rferry

rferry yet again comes up with a way to say absolutely nothing. I am curious to see his position on everything once the stadium deal (hopefully) is finalized. Better to say nothing than the lies you spurt out. My point was to caution against expecting too much by offering a point for consideration. Spike, you and a billion others do the same thing by suggesting a lack of commitment on part of ownership and congratulate yourselves. Yet someone does so using a slightly less normative statement, and you're up in arms? Who's the one without substance again? Exactly. Piss off.

I believe Samson has already said that they aren't going to raise payroll much until after the stadium starts bringing in revenue... Would make sense, especially with their recent shift in financial commitments. And considering the contract status of our best players around time of the proposed opening. But I have faith that if it calls for it and has a direct impact on the team's chances of winning (and we can't forget this unfortunate fact, the owners' motivation: profit generation), there will be an investment in payroll.

Things will surely change, but expect progress to come slowly if at all. You're talking about implementing a whole new philosophy regarding player acquisition. That's harder to instill than it is in video games or without firesales. Part of what made the present system successful was that young stars like Cabrera and Willis knew they were to be held to the same standards as the stopgap journeymen and youngsters of lesser talent they spent 2/3rds of their year with. As we saw following the 2003 World Series, everyone wanted a piece of the pie and some found themselves dismissed or their requests ignored.

18, cocky, flush with cash... wouldn't doubt it.. wouldn't believe it

Everett and McPherson (oh my, just imagine him developing into a .270/30 HR guy) seem like good fits. Though Everett is sure to get a modest guaranteed deal somewhere. Someone like the Cubs, Twins, Angels or Orioles could look to pick him up.

Quick update to this: USA Today reporter Jorge Ortiz suggests that MLBAM's, which operates MLB.com, revenues were $380 million this year. That's before expenses. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/20...ll-online_N.htm

The thing is...it may not have been $20 million....it may have been MORE! It may have been 20 million dollars worth of dead babies!

It is not in MLB and the Marlins' owners' interests to make the Marlins secure and sustainable, it's in their interests to make them profitable. You mean like they already are? More is better than some. More appropriately, some is better than none.

Oh don't worry about offending me. It would take much more than that to offend me. I had thought that you had used that term in the past. I mistakenly attributed it to you. The question remains, though, why back out of a deal where you stand to make a tremendous increase in profit and to which you had previously agreed? If they are not getting the revenue they need from luxury boxes, tickets, parking, etc, and they had a deal in place that satisfied those needs, why back out of it? I used the term to describe revenue sharing's effect on the franchise's finances. 1. They had not previously agreed to the plan with the Orange Bowl 100% decided. 2. Why seek out a tremendous increase in profit if all that may mean is an insignificant amount? A haypenny is a huge increase when all you've got is a penny, but what are haypennies are worth? It is not in MLB and the Marlins' owners' interests to make the Marlins secure and sustainable, it's in their interests to make them profitable. 3. If it is your belief that you can squeeze more concessions out of the city/county/state, you'd likely hold out as long as you're not losing out on any money.

Sorry. Nothing personal. Just addressing one of the many misunderstood rumors out there that have been manipulated by critics of the organization to suit their cause.

RFerry, If the franchise was so insolvent, and in such desperate need to find a more favorable lease, then why would the team back out of the recent Orange Bowl agreement? Wouldn't it be better to take a deal that they had previously agreed to -- and would therefore obviously be financially viable -- than to sentence themselves to the profitless situation at Dolphins Stadium? (The logical answer to that is that the situation isn't nearly as onerous as they make it out to be, otherwise circumstances would force their hand to commit to a stadium deal in the name of profit.) Who said it was insolvent? No one. Unprofitable operations due to the lease, lack of incentives to improve the team, restrained broadcast rights, franchise selling price... sure. But MLB won't let them go bankrupt and revenue sharing exists to keep them afloat or avoid losing money out of pocket. There's no point in agreeing to a deal that may offer only a similar situation as the present. Especially if you believe, as MLB has a history of, that a better deal is along the way. It's never been about making the Marlins' financially solvent or keeping the Marlins in South Florida. It's about making the Marlins a franchise people want to own (to buy and resell, participate in league operations, invest in the business to return a profit, etc.)

I recall Forbes finding that the Marlins are the most profitable MLB team (before looking at TV network revenues.) Reading reports for years and years of their owners and MLB owners stating the opposite didn't leave you suspicious enough to check Forbes' findings? If you did, you had found it was for one single year - the year in which they dropped payroll dramatically. Well since profit is equal to total revenue minus total cost, that's pretty obvious. :banghead I'm just saying that there was enough money to pay Miggy to stay, and also enough money to make a more sizable contribution towards a stadium. Yet you needed Forbes to tell you? Oh, wait, you didn't even look at Forbes. You heard something about it from somewhere and decided the Marlins have been, are and always be a profitable franchise because of one singular report from one singular source in the entire span of the franchise. Makes perfect sense.

DuPuy's talking about the stadium and the effect of not having one on the Marlins. He has been setting the stage for relocation for some time, at least a year, none of this should come as a surprise to anyone. BTW the Professional Sports Franchise Tax has so much $$ at this time collected and unspent they could be build two stadiums and still have money left over so quickly are receipts building up. but why should they? because hand outs were given to other sport franchises? The Marlins should be paying their fair share It's up to the various parties to decide what is fair. It should probably be noted that the Marlins' contribution in rent obligations and upfront financing is significant in regard to other private contributions around the league (where the vast majority are limited themselves to rent payments). Municipalities building sports franchises stadiums shouldn't really be up for debate. It is MLB policy. South Florida has agreed to negotiate upoin that principle and have made substantial steps in the process. The debate for the past couple years, is not "should they?", but over "how to pay for the rest?" and "where?". The parties are at a loss to close the deal in such a way that's a win-win.

I don't understand why some people have so much love for this guy. I'm sorry but Loria is far from being a good owner. He is what he is yet some people feel that their allegiance towards Marlins means Loria also. Loria is the worst owner in Baseball and in top 5 in all of sports... You'd have to stretch find a single post from me claiming Loria being a good owner (except, perhaps, relative to his peers - which ain't saying much!), but the man should be defended from baseless attacks. Rumors are run with. Facts are twisted. Lies are made up. All to criticize the guy for failures that are not entirely his fault. The unfortunate fact is that any owner allowed into the MLB boys club would operate the exact same way to South Florida and its fans. (And frankly, if your quimble with Loria is his lack of skin pigmentation or local-born status or political allies, well, then you clearly have an agenda or are immune to the real issues at hand.)

Ethier, Either, Ester, Uncle Fester, either way he'd be a good pickup and would get a decent set of at bats around the corners.

Pickles, pretzels, pineapples... it probably gets the point across. Public stadiums are perfectly acceptable to all those in power.

dont you mean without a premier bat behind him and ya wasnt one of those records most strikeouts Yes, I meant behind him. And it isn't unusual for a team to score a lot of runs/hit a lot of homers to K alot. ya but you can score just as many runs without striking out a ton and hitting alot of homers. DS is not built for team that relies on homers to score Debatable. If you took steps to strike out less, the modified approach or swing may cause you to hit worse.

One way or the other he made a contribution that could have been used as an investment for the stadium. The fact that he was spending a lot of money on the Marlins doesn't change the fact that he gave money away. Money he could have used to help bridge the gap in stadium financing. Nothing in that article changes that. The only thing it changes is the timing of the donation. Grow up. What a professional and courteous response. Who's the one acting childish? I gave my opinion, which is a legitimate one and I wasn't at all childish about it (no name calling, nothing), and this is your response. People are entitled to disagree with you. The one that hates the kid who likes pickles because he doesn't pickles is the one that's being childish. Everyone knows that pickles are popular in the classroom.

Then maybe you can move onto this fact: Owners are entitled to the profits of a business. Owners are also "entitled" to the expenses of maintaining and growing their business ... such as the cost of facilities. Right? In cases in which they can not demand corporate welfare, yes. But, alas, MLB does not believe such a case exists for its teams. And whose Loria, or any owner approved by the group, to suggest anything else?

I have no proof That rarely stops a critic! Especially around here. Ask prin.

I recall Forbes finding that the Marlins are the most profitable MLB team (before looking at TV network revenues.) Reading reports for years and years of their owners and MLB owners stating the opposite didn't leave you suspicious enough to check Forbes' findings? If you did, you had found it was for one single year - the year in which they dropped payroll dramatically.

They should trade them for Magic Majewski

BTW, in the public arena, this is what MLB and DuPuy have to say: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/marlins/conte...=7&cxcat=46 MLB's question: Can team survive? By JOE CAPOZZI Palm Beach Post Staff Writer Friday, December 07, 2007 NASHVILLE ? Major League Baseball "will take a long, hard look" in the next two months at whether the Marlins can survive in South Florida, President Bob DuPuy told ESPN Radio on Thursday. After trading away their two biggest stars, the Marlins could have a payroll of less than $15 million next year while the New York Yankees could top $190 million. DuPuy, the No. 2 man to Commissioner Bud Selig, was asked on the Mike & Mike Show how MLB can allow such disparity when baseball is enjoying record profits and revenue sharing. "That kind of ratio is unhealthy,'' DuPuy said, while noting that opening-day rosters won't be set for months. DuPuy also said: "Under our collective-bargaining agreement with the players' association, clubs have an obligation to use the money they're receiving from revenue sharing to improve their product on the field. We do look at that each year. "I'm not talking about the Marlins specifically, but we do look at that each year with regard to all of the clubs receiving revenue sharing." DuPuy said. "You want clubs to be able to rebuild, but you also want them to retain their stars and their franchise players as well." Revenue-sharing figures are not disclosed, but the Marlins are believed to have received $30 million in 2006, for example. DuPuy says the answer to the Marlins' survival is a ballpark with a retractable roof. But for seven years, the team has been unable to get financial help from local and state leaders. Meanwhile, the Marlins have drawn the smallest crowds in the league and traded their biggest stars, the latest being Wednesday when Dontrelle Willis and Miguel Cabrera went to Detroit. DuPuy said Selig visited South Florida this summer to discuss the issue with city and county officials in Miami-Dade. DuPuy said his boss' message at the meeting was, "We are getting to the point where we need to make a decision - either you want to retain Major League Baseball or you don't." Marlins officials could not immediately be reached Thursday. But club President David Samson told 790-AM the team remains committed to building a stadium. He also insisted that the Marlins and owner Jeffrey Loria did not make a profit last season, despite the revenue sharing. "Not one penny has come out of the team into (Loria's) pocket," Samson said.

Probably gona be another sleeper in the Pads pen, but we needed cash. Yeah Loria has to pay rferry's monthly salary. Knowing Loria, it's probably only a stipend. :mischief Come on, everyone knows Loria is all about loan forgiveness.

Trading for Rolen, who is feuding with St. Louis manager Tony La Russa, isn't likely, a Marlins source said Thursday, citing finances. Smelin Perez :lol (Sorry, one of those mornings. Everything's got me in stitches.)