The Blue Jays finally found a taker for Raul Mondesi... and wouldn't you guess it's those Damn Yankees.

The Jays keep touting the $$$ savings, as the Yanks pick up the rest of Mondesi's salary for 2002 and $7 mil (of $13 mil) for 2003. That still leaves the Jays paying $6 million next year for a Yankee player. Plus, we received only a double-A pitcher in return. I think the Jays would have been better off just waiving him.

The bright side -- if this is the Yanks' sole July Millionaire Pickup -- is indeed that Mondesi, for the size of his contract, sucks... Productionwise, this year he's been Shane Spencer with an arm. As Baseball Prospectus wrote this spring, "Mondesi is like the velvet nude hanging on the living room wall; ridding yourself of it requires admitting that nobody else thinks it's remotely worth what you paid for it."

[quote]Originally posted by canmark:
The Jays keep touting the $$$ savings, as the Yanks pick up the rest of Mondesi's salary for 2002 and $7 mil (of $13 mil) for 2003. That still leaves the Jays paying $6 million next year for a Yankee player. Plus, we received only a double-A pitcher in return. I think the Jays would have been better off just waiving him.

---

Then they'd be paying his FULL salary, except for the major league minimum which would be paid by the team that claimed him on waivers. In this day and age there's no way a team would just waive a player with a contract like that.

[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:
"Mondesi is like the velvet nude hanging on the living room wall; ridding yourself of it requires admitting that nobody else thinks it's remotely worth what you paid for it."

---

I'll pay for a velvet nude of the whiffleball hitting Mondesi anyday!

Seriously though, the Yanks can afford it, but I'm not sure he's going to help that much. He's got no juice, but bro is juicy alright!

This trade is complete bullshit.
MLB should have stepped in and nullify the trade.

The yankme's gave up no talent to plug up basically their only hole.

They just throw money around for whatever they need and it ruins the game.

Remember--there were no strikes in MLB before George Steinbrenner became owner.

Josh

Josh, I hate Steinbush and the Yanks as much as anyone, but your points are specious. It's possible to win on a $40 M budget, as Oakland has proven (and they would've eliminated the Yanks last October if Jeremy Giambi had just slid). And there was a brief players' strike in '72, a year before GS III bought the team. The other owners are like him in all things but revenue stream.

Mondesi may not even be an improvement on Spencer / Vander Wal (yes, I know he had a good first game). Time will tell.

Mondesi is a very talented player who seemed to lack motivation in Toronto. Something tells me he'll be a brand new man in Yankee pinstripes.

Another point about Steinbrennar: does nobody remember the years when the Yankees SUCKED??? And if money is the answer to all pennants, then why aren't the Texas Rangers and NY Mets going to face each other in the 2002 WS? While I'm not denying the rather troubling have's/have not's situation in MLB, there are a number of other teams that also have huge revenue streams yet haven't won the World Series in a while (Dodgers, Cubs, and <ahem> the Red Sox). Money sure does help, but without a first-rate front office and scouting crew, the Yankees wouldn't have won 4 WS in 6 years.

Wow, a Mets fan and a Red Sox fan sticking up for George Steinbrennar and the Yankees. Outsports can be a very interesting place sometimes.

Wow, Rudy, thanks! Where are you on the MLB boards? People always say it's so easy being a Yankee fan; based on the endless ammunition hurled towards the Bombers, I'd say it's just as easy being a Yankee-hater.

[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:
It's possible to win on a $40 M budget, as Oakland has proven (and they would've eliminated the Yanks last October if Jeremy Giambi had just slid).

---

C'mon, Bill, that's just speculation. Game 3 of the '01 ALDS would have been tied if Jeremy had been safe at home, and who knows what really might have happened if that game went into extra innings?

There are those who still say that Buckner lost the '86 WS for the Sox, but his fateful error wasn't in what was to be the deciding game...

Teams have shown they can win for a year or two with small budgets. But they can't keep the team together. Teams like the Yankees, Mets, Braves, Dodgers just swoop all the talent up once they become free agents. As happy as I am with how the Twins are doing, I know they're going to have to win soon, or else Koskie will be a Yank, Mientkiewicz a Brave, Mays a Met, Hunter a Dodger...you get the picture.

As for Buckner's error not occuring in the deciding game, well there would not have been a deciding game if not for that error, if I'm not mistaken. Weren't the Sox up 3-2 in the series? Buckner fields that ball, Sox are series champs, simple as that!

George, the Braves have pared their budget back to where it's questionable if they'll sign both Maddux and Glavine next winter. As pointed out above, the Mets have won one pennant in the last 15 years, and the Yankees won zilch between '81 and '96.

And Game 6 was already TIED when Buckner muffed the grounder, due to the pitching in that inning of Calvin Schiraldi and Bob Stanley.

[quote]Originally posted by George_vikingfan:
As for Buckner's error not occuring in the deciding game, well there would not have been a deciding game if not for that error, if I'm not mistaken. Weren't the Sox up 3-2 in the series? Buckner fields that ball, Sox are series champs, simple as that!

---

Yes, but not winning a Series because of an error isn't the same as losing the Series because of it.

[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:
And Game 6 was already TIED when Buckner muffed the grounder, due to the pitching in that inning of Calvin Schiraldi and Bob Stanley.

---

I think Bill W's got his baseball history right. I don't know how the other Red Sox Outsporters opine on the notorious ball through Buckner's legs, but in my circle of knowledgeable Sox friends and acquaintances, the general consensus is Gedman's passed ball blew Game 6, not Buckner's bumble.

Buckner has been most unfairly scapegoated for the Red Sox collapse in the 1986 WS when there were a number of other more significant factors. First and foremost, no one in Red Sox Nation seems to be able to count to seven because even though the Sox blew Game 6, there was still a Game 7 to be played! Second, Gedman's passed ball allowed the Mets to tie it up. Even if Buckner had made the play, the best the Sox could hope for was extra innings, and who knows what would have happened then? Third, the manager positioned Buckner poorly, way too close to 1st base. Finally, the manager NEVER should have had Buckner out there in the first place! Buckner's ankles were made of chalk (he was hobbled by some horrible injuries in his career), and for the entire season, a defensive replacement would come in for Buckner in games where the Sox had the lead. Folks suspect that Kevin Kennedy wanted Buckner out on the field when the Red Sox clinched (HA!) so his veteran 1st baseman could soak in the moment, but Kennedy says that wasn't the case. Kevin, it ain't just a river in Egypt, ya know.

What da heck was this thread about again? Oh yeah, well, after defending the Yankees, let me say this. The biggest difference between the have's and the have not's is that the have not's have no margin for error. If a key player or two gets injured at crunch time, if a guy doesn't pan out, if a star slumps at an inopportune stretch, or any of a zillion possible IF's, then a low-revenue team is sunk. On the other hand, if a certain player or players aren't working out for the Yankees, then lickety-split and easy as pie, you go out and buy yourself one or make a trade from their bottomless well of farm talent (keep in mind that despite all their high draft picks this season, the A's couldn't afford to sign them all, or even the majority ... someone explain to me how the hell the draft is supposed to be an equalizer in MLB???). All big-market teams have this luxury that small-market teams do not (well, the Red Sox don't, but that's because of the low-grade morons Duquette and Harrington). And the Yankees, with the El Dorado motherlode of all baseball revenue streams, has more money and resources to fill the holes than anybody else.

[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:
the general consensus is Gedman's passed ball blew Game 6, not Buckner's bumble.

---

Get off poor Richie Gedman's back. It was a wild pitch from Bob Stanley! (Regardless of how it was scored in the books.)

Odd that this veered from a discussion on the Yankees' obtaining more help to the '86 Red Sox. But....

1) Seems to me the Buckner play was more of a psychological killer. Yes, the score was already tied at that point. But, had he made the play the game would have gone to extra innings. I remember watching it on TV and being utterly stunned. I don't think I had another moment like that until the Joe Carter home run in the '93 Series. And yes, there was a Game 7, but I think losing Game 6 like that put a mindset into the Red Sox, even with running out to an early lead in that game, that they were doomed--as soon as something bad started to happen, they would collapse. (And I sincerely believe that if it weren't for the Carter HR, losing Games 5 and 6 would have placed a similar mindset on the Blue Jays in '93 going into Game 7.)

2) The current rules allow the Yankees to do what they're doing. What is Steinbrenner supposed to do, NOT do something to help his team win?

[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:


for the entire season, a defensive replacement would come in for Buckner in games where the Sox had the lead. Folks suspect that Kevin Kennedy wanted Buckner out on the field when the Red Sox clinched (HA!) so his veteran 1st baseman could soak in the moment, but Kennedy says that wasn't the case. Kevin, it ain't just a river in Egypt, ya know.

---

actually, the manager was john mcnamara.

and yes, he had replaced buckner w/dave stapleton in late innings of games (that they led) all throughout the year.

I'm not disputing it's the Yankees' "right" to spend and deal (in fact, their front office does a great job -- others have done much worse with big revenues). The fact is that the Yankees' ability to get a near-All-Star caliber regular or two every July is unique due in large part to their immense TV revenue. Steinbush spins these moves like he "wants to win," not that he CAN spend.

[quote]Originally posted by Joe in Philly:

...had [Buckner] made the play the game would have gone to extra innings.

---

It already was the tenth inning.

[quote]Originally posted by faydman:
actually, the manager was john mcnamara.

---

Thanks for the correction. Brain farts all around today, I guess.

[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:
It already was the tenth inning.

---

Oops. What can I say, it was nearly 16 years ago and I'm 40.