[Can Tejada be a reality?]

Regardless I still think he is a great leader, on two different teams.

You know, we might both be right. Historically, with Oakland and his first season in Baltimore, maybe he was the best clubhouse guy around. Perhaps it took a season like last year and then management's inaction this offseason for Tejada to show his true colors.

[Can Tejada be a reality?]

I would stick to having other people defend your ideas.

Hard to debate when you're twisting my words.

[Can Tejada be a reality?]

And then he said it.  He said he would tear a team apart from within.  He can defend himself.

*IF* not *WOULD*

[Can Tejada be a reality?]

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA.  Whew, that was a good laugh.  That really shows you how much cubs fans know.  Tejada is WELL known in the league to be one of the best clubhouse guys, a real team leader and a motivator.  He has an extreme desire to win, and comes to play every day.  I believe he hasnt missed a game in like 4 years.  The guy is a gamer, your source sucks.

Sweet, post up a link or something confirming that so I can throw it back at the Cub fan I know. Because going public with trade demands when you make $12 million/year is prima facie evidence of being a b****, unfortunately.

[Can Tejada be a reality?]

What was his first name?

Allan B. Muchin. One of the founding members of Katten Muchin Zavis Rosemann, a 600 attorney law firm. www.kmz.com. He also is a part owner of the Bulls.

[Can Tejada be a reality?]

Well, Cubs fans are idiots (no s***) because Tejada on their team would win them probably 10 more games than Prior.

If he doesnt tear them apart from the inside out.

[Can Tejada be a reality?]

Mr. Brzozowski or Mr. Judelson or Mr. Malkin or Mr. Mazer or Mr. Munchin or Mr. Pinsky or Mr. Pogofsky or Mr. Takiff or Mr. Ury or Mr. Stern or Mr. Walsh?

Mr. Muchin taught one of my classes in law school.

[Can Tejada be a reality?]

What would be better for the Sox hostile takeover of the Chicago baseball market this off season, than snatching the player the scrub fans have targeted as their savior. 

The Cub fans I talk to want absolutely no part of Tejada. They're under the impression that he's a real SOB, clubhouse cancer type. Many in Baltimore said that he gave up on the team in the second half last year.

[Jose Contreras's Demands]

Id say for Garland Mental, Coop, and AJ are what helped the most and for Contreras Mechanics, Mental, Coop, and AJ were what helped the most.  Uribe's defense while helped was prob the smallest denominator in factoring in their improvements.

It was just interesting how far the pitching staff came last year, both starters and relievers. To me it seems like AJ was the one common denominator.

[Jose Contreras's Demands]

The Uribe question in this deal is the biggest & easiest to overlook.  What was the biggest difference maker in 2005 for Garland & Contreras?  Mechanics, Mental, or Uribe?  Did they have less jams in 2005 than 2004?  Did they get out of less jams in 2005 than 2004?  Just how many of those jams ended with spectacular plays by Uribe?  Can Tejada be expected to make those plays?

I'll take AJ for $500, Alex.

[The Count's future]

Big difference is that one agreed to 3/29, while the other wants about 3/39.  I think that Contreras will likely get traded now.  All along, I thought Garland was the pitcher that would be traded, but now that he's signed, I'll be very shocked if Contreras starts the 2006 season on the Sox.

That's all Garland signed for, but I bet he started off asking in the $12 million range. If we can get Count for 3/33, it might happen.

[Rumor: 4-Way Garland Trade]

His antics have to reach T.O. levels to really decrease his value.

Yeah, I dunno about that. If you're a team that he hasnt specifically stated that he wants to be traded to, you'll always be wondering when the next time he'll go off is. I wouldnt want him in my clubhouse if he was a GM, when you take into account his attitude, his contract, and his age.

The Red Sox almost certainly would eat at least some of his money, in fact they almost have to. If you can get Manny for $15 mil a year for 3 years, you're getting a hell of a player. Even when he is pissed off he still hits better than 99% of the league.

No one doubts his talent, but numbers alone do not a desireable team player make. Rafael Palmeiro is still good for 30/100 a season but you're not going to see teams lining up for his services.

On the other hand, Prior is a guy that has not pitched a full season yet in his major league career. Two of his injuries were a bit of a fluke, but he still had an achilles problem and his elbow was acting up earlier this year. He hasn't exactly pitched up to his talent in the last few years and it seems that he is regressing a bit (although injuries might play a role).

He led the league in Ks/9 innings last season, that's a pretty neat trick for an underachiever. And then there's the age factor, where Prior is just heading into his prime and has at least 10 more years to look forward to, where Manny has probably peaked and is on the downside of a very expensive career. He's going to be baseball's version of Allan Houston.

Manny has a lot more value to his team than Prior does right now.

If you're talking about next season and next season alone, then I'd agree with you. But anything beyond that, I disagree.

whereas the only risk with Manny is team chemistry

Age, attitude, and money.

, something you're not too likely to worry about when you haven't won the division in that long a time.

I dunno about that either. Remember two years ago when the clubhouse disintigrated over freakin Steve Stone? Chemistry is always a concern, regardless of your record.

One pitcher doesn't make a pitching staff, so Manny would almost certainly have a bigger impact in Baltimore, since the O's would still be at least 2 good pitcher short of having a playoff-caliber rotation.

And one hitter does not an All Star slugger make. One wonders what Manny would do if he didnt have Manny Ortiz and Jim Thome in the same lineup.

[Rumor: 4-Way Garland Trade]

No freaken way!  There is no way the RedSox are accepting ONLY Prior in exchange for Manny. 

Only Prior? He's headed into the prime of his career and very well might be a perennial Cy Young candidate, Manny is a $20 million a year malcontent. And pitching almost always >>>> hitting anyway.

[Sox-Rowand Nugget]

We traded him to open a spot for Anderson.  We wouldn't trade back for him.

We traded Rowand to get Thome, not because we wanted to move him.

[Rumor: 4-Way Garland Trade]

Add those together and that comes to 130% of the Sox victories.  Interesting stat.

You're making my head hurt dude. lol hungover

[The lastest on Garland]

He's a lot better than Eaton - and Eaton brought in some decent talent.  I have yet to see a trade proposal that nets the Sox what the Padres got for Eaton.

Was Eaton in the same contract situation?

[Rumor: 4-Way Garland Trade]

Why would we trade Garland for another SP?  Kinda defeats the purpose, no?

Money, as in he makes the minimum. He's also only a second year player (so we basically own him for the next four) and he was pretty much the Orioles best pitcher last year, when healthy. He's on the cusp of something good. The Orioles are reluctant to let him go.

 

And lest we forget that Garland is a one year rental at this point.

[The lastest on Garland]

I saw this rumor out there:

"Reports now indicate that now the Chicago White Sox may be the third team involved in the Tejada deal. The trade would have to be something like this: The Cubs get Tejada and cash , and Baltimore gets Contreras, Garland, and OF prospect Ryan Sweeney from the White Sox, and the White Sox get Prior and a prospect from Baltimore." It's no secret Kenny Williams has been trying to move Jon Garland, who's already turned down at least one contract extension. This deal would greatly improve Baltimore's rotation giving them two front of the rotation starters in one shot. It would also give the White Sox more room financially to sign Buehrle to an extension after the '07 season."

What do you think?

Contreras, Garland, and Sweeney for Prior? Gag me.

[The lastest on Garland]

Which part of the group whcih owns the Yankees was in the red? The problem with the Yankees is they are like the Cubs and owned by a large corporation now. When King George sold the team to the corporation and installed himself as the CEO the money gets lost. Just like the Cubs and the Tribune Co. Don't think for a second that the Cubs inability to sign some big FA this year isn't tied to the Trib Co. financial problems. And Vias versa don't think for a second that the teams don't hide revenue in the companies.

It doesnt matter who owns it. If the Yankees lose money, then the ownership shares in the losses based on the percentage they own. Steinbrenner is still the controlling owner.

 

Here's a ranking of teams based on oerating income

 

http://www.forbes.com/lists/results.jhtml?...ry&passKeyword=

[The lastest on Garland]

We are over budget. 

Well, that's what they say. Whether that's true or not, we dont know.

 

I agree with you on the rest, I'm not advocating moving someone other than Garland. I'd say toss in Crede too if we can find a viable alternative.

[The lastest on Garland]

Again, I'd say that's still a terrible idea, because even the #'s over the last 10 years have been totally screwed up because of:

 

1.  The dramatic drop in revenues coming down from the strike

2.  The dramatic inflation of salaries and revenues to the point where no one knows where they will settle.

3.  Expansion into new markets, some of which have worked well and some of which have not.

Taking an average over the past "X" years controls for all those variables. If you want to go back 25 years, go for it.

[The lastest on Garland]

Where do you put the number so that both sides will stay happy?  That's a hell of a range.

Take the average of the past ten years, perhaps?

[The lastest on Garland]

Sure, a salary cap would work.  I mean, look at the NFL.  It's not like one team is dominating in that league, right?  Oh, wait -- New England has won three of the last five titles.  And the cap is sure helping teams like Arizona a helluva lot, right?  Oh, yeah...

The salary cap isnt supposed to ensure parity, it's supposed to ensure that all teams are on a relatively level playing field. If one team is just that much better at running their organization than everyone else and keeps winning (without resorting to buying all the best players, a la the Yanks), then they shouldnt be punished for that.

[The lastest on Garland]

Kiss baseball away for at least 2 years if a Salary cap is thought of. 

Let me emphasize this even more.

 

THE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION WOULD STRIKE. SO JUST LIKE IN 94.  SEE YOU IN 2008 OR 2009 FOR BASEBALL.

 

Are we still the same type of team, or are we at 17k a game again. 

 

I hate the money they are making, but be careful what you ask for.

I'd trade a year for a hard cap system (just not this year ). No money doesnt buy championships (see the Yanks and their $1 billion spent over the past five years), but it does buy better shots at fielding a competitive playoff level team. There is absolutely no justification for allowing one team to spend four or five times as much as another team in the same league.

 

And a salary cap doesnt have to be about screwing the players and transferring money to the owners. Here's my idea:

 

1) Figure out current total salaries of all the players for the current year ("X" billion)

2) Figure out total league revenue for the current year ("Y" billion)

3) Turn that into a percentage (X/Y) of league revenue that the players will be guaranteed on a year to year basis. (Z%)

4) Multiply that that percentage to each year's revenues going forward, and that will determine the next year's salary level. If the league takes in more money, the players will take in more money (omgpartnership!1)

5) Divide salary level by the number of teams. This becomes a target payroll, of sorts.

6) Allow for some deviation, perhaps 10%, that teams will be allowed to either exceed or miss the target payroll by. Those will be that year's salary cap and floor.

 

 

So basically I'm envisioning a system in which there is a smaller deviation between the haves and the have nots in baseball, but also ensures that the players still get their piece of the pie. My system still doesnt address the problem of have nots who cannot afford to meet the salary floor, but that will have to be addressed with some sort of revenue sharing scheme. It would also probably help if we capped individual salaries (at, say, $15 million/year, adjusted annually for inflation) and tripled league minimum salaries.

[The lastest on Garland]

To put the price we'd have to end up paying for Garland in prospective (either signing and extension now or after the season), Ben Sheets and Johan Santana both signed for 4 years and 40 mil before last season. We offered Jon $24 mil over 3 years, and he obviously wasn't happy with that offer. Those guys are both light-years better than Jon, and if that's what it'll take to keep him I'd rather deal him for some cheap young talent and move on.

The difference being that Sheets and Santana havent gotten to that magic six year mark yet and their teams still own them. That doesnt apply to Garland.