CantCatchMe

I have been a Founders Club season ticket holder since 1993. Recently, a person who shares the tickets said he couldn't do it this year due to the economy. I really don't want to give these up (although I have 2 other seats that are already taken for this season) nor do I want to lose the priority in the New Stadium. Here is the info: Seats: Tickets for 2 Founders Club seats on visitors side on the aisle about mid-way down the 3d base line; Price: $4,824.00 for a 1/2 share (2 tickets to all even numbered games); $2,412.00 for a 1/4 share. That's about $60 per ticket; Parking: The price includes preferred (blue) parking pass for all games; Priority guarantee: If you stay in for the 1/2 share until the team moves, you will have the option to continue to stay in, at my priority level (which should be very high as this is an original Founders Club account from the first opening day in 1993) for tickets in the new stadium at my face value.

When you say: "Guys like Uggla, Jacobs, and Ross just don't fit this teams mindset. Guys like Willingham and Hermida have the right mentality," you lose me, OP. Uggla leads all 2d basemen in SLG, and is neck and neck with Utley in OPS. Meanwhile, Hermida is a mediocre MLB rightfielder in all respects, and Hammer, when he's hitting, is an average leftfielder. I don't know what you mean by mindset, but you win baseball games with runs, and Uggla produces as many as any other 2B in the league. If Beinfest leaves, I hope you don't get the job, OP.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20...sp&c_id=mlb I agree with you SoFlaFish. It's not worth too that much, so for some autographed stuff, a chance to give it to griffey in person, and a picture would be very worth it in my opinion. Like Joe, I would want to get away from the commotion and think about it in calmer circumstances, find out what it's worth, and then let the Reds/Griffey know what I was going to do. But it's easy for all of us, who don't have the ball, to criticize. It's Joe's ball, and it seems to me he is wise to take time to think about it before instead of making a quick decision.

Has Maybin had a good enough stint in AA to guarantee he will start next year? it's May :blink: Here are the stats, Maybin from AA, Carroll from AAA. I know it's May, but 107 ab, with just 47 total bases, says he has a long way to go before he's ready. Compare it to Carroll's 60 tb in 40 fewer ab's. Also, look at Maybin's strikeouts: Player POS G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI TB BB SO SB CS OBP SLG AVG OPS E Cameron Maybin OF 30 107 19 28 3 2 4 10 47 24 42 6 2 .402 .439 .262 .841 0 Brett Carroll OF 18 67 18 28 5 0 9 23 60 8 18 1 1 .480 .896 .418 1.376 0 I couldn't get this to line up right, so I have bold faced and underlined the relevant numbers. First bold number in each player's line is ab, then tb, so, and ops.

I have been a season ticket holder since opening day in 1993. Unfortunately, I will be travelling much of the season, and therefore would like to get an additional "partner" for my seats. They are prime location Founders' Club Seats on the visitors side, and I'd like to find someone who wants 20-30 games, at actual cost. PM me if you are interested, and I can give you the details.

Last night on LeBatard's show Samson was noncommital, then Stuart Blumberg opposes the plan, and now the City has its own plan with the Marlins as a component. It's not looking good, folks. I want something to happen so the team has a home here, but I am not going to count on it. I don't think all of our politicians form the different jurisdictions and entities involved ever are going to agree upon a proposal that the Marlins will accept. But I hope I am wrong.

The marlins obviously have a funding mechanism in place or you wouldn't have had this announcement today. Whether it is a loan they have secured, an equity partner or wherever. The tax ramifications are complicated if a loan is involved (unless, say it isn't so MLB stepped up?? just guessing) I'm thnking this because the Marlins make no rent payments under this plan so they must be servicing debt instead. As I said, the other day the PSFT had grown to a point where there was enough money to build three stadiums and if you'll notice the parking garage is back. Keep in mind btw, MLB owns 20% of the profits the Marlins make in the first five years of a new stadium. I'm assuming that the Marlins were familiar with what this plan was going to be prior to the announcement. Hopefully the fact that they know have to pay $155 upfront wasn't just sprung on them tonight...The article kind of makes it sound like it was, but that can't be the case, right? According to the Memo, the Marlins are still reviewing the Agreement, as is the City. So we are still far from having a stadium in the works. Obviously, the Marlins and MLB want a deal, it just has to be a deal that works from their perspective. They rightly do not feel obligated to lose money just so they will be considered "good owners" by a few fans and pundits. Expect many proposals from the team and the City that will make it a challenge to get this done. That said, I hope the Marlins and MLB can move from this, to a final deal acceptable to all. But that will take the agreement of our local politicos, who are notorious for gumming up the works. The "concerns" expressed by 2 County Commissioners, coupled with the ongoing "review" of the Agreement by the City, do not bode well for this particular plan.

I have been on this board for about 5 years now . Im on here everyday at least 4 times a day. I hardly post on here , but this weeks trade has brought me out of the woodwork. Im so disgusted with Loria and that megalomaniac Samson . I don't care who you are and how much you love Loria and company , there is no way you can defend this group or this recent trade. Rferry , I unfortunately have wasted my time reading most of your post over the years and have come to the conclusion you are here for 1 reason only and that is to stir up the masses. Marlins2003 , you side with Loria and company alot but do it in a very professional and educated way , so I actually enjoy reading your posts. For the ones on here wishing death or threatening the lives of Loria and Samson , you few are completely out of your minds . I dont care if you are a diehard Marlins fan or a casual Marlins fan this trade is a kick in the face. This trade has effected the Marlins on so many levels. There is no way in hell the city , county or state officials are going to allow their tax payers money to be spent on a team who's ownership isn't commited to putting a quaility product on the field. This trade has proven to me that The current ownership is in no way , shape or form looking out for the best interest of the team. I respectfully disagree. The current ownership, and MLB, are trying to make the best out of the situation. It makes no sense for the team, or MLB, to commit long term to a situation that is less than ideal, just because that will please the few fans they now have in the short term. I admit that, as a fan, I get no pleasure from the on-field result of the negotiating process having reached an impasse, but the blame needs to be spread around. If past or current political players had not made a downtown location difficult to get, and had not been excessively frugal (partly because of all the money blown on the Performing Arts Center and the AAA) we wouldn't be in this predicament. I would wager that the Performing Arts Center attracts fewer tax-paying citizens in a year than the Marlins do in a month, even at the current level of attendance. If you had ever dealt with our "public servants" you would have a little more sympathy for Loria and company. Despite the pain it causes us as fans in the short run. I, for one, support them, and MLB, in their quest for a first-rate stadium, in a first-rate location, with a level of pupblic support commensurate with that which we need to keep the team here as a community asset.

To me, the bottom line is a failure of local government to do as much for the Marlins as is necssary to keep them here as a community asset. Certainly they are at least as valuable to the community as a $500 million performing arts center, or an I forget how many million AA Arena. Both of those received government subsidy and are in ideal downtown locations. Loria is, after all, a businessman, a private individual managing his investment. Clearly he has the right to operate as he sees fit, and it is not unreasonable for him to expect a subsidy equal to or greater than the one the Rays are seeking in Tampa/St. Pete. It is also not unreasonable to insist on a site that works, financially, for the business. Reading about Tampa Bay, it is my impression that MLB is being very aggressive in finding new ways, other than direct subsidy, to help small market teams find the revenues that, along with revenue sharing and the ever increasing equally-divided internet take, will help well managed small market teams compete against the Yankees, Red Sox, etc. We may not all agree with what MLB or a particular team is asking in each town, but I believe they have a strategy that is intended to benefit the game, and make it more successful in the long run. So, if we want to see the Marlins and baseball be successful, we need to focus on urging local government to get it done, to reopen the downtown location scenario, etc. There is no way that Loria will allow himself to (or that the MLB will force him to ) accept a less-than-ideal situation from the point of view of the team and the league. Loria and MLB are looking at the long term health of the franchise and the sport, and I agree with them on that.

The four economists mentioned in the article are correct and because they're correct if the rebate proponents continue to push the rebate as if it's for economic development then the rebate wont pass. There are reasons to vote for the rebate but economic development is not one of them. Push the other reasons. You are right. The economic argument has been disproved so thoroughly that it is ridiculous to talk about it. The case for the stadium has to be built on other grounds, or we will not win. And the fact that Forbes reports that Loria made $43.3 million last year in Operating Income the most of any team in MLB doesn't help. The "no subsidies for the rich" argument comes to mind.

Way to go, Joe. A well-deserved award from people who know something about the game. Exactly. The only thing that has been proven by this vote is that the qualities baseball writers assume make up a great manager are not the same as those that the people who run baseball. It's debatable if those people (owners, general managers and the opinions of scouts, coaches and other front office personnel) are correct in thier assessments. They've been proven wrong in the past. But I'd never go as far as to say that beat writers (the people who make up BBWAA's membership) know more about the game, less the league as a whole, to possible make a more accurate assessment as those who are held personally responsible to make such decisions. Now could one or two beat writers or bloggers or analyst have a better understanding? I wouldn't doubt it. Just look at the impact that the work of Bill James, Peter Palmer and Voros McCracken among others has had. But beat writers? As a whole? Or even a significant margin? That's a bit much. The very nature of beat writers, as writers for the public no more than 2 or 3 teams per season whose main point of contact during their season-long responsibility is with the manager and the select amount of players he has built trust with, acts as a barrier to a full understanding of the game. A full understanding of the game is practically impossible as it changes so often, but an all-encompassing view from many perspectives, as front offices aim to do, seems to me a superior approach than to specialize in to just a few areas. The players, the writers, virtually everyone with any knowledge of the game thinks he's a great manager. Yet you still think an art dealer knows better? Yeah, right. That makes sense. An owner, general manager, front office staff and the owners and GMs of at least 5 other teams? Yeah, I do. The owner is an art dealer, who knows about as much about baseball as the average Little League dad. The GM had a personal problem and has praised Joe's talents as a manager. What 'front office staff?" Some receptionist? What GMs of 5 other teams? Joe was the National's choice as manager and didn't want it. Lost out on the Cubs job to one of the winningest managers all time, and was the clear next choice if Sweet Lou didn't take it. Yeah, Ferry, you know a lot.

Way to go, Joe. A well-deserved award from people who know something about the game. Exactly. The only thing that has been proven by this vote is that the qualities baseball writers assume make up a great manager are not the same as those that the people who run baseball. It's debatable if those people (owners, general managers and the opinions of scouts, coaches and other front office personnel) are correct in thier assessments. They've been proven wrong in the past. But I'd never go as far as to say that beat writers (the people who make up BBWAA's membership) know more about the game, less the league as a whole, to possible make a more accurate assessment as those who are held personally responsible to make such decisions. Now could one or two beat writers or bloggers or analyst have a better understanding? I wouldn't doubt it. Just look at the impact that the work of Bill James, Peter Palmer and Voros McCracken among others has had. But beat writers? As a whole? Or even a significant margin? That's a bit much. The very nature of beat writers, as writers for the public no more than 2 or 3 teams per season whose main point of contact during their season-long responsibility is with the manager and the select amount of players he has built trust with, acts as a barrier to a full understanding of the game. A full understanding of the game is practically impossible as it changes so often, but an all-encompassing view from many perspectives, as front offices aim to do, seems to me a superior approach than to specialize in to just a few areas. The players, the writers, virtually everyone with any knowledge of the game thinks he's a great manager. Yet you still think an art dealer knows better? Yeah, right. That makes sense.

Way to go, Joe. A well-deserved award from people who know something about the game.

The next 60 days are crucial! MLB wants to solidify the sport and the S Fl franchise is key in the Marketing plans of MLB. Don't be surprised the Stadium issue is wapped up fairly quickly and the suddenly Loria sells majority ownership into the Marlins to major Heavy Hitters from the S Fl area As much as I'd like to see a sale to someone with more bucks and a willingness to spend, I don't see it happeneing because I don't see what Loria would get out of it. As it is, he is allowed to have a $15 million payroll, by far the lowest in MLB, so he is pocketing, with revenue sharing, many tens of millions of dollars per year even without a new stadium. If he gets a new stadium, the number only gets higher, as do the tax advantages, and the value of the franchise. Why would he sell?

The fact that he finished the race is very impressive. He is not a professional athlete. No matter what you think of him as the team president, you have to take your hat off to him for competing and finishing this fantastically grueling race. Sure, I am impressed by the effort, if not the results.

If anyone is interested, the results of Samson's Ironman race yesterday (Saturday). http://ironman.com/events/ironman/worldcha...hip&bib=176 2.4 mile swim: 1h:46m:54s (pace: 2m:48s/100m) 112 mile bike: 7h:46m:46s (pace: 14.4mph) 26.2 mile run: 5h:43m:53s (pace: 13:07/mile) total time: 15h:36m:44s He finished 1580 out of 1627 finishers, another 62 dnf. To put it in better context, there were 2 guys over 70 who had better times than Samson. He should stick to running a baseball franch ... well, on 2d thought , maybe he should make Iron Man his career.

Guys, I just came up with a brillient idea. What if we at MB.com put our cash together as a way to get fans to their seats. We can make TV, radio ads...web banners...print ads...etc saying how Loria doesn't want us at the games, and how the only way to improve the team is to fill every seat... I doubt it will work and I doubt that we would end up doing anything, but seriously, the only way to beat Loria is to do what he doesn't want us to Not all on this site hate Loria. And I find it hard to believe he doesnt want fans at games. That's really a harsh and totally unfounded statement. If he didnt want fans in the seats, he wouldnt have spent money in 2003,2004 and 2005. He didnt simply wake up one morning and say, "You know what? I don't want any people to come see my baseball team play games." Get a clue. He doesn't profit, ultimately, from people in the seats. He profits by getting a new, taxpayer-funded, stadium. Please "Google" "Loria" "Montreal" "stadium" "suit" and "investors," and read a little. The Loria lovers on this site hate to admit it, but depressing attendance figures, low payroll, poor marketing, etc., are a tactic, and have been used to pursue the business goals of a sports franchise before. The gist of it is "I can't survive here without a taxpayer funded stadium, they won't give it to me, so I must be allowed to move the franchise." It happened in Montreal. Guess who was the owner? And guess what role his son-in-law played?

this afternoon, that MLB is negotiating the stadium deal, without Loria & Samson, has told them also that once the stadium deal is done, they will be given an ultimatum to take on a partner that will own 51% or they can sell the whole team to MLB to sell to a "moneyman" owner. Seems like MLB is not happy with the way Loria & the midget have been running the stadium negotioations. This would make sense as to why Loria is refusing now to sell the team, as he knows he's gonna be forced out in a few years, and is trying to keep payroll low so he can make as much as he can now, before his chances at big profits fizzle as he is forced to sell the team when the new stadium is in place. I don't think this is plausible. Not that I doubt that Loria is hated in the MLB executive suite, but I don't see how they can pull it off. How can they give him an ultimatum? They have no power to take any action if he refuses to sell. What would they do? I think Hank's source has confused the desire to get rid of Loria and Samson (which some say MLB has wanted to do since the Montreal days) with the ability to do so (which they didn't have then and don't have now). Knowing how they work, it is more likely that MLB and Loria are trying to pull a good cop/bad cop negotiation on the public officials to break an impasse. I'll be contacting mine to make sure they don't fall for it.

and then there are a few of us, who realize that he didnt exactly have The Nasty Boys in his bullpen but he still was making ther wrong decisions with which guys to pitch, night in-night out. IMO, he didnt give his team the best chance to win. Ain't that the truth :thumbup Yep. I think our team is in much more capable hands with Fredi. Do you have any grounds for that statement? After all, Fredi is a third base coach, never played in MLB, never managed in MLB (and even you'd agree managing in the minor leagues is very different). Clearly, even most of the Girardi foes here admit Girardi was great at everything other than in-game management, and give him some credit for his ACTUAL performance at the MLB manager's position. So what do you know about Fredi that makes you think he is more capable?

I thought this was kind of funny, I copy/pasted it from the article on MLB.com about Girardi being fired: At one point, Girardi wanted to switch Miguel Cabrera to first base, use Dan Uggla at third base and have Mike Jacobs open the season in Triple-A. Beinfest overruled the manager on those ideas. Girardi also wanted Josh Willingham to be the primary catcher over Miguel Olivo, Beinfest's choice to be behind the plate. First of all, there is no proof any of this hapened. I tend to believe it's just FO BS to try to escape the universal condemnation of their actions vis-a-vis Girardi. But positon changes, even to all stars, happen all the time. just ask Craig Biggio. Your hindsight may be 20-20 Second, all these moves had to be contemplated because "genius" Beinfest forced Girardi to keep Amezaga, over Joe's objections. At the time, the only spot for Amezaga was 2b, and Beinfest wanted him to play. Fortunately, Joe was able to switch him to CF to make room for Uggla at 2B. Third, all the moves are at least arguable. Many scouts (and the Marlins) feel Miggy's long-term future is at 1B. Hammer was supposed to be a catcher, remember, and maybe Joe G. could have improved his mechanics. After all, Olivo has publicly credited Joe with helping his defense. There was nobody who thought Olivo would perform as well offensively as he did, and given his 103-9 K/BB ratio and his dreadful July and August, I'll bet he doesn't do so well again next year. Clearly, going into this year, he had shown little offensively. You can't focus on what happened, but only on what was reasonable to anticipate at the end of Spring Training, or whenever this personnel conflict allegedly occurred.

It was no secret the Marlins and MLB weren't very "excited" about the lease the city of Miami put on the table. Reportedly it limited revenue from parking, concessions, and skyboxes, but it was a lot better than the lease at Dolphin Stadium and it secured the long term feasibility of the franchise in the South Florida and eventually the Latin American market. Were the concerns over these revenues (parking, concessions and skyboxes) related to the amount of revenues generated by the new stadium or were the concerns over the split of the revenues between the team, city and county? Another sticking point in the deal was who was going to control construction. Under the MOU the team was responsible for any penny the budget, failure to do so would result in the city foreclosing on the franchise. If the city of Miami had controlled the project they could have easily given the project to friendly enities and in a few years we would have had another Performing Arts Center/Metro Rail/Terminal at MIA situation on our hands. At Loria's and eventually the fanbase's expense. Under the OB deal the Marlins would have paid $30 million upfront and $5.4 million a year for 30 years ($162 million total) rent payments. For every million the project went over budget the team would pay $33,333.33 extra per year. An example: The stadium goes $50 million over budget, which was reasonably possible, rent would then increase to $7.06 million a year. Add $30 million to the team contribution and you have the ingredients for a financial disaster and we're at square one.....again. We disagree here. The control of the construction was not really an issue because all along the negotiation process Loria guaranteed the cost overruns as long as he controlled the construction and the city and county gave him the control. The hang-up on this issue, as I recall, was Loria's unwillingness to provide a Letter of Credit guaranteeing the cost overruns. After more than a year of zero movement on this issue I believe the issue was finally resolved when Loria used the team as collateral to guarantee the overruns. Given that the cost estimates were Loria's own estimate and given that Loria would control the construction I don't see why he would be so concerned over cost overruns unless his own estimate was a bogus one (as in the case of San Antonio stadium). To your first item, yes I believe the issue was the splitting of revenue. To the second item, I'm not sure but you may be correct. It's been so long, I'll have to go over the MOU tomorrow. I have it around here somewhere... CantCatchMe, You have yet to use a fact. Just half assed conspiracy theories. In the end, MLB has to approve a move and they've pretty much decided it's a lot more important to keep this team in Miami and paying alittle more than putting a team in much smaller markets in Portland or SA. I have to call you on your false statements again, kid. I used plenty of facts. the facts about the cost of a stadium, the facts about the lack of public funding, and the fact that MLB and the team have said they won't put up any more money and they won't stay if they don't get it from the taxpayer. You may not like them, but those all are incontrovertible facts. And what do you do? You MAKE UP A PHONY STORY claiming that the funding for a stadium has been approved. It's not true, and if you didn't know that, you need to do some research before commenting. If you did know of the funding issues, and still claimed they didn't exist, then that makes you, well, you figure it out. No conspiracies, Quadruple, they've been up front about it. But it's not theory, it's fact. Now, back to the question, when you told everyone on this board that all the stadium funding had been approved, were you : a) Ignorant of the fact that there is at least a $120 million shortfall, or b) Making stuff up. It has to be one or the other.

You weren't talking about the funding gap, you were talking about the Marlins $212 million contribution. - Marlins contributibng only $30 million up front (the rest of their contribution is future "rent" which isn't really a capital contribution. This is typical MLB financial obfuscation. When someone builds an apartment building, he can't count his tenants' future rent as a "contribution" to the capital needed. He needs cash to build!) But nice job trying to twist facts again. f***ing troll. I'm not going to respond to your posts anymore, because you have proven in more than a few threads that you're an idiot that has an unusal fascination with trashing the organization and making up half truths to fit your "argument." I'm not sure why the mods haven't banned you yet. *uses ignore feature* That is a poor excuse for a defense of your false statement, Quadruple. You can't just ignore it, then make up another bogus attack, trying to take the spotlight off of your malfeasance. Where's the explanation for your having made up a fake story about the funding being approved? I guess you thought you had better try to change the subject. But it doesn't work. Well, anyway, given your lack of knowledge of the stadium funding situation, and your avoiding the question when you were caught, means all I can say is: good riddance to you. BTW, it is not "trashing" the organization to point out facts, and give my opinion on those facts. They, and you , need to learn to be man enough to own up to their actions. And if you really think I said something that is a half-truth (which would be at least a half more than you used) please point it out so I can show everyone you're wrong. I don't expect you've had accounting 101 yet, but when you do you'll learn that what I said is 100% correct. Until then, be more careful in your comments.

- Marlins contributibng only $30 million up front (the rest of their contribution is future "rent" which isn't really a capital contribution. This is typical MLB financial obfuscation. When someone builds an apartment building, he can't count his tenants' future rent as a "contribution" to the capital needed. He needs cash to build!) Future rents are pledged as collateral on loans all the time. I agree that $182 million in future rents does not equate to $182m in present dollars, but it's worth something... probably about $90-$100m net present value depending on interest rates and the term of the bond. Miami or Hialeah can certainly "afford" this. It's just a matter of whether the local pols want to commit the political capital (along with general fund revenues, "but for" revenues, and/or development rights) to make it happen. MLB is a long ways from giving up on the SFLA market. Despite Samson's protests to the contrary, I would be willing to bet on "Good Bye, Loria" before "Good Bye, Marlins". Of course future rents can be pledged as collateral by the City/County. That's not the issue. They are not a capital contribution by the Marlins, they are payments to be made in the future for the right to occupy the building in the future. Ifthe City can borrow against them, more power to it, but the Marlins are paying it for rent, not as part of the initial capital required for construction. Miami and Hialeah cannot afford this. Your talking about 2 of the poorest big cities in the US. They could, in the legal sense, vote to fund it, but it would be reckless and I think there's no way it will happen. Even the most rabid pro stadium people in each CIty have NEVER talked about even coming close to covering the purported shortfall (which, as the DC stadium proves, is probably $150 million or so higher than the Marlins admit, or about $270 million). I hope you're right about "Goodbye, Loria," but I don't see the evidence. Even after 2 World Series victories, and with a good young team fighting to make the playoffs, attendance was horrrible. It has never been good except the first few "honeymoon" years. I don't think MLB wants to stay and lose money, or fund a greedy Loria with revenue sharing that he does not spend on the field, absent a public contribution of much more than is on the table, and I don' t see even the corrupt polticos in South Florida meeting that demand. The county will be paying for the $192 million so the stadium is built and the Marlins would pay it off over the next 30 years. The county and the city can afford it because they already approved funding. :thumbup You don't know what you're talking about.......ever. Stop spewing your garbage. Are you misleading people here on purpose, or out of ignorance? At any rate, speaking of garbage, you had the gall to make this up: The county and the city can afford it because they already approved funding ROFLMAO! And you say I don't know what I'm talking about? Wise up, and learn something kid. The truth is that as of this morning there is a AT LEAST a $120 million gap, according to the Herald: Also, DuPuy said baseball has not -- and will not -- ask Loria to contribute more money toward a stadium. The Marlins' most recent offer was $212 million -- $182 million in future rent and $30 million up front. A stadium is expected to cost in excess of $450 million, and even with Miami-Dade County having offered in the $120 million range, a funding gap of about $120 million remains Next time, get your facts straight, instead of proving to all of us that you don' t know what's going on. As it is, your credibility is ZERO!

- Marlins contributibng only $30 million up front (the rest of their contribution is future "rent" which isn't really a capital contribution. This is typical MLB financial obfuscation. When someone builds an apartment building, he can't count his tenants' future rent as a "contribution" to the capital needed. He needs cash to build!) Future rents are pledged as collateral on loans all the time. I agree that $182 million in future rents does not equate to $182m in present dollars, but it's worth something... probably about $90-$100m net present value depending on interest rates and the term of the bond. Miami or Hialeah can certainly "afford" this. It's just a matter of whether the local pols want to commit the political capital (along with general fund revenues, "but for" revenues, and/or development rights) to make it happen. MLB is a long ways from giving up on the SFLA market. Despite Samson's protests to the contrary, I would be willing to bet on "Good Bye, Loria" before "Good Bye, Marlins". Of course future rents can be pledged as collateral by the City/County. That's not the issue. They are not a capital contribution by the Marlins, they are payments to be made in the future for the right to occupy the building in the future. Ifthe City can borrow against them, more power to it, but the Marlins are paying it for rent, not as part of the initial capital required for construction. Miami and Hialeah cannot afford this. Your talking about 2 of the poorest big cities in the US. They could, in the legal sense, vote to fund it, but it would be reckless and I think there's no way it will happen. Even the most rabid pro stadium people in each CIty have NEVER talked about even coming close to covering the purported shortfall (which, as the DC stadium proves, is probably $150 million or so higher than the Marlins admit, or about $270 million). I hope you're right about "Goodbye, Loria," but I don't see the evidence. Even after 2 World Series victories, and with a good young team fighting to make the playoffs, attendance was horrrible. It has never been good except the first few "honeymoon" years. I don't think MLB wants to stay and lose money, or fund a greedy Loria with revenue sharing that he does not spend on the field, absent a public contribution of much more than is on the table, and I don' t see even the corrupt polticos in South Florida meeting that demand.

Further proof Loria is repeating his Montreal tactics, trying to destroy the team as part of his strategy to demand a stadium. Unfortunately, the Herald prints it without any research into the numbers, which are all BS. They included, with a straight face, the claim that depreciation and the no doubt sky high FO salaries are legitimately taken into account when calculating profits? BS! Depreciating the players' value is the biggest scam in sports accounting, and bears no relation to real world economic effects. It's legal, but to claim it reflects any actual loss is bogus. And it is well known that the other expenses MLB teams deduct are often inflated, perhaps fooling gullible reporters, but not anyone with even a cursory knowledge of sports economics. At any rate, fellow fans, the part of this article that goes even farther to prove the point is this statement from the Prince of Darkness: Samson said even though Loria hasn't signed off on next year's payroll, it likely won't be dramatically higher than this year's. So forget that new CF, that retooled bullpen, etc. Forget having a payroll even within shouting distance of the next lowest in MLB. These are their Montreal tactics, purposely making decisions that depress attendance, tv ratings, and fan interest. All so these carpetbagging clowns can line their pockets while saying: "We can't survive in this market without a new stadium, paid for by the public." Disgusting! It looks like it's GOOD BYE MARLINS. Too bad it can't be GOOD BYE SAMSON AND LORIA.