Marlins2003

I feel this 5 pages thread is ridiculous . . . . .

 

But after reading some of your statements, one would think that Loria is Mother Teresa of Calcutta for daring to own this team with such disadvantageous circumstances.

 

What I said is how it works as I know it. Loria will make out just fine I suspect, and he's no Mother Teresa, but the lease is the lease. You can thank John Henry for the situation, but Loria bought the team knowing it was the situation so I'm neither defending or excusing him. It is what it is.

Adding ARod does not mean Cabrera goes away. It could be taken several ways, but if the Marlins are opening the checkbook again, I'd assume it'd be open for good. ARod's not coming to this team to make it Texas 2.0. He'd want assurances of quality around him, and I'd assume that'd begin and almost certainly end with Miggy.

 

Also, the $2-$15 million refers to playoff revenue. Boras has said that ARod generates between $35 and $45 million annually. Of course, he also noted that ARod's primary value was to teams that own their own broadcasting network (which the Marlins do not) and that the presumption of him making a run at both the all time HR record and all time hit record mean that at the end of his career (which Boras forecasts through the age of 44) his career could be worth up to $1 billion in marketing and media revenue from now to the completion. Which is mind-boggling for sure, but it's certainly not unrealistic.

 

First of all the article, and we are talking about the article, doesn't say a word about "playoff revenue". It simply says revenue. If the author wanted to say playoff revenue, he would have said playoff revenue.

 

Second, as I mentioned, because of the Marlins lease situation, if and when the playoffs come, economically three financially dilutive things happen. One they have to pay more to open every additional section they open, second MLB comes in and takes control of ticketing and takes a big share of playoff revenue and lastly there are all the extraneous costs associated with being in the playoffs that become the participating teams' responsibilities. When you have a situation where the only guy making any serious money here is Huizenga through control of parking (which he increases), rent and concessions, a moderate increase for the Marlins may be the case but to a great degree it's going to be offset by costs.

 

ARod may be worth a billion dollars (marketing-wise) in some markets but this isn't one of them. It's a false argument. Everyone has to understand that. There's no broadcast rights, there's a generally unfriendly media, thinking or even suggesting that here is ridiculous.

 

Lastly (and again I am just playing with the idea hypothetically and don't want to see Miggy moved to make way for ARod, or at all) somewhere along in this thread post-my original comment comes the idea that the return on a Miguel Cabrera trade would be prospects and rookies thus making the team potentially less competitive or no more competitive than it is now. This is a straw man argument. The bumper crop of players in return for a Cabrera could and I submit would include a number of starting major league ballplayers with above average skills who would by themselves improve the team. If not the FO doesn't make the deal and goes on to the next bidder. What Cabrera represents as a trade offering is a rare combination of youth and proven ability. That isn't going to translate into three prospects from AA and a couple of AAA players, or anything akin to that. You put Miggy on the trading block and any number of truly quality players come back your way - it could be two, three or four, it could two starting major league players plus three first rate prospects, it would be an enviable position to be in fielding those offers and playing one off another.

 

So this idea that the team couldn't be improved by acquiring ARod and trading Miggy really is a false one and should be recognized for the folly that it us.

 

It isn't going to happen, this is just a debate where I find myself on one side because it's an interesting position to take, not because I'm in favor of it. I guess people can read in whatever they want to read into what the author wrote, it would be helpful those if it was at least an accurate representation of what he said, no matter how flawed his thinking is. For the sentence to mean the revenue ($2-15 million) were the result of increased playoff revenue that would mean the Marlins were in the playoffs "every" year because the author writes "producing revenue that could be worth between $2 million to $15 million a year".

 

It's the "a year" that makes the interpretation Swift makes false. And with it his argument.

 

Check your reading comprehension:

 

Here's the full sentence quote:

 

"A-Rod might actually help lead the team back into postseason, producing revenue that could be worth between $2 million to $15 million a year."

 

CLEARLY, he is referencing playoff revenue.

 

Otherwise, there'd be no need to make this reference earlier in the article when discussing the YES Network.

 

"A-Rod could produce $48 million per year in revenue and asset appreciation for the Yankees, allowing the team to pay him $34 million in salary"

In order for that to be the "read" Swift, you'd have to be talking about the Marlins being in the post season every year (or more precisely in the author's words, "a season"), and I don't think the was the author's intent. Clearly he making the case of how ARod helps the Marlins not one or two years over the life of his contract, he talking about year in, year out.

 

As in "Hey, how much you making these days?"

 

"Well ever since I went to GE I'm making $90,000 a year." It's how the words are used in the venacular.

In order for that to be the "read" Swift, you'd have to be talking about the Marlins being in the post season every year (or more precisely in the author's words, "a season"), and I don't think the was the author's intent. Clearly he making the case of how ARod helps the Marlins not one or two years over the life of his contract, he talking about year in, year out.

 

As in "Hey, how much you making these days?"

 

"Well ever since I went to GE I'm making $90,000 a year." It's how the words are used in the venacular.

 

Except he uses the wonderful disclaimer "could be."

 

Again, clearly referencing playoff revenue.

All I can say Swift is it doesn't say that, anywhere and I realize you have an obsession with getting the final word in, but you might be able to read the author's mind, I don't claim to have that ability, I can only go by what he writes and he does not say that which you claim he does. The word "could" references the revenue estimate of $2-15 million, it's that simple.

 

The question isn't could ARod lead the Marlins to the playoffs, the question is could he do it every year and the obvious answer is, even if he were Superman, no. For your read to be correct as I said, either the Marlins are in the playoffs every year OR in the alternative, in the years they do make it to the playoffs, they could bring in an extra $2-15 million in revenue which begs the question, what happens in the years they don't make the playoffs and have to pay him $30-35 million a year?

 

It's such a small point for you to argue but not surprising or out of character. Go ahead and tell me I'm wrong again if it makes you feel any better, and no doubt you will (lol) but you have to read what he wrote, not what you think he meant to write.

The floridamarlins.com columnist said that team sources have said: There is no way this is gonna happen, or something like that. As much as I would like him here, this shows us its not happening. We should now start concentrating on other issues which are more probable to happen.

The floridamarlins.com columnist said that team sources have said: There is no way this is gonna happen, or something like that. As much as I would like him here, this shows us its not happening. We should now start concentrating on other issues which are more probable to happen.

 

I'd agree with you any other day but you are referencing the Marlins FO which is notoriously tight lipped about plans. And Joe Frisaro sucks as a Marlins columnist.

 

So there.

 

 

ARod for the win, Alex!

All I can say Swift is it doesn't say that, anywhere and I realize you have an obsession with getting the final word in, but you might be able to read the author's mind, I don't claim to have that ability, I can only go by what he writes and he does not say that which you claim he does. The word "could" references the revenue estimate of $2-15 million, it's that simple.

 

The question isn't could ARod lead the Marlins to the playoffs, the question is could he do it every year and the obvious answer is, even if he were Superman, no. For your read to be correct as I said, either the Marlins are in the playoffs every year OR in the alternative, in the years they do make it to the playoffs, they could bring in an extra $2-15 million in revenue which begs the question, what happens in the years they don't make the playoffs and have to pay him $30-35 million a year?

 

It's such a small point for you to argue but not surprising or out of character. Go ahead and tell me I'm wrong again if it makes you feel any better, and no doubt you will (lol) but you have to read what he wrote, not what you think he meant to write.

 

Pot, meet kettle

I have said many times that this forum is too full of know-it-alls...

I say we just get Fruit of the Loom to pay for the stadium gap and sign A-Rod to a ten figure salary.

 

Fruit of the Loom + A-Rod = $$$$$

 

Simple math.... right?

 

My point is, none of us know what we're talking about because at the end of the day Loria still owns the team, Samson has no idea what he's doing, and Beinfest will always be underrated.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/padre...1s31padres.html

 

The mid-revenue Padres strongly expect the Marlins to shop and trade third baseman Miguel Cabrera within five weeks. Confident in Kevin Kouzmanoff and prospect Chase Headley ? a Double-A star who will play third and left field in spring training ? the Padres will sit out the Cabrera auction. The Padres also will sit out bidding for third baseman Alex Rodriguez. The Padres won't be surprised if Rodriguez, a Miami native, signs with the Marlins in return for an ownership stake linked to keeping the franchise in South Florida.

:lol

 

Someone hasn't read 'Da Rulez.'

There are ways around it. Like, pay him for the rest of his career, and give him the opportunity to buy in when his career is over.

 

He can't own it now, but that doesn't mean he can't be put in a position to buy it later.

This would resemble something similar to the position MJ was in when he returned to play for the Wizards. While he couldn't maintain his part ownership while playing, didn't they 'hold it aside' for him until he 'retired'?

Could you imagine trying to negotiate something this complex with Boras? OMG! That said, he might also be the best person to be negotiating this kind of deal with, with the resources he has at his disposal.

 

The "fly in the ointment" might be that the Marlins have to pledge the franchise against their rent payments (financing repayment of the bonds that will be issued) and as such may be precluded from doing anyting that would be construed as being dilutive of that guarantee (like having a covenant in place that would allow ARod the right to a piece of the franchise at some later date).

 

***The reporting***Seems all too far-fetched to me and I must say I'm suspicious of this. The implication is this comes from Towers, which it's hard to believe he would make such comments to the press, on or off the record, or that anyone in a decision-making position would either.

Could you imagine- getting A-Rod AND a guarantee of staying in South Florida (and I'd assume, a stadium) at the same time? If that ever happened, I'd be dancing in the streets.

Can we please give this up? That being said, the source of this info is bizzare.

Could you imagine trying to negotiate something this complex with Boras? OMG! That said, he might also be the best person to be negotiating this kind of deal with, with the resources he has at his disposal.

 

The "fly in the ointment" might be that the Marlins have to pledge the franchise against their rent payments (financing repayment of the bonds that will be issued) and as such may be precluded from doing anyting that would be construed as being dilutive of that guarantee (like having a covenant in place that would allow ARod the right to a piece of the franchise at some later date).

 

***The reporting***Seems all too far-fetched to me and I must say I'm suspicious of this. The implication is this comes from Towers, which it's hard to believe he would make such comments to the press, on or off the record, or that anyone in a decision-making position would either.

 

 

the even more crazy part would mean Boras gets 10% of Arods contract normally does that mean he gets 10% of the part that arod gets of the fish?

 

Imagine him as part of the ownership :blink:

this will never ever and i mean ever happen

It's illegal. It can't be negotiated in a contract and have the contract approved.

 

If it's not in the contract, it's not an enforceable agreement. Moreover, any form of agreement that would violate the bylaws of the sport would not be enforceable.

 

There is no way no how at all that any ARod agreement will have partial ownership included in his new contract.

 

The only conceivable avenue is for ARod to have take the wealth he's amassed to date, purchase part of a team, then sell that share to a holding company he establishes THEN negotiate a contract with a team, and even that would be incredibly difficult to conceive.

Does anyone have a link to these rules precluding a player from owning a team?

Rules:

 

Rule 20 ? 1

 

(a) OWNERSHIP AND FINANCIAL INTERESTS. "No Club, or owner, stockholder, officer, director or employee (including manager or player) of a Club, shall, directly or indirectly, own stock or any other proprietary interest or have any financial interest in any other Club in its League, provided, however, that any owner or stockholder of a Major League Club (who is not also an officer, director or employee of a Club) whose interest does not exceed 5% of such Club and whose interest does not constitute a control interest [as defined] may own a non-control interest not exceeding 5% of any other Club or Clubs in its League, unless the Commissioner determines that such ownership would not be in the best interests of Baseball."

 

© LOANS TO CLUBS AND OTHER INDIVIDUALS. "No Club, or owner, stockholder, officer, director or employee (including manager or player) of a Club shall, directly or indirectly, loan money to or become surety or guarantor for any Club, officer, employee or umpire of its, his or her League, unless all facts of the transaction shall first have been fully disclosed to all other Clubs in that League, and also to the Commissioner, and the transaction has been approved by them."

 

(d) LEAGUE OFFICIALS. "No officer, employee or umpire of a League shall, directly or indirectly, own stock or any other proprietary interest or have any financial interest in any Club of his or her League, or loan money to or become surety or guarantor for any such Club."

 

http://www.roadsidephotos.com/baseball/02-4rules.htm

Thanks. I'll review closely.

I think that AROD ownership thing is BS. However, the possibilty of AROD to the Marlins might not be as far fetched as people think. If they did sign Arod that makes Cabrera expendable. So they trade Cabrera and D-Train which almost would cover Arods salary. Tell me the Yanks wouldn't love to have those 2. We could get Melky and Joba or Hughes and someone else.

Relevant provision:

 

"(a) OWNERSHIP AND FINANCIAL INTERESTS. "No Club, or owner, stockholder, officer, director or employee (including manager or player) of a Club, shall, directly or indirectly, own stock or any other proprietary interest or have any financial interest in any other Club in its League, provided, however, that any owner or stockholder of a Major League Club (who is not also an officer, director or employee of a Club) whose interest does not exceed 5% of such Club and whose interest does not constitute a control interest [as defined] may own a non-control interest not exceeding 5% of any other Club or Clubs in its League, unless the Commissioner determines that such ownership would not be in the best interests of Baseball."

 

This is saying no Club, owner, stockholder, officer, director or employee shall have an ownership interest in another club in its own league. In other words, you can't have an ownership interest in more than one clubs in the same league, unless your non-control ownership interest in each club does not exceed 5%, in which case it is up to the Commissioner to decide whether it's okay.

 

Under this wording, the Marlins can sign A-Rod and give him an ownership stake in the team. But it also means that if they were to ever trade him he'd have to give up his ownership interest.

 

Is there another provision that applies, too?