TSwift25

So Brian Cashman compared us to the Cleveland Browns, with Girardi being Belichick. Up yours Cashman. I believe you suffer from amnesia. Certainly an ironic comparison, all things considered (and I'm not talking '03).

Dunno if it was mentioned. Riley declined to offer Dorrell Wright an extension, which means we can't negotiate with him until July. At the same time, he's getting the best opportunity of his life these next three weeks while Wade is out--he's starting at Small Forward. It's probably the right thing to do regardless.

I seriously would have to consider my loyalty to the Marlins if this happens....I took Sheff, Edgar, Josh, Lowell....I can't take this, I just can't. Yeah, honestly, I'd be done. why would trading cabrera disappoint/upset anyone? shouldnt we all be prepaired for this one given the franchise history? i dont think this should be anything groundbreaking or shocking....i dont want it to happen either but if it does that doesnt mean i become less of a fan Because if you want to be treated like a big league franchise and you want people to pay big league prices, eventually you have to start acting big league. There is not one realistic trade scenario, not one, that brings back the kind of talent the Marlins would need to replace Miguel Cabrera. We've already well established that we're absurdly profitable under our current economic plan. Dealing Cabrera signifies it's not about baseball at all, just making money. Does Goldman Sachs sell tickets to watch them acquire businesses? Or Moors & Cabot to watch them assemble hedge-funds? I mean, seriously. If the purpose of the Marlins is just the bottom line, and not the win-loss column, why even bother watching? I (and many others) went along with the most recent firesale because of the fiscal and baseball sense it made. Were there frustrations in there because we were overly cheap? Of course, but I think many still had some degree of faith in the big picture being Hanley, Miggy, Hermida and our pitchers running the table in 2009. If we scrap that all over again by trading one of the 4 best hitters in all of baseball for more "two years away" players, what the f*** good does it do? If we won't spend $11 million for one player, how on earth are we ever going to afford this team when all the 2006ers are in arbitration (because lord knows we won't buy them out). Seriously, if Miggy's gone to just get cheaper, f*** this franchise. I don't mind trading Miggy if we tried to sign Arod to offset it. Just like we traded Lee to try to sign Pudge? Beinfest's a f***ing awful domino-GM. You better have A-Rod in place before dealing Miggy.

I seriously would have to consider my loyalty to the Marlins if this happens....I took Sheff, Edgar, Josh, Lowell....I can't take this, I just can't. Yeah, honestly, I'd be done. why would trading cabrera disappoint/upset anyone? shouldnt we all be prepaired for this one given the franchise history? i dont think this should be anything groundbreaking or shocking....i dont want it to happen either but if it does that doesnt mean i become less of a fan Because if you want to be treated like a big league franchise and you want people to pay big league prices, eventually you have to start acting big league. There is not one realistic trade scenario, not one, that brings back the kind of talent the Marlins would need to replace Miguel Cabrera. We've already well established that we're absurdly profitable under our current economic plan. Dealing Cabrera signifies it's not about baseball at all, just making money. Does Goldman Sachs sell tickets to watch them acquire businesses? Or Moors & Cabot to watch them assemble hedge-funds? I mean, seriously. If the purpose of the Marlins is just the bottom line, and not the win-loss column, why even bother watching? I (and many others) went along with the most recent firesale because of the fiscal and baseball sense it made. Were there frustrations in there because we were overly cheap? Of course, but I think many still had some degree of faith in the big picture being Hanley, Miggy, Hermida and our pitchers running the table in 2009. If we scrap that all over again by trading one of the 4 best hitters in all of baseball for more "two years away" players, what the f*** good does it do? If we won't spend $11 million for one player, how on earth are we ever going to afford this team when all the 2006ers are in arbitration (because lord knows we won't buy them out). Seriously, if Miggy's gone to just get cheaper, f*** this franchise.

I seriously would have to consider my loyalty to the Marlins if this happens....I took Sheff, Edgar, Josh, Lowell....I can't take this, I just can't. Yeah, honestly, I'd be done.

Isn't Pavano out for most of if not all of next season? No matter how much the Yankees want Cabrera, I can't envision us being a realistic match. Cano, Chamberlain and Kennedy would be the starting point for me, and even then I'd say that may not be enough. Seriously.

I don't think the revenues for the dot com empire would have to be substantially higher than the $900 million + bandwith to generate the profits we're talking about. MLB's anti-trust prevents it from major federal corporate taxes, and HR 4308 (I think?) eliminates state and federal sales tax on internet transactions such as mlb.tv. Really it's a hugely believable moneymaker. I of course see the reasoning behind this being an accumulated payout, but if the numbers are to be believed, I think this kind of income is likely sustainable.

If I get stuck in school, its in PE, all I could learn there is about my future job. Dodge, I dont mind. The only thing is that you people are misunderstadnding all my posts. Sorry if I mispelled misunderstadnding, or mispelled :lol Maybe the greatest post ever.

Well that is 1 year of arod for us Now Swifty find us 9 more It says 30 million annually. Like he said, one year of A-Rod. Annually means year after year bud. Yes, and we are making the half-joke that A-rod will make 30 million dollars a year, bud. So if ARod makes $30 million a year, wouldn't another way to say that be oh, I don't know, ANNUALLY So, to recap. Marlins get $30 million annually, ARod's ideal salary is $30 million annually.

Yup, I guess I'm wrong: A-Rod's huge numbers couldn't have come at a better time. Ten days after the World Series ends, A-Rod can opt out of the $252 million contract he signed with the Texas Rangers six years ago. He is scheduled to make $27 million in each of the next three seasons. Yankees president Randy Levine also responded harshly to the magazine piece. "It's a silly story, and we don't believe it," he told ESPN.com's Buster Olney on Sunday evening. "However, if it was true, it would be grounds to disqualify the applicant even before he went through the process, because it would demonstrate a disregard for major league rules and procedures, and we're confident the commissioner would feel the same way." Levine later said he spoke to Bud Selig, and the commissioner agreed with Levine's interpretation of the story, and its possible implications. A player can neither have part ownership of a team nor negotiate for future ownership. :thumbup http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3033203

Oh man, I hope this plays him into the Marlins budget.

Please provide a definition of a "league employee." As far as I know, the players are team employees. I thought that might have been the section you were referring to, but he's not a league employee. No, you're wrong. US Court of Appeals in Baltimore Orioles, Inc. v. MLBPA 805 F.2d 663 established a player to be an employee sufficient to satisfy league requirements and disestablishing the MLBPA as an entity that has required consent for broadcasting. Rather, unless there is an agreement expressly to revoke team's rights of broadcasts, Clubs are presumed to own all telecast right of the game. I'm not saying we couldn't argue all day long, but the court system has established the players and employees to not be a separable entity.

How about you look at SUBSECTION D in my post. I mean, jeez. (d) LEAGUE OFFICIALS. "No officer, employee or umpire of a League shall, directly or indirectly, own stock or any other proprietary interest or have any financial interest in any Club of his or her League, or loan money to or become surety or guarantor for any such Club." ARod is a league employee.

Ah I hate wording like that. Does it mean that the Angels are getting 30M, or the entire league? And anyway, assuming a large portion of that comes from the online shop, I doubt we're anywhere near that number. I agree the wording is a tad confusing, but as I understand it, each team is getting approximately $30 million. What the number doesn't take into account is how much the teams were anticipating, or previously receiving. Obviously it's something, but Olney makes it seem as if this is a huge financial gain, which it would have to be since we'd be talking $900 million in revenue (900/30 = 30). As for the second point, online MLB.com sales are divided among the 30 teams despite a disproportionate number of sales, much like national media contracts are divided evenly amongst the 30 teams despite disproportionate TV appearances. Finally, I'd say I very much doubt that this number accounts for merchandise element. The bulk of this revenue is from MLB.tv and MLB.tv premium. I recall reading somewhere the MLB.tv had recently surpassed 3 million subscribers, or some ungodly number. So, 3 million subscribers times (roughly) $80 per subscriber equals... $240,000,000 in revenues for MLB.tv alone. In that case, I do believe that mlb.com is generating $900M per year in profits. MLB.TV is $80, while MLB.TV Premium is $100. That's for a full year. I myself hope they implement HD streams soon. I want widescreen video, especially when they already use the HD feeds for the Blue Jays and White Sox. And don't forget that there are people that pay the monthly hiked rate of $15 for regular and $25 for premium.

Rules: Rule 20 ? 1 (a) OWNERSHIP AND FINANCIAL INTERESTS. "No Club, or owner, stockholder, officer, director or employee (including manager or player) of a Club, shall, directly or indirectly, own stock or any other proprietary interest or have any financial interest in any other Club in its League, provided, however, that any owner or stockholder of a Major League Club (who is not also an officer, director or employee of a Club) whose interest does not exceed 5% of such Club and whose interest does not constitute a control interest [as defined] may own a non-control interest not exceeding 5% of any other Club or Clubs in its League, unless the Commissioner determines that such ownership would not be in the best interests of Baseball." © LOANS TO CLUBS AND OTHER INDIVIDUALS. "No Club, or owner, stockholder, officer, director or employee (including manager or player) of a Club shall, directly or indirectly, loan money to or become surety or guarantor for any Club, officer, employee or umpire of its, his or her League, unless all facts of the transaction shall first have been fully disclosed to all other Clubs in that League, and also to the Commissioner, and the transaction has been approved by them." (d) LEAGUE OFFICIALS. "No officer, employee or umpire of a League shall, directly or indirectly, own stock or any other proprietary interest or have any financial interest in any Club of his or her League, or loan money to or become surety or guarantor for any such Club." http://www.roadsidephotos.com/baseball/02-4rules.htm

It's illegal. It can't be negotiated in a contract and have the contract approved. If it's not in the contract, it's not an enforceable agreement. Moreover, any form of agreement that would violate the bylaws of the sport would not be enforceable. There is no way no how at all that any ARod agreement will have partial ownership included in his new contract. The only conceivable avenue is for ARod to have take the wealth he's amassed to date, purchase part of a team, then sell that share to a holding company he establishes THEN negotiate a contract with a team, and even that would be incredibly difficult to conceive.

Ah I hate wording like that. Does it mean that the Angels are getting 30M, or the entire league? And anyway, assuming a large portion of that comes from the online shop, I doubt we're anywhere near that number. I agree the wording is a tad confusing, but as I understand it, each team is getting approximately $30 million. What the number doesn't take into account is how much the teams were anticipating, or previously receiving. Obviously it's something, but Olney makes it seem as if this is a huge financial gain, which it would have to be since we'd be talking $900 million in revenue (900/30 = 30). As for the second point, online MLB.com sales are divided among the 30 teams despite a disproportionate number of sales, much like national media contracts are divided evenly amongst the 30 teams despite disproportionate TV appearances. Finally, I'd say I very much doubt that this number accounts for merchandise element. The bulk of this revenue is from MLB.tv and MLB.tv premium. I recall reading somewhere the MLB.tv had recently surpassed 3 million subscribers, or some ungodly number.

There's another revenue stream that the Angels, and every other team, is now drawing once unexpected millions from: the money created by the success of MLB.com. The annual check that the Angels (and every other team) receive from this source may well exceed $30 million, by now. http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index...me=olney_buster

The last two minutes of the Lakers Rockets game >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "October"

He isn't much better than Olivo is (if at all). I have not been pleased with the catching talent that Beinfest has considered since Pudge. Either he's targeting overpaid, overrated veteran talent (Lo Duca) or young and cheap journeymen types (Olivo/Torrealba). I don't believe he's a free agent but Navarro is probably a Beinfest player. He needs to make a bold move and bring someone decent in. There are only two types of "bold" this offseason: Posada and Piazza The former's not happening, and the latter is probably an awful idea. There's no other catcher out there that's getting traded that'll be worth it.

Boone's the one guy I'm really on the fence about. I'd like Kim back, and I'd probably like Benitez back, if for no other reason than I think his presence allows (forces?) Beinfest to grow a pair with some of the bullpen arms and go see if we can get a centerfielder for a Gregg/Gardner package. Boone, I love as a guy, but can we, as a notoriously cheap organization, justify $1 mil for a "good guy" and not much more? He's been an increasing injury risk, and can a team with a thin bench even with Boone justify an injury risk as its primary bench option? At the same time, when he's healthy, he probably hits more like a $2-2.5 million player than a $1 million guy. This is one decision I wouldn't want to make, unless the Marlins decide to spend some more and make it an easier decision. At a million or less, he's definitely worth the risk to any team other than us or Tampa Bay.

In a Lakers-Bulls trade, why/how would the Bulls not have the upper hand? I was only addressing the trade from the Bulls perspective since that is what the article was talking about. Um, how about simple economic theory that a limited resource with inelastic supply is of significantly enhanced value? Last I checked, there's only one Kobe Bryant and about 20 teams that'll do whatever it takes to get him. So who's in the position of strength, the 1/1 or the 1/20? Again, the Bulls don't need Kobe as much as the Lakers need what the Bulls have to offer. Thus, in a deal between the two, the Lakers have no leverage. I don't understand what is so hard to grasp. I don't expect you to back down though, just as you wouldn't after I explained Antoine Walker's contract extension to you. So then your theory is the Bulls are the only team that the Bulls will deal with? If that's it, fine. It's stupid, but fine, it at least justifies your stance. If you ever want to come into the real world of logical reasoning, a unique one of a kind item that has multiple suitors leaves the seller in a position of strength. Go to an auction, try to buy an original Matisse and say you're offering $500,000 and you have a fantastic gallery that'll flatter the painting, far better than any the other bidders can offer, and see what the seller says when bidding reaches $600,000. :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead This whole time I've been talking about the BULLS. Lets look at the progression of this. 1. Article posted talking about a trade between the LAKERS and BULLS. 2. I posted saying I wouldn't do the deal. 3. I later posted saying the BULLS have all the leverage IN THAT SINGULAR DISCUSSION BETWEEN TWO TEAMS, THE BULLS AND LAKERS (refer to point 1). 4. YOU bring up leverage in regards to other teams, something I was never talking about. Do you understand? Good lord dude, you will make a back and forth out of anything even things that don't exist. So then we'll just suspend all logic and assume that this is all in a vacuum and that talks are ONLY between Lakers and Bulls. :lol Just like when we're talking free agency we'll pretend that the value of a contract is established only by talks between Team A and Player B. That the threat of Team C has no bearing on value. That this wonderful thing called competition doesn't exist at all. Ditto limited resources. Fantastic. Honestly some of the most over simplified logic I've ever heard. :lol

Yeah, I shudder to think what Portland's going to be like when Oden comes back next year. Especially when you likely factor in OJ Mayo.

In a Lakers-Bulls trade, why/how would the Bulls not have the upper hand? I was only addressing the trade from the Bulls perspective since that is what the article was talking about. Um, how about simple economic theory that a limited resource with inelastic supply is of significantly enhanced value? Last I checked, there's only one Kobe Bryant and about 20 teams that'll do whatever it takes to get him. So who's in the position of strength, the 1/1 or the 1/20?

Since I guess we're not allowed/frowned upon talking about Heat basketball on a Miami sports board. If you're the Bulls, you don't let Deng hold you up from making the Kobe trade. If I'm Paxson I say that it's one of Gordon/Deng, one of Thomas/Noah, a few future firsts and the salaries needed to balance it out. I don't buy into the logic of the Bulls having the upper hand in this; I mean, all it takes is for the Lakers to say "OK, we'll go talk with Dallas now." If/when the Lakers decide it's more about talent coming back than sending Kobe East, there'll be tons of matches. I have no idea what that first statement means (although I have a hunch it might be directed towards me who said this isn't a Heat/Miami sports board, it isn't and that is per a mod here many times over) but anyways... The Bulls have the upper hand because they don't need Kobe as much as the Lakers need the Bulls talent and a team to unload Kobe on to. The Bulls are very much in a good spot without him. So, just so I'm clear then, your stance is the Bulls are the only team in the NBA with talent? Or just the only NBA team that'll take Kobe? Because I don't think that addressed anything about my reasoning of the Bulls having the upper-hand being foolish. Unless, that's your justification.