Agree with you 99%. The only thing I really agree with Mazz on is that getting Tex would have been a very good thing, and as a sidebar it probably keeps us from signing Lackey too :buddy: Its disingenuous because he states the 'only 10M more' as fact, if he stated as the rumor it is because it was floated by the agent then its a fair statement.Oh, I agree completely with your points. And its debatable a few different ways but Mazz's constant (as you put) "for only 10M more" argument makes it seem like they are just cheap when 1) they spent the most they ever have and are not cheap and 2) the Yankees may have outbid them anyway.
My basic points are
1) Its at best disingenuous to say that the Sox could have had Tex for only 10M dollars more.
2) He repeats this point like a parrot, over and over. (see posts in this thread)
The problem with big market baseball reporters pushing for the team to spend money is they are only thinking short-term, especially with the Sox having a bad season. They pretend to have all the answers now, you should have signed Tex, and need to resgin Vmart, but they dont care about what the team might look like in 2 or 3 years. Thats just the nature of their business and needing to sell papers and get ratings now and not thinking of the future. That I can tolerate. But his laziness in positioning his argument is just poor journalism, and I think should be critiqued.