Jon Heyman: Teixeira the rare young player a team can't retain

I imagine a certain someone here will say Jon Heyman, well-respected baseball writer, is just changing the subject and massaging the facts to fit his theory. Right, someone?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/jon_heyman/05/07/heyman.teixeira/index.html?eref=T1

the money quote:

"Only late bloomers and Scott Boras clients ever make it to free agency anymore,'' one GM said, only exaggerating slightly.

Gee, that's what I said earlier this week and a little certain someone said I was wrong.

Go fuck yourself, whomever you are.

 

I'm glad you put those smileys on there.

Though I am not as sold on this approach as I become more and more bitter with every Phil Hughes, Ian Kennedy and Robinson Cano game.

Seriously, though, you and your boy Heyman are preaching to the choir.

 

Read that today, sure seems like the guy has always had his heart set on being a free agent.

 

Wow. Not long after picking a fight to get one thread locked and he's already trying for another one. Sounds like somebody here is desperate for another pissing match.

Of course, the poster's version of events doesn't fit what really happened, but some people just don't care about the truth.

Yes, many players get locked up young. Some before they have even proven anything, like Evan Longoria. Of course, a team like the Rays has to take that risk because if/when Longoria becomes a star, they won't be able to keep him.

No way in hell the Yankees or Red Sox have to even take that risk because they know they have the resources to lock up a player like that long term even after he proves himself.

It doesn't change the fact that only a very small percentage of the teams in baseball can keep all of their elite players and only those few teams can win even when they make terrible choices on contracts.

Yes, the Twins locked up some of their star players. They also traded away the best pitcher in the game and no reasonable person would ever say that wasn't about money.

Could they have found a way to get it done? Yes, but it would have been a hell of a risk. If they give Johan Santana the monster long-term deal he wanted, they end up with a contract that will hurt their team for a very long time if he falls apart a year or two later. If he blows out his arm tomorrow, it is the kind of mistake that kills a low-revenue franchise.

The risk isn't nearly as big for a team like the Yankees, Red Sox or even the Mets, who can just spend their way through a bad contract.

Cue post about how I can't stay away from responding. Never mind that I post on just about any baseball thread, no matter what the topic. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

 

And, of course, you're quick to oblige.

 

To be more specific, Scott Boras has had him set to be a free agent. Boras is why teams shied away from drafting him. Boras is why only a few teams will dare try and sign him. And the Braves won't be one of them.

He and the Giants were wrong about Barry Zito. Boras wanted a Torii Hunter-type deal for Andruw Jones, who got only two years but good money from the Dodgers considering the way his stats have taken a nasty dive.

It's about time baseball stop being hynotized by Scott Boras. And if he thinksMark Teixeira is worth $20 million per and $200 million in a total deal, he and MLB have learned nothing from the Barry Zito disaster.

 

Bullshit.
Every single major league owner could spend as much as the Yankees and Red Sox if they wanted to, then their stands would be full and they could make money.

Carl Pohlad just didn't want to spend the money.

Why is it a risk for the Twins, but not a risk for the Mets?

 

No, they can't. It is absolutely not the same thing when the Yankees dip into their profits as when another owner has to dig into his own pocket. And no way the Twins, for example, could EVER come close to what the Yankees, Mets and Red Sox bring in revenue.

 

Of course, you are doing what you so often accuse the rest of us who don't agree with you: You are changing the subject and the parameters of the argument.



Johan Santana WAS, in fact, locked up long-term by the Twins. Four years and $40 million prior to the 2005 season. So there you go again, failing.



To use Santana, 29, as an example that teams can't sign their young players is disingenious at best or dishonest at worst. Of course, I am not surprised.



Bye, poo. commence the resumption of your ever-lasting failure...now.

 

If they kept their star players they could.

Instead, they trade Santana for a bunch of prospects and save that money up front, but if the Twins would have kept Santana then the fanbase wouldn't be as disenchanted about the team and more people would come out.

And for the haul they got from the Mets, it would almost have been less risky to lock him up.

The fact is, every single major league owner is filthy fucking rich and they could be spending more money, but they don't because they want to be even more rich.

 

Ill leave the personal cheap shots to others. They seem to be upset. Perhaps it will make them feel better.

Please take note of the examples Heyman used. Three of the five play in New York or Philadelphia. I know. The other two are Longoria and Tulowitzki, both locked up at a point in their careers where they have proven very little.

And BYH, Santana was 28 when the Twins traded him because they had to make a financial choice that the big-revenue teams would not have to make. He fits my argument just fine, no matter how you want to try to paint it.

I'm addressing the point, unlike you did when I brought up all the bad contracts the Red Sox overcame last year. You couldn't run fast enough from that one, could you?

And Angola, are you seriously going to try to tell me that a team in Minnesota could ever come close to bringing in the revenue on the same level as a team in New York? Seriously?

Not a chance.

 

They could come a lot closer than they are right now.

Field a winning team and the fans will come, buy a bunch of shit and make the owner money.

That's fact.