Congratulations! You've finally shown yourself capable of addressing the the points of contention (even if you did use a "few" more than 100 words). A bit late now after your previous gratuitous jibes:
I guess for whatever reason you decided to make me your enemy first. Okay. So be it.
My "musings" (as you put it) consisted of
asking Mets fans whether there was evidence. Asking is considered to be reasonable in most circles.
Not by any means a secret. The signing was clearly an ego trip on the part of an owner to whom money is no object.
But it's bad for the team on a longer term basis (after several months of a season anyway). The contract becomes a cancer in the locker room. How is a manager going to discipline a player with that type of contract when he's not producing or even dogging it? He can't be pencilled out of the lineup because the club has too great of an investment in the player. Just by yelling at him or kicking his butt then? That doesn't much work on today's superstars. And then the other players start wondering why the pampered superstar is earning 25X the money when he's not 25x better. Like I say, that type of contract is a cancer in the locker room.
It's also bad for fans. How/why? Because the Juan Soto signing is going to fuel further player salary inflation which will in turn result in ticket and concession price inflation.
I know, I know, some of you will object by saying that will only be so if other owners follow suit. But they'll have to follow suit. The last time the owners decided not to bid up salaries by chasing free agents, the courts in their "wisdom" ruled collusion thus dictating that owners must bid ever higher for star players or risk jail as well as fines. And that's not been good for the fans or MLB in general.
