Beinfest was "looking" but Loria wasn't buying. There were no real negotiations, and all we needed was a bullpen arm or two.

 

I don't remember reading any stories about Loria's $$ being in the way of acquiring a player.

I'm not sure I agree with that scenario either, but can you explain the FO failure to add 3-5 million this season when it was clear we needed bullpen help and outfield help. I'd have to blame the inactivity more on Beinfest than Loria, but I still don't understand why they somehow seem not to want to win this year. They may have had a 3 year plan, but you strike while the iron is hot. There's no guarantee that Olsen, JJ, Willis, Sanchez, Nolasco, Cabrera, Hanley....will stay healthy and improve season to season.

.

.

Could it be that it's not in the Marlins best interest to win this year? I think that's the case, but I don't understand why.

 

I thought Beinfest said that he was looking for bullpen help at the deadline but the deals just weren't there--people were asking for too much. And that being said, the team was a lot more "out of it" at the end of July than they were a month later. I doubt he was going to trade someone who can help us 2 years from now (which was probably the timeline they were looking at being competitive) for short-term relief help.

 

Beinfest was "looking" but Loria wasn't buying. There were no real negotiations, and all we needed was a bullpen arm or two. Remember, the deadline was August 31 (to be on the playoff roster) and there is no deadline for trades for players just to use in the regular season. They just have to clear waivers if the trade is after July 1. In late August it was obvious we had a shot, and needed bullpen help. A decent owner also would have been finding some help for the OF.

 

The absurd thing is that we are even discussing the issue: it shows how Loria is destroying this franchise. What is he pocketing this year, thanks to the low payroll, while we all suffer? $20-30 million?

Maybe he is saving money to get Andrew Jones next year :mischief2

I would go on MB.com and complain about David Samson.

Fiction is still fiction no matter how you cut it.

 

I just love the way people actually think they know what other people are thinking. They know people's thoughts, their motives, their every move.

 

It's very sad.

I'm still don't get this scenario in which Loria needs to destroy the team to garner favor among politicians, who already know the Marlins' situation, for a stadium deal in the best market available. Or that somehow it is in his best interests to sour the market to move the franchise to a market with less potential. Can someone please explain it to me?

I'm not sure I agree with that scenario either, but can you explain the FO failure to add 3-5 million this season when it was clear we needed bullpen help and outfield help. I'd have to blame the inactivity more on Beinfest than Loria, but I still don't understand why they somehow seem not to want to win this year. They may have had a 3 year plan, but you strike while the iron is hot. There's no guarantee that Olsen, JJ, Willis, Sanchez, Nolasco, Cabrera, Hanley....will stay healthy and improve season to season.

.

.

Could it be that it's not in the Marlins best interest to win this year? I think that's the case, but I don't understand why.

Easy. It is extremely likely that the front office did not believe that the available bullpen or outfield support would help the club substantially. Or that the club didn't think the club had a good shot. Or that the club had better alternatives available down on the farm (but somehow, through miscommunication with Girardi perhaps, were unable to utilize them). Or that the demands were too high or focused too strongly on players which were considered as potential contributors to future winning squads.

I disagree strongly that taking a slim shot at the wild card NOW is worth harming your chances at a number of future World Series in the future. As a fan, I want things now. I want a stadium now. But Beinfest and Loria shouldn't take those actions if they believer it will only amount to a slightly better also-ran season. Or a new stadium with much of the same old problems.

All these and a million other reasons why the front office may not have made a deal is possible. We shouldn't ignore all of those to skip immediately to suggesting they want to lose this year. There's no reason why they'd want to lose. There's a million reasons why they wouldn't want to take unnecessary or exorbitant steps to win.

 

 

I'm still don't get this scenario in which Loria needs to destroy the team to garner favor among politicians, who already know the Marlins' situation, for a stadium deal in the best market available. Or that somehow it is in his best interests to sour the market to move the franchise to a market with less potential. Can someone please explain it to me?

Perhaps it can be answered this way: If Loria and Co. can run their business at a profit with a $15 Million payroll in their current stadium...and a $15 Million payroll allows you to field a competitive team that should garner the attention of the local community...then why do the Marlins need public money and a new stadium?

 

Now, you can say that the Marlins need a new stadium anyway, because Huizenga is kicking them out and they have no place else to go. But, the entire "we need a new stadium to field a competitive team" argument is belied by their success with relatively modest payrolls in 2003 and 2006.

Reality check: The 2003 team ran an operating loss. Reality check #2: This team isn't attracting the attention of the local community. Reality check #3: This year may produce a profit, but not a playoff team.

 

Perhaps the argument would then be that the Marlins need a stadium in order to retain its star players, to maintain the consistency that constant firesales and restructuring doesn't allow for, to foster closer ties with local businesses, to play host to All-Star games as well as frequent postseason fixtures. All of which, like so many of a team's owner's goals, benefit both the club and the region.

 

 

(And please don't insult me like that. Who really believes that Huizenga will kick out a cash cow like the Marlins? That threat came at an unique time and was retracted at a time to harm the Marlins' chances of winning support in Talhassee. Since that time no mention of any time frame has been made by Huizenga or any of his associates.)

 

Congratulate the players for just buying themselves a nice long winter because they seemed to want it real bad.

 

I'd tell Loria:

 

"You misrepresented your intentions to destroy the team in order to get me to accept the job, you got angry at me for winning anyway because it upset your strategy on the stadium issue, you then started sourcing false rumors about me, you refused to pick up a bullpen guy or 2, and an OF, before the trade deadline even though you have the lowest payroll in MLB -- $20 million less than the lowly Devil Rays, and with an $18 million payroll, and the few extra guys, we would be in the division race, not just the wild card. "

 

"You don't show enough respect for the fans to spend enough to get the few players we need to compete next year, so I want out. Ironically, your attempt to get your way by destroying the franchise like you did in Montreal won't get you a stadium deal here. The local politicians will not commit enough money to get it done, and you will be forced to sell to a group with more money and more respect for the game and its fans."

 

"If the fans knew what was going on (and I plan to get the word out after I leave) they would boycott season tickets until you show the respect they and the game deserve."

 

 

Some of you people don't know how stupid some of the stuff you post sounds.

 

No more stupid than yours, and at least mine contain some content. Your invective is a poor substitute for thought.

 

I'm still don't get this scenario in which Loria needs to destroy the team to garner favor among politicians, who already know the Marlins' situation, for a stadium deal in the best market available. Or that somehow it is in his best interests to sour the market to move the franchise to a market with less potential. Can someone please explain it to me?

I'm not sure I agree with that scenario either, but can you explain the FO failure to add 3-5 million this season when it was clear we needed bullpen help and outfield help. I'd have to blame the inactivity more on Beinfest than Loria, but I still don't understand why they somehow seem not to want to win this year. They may have had a 3 year plan, but you strike while the iron is hot. There's no guarantee that Olsen, JJ, Willis, Sanchez, Nolasco, Cabrera, Hanley....will stay healthy and improve season to season.

.

.

Could it be that it's not in the Marlins best interest to win this year? I think that's the case, but I don't understand why.

 

Loria's request for public $$$ to partially subsidize a stadium is based on the argument that he cannot field a competitive team given the payroll constraints that will exist if he gets no public money. He was trying to give us and the decision makers a sense of what that level of payroll gives you on the field with the $14.9 million team full of rookies, and by not seeking help at the trading deadline.

 

The team's winning, especially with this absurdly low payroll, contradicts his argument, and shows that public money for a stadium cannot be justified as a competitive measure. While we all could argue with that, that is the way politicians, and taxpayers who are not baseball fans, tend to see things.

 

The Mariners and Padres used the exact opposite of your model and they got the public to foot the bill for their stadiums.

 

Safeco isn't built if the Mariners don't have that renaissance and go to the 95 ALCS.

 

Petco isn't built if the Padres don't reach the 1998 World Series.

There isn't even talk of a Marlins ballpark without the 2003 World Series

 

Congratulate the players for just buying themselves a nice long winter because they seemed to want it real bad.

 

I'd tell Loria:

 

"You misrepresented your intentions to destroy the team in order to get me to accept the job, you got angry at me for winning anyway because it upset your strategy on the stadium issue, you then started sourcing false rumors about me, you refused to pick up a bullpen guy or 2, and an OF, before the trade deadline even though you have the lowest payroll in MLB -- $20 million less than the lowly Devil Rays, and with an $18 million payroll, and the few extra guys, we would be in the division race, not just the wild card. "

 

"You don't show enough respect for the fans to spend enough to get the few players we need to compete next year, so I want out. Ironically, your attempt to get your way by destroying the franchise like you did in Montreal won't get you a stadium deal here. The local politicians will not commit enough money to get it done, and you will be forced to sell to a group with more money and more respect for the game and its fans."

 

"If the fans knew what was going on (and I plan to get the word out after I leave) they would boycott season tickets until you show the respect they and the game deserve."

 

 

Some of you people don't know how stupid some of the stuff you post sounds.

 

No more stupid than yours, and at least mine contain some content. Your invective is a poor substitute for thought.

 

I'm still don't get this scenario in which Loria needs to destroy the team to garner favor among politicians, who already know the Marlins' situation, for a stadium deal in the best market available. Or that somehow it is in his best interests to sour the market to move the franchise to a market with less potential. Can someone please explain it to me?

I'm not sure I agree with that scenario either, but can you explain the FO failure to add 3-5 million this season when it was clear we needed bullpen help and outfield help. I'd have to blame the inactivity more on Beinfest than Loria, but I still don't understand why they somehow seem not to want to win this year. They may have had a 3 year plan, but you strike while the iron is hot. There's no guarantee that Olsen, JJ, Willis, Sanchez, Nolasco, Cabrera, Hanley....will stay healthy and improve season to season.

.

.

Could it be that it's not in the Marlins best interest to win this year? I think that's the case, but I don't understand why.

 

Loria's request for public $$$ to partially subsidize a stadium is based on the argument that he cannot field a competitive team given the payroll constraints that will exist if he gets no public money. He was trying to give us and the decision makers a sense of what that level of payroll gives you on the field with the $14.9 million team full of rookies, and by not seeking help at the trading deadline.

 

The team's winning, especially with this absurdly low payroll, contradicts his argument, and shows that public money for a stadium cannot be justified as a competitive measure. While we all could argue with that, that is the way politicians, and taxpayers who are not baseball fans, tend to see things.

You can't see the forest for the trees. What is said is to motivate people. The county commissioners who have been in contact with Loria and Samson know what's going on. They know the lease terms. They know the Marlins' struggle attracting local businesses. They know the Marlins' instability. Loria and Samson didn't get anywhere with them complaining about their inability to contend. The fans, though, react much more strongly to the ability of their club to win than what fees they can charge for stadium advertising.

Rferry you make some good points in your post.

 

I just have an issue with one statment you made.

 

 

You stated it was extremely likely or possible that the Marlins FO believed that they had better options down on the farm but misicommunications with Girardi led to these options not being utilized.

 

Um.....wrong.

 

In fact dont even go there. The FO, Girardi and all of us fans know whats available "on the farm" in terms of positional players (CF to be more precise). Absolutely nothing.

 

 

 

And whats with the all the denial from some on the board about there being no one to pick up before the deadline?

 

Every single team EXCEPT the Marlins that was in the Wild Card hunt added an arm or a positional player.

 

The Marlins were right in it. Like pierremvp said, "strike while the iron is hot". This may have been our year (based on the assumption that our starting pitching would have carried us through the playoffs).

 

 

Im not saying that adding at the deadline would have made us a sure thing to clinch the wild card.

 

 

But now we'll never know.

I'm still don't get this scenario in which Loria needs to destroy the team to garner favor among politicians, who already know the Marlins' situation, for a stadium deal in the best market available. Or that somehow it is in his best interests to sour the market to move the franchise to a market with less potential. Can someone please explain it to me?

 

Perhaps it can be answered this way: If Loria and Co. can run their business at a profit with a $15 Million payroll in their current stadium...and a $15 Million payroll allows you to field a competitive team that should garner the attention of the local community...then why do the Marlins need public money and a new stadium?

 

Now, you can say that the Marlins need a new stadium anyway, because Huizenga is kicking them out and they have no place else to go. But, the entire "we need a new stadium to field a competitive team" argument is belied by their success with relatively modest payrolls in 2003 and 2006.

Reality check: The 2003 team ran an operating loss. Reality check #2: This team isn't attracting the attention of the local community. Reality check #3: This year may produce a profit, but not a playoff team.

 

Perhaps the argument would then be that the Marlins need a stadium in order to retain its star players, to maintain the consistency that constant firesales and restructuring doesn't allow for, to foster closer ties with local businesses, to play host to All-Star games as well as frequent postseason fixtures. All of which, like so many of a team's owner's goals, benefit both the club and the region.

 

 

(And please don't insult me like that. Who really believes that Huizenga will kick out a cash cow like the Marlins? That threat came at an unique time and was retracted at a time to harm the Marlins' chances of winning support in Talhassee. Since that time no mention of any time frame has been made by Huizenga or any of his associates.)

I think your missing the point. I'm not arguing anything other than the fact that the success of the 2003 and 2006 teams belies Loria's argument that he needs a new stadium to put a competitive product on the field. There are many other arguments for a stadium...many that you've listed, and many that I agree with.

 

However, winning in 2003 and 2006 with modest payrolls belies his PRIMARY argument that you can't put a "competitive product" on the field without a new stadium (I don't care if we ran an operating loss in 2003..our payroll was nowhere near the top of baseball, and we could have easily ran a profit if we didn't take on a handful of player's salaries). Nobody can guarantee a "winning" product, not even Loria, if the definition of "winning" is playoffs. Look at the freakin Red Sox.

 

Next year we will not have a new stadium...our payroll will still be the lowest in baseball...and next year we will probably be picked by many national "experts" to finish above .500 without any significant changes. That sounds like a competitive team to me.

 

I still want (and think we desperately need) a new stadium for consistent winning, but it doesn't mean the politicians see that when, prior to last week, were in the think of the WC race.

The low payroll in 2006 is a red herring, existing only because Dontrelle Willis had just entered his first arbitration year and Miguel Cabrera was still being paid roughly $400,000 for the season.

 

In other words, it's an aberration.

 

It also ignores another $5-6 million in deferrred compensation due this year, but for this argument, let's put that aside.

 

With exactly the same players all making the same amount of money (plus the small incremental raises that would be expected as rookies become second year players) save Willis and Cabrera, payroll will be approximately $25,000,000.

 

On the stadium and finances issue, I continue to be baffled why people still think "public" money is being used to fund a new stadium, when by now everyone should know that's not the case.

 

I would also ask these questions.

 

From day one, the county has remained the Marlins staunch partner and continues to be so. If the county believed the franchise was not acting in the best interests of keeping professional baseball in South Florida or was making unreasonable demands or (for example) was harpooning the chances of a downtown stadium that otherwise would meet the Marlins reasonable needs, don't you think the county would be distancing themselves from the Fish or threatening to pull their contribution if the Marlins didn't go along?

 

If the Marlins were lieing when they said Joe Arriola was trying to extort the Marlins into selling their franchise by holding up for two years a deal to build at the OB, wouldn't they have sided with the city of Miami and left the Marlins high and dry which would have been the easiest course of action?

 

If the county believed Hialeah wouldn't work, why have they gone to such lengths to make the site viable, taking on for example responsibility for funding a reverse osmosis water treatment, working with the state to address their issues, working with Miami Lakes government to address their concerns (concerns that are entirely based on traffic going to and coming from baseball games, not traffic generated by the proposed industrial park), etc., again ignoring the easiest and most expedient avenue which was to wash their hands of the whole process and walk away?

 

The answers speak for themselves.

 

Until I hear or read that the county has misgivings about how the Marlins are going about things, considering their investment is the greatest in any project, I have to believe the Marlins actions are the right ones.

Easy. It is extremely likely that the front office did not believe that the available bullpen or outfield support would help the club substantially. Or that the club didn't think the club had a good shot. Or that the club had better alternatives available down on the farm (but somehow, through miscommunication with Girardi perhaps, were unable to utilize them). Or that the demands were too high or focused too strongly on players which were considered as potential contributors to future winning squads.

I disagree strongly that taking a slim shot at the wild card NOW is worth harming your chances at a number of future World Series in the future. As a fan, I want things now. I want a stadium now. But Beinfest and Loria shouldn't take those actions if they believer it will only amount to a slightly better also-ran season. Or a new stadium with much of the same old problems.

All these and a million other reasons why the front office may not have made a deal is possible. We shouldn't ignore all of those to skip immediately to suggesting they want to lose this year. There's no reason why they'd want to lose. There's a million reasons why they wouldn't want to take unnecessary or exorbitant steps to win.

 

You have to be kidding me. Do you work for the FO? Everyone knows our bullpen needed help, and to say nothing was available is a joke. There was no effort because the Marlins didn't want to spend the money! Point to a single negotiation. There were none because that is their strategy. They WANT TO LOSE because it is the only remaining way for them to get a stadium. If they had excuses like yours for not making a deal, I assure you they would have announced them.

 

 

I'm still don't get this scenario in which Loria needs to destroy the team to garner favor among politicians, who already know the Marlins' situation, for a stadium deal in the best market available. Or that somehow it is in his best interests to sour the market to move the franchise to a market with less potential. Can someone please explain it to me?

 

Perhaps it can be answered this way: If Loria and Co. can run their business at a profit with a $15 Million payroll in their current stadium...and a $15 Million payroll allows you to field a competitive team that should garner the attention of the local community...then why do the Marlins need public money and a new stadium?

 

Now, you can say that the Marlins need a new stadium anyway, because Huizenga is kicking them out and they have no place else to go. But, the entire "we need a new stadium to field a competitive team" argument is belied by their success with relatively modest payrolls in 2003 and 2006.

 

Reality check: The 2003 team ran an operating loss. Reality check #2: This team isn't attracting the attention of the local community. Reality check #3: This year may produce a profit, but not a playoff team

 

Again, you need to do your research. An operating loss is meaningless. Rich people buy sports teams for the tax advantages and appreciation in price. Couple those with the Marlins sweetheart deal with MLB, which forgave part of the debt regarding the purchase price, and the ENORMOUS profit they're making this year, and you may begin to understand. Even the Marlins admit "break even" is about a $40 million payroll, yet they wont go above $15 million? Give me a break.

 

Perhaps the argument would then be that the Marlins need a stadium in order to retain its star players, to maintain the consistency that constant firesales and restructuring doesn't allow for, to foster closer ties with local businesses, to play host to All-Star games as well as frequent postseason fixtures. All of which, like so many of a team's owner's goals, benefit both the club and the region.

 

The Mariners and Padres used the exact opposite of your model and they got the public to foot the bill for their stadiums.

 

Safeco isn't built if the Mariners don't have that renaissance and go to the 95 ALCS.

 

Petco isn't built if the Padres don't reach the 1998 World Series.

 

There isn't even talk of a Marlins ballpark without the 2003 World Series.

 

You really don't pay attention, do you. They tried that "win and get a stadium"gambit and it failed. The Marlins won the WS in 1997, remember. Still no ballpark, causing much frustration to Huizenga and John Henry. They won again in 2003, and still no ballpark. The governor even blocked their tax subsidy, the City of Miami took all the best locations off the table, and so they tried another tack. Here are the statements from Loria and MLB after last season. Please read them and stop making ridiculous claims liike they may stay in Dolphin stadium or they haven't been using the "inability to contend argument:"

 

We are all very disappointed that despite the efforts of three sets of owners, our office, two world championships, and a very significant economic proposal from the current owners, that plans for a new stadium have not been brought to fruition," Bob DuPuy, baseball's chief operating officer, wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

 

"A new ballpark is an absolute necessity for the team to survive economically and compete. The commissioner believes strongly that Major League Baseball can thrive in southeast Florida but only with a suitable facility. He remains hopeful that can still happen."

 

The Marlins' lease with Dolphins Stadium -- owned by Huizenga -- is in effect until 2007. The team has a series of one-year options that could keep it there through the 2010 season. Samson said the team will not extend its current lease at Dolphins Stadium under any circumstances.

"No longer can baseball in South Florida be assured," Loria, who was in Europe, said in a statement read by Samson.

 

 

So, not only is "inability to compete" without a new stadium the main argument, it's the only argument they had left until Girardi's competitive fire, and the team's overachieving, almost ruined it for them. I am sure they--some of them, at any rate-- are thankful that their refusal to augment the team resulted in another year of no playoff baseball in South Florida.

 

You can't see the forest for the trees. What is said is to motivate people. The county commissioners who have been in contact with Loria and Samson know what's going on. They know the lease terms. They know the Marlins' struggle attracting local businesses. They know the Marlins' instability. Loria and Samson didn't get anywhere with them complaining about their inability to contend. The fans, though, react much more strongly to the ability of their club to win than what fees they can charge for stadium advertising.

 

 

What nonsense. The politicians respond to voters, who don't want to subsidize a rich guy's toy. The "inability to contend" argument is all the Marlins have, and despite your denials, everyone can see from the statement above that it is the Marlins and MLB's argument for a stadium. Contending this year would have destroyed it.

Rferry you make some good points in your post.

I just have an issue with one statment you made.

You stated it was extremely likely or possible that the Marlins FO believed that they had better options down on the farm but misicommunications with Girardi led to these options not being utilized.

Um.....wrong.

In fact dont even go there. The FO, Girardi and all of us fans know whats available "on the farm" in terms of positional players (CF to be more precise). Absolutely nothing.

And whats with the all the denial from some on the board about there being no one to pick up before the deadline?

Every single team EXCEPT the Marlins that was in the Wild Card hunt added an arm or a positional player.

The Marlins were right in it. Like pierremvp said, "strike while the iron is hot". This may have been our year (based on the assumption that our starting pitching would have carried us through the playoffs).

Im not saying that adding at the deadline would have made us a sure thing to clinch the wild card.

But now we'll never know.

 

I'm not sure which statement you're arguing against. Is it that Beinfest might have had a plan that Girardi refused to follow? Or that this might not have been an appropriate time to strike a deal?

Well, as to the former argument, I said it is possible, not extremely likely, only that the possibility was much stronger than his conspiracy theory. Indeed it is possible that the club believed platooning some combination of Amezaga, Reed, Ross and Borchard or using Hermida in CF was a better alternative than giving up something of substance to acquire a player. As we've come to learn, Girardi and Beinfest haven't seen eye to eye on which players should be on the club and in what roles.

To the latter, I strongly disagree. A legitimate chance at a World Series championship trumps a slim chance at the Wild Card any year of the schedule. Atleast most times. And in this case, it does. We didn't have a strong shot and a smaller shot of our starting pitcher staying strong for both a pennant run and the playoffs, and the players rumored weren't difference makers. A #5 starter on a potential World Series champion team is not worth letting go for a set-up man on a potential First Round loser. If we held to such a priniciple, Olsen would have been traded for Gathright. As well as many more of our pitching depth traded for average position player prospects simply because we don't allow ourselves to look past the immediate needs. Try to break away from the fan perspective of coping with the season coming to a finish and reassess the situation. You may come away with more than remorse of what could have been.

I'm still don't get this scenario in which Loria needs to destroy the team to garner favor among politicians, who already know the Marlins' situation, for a stadium deal in the best market available. Or that somehow it is in his best interests to sour the market to move the franchise to a market with less potential. Can someone please explain it to me?

 

Perhaps it can be answered this way: If Loria and Co. can run their business at a profit with a $15 Million payroll in their current stadium...and a $15 Million payroll allows you to field a competitive team that should garner the attention of the local community...then why do the Marlins need public money and a new stadium?

 

Now, you can say that the Marlins need a new stadium anyway, because Huizenga is kicking them out and they have no place else to go. But, the entire "we need a new stadium to field a competitive team" argument is belied by their success with relatively modest payrolls in 2003 and 2006.

Reality check: The 2003 team ran an operating loss. Reality check #2: This team isn't attracting the attention of the local community. Reality check #3: This year may produce a profit, but not a playoff team.

 

Perhaps the argument would then be that the Marlins need a stadium in order to retain its star players, to maintain the consistency that constant firesales and restructuring doesn't allow for, to foster closer ties with local businesses, to play host to All-Star games as well as frequent postseason fixtures. All of which, like so many of a team's owner's goals, benefit both the club and the region.

 

 

(And please don't insult me like that. Who really believes that Huizenga will kick out a cash cow like the Marlins? That threat came at an unique time and was retracted at a time to harm the Marlins' chances of winning support in Talhassee. Since that time no mention of any time frame has been made by Huizenga or any of his associates.)

I think your missing the point. I'm not arguing anything other than the fact that the success of the 2003 and 2006 teams belies Loria's argument that he needs a new stadium to put a competitive product on the field. There are many other arguments for a stadium...many that you've listed, and many that I agree with.

 

However, winning in 2003 and 2006 with modest payrolls belies his PRIMARY argument that you can't put a "competitive product" on the field without a new stadium (I don't care if we ran an operating loss in 2003..our payroll was nowhere near the top of baseball, and we could have easily ran a profit if we didn't take on a handful of player's salaries). Nobody can guarantee a "winning" product, not even Loria, if the definition of "winning" is playoffs. Look at the freakin Red Sox.

 

Next year we will not have a new stadium...our payroll will still be the lowest in baseball...and next year we will probably be picked by many national "experts" to finish above .500 without any significant changes. That sounds like a competitive team to me.

 

I still want (and think we desperately need) a new stadium for consistent winning, but it doesn't mean the politicians see that when, prior to last week, were in the think of the WC race.

The primary argument for the fan's ear! As it reaches their primary interest. And it's a simple and vague argument which relies on a number of variables including what one considers competitive and competitive in what (winning, losing, acquiring players by trade, by free agents, re-signing players). The politicians are hearing a different argument by the way. They're hearing the loss of revenue to rain and the lease and inability to attract support from local businesses. The stadium's poor location and its inability to provide economic growth for the neighborhood. On the topic of winning and losing, Loria and Samson are not telling the county commissioners that winning is not possible, they are telling them that winning is not sustainable under present conditions. And you saw that in recent years as the club had to release or trade away a lot o players whose contracts were climbing, and when they went into debt to keep some and sign some others, and when they restructured to keep expenses low for a couple years. And you'll see it again in 3-5 years if a new stadium is not being built to supply the revenues to re-sign the core of this club.

Easy. It is extremely likely that the front office did not believe that the available bullpen or outfield support would help the club substantially. Or that the club didn't think the club had a good shot. Or that the club had better alternatives available down on the farm (but somehow, through miscommunication with Girardi perhaps, were unable to utilize them). Or that the demands were too high or focused too strongly on players which were considered as potential contributors to future winning squads.

I disagree strongly that taking a slim shot at the wild card NOW is worth harming your chances at a number of future World Series in the future. As a fan, I want things now. I want a stadium now. But Beinfest and Loria shouldn't take those actions if they believer it will only amount to a slightly better also-ran season. Or a new stadium with much of the same old problems.

All these and a million other reasons why the front office may not have made a deal is possible. We shouldn't ignore all of those to skip immediately to suggesting they want to lose this year. There's no reason why they'd want to lose. There's a million reasons why they wouldn't want to take unnecessary or exorbitant steps to win.

 

You have to be kidding me. Do you work for the FO? Everyone knows our bullpen needed help, and to say nothing was available is a joke. There was no effort because the Marlins didn't want to spend the money! Point to a single negotiation. There were none because that is their strategy. They WANT TO LOSE because it is the only remaining way for them to get a stadium. If they had excuses like yours for not making a deal, I assure you they would have announced them.

 

You must've missed the Sun-Sentinel article where Beinfest said he couldn't get a reliever because he couldn't match up with another team in a trade. There's more evidence of that than "The Marlins didn't want to spend money," which I have never seen evidence of.

 

I don't get how losing will get them a stadium. True, winning didn't, but everybody now knows they CAN win in that stadium (and HAVE won), so the "we're losing in this stadium, we need a new one" doesn't really work. (unless I'm not getting you're "they want to lose to get a stadium" argument, which is entirely possible).

Rferry you make some good points in your post.

 

I just have an issue with one statment you made.

 

 

You stated it was extremely likely or possible that the Marlins FO believed that they had better options down on the farm but misicommunications with Girardi led to these options not being utilized.

 

Um.....wrong.

 

In fact dont even go there. The FO, Girardi and all of us fans know whats available "on the farm" in terms of positional players (CF to be more precise). Absolutely nothing.

 

 

 

And whats with the all the denial from some on the board about there being no one to pick up before the deadline?

 

Every single team EXCEPT the Marlins that was in the Wild Card hunt added an arm or a positional player.

 

The Marlins were right in it. Like pierremvp said, "strike while the iron is hot". This may have been our year (based on the assumption that our starting pitching would have carried us through the playoffs).

 

 

Im not saying that adding at the deadline would have made us a sure thing to clinch the wild card.

 

 

But now we'll never know.

 

 

While CF was lacking all season the bullpen had always been the greatest liability (it is in fact the bullpen and its poor management that kept the Marlins out of the playoffs). Were there any legitimate CFers on the market even? Luis Matos? Gathright? Wilson? None of them would have improved the team substantially.

 

The bullpen however is what actually needed upgrading (the only serviceable pitcher in the pen is Tank). If the Marlins were going to add ANY talent before the deadlines it should have been pen arms. However, who would they have added if they aimed to keep a modest payroll? And why would they add another shotty veteran like like Joe Borowski (or a Ron Villone type)?

 

While I think relief help OUTSIDE of the organization would have improved the club, if things were handled as they should have been that may not have been completely necessary.

 

CF wasn't THAT much of a problem after Girardi got his act together somewhat and ended the Abercrombie experiment.

How can a bullpen that has only one "serviceable pitcher in the pen" be the victim of "poor management".

 

 

Your gonna have to explain that to me.

It's easy when you measure servicable by their talent uneffected by supposed poor management. But you get into the sticky situation of which is which, a question is ignored under another option (measuring them by the results with the poor management)

Easy. It is extremely likely that the front office did not believe that the available bullpen or outfield support would help the club substantially. Or that the club didn't think the club had a good shot. Or that the club had better alternatives available down on the farm (but somehow, through miscommunication with Girardi perhaps, were unable to utilize them). Or that the demands were too high or focused too strongly on players which were considered as potential contributors to future winning squads.

I disagree strongly that taking a slim shot at the wild card NOW is worth harming your chances at a number of future World Series in the future. As a fan, I want things now. I want a stadium now. But Beinfest and Loria shouldn't take those actions if they believer it will only amount to a slightly better also-ran season. Or a new stadium with much of the same old problems.

All these and a million other reasons why the front office may not have made a deal is possible. We shouldn't ignore all of those to skip immediately to suggesting they want to lose this year. There's no reason why they'd want to lose. There's a million reasons why they wouldn't want to take unnecessary or exorbitant steps to win.

 

You have to be kidding me. Do you work for the FO? Everyone knows our bullpen needed help, and to say nothing was available is a joke. There was no effort because the Marlins didn't want to spend the money! Point to a single negotiation. There were none because that is their strategy. They WANT TO LOSE because it is the only remaining way for them to get a stadium. If they had excuses like yours for not making a deal, I assure you they would have announced them.

 

Each and every one of your argument is based on simple thinking, half-truths and a complete and utter disregard for anyone's perspective but your own.

Why would they want to lose? Explain that. Why would they need to announce their reasons (reasons, not excuses, 'excuses' suggest something else which I'm sure you're getting at) to everyone? What purpose would that serve? Is it worth the effort? And if they do, what would lead to? Is it worth that?

Think of a car company, why would they accent a SUV's size and off-road capabilities with an ad shown during Desperate Housewives? Very few of the demographic that watches DH cares about such features so you've wasted thousands of dollars and many seconds of air time on a message that will be ignored, and perhaps harm your product and company among those DH viewers who want nothing to do with such a rugged SUV. Likewise if you accented the SUV's comfort and security during a sports telecast.

Shocking information for you: not everything that happens is made available to you. That goes from matters of national security to why a team didn't trade for a relief pitcher to why your kid didn't do his homework. Information is power, so is the withholding of information.

 

I'm still don't get this scenario in which Loria needs to destroy the team to garner favor among politicians, who already know the Marlins' situation, for a stadium deal in the best market available. Or that somehow it is in his best interests to sour the market to move the franchise to a market with less potential. Can someone please explain it to me?

 

Perhaps it can be answered this way: If Loria and Co. can run their business at a profit with a $15 Million payroll in their current stadium...and a $15 Million payroll allows you to field a competitive team that should garner the attention of the local community...then why do the Marlins need public money and a new stadium?

 

Now, you can say that the Marlins need a new stadium anyway, because Huizenga is kicking them out and they have no place else to go. But, the entire "we need a new stadium to field a competitive team" argument is belied by their success with relatively modest payrolls in 2003 and 2006.

 

Reality check: The 2003 team ran an operating loss. Reality check #2: This team isn't attracting the attention of the local community. Reality check #3: This year may produce a profit, but not a playoff team

 

Again, you need to do your research. An operating loss is meaningless. Rich people buy sports teams for the tax advantages and appreciation in price. Couple those with the Marlins sweetheart deal with MLB, which forgave part of the debt regarding the purchase price, and the ENORMOUS profit they're making this year, and you may begin to understand. Even the Marlins admit "break even" is about a $40 million payroll, yet they wont go above $15 million? Give me a break.

 

An operating loss is far from meaningless. And no such appreciation to the franchise's value exists without a new stadium or like asset.

I believe that $40M figure comes from a different year. And by all accounts, revenues have also fallen this year. And what's wrong with profiting this year to recoup losses (whether real money or expected profits) from past years?

 

Perhaps the argument would then be that the Marlins need a stadium in order to retain its star players, to maintain the consistency that constant firesales and restructuring doesn't allow for, to foster closer ties with local businesses, to play host to All-Star games as well as frequent postseason fixtures. All of which, like so many of a team's owner's goals, benefit both the club and the region.

 

The Mariners and Padres used the exact opposite of your model and they got the public to foot the bill for their stadiums.

 

Safeco isn't built if the Mariners don't have that renaissance and go to the 95 ALCS.

 

Petco isn't built if the Padres don't reach the 1998 World Series.

 

There isn't even talk of a Marlins ballpark without the 2003 World Series.

 

You really don't pay attention, do you. They tried that "win and get a stadium"gambit and it failed. The Marlins won the WS in 1997, remember. Still no ballpark, causing much frustration to Huizenga and John Henry. They won again in 2003, and still no ballpark. The governor even blocked their tax subsidy, the City of Miami took all the best locations off the table, and so they tried another tack. Here are the statements from Loria and MLB after last season. Please read them and stop making ridiculous claims liike they may stay in Dolphin stadium or they haven't been using the "inability to contend argument:"

 

They also tried the "lose and get a stadium" gambit as well and looked how that turned out. It halted any discussion of a ballpark. Local politicians want to associate themselves with that is popular or what will be popular in short time. To destroy the team will not help that. To destroy the team to move the club when there is still hope for a ballpark in the best available market (the current one) also makes no sense. Your theory makes no sense.

Read your quotes a bit more closely. You'll see that the ability to contend is but one reason. And that the deadline is more of a threat of action rather than a drop-dead date. As there's no standing threat from Huizenga to kick the Marlins and the significant shares of gameday revenues out.

 

We are all very disappointed that despite the efforts of three sets of owners, our office, two world championships, and a very significant economic proposal from the current owners, that plans for a new stadium have not been brought to fruition," Bob DuPuy, baseball's chief operating officer, wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

 

"A new ballpark is an absolute necessity for the team to survive economically and compete. The commissioner believes strongly that Major League Baseball can thrive in southeast Florida but only with a suitable facility. He remains hopeful that can still happen."

 

The Marlins' lease with Dolphins Stadium -- owned by Huizenga -- is in effect until 2007. The team has a series of one-year options that could keep it there through the 2010 season. Samson said the team will not extend its current lease at Dolphins Stadium under any circumstances.

"No longer can baseball in South Florida be assured," Loria, who was in Europe, said in a statement read by Samson.

 

 

So, not only is "inability to compete" without a new stadium the main argument, it's the only argument they had left until Girardi's competitive fire, and the team's overachieving, almost ruined it for them. I am sure they--some of them, at any rate-- are thankful that their refusal to augment the team resulted in another year of no playoff baseball in South Florida.

 

Again, the ability to compete has been the primary argument when addressing fans. And for obvious reasons which have been restated and restated. But not the ONLY reason or the MAIN argument.

And if you seriously believe by simply adding players in July we would be in the playoffs, you don't a damn thing about baseball. It could have, then again it could not have. The only definite thing is that we would have exchanged players and all their potential production over a specific period of time.

 

You can't see the forest for the trees. What is said is to motivate people. The county commissioners who have been in contact with Loria and Samson know what's going on. They know the lease terms. They know the Marlins' struggle attracting local businesses. They know the Marlins' instability. Loria and Samson didn't get anywhere with them complaining about their inability to contend. The fans, though, react much more strongly to the ability of their club to win than what fees they can charge for stadium advertising.

 

 

What nonsense. The politicians respond to voters, who don't want to subsidize a rich guy's toy. The "inability to contend" argument is all the Marlins have, and despite your denials, everyone can see from the statement above that it is the Marlins and MLB's argument for a stadium. Contending this year would have destroyed it.

 

Fans can support a stadium in a number of ways. One by taking interest in the club (fielding a club that won't compete doesn't help this; fielding one that will does). Two by making their worries over the club known (perhaps helped by losing, but also helped by winning without the means to sustain that standard)

(continued)

The Marlins have never been unable to contend as measured for wins. (You say maybe that's why they've gotten a new stadium. Hah! Are you saying South Florida that content with mediocrity?) Do you know what that means? It means that winning is beyond their ability. They've just had to commit a disproportionate amount of resources to that goal and then hope for some luck. If you believe that the Marlins' struggle to win is why the Marlins' owners and MLB want a stadium, you're giving them FAR too much credit. (Who is the apologist for Loria here, anyway?!? ) They want a stadium because it provides them with the revenues to dedicate fewer resources to that goal, to help them to win consistently, to produce profits for the team's current and to attract future investors (whose price will only appreciate if the team and its assets are of more value), to put them on equal footing with the rest of the teams who they compete with for talent, to secure local business and regional fan support to make their club stable, to attract more prestige and attention to the club (and its owners and the city) and a number of other reasons. Many of which are important to the city that will potentially host the new stadium. But not as motivating to fans as the argument that they will be unable to enjoy their time at the ballpark. The Marlins are launching their drive for a new stadium from a number of angles. They aren't starting and stopping with us common fans.

 

And by the way you still have not adequately explained how losing helps the team get a new stadium in the current market (South Florida)

That doesnt answer my question although I appreciate the dialogue.

 

 

We just dont see eye to eye on the issue of the awful bullpen.

 

 

There are simply to many in game situations in a 162 game schedule that can be easily second guessed by a guy watching TV in his recliner with a beer.

 

Girardi obviously made some poor in game decisions this year. I am not disputing that.

 

But please dont insult my intelligence by telling me that Girardi failed to properly manage a bullpen who by your own admission had "one serviceable pitcher in the pen".

 

 

Girardi is not David Blaine. He can not make filet mignon out of horsesh*t.

I'm still don't get this scenario in which Loria needs to destroy the team to garner favor among politicians, who already know the Marlins' situation, for a stadium deal in the best market available. Or that somehow it is in his best interests to sour the market to move the franchise to a market with less potential. Can someone please explain it to me?

 

Perhaps it can be answered this way: If Loria and Co. can run their business at a profit with a $15 Million payroll in their current stadium...and a $15 Million payroll allows you to field a competitive team that should garner the attention of the local community...then why do the Marlins need public money and a new stadium?

 

Now, you can say that the Marlins need a new stadium anyway, because Huizenga is kicking them out and they have no place else to go. But, the entire "we need a new stadium to field a competitive team" argument is belied by their success with relatively modest payrolls in 2003 and 2006.

Reality check: The 2003 team ran an operating loss. Reality check #2: This team isn't attracting the attention of the local community. Reality check #3: This year may produce a profit, but not a playoff team.

 

Perhaps the argument would then be that the Marlins need a stadium in order to retain its star players, to maintain the consistency that constant firesales and restructuring doesn't allow for, to foster closer ties with local businesses, to play host to All-Star games as well as frequent postseason fixtures. All of which, like so many of a team's owner's goals, benefit both the club and the region.

 

 

(And please don't insult me like that. Who really believes that Huizenga will kick out a cash cow like the Marlins? That threat came at an unique time and was retracted at a time to harm the Marlins' chances of winning support in Talhassee. Since that time no mention of any time frame has been made by Huizenga or any of his associates.)

I think your missing the point. I'm not arguing anything other than the fact that the success of the 2003 and 2006 teams belies Loria's argument that he needs a new stadium to put a competitive product on the field. There are many other arguments for a stadium...many that you've listed, and many that I agree with.

 

However, winning in 2003 and 2006 with modest payrolls belies his PRIMARY argument that you can't put a "competitive product" on the field without a new stadium (I don't care if we ran an operating loss in 2003..our payroll was nowhere near the top of baseball, and we could have easily ran a profit if we didn't take on a handful of player's salaries). Nobody can guarantee a "winning" product, not even Loria, if the definition of "winning" is playoffs. Look at the freakin Red Sox.

 

Next year we will not have a new stadium...our payroll will still be the lowest in baseball...and next year we will probably be picked by many national "experts" to finish above .500 without any significant changes. That sounds like a competitive team to me.

 

I still want (and think we desperately need) a new stadium for consistent winning, but it doesn't mean the politicians see that when, prior to last week, were in the think of the WC race.

The primary argument for the fan's ear! As it reaches their primary interest. And it's a simple and vague argument which relies on a number of variables including what one considers competitive and competitive in what (winning, losing, acquiring players by trade, by free agents, re-signing players). The politicians are hearing a different argument by the way. They're hearing the loss of revenue to rain and the lease and inability to attract support from local businesses. The stadium's poor location and its inability to provide economic growth for the neighborhood. On the topic of winning and losing, Loria and Samson are not telling the county commissioners that winning is not possible, they are telling them that winning is not sustainable under present conditions. And you saw that in recent years as the club had to release or trade away a lot o players whose contracts were climbing, and when they went into debt to keep some and sign some others, and when they restructured to keep expenses low for a couple years. And you'll see it again in 3-5 years if a new stadium is not being built to supply the revenues to re-sign the core of this club.

 

I can rebut your arguments with a few questions, the answers to which are obvious to most on this board:

 

1. How do you know what the politicians are hearing that the fans aren't? And since when are the allegedly lousy lease and the rain some kind of secret?

 

 

2. How is "we need a new stadium because we can't make money with all the rain and our lousy lease" and "if we don't get a new stadium winning is not sustainable" (that you claim they are telling politicians in secret) substantially different from their public statement "we cannot be competitive and may not be able to stay in South Florida if we don't get a stadium?" They are all proven false by the ENORMOUS profits that the Marlins are pocketing this year while doing nothing to make the team playoff competitive by deals before the trade deadlines that would have left them with ENORMOUS profits and a playoff team. There is only one reason not to make those moves (since they are making over $25 million this year based on their own numbers) and that is the reason I set forth above.

 

3. Is there anyone other than you who thinks that (a)restructuring at a $40-60 million small market payroll, and (b) establishing a $15 million payroll, lowest in MLB by $20 million, that they refuse to increase a bit to make a playoff run, are the same thing?

 

 

4. Why on earth would they keep the secret information you say they are telling politicians private? Are they completely incompetent? Do they not want the public, which has some influence in the matter, to know what the best arguments for a subsidy happen to be? Either your statements are without foundation, or the Marlins' strategy make no sense at all.

 

The bottom line is that there is no reasonable explanation for the Marlins actions except that they do not want to win. And the only reasonable explanation for that is that they wanted to prove that the lack of a stadium, and the resulting low payroll, would render them unable to compete effectively on the field. They thought this year's team would lose 90-100 games and prove their point. When the team started winning, they started dissing Girardi and refused to make any deadline deals. Isn't this analogous to what some say happened in Montreal so MLB could justify a sweet buyout deal and find a city that would subsidize a stadium?

 

If you can't figure it out, when it's this obvious, I don't know how to help you.

1 - Because articles are published which report Loria, Samson or some other member of the Marlins met with state, county and city officials are talked about a stadium that addresses a number of issues the Marlins struggle with at their current stadium that aren't directly related to competiting. Issues such as the role location plays. The need for a dome. The gameday revenues from parking. The sales of luxury suites (remember the adjoined Marlins / Cane stadiums disaster?). Put down the sports page and read the articles from Talalay and you'll know issues such as access to stadium advertising and other factors of their existing lease don't allow have been among the Marlins' talking points when addressing local politicians.

 

2 - Huge difference. For one addresses the causes and the other result. One calls for steps to made to correct certain problems, the other one spells out its consequences. It's like saying "the flood waters are rising" vs. "the levees have broke" or "people are being killed" vs. "the drug trade is out of control".

And just how does ONE year's profits in which nearly all acquired talent is not even arbitration eligible prove that such a system is SUSTAINABLE? And is this season with often fewer than 5K in the stands something you really want to repeat?

Again, since when is there a law against recouping your investment? Or perhaps even making a profit?

And, no, there are a countless reasons why people do the things they do. Only one of them is to "make me (CantCatchMe) unhappy". Another might be "because I want to shoot myself in the foot and harm any stadium deal I may potentially be able to pursue". Then there's also "it's not worth giving him up" and "he won't be the difference maker" and "we stand a better chance trying for another year". And a whole bunch of others. Thousands of which make more sense than your theory.

 

3 - Restructuring is when you dismantle and reorganize a business to improve efficiency. You may call this a drastic restructuring, you may call it a firesale, but it is a restructuring. I like to focus on why it occured, therefore I use the word restructuring. If you like to focus on what (or how it) occurred, feel free to call it a firesale.

 

4 - Are you that daft? Quick: What did the military spend on peanut butter for Iraqi-based troops last year? What you don't have that information? Why not? Could it be because it is of no use for the Defense department to tell you? What use would it be to the Marlins to tell you about a whole bunch of things that A. you don't really care about, B. have no need to know, and C. it would be a lost opportunity to address issues that you may care about and help persuade you.

 

- I simply can't believe how steadfast you are in your ignorance of the issues that plague the Marlins and the whole stadium debate. As well as your inability to see a third party perspective. CantCatchMe, I have a number of resources on the business of baseball and the Marlins' lease. If you want, I'll provide you with the information to help educate yourself.

 

- You make a great point. This thing you say Loria is doing, destroying the team, it is a way to sour the market and force MLB to allow a move. But why would Loria want to jeopardize any progress he's made with a new stadium deal or move to a worse market? This isn't Montreal, where they were given up on by a group of the wealthiest set of locals 7 years before eventually moving. There's still hope in South Florida. And wasn't your whole point that Loria was destroying the team to help win a stadium? Which is it? I mean in both cases, Loria comes out looking like the bad guy, which is I'm sure just fine by you, but the plot just got flipped upside down.

1 - Because articles are published which report Loria, Samson or some other member of the Marlins met with state, county and city officials are talked about a stadium that addresses a number of issues the Marlins struggle with at their current stadium that aren't directly related to competiting. Issues such as the role location plays. The need for a dome. The gameday revenues from parking. The sales of luxury suites (remember the adjoined Marlins / Cane stadiums disaster?). Put down the sports page and read the articles from Talalay and you'll know issues such as access to stadium advertising and other factors of their existing lease don't allow have been among the Marlins' talking points when addressing local politicians.

 

Way to change the subject, rferry. My point was that the information that you portrayed as known to the politicians and you, but not to us lowly fans, is actually known by everyone. I can understand your not wanting to deal with the issue, howver, as your comments were ridiculous and you obviously can't defend them.

 

2 - Huge difference. For one addresses the causes and the other result. One calls for steps to made to correct certain problems, the other one spells out its consequences. It's like saying "the flood waters are rising" vs. "the levees have broke" or "people are being killed" vs. "the drug trade is out of control".

And just how does ONE year's profits in which nearly all acquired talent is not even arbitration eligible prove that such a system is SUSTAINABLE? And is this season with often fewer than 5K in the stands something you really want to repeat?

Again, since when is there a law against recouping your investment? Or perhaps even making a profit?

And, no, there are a countless reasons why people do the things they do. Only one of them is to "make me (CantCatchMe) unhappy". Another might be "because I want to shoot myself in the foot and harm any stadium deal I may potentially be able to pursue". Then there's also "it's not worth giving him up" and "he won't be the difference maker" and "we stand a better chance trying for another year". And a whole bunch of others. Thousands of which make more sense than your theory.

 

ROFLMAO. Do you really have this much trouble understanding things, or are you an FO shill just faking it? Frankly, I can't respond to most of your paragraph because it is incoherent. My point was made clearly and, given that you have not addressed it (other than with invective) I take it you have no argument. But for you to assert your fantasies about self-inflicted harm, or about "reasons" for a deal to have been rejected when none were even negotiated, is a real laugh riot. Apparently, facts and logic are not among your strong points.

 

3 - Restructuring is when you dismantle and reorganize a business to improve efficiency. You may call this a drastic restructuring, you may call it a firesale, but it is a restructuring. I like to focus on why it occured, therefore I use the word restructuring. If you like to focus on what (or how it) occurred, feel free to call it a firesale.

 

No it is not a restructuring to have a payroll $20 million less than the Devil Rays and $32 million less than the Royals. It is a deliberate attempt to put a lousy product on the field, stick a lot of money in the owners' pockets, disrespect the game, and disrespect the fans. I never claimed it was illegal, but it is an insult to the fans, and your absurd "restructuring" comments can't change that.

 

4 - Are you that daft? Quick: What did the military spend on peanut butter for Iraqi-based troops last year? What you don't have that information? Why not? Could it be because it is of no use for the Defense department to tell you? What use would it be to the Marlins to tell you about a whole bunch of things that A. you don't really care about, B. have no need to know, and C. it would be a lost opportunity to address issues that you may care about and help persuade you.

 

Daft? No, unlike you I base my arguments on facts and logic. If you want to believe that the Marlins have great arguments to support a subsidy that they are keeping secret, perhaps you could salvage what little respect anyone might have for you by keeping it to yourself. Then for you to make the laughable claim that rain and a lousy lease are "secrets" known only to you and the politicians, but not us lowly fans, shows that your opinions are the only thing here that are "daft."

 

- I simply can't believe how steadfast you are in your ignorance of the issues that plague the Marlins and the whole stadium debate. As well as your inability to see a third party perspective. CantCatchMe, I have a number of resources on the business of baseball and the Marlins' lease. If you want, I'll provide you with the information to help educate yourself.

 

You are the one who needs the education. Face it rferry, your comments about the Marlins "secret" arguments for a subsidy, your excusing the insultingly pitiful payroll as a "restucturing", and your willful ignorance of what happened to baseball in Montreal don't qualify you to educate anyone about anything except how profoundly ignorant you are.

 

- You make a great point. This thing you say Loria is doing, destroying the team, it is a way to sour the market and force MLB to allow a move. But why would Loria want to jeopardize any progress he's made with a new stadium deal or move to a worse market? This isn't Montreal, where they were given up on by a group of the wealthiest set of locals 7 years before eventually moving. There's still hope in South Florida. And wasn't your whole point that Loria was destroying the team to help win a stadium? Which is it? I mean in both cases, Loria comes out looking like the bad guy, which is I'm sure just fine by you, but the plot just got flipped upside down.

 

 

Not very good at reading comprehension, are you? And what is that BS about jeopardizing any "progress" the Marlins have made toward a stadium. Give me a break; they are not going to Hialeah unless there is a HUGE public subsidy, which will never happen. There is no real progress toward a stadium.

 

And the 2 tactics are not in conflict. The threat to leave is part of the pressure for a subsidy; the "reason" a subsidy is needed is that they allegedly can't compete otherwise. You see? Inability to compete justifies the subsidy, and the team's possibly leaving is what they threaten will happen (to the politicians' embarassment) if they don't get what they claim they need.

 

But winning with this absurdly low payroll kills the justification, making it difficult for the politicians (and taxpaying, voting fans) to justify giving into the threat.

 

Read it slowly a few times rferry and you might get it.

 

You can keep publishing your incoherent rants, but if the best explanation you can come up with for a $15 million payroll is to call it a restructuring, and if you don't consider the Marlins' actions insulting to fans and the game of baseball, you have lost all credibility.

1 - Because articles are published which report Loria, Samson or some other member of the Marlins met with state, county and city officials are talked about a stadium that addresses a number of issues the Marlins struggle with at their current stadium that aren't directly related to competiting. Issues such as the role location plays. The need for a dome. The gameday revenues from parking. The sales of luxury suites (remember the adjoined Marlins / Cane stadiums disaster?). Put down the sports page and read the articles from Talalay and you'll know issues such as access to stadium advertising and other factors of their existing lease don't allow have been among the Marlins' talking points when addressing local politicians.

 

Way to change the subject, rferry. My point was that the information that you portrayed as known to the politicians and you, but not to us lowly fans, is actually known by everyone. I can understand your not wanting to deal with the issue, howver, as your comments were ridiculous and you obviously can't defend them.

 

2 - Huge difference. For one addresses the causes and the other result. One calls for steps to made to correct certain problems, the other one spells out its consequences. It's like saying "the flood waters are rising" vs. "the levees have broke" or "people are being killed" vs. "the drug trade is out of control".

And just how does ONE year's profits in which nearly all acquired talent is not even arbitration eligible prove that such a system is SUSTAINABLE? And is this season with often fewer than 5K in the stands something you really want to repeat?

Again, since when is there a law against recouping your investment? Or perhaps even making a profit?

And, no, there are a countless reasons why people do the things they do. Only one of them is to "make me (CantCatchMe) unhappy". Another might be "because I want to shoot myself in the foot and harm any stadium deal I may potentially be able to pursue". Then there's also "it's not worth giving him up" and "he won't be the difference maker" and "we stand a better chance trying for another year". And a whole bunch of others. Thousands of which make more sense than your theory.

 

ROFLMAO. Do you really have this much trouble understanding things, or are you an FO shill just faking it? Frankly, I can't respond to most of your paragraph because it is incoherent. My point was made clearly and, given that you have not addressed it (other than with invective) I take it you have no argument. But for you to assert your fantasies about self-inflicted harm, or about "reasons" for a deal to have been rejected when none were even negotiated, is a real laugh riot. Apparently, facts and logic are not among your strong points.

 

3 - Restructuring is when you dismantle and reorganize a business to improve efficiency. You may call this a drastic restructuring, you may call it a firesale, but it is a restructuring. I like to focus on why it occured, therefore I use the word restructuring. If you like to focus on what (or how it) occurred, feel free to call it a firesale.

 

No it is not a restructuring to have a payroll $20 million less than the Devil Rays and $32 million less than the Royals. It is a deliberate attempt to put a lousy product on the field, stick a lot of money in the owners' pockets, disrespect the game, and disrespect the fans. I never claimed it was illegal, but it is an insult to the fans, and your absurd "restructuring" comments can't change that.

 

4 - Are you that daft? Quick: What did the military spend on peanut butter for Iraqi-based troops last year? What you don't have that information? Why not? Could it be because it is of no use for the Defense department to tell you? What use would it be to the Marlins to tell you about a whole bunch of things that A. you don't really care about, B. have no need to know, and C. it would be a lost opportunity to address issues that you may care about and help persuade you.

 

Daft? No, unlike you I base my arguments on facts and logic. If you want to believe that the Marlins have great arguments to support a subsidy that they are keeping secret, perhaps you could salvage what little respect anyone might have for you by keeping it to yourself. Then for you to make the laughable claim that rain and a lousy lease are "secrets" known only to you and the politicians, but not us lowly fans, shows that your opinions are the only thing here that are "daft."

 

- I simply can't believe how steadfast you are in your ignorance of the issues that plague the Marlins and the whole stadium debate. As well as your inability to see a third party perspective. CantCatchMe, I have a number of resources on the business of baseball and the Marlins' lease. If you want, I'll provide you with the information to help educate yourself.

 

You are the one who needs the education. Face it rferry, your comments about the Marlins "secret" arguments for a subsidy, your excusing the insultingly pitiful payroll as a "restucturing", and your willful ignorance of what happened to baseball in Montreal don't qualify you to educate anyone about anything except how profoundly ignorant you are.

 

- You make a great point. This thing you say Loria is doing, destroying the team, it is a way to sour the market and force MLB to allow a move. But why would Loria want to jeopardize any progress he's made with a new stadium deal or move to a worse market? This isn't Montreal, where they were given up on by a group of the wealthiest set of locals 7 years before eventually moving. There's still hope in South Florida. And wasn't your whole point that Loria was destroying the team to help win a stadium? Which is it? I mean in both cases, Loria comes out looking like the bad guy, which is I'm sure just fine by you, but the plot just got flipped upside down.

 

 

Not very good at reading comprehension, are you? And what is that BS about jeopardizing any "progress" the Marlins have made toward a stadium. Give me a break; they are not going to Hialeah unless there is a HUGE public subsidy, which will never happen. There is no real progress toward a stadium.

 

And the 2 tactics are not in conflict. The threat to leave is part of the pressure for a subsidy; the "reason" a subsidy is needed is that they allegedly can't compete otherwise. You see? Inability to compete justifies the subsidy, and the team's possibly leaving is what they threaten will happen (to the politicians' embarassment) if they don't get what they claim they need.

 

But winning with this absurdly low payroll kills the justification, making it difficult for the politicians (and taxpaying, voting fans) to justify giving into the threat.

 

Read it slowly a few times rferry and you might get it.

 

You can keep publishing your incoherent rants, but if the best explanation you can come up with for a $15 million payroll is to call it a restructuring, and if you don't consider the Marlins' actions insulting to fans and the game of baseball, you have lost all credibility.

 

The only reason I'm being invective is because you have refused to consider ANY one else's perspective on anything. And you charge me with avoiding the issues? Nearly every part of your response is an attack or proclaiming ignorance or changing the facts around. One minute you build an entire argument on that the team's only argument for a new stadium is thier inability to compete. I offer that there are a number of reasons that have been addressed to local politicians which have been leaked to the press. And now you claim that you knew that? Well, doesn't that just burst your entire argument. Your entire argument was based on the premise that there was no other argument. No argument that could stand and support the competitive argument that was intended for fans. So which is it already?!?! Do you know? Or do you not? Is this all a big game to you?

 

But for sake of argument, I challenged you to reason why ONE 81-win season with a collection of pre-arbitration players disproves that such a level of success (or better, say the playoffs) is sustainable. And you come back with it's incoherent? As well, I offered a number of reasons why a person (a living breathing person who has responsibilities both to himself and others) might do something, and you won't even consider them because they don't gel with your own theory.

 

You say potato, I say potato. Fine. Atleast I know why I say potato. And yet again, you have in no way proven your theory in the slightest bit. Just because you repeat something doesn't make it true. Especially when it flies in the face of reason.

 

Frankly we're both looking like fools here. Atleast one of us for continuing to arguing with a brick wall. And who said anything about "great" or "secrets"?!? No one. Once again you're making sh*t up to suit your cause. I never said they were ignorant of the issues (although you certainly claimed to be), only that there are certain talking points used for fans and talking points used for local politicians and talkign points for state politicians and talking points for local business leaders. That not all are being told the same thing doesn't deminish the quality of the argument. For if you've ever studied language, a message is made to compell the audience it is directed to.

 

What? You want to challenge me to a trivia contest or something? Haha. Look... over the years of being an out of town Marlins fan and hopeful for a team to relocate to DC, I've taken a lot of time to seek out information from many sources for any insight on the Marlins or Expos. Every book. Every magazine article. Every article in any paper. I sought and read so I could feel close to the team and so I could know what was happening. And over time my opinion has strengthened or changed, at times my mind has been blown. If I'm ignorant of the Marlins or of the Montreal situation, it's certainly not an effort. Won't you try to take the effort to approach a thought different from your own?

 

Are you saying the stadium deal is hopeless? Last I checked there are people in important positions who want a new stadium under fairly agreeable terms. Last I checked there are thousands of Marlins fans who want the team to stay. To break that support, it would take many more years of destructive policies for that erode to Montreal-like levels.

And you're right back into denying any other reason exists. You're right though, they aren't necessarily in conflict. They can co-exist although it is not nearly as effective.

Oh, I get it. It makes sense, but then I remember these politicians haven't been told the inability to compete is the reason to build a new stadium. I remember that politicians are not elected into office to hear the complaints of the ability of a multi-millionaires' club of hired mercenaries, wearing a vague description of the region on its chest, to outduel the hired mercenaries of other towns in a child's game. I remember that politicians are put in office to best serve the interests of their constituents and lead their towns into its promise. The politicians don't give much of a crap about the Marlins' inability to compete, they care about threats that they may leave (thus forcing them to recognize their economic problems) and the impact a ballpark would have on the local economy.

And you close by ignoring the definition of a word? And summing everything up a moral argument like you're setting the line between good and evil? Please. This shouldn't be about moralizing. This isn't the time or the place. We haven't even discussed what either of us thinks or feels about the steps taken. I thought our argument was over the what, how and why they were taken. Not the morality of their decisions. Morality explains what the world SHOULD be, not what it IS.

1 - Because articles are published which report Loria, Samson or some other member of the Marlins met with state, county and city officials are talked about a stadium that addresses a number of issues the Marlins struggle with at their current stadium that aren't directly related to competiting. Issues such as the role location plays. The need for a dome. The gameday revenues from parking. The sales of luxury suites (remember the adjoined Marlins / Cane stadiums disaster?). Put down the sports page and read the articles from Talalay and you'll know issues such as access to stadium advertising and other factors of their existing lease don't allow have been among the Marlins' talking points when addressing local politicians.

 

Way to change the subject, rferry. My point was that the information that you portrayed as known to the politicians and you, but not to us lowly fans, is actually known by everyone. I can understand your not wanting to deal with the issue, howver, as your comments were ridiculous and you obviously can't defend them.

 

2 - Huge difference. For one addresses the causes and the other result. One calls for steps to made to correct certain problems, the other one spells out its consequences. It's like saying "the flood waters are rising" vs. "the levees have broke" or "people are being killed" vs. "the drug trade is out of control".

And just how does ONE year's profits in which nearly all acquired talent is not even arbitration eligible prove that such a system is SUSTAINABLE? And is this season with often fewer than 5K in the stands something you really want to repeat?

Again, since when is there a law against recouping your investment? Or perhaps even making a profit?

And, no, there are a countless reasons why people do the things they do. Only one of them is to "make me (CantCatchMe) unhappy". Another might be "because I want to shoot myself in the foot and harm any stadium deal I may potentially be able to pursue". Then there's also "it's not worth giving him up" and "he won't be the difference maker" and "we stand a better chance trying for another year". And a whole bunch of others. Thousands of which make more sense than your theory.

 

ROFLMAO. Do you really have this much trouble understanding things, or are you an FO shill just faking it? Frankly, I can't respond to most of your paragraph because it is incoherent. My point was made clearly and, given that you have not addressed it (other than with invective) I take it you have no argument. But for you to assert your fantasies about self-inflicted harm, or about "reasons" for a deal to have been rejected when none were even negotiated, is a real laugh riot. Apparently, facts and logic are not among your strong points.

 

3 - Restructuring is when you dismantle and reorganize a business to improve efficiency. You may call this a drastic restructuring, you may call it a firesale, but it is a restructuring. I like to focus on why it occured, therefore I use the word restructuring. If you like to focus on what (or how it) occurred, feel free to call it a firesale.

 

No it is not a restructuring to have a payroll $20 million less than the Devil Rays and $32 million less than the Royals. It is a deliberate attempt to put a lousy product on the field, stick a lot of money in the owners' pockets, disrespect the game, and disrespect the fans. I never claimed it was illegal, but it is an insult to the fans, and your absurd "restructuring" comments can't change that.

4 - Are you that daft? Quick: What did the military spend on peanut butter for Iraqi-based troops last year? What you don't have that information? Why not? Could it be because it is of no use for the Defense department to tell you? What use would it be to the Marlins to tell you about a whole bunch of things that A. you don't really care about, B. have no need to know, and C. it would be a lost opportunity to address issues that you may care about and help persuade you.

 

Daft? No, unlike you I base my arguments on facts and logic. If you want to believe that the Marlins have great arguments to support a subsidy that they are keeping secret, perhaps you could salvage what little respect anyone might have for you by keeping it to yourself. Then for you to make the laughable claim that rain and a lousy lease are "secrets" known only to you and the politicians, but not us lowly fans, shows that your opinions are the only thing here that are "daft."

 

- I simply can't believe how steadfast you are in your ignorance of the issues that plague the Marlins and the whole stadium debate. As well as your inability to see a third party perspective. CantCatchMe, I have a number of resources on the business of baseball and the Marlins' lease. If you want, I'll provide you with the information to help educate yourself.

 

You are the one who needs the education. Face it rferry, your comments about the Marlins "secret" arguments for a subsidy, your excusing the insultingly pitiful payroll as a "restucturing", and your willful ignorance of what happened to baseball in Montreal don't qualify you to educate anyone about anything except how profoundly ignorant you are.

 

- You make a great point. This thing you say Loria is doing, destroying the team, it is a way to sour the market and force MLB to allow a move. But why would Loria want to jeopardize any progress he's made with a new stadium deal or move to a worse market? This isn't Montreal, where they were given up on by a group of the wealthiest set of locals 7 years before eventually moving. There's still hope in South Florida. And wasn't your whole point that Loria was destroying the team to help win a stadium? Which is it? I mean in both cases, Loria comes out looking like the bad guy, which is I'm sure just fine by you, but the plot just got flipped upside down.

 

 

Not very good at reading comprehension, are you? And what is that BS about jeopardizing any "progress" the Marlins have made toward a stadium. Give me a break; they are not going to Hialeah unless there is a HUGE public subsidy, which will never happen. There is no real progress toward a stadium.

 

And the 2 tactics are not in conflict. The threat to leave is part of the pressure for a subsidy; the "reason" a subsidy is needed is that they allegedly can't compete otherwise. You see? Inability to compete justifies the subsidy, and the team's possibly leaving is what they threaten will happen (to the politicians' embarassment) if they don't get what they claim they need.

 

But winning with this absurdly low payroll kills the justification, making it difficult for the politicians (and taxpaying, voting fans) to justify giving into the threat.

 

Read it slowly a few times rferry and you might get it.

 

You can keep publishing your incoherent rants, but if the best explanation you can come up with for a $15 million payroll is to call it a restructuring, and if you don't consider the Marlins' actions insulting to fans and the game of baseball, you have lost all credibility.

 

The only reason I'm being invective is because you have refused to consider ANY one else's perspective on anything. And you charge me with avoiding the issues? Nearly every part of your response is an attack or proclaiming ignorance or changing the facts around. One minute you build an entire argument on that the team's only argument for a new stadium is thier inability to compete. I offer that there are a number of reasons that have been addressed to local politicians which have been leaked to the press. And now you claim that you knew that? Well, doesn't that just burst your entire argument. Your entire argument was based on the premise that there was no other argument. No argument that could stand and support the competitive argument that was intended for fans. So which is it already?!?! Do you know? Or do you not? Is this all a big game to you?

 

But for sake of argument, I challenged you to reason why ONE 81-win season with a collection of pre-arbitration players disproves that such a level of success (or better, say the playoffs) is sustainable. And you come back with it's incoherent? As well, I offered a number of reasons why a person (a living breathing person who has responsibilities both to himself and others) might do something, and you won't even consider them because they don't gel with your own theory.

 

You say potato, I say potato. Fine. Atleast I know why I say potato. And yet again, you have in no way proven your theory in the slightest bit. Just because you repeat something doesn't make it true. Especially when it flies in the face of reason.

 

Frankly we're both looking like fools here. Atleast one of us for continuing to arguing with a brick wall. And who said anything about "great" or "secrets"?!? No one. Once again you're making sh*t up to suit your cause. I never said they were ignorant of the issues (although you certainly claimed to be), only that there are certain talking points used for fans and talking points used for local politicians and talkign points for state politicians and talking points for local business leaders. That not all are being told the same thing doesn't deminish the quality of the argument. For if you've ever studied language, a message is made to compell the audience it is directed to.

 

What? You want to challenge me to a trivia contest or something? Haha. Look... over the years of being an out of town Marlins fan and hopeful for a team to relocate to DC, I've taken a lot of time to seek out information from many sources for any insight on the Marlins or Expos. Every book. Every magazine article. Every article in any paper. I sought and read so I could feel close to the team and so I could know what was happening. And over time my opinion has strengthened or changed, at times my mind has been blown. If I'm ignorant of the Marlins or of the Montreal situation, it's certainly not an effort. Won't you try to take the effort to approach a thought different from your own?

 

Are you saying the stadium deal is hopeless? Last I checked there are people in important positions who want a new stadium under fairly agreeable terms. Last I checked there are thousands of Marlins fans who want the team to stay. To break that support, it would take many more years of destructive policies for that erode to Montreal-like levels.

And you're right back into denying any other reason exists. You're right though, they aren't necessarily in conflict. They can co-exist although it is not nearly as effective.

Oh, I get it. It makes sense, but then I remember these politicians haven't been told the inability to compete is the reason to build a new stadium. I remember that politicians are not elected into office to hear the complaints of the ability of a multi-millionaires' club of hired mercenaries, wearing a vague description of the region on its chest, to outduel the hired mercenaries of other towns in a child's game. I remember that politicians are put in office to best serve the interests of their constituents and lead their towns into its promise. The politicians don't give much of a crap about the Marlins' inability to compete, they care about threats that they may leave (thus forcing them to recognize their economic problems) and the impact a ballpark would have on the local economy.

And you close by ignoring the definition of a word? And summing everything up a moral argument like you're setting the line between good and evil? Please. This shouldn't be about moralizing. This isn't the time or the place. We haven't even discussed what either of us thinks or feels about the steps taken. I thought our argument was over the what, how and why they were taken. Not the morality of their decisions. Morality explains what the world SHOULD be, not what it IS.

 

RFerry, you are full of it. None of what youhave said is logicl or supported by the facts. You just keep attacking me and telling lies. To wit:

 

R Ferry says: "You're right back into denying any other reason exists" The truth: I never said any such thing, you just have poor reading comprehension. What I said was that your claim that the other "reasons," like the rain and the lousy lease, were secret was silly. And I said that those aren't "reasons" for subsidizing anything, just further examples of why the Marlins allegedly won't have enough money to compete unless they get a taxpayer subsidized stadium.

 

 

RFerry says: "Are you saying the stadium deal is hopeless? Last I checked there are people in important positions who want a new stadium under fairly agreeable terms."

The truth: Again, I said no such thing. I said there has been no real progress, that Hialeah is not a real option without a massive subsidy from the taxpayers, and that no stadium at all will be built without a big taxpayer subsidy. If you think such a subsidy is in the works, then things aren't hopeless, are they?

 

RFerry says:" I remember these politicians haven't been told the inability to compete is the reason to build a new stadium."

The truth: As the press statement from MLB and the Marlins that I quoted above proves, the "we can't compete without it is the ONLY rationale they have ever advanced. Again it's a reading comprehension problem or lack of vocabulary on your part. Rain and a lousy lease aren't relevant to WHO PAYS for the new stadium. Inability to compete if the stadium isn't funded in part by taxpayers is THE ONLY ARGUMENT.

 

 

RFerry says:The politicians don't give much of a crap about the Marlins' inability to compete"

The truth: Of course they care, not in the sense that they want the Marlins to have a winning record, although some do, but in the sense that the MArlins made oit clear that without a new taxpayer funded stadium they would have to leave becuse they cannot otherwise be competitive here. You didn't read it slowly enough, RFerry, so let's try again:

 

The Marlins say they need a new, partially taxpayer funded stadium to be able to afford to field a competitive team;

The Marlins say that if they don't get it, they must consider leaving (I think it was something like "the future of baseball in South Florida can no longer be assured")

But winning with this absurdly low payroll kills the justification, making it difficult for the politicians (and taxpaying, voting fans) to justify giving into the threat.

 

Now, to make it more clear, the Marlins could double their payroll, and still be the lowest payroll team in MLB, while providing the team everything needed to win. But they didn't. They didn't even explore a deal, because THEY ARE NOT TRYING TO WIN!

 

Your posts contain much more complete BS, illogical raving, and further proof of your failure to comprehend that I have not bothered to point out, but I am done with this for now.

 

If you want to believe that you know what the politicians are being told that we fans are not, if you want to believe that rain and a lousy lease are "reasons" for a taxpayer subsidy to the Marlins (as opposed to reasons to get out of there current venue at their own expense), if you want to believe that the Marlins pocketing many millions of dollars, and fielding a team of rookies and journeymen for $20 million less than even the lowly Devil Rays pay, while the fans and the game suffer the insult, is a "restructuring," and if you want to believe a stadium will be built in Hialeah, go for it. Some people believe they have been abducted by aliens. I don't care. I don't believe them, but I don't care.

 

But stick to the facts and stop misrepresenting what I said! I have highlighted it in red above to try to keep you straight. I can deal with the fact that you are not too swift, but your lying about what I said is really starting to tick me off.

R Ferry says: "You're right back into denying any other reason exists"

You say: The truth: I never said any such thing, you just have poor reading comprehension. What I said was that your claim that the other "reasons," like the rain and the lousy lease, were secret was silly. And I said that those aren't "reasons" for subsidizing anything, just further examples of why the Marlins allegedly won't have enough money to compete unless they get a taxpayer subsidized stadium.

I say: You may not, but you contend that no other reason has been given which is false.

Again with the "secret". Since when are directed messages secrets?

And who said anything about the credibility of the Marlins' claims? It's _possible_ that their reasons for wanting a new stadium are misguided and their arguments have been unconvincing.

 

R Ferry says: "Are you saying the stadium deal is hopeless? Last I checked there are people in important positions who want a new stadium under fairly agreeable terms."

You say: The truth: Again, I said no such thing. I said there has been no real progress, that Hialeah is not a real option without a massive subsidy from the taxpayers, and that no stadium at all will be built without a big taxpayer subsidy. If you think such a subsidy is in the works, then things aren't hopeless, are they?

I say: No real progress does not mean there's no progress or hope. Last I checked there's still some support. And the Marlins wouldn't so foolish to allow that support to erode. And if the timeline is as short as you suggest, they wouldn't be taking piecemeal efforts to accomplish simultaneously to build support and destroy the market.

 

R Ferry says: "I remember these politicians haven't been told the inability to compete is the reason to build a new stadium."

You say: The truth: As the press statement from MLB and the Marlins that I quoted above proves, the "we can't compete without it is the ONLY rationale they have ever advanced. Again it's a reading comprehension problem or lack of vocabulary on your part. Rain and a lousy lease aren't relevant to WHO PAYS for the new stadium. Inability to compete if the stadium isn't funded in part by taxpayers is THE ONLY ARGUMENT.

I say: THE reason? Hardly. THE argument? Hardly. The ONLY argument? Hardly.

Your last statement shows your ignorance of the matters at hand. It is not that Loria needs our help. The costs to build a stadium is not what will prevent the Marlins from fielding a competitive squad. (Nevermind that the costs drop dramatically when a municipality issues the bonds.) MLB has set a doctrine that calls for municipalities to assume the costs of hosting a major league franchise. Dolphin Stadium doesn't provide enough revenue (for a number of different reasons and some of which will have to be addressed in the formation of a new stadium), therefore it is an inadequate site and South Florida is the responsible party to correct that. That's in MLB's eyes, and they and Loria in charge of making the decision. Not us. Not morality either.

 

R Ferry says: The politicians don't give much of a crap about the Marlins' inability to compete"

You say: The truth: Of course they care, not in the sense that they want the Marlins to have a winning record, although some do, but in the sense that the MArlins made oit clear that without a new taxpayer funded stadium they would have to leave becuse they cannot otherwise be competitive here. You say:

I say: Sure they care, but not all that much. Why in the context of their job, do they care? Because it brings their district notoriety. It brings them votes if they align themselves with a winner. It causes people to travel to, stay, shop and eat in their district. However that increase is scant to the impact of having a team or no team at all. Or between a stadium located in an area they wish to draw interest and one which has no economic impact. That's what these politicians care about. And that's what the Marlins are discussing with them about. Not the number of ESPN games the team will have because they're competitive or the revenue the team will generate or what players will be attracted here, but what the stadium will do to help them.

 

 

 

Who is making up what? You made a point of ignoring certain arguments because they weren't directed to you. You made a point of ignoring certain reasons because they were presented to you. You change my words to suit your absolutist views. You object the definitions of words because they don't share the connotation you'd like them to. You cloak your position in moral undertones to demonize your opponents.

Along with your unwillngness to consider anyone else's perspective but your own, I'm sensing a pattern.

 

We need to differiate reasons from arguments, (i.e., "Flood waters rising" vs. "the levees have broke") (and causations from coorelation, but that later.)

The lack of revenues from the threat of rain or poor location or the lease or whatever is one reason why the ability to commit resources to decrease. Normally when resources deplete, the production you receive will also. Therefore one argument is that a new stadium will help the team win more games more often with names worth remembering. to be completed

 

Trust me I've read it. I've read it a dozen times before questioning it. And I've read it two dozen within this debate. However until you can support your claims with credible evidence and sound reason, I think we're at a standstill. Your theory relies on a number of unclear assumptions, ignorance of some of the facts as well as a fair share of myth-making. It really needs to be developed further. Perhaps by examining the variables and the incentives for your test subjects, you might find your hypothesis might change. Often they do when someone takes a thought and starts exploring it through sound scientific priniciples and third party opinion.

JUST BECAUSE YOU REPEAT SOMETHING AND PUT IT BOLD PRINT DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE!

RFerry,

 

I am going to try ONE MORE TIME.

 

RFERRY says: "Again with the "secret". Since when are directed messages secrets?

And who said anything about the credibility of the Marlins' claims? It's _possible_ that their reasons for wanting a new stadium are misguided and their arguments have been unconvincing."

 

The truth: You said it. Here's the quote: "The primary argument for the fan's ear! As it reaches their primary interest. And it's a simple and vague argument which relies on a number of variables including what one considers competitive and competitive in what (winning, losing, acquiring players by trade, by free agents, re-signing players). The politicians are hearing a different argument by the way. They're hearing the loss of revenue to rain and the lease and inability to attract support from local businesses."

 

Aside from the patent absurdity of claiming the Marlins are not telling the fans a good argument (if it were one), and your confusing a reason a new stadium is desirable with the issue of who pays for it, your ridiculoous statement was a transparent attempt to make it look like you were "in the know" about things like "rain" and "lousy lease" that were part of a strategy directed at politicians, while the "we can't be competitive" strategy was directed at us dumb fans. Something that they tell only to a selected small group is, by definition, a "secret," RFerry.

 

I don't blame you for running away from you statements, as they're among the craziestI have ever seen on a message board, and that says a lot. But they are there for all to see, RFerry. Read 'em and weep.

 

RFerry says: "No real progress does not mean there's no progress or hope. Last I checked there's still some support. And the Marlins wouldn't so foolish to allow that support to erode. And if the timeline is as short as you suggest, they wouldn't be taking piecemeal efforts to accomplish simultaneously to build support and destroy the market."

 

The truth: Who said there's no hope? You just keep making things up. In fact, I said THE OPPOSITE. Here's the quote: "I said no such thing. I said there has been no real progress, that Hialeah is not a real option without a massive subsidy from the taxpayers, and that no stadium at all will be built without a big taxpayer subsidy. If you think such a subsidy is in the works, then things aren't hopeless, are they?."

 

Another failure of reading comprehension on your part, RFerry?

 

And the part about a short timeline? Another RFerry lie. I said no such thing. And you are still so confused you don't understand the basic point. They aren't trying to destroy the market. I never said that, that's more RFerry BS. I said they DON"T WANT TO WIN because that undermines their strategy to obtain a taxpayer subsidy. By losing, they "prove" that without the subsidy they cannot compete, thereby raising the specter (which they announced in their press statment) of their leaving. You don't have to agree, but sheesh, you can't even understand the argument.

 

RFerry says: "Who is making up what? You made a point of ignoring certain arguments because they weren't directed to you. You made a point of ignoring certain reasons because they were presented to you. You change my words to suit your absolutist views. You object the definitions of words because they don't share the connotation you'd like them to. You cloak your position in moral undertones to demonize your opponents."

 

The truth: You are making things up. I have proved it with quotes, above.

I haven't ignored anything, but I have patiently tried to explain a simple concept. I based it on incontrovertible facts (like the Marlins and MLB press statement last offseason) and other information that you cannot dispute. I accompanied that with a logical argument. You responded with insults. That's the only pattern. RFerry isn't equipped to engage in argument, so he comes up with laughably silly things like the "rain" and "lousy lease" stuff and pretends he knows what the Marlins are telling the polticos. What a farce!

 

RFerry says::The costs to build a stadium is not what will prevent the Marlins from fielding a competitive squad. (Nevermind that the costs drop dramatically when a municipality issues the bonds.)

 

What? Have you totally lost it? If the Marlins pay more of the costs of buiding a stadium, they will have a larger expense related to the stadium every year, therefore they will have less money for payroll and other expenses. Therefore they will be less able to field a competitive team. Read it s-l-o-w-l-y RFerry, it's Econ 101.

 

But you'd have us believe it makes no difference, even though you say the need for a subsidized statement is the argument "for the fan's ear?" That makes no sense. But if you're right, there will be no subsidy, since none is needed.

 

RFerry says:: "Your theory relies on a number of unclear assumptions"

 

The truth: How would you know? You clearly don't understand English well. So, I challenge you to point out ONE unclear assumption. I am betting you can't. If you lose you agree never to post again. Same bet with your other insulting BS, like: "Your theory relies on, ignorance of some of the facts as well as a fair share of myth-making" Point out ONE fact of which I'm ignorant. And one "myth,". Or support your outrageous lie that I " cloak {the} position in moral undertones to demonize your opponents" Otherwise, STFU.

 

RFerry says:: JUST BECAUSE YOU REPEAT SOMETHING AND PUT IT BOLD PRINT DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE

 

The truth: : NO, but again, nobody said it did. Your copying my format, however, would indicate a little lack of creativity on your part.

The truth: : NO, but again, nobody said it did. Your copying my format, however, would indicate a little lack of creativity on your part.

 

And that's what this all boils down to. A spited fan concocting fanciful theories that only make sense in his head.