Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /homepages/2/d166085970/htdocs/blog/index.php:11) in /homepages/2/d166085970/htdocs/blog/wp-commentsrss2.php on line 8
Comments on: The chance to read this dreck in your daily paper? Um…priceless? http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2007/01/31/the-chance-to-read-this-dreck-in-your-daily-paper-umpriceless/ Media, Baseball, Boston, the Red Sox, Music, Literature, and Mnookins Sun, 20 Jul 2008 02:55:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 by: gkirkness http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2007/01/31/the-chance-to-read-this-dreck-in-your-daily-paper-umpriceless/#comment-6925 Thu, 01 Feb 2007 02:34:52 +0000 http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2007/01/31/the-chance-to-read-this-dreck-in-your-daily-paper-umpriceless/#comment-6925 I had thought Murray had just made a mistake, so I pointed out the Rodriguez contract as a contrary example to him via email. His response: "...the first two years of the contract you cite were completely guaranteed." Given that the first 3 years of the Drew deal are also guaranteed, I now havehave no idea what his point was. I pointed this out in a subsequent email to which he hasn't deigned to reply. Go figure. I had thought Murray had just made a mistake, so I pointed out the Rodriguez contract as a contrary example to him via email. His response:

“…the first two years of the contract you cite
were completely guaranteed.”

Given that the first 3 years of the Drew deal are also guaranteed, I now havehave no idea what his point was. I pointed this out in a subsequent email to which he hasn’t deigned to reply. Go figure.

]]> by: overdone http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2007/01/31/the-chance-to-read-this-dreck-in-your-daily-paper-umpriceless/#comment-6924 Thu, 01 Feb 2007 02:14:26 +0000 http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2007/01/31/the-chance-to-read-this-dreck-in-your-daily-paper-umpriceless/#comment-6924 ah, but the finest comedy in that article is on its first page. quote: [The more important they are perceived to be, the more money middle relievers are earning. In an era when starting pitchers last fewer innings, middle relievers have become more important. A manager needs one or more pitchers to get him from the starter to the closer.] ...i almost tipped over laughing, reading that. it reminds me of going to fenway five or six years ago with a friend from london and his swedish girlfriend--their first baseball game ever. i had to convince my friend dan that i truly believe there are more interesting things on the field than how the outfielders' asses look in what amounts to tights. THE MORE IMPORTANT THEY ARE PERCEIVED TO BE, THE MORE MONEY THEY MAKE? this, my friends, is the new york times' hall of fame baseball writer. "See, if the pitcher throws four balls to a batter, it's a walk." ah, but the finest comedy in that article is on its first page.

quote:

[The more important they are perceived to be, the more money middle relievers are earning.

In an era when starting pitchers last fewer innings, middle relievers have become more important. A manager needs one or more pitchers to get him from the starter to the closer.]

…i almost tipped over laughing, reading that. it reminds me of going to fenway five or six years ago with a friend from london and his swedish girlfriend–their first baseball game ever. i had to convince my friend dan that i truly believe there are more interesting things on the field than how the outfielders’ asses look in what amounts to tights.

THE MORE IMPORTANT THEY ARE PERCEIVED TO BE, THE MORE MONEY THEY MAKE? this, my friends, is the new york times’ hall of fame baseball writer.

“See, if the pitcher throws four balls to a batter, it’s a walk.”

]]> by: TBerg http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2007/01/31/the-chance-to-read-this-dreck-in-your-daily-paper-umpriceless/#comment-6911 Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:08:44 +0000 http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2007/01/31/the-chance-to-read-this-dreck-in-your-daily-paper-umpriceless/#comment-6911 This isn't the only website that is amused by Murray's strange obsession with the JD Drew negotiations: "One thing that never made sense was how much was made out of the long-delayed Drew contract. One New York newspaper seemed to have a column a week on this not-hot topic." - John Heyman, SI.com http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/jon_heyman/01/31/scoop.wednesday/1.html This isn’t the only website that is amused by Murray’s strange obsession with the JD Drew negotiations:

“One thing that never made sense was how much was made out of the long-delayed Drew contract. One New York newspaper seemed to have a column a week on this not-hot topic.” - John Heyman, SI.com

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/jon_heyman/01/31/scoop.wednesday/1.html

]]> by: StuckAtTheCask http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2007/01/31/the-chance-to-read-this-dreck-in-your-daily-paper-umpriceless/#comment-6905 Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:34:14 +0000 http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2007/01/31/the-chance-to-read-this-dreck-in-your-daily-paper-umpriceless/#comment-6905 > Meanwhile … Seth’s good buddy Murray Chass, Mr. Sensitivity when it comes to possible tampering in MLB, can’t quite bring himself to call ol’ Charlie Monfort out — despite the fact that the Rockies’ buffoon of an owner blatantly named names (Lowell, Tavarez) to the media while in the middle of sensitive trade discussions. Yeah, OK, Murray - you’re just out for the truth - no anti-Red Sox bias or anything. >
Meanwhile … Seth’s good buddy Murray Chass, Mr. Sensitivity when it comes to possible tampering in MLB, can’t quite bring himself to call ol’ Charlie Monfort out — despite the fact that the Rockies’ buffoon of an owner blatantly named names (Lowell, Tavarez) to the media while in the middle of sensitive trade discussions. Yeah, OK, Murray - you’re just out for the truth - no anti-Red Sox bias or anything.

]]> by: MarshallDog http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2007/01/31/the-chance-to-read-this-dreck-in-your-daily-paper-umpriceless/#comment-6901 Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:24:20 +0000 http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2007/01/31/the-chance-to-read-this-dreck-in-your-daily-paper-umpriceless/#comment-6901 Oh, and dansoxfan, I didn't even notice that at first. What Murray has done here is take a quote that says exactly what he's trying to point out, but equating it to the opposite in order to make his point and appear more observant than the person saying the quote. That's just insane, and demonstrates Murray clearly has an axe to grind. If not, he might have noticed he and Boras actually agree. Oh, and dansoxfan, I didn’t even notice that at first. What Murray has done here is take a quote that says exactly what he’s trying to point out, but equating it to the opposite in order to make his point and appear more observant than the person saying the quote. That’s just insane, and demonstrates Murray clearly has an axe to grind. If not, he might have noticed he and Boras actually agree.

]]> by: MarshallDog http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2007/01/31/the-chance-to-read-this-dreck-in-your-daily-paper-umpriceless/#comment-6900 Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:03:40 +0000 http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2007/01/31/the-chance-to-read-this-dreck-in-your-daily-paper-umpriceless/#comment-6900 Two paragraphs at the end really troubled me... <i>"Epstein was presumably referring to routine provisions that bar players from engaging in potentially dangerous activities like skydiving or racecar driving. A player’s surgically repaired throwing shoulder does not quite fit into that category..."</i> <i>"Guarantee provisions “are not customarily applicable” in normal major league contracts? Boras would be hard pressed to name one major free agent contract he has negotiated that-has not been guaranteed. The one for Alex Rodriguez? Barry Zito? Drew’s Dodgers’ contract?"</i> I'm not so hard pressed to name one such contract... actually, I can name two: Pudge Rodriguez and Magglio Ordonez. Just further proof that Murray refuses to actually research what he wants to report on. And what's with the swipe at Epstein? The fact that he was able to get such a clause into this contract speaks to Epstein's competence as a GM, but Murray seems to think otherwise. Two paragraphs at the end really troubled me…

“Epstein was presumably referring to routine provisions that bar players from engaging in potentially dangerous activities like skydiving or racecar driving. A player’s surgically repaired throwing shoulder does not quite fit into that category…”

“Guarantee provisions “are not customarily applicable” in normal major league contracts? Boras would be hard pressed to name one major free agent contract he has negotiated that-has not been guaranteed. The one for Alex Rodriguez? Barry Zito? Drew’s Dodgers’ contract?”

I’m not so hard pressed to name one such contract… actually, I can name two: Pudge Rodriguez and Magglio Ordonez. Just further proof that Murray refuses to actually research what he wants to report on.

And what’s with the swipe at Epstein? The fact that he was able to get such a clause into this contract speaks to Epstein’s competence as a GM, but Murray seems to think otherwise.

]]> by: dansoxfan http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2007/01/31/the-chance-to-read-this-dreck-in-your-daily-paper-umpriceless/#comment-6899 Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:11:04 +0000 http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2007/01/31/the-chance-to-read-this-dreck-in-your-daily-paper-umpriceless/#comment-6899 <i> “When you talk about the status of the contract,” Boras said, “guarantee provisions are not customarily applicable in normal major league contracts. In this contract, the guarantee provision is in place with the exception of a very, very myopic element of this, so this is something that is certainly treated for all intents and purposes as a $70 million contract.” Guarantee provisions “are not customarily applicable” in normal major league contracts? Boras would be hard pressed to name one major free agent contract he has negotiated that-has not been guaranteed. The one for Alex Rodriguez? Barry Zito? Drew’s Dodgers’ contract? </i> Am I reading this wrong? Wasn't Boras saying that it is not common to have a provision that eliminates the guaranteed nature of the contract? Does Murray have it backwards or do I?
“When you talk about the status of the contract,” Boras said, “guarantee provisions are not customarily applicable in normal major league contracts. In this contract, the guarantee provision is in place with the exception of a very, very myopic element of this, so this is something that is certainly treated for all intents and purposes as a $70 million contract.”

Guarantee provisions “are not customarily applicable” in normal major league contracts? Boras would be hard pressed to name one major free agent contract he has negotiated that-has not been guaranteed. The one for Alex Rodriguez? Barry Zito? Drew’s Dodgers’ contract?

Am I reading this wrong? Wasn’t Boras saying that it is not common to have a provision that eliminates the guaranteed nature of the contract? Does Murray have it backwards or do I?

]]>