Adam G

QUOTE(ptatc @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 08:14 PM) 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=

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 04:57 PM) 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.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 04:47 PM) 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.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 04:41 PM) 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?

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 04:30 PM) 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.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 03:37 PM) 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.

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 02:55 PM) 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.

QUOTE(TLAK @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 07:17 AM) Wow, the World Champions don't get any respect, even from their own GM, after they won 99 games and went 11-1 against baseball's best in the playoffs. What an incredible statement. The Yanks and BoSox had off years last year. We cant count on that again.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 03:37 PM) Garland's had one good year, and he was 5-6 after the Break in 05! 1-0 in the playoffs, 2.25 ERA, 16 IP, 4 ER, 11 K/3 BB. You know, the games that really matter. The guy has thrown 190 innings or more 4 years in a row.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 10:59 AM) Ummm, didnt Hernandez sign with another team........ Guess so :dunno:

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 10:47 AM) I thought Olivo was supposed to be the man in SD? Has he fallen out of favor already? Olivo only played 37 games in San Diego last year. Ramon Hernandez is their guy. I'd like to see an offer tendered to Joe Borowski.

QUOTE(shawnhillegas @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 06:28 PM) if somebody gives a 1st baseman a 100 million dollar contract they deserve what will inevitably follow..... Pujols would be worth it.

I'd take Borowski, if for no other reason than the fact that he used to live in my building and is a cool guy.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2005 @ Dec 16, 2005 -> 01:23 AM) I get a kick out of those who act like Jose was sleepwalking the first half. Jose had a damn good first half, IMO. He was excellent in April, May and the first part of June. He hit a little slump at the end of June and into July that saw his era jump up some. But he was very good most of the year. In the first half, Jose was the master of the 35-40 pitch first inning. He did that twice to me in games I went to.

QUOTE(rangercal @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 05:12 PM) I'll take those odds . I can bet via paypal For real, I'll put $5 on that.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 12:04 PM) huh?? She was responding to me. I said put Garland's ass on the plane instead of McCarthy because Jon is dead set on testing the market. Then she said something about giving Konerko's contract back and gave me the eye roll.

QUOTE(Steff @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 10:46 AM) Yea!! And maybe we can take back Paul's contract and send his ass also since he did the same thing. :rolly Are you ready to gamble on him leaving and us getting nothing in return? I'm not.

QUOTE(heirdog @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 08:27 AM) Either Garland or Contreras are moved for prospects to replenish the system, a middle-reliever or LOOGY, and possibly a low-priced veteran OF. Garland for Crawford and a reliever?

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 14, 2005 -> 08:22 AM) Bruce Levine just reported on ESPN 1000 that MLB sources think that the Sox are putting together a monster package to bag another big player, Miguel Tejada. The Sox could try to put together a package of McCarthy, Uribe, and prospects for Tejada. Oh funk dat shiznit. Put Garland's wanting to test the market ass on a plane, not McCarthy.

Drew Rosenhaus definitely shoudve made the list. NEXT QUESTION!

It depends on what he's looking for. If he wants the "best deal" (i.e. most money), then Boras is the best in the business at getting that for his clients and there'd be no reason for Crede to fire him. If he wants nothing more than to resign with the Sox, he can dump Boras and negotiate himself or he can direct Boras to resign for a reasonable amount. As for Williams refusing to negotiate with any Boras client, that's just posturing for the media.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Dec 7, 2005 -> 12:05 PM) Crawford is perfect for the White Sox at #2. But I seriously doubt the Rays are actively looking to trade what is now arguably the biggest name on their team. At the same time, they're not running to lock him up with a long term deal either.

Just said on ESPN that Konerko rejected Baltimore's 5/65 offer.

QUOTE(Greg The Bull Luzinski @ Nov 29, 2005 -> 07:29 PM) I like Paulie, but paying 5yr/60mil is grossly overpaying Paulie. I bet he puts up much better numbers with Thome hitting behind him rather than Jermaine Dye (or vice versa).

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Nov 24, 2005 -> 06:09 AM) With the way Ozzie spoke glowingly about him as his "MVP" the only move I can see Tadahito making is down the order. And that's exactly what will happen. Hitting behind Pods his job was to hit the other way and move the runner along. Putting him at 5 or 6 in the order will let him swing away and show the power that he has. He basically handcuffed himself at the plate this past season for the sake of the "get em on, get em over, get em in" philosophy. Gooch isnt going anywhere.