yours, but it's entirely besides the point. The sole purpose of that initial statement, was to support my position that the Yankees can't be blamed for being over the luxury tax threshold when that number was determined based on how much they were already spending at that point in time. Perhaps I should try another route because my head apparently will not break through this wall no matter how much I keep banging. The Yankees '03 payroll was already almost $150million BEFORE the tax threshold was established at $117m. This figure obviously was established to ensure that the Yankees would pay the tax, while allowing all 29 other clubs to avoid it.

And to avoid further potential misunderstanding, I'll post again part of what I wrote at the bottom of post 22:

Note that I'm not (nor have I ever) complained about the placement of the tax threshold...
 
47Filthy Rich
      ID: 4946223
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 15:54 		You might get some pity if the Yankees actually showed some concern about being over the threshold, but as it stands they are looking to be twice as far over it this year. Wasnt the luxury tax created to scare teams off from spending so freely.
 
48Mattinglyinthehall
      Sustainer
      ID: 1629107
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 15:58 		You might get some pity if...

Bang

Bang

Bang

Bang

Bang

Bang
 
49Mattinglyinthehall
      Sustainer
      ID: 1629107
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 15:59 		Filthy Rich, No one is looking for pity.
 
50biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 49132614
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 16:36 		Whatever, MITH. I don't want to give you a headache or further brain damage.

Just to clarify, I didn't and don't argue that it wouldn't have been difficult cut their payroll in a short time period (though they obviously, given their current spending, wouldn't don't have any interest in doing so, ragardless of how long they are given). You are absolutely, positively right. It would have been hard to do. Correctamundo. I whole-heartedly support that ascertion. No question, baby. You got it. (now stop banging your head).

I took as a second, related point that you were making that if they had made any attempt to do this (which they obviously never would have, given their current increased spending and apparent acceptance of the tax) they couldn't have contended. I got this impression you were making this point because, well, it appeared you said exactly that. This is the statement I commented I thought was false. They could have contended if they have pared down under the cap. If you didn't make this point, then never mind. Skip it. Pretend I didn't say it. (and stop banging your head.) I obviously don't understand the English language.
 
51Mattinglyinthehall
      Sustainer
      ID: 217351118
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 17:56 		Bili, I did make that secondary point. My post 41:

they couldn't have pared $33mil from their payroll and remained in contention. If you want to make a case that this is ridiculous, I'm all ears.

I'm still all ears. How could the Yankees have pared $33m from their payroll as it stood on Feb '03, and remained in cointention?
 
52biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 49132614
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 18:18 		Presuming they could manage the already agreed upon difficult task of removing the $33 million from their payroll (perhaps miraculously trading Giambi for Travis Lee, Jeter for Alex Cora, Pettitte for Dontrelle Willis would get pretty close), I would have to say that the remaining team would most certainly have still been very, very much in contention for the post-season.
 
53Mattinglyinthehall
      Sustainer
      ID: 217351118
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 18:23 		Derek Jeter $ 15,600,000
Raul Mondesi $ 13,000,000
Bernie Williams $ 12,357,143
Mike Mussina $ 12,000,000
Andy Pettitte $ 11,500,000
Jason Giambi $ 11,428,571
Mariano Rivera $ 10,500,000
Roger Clemens $ 10,100,000
Jorge Posada $ 8,000,000
Sterling Hitchcock $ 6,000,000
Hideki Matsui $ 6,000,000
Jose Contreras $ 5,500,000
Robin Ventura $ 5,000,000
Jeff Weaver $ 4,150,000
David Wells $ 3,250,000
Bubba Trammell $ 2,500,000
Antonio Osuna $ 2,400,000
Chris Hammond $ 2,200,000
Todd Zeile $ 1,500,000
Alfonso Soriano $ 800,000
John Flaherty $ 750,000
Enrique Wilson $ 700,000
Ruben Sierra $ 600,000
Chris Latham $ 400,000
Nick Johnson $ 364,100
Jason Anderson $ 300,000

Those contracts add up to just under $147 million. Find $33 million in there that the Yankees could have dumped (remember, you have to make a case that there would have been suitors prior to the 2003 season) and yet remained in contention.
 
54Mattinglyinthehall
      Sustainer
      ID: 217351118
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 18:25 		Bili 52, I'm talking realisticly. I want you tro show me how the Yankees could possibly have pared $33 million and remained in contention. You said the notion that they couldn't is absurd. Put up.
 
55biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 49132614
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 18:25 		remember, you have to make a case that there would have been suitors prior to the 2003 season.

Why? I already made a specific point that there were few if any who could pay Yankee-level salaries, and whole-heartedly (actually more than whole-heartedly) agreed that it would be difficult to do.

 
57Mattinglyinthehall
      Sustainer
      ID: 217351118
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 18:28 		Well then I have successfully shown your contention that my initial and subsequent statements were "absurd" is wrong.
 
58biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 49132614
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 18:33 		You picked a bad week to stop sniffing glue, MITH.

Should I get you a banner, a flight-suit and an aircraft carrier as well? Proclaimations based in delusion don't usually get much credit with me.
 
59Mattinglyinthehall
      Sustainer
      ID: 217351118
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 18:35 		Proclaimations base on delusion? Whats the delusion?
 
60Mattinglyinthehall
      Sustainer
      ID: 217351118
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 18:36 		What proclaimation?
 
61Mattinglyinthehall
      Sustainer
      ID: 217351118
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 18:43 		Lets just recap here.

MITH - Yanks couldn't have shaved that much salary and contended.

Bili - Absurd.

MITH - DO tell.

Bili - Easy. Swap Pettitte for Willis, Giambi for Lee, Jeter for Cora. There you go, a sub-luxury-tax contender.

MITH - Uh, none of that could have actually happened. You still haven't shown how what I said was absurd.

Bili - You're delusional.

MITH - Huh?
 
62Bandos
      Donor
      ID: 422571916
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 18:52 		A few points to help clarify:

The luxury tax did in fact exist, in a different form, prior to 2003, and yes, there were several teams over it, including Boston and NY among others. This is why Steinbrenner was complaining cuz he (not one of the richest 50 people) was sending money to Carl Pohlad (one of the 50 richest) and they were pocketing it. Thus we need a Salary Floor (for another thread)

The luxury tax threshold was a compromise between the owners who wanted it at 100 mil and the players union at 135 mil, thus 117.5 was what they(after a year of bargaining!) came up with. It goes up, as does the percentage you pay if you are consistently over the top. MITH is absolutely right that the UNION was trying to defend the Yankees payroll as it was driving those salaries way upward to the benefit of the players.

I admire that all seem to agree that the Schilling trade was great for Boston, who do have a shot to win it all. How it was for the Brewcrew and D-backs is yet to be seen. That is not spending willy nilly. The same money for Millwood would ahve been spending willy-nilly.

So the question is: Does the pursuit of A-rod, rumor, whatever, constitute "They're doing exactly what the Yankees are doing, but not quite as well."

First off, you have to take into consideration the difference in ownership and management. DanD STUDIPLY overpaid for Manny to try to save his own ass after the MO and Clemens debacles (though letting MO go doesnt seem so bad now does it?). Has present ownership OVERPAID for anyone? NO. You could argue that the 17.5 mil option for Pedro is overpaying, but that was previous management's contract and keeping Pedro was contingent on it - nonetheless - its a one year blip. If Pedro doesn't sign for under 13 mil a year, he's gone now, the Sox have made that clear. Is Schilling overpaid - I don't think so.

Compare this to Giambi, Williams, Posada, Mussina, Jeter who all appear to be overpaid.

The Sox fill in holes with guys like Ortiz and Millar, not Sheffield.

But Simply
110->100->105, last three years Sox payroll
110->135->180, last three years Yanks

Pretty different to me. The Yanks Pitching staff alone will be more than most teams entire salary anbd the cheapest everyday player will be sori at around 5 mil a year. Every team in the majors respects the cap the Yanks don't. They don't have to so why should they. This isn't whining, its fact. Them's the rules, everyone agreed to them, however reluctantly, now we play by them.

Ah, but doesnt the apparent pursuit of an upgrade at SS appear to say the Sox are willing to spend "just like the Yankees". NO. Here's why.

You have to understanbd the whole story. The main goal is NOT to get A-rod.

1) This is about getting rid of Manny's contract, NOT about getting A-rod.

We tried to unload Manny's contract on ANYONE, no takers, so if we HAVE to take A-rod, we will. Is he worth 25 mil/yr - NO, is he worth 5 mil more than Manny - yes. Can the Sox afford ONE bad contract - yes.

2) This is about bargaining with Nomar, not about getting A-rod.

Not until today did I ever hear Nomar utter the Words "I want to retire in a Boston uniform." So there was much speculation that he wanted to leave. The Sox approached Tellum (Nomar's agent) and offered what is reported at about 14 mil per year, 3-5 years - the standard for this new ownership/management group. That offer was rejected out of hand, they wanted closer to Jeter money - 18 mil. So if you are Red Sox ownership what do you do? HOPE Nomar changes his mind and let him walk while picking up Royce Clayton. Overspend for Nomar AND Manny. NO. You begin planning for life without Nomar. The only replacements are Tejada, Matsui(a Met), A-rod.

Not only, along with Tejada only getting 10 mil or less, does this increase the bargaining HAND and drive down the price for Nomar, but the possibility of UPGRADING at SS from Nomar quells any public backlash at management. This is fricking Genius business.

The SOX will not eat any of Manny's contract. So the scenario plays out like this if Nomar's demands don't begin to understand the new reality.

Manny and Williamson to texas for A-rod
Nomar to Anaheim for Washburn and Glaus (who WILL walk from Anaheim after 2004) or if they could pry Garrett Anderson away.

It's a reasonable scenario, money wise and keeps them under or just over the cap. Thus, its a great bargaining position. "You want to test the FA waters next year, Nomie, and get 3 yrs 11 mil from San Diego/Anaheim et al, or stay in Boston for 12-14 mil a year, use Fenway park to get to the HOF, become the guy who brought the championship, etc etc etc." You choose.


GREAT ONE :"The ARod thing really gets me because:

1) I don't see why you really need to upgrade a perennial MVP candidate middle infielder. I know ARod is an upgrade, but something should be said for having players like Nomar play their entire career in one uniform.

2) They are emulating the Steinrenner way of doing things when it isn't even working for the Yankees. They have not had good success when they have tried buying players. They were at their est when they built their team from the ground up."

I hope you see the reason this whole thing is happening now and realize that 25 mil for A-rod and 8-9 mil for a LF = the offense production of Manny and Nomar, AND better Defense.
 
63Mattinglyinthehall
      Sustainer
      ID: 217351118
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 19:02 		This is about getting rid of Manny's contract, NOT about getting A-rod.

We tried to unload Manny's contract on ANYONE, no takers, so if we HAVE to take A-rod, we will. Is he worth 25 mil/yr - NO, is he worth 5 mil more than Manny - yes. Can the Sox afford ONE bad contract - yes.

The SOX will not eat any of Manny's contract. So the scenario plays out like this if Nomar's demands don't begin to understand the new reality.


Bandos, by every account that I've read, Texas isn't willing to deal ARod to Boston unless Boston pays some of Manny's salary. Obviously, that's the stumbling block here, but understand that Texas certainly realizes that Manny's contract is much more of an albatross than ARod's. I wouldn't be surprised if Boston winds up giving in and and covers 1/4 to 1/3 of it.
 
64Mattinglyinthehall
      Sustainer
      ID: 217351118
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 19:12 		Btw Bandos, your salary floor comment was well taken, even if it is for another thread.
 
65biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 49132614
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 19:32 		You are being deliberately dense, MITH.

For the 3rd time, I've already agreed with you that it would have been difficult to impossible to shave that much salary in that short a time. You tirelessly ignore this fact and keep insisting on my defending a position that is the opposite of what I believe. Let the strawman catch fire burn to the ground.
 
66Mattinglyinthehall
      Sustainer
      ID: 217351118
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 19:40 		Bili
If that's the case then I apologize. The way I was understood your posts (and frankly I still guess I don't understand what you could must in some of them), you seemd to be conceding that point and still insisting that what I said was absurd, knowing that I was speaking under those terms all along.
 
67biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 49132614
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 19:43 		It's all about whether the yankees could contend. That is the ONLY thing I was commenting on.

Let me make it simple: if 33 million dollars worth of Yankee players were tragically trampled in a DVD stampede at Walmart, the Yanks would still be favorites to win the World Series.

That you speculate that they wouldn't even be in contention for the playoffs I found absurd.
 
68Mattinglyinthehall
      Sustainer
      ID: 217351118
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 19:47 		I was trying to show you in 44 that I was speaking under those terms frok the begining.
 
69Mattinglyinthehall
      Sustainer
      ID: 217351118
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 19:47 		from the beginning.
 
70biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 49132614
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 19:51 		Okay, maybe it's me that doesn't understand. Are you suggesting that they would have had to get rid of 100 million in players to get to 117 million payroll?

Even then, I seem to remember several teams in contention this year that were around 50 million.
 
71Tastethewaste
      ID: 249352813
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 20:00 		Sheesh youre both dense

Mith is dealing in the logistical matter of how to get rid of 33 million dollars of payroll and still be in contention while Bili is dealing in the hypothetical of taking away 33 million dollars worth of players off the roster and saying the yankees would still be good.

Its very easy to understand

Mondesi get rid of 13 million 20 to go
Hitchcock, Ventura, Contreras and Weaver... done. I think the yankees are still a contender with that roster.

Now who would take those guys at those values for nothing is what Mith is trying to say...i hope, and bili is saying its not the point

JKP was saying if the yankees got rid of 33 million and couldnt contend then the yankees are awfully mismanaged, because anyone should be able to contend if you spend 117 million dollars even remotely well. Mith agreed with that.

Right?
 
72biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 49132614
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 20:02 		Righto, Taste. Except I'm still not sure what MITH meant when he said they couldn't contend.
 
73Mattinglyinthehall
      Sustainer
      ID: 217351118
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 20:11 		NO. Here's what I think happened. I said...

"in the pre 2003 AL East, the Yankees couldn't have possibly pared $33mil without removing themselves from contention, if they could have at all."

...And you apparently didn't think that I was taking into consideration the difficulties in actually moving $33 million dollars worth of real contracts from their roster and be left with a team that contended. I was saying that if the Yankees really wanted to avoid paying the luxury tax this year, they would have had to approach their problem the way that I presented it to you in post 53.

It would have been difficult enough for them to have found suitors for $33m worth of those contracts and get Major League talent in return for all of it, much less at the positions they needed to replace in the time they had to act. Factor in the challenge of doing this and having the end result be a contender in the AL East and I don't see how they could have done it.

You apparently were stuck on the idea that my hypothetical did not include realistic stipulations and could not get past the literal wording of my post, even after I repeatedly explained myself, and insisted that what I was saying was absurd.

Of course you can remove a bunch of those big contracts and replace them with smaller, more efficiant ones. You can do it at every position and build a sure winner, better than the '03 Yankees. But The Yankees in real life could not simply do that, and you couldn't seem to get it in your head that this was what I meant. Perhaps I still confused, but I really don't think I was being (as) dense.
 
74Mattinglyinthehall
      Sustainer
      ID: 217351118
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 20:14 		Tastethewaste expressed it better than I appear to be capable of.

Thanks.
 
75Mattinglyinthehall
      Sustainer
      ID: 217351118
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 20:19 		I'm still not sure what MITH meant when he said they couldn't

I leave open the possibility that they might be able to dump those contracts off on other teams, but the twisting they'd have to do in order to get under the cap would not leave a team that contends. In other words, in order to get a team to take Hitchcock, I might have to pair him with Moose in exchange for a 10 million dollar Headache.
 
76Unemployed
      Donor
      ID: 42103617
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 21:01 		Yikes!! This is not what the thread title led me to believe ... so what's this I hear about Arod and the Evil Empire II?
 
77The Great One
      ID: 91133420
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 21:34 		OK, how about this for a weird scenario?

What if George and Hicks are in cahoots? Say the Yankees didn't want Manny @ 20 million, but they would pay him 15. If Hicks can get the Sox to pay 5 million of Manny's salary per season, then they make the Manny for ARod deal. Then Texas puts Manny on irrevokale waivers and the Yankees claim him, taking on his 15 million per season. They put him in left, Matsui in center and Sheffield in right, moving Bernie to DH.

Texas gets out from under ARod at no cost to them.

New York not only gets Manny, but gets the ultimate joke on the Sox owners as they are now paying Manny 5 million per season to play for the Yankees.



Again, this is really just meant to be an interesting scenario, not a prediction or anything.
 
78Mattinglyinthehall
      Sustainer
      ID: 217351118
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 21:36 		Would the Sox be free of his contract once he is placed on waivers?
 
79The Great One
      ID: 91133420
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 21:48 		I don't think so if he is claimed, but I am not 100% certain.
 
80Farn
      Sustainer
      ID: 451044109
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 23:21 		I thought if he was placed on waivers the Sox would be free of his contract. That's why they tried to do it a few weeks ago.

Unless its different if you ahve agreed to pay $5 million and then somebody else dumps him...
 
81Tastethewaste
      ID: 269383120
      Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 23:40 		Bili, post 72. He's saying for example, the 5 people I mentioned no one would take off the yankees hands at their price tag for nothing. So Mith is saying...realistically or not for the yankees to shed payroll they would have to give up better players take on other players who either also have huge contracts or are huge headaches which would result in more losses and not much of a difference on their payroll. You cant just get rid of Hitchcocks salary and not have to pick up another persons salary or take on a head case or pair hitchcock with someone else on the yankees that is really good, like Hitchcock and Soriano for oh i dont know Vina lets say. So the yankees save some money but not nearly the equivalent of just dumping hitchcock and get worse at 2b. Do that over and over and suddenly you have a 117 million dollar team full of malcontents and worse players than they already had.
I still think this is possible, but we're not GMs and I dont know what GMs of different teams are interested in. Maybe Omar Minaya wouldve done Vidro for Soriano and Hitchcock but then again im sure montreal wouldve made the yankees also pay some of Hitchcocks contract and thus the yankees are not getting under the cap and they're not getting better. Thats all hes saying.
Mith make sure i got it right, im starting to confuse myself.

P.S. The yankees spend too much money and its not good for competitive balance. The redsox are being forced to do the same because they feel they have a good team and can beat the yankees but feel they need to spend more. Its the Cold War of baseball and poor KC, Pitt, and Minn are 3rd world countries.

Some of these teams are just mismanaged and need to get their head out of the sand and start trying to compete. See Milwaukee, stupid Bud Selig big idiot and shouldnt his daughter have to sell the team, isnt that conflict of interest?

The End
 
82Matt S
      Donor
      ID: 34945140
      Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 03:18 		Does anybody else see a striking similarity with the current Yankees-Sox situation and the Cold War? ;)
 
83Mattinglyinthehall
      Sustainer
      ID: 217351118
      Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 06:43 		Yeah. And the Yankees ultimately wound up beating the red guys in that one, too.
 
84Mattinglyinthehall
      Sustainer
      ID: 217351118
      Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 06:44 		;)
 
85Cosmo's Cod Piece
      ID: 53439419
      Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 06:51 		Matt S.: I see the similarity, but this war is nothing but Cold. Its Hot. These two teams really step it up a notch when they face each other.

Being a Cubs fan and White Sox hater, I really have no interest in American League baseball. Perhaps I'll have a greater interest this year as my beloved Coo could wind up in the World Series. However, I never miss a Yankees/Red Sox game on television. Roger Clemens was my favorite player when I was a wee lass and before Kerry Wood came along, so that adds a nice dynamic to the rivalry for me.

I think this rivalry is great for the game. Even the financial aspects of it. Both sides are playing the system in which they're constrained. I can see where Big Stein's strategy can tick off some people, but like the great WWE philospher Booker T said, "Don't hate the playa'. Hate the game."

 
86The Great One
      ID: 91133420
      Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 07:19 		Bandos-

What left fielder are we talking about?

Manny's lifetime OPS- 1.011
Nomar- .925

ARod- .963

So we would have to get a left fielder with p[retty good numbers to replace Manny.

Also, I would be leery of trading for any 50+ home run per year player with steroid testing coming up.
 
87Bandos
      Donor
      ID: 422571916
      Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 13:56 		Look at the most recent three years and Manny/Arod are VERY similar with A-rod with more HR and RBI. So you have to replace Nomars numbers with on OF, much easier to do since OF are easier to find than SS.
 
88KrazyKoalaBears
      Leader
      ID: 2752157
      Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 16:01 		The Great One, MLB's steroid testing is a joke. Anybody that gets caught should be forced to where "Dumbass" in place of his name on the back of his jersey for at least 5 years.

First off, every player knows MLB will only test during Spring Training and the regular season. So, just stop then. Secondly, there will only be 2 tests for any one player during the year. The first test will be given randomly, but the second test (a follow-up) will be given within 5-7 days. After that, no more testing for that player for the entire season. So, if a player gets tested in Spring Training (which I'm sure all of them are hoping for), he's home free for the rest of the year to use whatever steroids he wants.

In other words, "What steroid testing?"

 
89The Great One
      ID: 91133420
      Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 16:59 		Bandos.....ok, well I guess it's easy to replace a perennial MVP candidate with an outfielder, so give me a name.



KKB-
I don't know very much about steroids like how long they stay in your system or how quick the effects you get from them wear off, so I take your word for it in that there is no danger.
 
90Khahan
      ID: 3127107
      Fri, Dec 12, 2003, 11:40 		Well, the Rangers are still insisting that Boston picks up some of A-rod's salary (shouldn't Boston be insisting that Texas pick 1-2 mil of A-rods salary since they are taking on the higher contract?).
What do people think the chances are of a 3 team deal in which A-rod--->Boston Manny---> to Texas
Nomar --->3rd team 3rd team ---> $$ to Texas and OF to Boston?
I could see LA having some funds available for something like that if the Kevin Brown deal goes through.
 
91Razor
      Donor
      ID: 190612
      Mon, Dec 15, 2003, 16:42 		This deal is back from the dead. Things are heating up, apparently. With almost all of the marquee hitters off the market, I wouldn't be surprised if Evans muscles his way into getting this deal done. If he can sweeten the deal enough for Texas, then Nomar is going Hollywood. Reportedly the deal would be Perez and a prospect for Nomar.
 
92Farn
      Sustainer
      ID: 451044109
      Mon, Dec 15, 2003, 18:16 		I am being told by a guy a close to Epstein that the ARod to Boston deal should be done within a few hours, at the latest by tomorrow unless something unforseen happens.
 
93Razor
      Donor
      ID: 190612
      Mon, Dec 15, 2003, 19:27 		Evans has a boatload of bargaining power here, especially if the interest from Anaheim is luke warm. I wonder if it's going to be a three-way deal of two separate deals. Theoretically, it is essentially a four team to deal because Boston wants to move Odalis for an outfielder to replace Manny.
 
94Razor
      Donor
      ID: 190612
      Mon, Dec 15, 2003, 20:29 		Various non-legitimate sources are reporting that the A-Rod/Manny swap has been agreeed to in principle and that it will be finished as soon as Hicks and Henry can work out the restructuring of A-Rod's contract.
 
95Species
      Leader
      ID: 569221717
      Tue, Dec 16, 2003, 17:00 		From Boston.com -- might be old news.

Sources confirmed that the Sox and Dodgers have discussed a deal in which Garciaparra would go to LA for a package that would include at least Greg Miller, a prized 19-year-old pitching prospect from the Dodger system, and possibly another pitching prospect as well, with one or both of those pitchers packaged with Ramirez and sent to Texas for Rodriguez. It was unclear whether the Dodgers would include a big-league player as part of the deal, but lefthander Odalis Perez is no longer being mentioned.
 
96Razor
      Donor
      ID: 190612
      Tue, Dec 16, 2003, 17:20 		Not a fan of this switch. Send Odalis packing before Miller.
 
97biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 49132614
      Tue, Dec 16, 2003, 18:36 		Nomar for Miller? Done and done.
 
98Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 141046261
      Tue, Dec 16, 2003, 22:59 		According to a line in this report, the Dodgers interest is "fading" in Nomah.

I'm going to just throw this out: I think the Indians are going to make a serious bid for Nomah, and move Guillen to 3B (Blake to 2nd until Phillips is ready).

pd
 
99Razor
      Donor
      ID: 190612
      Tue, Dec 16, 2003, 23:08 		The Dodgers have too much leverage to give up a package consisting of Miller. Evans has the power to stop the biggest trade in Major League history on a whim. You think Hicks and Henry want this huge deal that they've been working on for weeks to go down the drain because Epstein is asking for too much for a disgruntled player heading into his walk year? The Dodgers couldn't get fair value for Sheffield. The A's couldn't get fair value for McGwire. The M's couldn't get fair value for Griffey, though it sure worked out well for them thanks to the Griffey injuries. The Red Sox are in a tough spot now, and they can't ask for the moon for Nomar, especially considering the suitors are few and far between. Perez and a B prospect or two.
 
100Motley Crue
      Donor
      ID: 610391711
      Wed, Dec 17, 2003, 08:00 		I just read the Red Sox might send Nomar, Williamson, and BK to the ChiSox for Magglio Ordonez. Or else a three-way between ChiSox, LA, and Boston where Nomar heads to LA, pitchers go to Chicago from LA and Boston, and Boston gets Magglio. This came from The Baltimore Sun.

 
101Matt G
      ID: 541156811
      Wed, Dec 17, 2003, 10:26 		I don't like the trade... look at the numbers, I think A-rods Numbers don't compare to Nomars and Mannys together. Yes Manny is a lot of head aches, but still... I'd keep Manny and Nomar...my opinion.
 
102clv
      ID: 191112179
      Wed, Dec 17, 2003, 11:07 		If the Red Sox were able to pull off the Nomar-Maggs deal mentioned in the article Motley Crue notes, then I think any of the early comparisons between the Sox being as free-spending as the Yankees become more cemented. Nomar's looking for $15 mil/yr. Maggs walk year is next year, and his current contract pays him 9 this year and 14 next year, then what's he going to be worth on the open market? My bet is AT LEAST what Nomar is asking for, if not more, so what kind of bind will that put Boston in? Schilling and A-Rod's deals are backloaded and increase when Epstien has to make an offer to Maggs or let him go and get nothing in return just like with Nomar now. Don't get me wrong, IF they can pull off both deals, I'd rate them as the favorites in spring training, but essentially all they will have accomplished is taking on more salary for players they'll only keep for a couple of years at most, then let them go and try to find a replacement. I have no problem with the Yankees doing that, and would have no problem with the Red Sox doing so as well - just realize that there's no longer only one "Evil Empire" Boston fans - if you play the same game to try to compete with the Yankees, sooner or later everybody's going to group you with them as well.
 
103Motley Crue
      Donor
      ID: 610391711
      Wed, Dec 17, 2003, 12:54 		And who the hell cares, as long as they win the World Series? Or at least, that is Epstein and Henry's thought, clv. If I were a Red Sox fan, I would be expecting a World Title in the next year or 2, maybe both. Anything less is a huge disappointment.

Is it preferable to have ARod and Maggli-O or Nomar and Manny? The answer is it probably doesn't matter with a rotation of Pedro, Schilling, Lowe, Wakefield, and (Hell, me!)whoever. But with ARod you can at least justify the 33% hike in ticket prices! And Manny takes too many games off with sore ear lobes and the like. I just don't see this as a bad thing for the Sox. The bad thing will be when the Orioles sign Pudge and Vlad~look out rest of the division. Ugh, I just want out of 4th place.

 
104clv
      ID: 5911351713
      Wed, Dec 17, 2003, 15:01 		That's it in a nutshell Motley - as unbelievable as it is to many people, the Yankees have always been my second-favorite team behind the Braves. I really don't care if EVERY team tried to "buy" championships (even though most do so, they're just not as hated as the Yankees). The Marlins went over budget last year to sign Pudge and trade for Urbina and it won them a championship, the Phillies went WAAAAY over budget to sign Thome, trade for Wagner, offer arbitration to Millwood, etc., to try to finally catch the Braves - and I don't hear anyone complaining about those moves. Get over yourselves Yankee-haters, everybody's playing the game by the same rules, Steinbrenner is just better at it, followed closely by the Red Sox lately and the Braves during the Turner regime when the ONE organizational goal was winning championships. Accomplish that, and suddenly you have more revenue to pay the inflated salaries. Penny-pinch like the Pirates, Expos, et al, and you will consistently field AAA teams in 3/4 empty stadiums. That's just the way the game is played today.
 
105clv
      ID: 5911351713
      Wed, Dec 17, 2003, 15:02 		Remember the cliche' - "You've got to spend money to make money"? It became a cliche' for a reason !!!