tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9106257093107729484.post2433131688934620469..comments2024-01-10T07:00:57.766-05:00Comments on It is about the money, stupid: Hendry pokes Cashman; plus Peavy stuffJason @ IIATMShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11675184282951841175noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9106257093107729484.post-16649017838676733742008-12-09T15:49:00.000-05:002008-12-09T15:49:00.000-05:00(gasp)Really? Tad, I honestly wouldn't call it ob...(gasp)<BR/><BR/>Really? Tad, I honestly wouldn't call it obsessed or arrogance. I view it under the lens of a financial decision. The Padres have little leverage, other than keeping Peavy. The Yanks (and any other team with the wherewithal to pay, but I use the Yanks because that's my team/platform) have the ability to wait it out until the Padres get desperate enough. If they get desperate enough. Say you lost your job and had to sell your house. There's one buyer out there who offers you $100K below your price. But he's the only buyer. Either you take what you can get and move on, or you bleed your resources to keep that asset. Desperation is no place to make a financial decision and I think Towers is in that spot (or will be soon).<BR/><BR/>I'm obsessed with the gives and takes, the dancing of the elephants, if you will. Peavy is just the subject, but what really gets me excited is to see how the "game" will be played by each side. Will the Padres hold Peavy until the July deadline and try again? Will they be forced, by ownership (who is in the midst of a very messy divorce), to slash and burn?<BR/><BR/>The Yankee arrogance, is misapplied here. Yankee arrogance would be saying that "CC will be a Yankee because the Yanks are historically the best franchise...blah blah blah". Yankee arrogance would say "I can't understand why Peavy would not want to play here". I haven't said any of that, nor will I.<BR/><BR/>What I have said is that the guy with the biggest pocketbook holds all the leverage when it comes to a bailout. When Lehman went under, they took whatever offer they could get, no matter how under-market it might have seemed. This situation isn't materially different once you get away from the names.<BR/><BR/><BR/>As for Burnett, it's a "like" not "love" situation with me. I'd like to have him for 4 years. I'd hate to go 5. I'd LOVE 3 years. Like I have said with Pettitte, if he can get his money and years elsewhere, who am I to begrudge. After all, it IS about the money, stupid. Ain't it?Jason @ IIATMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11675184282951841175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9106257093107729484.post-24631586369027279952008-12-09T15:38:00.000-05:002008-12-09T15:38:00.000-05:00You really are obsessed with Peavy at this point. ...You really are obsessed with Peavy at this point. And pardon me for saying, but there seems to be plenty of "Yankee arrogance" in these Peavy posts wherein you seem to presume Peavy will be a Yankee before next season...although, knowing you to be a rationale human being, that probably isn't the case.<BR/><BR/>Different post, but I'm lazy...wouldn't get too comfortable with the idea of Burnett in pinstripes just yet...Henry is said to be quite enamored of ol' AJ, and he can offer Burnett the chance to play for a winner! (zing)tadthebadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12850610376839190688noreply@blogger.com