ARod's future

In <ijgg93tsv032pil51qjtdh21luch1g81f3 DeleteThis @4ax.com>, McDuck wrote:

> So ARod, though Boras, is testing the waters for a new contract over
> the winter. Why not? He's making a lot, but more is always better.
> <g>

Just read this evening that he's said he won't negotiate with the
Yankees during the season. Doesn't mean much, but it's news.

--
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

John Doherty wrote:
> In <ijgg93tsv032pil51qjtdh21luch1g81f3.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>, McDuck wrote:
>
>> So ARod, though Boras, is testing the waters for a new contract over
>> the winter. Why not? He's making a lot, but more is always better.
>> <g>
>
> Just read this evening that he's said he won't negotiate with the
> Yankees during the season. Doesn't mean much, but it's news.
>
> --
>
The Yanks just out out a statement yesterday saying if A-Rod doesn't
talk extension now, the Yanks won't be a bidder on his contract next year.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

"BobK" <BobK.DeleteThis@diespammerdie.net> wrote in message
news:dg2mi.1$yT1.0@newsfe12.lga...
> John Doherty wrote:
>> In <ijgg93tsv032pil51qjtdh21luch1g81f3.DeleteThis@4ax.com>, McDuck wrote:
>>
>>> So ARod, though Boras, is testing the waters for a new contract over
>>> the winter. Why not? He's making a lot, but more is always better.
>>> <g>
>>
>> Just read this evening that he's said he won't negotiate with the
>> Yankees during the season. Doesn't mean much, but it's news.
>>
>> --
>>
> The Yanks just out out a statement yesterday saying if A-Rod doesn't talk
> extension now, the Yanks won't be a bidder on his contract next year.

I think it was more like this. If Arod opts out, they will not offer him
another contract.
They want Texas to still pay that $30 million left on his old contract. From
a business stand point, I can understand that.
Paying Arod $16-$18 million a year for years 2008-2010 is MUCH better than
paying him $32 million each year.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

"2007 Yankees" <yankees4life65.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Th3mi.1$Cz2.0@newsfe12.lga...
>
> "BobK" <BobK.DeleteThis@diespammerdie.net> wrote in message
> news:dg2mi.1$yT1.0@newsfe12.lga...
>> John Doherty wrote:
>>> In <ijgg93tsv032pil51qjtdh21luch1g81f3.DeleteThis@4ax.com>, McDuck wrote:
>>>
>>>> So ARod, though Boras, is testing the waters for a new contract over
>>>> the winter. Why not? He's making a lot, but more is always better.
>>>> <g>
>>>
>>> Just read this evening that he's said he won't negotiate with the
>>> Yankees during the season. Doesn't mean much, but it's news.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>> The Yanks just out out a statement yesterday saying if A-Rod doesn't talk
>> extension now, the Yanks won't be a bidder on his contract next year.
>
> I think it was more like this. If Arod opts out, they will not offer him
> another contract.
> They want Texas to still pay that $30 million left on his old contract.
> From a business stand point, I can understand that.
> Paying Arod $16-$18 million a year for years 2008-2010 is MUCH better than
> paying him $32 million each year.

That's a great point, 2007Y. I also heard that they said what BobK wrote,
but
I think that the logic that you described may be what is driving the Yanks's
apparant decision. Anyone can easily see why the Yanks would rather pay
"only" $16-18M/yr (i.e. only part of Arod's salary), than have to pay 100%
of $32M/yr. And they'd probably rather extend the existing contract, on the
assumption that Texas would have to continue to pay the remaining years of
the original contract's options, rather than have Arod opt out and then have
to offer a 100% new contract paid for with 100% Yankees money.

I can't blame the Yankees at all for taking this stance.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

"McDuck" <wallyDELETEMEMcDuck RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ijgg93tsv032pil51qjtdh21luch1g81f3@4ax.com...
> So ARod, though Boras, is testing the waters for a new contract over
> the winter. Why not? He's making a lot, but more is always better. <g>
>
> Bismo and some others are hoping ARod opts out of the NYY contract and
> signs with the RS. Seems sooo unlikely, given that Texas pays $11
> million of the current contract and would pay nothing if ARod signed
> with the RS. Hard to see how any team could bid successfully against
> NYY. Only if ARod was determined to leave NYY would there be any
> chance of him leaving --- unless he wanted to go back to Texas <g>.
>
> I've speculated before on whether there is any rule preventing Texas
> from agreeing to pay, say $8 million to the RS if they sign ARod. That
> would cut down on the payment Texas would have to make and would allow
> Boston to be more competitive in the bidding with NYY. But I assume
> that such a move is tampering or something --- illegal, whatever the
> method.


if arod opts out of the contract then texas is off the hook.
texas won't have to pay anything if the sox sign him.
arod won't get any 32 million. he'll get $20 at best.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

"Fred Burton" <fburton.TakeThisOut@starfire.mv.com> wrote in message
news:f7agb6$1i2d$1@pyrite.mv.net...
>
> "2007 Yankees" <yankees4life65.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Th3mi.1$Cz2.0@newsfe12.lga...
>>
>> "BobK" <BobK.TakeThisOut@diespammerdie.net> wrote in message
>> news:dg2mi.1$yT1.0@newsfe12.lga...
>>> John Doherty wrote:
>>>> In <ijgg93tsv032pil51qjtdh21luch1g81f3.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>, McDuck wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So ARod, though Boras, is testing the waters for a new contract over
>>>>> the winter. Why not? He's making a lot, but more is always better.
>>>>> <g>
>>>>
>>>> Just read this evening that he's said he won't negotiate with the
>>>> Yankees during the season. Doesn't mean much, but it's news.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>> The Yanks just out out a statement yesterday saying if A-Rod doesn't
>>> talk extension now, the Yanks won't be a bidder on his contract next
>>> year.
>>
>> I think it was more like this. If Arod opts out, they will not offer him
>> another contract.
>> They want Texas to still pay that $30 million left on his old contract.
>> From a business stand point, I can understand that.
>> Paying Arod $16-$18 million a year for years 2008-2010 is MUCH better
>> than paying him $32 million each year.
>
> That's a great point, 2007Y. I also heard that they said what BobK wrote,
> but
> I think that the logic that you described may be what is driving the
> Yanks's
> apparant decision. Anyone can easily see why the Yanks would rather pay
> "only" $16-18M/yr (i.e. only part of Arod's salary), than have to pay 100%
> of $32M/yr. And they'd probably rather extend the existing contract, on
> the
> assumption that Texas would have to continue to pay the remaining years of
> the original contract's options, rather than have Arod opt out and then
> have
> to offer a 100% new contract paid for with 100% Yankees money.
>
> I can't blame the Yankees at all for taking this stance.
>

That is the only leverage the Yankees have at this point. If Bor-ass knows
the Yankees won't be players in that kind of bidding, the final stakes won't
be good enough. It's possible somebody will fork over the next $150-$200
million contract for Arod but it will be on the lower end if the Yankees
aren't involved.
Personally, I think Arod will stay with NY and they will work out something.
My problem with the this whole scenario is that Arod does still have 3 years
on that contract. He obviously doesn't need the money so why not just play
out the contract and then decide what to do from there. He is one of the top
5 players in the history of baseball. He should follow that path and not be
known as one of the top 5 greediest players in baseball history, courtesy of
Boras.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

"2007 Yankees" <yankees4life65.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:U%3mi.5$yT1.3@newsfe12.lga...
>
> "Fred Burton" <fburton.DeleteThis@starfire.mv.com> wrote in message
> news:f7agb6$1i2d$1@pyrite.mv.net...
>>
>> "2007 Yankees" <yankees4life65.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Th3mi.1$Cz2.0@newsfe12.lga...
>>>
>>> "BobK" <BobK.DeleteThis@diespammerdie.net> wrote in message
>>> news:dg2mi.1$yT1.0@newsfe12.lga...
>>>> John Doherty wrote:
>>>>> In <ijgg93tsv032pil51qjtdh21luch1g81f3.DeleteThis@4ax.com>, McDuck wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So ARod, though Boras, is testing the waters for a new contract over
>>>>>> the winter. Why not? He's making a lot, but more is always better.
>>>>>> <g>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just read this evening that he's said he won't negotiate with the
>>>>> Yankees during the season. Doesn't mean much, but it's news.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>> The Yanks just out out a statement yesterday saying if A-Rod doesn't
>>>> talk extension now, the Yanks won't be a bidder on his contract next
>>>> year.
>>>
>>> I think it was more like this. If Arod opts out, they will not offer him
>>> another contract.
>>> They want Texas to still pay that $30 million left on his old contract.
>>> From a business stand point, I can understand that.
>>> Paying Arod $16-$18 million a year for years 2008-2010 is MUCH better
>>> than paying him $32 million each year.
>>
>> That's a great point, 2007Y. I also heard that they said what BobK
>> wrote, but
>> I think that the logic that you described may be what is driving the
>> Yanks's
>> apparant decision. Anyone can easily see why the Yanks would rather pay
>> "only" $16-18M/yr (i.e. only part of Arod's salary), than have to pay
>> 100%
>> of $32M/yr. And they'd probably rather extend the existing contract, on
>> the
>> assumption that Texas would have to continue to pay the remaining years
>> of
>> the original contract's options, rather than have Arod opt out and then
>> have
>> to offer a 100% new contract paid for with 100% Yankees money.
>>
>> I can't blame the Yankees at all for taking this stance.
>>
>
> That is the only leverage the Yankees have at this point. If Bor-ass knows
> the Yankees won't be players in that kind of bidding, the final stakes
> won't be good enough. It's possible somebody will fork over the next
> $150-$200 million contract for Arod but it will be on the lower end if the
> Yankees aren't involved.
> Personally, I think Arod will stay with NY and they will work out
> something. My problem with the this whole scenario is that Arod does still
> have 3 years on that contract. He obviously doesn't need the money so why
> not just play out the contract and then decide what to do from there. He
> is one of the top 5 players in the history of baseball. He should follow
> that path and not be known as one of the top 5 greediest players in
> baseball history, courtesy of Boras.

2007Y, if Arod has an opt-out clause (which he does) in his contract, I
can't
blame him for using it. As for why he might want to use it now... I'm not
exactly
sure of his age, but I think that it's something like 31-32. And I'm
thinking that
he and Bor-ass may be concerned that if he plays out the current contract,
Arod
will have a more difficult time getting a good contract when he's 34-35.
OTOH,
at 31-32, he might be able to get someone to give him a big 5-8 year
contract.

While I to tend to side with owners over players in this regard, I do think
that
the owner of the Rangers has to accept a big, big chunk of the blame
relative
to Arod's huge contract. As good as Arod is (and was at the time), he is
and
was not worth about 25% more than any other player in the majors. It was
a ridiculous contract to offer a player.

I'd love to see the owners throttle back their willingness to pay this silly
money
to Arod. While he arguably should be the highest paid player in MLB, it
doesn't
require $25M or $32M/yr to accomplish that standard. I suspect that $20M/yr
or so would still keep him as the highest paid player.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

"Fred Burton" <fburton DeleteThis @starfire.mv.com> wrote in message
news:f7alen$1jq7$1@pyrite.mv.net...
>
> "2007 Yankees" <yankees4life65 DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:U%3mi.5$yT1.3@newsfe12.lga...
>>
>> "Fred Burton" <fburton DeleteThis @starfire.mv.com> wrote in message
>> news:f7agb6$1i2d$1@pyrite.mv.net...
>>>
>>> "2007 Yankees" <yankees4life65 DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Th3mi.1$Cz2.0@newsfe12.lga...
>>>>
>>>> "BobK" <BobK DeleteThis @diespammerdie.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:dg2mi.1$yT1.0@newsfe12.lga...
>>>>> John Doherty wrote:
>>>>>> In <ijgg93tsv032pil51qjtdh21luch1g81f3 DeleteThis @4ax.com>, McDuck wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So ARod, though Boras, is testing the waters for a new contract over
>>>>>>> the winter. Why not? He's making a lot, but more is always better.
>>>>>>> <g>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just read this evening that he's said he won't negotiate with the
>>>>>> Yankees during the season. Doesn't mean much, but it's news.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>> The Yanks just out out a statement yesterday saying if A-Rod doesn't
>>>>> talk extension now, the Yanks won't be a bidder on his contract next
>>>>> year.
>>>>
>>>> I think it was more like this. If Arod opts out, they will not offer
>>>> him another contract.
>>>> They want Texas to still pay that $30 million left on his old contract.
>>>> From a business stand point, I can understand that.
>>>> Paying Arod $16-$18 million a year for years 2008-2010 is MUCH better
>>>> than paying him $32 million each year.
>>>
>>> That's a great point, 2007Y. I also heard that they said what BobK
>>> wrote, but
>>> I think that the logic that you described may be what is driving the
>>> Yanks's
>>> apparant decision. Anyone can easily see why the Yanks would rather pay
>>> "only" $16-18M/yr (i.e. only part of Arod's salary), than have to pay
>>> 100%
>>> of $32M/yr. And they'd probably rather extend the existing contract, on
>>> the
>>> assumption that Texas would have to continue to pay the remaining years
>>> of
>>> the original contract's options, rather than have Arod opt out and then
>>> have
>>> to offer a 100% new contract paid for with 100% Yankees money.
>>>
>>> I can't blame the Yankees at all for taking this stance.
>>>
>>
>> That is the only leverage the Yankees have at this point. If Bor-ass
>> knows the Yankees won't be players in that kind of bidding, the final
>> stakes won't be good enough. It's possible somebody will fork over the
>> next $150-$200 million contract for Arod but it will be on the lower end
>> if the Yankees aren't involved.
>> Personally, I think Arod will stay with NY and they will work out
>> something. My problem with the this whole scenario is that Arod does
>> still have 3 years on that contract. He obviously doesn't need the money
>> so why not just play out the contract and then decide what to do from
>> there. He is one of the top 5 players in the history of baseball. He
>> should follow that path and not be known as one of the top 5 greediest
>> players in baseball history, courtesy of Boras.
>
> 2007Y, if Arod has an opt-out clause (which he does) in his contract, I
> can't
> blame him for using it. As for why he might want to use it now... I'm
> not exactly
> sure of his age, but I think that it's something like 31-32. And I'm
> thinking that
> he and Bor-ass may be concerned that if he plays out the current contract,
> Arod
> will have a more difficult time getting a good contract when he's 34-35.
> OTOH,
> at 31-32, he might be able to get someone to give him a big 5-8 year
> contract.
>
> While I to tend to side with owners over players in this regard, I do
> think that
> the owner of the Rangers has to accept a big, big chunk of the blame
> relative
> to Arod's huge contract. As good as Arod is (and was at the time), he is
> and
> was not worth about 25% more than any other player in the majors. It was
> a ridiculous contract to offer a player.
>
> I'd love to see the owners throttle back their willingness to pay this
> silly money
> to Arod. While he arguably should be the highest paid player in MLB, it
> doesn't
> require $25M or $32M/yr to accomplish that standard. I suspect that
> $20M/yr
> or so would still keep him as the highest paid player.
>
>

$20 million is MORE than enough to make playing baseball. How can players
bitch and moan about that much money. What gives Bor-ass the right to say
Arod will be making $30 million a year?? He is as bad for the game as those
owners paying too much for players.
As much as I hate the word salary cap, I wouldn't mind seeing an individual
player salary cap. Doesn't the NBA have something similar to that? The BEST
players can earn X amount and that's it? That would take some of the
Arod-type situations out of the picture. Arod could only earn $20 million
and he could choose from the teams that offer it. I know the MLBPA would
NEVER allow such a thing but I think in the long run, it would be much
better for the game. Bad contracts really sour people on the game. Adrian
Beltre "earned" that ugly contract based on 1 year with the Dodgers.
They do need to get rid of situations like that.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

"2007 Yankees" <yankees4life65.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Qd5mi.11$yT1.3@newsfe12.lga...
>
> "Fred Burton" <fburton.RemoveThis@starfire.mv.com> wrote in message
> news:f7alen$1jq7$1@pyrite.mv.net...
>>
>> "2007 Yankees" <yankees4life65.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:U%3mi.5$yT1.3@newsfe12.lga...
>>>
>>> "Fred Burton" <fburton.RemoveThis@starfire.mv.com> wrote in message
>>> news:f7agb6$1i2d$1@pyrite.mv.net...
>>>>
>>>> "2007 Yankees" <yankees4life65.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:Th3mi.1$Cz2.0@newsfe12.lga...
>>>>>
>>>>> "BobK" <BobK.RemoveThis@diespammerdie.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:dg2mi.1$yT1.0@newsfe12.lga...
>>>>>> John Doherty wrote:
>>>>>>> In <ijgg93tsv032pil51qjtdh21luch1g81f3.RemoveThis@4ax.com>, McDuck wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So ARod, though Boras, is testing the waters for a new contract
>>>>>>>> over
>>>>>>>> the winter. Why not? He's making a lot, but more is always better.
>>>>>>>> <g>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just read this evening that he's said he won't negotiate with the
>>>>>>> Yankees during the season. Doesn't mean much, but it's news.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Yanks just out out a statement yesterday saying if A-Rod doesn't
>>>>>> talk extension now, the Yanks won't be a bidder on his contract next
>>>>>> year.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it was more like this. If Arod opts out, they will not offer
>>>>> him another contract.
>>>>> They want Texas to still pay that $30 million left on his old
>>>>> contract. From a business stand point, I can understand that.
>>>>> Paying Arod $16-$18 million a year for years 2008-2010 is MUCH better
>>>>> than paying him $32 million each year.
>>>>
>>>> That's a great point, 2007Y. I also heard that they said what BobK
>>>> wrote, but
>>>> I think that the logic that you described may be what is driving the
>>>> Yanks's
>>>> apparant decision. Anyone can easily see why the Yanks would rather
>>>> pay
>>>> "only" $16-18M/yr (i.e. only part of Arod's salary), than have to pay
>>>> 100%
>>>> of $32M/yr. And they'd probably rather extend the existing contract,
>>>> on the
>>>> assumption that Texas would have to continue to pay the remaining years
>>>> of
>>>> the original contract's options, rather than have Arod opt out and then
>>>> have
>>>> to offer a 100% new contract paid for with 100% Yankees money.
>>>>
>>>> I can't blame the Yankees at all for taking this stance.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is the only leverage the Yankees have at this point. If Bor-ass
>>> knows the Yankees won't be players in that kind of bidding, the final
>>> stakes won't be good enough. It's possible somebody will fork over the
>>> next $150-$200 million contract for Arod but it will be on the lower end
>>> if the Yankees aren't involved.
>>> Personally, I think Arod will stay with NY and they will work out
>>> something. My problem with the this whole scenario is that Arod does
>>> still have 3 years on that contract. He obviously doesn't need the money
>>> so why not just play out the contract and then decide what to do from
>>> there. He is one of the top 5 players in the history of baseball. He
>>> should follow that path and not be known as one of the top 5 greediest
>>> players in baseball history, courtesy of Boras.
>>
>> 2007Y, if Arod has an opt-out clause (which he does) in his contract, I
>> can't
>> blame him for using it. As for why he might want to use it now... I'm
>> not exactly
>> sure of his age, but I think that it's something like 31-32. And I'm
>> thinking that
>> he and Bor-ass may be concerned that if he plays out the current
>> contract, Arod
>> will have a more difficult time getting a good contract when he's 34-35.
>> OTOH,
>> at 31-32, he might be able to get someone to give him a big 5-8 year
>> contract.
>>
>> While I to tend to side with owners over players in this regard, I do
>> think that
>> the owner of the Rangers has to accept a big, big chunk of the blame
>> relative
>> to Arod's huge contract. As good as Arod is (and was at the time), he is
>> and
>> was not worth about 25% more than any other player in the majors. It was
>> a ridiculous contract to offer a player.
>>
>> I'd love to see the owners throttle back their willingness to pay this
>> silly money
>> to Arod. While he arguably should be the highest paid player in MLB, it
>> doesn't
>> require $25M or $32M/yr to accomplish that standard. I suspect that
>> $20M/yr
>> or so would still keep him as the highest paid player.
>>
>>
>
> $20 million is MORE than enough to make playing baseball. How can players
> bitch and moan about that much money. What gives Bor-ass the right to say
> Arod will be making $30 million a year?? He is as bad for the game as
> those owners paying too much for players.
> As much as I hate the word salary cap, I wouldn't mind seeing an
> individual player salary cap. Doesn't the NBA have something similar to
> that? The BEST players can earn X amount and that's it? That would take
> some of the Arod-type situations out of the picture. Arod could only earn
> $20 million and he could choose from the teams that offer it. I know the
> MLBPA would NEVER allow such a thing but I think in the long run, it would
> be much better for the game. Bad contracts really sour people on the game.
> Adrian Beltre "earned" that ugly contract based on 1 year with the
> Dodgers.
> They do need to get rid of situations like that.

20 million is more than enough for anything. You could say the same about
anyone...from George to John Henry to Oprah Winfrey. What does that have to
do with anything.

If A-Rod is really miserable in NY (I have no idea if he is...don't much
care) than maybe he HAS considered he has made enough money to date and
wants something else. Like playing for a team that has a chance to win...or
just a place where he can be happy. Maybe, just maybe, he doesn't care if
the money matches up as well. He might be thinking, he'll make more than
enough anyway.

Owners will only pay as much as they feel they can. There is no gun to
their heads. Watching your favorite team ought to have taught you that,
since they bring in more money than EVERYBODY else. So don't go getting
righteous about THAT.

Having said all that...I agree...a cap WOULD be good for the game. I
seriously doubt it will happen.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

In <dg2mi.1$yT1.0@newsfe12.lga>, BobK wrote:

> John Doherty wrote:
>> In <ijgg93tsv032pil51qjtdh21luch1g81f3 DeleteThis @4ax.com>, McDuck wrote:

>>> So ARod, though Boras, is testing the waters for a new contract
>>> over the winter. Why not? He's making a lot, but more is always
>>> better. <g>

>> Just read this evening that he's said he won't negotiate with the
>> Yankees during the season. Doesn't mean much, but it's news.

> The Yanks just out out a statement yesterday saying if A-Rod doesn't
> talk extension now, the Yanks won't be a bidder on his contract next
> year.

Wow. Doesn't sound like a happy situation.

--
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

"BobK" <BobK.TakeThisOut@diespammerdie.net> wrote in message
news:dg2mi.1$yT1.0@newsfe12.lga...
> John Doherty wrote:
> > In <ijgg93tsv032pil51qjtdh21luch1g81f3.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>, McDuck wrote:
> >
> >> So ARod, though Boras, is testing the waters for a new contract over
> >> the winter. Why not? He's making a lot, but more is always better.
> >> <g>
> >
> > Just read this evening that he's said he won't negotiate with the
> > Yankees during the season. Doesn't mean much, but it's news.
> >
> > --
> >
> The Yanks just out out a statement yesterday saying if A-Rod doesn't
> talk extension now, the Yanks won't be a bidder on his contract next year.

Somebody's playing poker.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

"Keith Willoughby" <keith.RemoveThis@flat222.org> wrote in message
news:87hco6rfll.fsf@flat222.dyndns.org...
> "2007 Yankees" <yankees4life65.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> $20 million is MORE than enough to make playing baseball.
>
> It's more than enough for many purposes, and not enough for many
> purposes.
>
>> How can players bitch and moan about that much money. What gives
>> Bor-ass the right to say Arod will be making $30 million a year??
>
> ARod works in a capitalist society. He'll get what someone is willing to
> offer.
>
>> He is as bad for the game as those owners paying too much for players.
>> As much as I hate the word salary cap, I wouldn't mind seeing an
>> individual player salary cap.
>
> You first need to explain why you'd rather the owners get the money than
> the players, and then you can discuss the method by which you'd make
> that happen. Doesn't Steinbrenner also have enough money?
>

While this was not posted to me, I'll take a whack at it.

"You first need to explain why you'd rather the owners get the money than
the players..."

Because the owners OWN their teams and the players do not. It's as simple
as that for me. They are the ones taking the economic risk in putting up
their
own capital to purchase and own the franchise and whatever profit that they
can make after paying salaries, etc. is fine by me. I don't buy into this
bullcrap that players should be getting ~50% of the overall profit.
They should make a fair salary, but they shouldn't get to force open the
owners'
books to decide for themselves what fair is.



Steinbrenner is an owner and as an owner he has a right to the profits of
his
business.

I don't like the idea of an individual player salary cap, but I do like team
salary caps.
Team minimums are not necessarily a good idea. Let's take the D-rays, for
example.
If MLB forced a salary floor of, say, $50M, do the D-rays have the ability
to
support a payroll of $50M and still remain profitable in Tampa?

I'm not sure that a salary floor without a salary CAP will do anything but
drive some
teams into bankruptcy. I've heard some of the EEI guys discuss this in
reasonable
depth and their take is that the small market teams, like in the AL East
don't bother
to spend more because they know that it's pointless in a division with two
mega-rich
teams such as the Red Sox and Yankees. As such, they've decided to scale
their
payrolls to a level that they know that can remain profitable, even with
lower attendance.

I find it hard to fault such teams from making an economic decision to
remain profitable
at a level that's sustainable in their market with their limited resources.
This isn't the
NFL where all teams get an equal chunk of the huge TV revenues generated by
the
league and there's a salary cap and non-binding player contracts (not sure
what the
actual term for NFL style contracts is, so bear with me on it).

In the NFL scenario, every franchise has a fairly equal chance of on-field
success
and the determining factor is the skill of their management to put together
a winning
product. OTOH, in baseball, with no salary cap, no equal split of the
league's overall
TV revenues, and totally binding contracts for the length of said contracts,
every team
is utterly left to raise all of its own revenues as best as possible in the
city in which they
are situated. This scenario virtually guarantees that teams in mega-market
big cities
will have a built-in advantage and the teams in small markets are virtually
screwed.


Now, I suppose that one could say that perhaps this means that baseball
should
contract to a smaller number of teams limited to medium and large markets.
Fair
enough. That's an utterly defensible line of reasoning, IMHO, except that I
think
that the likelihood of it happening is slim and none. Nobody's going to buy
out
the small market teams and as long as the small market teams can remain
profitable,
even while losing most of the time, they won't be in any rush to bail out of
the game.

I don't think that the current economic scenario does anything to help the
small
market teams. I suppose that it may help out the mid market teams more than
the small market teams, since the mid market teams often can get to the cusp
of
competitiveness and the extra dollars might make the difference between
signing
that one player who might make a difference or not. But the small market
teams
are probably so far from being competitive that a few million extra dollars
doesn't
end up mattering a heck of a lot.

I think that only a hard team salary cap tied to a more aggressive revenue
scheme
and perhaps later a team salary floor, will help to create a stronger degree
of parity
in MLB. As long as some teams can spend $150+M for team payrolls and can
afford $20+M/yr for individual players, the small market teams that look at
$25-30M
and see a total team payroll, not one or two players' salaries, will never
have a
chance in hell of gaining any degree of competitive parity.



Whoa. That was more long winded than I intended. Sorry....
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

"Keith Willoughby" <keith.DeleteThis@flat222.org> wrote in message
news:87d4yur9r6.fsf@flat222.dyndns.org...
> "2007 Yankees" <yankees4life65.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> "Keith Willoughby" <keith.DeleteThis@flat222.org> wrote in message
>> news:87hco6rfll.fsf@flat222.dyndns.org...
>>>> He is as bad for the game as those owners paying too much for players.
>>>> As much as I hate the word salary cap, I wouldn't mind seeing an
>>>> individual player salary cap.
>>>
>>> You first need to explain why you'd rather the owners get the money than
>>> the players, and then you can discuss the method by which you'd make
>>> that happen. Doesn't Steinbrenner also have enough money?
>>
>> I certainly don't want the owners to make more money then they already
>> do
>
> Well, either the owners will get more money, or the mediocre players
> will get more money. I don't see the benefit of either. I'd rather ARod
> got an extra $10m/yr than 5 middle-relievers get an extra $2m/yr each.
>
>> and if I had a perfect system, I'd be talking to MLB instead. But I
>> think for every team like the Yankees and Red Sox, who aren't afraid
>> to spend money, you have the D'Rays and Marlins, who refuse to pay
>> anything unless they are forced to. I think if there was an individual
>> salary AND a minimum TEAM salary cap, it might not be so bad.
>
> Again, that's just taking money out of the best players' pockets and
> putting it in the pockets of lesser players. I don't see the
> attraction.

That's not necessarily true. I don't support a standalone salary floor
(see my long-winded post in this thread for details on why), but if
lower payroll teams were suddenly able to spend 50-100% more,
that doesn't mean that it would go to lesser players. It might mean that
a) they were able to keep a young free agent star who would have otherwise
left for greener (literally) pastures, or b) they might be able to afford
some free agents they could never have afforded otherwise.

If all of the extra money only goes to the very elite players, those players
will only end up playing for the very few, very rich teams, thus furthering
the already out of control competitive imbalance in MLB.



>
>> Forced some of them to spend some of that luxury tax money they get
>> every year.
>
> The luxury tax doesn't go to the teams. It goes to player benefits,
> player development in other countries, and the industry development
> fund. You're thinking of revenue sharing.

Maybe the Luxury tax SHOULD be added to the revenue sharing pool.
Just a thought.


>
>> And I guess GS has enough money....as do 29 other owners.
>
> There's one fool-proof way of reducing player compensation, and that's
> if everybody who can't stand ballplayers earning $30m/yr stopped giving
> any money to MLB teams or their advertisers. The reason ballplayers earn
> so much is that they're responsible for the creation of wealth in a
> multi-billion dollar industry. The reason ARod is going to get $30m/yr
> is because people are willing to spend $40 to watch him play, or $200 to
> buy his jersey, or $3 for a box of cereal with his picture on.


There are plenty of people who love major league baseball and they shouldn't
have
to deny themselves of that joy simply because the players union and the
owners
cannot come to an agreement on a scheme to improve the overall competitive
parity within MLB. Right now, all you have is the players union caring
about
mega high salaries for their elite players with little to no regard for the
non-elite
players, and both sides having no regard for the fans who for the most part
would
like to see a return to competitive parity in baseball. I mostly blame the
players
union and a small minority of owners for this issue. I believe that a
majority of
the owners wouldn't mind a system that would enhance competitive parity,
since
competitive parity should end up increasing interest in their teams and
eventually
increased profitability. However, owners like Steinbrenner simply does not
want
to give up his team's enormous competitive advantage. The resources
inherent in
being in NYC under the current system make it a virtual guarantee that short
of
utterly incompetent management, the Yankees should always be able to afford
a good selection of the best talent YES Network TV money can buy.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future