In reading Dave Hyde's article on the Sun-Sentinel website it seems like Bud Selig and several owners have been wanting to call the Marlins out on this for quite some time, but they didn't want to affect the chances of the Marlins getting the new stadium. I guess if MLB called out Loria for pocketing millions a year in revenue sharing funds before the stadium deal was signed we wouldn't have a stadium deal. I've seen it speculated that Loria was profiting $30 million plus a year, but I have no clue if that is accurate...

 

 

I agree. I also believe that from a cost/benefit standpoint Uggla' salary was ok last year but not this coming year. Trade him and get someone or use the money to get someone the Marlins need. A closer mainly.

 

The difference between Dan Uggla + Leo Nunez and Emilio Bonifacio + Jose Valverde is huge, and not in the way you are implying.

 

We need to not have Emilio Bonifacio in the lineup more than we need a guy who will throw 65 innings.

here is Jayson Stark on the Sedano Show, says the Marlins get $85-100M from revenue sharing and TV/radio deals before they even sell 1 ticket

 

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/sedano-says/2010/01/marlins-espns-stark-breaks-down-the-revenue-share-numbers.html

 

kind of damning and you see why other tax paying owners are pissed

It will be interesting to see if this has any effect on the Marlins keeping Dan Uggla or not. My guess is it might.

 

 

I agree. I'm sure they would have jumped at the chance to unload Danny, even if they didn't get the return for him they wanted, had they not been in negotiations w/ both MLB and the MLBPA. It wouldn't have helped the MArlins' case that they're not pocketing the RS funds and are reinvesting it into the team had they traded their second-highest paid player, nor will it now that an agreement has been reached. I think it's now far more likely we see Cantu traded for BP help.

 

So, basically, here are the people you are calling liars. The Marlins FO, all talking heads on the tube, all teams the Marlins have been in negotiations with, and all local media outlets. They are the ones saying the Marlins will trade Uggla, but only if they get what they want in return and not for a bag of new baseballs and a coke.

 

That about right?

 

Dude, you need to calm down. I didn't call anyone a liar. The simple truth is Uggs didn't, and still doesn't, fit into their long-term plans at 2B. I don't think nayone will disagree with that statement, because if he had, he would have been locked up long-term like Hanley. If you have a player you don't want to keep longterm, and he's getting progressively more expensive each year through arbitration, his value to your team (and other teams) is generally going to decrease each year because of approaching Free Agency.

 

Who knows what we would have (or still might) receive in a trade for Danny, but it was clear other teams were not going to give us their top talent in return for him, and the market for Danny shrunk by about half when the Giants signed Uribe.

 

If everyone else was saying they were trying to trade him but couldn't get what they wanted in return, and then you saying they would have settled for some A-ballers.....I would say that is calling them liars. You can turn it around any way you want now.

 

Your response was more on the mark. They couldn't (and/or can't) get what they want for him so he stays, at least for now. Long term plans for him or not. Him staying or going really has nothing to do with this new "agreement."

 

I don't see too much into this except it makes a nice news story for the talk shows. I had predicted an Opening Day payroll of $45-50 mil anyway, for a ton of reasons. If it goes higher than that then I would say this had an impact. But I'm not holding my breath. I look at it as though the Marlins are showing "bend" and actually doing what they had planned anyway. Just a gut feeling.

I had predicted an Opening Day payroll of $45-50 mil anyway, for a ton of reasons.

 

 

To your credit, yes you did. :thumbup

One great thing is that now we're not in that same position we always are, where the other teams just say "oh, we'll wait their demands out, they're not in a position to keep Player X" and we end up giving up too much. Now our FO can say "Well, we actually need to spend more money, so we don't need to get rid of Player X (in this case Uggla) if we don't really want to".

 

 

I understand where and why you guys (and some teams as well) are thinking like this. I just don't agree. Uggla is expendable and they always said he wouldn't be given away. Nothing got done yet so they keep him. Don't be surprised if by the trade deadline his name pops up again no matter where we are in the standings. But more seriously.

Uggla is only expendable because of his salary. Nobody on this team could hope to match his production.

In reading Dave Hyde's article on the Sun-Sentinel website it seems like Bud Selig and several owners have been wanting to call the Marlins out on this for quite some time, but they didn't want to affect the chances of the Marlins getting the new stadium. I guess if MLB called out Loria for pocketing millions a year in revenue sharing funds before the stadium deal was signed we wouldn't have a stadium deal. I've seen it speculated that Loria was profiting $30 million plus a year, but I have no clue if that is accurate...

 

 

I sincerely doubt he was pocketing that much. I read this as the powers that be are upset with a few teams because that $$$ was supposed to be used to put a competitive team on the field (which the Marlins have been doing). I think, if anything, this team just used it in different ways. Minor leagues, opening new clinics (didn't they fairly recently open one in the Dominican?), scouting, signing bonuses for draft picks. Heck, the list goes on and on. They keep saying there has never been any violation of the Basic Agreement in the past. I suppose it's how the wording was deciphered by each club, MLB, and the Union. We had the lowest payroll in MLB so they singled us out and in doing so gave a warning to other clubs. Really, nothing more.

Uggla is only expendable because of his salary. Nobody on this team could hope to match his production.

 

 

 

This has been gone over for about a thousand times on these boards. There are only a couple players on this team and a few in the minors that are not expendable. Uggla isn't one of them, regardless of how much he is liked by some fans.

Uggla is only expendable if you move Coghlan to 2B and have a viable option in LF. If the other option is moving Bonifacio to 2B, Uggla should be kept at all costs.

Why would MLB go public in embarrasing the Marlin front office?

.

.

The only thing that makes sense to me is that MLB has been talking with Loria privately, and trying to steer him into spending more of the revenue sharing money on player salary, and Loria was non-commital, signaling that he'd go ahead and pocket another 20-40 million again this year. This left MLB with the only option left......go public and expose Loria's spending(or lack of) to force his hand. The good news for us as fans is we get the same good Beinfest and staff to assemble most of the team. But now, we probably have another 20 million per year to ADD to the team, or at least retain some key players.

Baseball needs to get a salary cap with a salary floor and get rid of revenue sharing completely.

 

 

You've just suggested things that will work completely against one another and will only serve to make things worse than they are. This is a terrible post.

 

Which isn't surprising, given the source.

 

I don't think you're such a good source either pal. Personally I don't like seeing teams like the Yankees and John Henry's Red Sox always being good and they always will be under the current set-up. Sure, the Marlins beat the Yankees in the World Series in 2003 but the Yankees have been good for about 20 years in a row. A salary cap would make the Marlins more competitive year in and year out as long as it is a hard cap like the NFL has had.

Uggla is only expendable because of his salary. Nobody on this team could hope to match his production.

 

 

 

This has been gone over for about a thousand times on these boards. There are only a couple players on this team and a few in the minors that are not expendable. Uggla isn't one of them, regardless of how much he is liked by some fans.

 

Long term?

 

Sure, he's expendable.

 

If we have a $40 mil payroll?

 

Sure, he's expendable.

 

If we're going up to 45-50, then he's not expendable if this team wants to compete.

 

The only reason you get rid of Uggla is salary, not production. It's not a baseball move.

One great thing is that now we're not in that same position we always are, where the other teams just say "oh, we'll wait their demands out, they're not in a position to keep Player X" and we end up giving up too much. Now our FO can say "Well, we actually need to spend more money, so we don't need to get rid of Player X (in this case Uggla) if we don't really want to".

 

 

I understand where and why you guys (and some teams as well) are thinking like this. I just don't agree. Uggla is expendable and they always said he wouldn't be given away. Nothing got done yet so they keep him. Don't be surprised if by the trade deadline his name pops up again no matter where we are in the standings. But more seriously.

Sure they said, they say a bunch. Who is going to say "Oh yeah, we need to trade this guy, so we'll buckle eventually"? No one. That's what happened with Miggie. If we didn't NEED to trade Miggie we could have gotten more but every other GM knew we did.

Baseball needs to get a salary cap with a salary floor and get rid of revenue sharing completely.

 

 

You've just suggested things that will work completely against one another and will only serve to make things worse than they are. This is a terrible post.

 

Which isn't surprising, given the source.

 

I don't think you're such a good source either pal. Personally I don't like seeing teams like the Yankees and John Henry's Red Sox always being good and they always will be under the current set-up. Sure, the Marlins beat the Yankees in the World Series in 2003 but the Yankees have been good for about 20 years in a row. A salary cap would make the Marlins more competitive year in and year out as long as it is a hard cap like the NFL has had.

 

a salary floor will hurt small market teams. And you also wanted to get rid of revenue sharing. Do you see how dumb that is?

Why would MLB go public in embarrasing the Marlin front office?

.

.

The only thing that makes sense to me is that MLB has been talking with Loria privately, and trying to steer him into spending more of the revenue sharing money on player salary, and Loria was non-commital, signaling that he'd go ahead and pocket another 20-40 million again this year. This left MLB with the only option left......go public and expose Loria's spending(or lack of) to force his hand. The good news for us as fans is we get the same good Beinfest and staff to assemble most of the team. But now, we probably have another 20 million per year to ADD to the team, or at least retain some key players.

 

 

I like all of what you said. If you could take an educated guess, how much do you think this would increase payroll this season?

I don't know if anyone heard the Samson interview just now but good God was that the most uncomfortable radio I've ever heard. It was one step short of a public stoning once they started taking callers. It made the A-Rod press conference and the McGwire interview added together seem like two old friends talking about the good ol' days.

I don't know if anyone heard the Samson interview just now but good God was that the most uncomfortable radio I've ever heard. It was one step short of a public stoning once they started taking callers. It made the A-Rod press conference and the McGwire interview added together seem like two old friends talking about the good ol' days.

 

 

Pleeeeeease elaborate!

I don't know if anyone heard the Samson interview just now but good God was that the most uncomfortable radio I've ever heard. It was one step short of a public stoning once they started taking callers. It made the A-Rod press conference and the McGwire interview added together seem like two old friends talking about the good ol' days.

 

 

I agree! Dan, to his credit, really took him to task on the payroll but he refused to make a single statement on the issue, even how it would affect trades or current contracts. The most sketchy part was his trying to desperately change the subject by abruptly trying to talk about movies, the stadium, and even the situation in Haiti.

I don't know if anyone heard the Samson interview just now but good God was that the most uncomfortable radio I've ever heard. It was one step short of a public stoning once they started taking callers. It made the A-Rod press conference and the McGwire interview added together seem like two old friends talking about the good ol' days.

 

 

I agree! Dan, to his credit, really took him to task on the payroll but he refused to make a single statement on the issue, even how it would affect trades or current contracts. The most sketchy part was his trying to desperately change the subject by abruptly trying to talk about movies, the stadium, and even the situation in Haiti.

 

 

That show was awful! I didn't know if they were serious when they started discussing about the situation being like Dan's lovelife or not, Sampson seemed a little mad and Dan even said that he was in such a hard position that made him look like a clown. then one stupid caller dropped the F bomb on Sampson and the whole thing was a disgrace!!

 

actually I kinda agree with wat they were talkin about at the end that Sampson showed up with a lot of dignity even when he could've called and said that he had a lot going on today and not go to the show.

 

props to Sampson and he could not break the rules of confidentuality, wat was he gonna say?? "yeaah we've been putting all da cash in our pockets" no I totally respect him

not being able to talk about that issue.

 

after all sampson is a big reason why the stadium is being built.

One great thing is that now we're not in that same position we always are, where the other teams just say "oh, we'll wait their demands out, they're not in a position to keep Player X" and we end up giving up too much. Now our FO can say "Well, we actually need to spend more money, so we don't need to get rid of Player X (in this case Uggla) if we don't really want to".

 

 

I understand where and why you guys (and some teams as well) are thinking like this. I just don't agree. Uggla is expendable and they always said he wouldn't be given away. Nothing got done yet so they keep him. Don't be surprised if by the trade deadline his name pops up again no matter where we are in the standings. But more seriously.

Sure they said, they say a bunch. Who is going to say "Oh yeah, we need to trade this guy, so we'll buckle eventually"? No one. That's what happened with Miggie. If we didn't NEED to trade Miggie we could have gotten more but every other GM knew we did.

 

Comparing Uggla's and Miggy's situations is apples and oranges for so many reasons. I don't even know where to start with that. But try this...A team with a questionable future in their area and a malcontent 3B that couldn't play the position very well and was well known to be doing things just for the $$$(remember his Exxon deal?) compared to a team with a bright future in their area and a climbing season ticket base (although still slower than I have predicted) with a 2B that is good in the club house and apparently wants to be here. Huge difference just with that.

 

Bottom line....We held fast to what we wanted in return and said if we didn't get it he would be here come Opening Day; haven't gotten it, and Uggla is still here no matter how temporary. The only thing Marlins-related I see this "agreement" doing is giving all the experts in the media and on sports boards a built in excuse of why their predictions for a payroll under $40 mil was wrong. Unlike last year when all their predictions of a payroll under $30 mil was way off the mark so they just ignored that little fact and moved on to regale us all with their newer prognostications.

I don't know if anyone heard the Samson interview just now but good God was that the most uncomfortable radio I've ever heard. It was one step short of a public stoning once they started taking callers. It made the A-Rod press conference and the McGwire interview added together seem like two old friends talking about the good ol' days.

 

 

I agree! Dan, to his credit, really took him to task on the payroll but he refused to make a single statement on the issue, even how it would affect trades or current contracts. The most sketchy part was his trying to desperately change the subject by abruptly trying to talk about movies, the stadium, and even the situation in Haiti.

 

 

That show was awful! I didn't know if they were serious when they started discussing about the situation being like Dan's lovelife or not, Sampson seemed a little mad and Dan even said that he was in such a hard position that made him look like a clown. then one stupid caller dropped the F bomb on Sampson and the whole thing was a disgrace!!

 

actually I kinda agree with wat they were talkin about at the end that Sampson showed up with a lot of dignity even when he could've called and said that he had a lot going on today and not go to the show.

 

props to Sampson and he could not break the rules of confidentuality, wat was he gonna say?? "yeaah we've been putting all da cash in our pockets" no I totally respect him

not being able to talk about that issue.

 

after all sampson is a big reason why the stadium is being built.

 

I was actually thinking just the other day of the changes in Tin Boy. It just seems to me that the days of when he would open his mouth and say some damning things are gone. The Marlins have effectively muzzled him to not let certain things out of the bag. You have to wonder if his statements regarding Scotty after his arrest hurt any trade talks. Maybe, maybe not. Because of his club house persona and his off the field behaviour Scotty was gone anyways. But those remarks did "leak" the FOs opinions. Too hard to really tell and it's all water under the bridge right now. But it's a different feeling talking to him one on one now. You can almost see the wheels turning when he is asked a point blank question, like he is thinking of what he should and shouldn't say.

Am I the only one who realizes this agreement they made with mlb players union is what they have been saying since the stadium has been finalized?? There is no change at all.

 

 

No, you aren't.

 

2003 you have basically been discredited. Being Loria's apologist for the last 4 years this agreement, and the quick signing of JJ show that your assertion has been wrong all along. The Marlins and Loria were lining their pockets, giving $ 20 million donations to Yale so that Loria can have a building with his name on it, paying for the upkeep of castles in France, paying for multi million $ yachts, etc etc., all on the backs of the fellow owners. Even though they are not specified in this agreement, no doubt many fellow MLB owners are smiling with glee today, knowing that the Marlins management has finally been called on the carpet for basically stealing their money.

2003 you have basically been discredited.

 

 

Perhaps in your twisted mind but that's nothing new.

 

The rest of your drivel is so outlandishly false, as usual that it goes without comment except perhaps a suggestion you actually the read three party statement and the definition of revenue-sharing and its suggested use in the current CBA. I believe what you might want starts on Pg 104 and is only about twenty pages so it shouldn't take more than four or five days to read. Comprehension, I'm afraid may take longer, but that's on you.

2003 you have basically been discredited.

 

 

Perhaps in your twisted mind but that's nothing new.

 

The rest of your drivel is so outlandishly false, as usual that it goes without comment except perhaps a suggestion you actually the read three party statement and the definition of revenue-sharing and its suggested use in the current CBA. I believe what you might want starts on Pg 104 and is only about twenty pages so it shouldn't take more than four or five days to read. Comprehension, I'm afraid may take longer, but that's on you.

 

The truth hurts doesn't it 2003 ? Loria was called out and publically flogged. He was told "spend money or else", and coincidentally within 24 hours the Marlins have relented and signed JJ to a 4 year deal. Just by magic :shifty

2003 you have basically been discredited.

 

 

Perhaps in your twisted mind but that's nothing new.

 

The rest of your drivel is so outlandishly false, as usual that it goes without comment except perhaps a suggestion you actually the read three party statement and the definition of revenue-sharing and its suggested use in the current CBA. I believe what you might want starts on Pg 104 and is only about twenty pages so it shouldn't take more than four or five days to read. Comprehension, I'm afraid may take longer, but that's on you.

 

The truth hurts doesn't it 2003 ? Loria was called out and publically flogged. He was told "spend money or else", and coincidentally within 24 hours the Marlins have relented and signed JJ to a 4 year deal. Just by magic :shifty

Oh you.