.

In a recent "Dynasties" article at BJOL, James points out that the 1900-1912 Pirates became a dynasty by absorbing a second team:

7.  The Pittsburgh Pirates, 1900-1912

19 Points, Tied on our List as the 14^th-15^th greatest team of all time

Key Figures:  Honus Wagner, Fred Clarke, Deacon Phillippe and Sam Leever.

The "Pirates", as I suspect most of you know, became the Pirates by stealing the best players from the Louisville team.    In 1898 Pittsburgh went 72-76, Louisville 70-81; in 1899 Pittsburgh went 76-73; Louisville 75-77.    Neither team was great, but they had about a half a team each.   Pittsburgh had Ginger Beaumont, Jimmy Williams, Jesse Tannehill, Sam Leever and Jack Chesbro; Louisville had Honus Wagner, Fred Clarke, Chief Zimmer, Deacon Phillippe and Rube Waddell.   The two teams had several investors in common, people who owned parts of both teams.    After the 1899 season the Louisville team was folded, and the two teams merged into one.   Pittsburgh "pirated" the Louisville roster, taking three Hall of Famers.   

The combined team went 79-60 in 1900, second place, but earned a dynasty point because the National League was still using a post-season series to decide its championship, and the Pirates were one of the two teams.    The Pittsburgh/Louisville combo team won the National League in 1901 (90-49), 1902 (103-36) and 1903 (91-49), and continued to play brilliant baseball for nine years after that, winning the World Championship in 1909. 

As saberdweebs, we focus on the idea that Beckett, Crawford and AGone are collectively being paid too much.  We haven't focused on the possibility that maybe these AL celebrities will step down to a AAA league ;- ) and demolish it.  ... we're tongue in cheek about the Dodger dynasty, LrKrBoi29, but this on-loading of three stars at once is a subtext to be aware of.

MLB Trade Rumors has a bullet list of talking points that is high-quality even by their standards.  SSI's crunch of these talking points:

.

=== Don't Leave Anything On the Field (in Boston) ... or On the Conference Table, Dept. ===

This morning, the Red Sox and Dodgers completed a nine-player blockbuster sending Josh Beckett, Adrian Gonzalez, Carl Crawford, and Nick Punto to Los Angeles for James Loney, Allen Webster, Ivan De Jesus, Jerry Sands, and Rubby De La Rosa.  For more on the quartet of prospects the Red Sox received, check out Mike Axisa's rundown from earlier today.  Here's a look at some of the reaction to today's mega-deal..

• Buster Olney of ESPN.com (Insider sub. req'd) looks at the winners and losers of the deal.  The Dodgers of 2012 are unsurprisingly among the winners while the Dodgers of 2017, Olney writes, appear to be losers in the trade.  Olney also notes that this is the first time in MLB history in which two players with $100MM remaining on their contracts were involved in a trade.

First time in which two players with $100M remaining were both in a deal ... and both going one way!  With another pricey player.  Wow.  No precedents on this one.

The takeaway for M's fans:  the value of a playoff run, and the value of a TV deal, can dwarf $/WAR considerations.  The M's are coming up on their own TV deal.  Let's hope that the conservative M's ownership committee can find the guts that everybody else does, to push into the pot in order to reap the investment benefits.

.

=== Burning a Hole in Our Pocket, Dept. ===

• The Red Sox will have $260MM to spend, but two best free agents this winter, Josh Hamilton and Zack Greinke, don't appear to be fits for Boston, tweets Jon Heyman of CBSSports.com (via Twitter).
• One rival executive told Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports (via Twitter) that he didn't feel that this was the best use of $250MM+ in future spending for the Dodgers.

Like we sez, $/WAR per free agent ... that's fine assuming that you actually can convert E into MC2.   Real execs have to think more more globally.  Managers think tactically, execs strategically.

The opportunities for converting $ into players are actually much, much more limited than fans imagine; even when you do have an opportunity it's often "Prince Fielder or nothing?"  You are, in essence, offered the chance to purchase ONE player or to pass -- again -- for the year.

Fans are used to rotisserie baseball:  you have your choice of every player.  Suppose that you were playing roto, and you had your choice of ONE player, take him or leave him -- and you were playing for huge money, like your annual salary?  What would the decision be like then?  Do you want Adrian Gonzalez or do you want to go with a rookie?

For the Mariners it's often zero players available.  This must be considered.  It's why Zduriencik responded to Fielder's disinterest with that line about "whether it's this winter, next winter, or whenever, we'll get our player."

.

=== Payin' the Price ===

• Rival executives are wondering why the Dodgers didn't simply tell the Red Sox that they would eat their hefty contracts but would not give up notable prospects, Olney tweets.
• A National League executive opined to Peter Gammons of MLB.com (via Twitter) that "The Dodgers so wanted [Adrian] Gonzalez they took [Carl] Crawford and [Josh] Beckett's money and traded two great arms to get him."  Gammons also opines (Twitter link) that between the limited free agent market and caps on international and draft spending, it won't be easy for Boston to reinvest all the money that they have saved.

Or:  the Dodgers believe that Crawford and Beckett will perform well in the National League.  It's hard to tell which way they're looking at it.  If they believe that Crawford and Beckett will be worth their contracts or close to it, that's their prerogative.  

Dr. D wouldn't want to pay Crawford 5 x $20M, that's for sure.  But he also wouldn't bet anything, that he was afraid to lose, that three years from now we won't be looking back at Crawford producing the 6-8 WAR that he did in 2009 and 2010.  That's the Dodgers' call.

.

=== Runnin' Yo Mouth Dept. ===

• Mark Teixeira weighed in on the deal, saying that he didn't sign with Boston in part because they don't offer no-trade clauses, tweets Bryan Hoch of MLB.com.
• Kevin Kaduk of Yahoo Sports wonders if the trade Will Hurt Boston as a potential free agent destination down the line.  Money will always speak the loudest in the end, but free agents may look for an even higher premium to sign with the club that just jettisoned much of its core.

Maybe Tex badly wanted a no-trade clause; who's to say?  Hits me, as just his talking like a players' union rep type of guy, "You don't have the right to dis' us megastars like that.  Shoulda been Bobby V gone, not the entitled vets."  

Just my opinion.  As is all of this shtick.

Anybody really believe that the next Prince Fielder won't sign in Fenway Park, for huge $$, because of this trade?  He'll be thinking, "that was a special case, a clubhouse meltdown, and won't happen with me."  Boston is the second "sexiest", most fun place for players to go.  If I'm running the Red Sox I don't give this "problem" a second thought.

.

=== Nooooooo, Couldn' Be Dept. ===

• Red Sox players were predictably shocked by the trade, including second basemanDustin Pedroia, writes John Tomase of the Boston Herald.

They lost the war with Valentine.  My basic sentiment about the trade is, I'm glad to see the hit on Veteran Entitlement.  Treat your employees well, as the Mariners treat Felix well?  Absolutely.  Allow celebrity players to become fat, dumb and comfortable because they've earned that comfort zone?  Um, no.

Bobby V has his own ego, of course, and the bigger a player's own ego, the more he resents a manager's ego.  The ego'ed out Red Sox players resented Bobby V's "encroachment" from Day One.

Bill James wrote, years ago, that Fenway hitters are unusually prone to having their egos get out of control - and that most historical Red Sox pennantwinners made their runs right after a club teardown.  As you know, this Red Sox problem didn't start with Valentine; they melted down in September of last year, and it was reported to have everything to do with egos and comfort zones then, too.

James won't say, of course, but I wonder whether he didn't make exactly this historical observation for the Sox shot-callers.  There comes a time when Red Sox clubhouses get way too entitled, and you gotta re-boot.

.