Shitty day to be a Met and Giant fan

Did Omar forget that we were looking for a RH power bat?

I'm perfectly fine with taking a chance of Sheff considering how bad they need another corner OFer.

ok, I really hate this move.

I am sure at first Sheffield will be a good soldier, but how soon before he starts to bitch about playing everyday?

He is a total black hole in the field, but at least Beltran can somewhat cover that shortcoming.

The only way I see this as a positive is they can get him some starts at first and let Delgado rest more. They have commited to Murphy as the everyday LF and before Church got hurt he was the Mets best player.

I like having a big bat on the bench, but really is that a role Sheffield will want? I think not.

Sheffield batted .247 and averaged 22 home runs and 66 RBIs in two seasons with the Tigers.

Plus he plays no defense and is a potential cancer. I would rather take my chances with Murphy and Church.

Thank God Jocketty couldn't get Shef in Cincy.

apparently Omar wasn't paying attention when the Mets bought in Mo Vaughn, Rickey Henderson etc...

I am hoping Sheffield will be the difference in the NL East...in the Phillies' favor.

He hit .265/.378/.462 in '07 when he was healthy. Considering Church was an absolute disaster after coming back from his concussion last year I don't see why it isn't worth seeing if Sheff can still hit.

His defense is below average, but not terrible. He can give Delgado a rest at 1b. Personally, I believe clubhouse cancers are an excuse after things go wrong so I think he's worth taking a shot on. Its not like there's a big financial risk here and he can't be released.

I think it is understandable that Church was hurt. I hate the fact that he and Murphy are now going to be looking over their shoulder and possibly pressing.

I hope I am wrong.

I hope he has a resurgence and hits 40 HR, I'll be the first to say I was wrong.

Maybe he can platoon with David Wright.

Sheffield will not play 1B, trust me. He said he'd rather DH then play 1B and he didn't like DHing.

I think Sheffield is going back to SS.

Not only that, but the Mets are paying squat (thanks Tigers!)

(From ESPN.com)

Raul Ibanez > Pat Burrell

I don't think we hold off the Braves/Marlins for the division without Ibanez.

In Amaro/Gillick we trust. :D

I'm glad you pulled that out because I was just thinking about that offseason debate!

Oh and don't forget...David Wright for MVP ;)

Oh, and I'm not above the whole "hoof-in-mouth" thing. I said earlier in this thread that the Nationals would finish ahead of the Braves in the NL East this year.

Not so much.

I do wonder if the Philly fans realize that after May, Ibanez wasn't all that good...

Hell, his numbers post All-Star Break were .233/.326/.449 with 11 HRs and 29 RBIs. He kinda had 2 amazing months and then sucked. Not worth the $$.

Uh, he also got injured, which clearly lingered throughout much of the summer since he got back.

And compared to what Burrell gave the Rays, I'll take those amazing two months in a heartbeat.

Why do you care about money? Are you paying the guy's salary? :)

Obviously once he got hurt he cut out the enhancements!

Fucker drilled a HR when the ball was a centimeter off the dirt.

Also, we could probably say the same thing about the Mets. :)

It might have taken you an extra hour and a half, but it was still pretty good.

Unless you're talking about the Yankees or possibly the Red Sox, salary is a consideration because your favorite team has a limited budged - what Ibanez makes helps determine the rest of the Phillies' roster.

This is obsolete. The Sox ($121mil) are fourth in payroll this season behind the Yankees ($201mil), Mets ($149mil), and Cubs ($134mil). The Sox cut $12mil in payroll from last year, the Yankees cut $8mil, the Mets added $12mil, and the Cubs added $16mil. The Red Sox are certainly willing to spend money on the right players, but they aren't just throwing it around anymore.

Of course salary is "always" a consideration. Even as Greg pointed out, the Yankees and Red Sox are starting to tighten their belts.

But, the argument here was whether the amount the Phillies paid for Ibanez's production would compensate for the cost savings by adding Burrell for the same amount.

Ibanez = approx. 13 million per year for life of deal
Burrell = approx. 8 million per year for life of deal.

Now taking into account the production which Ibanez provided above and beyond what Burrell did, I'm sure the $5 million more cost justifies that.

Further, I still stand by the argument that the difference in production gave the Phillies about ten or more so games won than without Ibanez. Heck, there are games in April/May which he single-handedly won for the team.

If no Ibanez = no playoffs, that also equals no playoff dollars which also help off-set the cost.

In short, I think its funny when fans complain about the dollars that their team spends unless they are (1) small market teams, or (2) A-Rod/Zito/etc. type free agent deals.

People were portraying the Ibanez deal in this thread as if it equaled Soriano/Zito/etc. deals. As seen above, it clearly does not fall into that category.

No player was worth 10 wins, so I doubt you can say that for Ibanez (I have to check fangraphs to see how many wins added he actually was worth though).

I blame Flozell Adams.

Even in this current recession, the Yankees have still been throwing around a crazy amount of money. If there's a player they want, it's highly unlikely they will let salary be an impediment.

I said "possibly" the Red Sox because, up until this year, they've been consistently #2 behind the Yankees in both revenue and payroll, and had started to climb into Yankee territory of not really having to worry about their payroll. That may or may not be changing - I'm not sure one year is enough evidence to buck the larger trend, but we'll see over the next few years.

Mainly, my point was this - most teams have to worry about their payroll budget, some more so than others. The Yankees have the least worry about payroll, and the Red Sox recently haven't been far behind.

It hasn't been a horrible deal so far for the Phillies, but the contract isn't completed yet.

Furthermore, you are vastly overstating the contribution Ibanez has made in saying that he's added 10 wins to their total. That's Barry Bonds at his best territory; not even Albert Pujols has cracked double-digit WAR in his career. According to FanGraphs, Ibanez hasn't even hit 5 WAR so far this season. There's nothing wrong with a 4.2 WAR player - that's a heck of a season. But let's not get carried away.

It's actually gone down 2 years in a row for the Red Sox and will go down next year in all likelihood. Lugo (9m) Smoltz/Penny (10.5m) Jason Bay (7.5) all come off, and even assuming we throw 15m at Holliday or Bay, and another 10 at Lackey or reclamation pitchers we'll end up ahead - only Papelbon is due for a large raise, and if we go for a blockbuster trade like Felix or Adrian Gonzalez they're not making much money in 2010. There just aren't the available free agents to spend money on like CC and Teixeira last offseason.

Pedroia, Lester and Youk are signed to reasonable deals for 3-5 years and Ortiz/Lowell (26m) and Beckett (10m) are coming off in 2010. I think this RS ownership is content to spend in the range they're at now, with more on player development than most teams, as opposed to the last one which outbid the Yankees for big name players like Manny, trying to get that 1st championship.

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't forget about the Mets and Cubs. ;)

MLB Salaries - CBSSports.com

Or the Tigers, Angels, and Phillies, all who are withing 5-8% of the Red Sox payroll. The Red Sox, on the other hand, are within 61% of the Yankees.

As a Yankees fan, the current payroll makes me nauseous. But, it is their money to spend however they choose, and they are in the biggest market. It is better than not trying to win and just cashing in on revenue sharing (i.e., Pirates).

*shrug*

I have no problem with the Yankees spending. I do, on the other hand, think people continuing to equate the RS and Yankees, while ignoring both the disparity between the two and the multitude of teams near the Red Sox, is disengenuous.

Not to mention the pirates never spent money or tried to win, even before revenue sharing.

The Yankees are clearly in a different category, as I've alluded to in all my previous posts. The Red Sox are the next on the list though if you look at their pattern over the last decade. Based off of payroll estimates from Baseball-Reference.com (for 2001-2008) and the CBSSports.com link above (for 2009), the Yankees have averaged a $175M payroll from 2001-2009, rising from $112M to peaks of $208M in 2005 & 2008.

Here's some other notable teams:
Boston: $121M average, low of $100M in 2003, high of $143M in 2007
Mets: $110M average, low of $93M in 2001, high of $138M in 2008
Dodgers: $101M average, low of $83M in 2005, high of $119M in 2008
Cubs: $94M average, low of $65M in 2001, high of $135M in 2009

In each year, here is how each of those team's payrolls compared to the Yankees:

2001: Bos - 98.2%; Mets - 83.0%; Dodgers - 97.3%; Cubs - 58.0%
2002: Bos - 85.7%; Mets - 75.4%; Dodgers - 75.4%; Cubs - 60.3%
2003: Bos - 65.4%; Mets - 76.5%; Dodgers - 69.3%; Cubs - 52.3%
2004: Bos - 69.0%; Mets - 52.7%; Dodgers - 50.5%; Cubs - 49.5%
2005: Bos - 59.6%; Mets - 48.6%; Dodgers - 39.9%; Cubs - 41.8%
2006: Bos - 61.5%; Mets - 51.8%; Dodgers - 50.3%; Cubs - 48.2%
2007: Bos - 75.7%; Mets - 60.8%; Dodgers - 57.1%; Cubs - 52.9%
2008: Bos - 63.9%; Mets - 66.3%; Dodgers - 57.2%; Cubs - 56.7%
2009: Bos - 61.2%; Mets - 67.7%; Dodgers - 49.8%; Cubs - 67.2%

So in 6 of the last 9 years, Boston has had the 2nd highest payroll.

On average, Boston has had 69.0% of the Yankees payroll, the Mets 63.0%, the Dodgers 57.8% and the Cubs 53.7%.

Is there a big gap between the Yankees and everyone else? Yep. Is the gap much closer between #2 and #3? Yep. And perhaps the Mets and Cubs are now going to consistently compete with the Red Sox for the #2 payroll in the game moving forward.

Let's review my original statement:


I still don't feel this is controversial. I guess to make Red Sox fans feel better, I should've added the Mets and Cubs after I said "possibly the Red Sox"; would that really have changed my larger point?

I think there should be some sort of stipulation that a certain percentage of the revenue you get from the revenue sharing has to be put back into the team, not the owner's pocket.

It's cute, but I'm not sure why the Red Sox don't have salary considerations while teams that actually spend more than them do, which was what you said.

I'm sorry, has MLB only existed for the last year?

And please show me the quote where I said the Red Sox don't have salary considerations? I said they were a "possible" exception to the rule that teams have limited budgets. I guess I should've added the Mets to that list of "possible" exceptions too. And maybe with new ownership, the very recent significant rise in the Cubs payroll will continue.

But I fail to see why you get so upset about my statement when for most years in this decade, the Red Sox have been the clear #2 in payroll to the Yankees.

RRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dude wrong thread :)

But I like the excitement

Every time Raul does something big, this thread gets a bump! :D

They're not saying boo.

They're yelling


RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm sorry, I don't care what the statistics say. No way Burrell makes that catch.