Tuesday, November 14, 2006

FInancial analysis

One other thing to get off my chest...

While the media make loud noises about the Sox irresponsibility in dragging the franchise into financial ruin, I just have to ask a simple question.

Should the Red Sox simply not have bid on this guy?

If the Sox are the highest bidder, and that is still an if at 11.50pm ET, what number should we be focusing on? Is it $42m, or is it, as this simple observer might suggest, the difference between $42m and the bid of the 2nd highest team?

If the Mets bid $38m, the Sox overpaid by $3,999,999.99 - spread over a 3, 4 or 5 year contract, is that really that silly a move? If the 2nd place team was the Rangers who may have bid $32m, the Sox would appear to have overpaid by $9,999,999.99 - spread over a 3, 4 or 5 year contract, is that really that silly a move...?

Presumably the contract that Boras negotiates with the Sox would be the exact same contract that he would have been able to negotiate out of every other bidder... well maybe except the Rangers, we know how Boras and Hicks get to it when Boras has Hicks negotiating against himself..., so whatever is spent there is the same for every team, so all we are really talking about is the dollars that the Red Sox bid, that the 2nd place team didn't. Even if that gap is as high as $20m, are we really saying that $20m is so crippling an amount that the Sox cannot compete for years to come?

So again, I would ask all commentators that want to complain about the Sox (seemingly) winning this auction, should the Sox even have been allowed to bid?

0 threw a strike:

Post a Comment

<< Home