Thus, the rebate the Marlins get actually gets regenerated in the form of spending by other people (the employees). At first, the state collects less than it would have collected without the rebate. However, the dollar gets compounded. Because, now, the employees spend 2 million, and those people who get their money spend 1.95 million, and so on and so forth. There is a way to figure out exactly how much this produces, but its too complicated to discuss here (it depends on the spending rate). In the end, the state collects the same amount it would have collected even without the rebate (or maybe even more).

It's not too difficult. If we assume a mere 5% spending rate, that taxable $2M becomes $2.1M.

 

 

Pierre, better a circle than an unreasoned line. A circle brings you back. A line that heads in the wrong direction directs you further and further away from reality.

 

Its difficult to calculate because we don't know the spending rate. At least I don't. However, I would imagine the spending rate is probably more like 70-80%. So the taxable $2M becomes $6.67M-$10M.

 

I don't know the spending rate... you may have more knowledge about this than I do.

One side of the fence is right and the other side is unknowledgeable and therefore disagrees with the people that are right.

That economist (Zimbalist?) that's always quoted in articles on baseball economics says that the money spent in a ballpark would be spent elsewhere if there was no ballpark so he would disagree with you.

One side of the fence is right and the other side is unknowledgeable and therefore disagrees with the people that are right.

That economist (Zimbalist?) that's always quoted in articles on baseball economics says that the money spent in a ballpark would be spent elsewhere if there was no ballpark so he would disagree with you.

 

The question isn't whether the money would be spent elsewhere. It will. The question is whether the jobs the Marlins provide will continue to exist if the Marlins move. Probably not.

It's actually about the effect of compounding money within a community and the impact of it.

Here is an excerpt from a Zimbalist interview that is relevant to this discussion. I buy into what he says but I guess some of you don't.

 

=========================

http://www.businessofbaseball.com/zimbalist_interview.htm

 

BizBall: A common claim among economists is that spending on sports simply shifts spending from other entertainment options (movies, etc.). This theory assumes that most individuals have a finite amount of discretionary income to spend on entertainment. Some might argue that a high percentage of Americans have enough discretionary income to choose to attend most of the entertainment events that they would like to attend. If season ticket holders of an MLB team suddenly lost their franchise, would it follow that each season ticket holder would add 81 nights of other entertainment activities annually to their life?

 

Zimbalist: [laughter] Well, first of all, I don't think that season ticket holders go to all 81 games. Most of them don't, anyway; I think they end up sharing their ticket, or giving away their ticket to some other people, at least for some of the games. But no, I don't think it follows that way, and look, I don't think the proper argument is that there is a 1-to-1 trade off here. The argument is simply that for most people who go to ballgames they have a finite amount of discretionary income and there is a substitution effect working, but again, it's not a 1-to-1 effect, maybe it effects 80% or 90% of the money that would otherwise get spent at the ballpark. And it certainly is not the only basis for the argument that there is no positive economic impulse or developmental impulse from having a new stadium or a new team in your town. One of the reasons is the substitution effect, but another very important reason is the leakage effect. Which is to say that if money gets spent at a ballpark, something like 60% of it on average goes to players, who have an average income of $2.4 million, and when money goes to those players, and most players don't live in the town where their team is anyway, then the money leaks out, because a millionaire has a very high savings rate, much higher savings rate than somebody with ordinary income, thirty or forty thousand dollars, and that money they save goes into the world money markets, it doesn't get spent at the local cities, and even more that's true because the player doesn't live in the city, so his permanent home is elsewhere, or if he has family elsewhere, a lot of the money gets sent back to the family.

 

And, also players are encouraged, and most of them follow the encouragement or the advice, they're encouraged to save a lot because their life in baseball and their lifetime earning the mega-salaries is a very short one.

 

It's not like what happens to me, an economics professor. I got into the business of being an economics professor when I was 25 years old and I could do that for decades, but for professional baseball players if you're lucky you play 5 to 10 years and you don't earn the mega-salaries your whole life. So, they're encouraged to save a lot of money, and again the pattern is for the money to go into the world money markets and not to be spent in the local cities. So, there are leakages. And, of course, a lot of money goes to the owners and the owners have a similar pattern to the players, and those leakages are much higher than if the entertainment dollar gets spent at the bowling alley or restaurants, where the money ultimately goes to entrepreneurs who have a much more normal income, and who live in the local towns. So, very high leakages are another factor here. And, another factor still is that ballparks these days get financed with hundreds of millions of dollars of local tax money and if taxes go up then it means that that money is not being spent by consumers in other areas of the local economy. Either that or the city might rig -- I guess I'm not sure about this --either the services, and either higher taxes or lower services doesn't help the local economy. So, if you put all of those effects together, the empirical research suggests that the expectation should not be that you get an increase in employment or an increase in per capita income.

I'll be the first concede just that, but a few things:

1. Marlins2003 wasn't talking about that

2. even Neal DeMause would agree that there's some value in shifting spending from one zip code to the next, especially from the county border to downtown

How about toying w/ the idea that the FO has already decided that they will not be able to afford Miggy after he becomes a FA. We all know that they will offer long term contracts to no one until the stadium deal is done. Even IF that deal gets done, they know that Miggy is not happy here and will very likely move on after the Marlins. So why not low ball him all these years and then trade him for some solid players that are more affordable come that time?

 

Honestly, he is a great player. But the fact of the matter is that he is not happy here. Let him go. Imagine what we can get for him come that time? The possibilities are endless. Can he be replaced? Of course not. But he is an excellent bargaining chip to get pretty much whatever we want when that time comes.

How about toying w/ the idea that the FO has already decided that they will not be able to afford Miggy after he becomes a FA. We all know that they will offer long term contracts to no one until the stadium deal is done. Even IF that deal gets done, they know that Miggy is not happy here and will very likely move on after the Marlins. So why not low ball him all these years and then trade him for some solid players that are more affordable come that time?

 

Honestly, he is a great player. But the fact of the matter is that he is not happy here. Let him go. Imagine what we can get for him come that time? The possibilities are endless. Can he be replaced? Of course not. But he is an excellent bargaining chip to get pretty much whatever we want when that time comes.

What evidence do you have to back up your statement that he's unhappy here? Your entire argument is based on reasonless conjecture. You'd do better to present well thought out ideas backed up with supporting arguments.

His theory need not rely on the premise that Cabrera is unhappy here. Simply that Cabrera would be unwilling to re-sign. That could be for any of reasonable assumptions that typically cause contract negotiations to fall apart.

Even in the more optimistic scenario, the probability Cabrera re-signs is probably closer to 0 than 100%. And given that at present, the Marlins are far away from the most optimistic scenario, it might make sense to take Cabrera to arbitration while leaving open certain contingency plans if Cabrera proves difficult to re-sign.

His theory need not rely on the premise that Cabrera is unhappy here. Simply that Cabrera would be unwilling to re-sign. That could be for any of reasonable assumptions that typically cause contract negotiations to fall apart.

Even in the more optimistic scenario, the probability Cabrera re-signs is probably closer to 0 than 100%. And given that at present, the Marlins are far away from the most optimistic scenario, it might make sense to take Cabrera to arbitration while leaving open certain contingency plans if Cabrera proves difficult to re-sign.

 

The Marlins will never know if they never try and it would be a crime to let a player of Cabrera's caliber walk without making an attempt to sign him to a long term contract. And the longer the Marlins wait, the more likely that contract would be too costly for the Marlins.

How about toying w/ the idea that the FO has already decided that they will not be able to afford Miggy after he becomes a FA. We all know that they will offer long term contracts to no one until the stadium deal is done. Even IF that deal gets done, they know that Miggy is not happy here and will very likely move on after the Marlins. So why not low ball him all these years and then trade him for some solid players that are more affordable come that time?

 

Honestly, he is a great player. But the fact of the matter is that he is not happy here. Let him go. Imagine what we can get for him come that time? The possibilities are endless. Can he be replaced? Of course not. But he is an excellent bargaining chip to get pretty much whatever we want when that time comes.

What evidence do you have to back up your statement that he's unhappy here? Your entire argument is based on reasonless conjecture. You'd do better to present well thought out ideas backed up with supporting arguments.

 

 

I'd have to disagree w/ your "reasonless conjecture" accusation. My reason for concluding that Cabrera is not happy is based on his actions a couple of years ago w/ the marlins. I remember him having issues w/ the club. He was having some tantrums in the clubhouse during the end of the year. It was all over the news and discussed extensively on the Marlins message board. Additionally, he failed to show up to this year's fan fest. This does not make the case for a happy player. Is it concrete evidence? Probably not. But it is enough to draw conclusions.

 

As for your "you better present well thought out ideas".... I don't think so. You have very little power over what individuals think or say in this country. The Taliban tries to force people to think certain ways. We don't do that here in the US.

 

So...... I wouldn't go so far as calling it reasonless. I think there is reason.

 

Oh.. BTW, if you read the beginning of my post, I prefaced it w/ "How about toying w/ the idea..." No need to have an aneurism over my post. If you don't like it, don't toy w/ the idea. Very simple. Sorry I offended you. I didn't think I had to go into so much detail to help some individuals actually think for themselves rather than having things explained to them if not providing a link. I don't have the time to search such things. I'm just here to talk baseball.

Is it just me or does it appear that we're under a troll attack from Mets fans? This is the second thread with provacative and incendiary thoughts regarding Cabrera. Have a nice day in cold New Yawk you guys.

His theory need not rely on the premise that Cabrera is unhappy here. Simply that Cabrera would be unwilling to re-sign. That could be for any of reasonable assumptions that typically cause contract negotiations to fall apart.

Even in the more optimistic scenario, the probability Cabrera re-signs is probably closer to 0 than 100%. And given that at present, the Marlins are far away from the most optimistic scenario, it might make sense to take Cabrera to arbitration while leaving open certain contingency plans if Cabrera proves difficult to re-sign.

The Marlins will never know if they never try and it would be a crime to let a player of Cabrera's caliber walk without making an attempt to sign him to a long term contract. And the longer the Marlins wait, the more likely that contract would be too costly for the Marlins.

If you accept it will be difficult for the Marlins in any case, there's little harm in continually negotiating one year contracts with Cabrera. Nor is much harm by low balling him if you consider that either the probability of his re-signing low or it to have minimal effect on future negotiations.

 

And when I talk about difficulty in re-signing Cabrera, I'm not just talking about salary. A no trade clause will likely be a key disagreement between Cabrera and the club. A no trade clause, or what would have to be given up for Cabrera to waive its inclusion, would severely harm the Marlins' contingency plans, which unfortunately must be considered until a profitable stadium opens.

His theory need not rely on the premise that Cabrera is unhappy here. Simply that Cabrera would be unwilling to re-sign. That could be for any of reasonable assumptions that typically cause contract negotiations to fall apart.

Even in the more optimistic scenario, the probability Cabrera re-signs is probably closer to 0 than 100%. And given that at present, the Marlins are far away from the most optimistic scenario, it might make sense to take Cabrera to arbitration while leaving open certain contingency plans if Cabrera proves difficult to re-sign.

The Marlins will never know if they never try and it would be a crime to let a player of Cabrera's caliber walk without making an attempt to sign him to a long term contract. And the longer the Marlins wait, the more likely that contract would be too costly for the Marlins.

If you accept it will be difficult for the Marlins in any case, there's little harm in continually negotiating one year contracts with Cabrera. Nor is much harm by low balling him if you consider that either the probability of his re-signing low or it to have minimal effect on future negotiations.

 

If you have that mindset when considering whether or not to sign a player to a long term contract, it becomes a kind of self-fullfilling prophecy. Continually low-balling players. Going year-to-year. As that continues, and Cabrera continues to excel, his pricetag rises as a matter of course and you run the risk of souring him on even considering the prospect of a long term contract with the organization.

 

And when I talk about difficulty in re-signing Cabrera, I'm not just talking about salary. A no trade clause will likely be a key disagreement between Cabrera and the club. A no trade clause, or what would have to be given up for Cabrera to waive its inclusion, would severely harm the Marlins' contingency plans, which unfortunately must be considered until a profitable stadium opens.

 

By sitting on their hands, the Marlins also run the risk of not turning as much of a profit as they could've packing the seats with fans coming to see Miguel knock one out of the park, not to mention building a perennial contender and the other players they may have to jettison by refusing to budge on their policy of yearly contracts.

I'd have to disagree w/ your "reasonless conjecture" accusation. My reason for concluding that Cabrera is not happy is based on his actions a couple of years ago w/ the marlins. I remember him having issues w/ the club. He was having some tantrums in the clubhouse during the end of the year. It was all over the news and discussed extensively on the Marlins message board. Additionally, he failed to show up to this year's fan fest. This does not make the case for a happy player. Is it concrete evidence? Probably not. But it is enough to draw conclusions.

he had issues with a few of the veterans on the team, and like you said... a few years ago... Cabs is pretty happy in South Fla.

How about toying w/ the idea that the FO has already decided that they will not be able to afford Miggy after he becomes a FA. We all know that they will offer long term contracts to no one until the stadium deal is done. Even IF that deal gets done, they know that Miggy is not happy here and will very likely move on after the Marlins. So why not low ball him all these years and then trade him for some solid players that are more affordable come that time?

 

Honestly, he is a great player. But the fact of the matter is that he is not happy here. Let him go. Imagine what we can get for him come that time? The possibilities are endless. Can he be replaced? Of course not. But he is an excellent bargaining chip to get pretty much whatever we want when that time comes.

What evidence do you have to back up your statement that he's unhappy here? Your entire argument is based on reasonless conjecture. You'd do better to present well thought out ideas backed up with supporting arguments.

 

 

I'd have to disagree w/ your "reasonless conjecture" accusation. My reason for concluding that Cabrera is not happy is based on his actions a couple of years ago w/ the marlins. I remember him having issues w/ the club. He was having some tantrums in the clubhouse during the end of the year. It was all over the news and discussed extensively on the Marlins message board. Additionally, he failed to show up to this year's fan fest. This does not make the case for a happy player. Is it concrete evidence? Probably not. But it is enough to draw conclusions.

 

As for your "you better present well thought out ideas".... I don't think so. You have very little power over what individuals think or say in this country. The Taliban tries to force people to think certain ways. We don't do that here in the US.

 

So...... I wouldn't go so far as calling it reasonless. I think there is reason.

 

Oh.. BTW, if you read the beginning of my post, I prefaced it w/ "How about toying w/ the idea..." No need to have an aneurism over my post. If you don't like it, don't toy w/ the idea. Very simple. Sorry I offended you. I didn't think I had to go into so much detail to help some individuals actually think for themselves rather than having things explained to them if not providing a link. I don't have the time to search such things. I'm just here to talk baseball.

In your post, your statement was reasonless. However, you clearly had reasons for making your statement. Flesh them out in the original post, so other posters don't have to ask you for them.

 

I'm quite capable of thinking for myself, thank you. I am incapable of thinking for you, though, which is what you asked me to do by not explaining your opinion.

Tending to personal matters and the health of his father in Venezuela were the reasons why Miguel Cabrera was a no-show at the Marlins' 2007 BankUnited FanFest last Saturday at Dolphin Stadium.

"I'm not mad with the administration, although I'm a little worried that Miami fans could now have a distorted image of myself. Moreover, to compensate for my absence, I promise to assist in every activity the Marlins may organize in the following days."

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20...rtnered=rss_fla

How about toying w/ the idea that the FO has already decided that they will not be able to afford Miggy after he becomes a FA. We all know that they will offer long term contracts to no one until the stadium deal is done. Even IF that deal gets done, they know that Miggy is not happy here and will very likely move on after the Marlins. So why not low ball him all these years and then trade him for some solid players that are more affordable come that time?

 

Honestly, he is a great player. But the fact of the matter is that he is not happy here. Let him go. Imagine what we can get for him come that time? The possibilities are endless. Can he be replaced? Of course not. But he is an excellent bargaining chip to get pretty much whatever we want when that time comes.

What evidence do you have to back up your statement that he's unhappy here? Your entire argument is based on reasonless conjecture. You'd do better to present well thought out ideas backed up with supporting arguments.

 

 

I'd have to disagree w/ your "reasonless conjecture" accusation. My reason for concluding that Cabrera is not happy is based on his actions a couple of years ago w/ the marlins. I remember him having issues w/ the club. He was having some tantrums in the clubhouse during the end of the year. It was all over the news and discussed extensively on the Marlins message board. Additionally, he failed to show up to this year's fan fest. This does not make the case for a happy player. Is it concrete evidence? Probably not. But it is enough to draw conclusions.

 

As for your "you better present well thought out ideas".... I don't think so. You have very little power over what individuals think or say in this country. The Taliban tries to force people to think certain ways. We don't do that here in the US.

 

So...... I wouldn't go so far as calling it reasonless. I think there is reason.

 

Oh.. BTW, if you read the beginning of my post, I prefaced it w/ "How about toying w/ the idea..." No need to have an aneurism over my post. If you don't like it, don't toy w/ the idea. Very simple. Sorry I offended you. I didn't think I had to go into so much detail to help some individuals actually think for themselves rather than having things explained to them if not providing a link. I don't have the time to search such things. I'm just here to talk baseball.

In your post, your statement was reasonless. However, you clearly had reasons for making your statement. Flesh them out in the original post, so other posters don't have to ask you for them.

 

I'm quite capable of thinking for myself, thank you. I am incapable of thinking for you, though, which is what you asked me to do by not explaining your opinion.

 

 

Cool! :cool

His theory need not rely on the premise that Cabrera is unhappy here. Simply that Cabrera would be unwilling to re-sign. That could be for any of reasonable assumptions that typically cause contract negotiations to fall apart.

Even in the more optimistic scenario, the probability Cabrera re-signs is probably closer to 0 than 100%. And given that at present, the Marlins are far away from the most optimistic scenario, it might make sense to take Cabrera to arbitration while leaving open certain contingency plans if Cabrera proves difficult to re-sign.

The Marlins will never know if they never try and it would be a crime to let a player of Cabrera's caliber walk without making an attempt to sign him to a long term contract. And the longer the Marlins wait, the more likely that contract would be too costly for the Marlins.

If you accept it will be difficult for the Marlins in any case, there's little harm in continually negotiating one year contracts with Cabrera. Nor is much harm by low balling him if you consider that either the probability of his re-signing low or it to have minimal effect on future negotiations.

 

If you have that mindset when considering whether or not to sign a player to a long term contract, it becomes a kind of self-fullfilling prophecy. Continually low-balling players. Going year-to-year. As that continues, and Cabrera continues to excel, his pricetag rises as a matter of course and you run the risk of souring him on even considering the prospect of a long term contract with the organization.

 

And when I talk about difficulty in re-signing Cabrera, I'm not just talking about salary. A no trade clause will likely be a key disagreement between Cabrera and the club. A no trade clause, or what would have to be given up for Cabrera to waive its inclusion, would severely harm the Marlins' contingency plans, which unfortunately must be considered until a profitable stadium opens.

 

By sitting on their hands, the Marlins also run the risk of not turning as much of a profit as they could've packing the seats with fans coming to see Miguel knock one out of the park, not to mention building a perennial contender and the other players they may have to jettison by refusing to budge on their policy of yearly contracts.

I don't believe having contingency plans assures that you will fail. When you look at it in the proper context, we stand to lose much more by acting than we do by stringing him out on one year deals. Nevertheless that doesn't mean Cabrera shouldn't be re-signed if the situation changes. He's an extraordinary player. With extraordinary demands. Demands we can't possible agree to when the status of the franchise is still in question.

 

Tending to personal matters and the health of his father in Venezuela were the reasons why Miguel Cabrera was a no-show at the Marlins' 2007 BankUnited FanFest last Saturday at Dolphin Stadium.

"I'm not mad with the administration, although I'm a little worried that Miami fans could now have a distorted image of myself. Moreover, to compensate for my absence, I promise to assist in every activity the Marlins may organize in the following days."

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20...rtnered=rss_flahttp://www.marlinbaseball.com/forums/index...t&p=1363507

By sitting on their hands, the Marlins also run the risk of not turning as much of a profit as they could've packing the seats with fans coming to see Miguel knock one out of the park, not to mention building a perennial contender and the other players they may have to jettison by refusing to budge on their policy of yearly contracts.

 

The team has been competitive. Miggy has been here since '03 "knocking them out of the park." Where are these fans you speak of that are packing the seats now? They were there when the BoSox came to town. And they were there the final week end when the Phillies were here and in the hunt til the final day. Other than that they weren't packing the seats. And I don't believe they would magically pack the seats just because Miggy is signed long term. He's here now and we can't get an average of 15K into the place.

It's actually about the effect of compounding money within a community and the impact of it.

 

Yes, the compounding money that will come from having those jobs present and the tax rebate.

His theory need not rely on the premise that Cabrera is unhappy here. Simply that Cabrera would be unwilling to re-sign. That could be for any of reasonable assumptions that typically cause contract negotiations to fall apart.

Even in the more optimistic scenario, the probability Cabrera re-signs is probably closer to 0 than 100%. And given that at present, the Marlins are far away from the most optimistic scenario, it might make sense to take Cabrera to arbitration while leaving open certain contingency plans if Cabrera proves difficult to re-sign.

The Marlins will never know if they never try and it would be a crime to let a player of Cabrera's caliber walk without making an attempt to sign him to a long term contract. And the longer the Marlins wait, the more likely that contract would be too costly for the Marlins.

If you accept it will be difficult for the Marlins in any case, there's little harm in continually negotiating one year contracts with Cabrera. Nor is much harm by low balling him if you consider that either the probability of his re-signing low or it to have minimal effect on future negotiations.

 

If you have that mindset when considering whether or not to sign a player to a long term contract, it becomes a kind of self-fullfilling prophecy. Continually low-balling players. Going year-to-year. As that continues, and Cabrera continues to excel, his pricetag rises as a matter of course and you run the risk of souring him on even considering the prospect of a long term contract with the organization.

 

And when I talk about difficulty in re-signing Cabrera, I'm not just talking about salary. A no trade clause will likely be a key disagreement between Cabrera and the club. A no trade clause, or what would have to be given up for Cabrera to waive its inclusion, would severely harm the Marlins' contingency plans, which unfortunately must be considered until a profitable stadium opens.

 

By sitting on their hands, the Marlins also run the risk of not turning as much of a profit as they could've packing the seats with fans coming to see Miguel knock one out of the park, not to mention building a perennial contender and the other players they may have to jettison by refusing to budge on their policy of yearly contracts.

I don't believe having contingency plans assures that you will fail. When you look at it in the proper context, we stand to lose much more by acting than we do by stringing him out on one year deals. Nevertheless that doesn't mean Cabrera shouldn't be re-signed if the situation changes. He's an extraordinary player. With extraordinary demands. Demands we can't possible agree to when the status of the franchise is still in question.

 

The problem is that a big part of these "contigency plans" you refer to is signing players to yearly contracts, which is not in fact a contingency plan. That is the organization's main plan. Signing a player to a long term contract would be a contingency plan. And as a result of following that main plan, the Marlins may find that their inaction has made that contingency plan too costly. Leaving only options that include Cabrera being sent out of town before he reaches 7 years of MLB service time.

 

The point is if the Marlins want to keep the contingency plan a viable option, they need to start negotiations now. It may already be too costly a proposition, but we'll never know if they never try. By waiting they are ensuring that it will in fact be too costly. And if the Marlins never even make an attempt to sign Cabrera, a player who could end up being the greatest player of his generation, to a long term contract it is a crime.

 

If the Marlins keep with this yearly pay-as-you-go plan the process will repeat itself and necessitate trading players once they get hit arbitration, and probably at a quicker pace. Cabrera set a new bar for first year arby salaries. What will Hanley end up being granted in 2009 if he is allowed to goto arbitration? $7 million? $8 million? And what about the rest of our top players becoming arby eligible in 2009 - Johnson, Olsen, Sanchez, Willingham, Uggla, Hermida, Jacobs, Nolasco and Tankersley?

 

The Marlins need to seriously rethink their policy and start signing some of these to contracts that cover their arbitration years and beyond if they want to avoid having to go through in 2005. The Marlins pay-as-you-go policy is cost effective in the short term, but in the long term, with arby salaries rising and most of our team set to be either in their first or second year of being arby eligible in 2010, it is not. That is if the Marlins have any interest in building a perennial contender, avoiding another firesale at the end of the decade and rebuilding the fanbase.

By sitting on their hands, the Marlins also run the risk of not turning as much of a profit as they could've packing the seats with fans coming to see Miguel knock one out of the park, not to mention building a perennial contender and the other players they may have to jettison by refusing to budge on their policy of yearly contracts.

 

The team has been competitive. Miggy has been here since '03 "knocking them out of the park." Where are these fans you speak of that are packing the seats now? They were there when the BoSox came to town. And they were there the final week end when the Phillies were here and in the hunt til the final day. Other than that they weren't packing the seats. And I don't believe they would magically pack the seats just because Miggy is signed long term. He's here now and we can't get an average of 15K into the place.

 

No magic need be involved. It is a trust thing. A novel concept, I know. But when the Marlins had the 2005 firesale they made an implicit and explicit promise to the fans that refused to abandon the team that Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis would be the cornerstones of this franchise. The Marlins could have avoided losing a number of fans in the wake of the firesale and restored some trust by signing both to long term contracts before the 2006 season. But there is no need to wallow in the past. Move forward, make an attempt to sign at least Miguel to a long term contract before it becomes too expensive to even consider. Negotiate a contract now, and the Marlins can save some money on his remaining arby years and keep him beyond 2009. Much more money could have been saved if this had been done in years past, but it is not necessarily already a lost cause. You don't just let possibly the greatest player of his generation walk without attempting to sign him to a long term contract. It is makes bad baseball sense.

True, by definition, contingency planning is for something that may be possible. But trading Cabrera because we can't afford him or to receive some value for him beyond his years of service here is a possibility. And so is a new stadium.

 

And while you may a wonderful argument why signing extraordinary players to long-term deals is a good strategy, you fail to note that there are greater risks in signing (and negotiating) long-term deals than one year deals. A new stadium will bring new revenue to the club and the long-term stability to pay for Cabrera or Ramirez' 5th or 6th year arbitration contract as easily as the salary of a long-term deal.

 

But when the Marlins had the 2005 firesale they made an implicit and explicit promise to the fans that refused to abandon the team that Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis would be the cornerstones of this franchise.

I thought the promise came across more as a threat. This is what is necessary. And Cabrera and Willis will have to be dumped if the situation doesn't change.

By sitting on their hands, the Marlins also run the risk of not turning as much of a profit as they could've packing the seats with fans coming to see Miguel knock one out of the park, not to mention building a perennial contender and the other players they may have to jettison by refusing to budge on their policy of yearly contracts.

 

The team has been competitive. Miggy has been here since '03 "knocking them out of the park." Where are these fans you speak of that are packing the seats now? They were there when the BoSox came to town. And they were there the final week end when the Phillies were here and in the hunt til the final day. Other than that they weren't packing the seats. And I don't believe they would magically pack the seats just because Miggy is signed long term. He's here now and we can't get an average of 15K into the place.

 

No magic need be involved. It is a trust thing. A novel concept, I know. But when the Marlins had the 2005 firesale they made an implicit and explicit promise to the fans that refused to abandon the team that Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis would be the cornerstones of this franchise. The Marlins could have avoided losing a number of fans in the wake of the firesale and restored some trust by signing both to long term contracts before the 2006 season. But there is no need to wallow in the past. Move forward, make an attempt to sign at least Miguel to a long term contract before it becomes too expensive to even consider. Negotiate a contract now, and the Marlins can save some money on his remaining arby years and keep him beyond 2009. Much more money could have been saved if this had been done in years past, but it is not necessarily already a lost cause. You don't just let possibly the greatest player of his generation walk without attempting to sign him to a long term contract. It is makes bad baseball sense.

 

 

"A trust thing." Interesting concept that works both ways. Shows a short memory. Or a selective one. The Marlins have signed players to long term contracts in the past. Castillo and Lowell pop right into my head. And they were fan favorites. Plus signed other players long term. Delgado ring a bell? There was Miggy on those teams bashing the ball and Willis with that strange wind up. And where were the fans packing the stands for a competitive team that was showing stability? Not at the ball park. Your argument would only hold water if the fans had been at the games and not keeping us near the bottom of the attendance stats and then after the sale had stayed away. Not the way it happened and no amount of saying things will be different just because we have a new fan favorite duo will change that.

The Marlins sign players to one year contracts until they can become FAs. That's the way they have always done it under every ownership group. Miggy will most likely be gone regardless of what is offered to him from the Marlins. SFX will let him know to not sign long term with us. To do so would hurt him in the long run because he will become the next highest paid player in MLB history once he hits the FA market. And the $$$ he will bring into that group from his ad compaigns in a larger, more visible market will most likely equal or exceed his salary. Miggy being in another uniform in '09 or '10 will be the fault of all parties involved, including the lackadaisical support of the South Florida fan base. Complain all you want about it but be sure to point fingers and claim blame where it is due.