Tex to Boston!

[crashcarson15]

The vast majority of Red Sox 2009 roster will be made up of players who are a result of the Red Sox drafting well and developing their own talent, and on occasion, trading that talent. Very few of the players were large free agent signings -- Drew, Lugo, and Dice-K is all, I believe, and Lugo's role will be minimal (and they overpayed for Lugo and Drew because it was a bad market). Maybe Teixeira eventually.

Out of the top five payrolls, one of them made the playoffs. So why does everyone complain so much about payroll when it's been proven that a higher payroll =/= success? Successful baseball teams begin with the farm system and mid-level free agent pickups. If throwing money around made such a difference, wouldn't the Yankees have won something recently?

This is true. It shows that building a good farm system works. But, the plan doesn't work if you're not going to be able to pay those prospects once they get good.

[crashcarson15]

No...they really aren't...The only difference...One spends like mad and has won a couple titles....The other spends like mad and craps the bed...Eventually the roles will reverse...The constant? Over spending and damn near putting lowly clubs out of business

This (thread in general but I'll keep the focus here) is some of the dumbest I have read in a while, especially the last part. Yes, I'm a Red Sox fan. Attack me because my favorite team has a lot of money and they have been winning recently, go ahead. I'm not saying this because I am in denial about the spending power of the Red Sox; I'm saying it because it is total crap.

You really think that not signing big name FAs is putting the bad clubs out of business? Well, no, it's actually probably a dumb, desperate, and short-sighted move. So great, you get Mark Teixeira for 10 years. One of the best players in the league. Your #8 TV market might fill the seats for a year or two but before you can correctly spell "Teixeira" they're out of there. Why? Because your team is still crap. And they stay away, for 8 more years, because you're still paying $22 million per year to an old superstar lug. You think Nick Johnson is your problem? Well, he's not. He's part of the problem but the entire Nationals team is the problem. Johnson is actually playing better than most of the players when he's healthy. Everyone else just mostly sucks.

So what to do? How about the Tampa Bay Rays. I hate the bastards but they go through a decade of being the laughingstock of the entire league, quietly accumulating a -load of stud #1 picks and cheap young talent. While in their first few years they piled up old, overpaid players like Greg Vaughn, Vinny Castilla, Wade Boggs, and and Fred McGriff to fill seats, they paid dearly for it and started to wisen up. The drafted guys like Carl Crawford and BJ Upton with these great picks, completely jacked Scott Kazmir from the Mets, and once Friedman came to town this continued even more. they raped the Twins so far in taking Matt Garza for Delmon Young and all this time have built up the absolute scariest farm system, from top to bottom, at every position, I can imagine, which finally this year spilled into the majors. One of the lowest-spending teams in the league, and guess what? They used their money to build up young, cost-controllable players who they can lock up and perennially compete. And I'll believe it when I see it but according to most of their fans, ticket sales will skyrocket this year and presumably for years to come. Or how about the Marlins, who always spend $20 million on payroll but are scheduled to win their 3rd world series (kidding) in 12 years this year. They let their big overrated free agents they don't need walk and use that to build another young, contending team and somehow they never even fall below .500. There is something wrong with their fans but even without the supposedly taken-for-granted principle that people come to see winners (which your Nats should follow) they take their tiny payroll and what do they do? Win! Every freaking year! Now they can even build a new stadium, which your Nats just did, so you should be ahead of them, no?

Or, you can spend $2.6 million on flameouts like Daniel Cabrera, acquire washed up ex-Reds like Austin Kearns and Wily Mo Pena and dangle $200 million to Mark Teixeira so he can come and rescue your franchise single-handedly. Guess what? It won't freaking happen! The Nationals don't have the team around him to compete for a title, and this would at most be a few-year attendance stopgap. Instead, you could take all that boatload of money we know you have and invest it in the lower levels of the organization to build a winning program from the ground up, and one that eventually will compete year-in and year-out, and what do you know, fulfill your desired goal of filling asses into the seats of that shiny new stadium.

That's why you're wrong. The Yankees spend $243 million on risky free agents who get old and end up spending bajillions of dollars on washed up egos. They have these stud prospects at SP, Hughes and Kennedy, but after 1 blip in their development they sign two FAs to monstrous contracts that should push at least one of them out of the rotation, and it damages their farm system as a result. Which is why I'm okay with the endless cycle of spending the Yankees are, because it always hurts them. It's why I'm so proud to support the Red Sox, who are no angels but if you take a look, cost-controlled homegrown talent is starting everywhere. One just won MVP and another came in 3rd, and another is Jon Lester. It's a great luxury to be able to gamble on a free agent and lose (e.g. Julio Lugo, Mark Teixeira maybe even), but you know what? I don't mind if we don't get Teixeira because there's always a Lars Anderson waiting in the wings. Theo has built this system so that we are loaded with young talent which can produce for the big club, get traded for bigger talent or other young talent, and let us gamble on a big free agent once in a while. And once that free agent is washed up, we will always have some young player there to replace him. The replenishing factor. The money is a bonus. THAT's the difference.

Back to your last point though, again, it is complete bull crap. What higher payroll teams can do is afford to gamble on these bigtime players. I won't lie, it is most definitely an advantage. And hey, they lose on those gambles more often than you think. But losing out on these free agents is driving these lowly teams out of business? No, teams like the Marlins and Rays are living damn proof why those lowly teams are only killing themselves.

The things that bother me is you have the Yanks and Sox compete every year, and then there's the Rockies from '07 who just about fell off the map this year, and I really think that sure these low budget teams have the prospects, they won't lay down the money to do so. I'm not going to disagree with you on the Nationals situation, but a major issue is not getting top draft picks signed. Personally, I think if the Nats can sign Tex, they can build a team around him and Zimmermann in the next few years. I really do.

The Rockies I think overachieved in 2007 and had a really unlucky 2008. It was sad to see that kind of collapse. But you're kind of contradicting yourself, if the Nationals spend all this money we didn't know they had to get Teixeira, where's the money to develop a farm system? It's in Tex's pockets. There's maybe your difference between taking a guy who you know will want a huge bonus in the draft and passing him up for a mediocre prospect. Between scouting and signing a hot international prospect and not. And by the time these guys will be MLB ready anyway, Teix will be 33, 34 years old. You have to commit. if you bring in Teixeira, your ability to build a team is inherently hampered.

The other source(s) of revenue are merchadise and getting national exposure. I agree the Rockies overachieved, but if there can be some buzz about baseball in DC with Texiera, then there will be buzz. Personally, I think that in the article it talks about an opt out after like year 3. That would be good, as it would boost attendance and help get some exposure, then come in with the good farm system and there you have it.

[gingerbreadmann]

The vast majority of Red Sox 2009 roster will be made up of players who are a result of the Red Sox drafting well and developing their own talent, and on occasion, trading that talent. Very few of the players were large free agent signings -- Drew, Lugo, and Dice-K is all, I believe, and Lugo's role will be minimal (and they overpayed for Lugo and Drew because it was a bad market). Maybe Teixeira eventually.

Out of the top five payrolls, one of them made the playoffs. So why does everyone complain so much about payroll when it's been proven that a higher payroll =/= success? Successful baseball teams begin with the farm system and mid-level free agent pickups. If throwing money around made such a difference, wouldn't the Yankees have won something recently?

This is true. It shows that building a good farm system works. But, the plan doesn't work if you're not going to be able to pay those prospects once they get good.

Ideally, if the team gets good with the prospects, they will have much more revenue to spend on keeping these guys (which is still much, much cheaper than signing them as free agents). They could lock them up early like Hanley, Longo, and Pedroia just were, for peanuts relative the FA market. They could let the guy walk if his demands are unreasonable and collect their savings and compensation picks (you may be surprised at some of the recent compensation picks in the league). It all stems from up top, and an objective and effective way of evaluating talent.

The other source(s) of revenue are merchadise and getting national exposure. I agree the Rockies overachieved, but if there can be some buzz about baseball in DC with Texiera, then there will be buzz. Personally, I think that in the article it talks about an opt out after like year 3. That would be good, as it would boost attendance and help get some exposure, then come in with the good farm system and there you have it.

You may be right, but this still postpones the development of a farm system for at least three years and the fans may bail again. I don't know if an opt-out would be good for Washington because that is incredibly noncommital and you give so much to get this guy only to have him bail on you so soon. Again, I think it's a temporary fix. Now I'm not trying to suggest that signing this guy is a bad idea, because he would make any of the 30 teams better if he were on them. It just might not make sense short or long term. Of course, anything could happen and they could suddenly click and win a championship. But you can't count on that to happen.

[TFoA]

Good to see that most people realize that money is no longer an excuse in the MLB. Not when you have the teams in Florida in the World Series, and you have teams like the Yankees and Mets that make more than small countries staying home for October.

With that said...lol @ the source of the original post. I'll believe that when I see a more credible source.

[BrySmalls]

Let me put it this way, Nats fans, you don't really WANT Teixeira. He's a cancer, who alienates clubhouses and doesn't hit in April. The 20-something million would be much better off going into other hands.

we can use the extra $20m per year for a new rotation, invest in the minor teams, and potentially pickup a more affordable 1B unless an act of god has cured Nick Johnson of all injuries now and forever.

hey gingerbreadmann, did you see this before posting your rant? i mention similiar points about the Nationals (with less words of course )

[Showtime029]

So, according to

http://sonsofsimmons.com/mlb/sources-red-s...-teixeira/2008/

the Red Sox have made a deal with Mark Teixeira. It is about time we wrapped this thing up. Yes, this web site is a credible source for all of you in denial.

It's a done deal. I was told this morning.

[crashcarson15]

So, according to

http://sonsofsimmons.com/mlb/sources-red-s...-teixeira/2008/

the Red Sox have made a deal with Mark Teixeira. It is about time we wrapped this thing up. Yes, this web site is a credible source for all of you in denial.

It's a done deal. I was told this morning.

By whom?

[Audiodrama]

So, according to

http://sonsofsimmons.com/mlb/sources-red-s...-teixeira/2008/

the Red Sox have made a deal with Mark Teixeira. It is about time we wrapped this thing up. Yes, this web site is a credible source for all of you in denial.

It's a done deal. I was told this morning.

By whom?

The Washington Times is reporting that the Red Sox will make an announcement this afternoon.

[rams80]

So, according to

http://sonsofsimmons.com/mlb/sources-red-s...-teixeira/2008/

the Red Sox have made a deal with Mark Teixeira. It is about time we wrapped this thing up. Yes, this web site is a credible source for all of you in denial.

It's a done deal. I was told this morning.

By whom?

A Bill Simmons automaton.

Oh...and for the record a blog that is named after Bill Simmons doesn't have credibility.

[crashcarson15]

So, according to

http://sonsofsimmons.com/mlb/sources-red-s...-teixeira/2008/

the Red Sox have made a deal with Mark Teixeira. It is about time we wrapped this thing up. Yes, this web site is a credible source for all of you in denial.

It's a done deal. I was told this morning.

By whom?

The Washington Times is reporting that the Red Sox will make an announcement this afternoon.

Now, I'll believe that.

[LuvTheNats]

So, according to

http://sonsofsimmons.com/mlb/sources-red-s...-teixeira/2008/

the Red Sox have made a deal with Mark Teixeira. It is about time we wrapped this thing up. Yes, this web site is a credible source for all of you in denial.

It's a done deal. I was told this morning.

By whom?

The Washington Times is reporting that the Red Sox will make an announcement this afternoon.

Now, I'll believe that.

Wow...shocker there...

And now there are rumors flying around that the Red Sox are already sizing up offers for Joe Mauer...who does not even become a free agent until 2011....Jesus....Yeah, this crap is really good for baseball...

[OnWis97]

The vast majority of Red Sox 2009 roster will be made up of players who are a result of the Red Sox drafting well and developing their own talent, and on occasion, trading that talent. Very few of the players were large free agent signings -- Drew, Lugo, and Dice-K is all, I believe, and Lugo's role will be minimal (and they overpayed for Lugo and Drew because it was a bad market). Maybe Teixeira eventually.

Out of the top five payrolls, one of them made the playoffs. So why does everyone complain so much about payroll when it's been proven that a higher payroll =/= success? Successful baseball teams begin with the farm system and mid-level free agent pickups. If throwing money around made such a difference, wouldn't the Yankees have won something recently?

And if they, managed as they are, resided in KC would they have Dice-K? How many of their other greats would they have lost?

And how 'bout that 2004 championship they built on equal footing with everyone else? Would they have had Pedro and Schilling?

[OnWis97]

The vast majority of Red Sox 2009 roster will be made up of players who are a result of the Red Sox drafting well and developing their own talent, and on occasion, trading that talent. Very few of the players were large free agent signings -- Drew, Lugo, and Dice-K is all, I believe, and Lugo's role will be minimal (and they overpayed for Lugo and Drew because it was a bad market). Maybe Teixeira eventually.

Out of the top five payrolls, one of them made the playoffs. So why does everyone complain so much about payroll when it's been proven that a higher payroll =/= success? Successful baseball teams begin with the farm system and mid-level free agent pickups. If throwing money around made such a difference, wouldn't the Yankees have won something recently?

This is true. It shows that building a good farm system works. But, the plan doesn't work if you're not going to be able to pay those prospects once they get good.

Bingo. Look at the pitchers Oakland has lost. If the Twins had Red Sock money, they'd have Johan Santana, Torii Hunter, Matt Garza (because they'd not have felt the need to get an outfielder). That alone would have brought them the title in the Central (which they tied).

The other thing is that teams like the Yankees can afford to make a stupid signing. If the Nats had won the Teixera sweepstakes and he'd been a huge bust, it would set them back years. If it happens to the Sox, they'll survive.

It has not been proven at all that a higher payroll does not equal success. There clearly is a correlation. You still have to be smart. The Yankees seem to be very desperate due to the unbelievable impatience every time they don't win it all. The Sox are smarter right now. They pretty much do keep their home-grown talent. But if this management resided in Kansas City, they'd have lost some of these guys long ago.

I read somewhere that during the first 5 years of the current playoff format, 38 (or 39?) of the 40 teams that made the playoffs were in the top half of payroll. Since then, some of the small market teams have figured out how to play better, but to suggest that it's equal is comical.

And whenever a superstar is free, there are about 5 teams they might go to. The rest of us know that we can only have a star through scouting and even then, he'll only be around until contract time.

[Epiphanic]

Weighing in on the salary cap issue, a salary cap doesn't lead to greater parity.

Bingo. Look at the pitchers Oakland has lost.

The last few years haven't been overly kind to Oakland, but even with their mid-level payroll, they are one of the winningest franchises this past decade. They still find a way to compete year after year.

If the Twins had Red Sock money, they'd have Johan Santana, Torii Hunter, Matt Garza (because they'd not have felt the need to get an outfielder). That alone would have brought them the title in the Central (which they tied).

It is probably true that if the Twins had any of those three guys they would've won one more game to win the Central outright, but they tied and were just unable to win the one game playoff for the division. Yeah they didn't make the post-season, but they came awfully close.

The other thing is that teams like the Yankees can afford to make a stupid signing. If the Nats had won the Teixera sweepstakes and he'd been a huge bust, it would set them back years. If it happens to the Sox, they'll survive.

Also true. Teams like the Yankees can afford to overpay players. That's not the issue. Teams just have to spend smart. There's less room for error for small market teams, but they can compete and win the enchilada with their small payrolls.

It has not been proven at all that a higher payroll does not equal success. There clearly is a correlation. You still have to be smart. The Yankees seem to be very desperate due to the unbelievable impatience every time they don't win it all. The Sox are smarter right now. They pretty much do keep their home-grown talent. But if this management resided in Kansas City, they'd have lost some of these guys long ago.

Which is exactly what InTheEnd88 is saying. Having more money available is an advantage. But it's not the end all, be all. The Red Sox spend their fortune wiser than the Yankees and their success is a result of that. If the Red Sox organization was in Kansas City (and the payroll that comes with that), it's probable that they wouldn't have held on to players like Manny, Papi, or Pedro as long as they have. However, I believe the still would be competitive. They'd just be competitive with a combination of no-name role players and young cost-controlled superstars.

And that's really what we're after right? Competitiveness? A certain level of parity? Baseball with its "soft-cap" (the "Luxury Tax") has had at least as much, if not more, parity than the other major sports leagues.

[crashcarson15]

The vast majority of Red Sox 2009 roster will be made up of players who are a result of the Red Sox drafting well and developing their own talent, and on occasion, trading that talent. Very few of the players were large free agent signings -- Drew, Lugo, and Dice-K is all, I believe, and Lugo's role will be minimal (and they overpayed for Lugo and Drew because it was a bad market). Maybe Teixeira eventually.

Out of the top five payrolls, one of them made the playoffs. So why does everyone complain so much about payroll when it's been proven that a higher payroll =/= success? Successful baseball teams begin with the farm system and mid-level free agent pickups. If throwing money around made such a difference, wouldn't the Yankees have won something recently?

This is true. It shows that building a good farm system works. But, the plan doesn't work if you're not going to be able to pay those prospects once they get good.

Bingo. Look at the pitchers Oakland has lost. If the Twins had Red Sock money, they'd have Johan Santana, Torii Hunter, Matt Garza (because they'd not have felt the need to get an outfielder). That alone would have brought them the title in the Central (which they tied).

The other thing is that teams like the Yankees can afford to make a stupid signing. If the Nats had won the Teixera sweepstakes and he'd been a huge bust, it would set them back years. If it happens to the Sox, they'll survive.

It has not been proven at all that a higher payroll does not equal success. There clearly is a correlation. You still have to be smart. The Yankees seem to be very desperate due to the unbelievable impatience every time they don't win it all. The Sox are smarter right now. They pretty much do keep their home-grown talent. But if this management resided in Kansas City, they'd have lost some of these guys long ago.

I read somewhere that during the first 5 years of the current playoff format, 38 (or 39?) of the 40 teams that made the playoffs were in the top half of payroll. Since then, some of the small market teams have figured out how to play better, but to suggest that it's equal is comical.

And whenever a superstar is free, there are about 5 teams they might go to. The rest of us know that we can only have a star through scouting and even then, he'll only be around until contract time.

Right, and that's what p***es me off as first an Indians fan. The cost of keeping guys like CC, Manny, Thome, etc. has gotten too high. That's why I think that sure each team will have the time when these guys get good and they'll have 1 or 2 years of greatness and then the contracts expire and then the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Cubs, or Mets will end up with the player. See CC Sabathia and Johan for some examples.

[Waffles]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/base...eira/index.html

Teix close to a deal with the Yankees. 8 yrs, $180MM.

If this holds up...Best Hanukkah Ever.

*cue the Star Wars Imperial March*

[Showtime029]

That...Just...Happened...

[whalersjets]

It's going to be awesome when the Yankees dont win the World Series.

[LuvTheNats]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/base...eira/index.html

Teix close to a deal with the Yankees. 8 yrs, $180MM.

If this holds up...Best Hanukkah Ever.

*cue the Star Wars Imperial March*

What say you now, Sox fans????

[See Red]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

That is insane. It's going to be epic when they don't win the World Series.

I have a feeling this is going to turn a looooooot of people off of baseball.

How can anybody justify being a Yankees fan at this point?