User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.3231 seconds
51 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: August 16, 2011 at 01:56 PM (#3901135)Edit: and they got Cole to take a minor league contract. Double win.
Yeah, but one of 'em was an extremely unwise investment in Purke. They might as well have taken a suitcase full of hundreds out on the pitchers' mound and lit it on fire.
This seems like a win for Cole. He'll get the whole $8 million paid no later than the end of 2012 rather than split over a four- or five-year ML contract, and then, assuming he reaches the big leagues quickly, he'll start getting paid a separate ML salary without having risked giving up even one year of arbitration.
bfan: That's what they said about Pedro Alvarez.
Not signing a multi-year deal could put several million more dollars in Cole's pocket by 2015 or '16, when the multi-year would have expired. I haven't read any of the coverage out of Pittsburgh, but it seems hard to believe the Pirates preferred to pay the $8M over the next 18 months rather than over the next 4-5 years (while also yielding 1-2 possible arbitration years back to Cole).
I'm sure they'll get right on that after he helps baseball move to a more equitable system of distribution for local revenues.
Why is that hard to believe?
plus, if they think cole is going to be a project who'll take a few years to establish himself in the majors, they'd also have the advantage of being able to stash him in the minors for a year or two before having to use up any of his option years.
Wait, that welfare queen wants MORE free unearned money? It's the shamelessness of these parasites that galls so.
The fact that you think the Yankees billion dollar contribution towards stadium construction is equivalent to zero only underlines your wild-eyed hatred of America's most beloved and successful sports franchise. For shame.
So your proposal is that teams that receive public financing for stadiums should subsidize those who do not. That's an interesting proposal. I could possibly support such an arrangement. How well-received do you think your revolutionary manifesto will be received amongst baseball leadership, comrade?
For the reasons I mentioned in #6 and #9. Aside from paying the $8M over 18 months instead of 4-5 years, it's hard to believe the Pirates willingly risked $3 to $5 million in additional potential salary just to retain a 40-man spot for a year.
The Yankees should have drafted better players.
For whatever reason, the only guys that get the money spread out are two sports athletes (like Archie Bradley or Bubba Starling). This is in order to keep them from going Roscoe Crosby - who took his bonus from the Royals, never played an inning of pro ball, quit baseball and became a WR at Clemson. I think maybe top tier guys get the money spread out too, but for some reason, teams don't seem to like spreading out the bonus for everyone.
Maybe the Pirates wouldn't be spending so profligately if they had to use their own money. Perhaps these unearned windfalls of free cash are distorting the economics of the draft.
But perhaps your larger point holds merit as well; the Yankees are obviously denied access to the best-rated and therefore most expensive players in the draft. A draft lottery system would reduce this obvious inequity in access to amateur talent, and I support such a proposal.
Clearly, what the Yankees need to do is tank a couple of seasons so that they can have access to higher draft picks. Maybe they can rehire Stump Merrill.
I am entirely in favor of the Yankees not having to share their revenues with anyone, and being able to pay as much as they want for players. Of course, I'm also in favor of the other teams deciding they'll only play games against the teams they wish to schedule, and telling the Yankees to enjoy their huge pile of money and wonderful stash of talented players in their own little one-team league. Exhibition games against Mystique and Aura should be great programming for YES.
I'm in favor of BTFers deciding en masse to refuse to take the bait from YR every time the subject involves one of the league's revenue stealers in any way. Probably as unlikely to happen as the Yankees' all-exhibition game schedule, but a boy can dream.
Nice fantasy, but there's a lot of money in being the Washington Generals.
Cole's contract: I am, of course, with Joe on this. The only other advantage from a minor league deal is if things go wrong and he needs more minor league time.
Did he ever post the promised non-sarcastic justification for his rants? or is it still "revenue sharing is wrong but territorial rights are ok, just because territorial rights are older?"
Oh, come on. It's pretty easy. Territorial rights are good and revenue sharing is bad because territorial rights establish a huge competitive advantage for the Yankees and revenue sharing is bad because revenue sharing slightly diminishes that huge competitive advantage for the Yankees.
There. You need wait no longer.
I did not. The reason for this is actually a bit embarrassing - by the time I had a few moments to sit and write out my reply, I couldn't locate the thread or remember what the "real" topic of the thread was to help me search it out. Most shamefully of all, my attempts to locate it by searching for the term "revenue stealing" was, well, less helpful than I'd have hoped.
Actually Sam I've stated repeatedly, both on this forum and others, and consistently over the course of many years, that I would gladly eliminate all territorial rights in baseball without a second thought so long as we eliminate them for every team without exception. If there were a rush of a dozen teams trying to exploit the New York market, so be it - my guess is their owners would rapidly develop a nostalgia for their insulated fiefdoms when faced with serious competition.
You're probably right, but I remember people always being afraid they would snatch up high dollar guys. Why don't they?
Don't forget to screw the Red Sox who drafted Blake Swihart and stole him away from the Longhorns too. I truly think that if Bell stuck with his intentions to go to UT, Swihart would have as well.
As for the Yankees... if they had wanted Bell, they should have drafted him in the Supplemental Round, instead of reaching for Bichette Jr.
Two questions. First, how many markets other than New York do you actually think would face an invasion of moving and/or new teams? And more important, do you really think Yankee ownership/management would agree with you in preferring a state of affairs in which there would be no territorial rights and no revenue sharing, or the status quo? I am willing to bet that if having to send a check to the Royals, et al., each year is the price for keeping the New York market all to themselves (and a National League annoyance, of course), they are more than happy to cut the check.
No doubt the Yanks would gladly sign high dollar guys if they got to draft #1 every year. As it is, they (generally) draft around 25-30 (except when people are silly enough to sign away their Type A FAs). Now, drafting 25-30 you can occasionally grab a "signability" pick skipped over by cheaper teams but that's hard to do when those cheaper teams stop skipping over those players (no doubt the compensation picks you get if you don't sign a guy help).
On Cole, I don't get what #9 is claiming. Say Cole would have gotten $8 M through 2015. Unless he's ML ready from the start of 2012, that doesn't buy out any arb years whatsoever while it guarantees burning up all his option years if he's not ML ready until 2015. If it ran through 2016 then, possibly, they cost themselves a cheap arb year -- a situation that can be handled by delaying his arb clock to make him at most a super-2 -- while buying themselves the safety of several years of development time plus a 40-man slot which (given their number of prospects) they might well need. And that's assuming Cole was willing to go 5/$8.
I didn't mean to start a big debate on this. My point is simply that having a team pay an $8M bonus upfront is a win for the player, not the team. Absent reporting to the contrary, I don't believe this was a case of the Pirates sticking Cole with a minor league deal against his wishes, as was implied in #2 above.
Yea, I get them not getting Bubba Starling. But last year, many people mocked their first round pick Cito Culver as a huge reach, passing over high dollar guys like Anthony Ranaudo, Nick Castellanos, Stetson Allie, Levon Washington and AJ Cole, among others. This year, they took Dante Bichette - probably the most mocked pick by guys like Keith Law, and passed up Josh Bell, Dillon Howard, Daniel Norris, Austin Hedges, Andrew Susac, Bryan Brickhouse, Brian Goodwin, and Matt Purke, all of whom got more than a million bucks in later rounds. I'm glad they're doing it, it just seems odd that's all.
(EDIT: This article was viewable via Google News, but it looks like a subscriber link when visited directly. Sorry.)
Obviously I have no way of knowing, but I think opportunities do abound in some areas. For example, South Florida seems to have all the necessary requirements for offering a franchise solid fan support. Perhaps the Oakland A's feel like they'd be better off competing with Jeffrey Loria for the Marlins' fanbase than they are competing with a successful and popular organization with a long history like the Giants. Perhaps another owner sees Baltimore or Toronto as ripe plums with prior histories of solid support and thinks it a good time to strike with the hopes of reinvigorating the locals. Unlike New York, Boston lacks a National League presence - perhaps Loria would attempt a preemptive strike to exploit that market before someone leaps into his own.
Well nobody made them that offer, so I can't know how they'd react. I'm only offering my own personal viewpoint in response to #28, which I believe misstated my long-held views.
And in Boston -- where will this new incarnation of the Braves play? Gillette Stadium? That should provide some lovely dimensions, I'm sure. Baltimore, Toronto . . .
This pipe dream that franchises can move as easily as players reaching free agency is really quite bizarre.
I don't know; I've seen other people (like the BA guys) ask themselves this without offering answers as well.
I have a reflexive distrust of conspiracy theories but tend to one in this instance (albeit in the 'something vaguely weird is going on that's possibly a function of a defacto agreement b/w the Yanks and somebody high up in baseball' sense, as opposed to anything concrete or defensible). The ROI would be too great otherwise, wouldn't it?
***
This means about zero, but Bichette's been pretty alright so far.
Where do relocating franchises play now?
The A's wouldn't even have to move from the Bay Area if territorial rights were dispanded. Further to the south, Los Angeles would probably get a third team.
Mostly exactly where they play now.
Well then why fix what ain't a-broken?
Just because there is no fix given the current situation doesn't mean it isn't broken.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main