The W
Views: 97598646
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.7.14 0633
The W - Baseball - Pujols to Angels (Page 2)
This thread has 7 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.59
Pages: Prev 1 2
(82 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (39 total)
BigDaddyLoco
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 23 hours
Last activity: 21 hours
#21 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.67

    DWinfield_ESPN Dave Winfield
    It'll be 30 yrs ago I signed a 10 year deal w/NYY. It'll be interesting to see how long A. Pujols stays strong and productive, no easy feat!



5 years 77.5 million for CJ is just as crazy. It makes a nice rotation now, CJ as your third starter, but these contracts are going to look plain ugly a couple of years from now.

graves9
Frankfurter








Since: 19.2.10
From: Brooklyn NY

Since last post: 17 hours
Last activity: 10 min.
#22 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.49
    Originally posted by lotjx
    Well, the AL West got a hundred times more interesting. The Angels are now a lock for the division.
Nope. Maybe if they kept Napoli. I suspect the Rangers will get Darvish and maybe Fielder too.
SchippeWreck
Banger








Since: 26.3.03
From: Glendale, CA

Since last post: 16 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
#23 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.84
    Originally posted by It's False
    Oh, and stealing C.J. Wilson from the Rangers? BEAUTIFUL! THAT is a better reason to pencil in the Angels for the playoffs.

The problem being Wilson then having to pitch in said playoffs. I'm sure he's better than he was in this postseason, but if not, yikes.

It pains me deeply as a Dodgers fan to say this, but the Angels just became the premiere franchise in Southern California. Excuse me while I grab a pitchfork to run Frank out of town. We need to right this ship ASAP.



"It's magic! We don't need to explain it!"
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 242 days
Last activity: 236 days
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.54

    Originally posted by El Nastio
    He's going to be 42 at the end of this deal. Yes, he's super human. Yes, he effectively has already had a Hall of Fame career at the age of THIRTY TWO.

    42 is still an old, old age. We can see with the Yankees last year what happens with aging stars.

    It's possible that Pujols wanted that 10 year deal, but figured eventually it's in his best interest to eventually be able to DH, or be able to rotate games into the DH spot at some point to save wear and tear.

    Fielder is laughing to the bank now, because other AL West teams might react by giving him more money.

    (edited by El Nastio on 8.12.11 1431)


At age 41 Stan Musial hit .330. At age 40 Willie Mays had an OPS+ of 158. Neither of them had the chance to play DH for the last few years of his career. Sure he can still be very effective at age 40-42.

Remember too, that the Angels won't be losing money any time soon. The Cardinals just lost a bunch though. Instead of the $200+ million dollars they would have gotten over the next ten years of just having Pujols around...now they have to find someone else to bring in the fans and money.

NO ONE will be bringing in their young child nine years from now in St. Louis, paying triple digits for a seat at the ballpark, so that child can later say "Yep, me and my dad got a chance to see Yadier Molina..."





Sports Director Neuhoff Media Danville, IL
WDAN - K-ROCK - D-102

Announcer for Heritage Wrestling Television
Interim CEO Heritage Wrestling Coalition
It's False
Scrapple








Since: 20.6.02
From: I am the Tag Team Champions!

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 10 hours
#25 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.51
    Originally posted by SchippeWreck
    It pains me deeply as a Dodgers fan to say this, but the Angels just became the premiere franchise in Southern California. Excuse me while I grab a pitchfork to run Frank out of town. We need to right this ship ASAP.


Yeah, but that won't last long if Magic Johnson buys the team, as has been rumored. Magic will have the Dodgers relevant again in no time. And the Freeway Series is finally going to be Must See TV for more than just the west coast!




"This is bad comedy."
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#26 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.73
The Cardinals have never had any intention of resigning Pujols. They locked up Matt Holiday to a long term deal, then took care of Carpenter. They've played poor this whole time, knowing that he took a discount the first time to stay here, and that they'd never be able to pay him what he's worth. They knew ahead of time he was gone, and they've prepared for it over the past year and a half.

I don't understand how you let the generation's greatest player walk, but, it's a business.

As a Yankees fan living in St Louis, I went through the thought of this the past few offseasons with Rivera and Jeter. Luckily they stayed Yankees.

How long before they're booing Holiday for his disappearing act in the post season? Can he handle the pressure of being the man in a baseball mecca? I don't think so.

Either way, Albert, you've earned it. You're a class act, and anybody who thinks otherwise are fools.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 8 days
#27 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.00
    Originally posted by Eddie Famous
      Originally posted by El Nastio
      He's going to be 42 at the end of this deal. Yes, he's super human. Yes, he effectively has already had a Hall of Fame career at the age of THIRTY TWO.

      42 is still an old, old age. We can see with the Yankees last year what happens with aging stars.

      It's possible that Pujols wanted that 10 year deal, but figured eventually it's in his best interest to eventually be able to DH, or be able to rotate games into the DH spot at some point to save wear and tear.

      Fielder is laughing to the bank now, because other AL West teams might react by giving him more money.

      (edited by El Nastio on 8.12.11 1431)


    At age 41 Stan Musial hit .330.


And it was a total anomaly for Musial in the latter years of his career. From age 38 on, he hit .255, .275, .288, .330, .225. At age 39, he took a pay cut because of his declining performance, according to Wikipedia.

Picking one stat from one year doesn't disprove the argument that Pujols is going to be old and not a major contributor at the end of this contract. It would be stupid as hell to argue otherwise. Musial was not "very effective" in the last few years of his career save for that one, and even if it's true of Musial there are a million other great players who weren't so great in their 40s that make a more convincing argument than your cherrypicking of statistics.

I think the far safer bet is that Pujols is going to be a burden 10 years from now.


    The Cardinals just lost a bunch though. Instead of the $200+ million dollars they would have gotten over the next ten years of just having Pujols around...now they have to find someone else to bring in the fans and money.


I don't doubt this cost them SOME money, but I also highly doubt there are going to be many empty seats at Busch Stadium in the near future just because of this. The team just won a World Series in which Pujols disappeared for all but Game 3 and the end of Game 6. Take away Game 3, and Pujols went 1-for-19 with four runs scored.

Obviously that's not to say Pujols had nothing to do with them winning (or getting there, of course), but I don't think this Cardinals team is just going to fade away into obscurity because Albert Pujols is gone.


    NO ONE will be bringing in their young child nine years from now in St. Louis, paying triple digits for a seat at the ballpark, so that child can later say "Yep, me and my dad got a chance to see Yadier Molina..."



Who's to say they won't be saying that about David Freese, or some other player neither of us has even heard of yet? Pujols is great, a legend already. But he's one dude. The Cardinals had plenty of fans before Pujols, they'll have plenty after him, and I'd bet anything they'll be competitive for a greater portion of that 10-year Pujols contract than the Angels will.

(edited by TheBucsFan on 8.12.11 2014)
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 242 days
Last activity: 236 days
#28 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.54

    Originally posted by TheBucsFan

    Picking one stat from one year doesn't disprove the argument that Pujols is going to be old and not a major contributor at the end of this contract. It would be stupid as hell to argue otherwise. Musial was not "very effective" in the last few years of his career save for that one, and even if it's true of Musial there are a million other great players who weren't so great in their 40s that make a more convincing argument than your cherrypicking of statistics.

    I think the far safer bet is that Pujols is going to be a burden 10 years from now.



Far from being "stupid as hell". Pujols is an athlete who will be, when he is done, one of the all-time greats to play the game. With modern training methods, and the designated hitter into play, it would, in fact be "stupid as hell" to assume he won't be effective in ten years.


    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    I don't doubt this cost them SOME money, but I also highly doubt there are going to be many empty seats at Busch Stadium in the near future just because of this. The team just won a World Series in which Pujols disappeared for all but Game 3 and the end of Game 6. Take away Game 3, and Pujols went 1-for-19 with four runs scored.

    Obviously that's not to say Pujols had nothing to do with them winning (or getting there, of course), but I don't think this Cardinals team is just going to fade away into obscurity because Albert Pujols is gone.


This team would not have sniffed the playoffs had Pujols not bounced from his .255 start to his .299 finish. Not even close. To say they will be close to the same without him in the short term is, to quote you, "stupid as hell".

    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    Who's to say they won't be saying that about David Freese, or some other player neither of us has even heard of yet? Pujols is great, a legend already. But he's one dude. The Cardinals had plenty of fans before Pujols, they'll have plenty after him, and I'd bet anything they'll be competitive for a greater portion of that 10-year Pujols contract than the Angels will.


Me. I'll say it right now. The Cardinals had their modern-day Stan Musial in their hands and now he's gone. The last one retired in 1963, so I'll give them another 35 years or so to find one.

I asked a Boston fan who was carping about Pujols' contract demands if he would have given Yaz the same deal at age 32. He shut up.





Sports Director Neuhoff Media Danville, IL
WDAN - K-ROCK - D-102

Announcer for Heritage Wrestling Television
Interim CEO Heritage Wrestling Coalition
supersalvadoran
Landjager








Since: 10.1.08
From: westbury, new york

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 1 day
#29 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.99
In the end, here's how it settles down IMO:

-It's great for the Angels, who have been a good competitive team but one that hasn't done much in the playoffs since their breakthrough 02' season.
-It hurts for the Cardinals but not as badly as one might think. They still have a really good starting rotation and with guys like Holiday, they're still in contention for the playoffs. They haven't fallen off the cliff and I would believe they're still a favorite to at least win the NL Central.
-$254 million>$220 million. Simple as that. Maybe if you're the Cardinals, you don't dick around your best player like they did for the past season. Remember, they weren't even offering him a top-10 contract at spring training. Maybe if they made the offer to Pujols (or even a slighty lower one to him- say just over $210 million) earlier in the season instead of playing hardball, he might had bitten and this situation would had never gotten to this point. If we hold anyone to blame, it has to be the Cardinals management.
-Finally, I know people are sad about Albert leaving. I wish he could had been able to stay a Cardinal for life. But this is *NOT* a Lebron situation and those who cry that it is are just total idiots. Pujols did deliver a championship to St. Louis, not once but twice. Also, he's proven to be a much classier and smarter person than LeBron is. He'll handle the exit much better and once people get used to him as a Angel, the move won't hurt anywhere near as much and there won't be any hard feelings between him and St. Louis.

As for the 10 years, I think with the proper training and fitness, Pujols can be pretty effective throughout his whole contract. He's not just a power hitter; he can hit well for average too. I can see him adjusting and maintaining his ability to be a solid .300 to .320 hitter even if/when his HR numbers fall off into the 20's at around 38 or 39. Barring a Ken Griffey- like injury spree and/or numbers collapse, I don't see Pujols' contract being a bad one for LA anytime soon.













StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#30 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.73
I ask any fan this question. If YOUR team had Albert Pujols for the past 11 seasons and he preformed at the same level for YOUR team, would you just write him off as somebody you can lose because the last 2 or 3 years of a ten year deal, he ISN'T the same Albert Pujols?

Because for my money, he's the epitome of class in professional sports. He said before the season that if he didn't have a contract by spring training, he wouldn't even negotiate until the season was over. And he didn't. He didn't play the media for sympathy (like the Cardinals did). He went out and did his job.

He was able to get players the Hispanic players on the team to up their level by being a constant leader in the club house and helping them deal with the media.

He has a charity organization that is very active in the region. http://www.pujolsfamilyfoundation.org/ (if you're not familiar with it)

I personally, and it's just MY opinion, think that you sign him, at whatever salary he wants, because he isn't going to go out and embarrass the organization, he'll do the opposite and shine a positive light on it, both on and off the field.
Not to mention, if the man retired right now, is there any member of the BBWAA who wouldn't make him a first ballot selection for the HOF? (well, there's some jackasses, but really, even THEY know he belongs)

Southern California just got it's most respectable athlete they will ever have, and the Angels got themselves a guy who's a lock to hit 35 HRs a year for the next few years, and plays a great first base.
Its win/win for them, and lose/lose for the Cardinals.

Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 12 hours
#31 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.70
If I'm the Cardinals, I get Pujols re-signed LAST winter. Offer him the 10-year, $252 million contract last winter with the first year of the new contract replacing his 2011 contract. The mistake St. Louis made was letting Pujols hit the open market in the first place.



"It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone." --- Bart Giamatti, on baseball
JayJayDean
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 7 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#32 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.97
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    I ask any fan this question. If YOUR team had Albert Pujols for the past 11 seasons and he preformed at the same level for YOUR team, would you just write him off as somebody you can lose because the last 2 or 3 years of a ten year deal, he ISN'T the same Albert Pujols?


Well, with a little editing...

I ask any fan this question. If YOUR team had Albert Pujols Alex Rodriguez for the past 11 5 seasons would you just write him off as somebody you can lose because the last 2 or 3 years of a ten year deal, he ISN'T the same Albert Pujols Alex Rodriguez?

I remember when the Rangers did the A-Rod deal thinking there was no way the Mariners would've been close to that and that making it sort of OK. I mean, looking back on it, A-Rod was awesome but the Rangers didn't win with him (and at first the Mariners won without him), so if I'm a Cards fan I just go with that.



Holy fuck shit motherfucker shit. Read comics. Fuck shit shit fuck shit I sold out when I did my job. Fuck fuck fuck shit fuck. Sorry had to do it....

*snip*

Revenge of the Sith = one thumb up from me. Fuck shit. I want to tittie fuck your ass.
-- The Guinness. to Cerebus
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 8 days
#33 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.00
    Originally posted by Eddie Famous

    Far from being "stupid as hell". Pujols is an athlete who will be, when he is done, one of the all-time greats to play the game. With modern training methods, and the designated hitter into play, it would, in fact be "stupid as hell" to assume he won't be effective in ten years.


Pujols would have to perform at a wholly unprecedented level at the end of his career to justify this contract. If "effective" means perform at the level Stan Musial did in his last few years, that wouldn't even come close to justifying the contract, in my view. If you think it's reasonable to just assume that something that has never happened before is going to happen, then good for you. I stand by my assessment though.

The other thing that could justify this contract is Pujols performing in an absolutely crazy record-setting way for the first five or six years of it - in a way even better than he has so far. The Angels aren't paying him for what he did in the past with the Cardinals, and the career of every single player in the history of the sport says his future at age 32 is going to be worse than his past, with the possible exception of the next few years.

    Originally posted by JayJayDean
    I mean, looking back on it, A-Rod was awesome but the Rangers didn't win with him (and at first the Mariners won without him), so if I'm a Cards fan I just go with that.


And the Yankees have won only a single pennant in eight years with Rodriguez, while surrounding him with other expensive talent that the Rangers couldn't.

I think history overwhelmingly supports the argument that this deal wasn't a good idea for the Angels. I'm with PeterStork, who said the only team that could justify this kind of absurd deal was the Cardinals, because of some "legacy" factor. Strictly on performance, no player at age 32 is worth guaranteeing $25 million a year into his 40s.
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 242 days
Last activity: 236 days
#34 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.54

    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    Pujols would have to perform at a wholly unprecedented level at the end of his career to justify this contract. If "effective" means perform at the level Stan Musial did in his last few years, that wouldn't even come close to justifying the contract, in my view. If you think it's reasonable to just assume that something that has never happened before is going to happen, then good for you. I stand by my assessment though.

    The other thing that could justify this contract is Pujols performing in an absolutely crazy record-setting way for the first five or six years of it - in a way even better than he has so far. The Angels aren't paying him for what he did in the past with the Cardinals, and the career of every single player in the history of the sport says his future at age 32 is going to be worse than his past, with the possible exception of the next few years.


You are really missing it here. All he has to do is be effective, which is certainly reasonable, into his forties. Hank Aaron was not a very good player at all his last two seasons, but he was worth every penny in merchandise and ticket sales for the Brewers.

Right now Pujols averages 42 homeruns a season. If he averages HALF that for the next ten years, he will finish with 645 homeruns. He averages 126 RBI a year. If he averages 80 a year for the next ten he will finish with over 2000 RBI.

The Angels just bought a sure-fire first ballot hall-of-famer for a fraction of what he will probably bring to the team in monies earned.



Sports Director Neuhoff Media Danville, IL
WDAN - K-ROCK - D-102

Announcer for Heritage Wrestling Television
Interim CEO Heritage Wrestling Coalition
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 8 days
#35 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.00
http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/19157/pujols-compared-to-best-at-ages-32-to-41


    Let's be honest: I don't think Arte Moreno cares too much about 2017 or 2018, let alone 2021, when Albert Pujols will be 41 years old and finishing up the final season of his 10-year, $254 million contract with the Los Angeles Angels.

    Last week, ESPN Insider Dan Szymborski projected Pujols' numbers over the next 10 years. Szymborski's system predicts a fairly rapid decline for Pujols after the first four seasons. The Pujols defenders will rightly point out, however, that there have been few players like him in the history of baseball, that he doesn't drink and eats his vegetables and all that, and thus any projection system concerning Pujols will have a wide range of error.

    So let's do this. Let's look at the most valuable first baseman or designated hitter since 1969 at each age, from 32 to 41, using Baseball-Reference's Wins Above Replacement system. I'm using designated hitters for two reasons: Pujols will inevitably end up there at some point, and as you'll see, many of the "best" players at these ages have been DHs, not first basemen. Simply put: First basemen, even great ones, do not age well. At the end, we'll compare the total WAR of this method to Szymborski's ZiPS system.

    ...

    OK, the final tally:

    Szymborski's ZiPS: 32.4 WAR -- 32 wins above replacement level
    Best players at each age: 51.9 WAR -- 52 wins above replacement level

    What's interesting is that currently a win on the free-agent market is worth about $5 million. Take $254 million and divide by $5 million, and you get ... 50.8 wins.

    So, if Pujols matches the production of the best player at each age since 1969 for the next 10 seasons, his on-field value will actually match the contract Moreno gave him. As great as Pujols is, I don’t see that happening, especially considering the signs of decline the past four seasons (his on-base percentage has also fallen from .462 to .443 to .414 to .366). Also consider that -- to put this delicately -- at least a couple players on these lists had some unusual aging patters to their careers in the midst of the steroids era.
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#36 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.52
Has anybody really thought about what the top guys were earning 10years ago VS today? In ten years, will $25Million still seem like a reach? Or will salaries keep up and make it less offensive?


Also, apparently they (the Pujols' )were offended by the Cardinals offer.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7346376/albert-pujols-wife-diedre-explains-why-los-angeles-angels-slugger-left-st-louis-cardinals

(edited by StaggerLee on 12.12.11 2139)

(edited by StaggerLee on 12.12.11 2139)
cfgb
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Ottawa, Ontario

Since last post: 43 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#37 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.74
    Originally posted by Eddie Famous

    You are really missing it here. All he has to do is be effective, which is certainly reasonable, into his forties. Hank Aaron was not a very good player at all his last two seasons, but he was worth every penny in merchandise and ticket sales for the Brewers.




Nailed it.

There was no team in that majors that theoretically "couldn't" afford him, because he'll bring in the weight of his contract in jerseys, bobbleheads, signed baseballs, tickets sold, and the rest. He's one of those trancendent stars who will simply sell, as long as he's productive. If he's anywhere near the Bonds (or A-Rod) record towards the end of the deal, he'll sell out every game as the chase moves forward. Check out the Barry Bonds tour of 2007 when he was hunting down history; the Giants paid him $18 million, and all he did was sell more tickets than Wonka sold chocolate bars around the ENTIRE league, despite the prices being jacked to the gills for every Giants game.

The Cardinals had no business letting him walk, especially offering him the same kind of scratch they're already paying Matt Holliday. Matt Holliday is no Albert Pujols and they damn well should have known that going in.



Shooting Star Press ... is back!
jam1975
Loukanika








Since: 8.10.03

Since last post: 703 days
Last activity: 703 days
#38 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
    Originally posted by cfgb



    Nailed it.

    There was no team in that majors that theoretically "couldn't" afford him, because he'll bring in the weight of his contract in jerseys, bobbleheads, signed baseballs, tickets sold, and the rest. He's one of those trancendent stars who will simply sell, as long as he's productive. If he's anywhere near the Bonds (or A-Rod) record towards the end of the deal, he'll sell out every game as the chase moves forward. Check out the Barry Bonds tour of 2007 when he was hunting down history; the Giants paid him $18 million, and all he did was sell more tickets than Wonka sold chocolate bars around the ENTIRE league, despite the prices being jacked to the gills for every Giants game.

    The Cardinals had no business letting him walk, especially offering him the same kind of scratch they're already paying Matt Holliday. Matt Holliday is no Albert Pujols and they damn well should have known that going in.


Merchandise revenue is shared among the teams. In a way, it's probably more beneficial for the Cardinals to let him walk as now a ton of different fans will be buying Pujols jerseys, bobbleheads, etc.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 8 days
#39 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.00
    Originally posted by jam1975
      Originally posted by cfgb



      Nailed it.

      There was no team in that majors that theoretically "couldn't" afford him, because he'll bring in the weight of his contract in jerseys, bobbleheads, signed baseballs, tickets sold, and the rest. He's one of those trancendent stars who will simply sell, as long as he's productive. If he's anywhere near the Bonds (or A-Rod) record towards the end of the deal, he'll sell out every game as the chase moves forward. Check out the Barry Bonds tour of 2007 when he was hunting down history; the Giants paid him $18 million, and all he did was sell more tickets than Wonka sold chocolate bars around the ENTIRE league, despite the prices being jacked to the gills for every Giants game.

      The Cardinals had no business letting him walk, especially offering him the same kind of scratch they're already paying Matt Holliday. Matt Holliday is no Albert Pujols and they damn well should have known that going in.


    Merchandise revenue is shared among the teams. In a way, it's probably more beneficial for the Cardinals to let him walk as now a ton of different fans will be buying Pujols jerseys, bobbleheads, etc.


Yes this is another thing I meant to point out in my last post, but I just put that link up and then forgot. I don't know everything about Major League Baseball's revenue sharing plan, but I know it's a supposedly pretty favorable one to the small market teams in that the money is pretty evenly distributed. I don't think the money from jerseys, etc., goes right to the Angels. Pretty much the only thing I think has the effect being described here is ticket sales.

I am not convinced that one single player can generate more than $25 million in ticket sales for a single team per year for a decade just because one random guy on the Internet said so. Eddie Famous, if you actually have some figures to back up your claim re: financials, I'm all ears (er, eyes I guess). But I don't think the reality backs up your claims.

Here's a column breaking down some problems the author has with the revenue sharing system in baseball:


    Revenue-sharing money comes from two pools. One is central fund revenue, which comes from national television and radio deals, Major League Baseball Advanced Media, merchandise sales and the newly formed MLB Network. Each of the 30 clubs got a check for about $30 million in 2009 through this arrangement.

    The other pool is the one that has created tension between small- and large-revenue clubs, as it is the one that transfers money between franchises. This pool is made up of net local revenues, such as ticket sales, concessions and media deals that each club negotiates for television and radio. Against that money, each club is hit with a marginal rate of 31 percent, which is applied across the board to each of the 30 clubs. (The only exception comes if a club happens to be in the midst of stadium construction, which temporarily relieves a portion of its local-revenue obligation.)

    After all the numbers are added up, money moves from payors (the high revenue clubs) to payees (low revenue clubs). MLB declined to say how many clubs were payors and payees for revenue sharing last year. Baseball's collective bargaining agreement simply says that a team must use its revenue-sharing money "in an effort to improve its performance on the field."

    While many fans see this as a loophole for owners to simply pocket the money, both the Players Association and MLB say the wording is meant to allow for flexibility, depending on where a club is in its development cycle. A club could be rebuilding, and therefore need to invest in player development at the minor league level. Or a club may see its window of opportunity opening, and use the money to procure talent at the major league level through free agency.


I tried to find something more specific quickly, but I couldn't.
Pages: Prev 1 2
Thread rated: 5.59
Pages: Prev 1 2
Thread ahead: The Wilpons get another loan
Next thread: NL MVP Braun busted for PED's, suspended 50 games
Previous thread: Tim McCarver wins Ford Frick award
(82 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Drafting on Tuesday at 7:00 pm PDT. PM me, aIM me (whitebacon), or email me at whitebacon@attbi.com for further registration information. Skorpio, I eagerly await your inquiry. Edit: I have five spots to fill, please only join if you'll be active.
Related threads: Ervin Santana throws no hitter vs. Indians - Kendrys Morales out for the season...again - Angels trade for Dan Haren - More...
The W - Baseball - Pujols to Angels (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.114 seconds.