And Happy New Year to you and yours too.Just got back from a family excursion to the Big Apple, and bought a Red Sox v. Yankees chess set at FAO Schwartz. My son wore his Sox cap, and the clerk tried to charge me double.
Hoping that 2007 is better than 2006 for you and yours.
Sifting through the print and electronic media this morning for my daily seamhead fix and came across an interesting story in the NY Times (aka, Pravda) by Murray Chass on long-term contracts for pitchers.Yes, yes, I know many among you will howl in disdain at seeing the words "interesting" and "Murray Chass" used in the same space. However, he offers some excellent analysis on some of the more notable big-FA, big contract deals (i.e., Hampton, Nagle, Brown, Martinez, et al), and how most all of these deals have left smoking holes in the wallets of the owners who have been unable to save themselves from themselves...Within the context of the latest monumental brain fart by an owner in this category (Zito & SF), consider the following nugget of information: "And then there was Wayne Garland, a more remote but nonetheless relevant example. A 20-game winner with Baltimore in 1976, his fourth season in the majors, Garland, two years from 28, was in the first class of free agents. Cleveland signed him to a stunning 10-year contract for $2.3 million, a lot of money then."10 years? $230K per? If another passing year wasn't enough to remind me how old I am, this little data point confirmed it. For a link to the story, copy/paste the following: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/sports/baseball/02chass.html?ref=baseball
A little late, but happy happy to you too!!!
Anybody else read Keith Law's (whoever the hell he is) assessment of the "winners and losers" over the winter on the ESPN site? Two things: he regards the Sox as not having "filled" second base and as giving the job to Pedroia to "save money." In the old, sane days, giving a starting shot to a Triple A player with his credentials would be a natural, not to mention "filling the position." This is creeping Yankee-ism: if you don't have a name at a position, you don't have it "filled." Pretty stupid, and demonstrably wrong. We heard the same crap about Youk last year.2) The Yankees were judged "winners" in their moves. Did they get younger? No...the team will be older next season. Did they appreciably shore up the rotation? Maybe, but: Wright for Pettite is probably an improvement, but nothing to write home about. Is Abreu the offensive threat that Sheffield is? No. And the team has no first baseman. So why are the Yankees "winners"? Because they're the Yankees, that's all.
When the 2007 basball season ends ..what would you say we could see from DP.
Post a Comment