O/T - Juan Soto - 15 years/$765M with the Mets

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by brian1961

Yeah, Bobby, I feel much better for saying to Mets fans, "YOU CAN HAVE 'EM!!!!!!!!" His thinking he deserved a free Yankee suite REALLY turned me off. It was not as if the Yanks' offer was a low-ball, chintzy amount. Semi-suite Soto really showed the inter-workings of his character during these negotiations. Sure, the Yanks will need to find someone to bat before Mr. Judge, but I think they eventually will.

So, Bobby, if your a Mets fan, I am happy for you. Be that as it may, with several King's ransoms to pay, the perceived expectations upon Semi-suite Soto will be off-the-charts. Semi-suite Soto got nothing but love and respect at Yankee Stadium, and this is how he returns it? Not to be a voice of doom, but Mets fans are not quiet and sheepish when they decide to voice their unhappiness...... --- Brian Powell

You can also easily say that it's Yankees that were being cheap by not giving him a suite...Would George have given him the suite?

I have heard that Soto was turned off from the Yankees by an incident where stadium security kicked his family out of the clubhouse.

On the plus side, at least they're spending. Even though they're using the money for pitchers that they don't really need...

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

I have heard that Soto was turned off from the Yankees by an incident where stadium security kicked his family out of the clubhouse.

What's the standard clubhouse policy of the Yankees? Are family members allowed?

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

What's the standard clubhouse policy of the Yankees? Are family members allowed?

I'm not sure. Perhaps a question for one of our resident Yankee fans...

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

You can also easily say that it's Yankees that were being cheap by not giving him a suite...Would George have given him the suite?

I have heard that Soto was turned off from the Yankees by an incident where stadium security kicked his family out of the clubhouse.

On the plus side, at least they're spending. Even though they're using the money for pitchers that they don't really need...

I’m a Dodgers fan first and Mets second, so I look at this wanting to dislike the Yankees; I thought trading Cortes for Williams and signing Fried were some nice moves. Getting rid of Cortes after that Game 1 GS has some added value.

[Balticfox]

Some of the Youtube comments are telling:

Originally Posted by d-man 117

soto is a punk, a thug, a bad attitude villain, and he sucks as an outsider. What in the heck are the Mets thinkin?

Originally Posted by peterrak9554

My buddy was head of security for the Padres and told me Soto’s family and entourage was the worst to deal with. Ridiculous demands and 100% catered treatment which is not in the slightest bit a priority. If they didn’t get it they through fits

I do the VIP executive protection at Raiders games and we don’t get that level of entitlement from high net worth VIPs who needless to say, have more value.

That kind of player, that kind of stuff, is a cancer in the locker room and steadily destroys a team. More MLB managers should have the gumption that Bobby Cox had when he took over the Toronto Blue Jays in 1982 and put an end to the silly contract perks. Cox was reported to have told Cliff Johnson and others "I don't care what your contract says. That horsecrap (personal limousine to the game rather than the team bus) ends right now if you want to play for this team."

[calvindog]

By all accounts, Soto was a model teammate with the Yankees and wherever he’s played. It’s a historic signing for the Mets and I just pray it doesn’t work out like most of the Mets’ big signings.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by calvindog

By all accounts, Soto was a model teammate with the Yankees and wherever he’s played.

Oh?!

No Contact with Yankees Teammates

Plus evidently his relationship with Manny Machado of the Padres was "difficult".

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Some of the Youtube comments are telling:





That kind of player, that kind of stuff, is a cancer in the locker room and steadily destroys a team. More MLB managers should have the gumption that Bobby Cox had when he took over the Toronto Blue Jays in 1982 and put an end to the silly contract perks. Cox was reported to have told Cliff Johnson and others "I don't care what your contract says. That horsecrap (personal limousine to the game rather than the team bus) ends right now if you want to play for this team."

I'd like to see data backing up the oft asserted claims about locker room dissension impacting on field performance and, vice versa, the claims about players adding value because they were great "clubhouse leaders." There have certainly been dysfunctional winning teams.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I'd like to see data backing up the oft asserted claims about locker room dissension impacting on field performance and, vice versa, the claims about players adding value because they were great "clubhouse leaders." There have certainly been dysfunctional winning teams.

I'm not the first to say it, but the statisticians can confirm baseball is an individual sport disguised as a team sport.

[cgjackson222]

Only found a couple of studies on the subject and both say clubhouse chemistry is too subjective to measure: Baseball Therapy: How to Measure Clubhouse Chemistry by Russell A. Carleton in 2013 concluded that "Right now, we don't know, but I think we as sabermetricians do ourselves a disservice if we assume that chemistry doesn't matter"

Another study: "Can We Measure Clubhouse Chemistry?"
by Sky Andrecheck in 1999 stated: "So, if we assume that each player has a clubhouse contribution, with the mean centered at zero and a small standard deviation of about 0.2 wins, how much can clubhouse chemistry really affect the team's overall performance? Multiplying the SD by the square root of 25, we see that clubhouse chemistry would have a standard deviation of 1 win, meaning that the team with the worst chemistry in baseball will lose about 2 extra games because of it, while teams with the best chemistry gain about 2 extra wins. At least, that's the best estimate we have from looking at teams' behavior with regard to their personnel decisions.

The true value of chemistry is probably so difficult to determine, that it cannot be ascertained directly. If teams are under or over valuing clubhouse chemistry, then theoretically a team could take advantage by assembling an all-jerk team or an all good-guy team to take advantage of the inefficiency. However, by looking at teams' behavior, we have attempted to estimate at least what clubhouse attitude is currently valued at among major league teams. Is it valued correctly? For that, perhaps an even more subjective view is needed.

I always wondered if Cobb, Bonds, Albert Belle and others never winning World Series pointed to cancers in the clubhouse affecting performance. And by the way, I don't think Cobb was an evil person like some, but I believe Sam Crawford said he was not a great teammate.

[John1941]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Some of the Youtube comments are telling:





That kind of player, that kind of stuff, is a cancer in the locker room and steadily destroys a team. More MLB managers should have the gumption that Bobby Cox had when he took over the Toronto Blue Jays in 1982 and put an end to the silly contract perks. Cox was reported to have told Cliff Johnson and others "I don't care what your contract says. That horsecrap (personal limousine to the game rather than the team bus) ends right now if you want to play for this team."

So you're getting your news from YouTube comments?

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

That kind of player, that kind of stuff, is a cancer in the locker room and steadily destroys a team. More MLB managers should have the gumption that Bobby Cox had when he took over the Toronto Blue Jays in 1982 and put an end to the silly contract perks. Cox was reported to have told Cliff Johnson and others "I don't care what your contract says. That horsecrap (personal limousine to the game rather than the team bus) ends right now if you want to play for this team."

How'd that work out for Bobby? A rep for Toronto underperforming while he was there and a 1st round exit the year they made the playoffs where they blew a 3-1 lead.

Seems weird to admire a guy who believes contracts shouldn't be honored.

[Writehooks]

$1 million per week. Every week. For 15 years. Nice.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by John1941

So you're getting your news from YouTube comments?

Preferable to certain others!

Originally Posted by Tabe

How'd that work out for Bobby? A rep for Toronto underperforming while he was there and a 1st round exit the year they made the playoffs where they blew a 3-1 lead.

A cheap and ill informed shot at Bobby Cox who took over the Blue Jays in 1982. He turned a sad sack club into a contender. Here are the Jays' numbers before, during and after the Cox era:

1981: 37-69 (7th)

1982: 78-84 (6th)
1983: 89-73 (4th)
1984: 89-73 (2nd)
1985: 99-62 (1st)

1986: 86-76 (4th)

Originally Posted by Tabe

Seems weird to admire a guy who believes contracts shouldn't be honored.

While the Blue Jays were obligated to honour the terms of the written contract and they would have, a manager fills out the lineup card. Cliff Johnson could have chosen to continue getting his limousine rides to Exhibition Stadium where his position would have been on the end of the bench. Or in Syracuse of the International League. His choice.

[packs]

I don't think managers are seen as the saviors they once were and I don't think they wield the kind of influence they once did either. If a manager wanted to attempt to assert their dominance and bench Soto for a family suite they would be shown the door the next day.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by packs

If a manager wanted to attempt to assert their dominance and bench Soto for a family suite they would be shown the door the next day.

To the detriment of the game.



Soto better be opening up that suite to teammates' families as well.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Preferable to certain others!



A cheap and ill informed shot at Bobby Cox who took over the Blue Jays in 1982. He turned a sad sack club into a contender. Here are the Jays' numbers before, during and after the Cox era:

1981: 37-69 (7th)

1982: 78-84 (6th)
1983: 89-73 (4th)
1984: 89-73 (2nd)
1985: 99-62 (1st)

1986: 86-76 (4th)

Fun fact: a team can improve and underperform at the same time.

Also, winning 99 and then blowing a 3-1 lead is underperforming.

And it's not like his Braves teams had a rep for overachieving.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Fun fact: a team can improve and underperform at the same time.

And what then would be your objective measure for "underperformance"?

Originally Posted by Tabe

Also, winning 99 and then blowing a 3-1 lead is underperforming.

Fun fact. When two baseball teams play, one has to lose. And that's even when they're not two relatively evenly matched teams playing in the ALCS.

Originally Posted by Tabe

And it's not like his Braves teams had a rep for overachieving.

Like I say, it's tough to measure overachievement vs. underachievement. All that can be said is that Bobby Cox took over as the manager of the Atlanta Braves after they compiled a miserable 63-97 record and finished dead last in the National League in 1989. Under his management the Braves then compiled an enviable fourteen divisional championships plus a second place finish in the 1991-2005 period.

Look, are you just a Bobby Cox or an Atlanta Braves hater? If so, take it somewhere else. I haven't liked the Braves since they moved from Milwaukee and I'm therefore not inclined to defend them. Moreover I don't have the patience to deal with silliness.