
Ok, so shame on the Sox for not thinking about this problem beforehand and spending $110 million on a pitcher...except I can't buy the idea of the Red Sox organization, a group of savvy business people, not taking that issue into account in the first place and finding a way around it. It could be a goodwill thing, as the Sox claim, except that's not the sort of thing you'd hear from a senior vice president of sales and marketing - it's his job to find economic opportunities available in a big name like Dice Clay and exploit them for the benefit of the club, not give up because of an existing restriction. Where's the creativity in not finding a way around the problem? Personally, I think the first commenter on the page might be on point: the Red Sox are owned by several companies, including a media group that (full disclosure) I work for. Finding a way to hide revenue (in a legal way, of course) generated by Matsuzaka certainly doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility.
However, let's say that it's not possible to convert Dice Clay's presence in a Red Sox uniform into much more cold, hard cash than the Sox are generating now. We still got a pitcher who's got the potential to be much, much, much better than either king of this year's free agent pool and did so at - posting fee aside - a much cheaper price. Call me an apologist, but would you want to give up Dice Clay even if you knew the Sox wouldn't earn the posting fee back for a number of years? At this point, me either.