Was Dustin Pedroia's deal selfish?
by mattvegas on Dec 4, 2008 8:12 PM CST
82 comments
<!--StartFragment-->
Believe it or not, there is a reporter who thinks Pedroia is selfish with his new contract. While this is not strictly Cub-related, it does have to do with baseball. On ESPN’s First Take this Thursday morning, Skip Bayless and a reporter from the Detroit News, Rod Parker, were discussing Dustin Pedroia’s decision to take less money to stay in Boston. His reasoning was that he liked living there and knows he will always have a chance to win with a proven organization. Bayless seemed to get it. A player made his own choice to play where he wanted to play. I was horrified at what this Parker had to say. He called Pedroia selfish, because his agreeing to take less would cause owners to offer less to other players. He, Parker said, has a responsibility to go out and get as much money as possible.
Undoubtedly, Pedroia could have gotten more, but since when is taking $40.5 million for 6 years selfish? And there’s no complaint with Pedroia. It’s with Parker. Had he thought through anything he said? Or did he just have to have something to say no matter how foolish? Isn’t a player being selfish if he takes so much money a team has nothing left to pay someone else? Pedroia is getting as much in return as he wants. He put a value on where he is playing and the chance to win. That evens it out for him. No reporter is in a position to tell him he should do otherwise. I thought the whole idea of free agency was to give players the choice on where to play. Instead, Parker wants to demand that he follow his mandate for how to make a career decision. Parker and his attitude are everything that is wrong with professional sports today.
<!--EndFragment-->
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.
0 recs |
82 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
meh....taking it from that point of view, anything is selfish
"Charles Tillman is one of the best strippers in the NFL" - John Madden 11/30/08 Chicago Bears vs. Minnesota Vikings game
NOT NEWS.
Another ESPN-contrived story. Expect more of these when ESPN has sole SEC and BCS rights. Assholes.
Dan
Evey Hammond: Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici. V: By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe.
Excellent analysis
A while ago I stopped reading espn.com in favor of a number of good sports blogs. At the same time, I moved into my own house and opted not to get cable, meaning, no ESPN or ESPN2. I also stopped listening to Mike and Mike on the drive in to work.
Realizing that now, I don’t miss them one bit. I will give props to Matt, Jurko, and Harry, though. They are entertaining enough when they talk baseball.
by dr stabbingworth on Dec 5, 2008 10:01 AM CST up reply actions
Funny, I dropped cable last year too.
I do not miss ESPN. I miss games that are solely on ESPN, but I can go to a friends or a bar to catch those games. I find myself not missing much of anything, and what I do miss, I catch on podcasts – PTI – or radio – Mike & Mike.
Dan
Evey Hammond: Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici. V: By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe.
Dropping cable...
… you no longer have access to Cubs games, living where you do. How do you keep up? Do you have MLB.TV?
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
I either watch on MLB.TV
or I like to listen to the radio call, too. I try to go to a friend’s or bar at least once a week and catch a game, too.
Dan
Evey Hammond: Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici. V: By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe.
That is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.
That’s the problem at times with constant sports coverage. The so-called “experts” think they need to say something outlandish or contradictory when in reality they don’t need to at all.
No, Pedroia’s not selfish. Parker should check into the situation in Beantown last July to know what selfish is. Selfish is what his former “teammate” Man Ram did by not playing and not hustling and basically forcing his way out of town in order to get the most money he could get. Personally I really appreciate Pedroia’s stance and consider it a very UNselfish position to take. Wish more pro athletes would do the same.
Agreed.
Strange that Skip Bayless, who is an idiot, would be on the right side of an argument.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
There is not enough zeros
to add to agree that Skip Bayless is a jerk. How he is employed is beyond belief.
"Have You heard of the Boom on Mizar 5?"
If I had a nickel for every smart comment I have ever heard from Skip Bayless' mouth
I could pay for my grandma’s needed surgery and add it to the Cubs’ self-imposed salary cap enabling them to pick up that big left handed bat they’re in need of like…Miguel Montero.
I hear he’s really an outstanding defensive, left-handed power-hitting RF at heart!
If I had a nickel for every smart comment from Bayless
I could add 10 minutes to the parking meter out front!
The worst beer I had was pretty good.
I'm in the minority...
Becasue I enjoy Skip Bayless. A little pompous, yes, but at least he’s convicted in what he says. Too many ESPN personalities cater to the elite stars, but Skip usually says whatever he feels. He calls out TO, Lebron, etc. when few, if any, people on ESPN will.
Outside of the PTI guys, I respect his opinions more than any other ESPN personalities. Most of the ATH guys flip back and forth, and have trouble even spitting out a sensical argument. And Bayless’s arrogance pales in comparison to some who have similar jobs (calling you Jim Rome, Jay Mariotti). Furthermore, there are very few former players who can speak intelligently about their sport, yet they all seem to find jobs. Anybody watch an NBC Sunday Night game the last couple years? Tiki Barber and Jerome Bettis…yech. There is a reason sports stars play sports, and few offer insight once they land a gig. Of course there are a few exceptions though. Honestly, give me broadcast guys who have speaking skills and can put together a logical argument and just one (capable) former athlete who can offer a player’s point of view.
Free Ronny Cedeno
I think Bayless just goes contrarian all the time...
rather than cater to the stars, he just says negative stuff about all the stars.
I'd agree.
I think any positive feelings for Skip I have stem from watching his debating opponents. Jemele Hill is an idiot.
Free Ronny Cedeno
It's talking heads...
Everything has to be presented as controversial. It’s the media craze these days: if you aren’t arguing, people aren’t listening.
That said, nearly every decision people make is selfish in one way or another. Pedroia is making a decision that he feels is in his best interest. It’s more important to play where he wants to play and play for a contender while making lots of money (and gamble that he could sustain serious injury) than to wait it out and eventually get even more money. Others make decisions for other selfish reasons (like taking top dollar).
I think the argument is silly though. Pedroia’s contract is not a free agent contract. It was actually pretty lucrative when you consider that he’s not even arbitration eligible yet. Free agents aren’t going to be taking deals based on what Pedroia got, because it’s not relevant. These types of deals happen frequently (Baldelli and Crawford signed them, as have many others). Pedroia’s deal is just longer and for more money than the previous deals. In that sense, it could only HELP the future free agents.
And for the record...
Pedroia didn’t really take less money to stay with the Red Sox. He was staying with the Sox either way. He wasn’t even arbitration eligible yet, so he had no options as to where he was playing for the next 4 years. What the Red Sox did was give him substantially more money than he’d have gotten over the next few years in order to buy out his arbitration years (and then get a couple of extra years on the back end for cheap).
Plus, there is always more to the issue than just the contract dollars
for instance, when you factor in that Pedroia is already adored and known in Boston, his marketing dollars may make staying in Boston for the long term the better financial decision.
The "staying in Boston" thing is a red herring
Pedroia was staying in Boston for the next four years either way. Boston just bought out his arbitration years and got two additional years, gambling that salaries will escalate and having him locked up for more money early saves them money on the back end.
But yeah, for a free agent (which Pedroia was not), other factors such as marketing would have played a role as well.
Dustin Pedroia walks into a burning building to save a child and dog....SELFISH!
"Charles Tillman is one of the best strippers in the NFL" - John Madden 11/30/08 Chicago Bears vs. Minnesota Vikings game
Not Surprised
To hear something incredibly stupid come out of the mouth of Parker. You’re right…he does not get it. I have been watching 1st and 10 for a long time, and compared to Parker, Skip seems like a breath of fresh air. He seems to be an apologist for black athletes and his views are so biased to that end that I take everything he says with a grain of salt. I am not saying that is the case here, but I have been wanting to say this about him for a long time and this post has given me the chance…so thank you.
End of Rant
The same thing happened to me once...
My boss asked me if I wanted a promotion and a corresponding raise, and I was like, “No, I like my desk here, I think I’ll pass.” Then my co-workers were all like, “You selfish bastard, you’ve set a precident and now the boss won’t pay us as much. Good going, douche nozzle.” Then the Nazi radish zombies attacked the office building and I defeated them with my pyrokinesis and collected all the pieces of the Triforce and rescued the princess from another castle.
Wait, no, that was a trip I had on some bad acid. I guess Parker really is an idiot!
Of course it's selfish...
So was my decision to quit working for other people and start working for myself.
Was it selfish for DeRo to reject a 2/$6M offer from the Rangers to sign with the Cubs for 3/$13M? Or was he being unselfish in leaving the organization who picked him off the trash heap to come to a new city and raise salaries for all 2B?
Memo to Rod Parker: Mother Theresa was very unselfish, but she couldn’t get out of A-ball with her 40 MPH fastball.
"I've never complained about it. I'm thankful to have a jersey." Mark DeRosa, 22 Aug 2007
I think you're really missing the point...
of shows of this nature. Their role is to take any topic that’s remotely relevant for the day, flip it, and present it as a two-headed monster. The topic is irrelevant; it’s the controversy that they feed on.
The fact that they sucked you into such a silly debate was a win in and of itself. The only thing wrong with Parker is that he lost the coin toss today, and had to end up on the bogus side of the “debate” today.
by Damen Jackson on Dec 4, 2008 11:35 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
+1
Very well spoken.
If there’s something lot’s of folks need to learn is that one of the primary functions of the media is to create controversy.
Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.
They intentionally take opposing sides...
and I’m sure it’s discussed beforehand. Viewers do feed on controversy, so the show supplies it by making sure they have views from both sides.
I honestly think that they aren’t always convicted in what they’re arguing, and this may be a case where Parker was just spewing an alternate viewpoint he might not necessarily believe.
Free Ronny Cedeno
I don't mind somebody playing devil's advocate...
but choose your battles. As somebody who hung out with the debate club members in high school (I would have been in the club, but between band, chorus, and AV club I was too busy), it’s no fun to argue for what is clearly a untenable position, nor is it beneficial to listen to someone arguing such a point. If they did decide to take opposite sides beforehand, then the fault lies with both commentators and the producers who decided to put the topic on the menu. I would much rather hear them debating a point which has defensible positions on both sided of the issue.
As the author of the post
I agree. I gave them publicity. Shame on me. You’re selfish because you made me feel bad. LOL (about you being selfish)
"Any old kind of a run wins it!"--Jack Brickhouse
Bayless is an idiot
Most of these ESPN personalities, like Bayless, Stephen A. Smith, Merril Hodge,etc. are just paid to say some of the stupidest things just to get viewers to watch.
"This is why Major League Baseball does not need instant replay, because then every single play will then be reviewed." -- Joe Morgan, 5/18/08, referring to an umpire ruling a Carlos Delgado homerun foul when replays showed it hit the foul pole.
FWIW
Let me preface this with I don’t necessarily agree with Parker’s view but I at least get where his opinion is coming from.
I think Parker’s view is the typical stance that a union would take if a faction of its membership took a contract below its market value. Their belief is that former and current members have worked hard to make the gains that current members get to enjoy and by taking a lessor offer that person or persons has undermined all of those past gains.
An example we can relate to is Dawson in 87. I don’t think that his blank check approach would be looked upon highly by the player’s association today…I don’t know what the opinion of it was at the time.
What makes Parker’s opinion seem like such a gross statement is that baseball deals in crazy high salaries. If this was a manafucturing job dealing in normal salary ranges/benefits, his opinion would not seem to be so crazy. Annother relevant example of this process in reverse is what is going on with the Auto Industry and UAW. The UAW is meeting or has met on granting concessions in order to try to help their members keep their jobs. I don’t think they would be doing that unless it was a desperate situation…
"When two Whales Fight, many Shrimp Die" - Korean Proverb
The whole point of capitalism
…is that people get to make their own assessments of what’s “valuable.” Maybe I’d rather work fewer days a week and take less money, or live in a remote, harsh area for more money….in the ideal situation, everyone can make their own deal.
In the real world, of course, it’s never this simple, but the point is that money is only one part of the package. An important part, to be sure, but there’s more to it.
"[Lou Piniella] might be over 100, but he still has a lot of fire in him." - Ted Lilly, Sept. 10, 2008
by CaughtInTheVines on Dec 5, 2008 9:33 AM CST up reply actions
I agree on the point of capitalism
but Pedroia does belong to a union and his decision to take less money affects others who belong to that union. Because he is a member of a union, he has an obligation to try to do what is right for his union.
Disclaimer: My opinions are not intended to be pro union or vice versa. I am merely trying to point out what the supposed benefit of belonging to a union is and what the obligations are of the members to its union and other members.
"When two Whales Fight, many Shrimp Die" - Korean Proverb
by TheRiot Police on Dec 5, 2008 10:55 AM CST up reply actions
If this were a normal union, I would totally agree.
I don’t think the Teamsters or the UAW or any of the other locals are interested in their members turning down wage increases. However, there are a lot more people in these unions than in the MLBPA, their wage is significantly more regulated and uniform, the jobs they do are very different, and — oops — the industry they’re in isn’t defined as “anti-trust exempt, intra-state entertainment.”
I f player is happy in a city, and feels they are paid what they are worth, why would they want to go through the hassle of having to move to another city, figuring out how to fit into another clubhouse, and having to deal with an entirely new group of coaches and media just for a few extra dollars (in baseball terms) that they don’t feel they need?
I agree with the point that taking a lower salary could have a negative effect on somebody else’s arb hearing down the road. However, the current economy is going to drive down prices for a year or two anyway, so that argument — while still valid — loses some force simply due to the prevailing conditions.
I agree 100%
that the dynamics of the MLBPA make it hard to draw comparisions to more traditional unions. I was just trying to make the point that Parker’s view is not really an original thought and has roots in traditional union views.
"When two Whales Fight, many Shrimp Die" - Korean Proverb
by TheRiot Police on Dec 5, 2008 12:52 PM CST up reply actions
Absolutely.
Unfortunately for his argument, the MLBPA is about as far from a normal, traditional union as you can get. Except for the NFLPA, which is apparently totally insane. And the NHLPA, which locked out an entire season.
Okay, so maybe it’s not the farthest thing from normal. :P
Part of the reason
(and only part) that the baseball players’ union is so powerful is that reporters (another union group) bought into Curt Flood’s ridiculous statement that a “well-paid slave is, nonetheless, a slave.” Howard Cosell, the interviewer when he made the claim, bought into it which led his colleagues to not question it. Unions were set up partly to stop and prevent management from abusing employees. How anyone can compare someone paying them to play a game in a profession they can leave anytime they want (which they could even back in those non-free agent days) to being a slave is unbelievable. It’s insulting to slaves and diminishes the horrors of real slavery. The athletes have a right to unionize but an argument could be made that they are needless.
"Any old kind of a run wins it!"--Jack Brickhouse
The athletes have a right to unionize but an argument could be made that they are needless.
Yeah, but I don’t think baseball without a union would be as good as baseball with a union. If I remember my history correctly, the reason there is now a players’ union is because of past (and rather SEVERE) abuses of the anti-trust exepmtion by owners.
However, it’s kind of hard comparing a union where members are making $12 or $15 or $20 an hour to one where guys are making a thousand dollars a day (or more). And I also think that players tend to complain a bit too loudly sometimes about “how hard they have it.”
"Well, we're out of cake! We only had three bits and we didn't expect such a rush! So what do you want?"
"What, so my choice is 'or death?' Well, then I'll have the chicken, please."
--Eddie Izzard
Agreed with your last paragraph.
There should have been a middle ground. If the owners hadn’t been so obstinate in the late 1970’s, they might have found one, where the salaries would have still been higher but maybe not quite as high as today.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
That isn't necessarily true.
I’m a member of a union. We all get paid the same price; that’s negotiated on our behalf by the union with the company. We do have the right to negotiate overscale payments, but no one I work with has one — that’s the company’s choice.
Baseball players have a minimum salary that’s negotiated by the union on their behalf. All of them have the right to negotiate over-minimum payments and many of them have such contracts.
Once their pay gets above the minimum, it’s the individual player’s choice to take what he can get. Pedroia’s choice affects no one but himself.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
Fair Enough
But don’t you think the negotiated minimum is somehow affected by these larger contracts. I don’t have a clue how that number is determined but I would venture a guess that these large contracts play into it somehow either directly or indirectly.
I disagree that his choice affects no one…If I am an agent and Pedroia is a peer to one of my clients, I have to come up with a pretty strong argument to justify that my player deserves more compensation. However, I don’t fault him for doing what he did…I just don’t think his contract lives in a vacum.
"When two Whales Fight, many Shrimp Die" - Korean Proverb
by TheRiot Police on Dec 5, 2008 12:49 PM CST up reply actions
His opinion is still irrelevant in this case...
as Pedroia wasn’t a free agent, and those his signing has no negative affect on the salary structure for free agents.
I agree with the rest of your point though.
But it could
when a similar type player goes to arbitration or goes to free agency at some point during the duration of Pedroia’s contract. If an agent tries to say that player X deserves this much money, in theory ownership could use Pedroia’s contract to bolster their arguement for their contract offers.
"When two Whales Fight, many Shrimp Die" - Korean Proverb
by TheRiot Police on Dec 5, 2008 10:43 AM CST up reply actions
Not really...
see below. It’s apples and oranges. Arbitration cases will use other arbitration cases as their comparisons. Pedroia was pre-arbitration, meaning his contract takes into account things other than what an arbitration case would consider.
Baseball is unique in that it has created various salary structures. There’s the rookie salary (minimum), the free agent structure, the arbitration, and then now there’s a “pre-arbitration awesome player” structure. Pedroia’s deal only affects the last category. And that’s a very small category.
But....
….Pedroia’s salary is relevant to arbitration cases and becomes a comparable figure for other negotiations. As has been stated in various posts in this discussion, the “union” perspective that Parker promoted is mainly focused on maximizing salary without regard to other considerations that have value to individual players. Personally, I think that Pedroia, or any other player, should get to decide what is best for him and get that if he can. Players have to weigh the risk of injury, loss of ability, etc, as well when thinking about their futures and being conservative by taking a deal now that might look low when projected over what’s likely in the future is totally valid imo.
On the other hand, I also would rather the players get every penny they can, than have the owners horde the cash. The history here is relevant. The owners have had too much power and control in this relationship and have fought tooth and nail to keep it. On the public relations side of it, they have done well by playing up the greedy rich player driving up ticket prices angle which the media uses to stoke fans negative perceptions and envy.
My opinion is that businessmen deserve to profit fairly from their investments and efforts- and in this case they do. They profit more than we are led to believe generally and the players deserve their fair share. I’d rather see a bunch of millionaire players and owners than 30 greedy billionaire owners using the players at their whim for the least pay they could get away with and throwing them out when they are done with them (which is what they did in the past.) The ticket prices and other revenue sources are priced at what the market will bear and the fans deserve to see that money used to put an outstanding product out for the money spent. A big part of that is player’s salary.
"Baseball is like church- many attend, few understand." ~ Leo Durocher
It's not relevant for arbitration cases either...
because he wasn’t arbitration-eligible. Arbitration cases are determined by other arbitration cases. His contract doesn’t affect arbitration one way or the other, much like Crawford’s and Baldelli’s contracts didn’t.
I don't think you can drawn a direct line
but it does affect it indirectly. If the arbitrator has to choose between 2 offers (one from the owner and one from the player), and the owner’s offer is based on Pedroia’s contract and the arbitrator accepts the owner’s offer how does that not have an affect.
I just don’t believe that a player’s contract lives in a vacum…everything affects everything
"When two Whales Fight, many Shrimp Die" - Korean Proverb
by TheRiot Police on Dec 5, 2008 12:59 PM CST up reply actions
It doesn't live in a vaccuum...
I’m just saying that arbitration salaries are based primarily on other arbitration cases. Pedroia’s contract was not an arbitration case. A lawyer would be unlikely to use Pedroia’s contract as an example BECAUSE it’s not an arbitration case. He’d instead use an arbitration case as an example. Therefore, it’s impact on arbitration cases will be minimal.
I guess I am confused then...
I thought that if the case actually went to arbitration that the arbitrator had to choose between either the Owner’s offer or the Player/Agent’s offer. If either offer’s basis of estimate was a comparable player’s salary, I don’t see how it does not have affect. I would assume that the lawyers for either side would use any information they could to argue their specific offers.
"When two Whales Fight, many Shrimp Die" - Korean Proverb
by TheRiot Police on Dec 5, 2008 1:41 PM CST up reply actions
It's a comparable player (i.e., arbitration player)...
Pedroia’s case was not an arbitration case. He is a year away from arbitration, and the Red Sox decided to buy out his arbitration years. This is a very different situation than arbitration, where salaries are determined by experience and performance. Pedroia took a deal that is better for him than arbitration in the early years and probably worse for him in the later arbitration years, and almost certainly worse for him in the last two years (in which he would have been a free agent).
For an arbitration case, they’d look at comparable situations. Pedroia wouldn’t be comparable, because he wouldn’t be an arbitration player. Pedroia’s deal would really only affect other players whose teams are offering deals early to buy out their arbitration years (i.e., young players who have not yet reached eligibility). But these players are few and far between.
No that not true.
According to the CBA arbiters are limited as to what they can consider- the player’s contribution to his team, his previous salary and the salaries of players in a similar class. Class refers to service time- within one year. All salaries of players in each range of major league service time is relevant. Link.
"Baseball is like church- many attend, few understand." ~ Leo Durocher
Right...
and the VAST majority of those are guys who are ALSO arbitration eligible. While Pedroia’s deal is not unheard of, the list of players who have signed deals like this is still somewhat short. Most players who aren’t at the free agent point go through one-year contracts until near their free-agent year, when they’re (usually) signed long-term or traded. During the arbitration years, the vast majority of the salaries of players with similar service time are via arbitration-type deals (i.e., one-year agreements or arbitration settlements).
Let's not parse words any longer- ok?
I posted, in response to your assertion that Pedroia’s case wasn’t relevant because it is not an arbitration case, that whether or not it’s an arbitration case isn’t considered- it’s the three points I listed. I provided a link to clarify. Pedroia’s case is relevant.
"Baseball is like church- many attend, few understand." ~ Leo Durocher
It won't be nearly as relevant as arbitration cases...
My point is that his contract will have little (if any) impact on other arbitration cases, and zero impact on other free agents. It will have impact on pre-arbitration-eligible long-term contracts, though.
Equal impact on all fronts.
Maybe we should have an outside arbiter settle our dispute?
"Baseball is like church- many attend, few understand." ~ Leo Durocher
While what you say is true...
… regarding the owners’ behavior up to the 1970’s, for the last 15-20 years the pendulum has swung far too far, IMO, to the players’ side. Not that I wish to defend the owners’ behavior, which then and now tends toward the ridiculous, but if salaries keep going up the way they have been over the last ten years, baseball games are going to be priced out of reach of anyone but the very wealthy, and that may include access via television, too.
Be careful what you wish for.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
I'm not wishing for anything really.
What I’m saying is that, in general, salaries are based on what owners can truly afford- not that salaries make owners find revenue to afford it. That’s a tail wagging the dog scenario. If an owner makes an offer, it’s because he believes he can afford it. When an owner raises ticket prices it’s because he wants to maximize profits and will raise them to do so- regardless of his costs. That’s pretty basic stuff- charge what the market will bear. If costs go up- he passes them along to the fan, of course, but even if they don’t he will continue to raise prices to the most he can get.
They are in charge of the purse strings- if no one would pay $20+ million per season for premium players- do you think those players would stay home? It’s true that the wealthy owners have the advantage even with revenue sharing and they drive the salary escalation. It is not the players- they can’t force anyone to pay them anything beyond the league minimum or whatever an arbitration award is. The point is that the money is there and I think the players should absolutely share the wealth and to a greater extent than whatever the benevolence of the owners would be if they were left to their own devices.
"Baseball is like church- many attend, few understand." ~ Leo Durocher
by The Lip on Dec 5, 2008 3:28 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
OT:
Im reading from a couple different anlyists that Brian Giles would be a perfect fit for the cubs if he waived his no trade claus. I dont have the links but i have heard some people talk about it here. What am I missing? He hasnt done much the last 3 or 4 seasons to make him the "Big Bat" the cubs need. Like i said what am I missing?
Giles
- check his home/road splits
- the “prolific power bat” people think is out there doesn’t exist or isn’t available without costing you a ton of runs defensively, and punting defense doesn’t work as well in the national league
- all that veteran leadership shit you may or may not believe in
I like baseball.
It's been discussed a lot...
Giles has been really productive (even has provided some power) when he’s played away from San Diego. His road numbers the last three years are really good. His road stats last year, stretched to a full season, would have been 570 AB, 42 2B, 16 HR, .316/.403/.488 (.891 OPS). Over the past three years, his road OPS has been .845. The argument is that, by getting away from Petco, Giles becomes an OBP machine with 15-20 HR power, which would make him a suitable #2 or #5 hitter.
The counterargument is that it’s very unclear if he wants to leave SoCal at this point in his career, even for a chance to start for a contender. Maybe he would, maybe not. The other counterargument is that he’s going to be 38, which means he’s edging close to the end of the line.
My further aversion to Giles...
… comes from the fact that he is 38 years old. Anyone can decline at that stage of a career.
Oh, and Jim Edmonds put up numbers pretty close to that as a Cub last year — .256/.369/.568 with 19 HR in 250 AB (a little lower AVG, a little higher SLG, OPS of .937). Why not just re-sign Edmonds?
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
Well, there's the question of whether or not Edmonds WANTS to play...
The talk has suggested he may want to retire now and spend time with his family. That sort of would make him a non-option. The other issue is that, while Edmonds had a productive year last year, he was NOT productive the previous years. Also, Edmonds has been more injury prone than Giles has of late.
I’m not saying Giles is a slam dunk option. The point is that there ISN’T a slam dunk option. You can poke holes in the case for everyone:
Dunn: can’t play defense, will cost a LOT
Ibanez: can’t play defense, is getting old, isn’t THAT great offensively
Edmonds: old, concerns about injury, was last year a fluke?, may want to retire
Giles: old, not a big power guy (but decent), may not want to leave San Diego
Hermida: inconsistent, will require trading valuable pieces
Teahen: see Hermida, minus the upside
Abreu: older, expensive, questions about his defense, questions about his power
I think Giles is the best of these limited options.
Hermida is a far better option, because...
… he’s the only one who’s really young and has upside (he is three years younger than the next youngest on the list, Teahen).
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
In terms of talent, absolutely...
but with that talent comes a much bigger cost in terms of prospects. And given our limited supply of quality prospects at this point, it’s debatable whether or not a deal could even get done there.
Conversely, Giles could be a cost dump for the Padres. He could probably be had for very little in terms of prospects (assuming he’d come here in the first place, of course).
Not necessarily.
Hendry already gave the Marlins a top pitching prospect (Ceda) in exchange for taking on a contract (Gregg) that was likely to go up in arb, thus doing Beinfest a favor.
Maybe Beinfest could return the favor.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
I think that's a reach...
but almost anything is possible. I think the likelihood of a Giles salary dump is more realistic, personally.
Note: this is, of course, all assuming Giles would be willing to be traded. If he’s not willing to be traded, the whole discussion is moot in the first place. It’s an all-or-nothing thing with him. If he’s willing to be traded, I think he’s probably the best combination of talent and minimal cost available. If he’s not willing to be traded, he’s obviously not.
That said...
I’d certainly prefer your scenario.
I don't understand the
anger towards ESPN? I actually find it somewhat comical, and to some extent amazing at how some people react to things said on the radio or TV by someone on ESPN.
First of all, a lot of the things said, are to ruffle your feathers. Would anyone tune in if it was the same thing, all day everyday? If all they said were the things you wanted to hear, no one would watch/listen. Its always the guy who claims “I’m not listening to your show again” or “I won’t watch ESPN again” that will be the first to turn it back on. Why? Because they’ve gotten to you emotionally. They’ve gotten what they wanted: you’re attention.
Second, most of the people that have a bone to pick with ESPN are the fans whose teams are talked about in a negative way, or not at all. Or the guy who says “They talk about the East Coast teams too much!” Of course they do, majority of the population is east of the Mississippi. That’s where the audience is.
I just think too many times people take ESPN for more than what they should. Its a place to get sports scores/news. Not a blog dedicated to a specific region or fan base. Am I in love with ESPN programming, or do I always agree with what they say. Hell no. But its a company. Their goal is to make money not to satisfy every fan. Calling them “assholes” is exactly what they want, because it proves to them they’re doing their job correctly.
Its funny, you spend most of your life gripping a baseball. And in the end, its almost always the other way around.
While your point is valid...
… I think the point about “East Coast” teams isn’t. When people say that, they’re primarily referring to the Yankees, Mets and Red Sox.
The majority of the population of this country does NOT live in New York or Boston.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
But it is valid.
The proof is in your first sentence. They certainly are referring to the Yankees, Red Sox and Mets. Just because the majority of the country doesn’t live in the aforementioned cities, doesn’t mean it isn’t so. Majority of fans in those regions are fans of those teams. Why do you think the Yankess, Mets and Red Sox get so much coverage? As you know, its because there are more fans, and more interest in those teams. It doesn’t stop at baseball. It also applies to Duke and UNC. They get majority of the CBB coverage. I don’t think its a coincidence that they all fall on the East Coast, and are the most publicized teams by ESPN.
Its funny, you spend most of your life gripping a baseball. And in the end, its almost always the other way around.
Also
I’m not expert on this matter, and I could be way off. But wouldn’t the fact that most TV times show Eastern Times prove this?
Its funny, you spend most of your life gripping a baseball. And in the end, its almost always the other way around.
No, they do that because...
… for TV network shows, the time schedule is the same for ET and PT — that winds up more than half the country.
You say “majority of fans in those regions”. Sure, but that’s STILL not the majority of the fans in the entire country. Between the NYC area and New England — that’d be the base for the Yankees, Mets and Red Sox — that’s probably about 30 million people.
That’s a lot, but that’s still only 10% of the population of the country.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
+1
What team in professional sports has the best turnout in visiting stadiums? It ain’t the Yankees, Mets, or BoSox. It ain’t the Dodgers, the Angels, the A’s, or the Giants, either.
If you were to take a poll across the whole country, and all races, economic strata, political issue/party, or any other divide you want to name, I would bet a double cheeseburger or three the Cubs are the number one baseball team that gets rooted for, and at least the number two team overall. (Maybe the Cowboys could edge us. Maybe not.) I would also be willing to bet a few double cheeseburgers that the Cards would come in pretty high on the list, too. And this has been the case for years for various reasons. Yet when you see a game on national TV, more often than not one of the teams is from a big population center. I don’t ascribe that to favoritism, necessarily, as much as convenience — if my network is based in New York, whose ballgames are easiest to carry? — and proven past success — how many World Series have the New England/New York (and by relocation/extension the West Coast) teams won over the years?
"Well, we're out of cake! We only had three bits and we didn't expect such a rush! So what do you want?"
"What, so my choice is 'or death?' Well, then I'll have the chicken, please."
--Eddie Izzard
Even if they don't have the MOST fans...
… the Cubs most likely have the most WIDESPREAD fan base. And that’s primarily due to two decades of national coverage on WGN.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
Actually, I believe the Red Sox have the best average fan attendance...
The Cubs are second.
Slight edit...
I THINK the Cubs are second, but they may in fact be third to the Yankees.
And further...
the Yanks and Red Sox get more games on air because they get better ratings. Just like the Lakers and Cavs get more TV games because they get better ratings. Same for the Cowboys. This “East Coast” bias thing is a bit of a crock. It’s “popular team” bias. In baseball, the Yankees and Red Sox are the two most popular brands in baseball. The Cubs are third now, and we’re starting to see their national coverage rise. It just happens to be that the two most popular are on the East Coast.
In other sports, it’s different. In the NBA, the predominant teams are the Lakers, Cavs, and now the Celtics again. They’re popular because of Kobe, LeBron, and KG/Pierce. Two of those three certainly aren’t East Coast teams. A few years ago, the teams getting coverage were the Lakers and Suns. In the NFL, the Cowboys probably get the most airtime (with the exception of the obvious dynastic Patriots). In college football, it’s USC, Notre Dame (for historic reasons), and this year Texas/Oklahoma/Texas Tech, UF.
It’s all about popularity and ratings. Does the media overdo it in covering those popular teams? Absolutely. But it’s not an East Coast thing. They just are magnetized to the teams that get the best ratings.
Why do you think
they get better ratings? Or are the two most popular teams? Or have the most viewers? Because of the population of that region. I’ll have to dig up the show, and the numbers. I was listening to this being examined on the radio and it was specifically about East Coast and ESPN.
Its funny, you spend most of your life gripping a baseball. And in the end, its almost always the other way around.
According to the Harris Interactive poll
Its Yanks, Cubs and Braves, then BoSox
Its funny, you spend most of your life gripping a baseball. And in the end, its almost always the other way around.
I always wondered why
they did that for TV Show commercials. Let me ask you this. If you own ESPN, wouldn’t you zero in on what the most populated area wants the watch, which is East of the Mississippi (predominately Yanks and Sox fans)? You could make an argument that it is just ratings, but I would find it way too big of a coincidence that the ratings, and the most popular teams all fall on the East Coast, save the Cubs.
Its funny, you spend most of your life gripping a baseball. And in the end, its almost always the other way around.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Cubs By The Numbers
Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.
Click here to order your copy, available now!
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
