I'm glad that my team is "cheap."

 

In an offseason where Jayson Werth has been given a superstar contract, a SP got a 6th year option of 27.5 million by the time he reaches age 37/38, and volatile relievers like Joaquin Benoit and Matt Guerrier are getting 3 year deals, I'm actually really happy that Jeffrey Loria owns my favorite team. I never really thought I'd say that, but yeah.

 

The John Buck signing was questionable enough for me.

 

The deals being given out this offseason have been pretty horrible, for the most part.

I wouldn't go as far as being happy Loria owns the team, but that being said, I do agree with the fact that MANY teams out there are just making stupid decisions.

You're acting like it's your money they're spending. Would you rather have Jayson Werth than not have him? It matters how your team goes broke. sh*tty contract or no cash to put out. In the end you pick the sh*tty contract because it gives you one more player who once was something. There are no lost opportunity costs in this. You aren't spending your own money. At the end of the day a financially crippled team with a lofty contract is better than a crippled team without one, all other things equal.

 

Does Loria manage his money better? Yes. Does that make him desirable? Hell no. A winner is desirable, regardless of how they spend money because, again, it's not your money.

 

If Loria were to somehow get more money, we'd be set. I still prefer the Marlins be owned by the Wilpon Family, though.

Difference is, for some of those teams, it's all about winning right now so they are willing to have big contracts on the books if it means having a championship or 2 during the full length of such deal. Certainly applies for Philly and Boston, although realistically not for Washington with Werth.

You're acting like it's your money they're spending. Would you rather have Jayson Werth than not have him? It matters how your team goes broke. sh*tty contract or no cash to put out. In the end you pick the sh*tty contract because it gives you one more player who once was something. There are no lost opportunity costs in this. You aren't spending your own money. At the end of the day a financially crippled team with a lofty contract is better than a crippled team without one, all other things equal.

 

Does Loria manage his money better? Yes. Does that make him desirable? Hell no. A winner is desirable, regardless of how they spend money because, again, it's not your money.

 

If Loria were to somehow get more money, we'd be set. I still prefer the Marlins be owned by the Wilpon Family, though.

 

 

 

I'd rather have not Jayson Werth at that amount of money.

 

You're acting like teams don't have payrolls, and just have money coming out of their ass whenever they want a specific player.

As Jayson Werth gets older, the contract will become even more laughable; short-term in this case, it won't matter because the Nationals currently suck. The more you suck, the less fan attendance, which means that you likely won't see the Nationals increase team payroll, as the years go on.

 

Thus, one player's contract has a chance to seriously hurt an organization for about the next decade.

 

It's stupid spending.

 

Werth's case is horrible because it's not even a Cliff Lee risk where a team is taking a long-term risk, and basically saying: "the hell with it; we actually have a chance to become a dynasty, short-term."

 

There's no way to defend the Jayson Werth contract, really.

 

As for the Wilpon's...all I know about them is that they're not very well-liked in NY.

Yeah, the idea is that the Marlins don't give out stupid contracts, instead using their payroll wisely. Sure, I'd love to see them still act responsible + Beinfest with an extra $30 Million to work with, but it's good that they don't give out dumb contracts. They'll give a player $15 million a year, but it'll be Hanley Ramirez or JJ, not Jayson Werth.

I'm ducking before

I agree that I like the way the team handles player contracts and don't typically give out stupid ones (save for Wes Helms...)

 

Loria as an owner though, I don't like him but I don't hate him either.

You're acting like it's your money they're spending. Would you rather have Jayson Werth than not have him? It matters how your team goes broke. sh*tty contract or no cash to put out. In the end you pick the sh*tty contract because it gives you one more player who once was something. There are no lost opportunity costs in this. You aren't spending your own money. At the end of the day a financially crippled team with a lofty contract is better than a crippled team without one, all other things equal.

 

Does Loria manage his money better? Yes. Does that make him desirable? Hell no. A winner is desirable, regardless of how they spend money because, again, it's not your money.

 

If Loria were to somehow get more money, we'd be set. I still prefer the Marlins be owned by the Wilpon Family, though.

 

it is our money, it's the money we put in that they send out. I mean, think about it. The owner to the team with the second largest payroll used to be our owner, but he didn't spend any money here. Is it because landing in Boston made him magically not cheap? No, it's because we didn't give him enough money to work with.

You're acting like it's your money they're spending. Would you rather have Jayson Werth than not have him? It matters how your team goes broke. sh*tty contract or no cash to put out. In the end you pick the sh*tty contract because it gives you one more player who once was something. There are no lost opportunity costs in this. You aren't spending your own money. At the end of the day a financially crippled team with a lofty contract is better than a crippled team without one, all other things equal.

 

Does Loria manage his money better? Yes. Does that make him desirable? Hell no. A winner is desirable, regardless of how they spend money because, again, it's not your money.

 

If Loria were to somehow get more money, we'd be set. I still prefer the Marlins be owned by the Wilpon Family, though.

 

 

 

I'd rather have not Jayson Werth at that amount of money.

 

You're acting like teams don't have payrolls, and just have money coming out of their ass whenever they want a specific player.

As Jayson Werth gets older, the contract will become even more laughable; short-term in this case, it won't matter because the Nationals currently suck. The more you suck, the less fan attendance, which means that you likely won't see the Nationals increase team payroll, as the years go on.

 

Thus, one player's contract has a chance to seriously hurt an organization for about the next decade.

 

It's stupid spending.

 

Werth's case is horrible because it's not even a Cliff Lee risk where a team is taking a long-term risk, and basically saying: "the hell with it; we actually have a chance to become a dynasty, short-term."

 

There's no way to defend the Jayson Werth contract, really.

 

As for the Wilpon's...all I know about them is that they're not very well-liked in NY.

 

 

You're acting like teams all have the same payroll. Hypothetically speaking, clone the Marlins and give one of them 20M more. If they spend those 20M on Jayson Werth, they're still a better team regardless of how bad the contract is. The team with Werth won't suck more than the other team. Sure, they'll have a sh*t contract but it's an example of where a stupid contract helps a team inch above another.

 

 

 

Would you rather have a team with a full payroll of 100M with Jayson Werth or a team with a full payroll of 80M without Jayson Werth? Stupid contracts only matter if you take into account what you could've done instead, but when you compare two teams, you can't exactly do that. The only difference between a ffull payroll of 60M without Jayson Werth and a full payroll of 80M with Jayson Werth is Jayson Werth, holding everything else constant.

 

If there'd be a salary cap then that's a different story. I'd love Loria with a salary cap, but as long as the money you spend is unrestricted, I'd much rather have a richer owner who is able to spend. Note that we're talking about owners and not GM's. The Wilpon Family probably isn't liked in NY because of Omar Minaya, but I bet you Sandy Alderson makes them very popular in a few years.

You're acting like it's your money they're spending. Would you rather have Jayson Werth than not have him? It matters how your team goes broke. sh*tty contract or no cash to put out. In the end you pick the sh*tty contract because it gives you one more player who once was something. There are no lost opportunity costs in this. You aren't spending your own money. At the end of the day a financially crippled team with a lofty contract is better than a crippled team without one, all other things equal.

 

Does Loria manage his money better? Yes. Does that make him desirable? Hell no. A winner is desirable, regardless of how they spend money because, again, it's not your money.

 

If Loria were to somehow get more money, we'd be set. I still prefer the Marlins be owned by the Wilpon Family, though.

 

 

 

I'd rather have not Jayson Werth at that amount of money.

 

You're acting like teams don't have payrolls, and just have money coming out of their ass whenever they want a specific player.

As Jayson Werth gets older, the contract will become even more laughable; short-term in this case, it won't matter because the Nationals currently suck. The more you suck, the less fan attendance, which means that you likely won't see the Nationals increase team payroll, as the years go on.

 

Thus, one player's contract has a chance to seriously hurt an organization for about the next decade.

 

It's stupid spending.

 

Werth's case is horrible because it's not even a Cliff Lee risk where a team is taking a long-term risk, and basically saying: "the hell with it; we actually have a chance to become a dynasty, short-term."

 

There's no way to defend the Jayson Werth contract, really.

 

As for the Wilpon's...all I know about them is that they're not very well-liked in NY.

 

 

You're acting like teams all have the same payroll. Hypothetically speaking, clone the Marlins and give one of them 20M more. If they spend those 20M on Jayson Werth, they're still a better team regardless of how bad the contract is. The team with Werth won't suck more than the other team. Sure, they'll have a sh*t contract but it's an example of where a stupid contract helps a team inch above another.

 

 

 

Would you rather have a team with a full payroll of 100M with Jayson Werth or a team with a full payroll of 80M without Jayson Werth? Stupid contracts only matter if you take into account what you could've done instead, but when you compare two teams, you can't exactly do that. The only difference between a ffull payroll of 60M without Jayson Werth and a full payroll of 80M with Jayson Werth is Jayson Werth, holding everything else constant.

 

If there'd be a salary cap then that's a different story. I'd love Loria with a salary cap, but as long as the money you spend is unrestricted, I'd much rather have a richer owner who is able to spend. Note that we're talking about owners and not GM's. The Wilpon Family probably isn't liked in NY because of Omar Minaya, but I bet you Sandy Alderson makes them very popular in a few years.

 

 

 

 

1. Under your hypothetical situation of all things being equal, Jayson Werth's contract makes more sense for the Marlins than it does for the Nationals. At least the Marlins have a team that could contend; the Nationals don't. I still don't understand what you're trying to say, though. I'm not acting like all teams have the same payroll. The Jayson Werth contract was a horrible contract for the Nationals. Not only was he massively overpaid for a ridiculous amount of years, but it was done by a non-contender. I mean...all the other big league clubs basically agreed that it was shocking.

 

2. Can I have the 100 million dollar team without Jayson Werth? I'd much rather pay 4 or 5 guys the 20 million dollars and put together a well-balanced team than spend it on a guy who's nowhere near a franchise caliber player. It's a bad contract. That simple.

 

Basically...if I'm a GM, I don't give Jayson Werth that contract, regardless of whether or not my team is a contender, at the moment. And for a non-contender to make such a move is just downright laughable.

You're acting like it's your money they're spending. Would you rather have Jayson Werth than not have him? It matters how your team goes broke. sh*tty contract or no cash to put out. In the end you pick the sh*tty contract because it gives you one more player who once was something. There are no lost opportunity costs in this. You aren't spending your own money. At the end of the day a financially crippled team with a lofty contract is better than a crippled team without one, all other things equal.

 

Does Loria manage his money better? Yes. Does that make him desirable? Hell no. A winner is desirable, regardless of how they spend money because, again, it's not your money.

 

If Loria were to somehow get more money, we'd be set. I still prefer the Marlins be owned by the Wilpon Family, though.

 

it is our money, it's the money we put in that they send out. I mean, think about it. The owner to the team with the second largest payroll used to be our owner, but he didn't spend any money here. Is it because landing in Boston made him magically not cheap? No, it's because we didn't give him enough money to work with.

 

 

It's not our money anymore once we give it to them. I don't think very rich owners (I give the Wilpons as an example because that's the only one I know by name) would come down here and not spend because of lack of fan support. I'm sure they'd at least spend at first to see if they can revive the market. I'm sure that the Mets would reduce payroll if Loria owns them. I don't think the money owners put into the team is necessarily equivalent to what they receive - especially if you're aren't relatively wealthy.

You're acting like it's your money they're spending. Would you rather have Jayson Werth than not have him? It matters how your team goes broke. sh*tty contract or no cash to put out. In the end you pick the sh*tty contract because it gives you one more player who once was something. There are no lost opportunity costs in this. You aren't spending your own money. At the end of the day a financially crippled team with a lofty contract is better than a crippled team without one, all other things equal.

 

Does Loria manage his money better? Yes. Does that make him desirable? Hell no. A winner is desirable, regardless of how they spend money because, again, it's not your money.

 

If Loria were to somehow get more money, we'd be set. I still prefer the Marlins be owned by the Wilpon Family, though.

 

it is our money, it's the money we put in that they send out. I mean, think about it. The owner to the team with the second largest payroll used to be our owner, but he didn't spend any money here. Is it because landing in Boston made him magically not cheap? No, it's because we didn't give him enough money to work with.

 

 

It's not our money anymore once we give it to them. I don't think very rich owners (I give the Wilpons as an example because that's the only one I know by name) would come down here and not spend because of lack of fan support. I'm sure they'd at least spend at first to see if they can revive the market. I'm sure that the Mets would reduce payroll if Loria owns them. I don't think the money owners put into the team is necessarily equivalent to what they receive - especially if you're aren't relatively wealthy.

 

It's not as if Loria has never tried to spend.

You're acting like it's your money they're spending. Would you rather have Jayson Werth than not have him? It matters how your team goes broke. sh*tty contract or no cash to put out. In the end you pick the sh*tty contract because it gives you one more player who once was something. There are no lost opportunity costs in this. You aren't spending your own money. At the end of the day a financially crippled team with a lofty contract is better than a crippled team without one, all other things equal.

 

Does Loria manage his money better? Yes. Does that make him desirable? Hell no. A winner is desirable, regardless of how they spend money because, again, it's not your money.

 

If Loria were to somehow get more money, we'd be set. I still prefer the Marlins be owned by the Wilpon Family, though.

 

 

 

I'd rather have not Jayson Werth at that amount of money.

 

You're acting like teams don't have payrolls, and just have money coming out of their ass whenever they want a specific player.

As Jayson Werth gets older, the contract will become even more laughable; short-term in this case, it won't matter because the Nationals currently suck. The more you suck, the less fan attendance, which means that you likely won't see the Nationals increase team payroll, as the years go on.

 

Thus, one player's contract has a chance to seriously hurt an organization for about the next decade.

 

It's stupid spending.

 

Werth's case is horrible because it's not even a Cliff Lee risk where a team is taking a long-term risk, and basically saying: "the hell with it; we actually have a chance to become a dynasty, short-term."

 

There's no way to defend the Jayson Werth contract, really.

 

As for the Wilpon's...all I know about them is that they're not very well-liked in NY.

 

 

You're acting like teams all have the same payroll. Hypothetically speaking, clone the Marlins and give one of them 20M more. If they spend those 20M on Jayson Werth, they're still a better team regardless of how bad the contract is. The team with Werth won't suck more than the other team. Sure, they'll have a sh*t contract but it's an example of where a stupid contract helps a team inch above another.

 

 

 

Would you rather have a team with a full payroll of 100M with Jayson Werth or a team with a full payroll of 80M without Jayson Werth? Stupid contracts only matter if you take into account what you could've done instead, but when you compare two teams, you can't exactly do that. The only difference between a ffull payroll of 60M without Jayson Werth and a full payroll of 80M with Jayson Werth is Jayson Werth, holding everything else constant.

 

If there'd be a salary cap then that's a different story. I'd love Loria with a salary cap, but as long as the money you spend is unrestricted, I'd much rather have a richer owner who is able to spend. Note that we're talking about owners and not GM's. The Wilpon Family probably isn't liked in NY because of Omar Minaya, but I bet you Sandy Alderson makes them very popular in a few years.

 

 

 

 

1. Under your hypothetical situation of all things being equal, Jayson Werth's contract makes more sense for the Marlins than it does for the Nationals. At least the Marlins have a team that could contend; the Nationals don't. I still don't understand what you're trying to say, though. I'm not acting like all teams have the same payroll. The Jayson Werth contract was a horrible contract for the Nationals. Not only was he massively overpaid for a ridiculous amount of years, but it was done by a non-contender. I mean...all the other big league clubs basically agreed that it was shocking.

 

2. Can I have the 100 million dollar team without Jayson Werth? I'd much rather pay 4 or 5 guys the 20 million dollars and put together a well-balanced team than spend it on a guy who's nowhere near a franchise caliber player. It's a bad contract. That simple.

 

Basically...if I'm a GM, I don't give Jayson Werth that contract, regardless of whether or not my team is a contender, at the moment. And for a non-contender to make such a move is just downright laughable.

 

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. By cheap, do you mean tight-fisted or relatively poor? I assumed you meant poor because I wouldn't consider Loria tight-fisted as much as I'd consider him poor relative to many owners. The media portrays him as cheap, but I don't really believe that's the case with him at all.

 

But what I was trying to say is that a team with Jayson Werth is better than an identical one without him, given that both are operating under a full payroll. If Loria were to, out of the blue, find 20M on the ground and spend it all on a LOOGY, we're still better by a LOOGY regardless of whether or not it was a good contract.

I'm completely understand what Erick's trying to say here and I've thought this myself. Thus I agree.

 

I've always wondered if we'd ever, somewhere down the line, become "that" team that just throws out money that eventually becomes a waste.

 

I'd hate to become that team. Spending money is one thing, spending money wisely is another. Most have to be pretty impressed with how wisely the Fish have spent their dollars these days.

Can someone tell me how much the Marlins made this past season? I'd be interested in knowing.

But what I was trying to say is that a team with Jayson Werth is better than an identical one without him, given that both are operating under a full payroll. If Loria were to, out of the blue, find 20M on the ground and spend it all on a LOOGY, we're still better by a LOOGY regardless of whether or not it was a good contract.

 

 

Why should we use this hypothetical scenario though, when you and I both know that this isn't a real-life scenario? You and I both know that no team is really identical to another, in real-life. That's just a simple fact.

 

Does Jayson Werth make the 2011 Nationals lineup better? Sure.

Are the Nationals ready to contend in 2011? I'd say no.

 

The Jayson Werth contract is fine for the next 3 years. A 5 WAR player as he's pretty much proven to be the last 3 years is absolutely worth (no pun intended) 10,000,000 in '11, 13,000,000 in '12, and probably 16,000,000 in '13, as well.

 

I don't know about you though, but if I'm an owner and I'm giving a player SEVEN years, years 4-7 are just as important (more important in this case because the Nationals are building more for the long-term) as years 1-3.

 

Is Jayson Werth worth 20,000,000 at age 35? Worth 21,000,000 at ages 36-38?

 

That's ridiculous. Sure, initially, it's nice for the fanbase to see that you're willing to spend the money to get a good player, right now. However, once the fanbase sees the big picture, being that the current team isn't good enough to win, and that Jayson Werth won't be the same player forever, thus meaning that he won't be an impact caliber player once they're actually ready to compete, it's really not going to matter. The bottom line is winning.

 

If you seriously put yourself in the Nationals scenario this offseason (real-life scenario), there are really so many alternative ways that they could've spent those ~18.5 million dollars, and actually been competitive for the next several years.

 

You give Werth such a contract, and now you're potentially stuck long-term (again, when they're more likely to compete) with that contract. There's no way to get better by even making a trade because no team would want such a contract when a player is declining (unless if you're willing to pay a good portion of the contract to trade him away, which sucks either way).

 

Also, in your hypothetical scenario, you don't just spend 20 million dollars on one area of a team just because you have 20 million dollars to spend. There's always room for improvement on a team. No need to go as far as saying that you'd pay a LOOGY (I know you're hypothetically speaking, but still...bad example) 20 million, when they can be had just as good often times for the league minimum.

 

Spending to just spend in order to make the fanbase happy is a silly way of conducting a business.

I'm just under the impression (from your first post) that you're happy Loria isn't spending more money. Spending more money is always a good thing regardless of who it brings us, given that that player improves the club even marginally.

 

I know my example isn't a real life example. I was using it to prove that spending extra cash is better than not spending cash, which is what I got from your first post. I'm not talking about spending it wisely, I'm talking about choosing between buying Jayson Werth or not doing anything with the money.

I'm just under the impression (from your first post) that you're happy Loria isn't spending more money. Spending more money is always a good thing regardless of who it brings us, given that that player improves the club even marginally.

 

 

 

 

 

Well, not really.

Real-life example, Loria is spending money on free agents this offseason (Buck, Vazquez, and now Choate).

Buck's contract was questionable, but at least it was given to a guy who was one of the best at his position in the FA market. It's also a position that's of absolute necessity at the moment in the Marlins organization.

 

Like the guy (Loria) or not, I don't think the organization's motives can be questioned this offseason. They're making moves to get better, and win as soon as possible.

I like a team that grooms it's minor league players, makes some of them untouchable in any trade talks, brings them up when ready, and then spends wisely to fill in the holes. Just look how free spending has "helped" the Mets. And somebody wouldn't mind the Wilpons being here? No thanks.

 

BTW The Werth example is a poor one for our team. I'm happy with Stanton roaming RF. Wouldn't want Werth in CF or LF for us either. Especially not for those years and $$$. The only thing the Werth contract did, and a couple other FA signings this year, is hurt other teams' chances of landing OFers on a respectable contract. Didn't nullify those chances, just hurt them.

You're acting like it's your money they're spending. Would you rather have Jayson Werth than not have him? It matters how your team goes broke. sh*tty contract or no cash to put out. In the end you pick the sh*tty contract because it gives you one more player who once was something. There are no lost opportunity costs in this. You aren't spending your own money. At the end of the day a financially crippled team with a lofty contract is better than a crippled team without one, all other things equal.

 

Does Loria manage his money better? Yes. Does that make him desirable? Hell no. A winner is desirable, regardless of how they spend money because, again, it's not your money.

 

If Loria were to somehow get more money, we'd be set. I still prefer the Marlins be owned by the Wilpon Family, though.

 

it is our money, it's the money we put in that they send out. I mean, think about it. The owner to the team with the second largest payroll used to be our owner, but he didn't spend any money here. Is it because landing in Boston made him magically not cheap? No, it's because we didn't give him enough money to work with.

 

 

It's not our money anymore once we give it to them. I don't think very rich owners (I give the Wilpons as an example because that's the only one I know by name) would come down here and not spend because of lack of fan support. I'm sure they'd at least spend at first to see if they can revive the market. I'm sure that the Mets would reduce payroll if Loria owns them. I don't think the money owners put into the team is necessarily equivalent to what they receive - especially if you're aren't relatively wealthy.

 

Rab is right. "Money coming in will equal money going out." Loria did try to spend more money, and look what happened. First, we won a title. Then the fans disappeared. That's when we came to this "money coming in will..." way of spending money. Jealously(sp) of the way other teams spend money, or trying to keep up with the way other teams spend money, turns a franchise into Mets-ish.

Hmmm, let's see, 7 years, $126 million. For Jayson Werth.

 

There's only one circumstance under which that contract makes any sense whatsoever. What would that be? About 20% inflation per year:

 

Yr / Nominal value / Real value @20% inflation

'11 10 8.0

'12 13 8.3

'13 16 8.2

'14 20 8.2

'15 21 6.9

'16 21 5.5

'17 21 4.4

 

Tot 126 49.5

 

The current real value of 49.5 million assuming 20% inflation closely follows a realistic guess of what the guy is likely to actually be worth in current dollars right down the line for the entire term of the (ridiculously long) contract.

 

So, it would seem either that the Nats ownership is VERY worried about inflation or they're idiots. Nothing else explains this contract. If they're right (and they might be considering current monetary policy) they could end up with a great bargain instead of looking like fools as they do now.

Hmmm, let's see, 7 years, $126 million. For Jayson Werth.

 

There's only one circumstance under which that contract makes any sense whatsoever. What would that be? About 20% inflation per year:

 

Yr / Nominal value / Real value @20% inflation

'11 10 8.0

'12 13 8.3

'13 16 8.2

'14 20 8.2

'15 21 6.9

'16 21 5.5

'17 21 4.4

 

Tot 126 49.5

 

The current real value of 49.5 million assuming 20% inflation closely follows a realistic guess of what the guy is likely to actually be worth in current dollars right down the line for the entire term of the (ridiculously long) contract.

 

So, it would seem either that the Nats ownership is VERY worried about inflation or they're idiots. Nothing else explains this contract. If they're right (and they might be considering current monetary policy) they could end up with a great bargain instead of looking like fools as they do now.

 

 

Best. Reasoning. Ever.

 

I'd love to hear a GM say that during his press conference. :lol :lol :lol

You're acting like it's your money they're spending. Would you rather have Jayson Werth than not have him? It matters how your team goes broke. sh*tty contract or no cash to put out. In the end you pick the sh*tty contract because it gives you one more player who once was something. There are no lost opportunity costs in this. You aren't spending your own money. At the end of the day a financially crippled team with a lofty contract is better than a crippled team without one, all other things equal.

 

Does Loria manage his money better? Yes. Does that make him desirable? Hell no. A winner is desirable, regardless of how they spend money because, again, it's not your money.

 

If Loria were to somehow get more money, we'd be set. I still prefer the Marlins be owned by the Wilpon Family, though.

 

it is our money, it's the money we put in that they send out. I mean, think about it. The owner to the team with the second largest payroll used to be our owner, but he didn't spend any money here. Is it because landing in Boston made him magically not cheap? No, it's because we didn't give him enough money to work with.

 

 

It's not our money anymore once we give it to them. I don't think very rich owners (I give the Wilpons as an example because that's the only one I know by name) would come down here and not spend because of lack of fan support. I'm sure they'd at least spend at first to see if they can revive the market. I'm sure that the Mets would reduce payroll if Loria owns them. I don't think the money owners put into the team is necessarily equivalent to what they receive - especially if you're aren't relatively wealthy.

 

Rab is right. "Money coming in will equal money going out." Loria did try to spend more money, and look what happened. First, we won a title. Then the fans disappeared. That's when we came to this "money coming in will..." way of spending money. Jealously(sp) of the way other teams spend money, or trying to keep up with the way other teams spend money, turns a franchise into Mets-ish.

C'mon Bob, "first, we won..." and "then the fans disappeared" . A litlle revisionist history. No one argues that attendance did not spike to 40,000 per game, and that we were still near the bottom, but the facts are that people were coming back, up to the point that average attendance in 05 increased by 42% from the 03 championship year. They disappeared again after 05 when we cleaned house. It was a gradual rebirth of trust that was shattered again. That is the only issue with your comment. The rest is factual and I agree with the point of this thread-I think the Nats are ridiculous.

This thread

 

:thumbdown