McCovey Chronicles: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: Perfect Script? No. Matter? No. Steelers Improve To 8-3 Bar-right-arrows

I know, I know, more A-rod. . .but its still news. . .

Ferreira_camaro_teaser3_tiny by WilltheThrill on

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/specials/playoffs/2007/10/28/rodriguez.contract/i ndex.html

I don't want him, I'd rather see the kids. . .er uh. . . speed and defense because well, we scored enough runs during the year to win the west. . .Right?

Right?

Anyone?

Bueller?

This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.

0 recs | Comment 117 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

If the Sabes could find a way to....
.... unload Zito's contract, I wouldn't be totally opposed to signing A-Rod.

by Nathan on Oct 28, 2007 7:38 PM PDT   0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod. . .but its still n
OH!!! Selig is going to be PISSED that this came out before the end of the series!!

PISSED!!

Adopted Giant Brian Wilson: Welcome Back!

by sfgreg on Oct 28, 2007 7:47 PM PDT   0 recs

FUCK IT, GO FOR IT
To sign A-Rod, the Giants would (realistically speaking) need to raise their payroll by about 15-20M per year. I haven't checked the #'s but that'd put them in the $110 to $120M per year.

On the other hand, Sabean could sign like 13 mediocre players for the same amount of money.

Bonds stands alone.

by nostocksjustbonds on Oct 28, 2007 8:27 PM PDT   0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod. . .but its still n
Yeah! We'd go from a team with one legit power hitter to a team ...with one legit power hitter. Wait, how does this improve us?
Adopted Giant: Randy Winn. Can't wait for Zito to start Opening Day '08 so I can get a leg up on my drinking.

by Punch Rockgroin on Oct 28, 2007 8:32 PM PDT   0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod. . .but its still n
because we'd go from a team that had an aging legit power hitter but will be without said power hitter next year and definitely without him in following years to a team that had a superstar power hitter in his prime.

that's how it improves us

Pedro Feliz: Marginally better this year.

by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Oct 28, 2007 8:38 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod. . .but its still n
It's still 1 power hitter. Really, if it improves us, it would be only marginally. And it restricts our payroll even more. Let's not be the Mets of earlier this decade. If we suck, I say we save money while doing it.
Adopted Giant: Randy Winn. Can't wait for Zito to start Opening Day '08 so I can get a leg up on my drinking.

by Punch Rockgroin on Oct 29, 2007 5:48 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod. . .but its still n
Rosenthal reported during that series that the Yankees offered an extension that would take ARod to 8/240, but that he thinks he can get more than that.

Whoever signs him is going to hav to pay over $30 mil a year unless Boras and Arod have over-estimated his value.

With the Yankees swearing their out with ARod opting out, how many teams are in a position to pony that up?  Buck mentioned Boston and The Cubs.

Vote for Grant

by Goofus on Oct 28, 2007 8:47 PM PDT   0 recs

There is only one worthy Rod
Nattowear | comics | Durham? I hardly know 'im!

by Natto on Oct 28, 2007 8:53 PM PDT   0 recs

Re: There is only one worthy Rod
You are awesome...

btw.

Brian Wilson for Closer!

by BawLa on Oct 28, 2007 10:52 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

ARod is one greedy man
We don't need both the highest paid pitcher and position player in the game. Feliz could give you a fraction of the production at a fraction of the cost.

by wilriv21 on Oct 28, 2007 9:23 PM PDT   0 recs

Re: ARod is one greedy man
Kind of depends on the relative fractions, don't it?

by zenbitz on Oct 29, 2007 9:25 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Hmm
I'm surprised the Yankees didn't set it done with that Texas subsidy.  Hell, I'm just glad they're losing him.

by achiappanza on Oct 28, 2007 10:26 PM PDT   0 recs

Re: Hmm
Yeah, Texas has to be tickled that it played out this way.

by xanthan on Oct 28, 2007 10:38 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod
Sign him, dammit!

Not a chance, this management is too cheap. Want to bet he ends up in Boston?

by Sayhey on Oct 28, 2007 10:54 PM PDT   0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod
crap that lineup would be scary...

Ellsbury (CF)
Pedroia (2B)
A-Rod (3B)
Ortiz (DH)
Manny (LF)
Drew (RF)
Euclis (1B)
Varitek (C)
Lugo/somebody new (SS)

I mean that's a solid 1-8... any one of the top seven guys would probably bat third for the giants next year given the current state of the roster.

Idolizing Robb Nen since 2002...

by Smoke on the Water on Oct 29, 2007 12:54 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod
Didn't A-Rod play SHORTSTOP for a kabillion years before switching to third base to placate Derek Jeter and the Yankees? What's to prevent him from returning to his rightful position, the Red Sox re-signing Lowell, and kicking Lugo to the curb / eating his salary / trading him while eating most of his salary? I don't put it beyond them; however, their fans would likely disagree. I would think it's gotten to the point where signing A-Rod would be like the Dodgers signing Bonds.

Nevertheless, this looks much scarier:

Ellsbury (CF)
Pedroia (2B)
A-Rod (SS)
Ortiz (DH)
Manny (LF)
Lowell (3B)
Drew (RF)
Youkilis (1B)
Varitek (C)

I'll take the freight train, Bengie Molina.

by Brother Bummer on Oct 29, 2007 1:34 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

His defense
A-Rod can't really play D anymore. Most fielding metrics have him at around an average 3B. I suppose he could do it if he really wanted to but he'd have to lose weight.

by Bitter Fan on Oct 29, 2007 7:38 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: His defense
And I would think that playing short at this point provides the greatest chance is shortening his career. Then again, I might be talking out of my ass about that one.
Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Oct 29, 2007 8:15 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: His defense
you're absolutely right....on both counts.
Bonds stands alone.

by nostocksjustbonds on Oct 29, 2007 10:23 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: His defense
Yeah, thanks for the info. Makes a lot of sense.
I'll take the freight train, Bengie Molina.

by Brother Bummer on Oct 29, 2007 12:23 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: His defense
Certainly explains your bad breath.
Vote for Grant

by Goofus on Oct 29, 2007 1:59 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: His defense
And I thought it was just cause I don't brush.
Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Oct 29, 2007 2:43 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: His defense
I don't brush my ass either.  Go figure.
Only 972 games until the end of Zito's contract.

by thehavenot on Oct 29, 2007 3:14 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod
Ladies and gentlemen, the Boston "We're not the Yankees, really" Red Sox and their ridiculously bloated payroll! [fanfare]
Not boring: Emmanuel Burriss: Not fascist: SF Dugout. Not boring nor fascist: CLE winning the World Series.

by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Oct 29, 2007 9:31 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod
The Not-The-Evil-Empire Red Sox.
Only 972 games until the end of Zito's contract.

by thehavenot on Oct 29, 2007 3:15 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: I know, I know
I don't know why Giants FANS are so worried about the payroll.  Let Magowan, Baer, and Sabean worry about that.  All we need to worry about is wins and jerseys.
If Brad Hennesy had Steve Kline's attitude you'd get Rob Nen... without the triple digit heat.

by milesntrane on Oct 29, 2007 1:59 AM PDT   0 recs

Re: I know, I know
It has something to do with knowing that the team doesn't play in a payroll vacuum.  If they DID, then we could all dream about a lineup with all the best talent in the world.  And we could dream the Giants would give each and every one of us a pony.  And a car.  Heck, I live in the Bay Area, so why not a HOUSE???

Instead, most people here seem to be realists that understand that if the team were to overpay for someone like ARod or AJones or THunt, or even ManRam (sorry, just wanted to throw in the nickname), we'd have a helluva time resigning our own talented players (both of them) when they're eligible for free agency, and we'd have a tough time making a bid on more talented guys (in the case of Jones and Hunter, at least) next year.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Oct 29, 2007 8:12 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Obviously, teams don't exist in a payroll vacuum
but, the question is whether a team is spending as much as it can spend or simply deciding that a better business model would be to just collect money sharing checks.

This is the Giants opening day payroll over the last 5 years:

    * 2007: $ 90,219,056
    * 2006: $ 90,056,419
    * 2005: $ 90,199,500
    * 2004: $ 82,019,166
    * 2003: $ 82,852,167

Average payroll in MLB in 2007 was about $83.25M. Average payroll for ALs teams in 2007 was about $92.8M. Average payroll for NL teams in 2007 was about 73.7M.

In 2003, average payroll in MLB was about $70.8M. Average payroll on NL teams was $72.9M in 2003. In 2003, AL teams spent an average of $68.7M.

So, while the Giants have outpaced the spending of NL teams, they are starting to lag behind the AL teams in spending.

by rfloh on Oct 29, 2007 8:37 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

There's more...
Be sure to include in your numbers the approximately $20 mil the Giants are spending yearly on the ballpark.  It might not technically be payroll, but 20mil is nothing to sneeze at.
"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Oct 29, 2007 8:51 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: There's more...
Aren't the Giants pretty much maxed-out?  I mean the park only holds 42,000 and they dont have a mega-TV deal like the Sox and Yanks do.  I dont think management is lining their pockets exactly.
Sharlon Schoop: "It's only stealing if you get caught...more than 54% of the time"

by Woody Wins on Oct 29, 2007 10:04 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: There's more...
They seem to be doing pretty well in attendance at that small park. This last year they were 7th in MLB in home attendance and 5th in road attendance. Now, it's true they just kicked their biggest drawing card to the curb, but they did draw a hellva lot of fans to see a last place team play. The years previous have been even better, iirc. And while they don't have the same money from TV revenue, it's not chicken feed either. Also, even as a one shot thing, they didn't do to badly financially in hosting the All-Star Game this year.

More importantly, if the Giants want to be competitive they have to have the players. Barring a sudden blossoming of non-pitching talent out of their minor league affiliates, they had better hope they can get some players in trade or off the free agent market. Both ways mean paying the going rate for talent. Perhaps the Giants can't match the Yankees or the Red Sox dollar for dollar, but they had better be prepared to chase the Dodgers in payroll or it's going to be a long time in the cellar.

by Sayhey on Oct 29, 2007 11:58 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: There's more...
The baseball industry as a whole has in the last two years signed two separate $700 million dollar satellite/cable TV deals, a $650 million satellite radio deal, and launched an incredibly profitable online TV site that is bringing in quite literally billions in revenue per year. (While they were at it they picked up another quick half a billion by selling the Nats).  So, no, they're by no means maxed out. The industry is awash in new cash.
My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.

by Roger on Oct 29, 2007 1:46 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: There's more...
So how much of that new cash do the Giants see?  Ray Ratto (it's completely up to you how much you trust his information) said that the Giants really don't have anywhere else to find new revenue.  Either he's wrong or all these million bajillion dollars dont go to teams like the Giants.

Even if Giants management has done an awful job fielding a winning team the last few years, I still truly believe people like Magowan and Baer want to win.  I do feel like that is their goal.  If they have all this extra cash, why are they holding back?  Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe Magowan and the rest of the owners are looking at the bottomline first and winning second.

Sharlon Schoop: "It's only stealing if you get caught...more than 54% of the time"

by Woody Wins on Oct 29, 2007 4:06 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: There's more...
They get just slightly less than 1/30th of it.  For some reason that surpasses understanding the media is very resistant to recognizing the new economic reality and insists on using phrases like small and/or medium market teams that have frankly lost any relevant meaning in the age of new technology (as the size of one's local TV market has little to no causitive affect on your ability to bring in revenues).  

Predominantly I guess this is because sports journalists seem to be as a rule pretty lazy. You may recall how ubiquitously they picked up and repeated Huizenga's claim that he was losing $40 some million in 1997 -- a claim that was on the face of it pretty dubious and which was subsequently demonstrated to be pretty much a bald-faced lie (not by sports journalists, though, by business journalists). Adjusting to new realities seems to be beyond the capacity of the Ray Ratto's of the world, so why not just write the same old things over and over.

I will note that Brian Sabean, on I believe the last of his shows with Razor and Mr. T when directly asked whether the Giants could afford Arod said "yes if they decided they wanted to go after him they could find ways to accomodate the required payroll adjustment". Which seemed like Brian's typically circuitous way of admitting there's plenty of cash in the company safe.

My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.

by Roger on Oct 30, 2007 11:04 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: There's more...
The Sox and Yankees don't have mega TV deals. They own their own network. That is something the Giants might want to consider as well.
BRING ME ALEX RODRIGUEZ!!

by rxmeister on Oct 29, 2007 6:50 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: There's more...
Because the Giants own their own stadium, they do not have to share certain revenues with the city, they get a tax break from a depreciating park.. I am not sure it is as simple as a $20 mil expense.

by BleacherEd on Oct 29, 2007 11:54 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: There's more...
Okay, 10mil?  15mil?  30mil?  I don't know, I'm ballparking it here (pardon the pun).  I think the point still stands.  They are also leasing the land that the ballpark is on.  So how much does THAT cost?
"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Oct 29, 2007 4:19 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: There's more...
The most resent CBA also allows the Giants to deduct any interest payments towards capital improvements (ie the interest in the stadium debt) from thier revenue sharing obligations.  This for expample is why both the Yankees and the Mets are following the Giants example with private financing of thier new stadiums.  

Bottom line is that the stadium debt is just a management excuse for limiting the salary budget that has no real effect on the money available for players salaries.

by giantsrainman on Oct 29, 2007 4:31 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: There's more...
Pretend I'm dumb and don't know what that means.  Could you please explain then how much the Giants would ACTUALLY be paying in stadium debt?  If we're looking at say 10mil, that's still 90mil for payroll, 10mil for stadium.  100mil overall.
"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Oct 29, 2007 4:34 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: There's more...
I beleive the answer is zero.  Other stadium income not needed to be shared with a landlord balances the principle and deductions from Revenue sharing balances the interest.  The net effect is that the Giants really are not the ones paying the staium debt.  These other incomes and reduced revenue sharing are the ones paying the stadium debt.

by giantsrainman on Oct 29, 2007 5:49 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: I know, I know
I don't see how you can question fans who are notorius for extremely detailed roster speculation for taking the payroll into account.

If anything, they're all nerds for knowing the minor league systems of other teams pretty much for no other reason than to fill out their speculative rosters with those players. At that point, payroll speculation is like bckground nerd noise.

NERDS!!!

Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Oct 29, 2007 8:19 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

NERDS!
Bonds stands alone.

by nostocksjustbonds on Oct 29, 2007 10:25 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: NERDS!
I always thought that Michael Anthony (ex-Van Halen) looked a lot like Ogre.
***

Succumb to the Enchanted t-shirt! Adopted dad of Minor Izzy

by hairball on Oct 29, 2007 12:51 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod
exactly. If this team is going to develop the kids from now on, they definitely could afford to sign ARod and still have Barry Zito. It ain't my money. Do you want to see him sign with the Dodgers?? Do you want to sell tickets in the post-Bonds era?? The same people who wanted Bonds back because you don't fire your best player, doesn't think you become a better team when you add the best player in baseball?? Can we have someone in the lineup capable of doing better than a sac fly or RBI groundout when guys like Rajai, Roberts and Velez are stealing bases all over the place?? How about we sign ARod, and offer Barry Bonds a one year 5 million contract with a 15 million dollar bonus if we win the World Series?? Can we get someone on this team who can hit a 3 run homerun when Matt Cain or Tim Lincecum are pitching their hearts out?? BRING ME AROD!!
Joe Simpson:"I was told by a player that the hardest throwers he saw all year were Ubaldo Jimenez and RANDY MESSENGER"

by rxmeister on Oct 29, 2007 5:34 AM PDT   0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod
by the way, did you see the way ARod blew off Hank Aaron last night, not showing up to receive the Aaron award?? I wonder how Aaron felt. Probably like the way Bonds felt when Aaron blew HIM off by not being there for the record breaking homerun. Maybe ARod should have appeared on the big video screen giving Aaron a fake tribute.
BRING ME ALEX RODRIGUEZ!!

by rxmeister on Oct 29, 2007 6:18 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I hate A-Rod
A-Rod is a freaking douche.  I hope no team buckles to this $30M+/yr insanity.

The guy was making $25 MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR!  How is that not enough?  

Also, he's not a very good sportsman... knocking balls out of people's hands, interfering with fielders by calling pop flys.  

by Gorgoroth on Oct 29, 2007 6:24 AM PDT   0 recs

Re: I hate A-Rod
Hey, don't knock douche. Ever date a girl with vaginosis??
BRING ME ALEX RODRIGUEZ!!

by rxmeister on Oct 29, 2007 6:53 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: I hate A-Rod
Plus we all know deuche is better than turd sandwich.
Giant Expectations

by UnleashTheGore on Oct 29, 2007 8:31 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: I hate A-Rod
a giant* deuche

by Azmanz on Oct 29, 2007 2:37 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: I hate A-Rod
and how many people in here hated Bonds pre-1993? If A-Rod is on our team, killing the ball and leading us to wins, you'd change your tune.

and I still don't understand the problem with his calling a pop up on the bases. I thought it was pretty clever and it worked.

Bonds stands alone.

by nostocksjustbonds on Oct 29, 2007 10:31 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: I hate A-Rod
Isn't it interference and not legal, like a defensive lineman calling the hike in football?

Or does baseball not have that rule?

Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Oct 29, 2007 11:00 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: I hate A-Rod
I suppose you could compare A-Rod's douche-iness (is that a word?)to Bonds', and they're both fantastic players, and A-Rod is of course much younger. So I can see why A-Rod would seem like the more attractive option.

That said: A-Rod is about to play for the fourth different team in his career. As mentioned above, he chose to opt out of a $25 MILLION/year contract, so how much more will he be asking for? Lastly, assuming we sign him, from all accounts, his ego would be just as big a distraction in the Giants clubhouse as Bonds would be. And supposedly, the Giants needed to move on from Bonds exactly for that reason -- to avoid larger-than-life clubhouse personalities with massive egos.

Oh, and exactly how many championships has A-Rod won? None. Is that his fault? No. Would paying him $30+ million/year make it difficult to sign and develop other players who could help win a championship? I think so.

Lon Simmons' adopted dad.

by Kitspool on Oct 29, 2007 12:35 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod. . .but its still n
"Boras hasn't said how much he believes Rodriguez is worth on the open market, but he suggested in interviews that Rodriguez could be worth $500 million to the Yankees over the next 10 years. It's clear he's shooting for a deal well in excess of $300 million, perhaps even as much as $400 million."

uh, I'll pass, thank you.

Psycho killer, qu'est-ce que c'est?

by shikantaza on Oct 29, 2007 6:51 AM PDT   0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod
What he wants and what he gets are two different things. I really don't understand the too much money argument when you're not personally the one paying the contract. The pitching staff the next few years will be Zito and kids making minimum salary, and the offense could be ARod and kids making minimum salary. I could understand if the Giants say they can't afford ARod, but who are WE to say they can't?? Unless you're the Giants' accountant and tell me they can't, I'm going to assume that they can. I don't know the finances of it all, but if ARod made 25 million per year, and the Yankees actually offered him a raise, I would assume that he brings in more than that in revenue.
BRING ME ALEX RODRIGUEZ!!

by rxmeister on Oct 29, 2007 6:57 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod
When I'm purchasing my season tickets, I feel like I am paying his salary.  If getting ARod means the prices would double over the next two years, I'd hope they can find another way to build a team.
Vote for Grant

by Goofus on Oct 29, 2007 7:05 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod
I can understand your point, but do you really think ticket prices would double?? Look at the money that is gone from last year's payroll. Bonds, Benitez, Vizquel, Feliz. That's ARod's salary right there. Durham goes next year, and Roberts and Winn the year after that. All can be replaced by young players making next to nothing.  And to be honest with you, although I know you may feel differently, I would rather pay 50 bucks to see a good team than 25 bucks to see a bad one.
BRING ME ALEX RODRIGUEZ!!

by rxmeister on Oct 29, 2007 7:37 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod
The flaw in this philosophy, as I see it, is kind of twofold:
  1. We haven't seen any legitimate talent come from our minor leagues in some time.  While I'm excited for the post-Bonds era, I'm also very apprehensive about how it's going to play out.  But we'd actually need to get real talent in to surround A-Rod, kind of like what we haven't done with Bonds since 2002.  If we can't surround him with talent, we're not really going to be a better team.  We'll kind of be the same team.
  2. In a few years, suppose we have genuine talent coming up from our minors, and we want to re-sign them but can't because of two ridiculously huge contracts.  Then we just start looking like a bizarre variation on the Oakland A's, who can develop solid talent, but can't keep them once they become eligible for free agency.
I agree I don't want to see ARod go to the Dodgers, especially not if he re-breaks the all-time homer record.  But I'd definitely be concerned about how our team is assembled for the next ten years, surrounding A-Rod.

The other point I fail to see anyone mention here is that A-Rod has been attrociously bad in the playoffs.  Over the course of enough postseason PAs during your career, your numbers should even out to approximate your career numbers, but his numbers have been really bad.  So if we have him lead us to a playoff appearance, does anyone see it turning out where A-Rod leads the way like Bonds did in the '02 Series?  Any thoughts on this?

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Oct 29, 2007 8:25 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod
Are you saying it's totally impossible?? We have the pitching, isn't it possible that guys like Roberts and Rajai get on base, players like Molina and Winn have the same year they had in 2007, and a couple of the kids like Nate, Ort or Fred Lewis have decent or better than expected years?? Ray Durham could bounce back, or Kevin Frandsen could continue to improve. Put ARod in the middle of all that and there's a chance you could be contenders. I know it's just a chance, but DON'T put ARod in the middle of all that and you will definitely NOT contend. Do you want to have some hope or no hope for next year??
BRING ME ALEX RODRIGUEZ!!

by rxmeister on Oct 29, 2007 8:35 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod
I don't think ARod and not contend are mutually exclusive things.  Same with Not ARod and contend are not mutually exclusive.  It's not all so black and white.

It's certainly possible that they all could bounce back or rise to the occasion, but what you're proposing still has one legitimate slugger in the middle of the lineup.  That idea doesn't concern you?  ARod's protection would be Durham, Winn, or Molina?  That sounds suspiciously like what we've been doing the past few years, and it hasn't exactly worked out great for us.

That's a pretty big reason why I'm not a fan of putting all your eggs in one basket, which is exactly how it's been for years now.  I certainly like your thinking, Rx, but we'd be relying on a lot of things going right, which is how we ended up in 2007 too.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Oct 29, 2007 8:45 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod
I know my argument is kind of simplistic, but sometimes the answer is the obvious one. The solution to only having one legitimate power threat in your lineup is not to go out the next year and have none, it's to replace the power you've lost and then some. Replacing Barry with ARod is a start. I'm sorry, Barry fans, but right now ARod is simply a better player than Barry Bonds. Barring an unforseen injury, he's going to be out there for 4-5 atbats in at least 155 games. Yes, it's going to be a problem having guys like Molina and Durham hitting behind him, but how about all those day games after night games last year, when Molina and Durham were actually counted on to be our power source?? Barry hurt us by sitting out, by his diminished speed, and his diminished defense. ARod helps us in every way. And like I said, you get lucky with a couple of kids, and get bounceback years from a couple of veterans, and who knows what might happen. The key word is like I said, hope. ARod gives us a little, and a little is better than none at all. Didn't sixty percent of the fans on this board pick us to win the NL West last year?? And I was one of them!! How wrong were we?? It's not that we don't know sports, it's that we're hopeful and optimistic. If you had a poll right now, I bet nobody picks us to win next year. There's basically no hope right now. ARod might increase that number to 20-30%. Why can't we have a cause of optimism??
BRING ME ALEX RODRIGUEZ!!

by rxmeister on Oct 29, 2007 9:21 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: I know, I know, more A-rod
I'm a huge Bonds fan.  No getting around it.  But I'm a bigger Giants fan, and kind of realistic about things.  Absolutely, ARod's a better player than Bonds now, but at the end of his 8-10 year deal, will ARod really be worth 30mil a year?  Remember, Bonds' career after 38 is the exception, not the rule.  I can't say ARod WON'T put up Bondsian numbers late in his 30s/early 40s, but it's not that LIKELY either.  The ARod dilemma isn't do you add him or not, it's do you pay him for 8 years at a salary that's ridiculously too high or not, at a time when most player's numbers go into a steady decline.

I'd be intrigued by ARod as a Giant, but I don't hold a lot of faith that he's going to be the answer to the Giants being respectable again, at least not in the long term.  If you want a short term fix, look elsewhere.  Me personally, I don't relish the idea of paying 30 million to a 38-40 year old.  That's the definition of un-moveable contract.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Oct 29, 2007 9:43 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

When you sign a superstar,
or any player for that matter, to a big contract, you expect him NOT to be worth what you're paying him at the end of the big contract. You DON'T expect him to worth what you're paying at the end of the contract.

So why sign him to that contract then? Firstly, it's a matter of runs and wins. If the player can give you enough runs and wins to get you into the playoffs yearly for the majority of the contract, you get to increase revenues tremendously.

Furthermore, and this is why it is generally considered better to overpay for superstars like Bonds, Arod, Beltran, Tejada, instead of players like Zito or Carlos Lee, there is the matter of scarcity. Guys like ARod or Bonds don't grow on trees. Regardless of how much money you have to spend, you usually can't find guys like that.

Additionally, a declining superstar is generally still a pretty good player. He might be no longer worth what he is getting, but he's still most likely above average at least. A declining average player, often ends up as barely above replacement level, ie worthless.

Also, superstars unlike league average players, are much more easily marketable.

by rfloh on Oct 29, 2007 9:59 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

So you're saying
ignore the future for the benefit of today?  I feel like I've seen this strategy played out...  But where?  I think I've seen it happen, though in a much luckier way...

Now I'm not Nostradamus, but I think I can tell you how this all plays out if we sign Alex Rodriguez:

With two players taking up approximately $50mil of a 90mil payroll, we must now pay less for other positions.  Not a bad thing if we can develop talent through our minor leagues, but our minors haven't exactly been producing major league caliber talent, so we're in a sticky situation.  But more than that, we have the best player in baseball, right around the peak of his career, and dammit...  We need to win now!  This is our best chance to make the World Series.  So screw Fred/Rajai/Nate/Ort/any trades for up and coming talent, because they don't know how to win at the major league level yet, and we must capitalize on having ARod.  Instead, our infield consists of Rich/Ray/Omar/ARod, and our outfield is Randy/Dave Roberts/free agent 3rd tier talent who has veteran savvy.  Sound about like the status quo?

I'm hopeful that I'm wrong, I'd really like to be wrong.  In fact, I demand to be wrong!  But 30mil a year???  Seriously, I can't shake the notion that it's crazy talk, and I just can't jump onboard with the idea of paying one guy a third of your payroll this late in his career.  Now if it was a 5 year deal even, I'd probably be onboard.  But 8 years and a third of your payroll just strikes me as absolute crazy.  Not for a player in his 30s, and not when the contract will expire when he's 40.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Oct 29, 2007 10:51 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I am NOT saying that
I am saying that the increased revenues that you earn in the next few years will cover the overpaying of the player in the last year or so. Many teams do this. They sign what appears to be an "inefficient" contract. The last year is usually considered a "dump" year.

Would you have preferred that Sabean signed Vlad / Tejada instead of all that crap he signed? His mistake wasn't trying to win now. His mistake wasn't trying to build around Bonds. His mistake was passing on superstars for mediocre crap, who ended barely above replacement level once they started declining. His mistake was passing on guys like Vlad, Tejada, ARod.

by rfloh on Oct 29, 2007 11:16 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: I am NOT saying that
Vlad was in his 20s when he signed his deal, and that was for what, 5 years?  I'm down with that contract, because he's in his mid-30s at the latest when his deal expires.  That's a VERY good deal!  The Vlad-ARod comparison is kind of like apples to oranges, because ARod's about to hit his mid 30s already.  Vlad's currently 31.

With ARod, how many years can we expect him to perform at superstar levels before his numbers start declining?  What age do we typically see a decline?  35?  36?  Do we expect him to not suffer a decline of any major note until he's maybe 38 to 40?  Because if you're going to tie up a third of the payroll in one guy, you need to make sure that he's going to be a major cog in your machine for more than half of that deal.  Wouldn't you?  Like I said, though, if he were to si