Brian Cashman: Last Year as Yank GM?

[Hornsby]

Speaking of unusual fixation with the Yankees, which side asked for this and why would either side do this?

Rotoworld

The note implies the Red Sox insisted on that. First of all, why would the Yanks want to be saddled with a contract that only gets less attractive every season and second, do you think the Yankees ever think about restricting players from going to the Red Sox? It's embarrassing.

Hell, the Yankees lead the league in contracts that get less attractive each season...Posada, Jeter, A-Rod, maybe Mo...none of those deals are going to be pretty for the club at the end. All of those guys are either going to be 40+ or close to it. Crawford is only going to be 35 when his deal is done.

As to why do it? It's called sound business. At no cost to you, you make sure that your main rival isn't helped.

[TopChuckie]

What other team is being precluded in contracts by a team? That is just one more example of the Red Sox unusual obsession with the Yanks. It's ridiculous. How would that even be enforced? One team can't dictate what another team does with their property once it's their property, and what's to keep the Angels from "laundering" Crawford through Arizona and then to the Yankees. The Red Sox have the right to tell the third team in the line what they can do with a player they acquire via trade? It's a joke, an embarrassing joke. It serves no real purpose except to admit fear.

Also, why would the Red Sox ever trade Crawford unless the realize they screwed up by making Crawford the next Vernon Wells, in which case wouldn't they love to stick the Yankees with him?

Posada is done after this year. That deal wasn't near as painful as you all predicted. A-Rod is being paid for promotional value and if he achieves what they expected they won't regret that deal, even if it's during a 15 HR season. Jeter was a payment for past services, as was Posada, they don't have that loyalty to Crawford. I'm sure they're glad they have Burnett right now, otherwise Nova would be their #3 starter, and who knows who their 5th would be? Igawa was a mistake, but that's what can happen when you gamble on an unknown, the Red Sox know all about that too. They do not mind the Mo deal at all, and it's a two year deal, worst case scenario still doesn't hurt them.

[chancellor]

What other team is being precluded in contracts by a team?

None I'm aware of, but that doesn't mean it's not a good idea.

That is just one more example of the Red Sox unusual obsession with the Yanks. It's ridiculous.

Maybe. Maybe on the bizarre, outside chance, the Red Sox need to deal him while he's still a good player that they prevent him from going to the team that can do them the most business damage.

How would that even be enforced?

Depends on the contract terms, I would assume any deal that would put Crawford on the Yanks would be subject to voiding.

One team can't dictate what another team does with their property once it's their property, and what's to keep the Angels from "laundering" Crawford through Arizona and then to the Yankees.

Actually, they can, if the deal is agreed to in that manner and approved by the league. It'll be interesting to see if this gets league approval. The NFL has already agreed to this type of system (most recent was when Favre went to the Jets).

[Bob Kohm]

Taking the Yankees and Red Sox out of this and speaking to the general issue, I'm not sure that enacting a system of prior restraint is either good for the game or unlikely to come up next time someone in the Senate decides to start screaming about the anti-trust exemption.

Speaking to the discrete situation of Crawford, this is a publicity stunt by the Red Sox, a team dependent on the Yankees for much of their value in licensing. Shoudl the New York rivalry ever fade, the Red Sox are just another "good" team, like the White Sox or the Phillies. They derive huge material benefit from their being included in the "greatest rivalry in sports" and anything they can do to further that association is money in the bank for them.

[Hornsby]

What other team is being precluded in contracts by a team? That is just one more example of the Red Sox unusual obsession with the Yanks. It's ridiculous. How would that even be enforced? One team can't dictate what another team does with their property once it's their property, and what's to keep the Angels from "laundering" Crawford through Arizona and then to the Yankees. The Red Sox have the right to tell the third team in the line what they can do with a player they acquire via trade? It's a joke, an embarrassing joke. It serves no real purpose except to admit fear.

Also, why would the Red Sox ever trade Crawford unless the realize they screwed up by making Crawford the next Vernon Wells, in which case wouldn't they love to stick the Yankees with him?

Posada is done after this year. That deal wasn't near as painful as you all predicted. A-Rod is being paid for promotional value and if he achieves what they expected they won't regret that deal, even if it's during a 15 HR season. Jeter was a payment for past services, as was Posada, they don't have that loyalty to Crawford. I'm sure they're glad they have Burnett right now, otherwise Nova would be their #3 starter, and who knows who their 5th would be? Igawa was a mistake, but that's what can happen when you gamble on an unknown, the Red Sox know all about that too. They do not mind the Mo deal at all, and it's a two year deal, worst case scenario still doesn't hurt them.

Seriously...what Chance said a thousand times over. You really need to check your homerism at the door. Being a fan is great, being a blind fanatic is not.

And all of those contracts are bad ones, no matter how you may try to dress them up as "loyalty" payments.

[TopChuckie]

Seriously...what Chance said a thousand times over. You really need to check your homerism at the door. Being a fan is great, being a blind fanatic is not.

And all of those contracts are bad ones, no matter how you may try to dress them up as "loyalty" payments.

My homerism pales in comparison to the lack of objectivity in the opposite direction, as evidenced by anyone voting, not that the Yankees could finish with a lesser record than the Orioles, but that they will.

What Bob said a thousand times over. If my team was that fixated on another team, as if they can't simply build a team good enough to do it on their own, without having to resort to this sort of thing, I would be embarrassed. I could not possibly defend that as just a wise, strategic maneuver as opposed to a show of inferiority.

[TopChuckie]

Actually, they can, if the deal is agreed to in that manner and approved by the league. It'll be interesting to see if this gets league approval. The NFL has already agreed to this type of system (most recent was when Favre went to the Jets).

So you believe the Red Sox have effectively made it impossible for Carl Crawford to play for the Yankees for the next seven years, even if for some odd reason they decide to trade him this July? You really believe the league would reinforce this sort of precedent?

[Hornsby]

My homerism pales in comparison to the lack of objectivity in the opposite direction, as evidenced by anyone voting, not that the Yankees could finish with a lesser record than the Orioles, but that they will.

What Bob said a thousand times over. If my team was that fixated on another team, as if they can't simply build a team good enough to do it on their own, without having to resort to this sort of thing, I would be embarrassed. I could not possibly defend that as just a wise, strategic maneuver as opposed to a show of inferiority.

Well, I'm one of those "objective" fans that voted for the Yankees to have a better record. Simply because that's reality. As was also pointed out, some are simply pulling the leg of hard core Yankee fans like yourself.

And I think that Bob's point is that the Yankees are simply good for the Red Sox, and MLB as a whole. I happen to agree...every form of entertainment needs a heel, and the Yanks play the role admirably. And that Boston is doing what it does to keep the money flowing, not that they're fixated on the Yankees for any other reason. At that level it's a business, nothing more...at our level, it's a much different thing.

[Bob Kohm]

And I think that Bob's point is that the Yankees are simply good for the Red Sox, and MLB as a whole. I happen to agree...every form of entertainment needs a heel, and the Yanks play the role admirably. And that Boston is doing what it does to keep the money flowing, not that they're fixated on the Yankees for any other reason. At that level it's a business, nothing more...at our level, it's a much different thing.

That's pretty close to it, although I think that the Red Sox do have an "extra" tie to the Yankees as a source of revenue as opposed to the rest of the league-- if the Yankees disappeared tomorrow the whole league would take a financial hit, but the Red Sox would actually lose a fairly large chunk of their identity as they rely on the rivalry for any prestige or interest they have outside of Boston in excess to what, say, the Reds have outside of Cincy. Personally I disagree with Chance on this silly publicity stunt of a contract clause as being seen as enforceable by Park Ave., which I don't believe is quite ready for a spate of "non-compete" clauses in an enterprise whose sole purpose is the promotion of competition. That's a can of worms that nobody in their right mind would want to open.

[BuckyBuckner]

So you believe the Red Sox have effectively made it impossible for Carl Crawford to play for the Yankees for the next seven years, even if for some odd reason they decide to trade him this July? You really believe the league would reinforce this sort of precedent?

I don't see why not. Contracts are binding. Not sure why this is bothering you so much.

The New York Rangers did this a while back when they traded goon Tie Domi. They put a clause in the contract that he could never be traded to a team within the Rangers division.

[TopChuckie]

I don't see why not. Contracts are binding. Not sure why this is bothering you so much.

The New York Rangers did this a while back when they traded goon Tie Domi. They put a clause in the contract that he could never be traded to a team within the Rangers division.

It doesn't bother me at all, I think it makes the Red Sox look pathetic, and I love that. I would have a problem if baseball enforced this sort of thing with any teams involved, but as I said, until it's ever enforced, I have no problem with it. I only have a problem with being labeled a homer simply because I think it's an embarrassing move for a team to make, not that I'm arguing I'm not a homer, but I would think it embarrassing if the Giants did the same thing with the Dodgers, I just wouldn't get as much pleasure out of it.

[Bob Kohm]

I don't see why not. Contracts are binding. Not sure why this is bothering you so much.
.

I suspect that if push comes to shove and other teams try to put these clauses into contracts that the MLBPA will start to complain that this type of clause should be subject to collective bargaining as it prevents players from being traded to markets where their outside income would be greater.

[chancellor]

So you believe the Red Sox have effectively made it impossible for Carl Crawford to play for the Yankees for the next seven years, even if for some odd reason they decide to trade him this July? You really believe the league would reinforce this sort of precedent?

I believe they will, though I don't know so. I do know the NFL has essentially done so - as I noted, see the Favre to the Jets case, and I'm not aware of any limits in the league contracts that constrain a team and player from agreeing to such a clause. Crawford was represented by a very savvy agency, so I'm sure he was aware of the clause and the implications, so it's not like he's being screwed here.

IMO, your interpretation is wayyy off. I could easily see a scenario where the Red Sox have to trade a premier bat and cash to upgrade their starting pitching staff - i.e., their minor league pitchers don't develop all that well, Lackey continues his downward trend, and Lester suffers a serious arm injury in the next year or so. Making sure Crawford doesn't end up on their most serious competition - certainly from a business standpoint and arguably from a baseball performance standpoint - is pretty smart business, IMO.

[Don Quixote]

There's also the possibility that this clause was put into the contract just to yank the Yankees' chain a little, a bit of juvenilia from Theo.

[Bob Kohm]

There's also the possibility that this clause was put into the contract just to yank the Yankees' chain a little, a bit of juvenilia from Theo.

Quite possible, and if he is that's a pretty smart yet douchebaggy move. If you sense a split in leadership with the children sitting at the ownership table and the adult relegated to the GM's office, why not do everythign you can to exacerbate the situation and try to throw the Steinbrenner & Levine children into hysterics?