One reason the Pats are on top and the Red Sox are not

[Mack Herron]

While both are willing to take risks, the Pats are able to acknowledge mistakes (Donald Hayes, Doug Gabriel, etc.) and move on (Stallworth, Welker, Moss). The Red Sox are arrogant and anchor themselves to their mistakes (JD Drew) while better players sit on the bench (Ellsbury). No wonder some guys don't hustle to first base. With the Pats, it is all about performance.

 

[Jacky Roberts]

Please, don't EVER, EVER compare the Patriots to the Red Sox ever again.

 

[PATSNUTme]

Another backdoor thread about the Red Sox. We all know the difference between whiney baseball players their babysitting managers versus NFL players and coaches anyway.

 

[BradfordPatsFan]

It doesn't help baseball that contracts are garunteed and football ones, for the most part, are not. The Sox have to justify paying Nancy Drew $70 for 5 years by playing him. The Pats could cut Gabriel and move on. Big difference.

 

[danny88]

While both are willing to take risks, the Pats are able to acknowledge mistakes (Donald Hayes, Doug Gabriel, etc.) and move on (Stallworth, Welker, Moss). The Red Sox are arrogant and anchor themselves to their mistakes (JD Drew) while better players sit on the bench (Ellsbury). No wonder some guys don't hustle to first base. With the Pats, it is all about performance.

This post makes no sense. Are you saying if the pats guaranteed Stallworth or Moss a big sum of money they would just cut them , take the loss in money and move on if they did not do so well in year one?

 

[Bertil]

BradfordPatsFan is right. The difference is in the respective collective bargaining agreements.

The costs to a Football team when cutting a veteran is not nearly as costly as when a Baseball team releases one. They almost HAVE to stick with losers like Tony Clark (He's still in MLB. Can you believe it? On a playoff team, no less!) in order to maximize their investment. On the flip side, BB talents translate better team to team than do FB players, whom often don't fit in a given system.

Bottom line: they're apples and oranges.

 

[Truck]

This post makes no sense. Are you saying if the pats guaranteed Stallworth or Moss a big some of money they would just cut them , take the loss in money and move on?

The Pats might not cut players with big money guaranteed, but:
1. The Pats have a much better free agent track record than the Red Sox. I really don't see any Pats free agent busts. They go after good players who are undevalued. The Red Sox say they look for value, but it really hasn't translated well in their free agent signings. Each many of the signings, they paid alot more than the next team was offering, and many of them have played horribly here(Drew, Crisp, Rentaria, etc).

2. The Pats would sit the guy with the big contract if the guy (Bledsoe/Brady prime example, benching Terry Glenn for most of the season, Gabriel last year) if either the big contract guy had an effort/attitude problem, or if the little guy was simply better. The Sox, would be afraid to hurt the big contract's ego, and wouldn't make a move. And in the regular season, it doesn't matter too much, since the Sox have so many stars (due to payroll advantage) that you can afford to carry some deadweight. In the playoffs, as we're now witnessing, it does matter when you don't make the best coaching moves.

 

[Maroney TD]

The Pats might not cut players with big money guaranteed, but:
1. The Pats have a much better free agent track record than the Red Sox. I really don't see any Pats free agent busts. They go after good players who are undevalued. The Red Sox say they look for value, but it really hasn't translated well in their free agent signings. Each many of the signings, they paid alot more than the next team was offering, and many of them have played horribly here(Drew, Crisp, Rentaria, etc).

2. The Pats would sit the guy with the big contract if the guy (Bledsoe/Brady prime example, benching Terry Glenn for most of the season, Gabriel last year) if either the big contract guy had an effort/attitude problem, or if the little guy was simply better. The Sox, would be afraid to hurt the big contract's ego, and wouldn't make a move. And in the regular season, it doesn't matter too much, since the Sox have so many stars (due to payroll advantage) that you can afford to carry some deadweight. In the playoffs, as we're now witnessing, it does matter when you don't make the best coaching moves.

You guys really can't compare the two sports. As has been said, baseball contracts are guarenteed while football contracts aren't. And if your going to look at FA's that the team brought in you should also look at the traded players. Players like Lowell, Beckett, Tek, Pedro and FA's like Ortiz, Manny, Bill Mueller. The Sox have had their share of players who have performed well or else you forget 2004.

Also, in terms of benching big name FA's, there are only 25 roster spots in baseball and usually only a few bench players. They don't have the roster spots to bench players.

 

[FlyingElvis75]

In spite of the fact that they are probably apples and oranges, I can't shake the feeling that some of the Sox big names play like they deserve to be there no matter what, and the Pats act like they're going to get cut if they don't bust their *****.

I also can't help but wonder what MLB would be like with a salary cap.

 

[reflexblue]

ONE reason.. The Pats are a franchise thats run correctly. The Red Sox have been disfunctional organization as long as I can remember. Probably 40+ years. I know they won the WS in 04, but it was close to 90 years since the last one. Eventually the odds, and the (even a blind squirrel finds a nut) factor had to kick in at some point. I stopped paying attention to them years ago and I feel alot better,my stress level decreased by quite a bit.

 

[onegameatatime]

The Pats might not cut players with big money guaranteed, but:
1. The Pats have a much better free agent track record than the Red Sox. I really don't see any Pats free agent busts. They go after good players who are undevalued. The Red Sox say they look for value, but it really hasn't translated well in their free agent signings. Each many of the signings, they paid alot more than the next team was offering, and many of them have played horribly here(Drew, Crisp, Rentaria, etc).

No free agent busts? Monte Beisel? Chad Brown?

In addition to collective bargaining, another difference between baseball versus football and basketball is that in baseball, it's rare for a player to make a big contribution as a rookie. There are 40+ rounds of drafting and most never make it. Some make it after 6 or even 8 years in the minors.

This might be is one reason why baseball has a more cohesive players association. It also means baseball teams rely more on free agents.

Both sports are challenging in their own way, but could not be much more different in so many ways -- length of season, size of teams, emotion, team vs individualistic, etc.

 

[Master Yates]

Can we really keep these stupid threads to a minimum please. First of all, the last time I checked the Sox were still one of the last 4 (now 3) teams left. Also, the Pats haven't won anything yet, except for 6 regular season games. And when was the last time either team won anything significant again? Stop comparing football to baseball.

 

[FlyingElvis75]

I stopped paying attention to them years ago and I feel alot better,my stress level decreased by quite a bit.

Hehe, sounds exactly like me and the Bruins...talk about a dysfunctional organization. Trading Thornton away was the last straw for me...

 

[reflexblue]

Hehe, sounds exactly like me and the Bruins...talk about a dysfunctional organization. Trading Thornton away was the last straw for me...

I hear you on that one.I use to be into the Bruins more than football. I wrote them off until old man Jacobs croaks,and the son decides to get out of selling hot dogs.

 

[FrontSeven]

I see that the thread went in the direction of the collective bargaining agreement. That's fair, but doesn't tell the whole story. It does not explain why a manager like Tito (who I think shares a lot of traits with Bill), even though tied to a player's contract would sit an Ellsberry and play a lamer like Drew.

This brings up the whole issue of loyalty versus performance, and if the thread goes in that direction I think we see a clear distinction between Bill and Tito.

Everybody admires loyalty to a point. The Sox have crossed that point. Now it's like Nixon's loyalties: Self-defeating.

They may be tied to Drew, but that doesn't require them to play him. They're tied to Ellsberry too, just for less money. You play guys that can help you win after you reach the point where you are quite sure that the other guys aren't getting the job done. Sayonara white man with the talent who doesn't actually produce anything but singles with two out.