PDA

View Full Version : Blue Jays and Marlins swap 12 players, including J. Johnson and Jose Reyes



Jeffy25
11-15-2012, 03:40 PM
Since our last thread reached 1000 posts, it had to be closed.

At this point, the deal is still not 'official' and Bud Selig is not happy about the deal, but there is no reason to disallow it at this point.

It sounds like everyone around the league is pissed off about it too


Also, Yunel Escobar will play third base, and Adeiny Hechavarria will get OD start at short.


Marlins receive a combined 32 years of control, to the Jays 12, and the cost of 160 million dollars

Johann
11-15-2012, 03:49 PM
Hmm, so do we think that Buehrle would play in Toronto, even though his Pitbull would not?

mtf
11-15-2012, 03:52 PM
At this point, the deal is still not 'official' and Bud Selig is not happy about the deal, but there is no reason to disallow it at this point.

It would be unfortunate if it was blocked by Bud Selig because he's even said (reportedly) as a baseball trade alone, it would be fine. It's the extenuating circumstances around the trade that make it so distasteful.

Super.
11-15-2012, 03:55 PM
It's sad that the Marlins are allowed to scam the city of Miami and it's taxpayers.

Again.

Mr. Baller
11-15-2012, 03:57 PM
I think it gets vetoed, and yes I am also saying that because I am a Marlins fan, but I also truly believe it has to be done

Mell413
11-15-2012, 04:03 PM
I don't see it being vetoed nor do I think it should

Dol-Fan
11-15-2012, 04:05 PM
I think it gets vetoed, and yes I am also saying that because I am a Marlins fan, but I also truly believe it has to be done

I feel bad for you and other Marlins fans, but there is no reason to overturn this deal. The extenuating circumstances make it quite unfortunate, but from a baseball perspective, you guys shed a ton of salary and picked up very solid prospects and young major leaguers.

bomber0104
11-15-2012, 04:05 PM
I think it gets vetoed, and yes I am also saying that because I am a Marlins fan, but I also truly believe it has to be done

so what do you gain as a Marlins fan.. you would have 3 players who would just shown the door by owner.. yeah that would be great for team chemistry

the_jon
11-15-2012, 04:07 PM
Just get Loria out

Bob Loblaw
11-15-2012, 04:17 PM
Here is what the Marlins President had to say when asked about the trade


What do you say to the people who feel betrayed?

“I think people should feel betrayed by the fact we were losing so much, I would think they wouldn’t want us to stand pat and keep losing. We don’t want to be one of those teams that for 20 years doesn’t win 81 games or doesn’t make the playoffs …

Pinstripe pride
11-15-2012, 04:18 PM
cant see the MLB vetoing the deal.

Super.
11-15-2012, 04:18 PM
On some days, only a brief history lesson, such as this one, will suffice to give depth to the disgrace of the day. You cannot understand the devastation of the Marlins, the fleecing of hundreds of millions of dollars from Miami taxpayers for a new park and the crippling of a franchise for many years to come until you grasp the pattern of business depravity of the man behind it.

On Tuesday, the Marlins didn’t just trade away most of the best and most expensive players left on their roster: Jose Reyes, Mark Buerhle, Josh Johnson and others, dumping more than $160 million in salary to Toronto.

Loria and his executives turned their seven-month-old, $600-million 80-percent-publicly-funded park into a toxic dump where no sane player will choose to play as long as present management has its hands on the throats of the team.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/florida-marlins-trade-shows-jeffrey-loria-mlb-at-their-worst/2012/11/15/bb1e1ed0-2eac-11e2-beb2-4b4cf5087636_story.html?tid=sm_btn_reddit

Yankee Clipper
11-15-2012, 04:19 PM
Here is what the Marlins President had to say when asked about the trade

What a crook. Unbelievable. People need to just not go to games and drive this guy out.

Mr. Baller
11-15-2012, 04:21 PM
He will be still making a profit

Bob Loblaw
11-15-2012, 04:23 PM
Escobar will lose most of his value at 3rd base. Although he makes over a million dollars so he probably will be traded soon.

Kelly Gruber
11-15-2012, 04:25 PM
Watched teams in our division do these kind of deals for 20 years, our chance to do one and it may get vetoed? That's a bunch of BS. Not like the Jays didn't surrender any talent, it's actually a baseball deal at least. Look at the Red Sox/Dodgers deal earlier this year, now THAT was a joke.

There are a lot of other factors that make this situation unique, but keep in mind, you veto this deal now and you ruin two baseball markets. This would be the last straw for Jays fans.

mtf
11-15-2012, 04:25 PM
I feel bad for you and other Marlins fans, but there is no reason to overturn this deal. The extenuating circumstances make it quite unfortunate, but from a baseball perspective, you guys shed a ton of salary and picked up very solid prospects and young major leaguers.

I agree. I would be upset if I was a Marlins fan, but they started this fire sale process back in July.

If the name of the team involved was the Oakland A's instead of Miami Marlins, I think everyone would say "it's Billy Beane, just being a genius again". From a pure baseball perspective, and not looking at the issues surrounding the tax payers, the politicians and the stadium, it's not an unreasonable trade.

Jeffy25
11-15-2012, 04:26 PM
I don't see it being vetoed nor do I think it should

I agree.

Nothing here breaks any rules.


It's just distasteful.

It might change the way future contracts are worked out (especially in the form of NTC's)

Jeffy25
11-15-2012, 04:27 PM
I feel like I could buy the Miami Marlins for 100 grand at this point

mtf
11-15-2012, 04:27 PM
This would be the last straw for Jays fans.

No it wouldn't. If it gets vetoed, and I really doubt that happens, it will have nothing to do with Toronto. It'd suck for us, but it would be all about Jeffrey Loria. I'd still be happy with Anthopoulos ingenuity and Rogers willingness to spend.

Kelly Gruber
11-15-2012, 04:29 PM
I agree.

Nothing here breaks any rules.


It's just distasteful.

It might change the way future contracts are worked out (especially in the form of NTC's)

If these guys and their agents didn't see what the writing on the wall when they signed those contracts then I don't know what to say.

Half the posters around here expected this very situation to happen. There is a reason these deals were back-loaded and it's the Marlins...

Super.
11-15-2012, 04:30 PM
Watched teams in our division do these kind of deals for 20 years, our chance to do one and it may get vetoed? That's a bunch of BS. Not like the Jays didn't surrender any talent, it's actually a baseball deal at least. Look at the Red Sox/Dodgers deal earlier this year, now THAT was a joke.

There are a lot of other factors that make this situation unique, but keep in mind, you veto this deal now and you ruin two baseball markets. This would be the last straw for Jays fans.

A joke? Not remotely, Dodgers wanted to compete, Boston wanted to rebuild.

Honestly, if the Marlins we're about to scam the **** out of the city of Miami then I'd have ZERO problem with this deal. Loria is a scumbag, and is screwing taxpayers out of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. It's despicable what he's doing. This isn't even the first time that the Marlins have done this!

Jeffy25
11-15-2012, 04:32 PM
I am upset that I share a first name with this guy (and I'm not referring to the catcher that went to Miami)

Kelly Gruber
11-15-2012, 04:33 PM
No it wouldn't. If it gets vetoed, and I really doubt that happens, it will have nothing to do with Toronto. It'd suck for us, but it would be all about Jeffrey Loria. I'd still be happy with Anthopoulos ingenuity and Rogers willingness to spend.

So after perhaps the biggest trade in Jays history goes down, hope restored accross the Blue Jays' landscape, finally a chance to be among the elite, and it gets vetoed and there won't be a back lash? After we watched teams in our division do similar deals for years, and lost players like Halladay to bigger markets. This will be a big deal among the Jays fans I know.

Hell I've been a Jays fan since 1987. They veto this deal and it will be the last straw for me. Put it that way.

mtf
11-15-2012, 04:33 PM
A joke? Not remotely, Dodgers wanted to compete, Boston wanted to rebuild.

I think he meant a joke (as compared to this one) as the Blue Jays gave up more than the Dodgers and took on less salary/term, and he's not wrong. Boston didn't get nearly as much in return as Miami did here.

Jeffy25
11-15-2012, 04:34 PM
So after perhaps the biggest trade in Jays history goes down, hope restored accross the Blue Jays' landscape, finally a chance to be among the elite, and it gets vetoed and there won't be a back lash? After we watched teams in our division do similar deals for years, and lost players like Halladay to bigger markets. This will be a big deal among the Jays fans I know.

Hell I've been a Jays fan since 1987. They veto this deal and it will be the last straw for me. Put it that way.

It won't be vetoed

Super.
11-15-2012, 04:34 PM
I think he meant a joke (as compared to this one) as the Blue Jays gave up more than the Dodgers and took on less salary/term, and he's not wrong. Boston didn't get nearly as much in return as Miami did here.

Dumping Beckett and Crawford, and not having to pay them anything further than this season is value in itself.

It was pretty much all of those specs for AGon, and Punto the clear target of the trade.

mtf
11-15-2012, 04:35 PM
So after perhaps the biggest trade in Jays history goes down, hope restored accross the Blue Jays' landscape, finally a chance to be among the elite, and it gets vetoed and there won't be a back lash? After we watched teams in our division do similar deals for years, and lost players like Halladay to bigger markets. This will be a big deal among the Jays fans I know.

Hell I've been a Jays fan since 1987. They veto this deal and it will be the last straw for me. Put it that way.

Everyone can look at it as the sky is falling in the unlikely scenario that it gets vetoed, but in reality it wouldn't be about the Jays. The Jays would just be a victim of circumstances, and yes that'd suck.

All I was saying is you can even take a positive from it, that at least Anthopoulos did his job very well and Rogers for the first time it's history showed a willingness to invest. You know, if the glass is half full for you.

mtf
11-15-2012, 04:37 PM
Dumping Beckett and Crawford, and not having to pay them anything further than this season is value in itself.

It was pretty much all of those specs for AGon, and Punto the clear target of the trade.

All i was saying is Boston got nothing of significance (other than financial flexibility) in return for many things of significance going to the Dodgers. It was a 1 way trade, unlike this Marlins/Blue Jays trade.

I don't think either trade is unreasonable though.

Kelly Gruber
11-15-2012, 04:38 PM
A joke? Not remotely, Toronto wanted to compete, Miami wanted to rebuild.

Honestly, if the Marlins we're about to scam the **** out of the city of Miami then I'd have ZERO problem with this deal. Loria is a scumbag, and is screwing taxpayers out of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. It's despicable what he's doing. This isn't even the first time that the Marlins have done this!

See what I did there?

It's no different than deals that have been made many times in the past. Yes it involves the Marlins and yes it looks horrible, but most people expected the Marlins to do this didn't they? Look at the breakdown in those contracts, they were never meant to keep those players in Miami long-term. If they're unhappy they should have stopped the deals, and the players shouldn't have signed them.

My heart isn't bleeding for anyone personally.

Mr. Baller
11-15-2012, 04:39 PM
Difference between the two deals: NOBODY is going to get a public funded stadium ever because of this deal and what Loria is doing. Boston has a rich history and the owner is committed to competing. Loria isn't committed to anything but making a profit.

mtf
11-15-2012, 04:42 PM
Difference between the two deals: NOBODY is going to get a public funded stadium ever because of this deal and what Loria is doing.

Yeah this is the obvious extenuating circumstance, but it isn't really a basis for vetoing a trade. It may be a basis for forcing Loria to sell the team, but not vetoing the trade itself.


Boston has a rich history and the owner is committed to competing. Loria isn't committed to anything but making a profit.

Although I agree with you completely (about Loria, not a veto), it should be remembered that the Marlins have won 2 World Series in the past 15 years despite their history of doing this sort of thing.

AI
11-15-2012, 04:42 PM
I think he meant a joke (as compared to this one) as the Blue Jays gave up more than the Dodgers and took on less salary/term, and he's not wrong. Boston didn't get nearly as much in return as Miami did here.

What exactly did the Marlins get of value aside from Nicolino, a pitcher who still hasn't pitched above A-ball?

Adeiny Hechavarria couldn't hit to save his life before going to the PCL which is a notorious hitters league. Put up sub .300 OBP's before that too, I guess that's like Boston sending Iglesias to Miami and saying they got a heck of a deal?

When it's all said and done the best player in this deal might be Escobar and that is nothing to celebrate about. Mathis? Alvarez? Marisnick? That's minimal talent, I tip my hat to AA for an amazing deal for you guys and I hope it works out, but to act like what Toronto sent Miami's way is "a good offer" is borderline crazy.

Johann
11-15-2012, 04:44 PM
What exactly did the Marlins get of value aside from Nicolino, a pitcher who still hasn't pitched above A-ball?

Adeiny Hechavarria couldn't hit to save his life before going to the PCL which is a notorious hitters league. Put up sub .300 OBP's before that too, I guess that's like Boston sending Iglesias to Miami and saying they got a heck of a deal?

When it's all said and done the best player in this deal might be Escobar and that is nothing to celebrate about. Mathis? Alvarez? Marisnick? Ugh, minimal talent.

Marisnick isn't minimal talent.
#2 prospect on the Jays and prospected better than Gose.

Marisnick/Nicolino/Hech were 3 of Toronto's top 10 prospects.

Boston-Born
11-15-2012, 04:47 PM
Zero chance it gets vetoed

mtf
11-15-2012, 04:48 PM
What exactly did the Marlins get of value aside from Nicolino, a pitcher who still hasn't pitched above A-ball?

Adeiny Hechavarria couldn't hit to save his life before going to the PCL which is a notorious hitters league. Put up sub .300 OBP's before that too, I guess that's like Boston sending Iglesias to Miami and saying they got a heck of a deal?

When it's all said and done the best player in this deal might be Escobar and that is nothing to celebrate about. Mathis? Alvarez? Marisnick? That's minimal talent, I tip my hat to AA for an amazing deal for you guys and I hope it works out, but to act like what Toronto sent Miami's way is "a good offer" is borderline crazy.

Well, what I said was Miami got more than Boston did in comparing the 2 trades. I didn't say that Miami made a good deal.

But since you bring it up, Hechavarria is a very solid shortstop prospect. His bat was playing pretty well at the majors after the first week he was up, although it's a small sample size. His defense is amazing as well.

Alvarez has his flaws but he's still got a lot of potential, and I can't imagine he will do anything but improve now that he's out of the AL East. It's just a personal opinion though.

Marisnick is the best prospect that the Marlins got, and you threw him in the same "minimal talent" category as Jeff Mathis. :p Baseball America recently put him as the Jays #2 prospect behind Travis D'Arnaud.

Prospects don't always work out though, as Kyle Drabek (the key piece of the Halladay deal at the time) will tell you.

young_soldier
11-15-2012, 04:50 PM
What exactly did the Marlins get of value aside from Nicolino, a pitcher who still hasn't pitched above A-ball?

Adeiny Hechavarria couldn't hit to save his life before going to the PCL which is a notorious hitters league. Put up sub .300 OBP's before that too, I guess that's like Boston sending Iglesias to Miami and saying they got a heck of a deal?

When it's all said and done the best player in this deal might be Escobar and that is nothing to celebrate about. Mathis? Alvarez? Marisnick? That's minimal talent, I tip my hat to AA for an amazing deal for you guys and I hope it works out, but to act like what Toronto sent Miami's way is "a good offer" is borderline crazy.

Well obviously the Jays won this deal, but the Jays apparently blew the Marlins away with their offer. So it wasn't like they were in line to get anything better anyways.

There's two sides to every coin. Reyes is a big injury risk a huge contract. Buerhle is slowly headed past the prime of his career and also carries a huge end-loaded contract. Josh Johnson is coming off Tommy John and is another perpetual injury risk and also might I add is in the last year of his contract. Bonifacio is a speedy utlity player who had one good season in his whole career. I'm not even going to even mention Buck in my arguement.

So, for an injury prone All Star SS, a soft tossing lefty who is 34 when the season starts, an injury risk all star Pitcher with one year left of control, and Boni+Buck, I'd say the Marlins got just about what they deserved.

This deal could work well for the Jays, but it could also turn on them in a hurry.

Pinstripe pride
11-15-2012, 04:52 PM
Watched teams in our division do these kind of deals for 20 years, our chance to do one and it may get vetoed? That's a bunch of BS. Not like the Jays didn't surrender any talent, it's actually a baseball deal at least. Look at the Red Sox/Dodgers deal earlier this year, now THAT was a joke.

There are a lot of other factors that make this situation unique, but keep in mind, you veto this deal now and you ruin two baseball markets. This would be the last straw for Jays fans.

instead of ruining just one by accepting it?


this wouldnt ruin the blue jays if it was vetoeds, it is an obvious trade rape on their part.

Jeffy25
11-15-2012, 04:53 PM
If you are Miami

you didn't have Reyes and Buehrle before this season.

They cost you a combined 12 million in cash, oh well.


You got for the cost of Josh Johnson, Emilio Bonifacio, and John Buck:

Yunel Escobar, Niccolino, Marisnick, Hechavarria, Mathis, Desclafini, and Alvarez

To the Marlins, this is a net trade of 4 players for one year of Johnson, Buck and Bonifacio.

Now they did lose the draft rights to Dane Phillips (Padres) and possibly more players, but I'm not bothering to look it up.


As a Marlins fan, they are not in that much worse of a position than they were in 2010 when they are barely hanging on.

Asset-wise, they aren't that much worse off.

Super.
11-15-2012, 04:54 PM
All i was saying is Boston got nothing of significance (other than financial flexibility) in return for many things of significance going to the Dodgers. It was a 1 way trade, unlike this Marlins/Blue Jays trade.

I don't think either trade is unreasonable though.

Rubby, Sands, and Webster were some of the Dodgers best specs, :shrug:

Regardless the team needed to go in a new direction. I don't think think the trade itself is an issue, just the reasons behind it from the marlins. Loria is making millions off of the taxpayers, again. It's sickening really that he's allowed to do this again.

Pinstripe pride
11-15-2012, 04:56 PM
So after perhaps the biggest trade in Jays history goes down, hope restored accross the Blue Jays' landscape, finally a chance to be among the elite, and it gets vetoed and there won't be a back lash? After we watched teams in our division do similar deals for years, and lost players like Halladay to bigger markets. This will be a big deal among the Jays fans I know.

Hell I've been a Jays fan since 1987. They veto this deal and it will be the last straw for me. Put it that way.

if it gets vetoed, they are saying its unfair. how can blue jays fans really be upset and unfair deal was vetoed? its like when the vetoed the arod to boston deal. it sucks for a bit but you move one business as usual

Havoc Wreaker
11-15-2012, 04:57 PM
What a crook. Unbelievable. People need to just not go to games and drive this guy out.

They already don't

ciaban
11-15-2012, 04:58 PM
I think that as soon as yunel is a marlin he will be dealt, and i think its only a matter of time before ricky nolasco gets dealt too. The two of them make a combined 14 mill, maybe they get packaged together to the Yankees.

mtf
11-15-2012, 05:02 PM
Rubby, Sands, and Webster were some of the Dodgers best specs, :shrug:

They may be the dodgers best "specs" but they weren't particularly amazing. The dodgers farm system was pretty shallow. Allen Webster and Ruby De La Rosa seem reasonable, but nothing special. Jerry Sands and Ivan De Jesus were insignificant. I'm not familiar with any of these players, it's just what I remember reading right after the trade.

mtf
11-15-2012, 05:03 PM
I think that as soon as yunel is a marlin he will be dealt, and i think its only a matter of time before ricky nolasco gets dealt too. The two of them make a combined 14 mill, maybe they get packaged together to the Yankees.

I thought Nolasco was 11 million next year and Escobar was 5 million. I can't see many teams rushing to acquire Escobar, despite his reasonable performance on the field (not great by any means).

koreancabbage
11-15-2012, 05:04 PM
if it gets vetoed, they are saying its unfair. how can blue jays fans really be upset and unfair deal was vetoed? its like when the vetoed the arod to boston deal. it sucks for a bit but you move one business as usual

i don't see any other teams jumping into to take on $160M in salary.

Pinstripe pride
11-15-2012, 05:08 PM
i don't see any other teams jumping into to take on $160M in salary.

so? i don't think they will veto it, but that would be the reason they do. and how do you know there aren't other teams that were negotiating this kind of deal and they just took the blue jays offer.


fact is loria is not operating the team in the best interest of basbeall, just the best intrest of his wallet. just because he wants to dump payroll doesnt mean the MLB has to allow it if it doesn;t seem right. again, i have no doubt MLB will approve the deal, but in the hypothetical situation they dont, it wont ruin toronot as a baseball market

2009mvp
11-15-2012, 05:08 PM
Difference between the two deals: NOBODY is going to get a public funded stadium ever because of this deal and what Loria is doing. Boston has a rich history and the owner is committed to competing. Loria isn't committed to anything but making a profit.

And North America would be better off for it. Anyways, that's between owners and their local governments, not Selig and the Blue Jays/Marlins.


if it gets vetoed, they are saying its unfair. how can blue jays fans really be upset and unfair deal was vetoed?

That's not what they'd be saying. There is zero justification for saying it's an unfair baseball move.


its like when the vetoed the arod to boston deal. it sucks for a bit but you move one business as usual

No it's not. The MLBPA vetoed that because of the proposed paycut A-Rod would have had to take. That's a reason. That's justification. There's nothing of that sort involved here.

Mitchell133
11-15-2012, 05:09 PM
This trade will NOT be veto'd. Why kid yourselves? It didn't happen in August between LA/Boston and it won't happen now.

mtf
11-15-2012, 05:10 PM
if it gets vetoed, they are saying its unfair. how can blue jays fans really be upset and unfair deal was vetoed?

Well, first of all, it's highly improbable that it gets vetoed. Second, in the unlikely event that it does, it will not be because the deal was unfair. It's being reported by some that Selig has said that from a pure baseball perspective, there's nothing wrong with the trade. The issue is with the tax payers flipping the bill for a stadium, expecting to see an immediate contender play in it.

Mr. Baller
11-15-2012, 05:10 PM
Rubby, Sands, and Webster were some of the Dodgers best specs, :shrug:

Regardless the team needed to go in a new direction. I don't think think the trade itself is an issue, just the reasons behind it from the marlins. Loria is making millions off of the taxpayers, again. It's sickening really that he's allowed to do this again.

this this this

Pinstripe pride
11-15-2012, 05:13 PM
And North America would be better off for it. Anyways, that's between owners and their local governments, not Selig and the Blue Jays/Marlins.



That's not what they'd be saying. There is zero justification for saying it's an unfair baseball move.



No it's not. The MLBPA vetoed that because of the proposed paycut A-Rod would have had to take. That's a reason. That's justification. There's nothing of that sort involved here.

i dont think it will be vetoed. that will be their arguement if they vetoed it. its a one sided deal, but its far from unfair.

mtf
11-15-2012, 05:13 PM
this this this

You think that the players the Red Sox got in that deal were better than what the Marlins got? Seriously?

Pinstripe pride
11-15-2012, 05:13 PM
Well, first of all, it's highly improbable that it gets vetoed. Second, in the unlikely event that it does, it will not be because the deal was unfair. It's being reported by some that Selig has said that from a pure baseball perspective, there's nothing wrong with the trade. The issue is with the tax payers flipping the bill for a stadium, expecting to see an immediate contender play in it.

i already said that. it wont be vetoed

mtf
11-15-2012, 05:14 PM
i dont think it will be vetoed. that will be their arguement if they vetoed it. its a one sided deal, but its far from unfair.

That actually won't be the argument at all. The argument will be the betrayal of the public trust after the issue with the stadium. It will not be that Miami didn't get enough talent in return.

mtf
11-15-2012, 05:14 PM
i already said that. it wont be vetoed

I know, we both agree that it won't be vetoed. My comment was based on your logic that the reason would be based on the fairness of players being moved. That isn't the issue at all.

If it was the same players being moved, but let's say it was between Oakland and New York rather than Miami and Toronto, this would not be an issue. So let's not pretend it's a "fairness" issue in terms of players involved.

Mr. Baller
11-15-2012, 05:14 PM
You think that the players the Red Sox got in that deal were better than what the Marlins got? Seriously?

Thats not what his post said. It said this:


Regardless the team needed to go in a new direction. I don't think think the trade itself is an issue, just the reasons behind it from the marlins. Loria is making millions off of the taxpayers, again. It's sickening really that he's allowed to do this again.

the_jon
11-15-2012, 05:17 PM
It's not like the Marlins are consistently ******... They've won 2 world series in the last 15 years...

the_jon
11-15-2012, 05:17 PM
duplicate - mods please delete

mtf
11-15-2012, 05:18 PM
Thats not what his post said. It said this:

Yeah, fair enough. I thought you were agreeing with the part of his post that said "The Red Sox got the Dodgers BEST SPECS!!!!!" in the first paragraph.

I do completely agree with you, and him, on that paragraph which you quoted there though.

jakedajewler
11-15-2012, 05:24 PM
If this trade gets vetoed i'm done with baseball, there is nothing unfair about it, teams cut salary like this every single year, the marlins got a few nice pieces back actually, prob more then they should for a straight salary dump. As for the argument that it's unfair to the fans of the marlins because they agreed to build a pubĚlicĚly funded stadium, well the people of Miami have no one else to blame but themlves

Kelly Gruber
11-15-2012, 05:45 PM
If this trade gets vetoed i'm done with baseball, there is nothing unfair about it, teams cut salary like this every single year, the marlins got a few nice pieces back actually, prob more then they should for a straight salary dump. As for the argument that it's unfair to the fans of the marlins because they agreed to build a pubĚlicĚly funded stadium, well the people of Miami have no one else to blame but themlves

Especially since they had some of the worst attendance totals for a new ball park in history... And they're the ones that gave Loria a sweetheart deal on the stadium. Hard to see him selling with that kind of deal. All he has to do is keep the payroll low and watch the cash roll in.

Devastator137
11-15-2012, 05:53 PM
People need to understand that this trade should only be based from a baseball point of view. Anything other then that is diving into politics which has no point in this game. The only people who should get full blame for this whole fiasco is

1) Jeffrey Loria for being the dumbest baseball owner of all time.

2) Bud Selig and the rest of the owners for allowing Loria to become an owner

3) The politicians in the state of Florida and the city of Miami who voted yes to the new stadium knowing full well about Loria's iffy track record

End of Story

MetsFanatic19
11-15-2012, 06:05 PM
If this trade gets vetoed i'm done with baseball, there is nothing unfair about it, teams cut salary like this every single year, the marlins got a few nice pieces back actually, prob more then they should for a straight salary dump.

As for the argument that it's unfair to the fans of the marlins because they agreed to build a pubĚlicĚly funded stadium, well the people of Miami have no one else to blame but themlves

I agree completely.

ciaban
11-15-2012, 06:07 PM
They may be the dodgers best "specs" but they weren't particularly amazing. The dodgers farm system was pretty shallow. Allen Webster and Ruby De La Rosa seem reasonable, but nothing special. Jerry Sands and Ivan De Jesus were insignificant. I'm not familiar with any of these players, it's just what I remember reading right after the trade.
they weren't are only good minor leagues players, De la Rosa has ace stuff, he was just coming off TJ, Webster is an extreme ground ball pitcher who also gets a ton of strike outs. Sands is a pretty good hitter, he really was never given a shot with the dodgers.

You think that the players the Red Sox got in that deal were better than what the Marlins got? Seriously?
the marlins were giving away guys who were all healthy, the same can't be said about the redsox, and Beckett who pitched very well down the streatch was horrible at the time. Also, the Jays weren't taking on nearly as much money, so they kind of did have to give more back in return.

People need to understand that this trade should only be based from a baseball point of view. Anything other then that is diving into politics which has no point in this game. The only people who should get full blame for this whole fiasco is

1) Jeffrey Loria for being the dumbest baseball owner of all time.

2) Bud Selig and the rest of the owners for allowing Loria to become an owner

3) The politicians in the state of Florida and the city of Miami who voted yes to the new stadium knowing full well about Loria's iffy track record

End of Story
Loria is not dumb lol, he's far from it, he knows exactly what he is doing.

GrumpyOldMan
11-15-2012, 06:11 PM
I feel like I could buy the Miami Marlins for 100 grand at this point

I'll match that and partner up with you. It might take $200 000.

h2r09
11-15-2012, 06:17 PM
I'll match that and partner up with you. It might take $200 000.

Darren Rovell thinks the marlins are actually worth more now than they were before the trade and the franchise is now worth somewhere around 400 million.

mtf
11-15-2012, 06:18 PM
Darren Rovell thinks the marlins are actually worth more now than they were before the trade and the franchise is now worth somewhere around 400 million.

Why wouldn't it be worth more? They're still a last place team but now their expenses are significantly lower.

Raps08-09 Champ
11-15-2012, 06:46 PM
Only Stern can veto trades.

leafswin2011
11-15-2012, 07:08 PM
can somebody please tell me if they are still planning on switching it from divisions to conf style and when?

scottythegreat1
11-15-2012, 07:53 PM
People need to understand that this trade should only be based from a baseball point of view. Anything other then that is diving into politics which has no point in this game. The only people who should get full blame for this whole fiasco is

1) Jeffrey Loria for being the dumbest baseball owner of all time.

2) Bud Selig and the rest of the owners for allowing Loria to become an owner

3) The politicians in the state of Florida and the city of Miami who voted yes to the new stadium knowing full well about Loria's iffy track record

End of Story

Loria is actually a rather smart businessman.....

My personal definition of businessman is - A person who does whatever it takes to make as much money as possible..if that means selling a false dream, lying to get the people to believe you need public funds to build a structure to get jobs going in the company and then fold shortly after, or selling the paint on your house, or firing every employee who doesnt great you in the morning with "good morning Mr. Loria" then so be it.

Yes Loria is pocketing every dollar he can, and the team makes a lot of money just from the TV contracts and the MLB revenue sharing formula, but thats not his fault that he is practically milking the system...he is playing by the rules, and exploiting the loopholes that come with it.

Youre no businessman unless youre corrupt today....sad but true.

R. Johnson#3
11-15-2012, 08:06 PM
I think it gets vetoed, and yes I am also saying that because I am a Marlins fan, but I also truly believe it has to be done

An agreement was reached and that should be the end of it. If this trade gets vetoed then I'm calling for 2 things. The LA/Boston trade gets overturned and Bud Selig's head. That trade went through with no problems at all so this one has no reason to be vetoed nor does any other trade.

Stress
11-15-2012, 09:08 PM
Even if it does get vetoed I doubt Reyes, Johnson and Buehrle would want to give it their all in Miami now. Marlins loses either way.

I really hope Loria gets banned from baseball after this.

iam brett favre
11-16-2012, 03:54 PM
I hope they veto it, the only AL team I ever want to see JJ on is the Yankees.

Vampirate
11-16-2012, 04:37 PM
I hope they veto it, the only AL team I ever want to see JJ on is the Yankees.

You Mad. But seriosly, if the Yankees were doing this Jays fans would want it vetoed too. Who wants to see a division team get better lol.

And yes I know this could all blow up in the Jays face, but hey, we don't know yet.

Jeffy25
11-18-2012, 06:23 PM
Even if it does get vetoed I doubt Reyes, Johnson and Buehrle would want to give it their all in Miami now. Marlins loses either way.

I really hope Loria gets banned from baseball after this.

Considering he didn't get in trouble after what he did in Montreal, and was even able to do the Marlins....it tells me he won't be getting into any trouble.

masTOR_shake1
11-18-2012, 06:47 PM
imagine the jays sign hamilton too, after dealing rasmus and jpa for more pitching of course.....

nirvana235
11-18-2012, 06:58 PM
imagine the jays sign hamilton too, after dealing rasmus and jpa for more pitching of course.....

Hope not... let the dumb teams like the Dodgers sign him.

Jeffy25
11-18-2012, 07:03 PM
imagine the jays sign hamilton too, after dealing rasmus and jpa for more pitching of course.....

You have to think they are at least in on him somewhat

treeleaf
11-18-2012, 07:09 PM
If the jays sign hamilton I will change my last name to anthopoulos
book it

Jeffy25
11-18-2012, 07:18 PM
So now it's


Blue Jays Lineup:

1. Reyes-SS
2. Rasmus-CF
3. Lawrie- 3b
4. Bautista- RF
5. Encarcion-DH
6. M. Cabrera-LF
7. Lind-1b
8. JCP-C
9. M.Izturis/Bonifacio- 2b

Key Bench:

J.Buck C/1b/DH
Davis OF

Am I missing anyone? Melky can bat second, and actually be very well might.

mtf
11-18-2012, 07:24 PM
You have to think they are at least in on him somewhat

I have my doubts. I'm not sure that the Jays have gone insane and become like the Yankees, Red Sox or Dodgers. In reality, only one of the 4 high priced (or high potential, if price is not accurate) players they acquired this week are under contract for more than 3 years, and that's Jose Reyes @ 5 years.

I have a feeling Hamilton wouldn't sign for 4 years or something like that. It would be awesome to have that lefty power bat between Bautista and Encarnacion though. The 3-4-5 part of the lineup would have 100 HR potential, and Lawrie would likely pick up the 6 spot. Fun to hope, but I still have my doubts.

EDIT: Just for the sake of speculation, the Jays would not have to give up their 2013 first round draft pick to sign Hamilton, would they? Isn't their pick protected because they draft 10th overall next year?

mtf
11-18-2012, 07:26 PM
So now it's


Blue Jays Lineup:

1. Reyes-SS
2. Rasmus-CF
3. Lawrie- 3b
4. Bautista- RF
5. Encarcion-DH
6. M. Cabrera-LF
7. Lind-1b
8. JCP-C
9. M.Izturis/Bonifacio- 2b

Key Bench:

J.Buck C/1b/DH
Davis OF

Am I missing anyone? Melky can bat second, and actually be very well might.

Yeah, I think Melky bats 2nd and Lawrie bats behind Bautista and Encarnacion. Bautista has made no secret that he prefers to bat third for some reason. Also, by JCP, I assume you were refering to Arencibia?

SpecialFNK
11-18-2012, 07:31 PM
I don't think the Jays would be in on Hamilton, but then again I would not have thought they would make the trade that they did, so what do I know.

if the Jays are wanting to go all in, even over paying on Hamilton might be worth it. he sure would be a a hell of an offensive weapon in the 4 spot between Bautista and Encarnacion.
you have to think Hamilton is going to miss time. but the Jays could keep someone like Davis on the bench just in case.
signing Hamilton could mean Rasmus is out of a job. not sure how the Jays feel about Rasmus, whether they want to give him more time. personally I haven't been impressed with Rasmus and would rather see him shipped out.
now the more and more I think about it, signing Hamilton could be a good move. I think the Jays have the ability to spend what it would take, but would they.

Jeffy25
11-18-2012, 07:46 PM
Yeah, I think Melky bats 2nd and Lawrie bats behind Bautista and Encarnacion. Bautista has made no secret that he prefers to bat third for some reason. Also, by JCP, I assume you were refering to Arencibia?

I just copied and pasted from someone else, and added Melky lol.


1. Reyes
2. Melky
3. Bautista
4. E5
5. Lawrie
6. Rasmus
7. Arenciba
8. Lind
9. Bonifacio

If they sign Hamilton, he could go to left or center, and Melky could take the other, and put Rasmus in right (or he could stay in center, put Josh in right).

This means that Bautista, Hamilton, and E5 could take turns playing DH, 1B, and the occasional RF. Everybody plays everyday with E5 getting the bulk at DH. Bautista a first basemen?

Mell413
11-18-2012, 07:46 PM
Their first round pick would be protected I believe

Edit: It is protected. If I'm toronto I'd do it. **** the second round pick. Those picks suck. That lineup with Hamilton would be ridiculous

Jeffy25
11-18-2012, 07:48 PM
I have my doubts. I'm not sure that the Jays have gone insane and become like the Yankees, Red Sox or Dodgers. In reality, only one of the 4 high priced (or high potential, if price is not accurate) players they acquired this week are under contract for more than 3 years, and that's Jose Reyes @ 5 years.

I have a feeling Hamilton wouldn't sign for 4 years or something like that. It would be awesome to have that lefty power bat between Bautista and Encarnacion though. The 3-4-5 part of the lineup would have 100 HR potential, and Lawrie would likely pick up the 6 spot. Fun to hope, but I still have my doubts.

EDIT: Just for the sake of speculation, the Jays would not have to give up their 2013 first round draft pick to sign Hamilton, would they? Isn't their pick protected because they draft 10th overall next year?

I don't think they would seriously sign him, but if they did, and that pick is for certain protected (not sure, didn't look it up) then would they forfeit their second rounder?


EDIT: looked it up, yes the Jays have the final protected pick, but they would surrender their second round pick.

mtf
11-18-2012, 07:50 PM
I just copied and pasted from someone else, and added Melky lol.


1. Reyes
2. Melky
3. Bautista
4. E5
5. Lawrie
6. Rasmus
7. Arenciba
8. Lind
9. Bonifacio

If they sign Hamilton, he could go to left or center, and Melky could take the other, and put Rasmus in right (or he could stay in center, put Josh in right).

This means that Bautista, Hamilton, and E5 could take turns playing DH, 1B, and the occasional RF. Everybody plays everyday with E5 getting the bulk at DH. Bautista a first basemen?

I think Encarnacion has solidified himself at 1B and they'd only force him back to DH if necessary. He became known as E5 as a 3B, but he's actually been pretty good since the switch to 1B.

I would assume the only scenario in which the Jays make a play for Hamilton is if they decided to move Rasmus, but that's just my personal opinion. The rumor I've been hearing from some of the Toronto media is that Rasmus and Arencibia are both being shopped.

That being said, Rasmus being shopped doesn't necessarily imply they're looking at Hamilton. They could just feel like their lineup is good enough, and Rasmus will not be as good as they hoped so may as well just give Gose the time to develop and learn at the majors while still providing huge speed out of the #9 spot.

the_jon
11-18-2012, 08:04 PM
I don't think they would seriously sign him, but if they did, and that pick is for certain protected (not sure, didn't look it up) then would they forfeit their second rounder?


EDIT: looked it up, yes the Jays have the final protected pick, but they would surrender their second round pick.
I'd much rather have Hamilton than the pick if he could be signed to 4 years or less. Really can't see it being the Jays though. Bautista is the type of guy that will play anywhere you ask him for the good of the team, and being that he's the one who was lobbying for better talent, I could see that as a possibility. For some reason though, I like the idea of Edwin getting regular time at 1B instead of mostly DHing. And despite the kind of guy Jose is, I think it's kind of insulting to ask him to be a DH. Don't really like the idea of Hamilton in CF.

But if they could somehow get it done and figure it all out, this lineup goes from pretty good to holy ****ing ****.

dtmagnet
11-18-2012, 11:33 PM
I'm not sure Hamilton is the kind of guy AA would go for, the risk seems too high and since he'll cost a lot of dollars not sure how the risk/reward adds up.

Pinstripe pride
11-19-2012, 09:40 AM
I know, we both agree that it won't be vetoed. My comment was based on your logic that the reason would be based on the fairness of players being moved. That isn't the issue at all.

If it was the same players being moved, but let's say it was between Oakland and New York rather than Miami and Toronto, this would not be an issue. So let's not pretend it's a "fairness" issue in terms of players involved.

no no. fairness to the game. similiar to how stern vetoed the CP3 trade for basketball reasons. they would say its not in the best interest of baseball. nothing to do with the individual players

pebloemer
11-19-2012, 10:20 AM
no no. fairness to the game. similiar to how stern vetoed the CP3 trade for basketball reasons. they would say its not in the best interest of baseball. nothing to do with the individual players

The difference there is that the Hornets were a league owned team at the time.

SpecialFNK
11-19-2012, 10:33 AM
Ken Rosenthal of FOXSports.com reports that the Marlins and Blue Jays trade is "still on the path to approval."
Rosenthal notes, though, that the delay "is a sign of (commissioner Bud) Selig's anger toward the Marlins. MLB worked hard to get a new park for the club." Both Rosenthal and Shi Davidi of Sportsnet.ca think the trade could be approved sometime Monday.
yeah that's it Bud, delaying the approval is really going to hurt the Marlins.
that's like giving someone the silent treatment, but they don't even know that you are.

mrker
11-19-2012, 10:56 AM
Signing hamilton is a very smart move if it is for 5 @ 105 million 15 per year 30 million signing bonus, if melky has great year, we trade him next offseason, move hamilton over and put gose in center, then rasmus, JPA or d'naurd and one of our top 3 propects can be dangled for a stud ace, felix please

La11
11-19-2012, 11:24 AM
Their first round pick would be protected I believe

Edit: It is protected. If I'm toronto I'd do it. **** the second round pick. Those picks suck. That lineup with Hamilton would be ridiculous

Second round picks don't suck. Jays got Nicolino in the second round and Marisnick in the third round. First to third round picks have good value especially with the new draft budget. Did you see what the Jays did in the the last draft.

DubbyDubbs
11-19-2012, 11:49 AM
no no. fairness to the game. similiar to how stern vetoed the CP3 trade for basketball reasons. they would say its not in the best interest of baseball. nothing to do with the individual players

totally different situations... if they wanted to veto this trade for "fairness of the game" then they wouldnt allow the yankees to spend double what every other team spends every year and have super teams bought year in and year out....

If you want "fairness to the game" then have a salary cap and a minimum salary a team must carry.... then it would be fair and you would have a reason to veto this .... just like the NBA and the CP3 trade ... there is a salary cap and a desire to have fairness and equalness in the game but Baseball no.

ShortsideShot14
11-19-2012, 12:10 PM
totally different situations... if they wanted to veto this trade for "fairness of the game" then they wouldnt allow the yankees to spend double what every other team spends every year and have super teams bought year in and year out....

If you want "fairness to the game" then have a salary cap and a minimum salary a team must carry.... then it would be fair and you would have a reason to veto this .... just like the NBA and the CP3 trade ... there is a salary cap and a desire to have fairness and equalness in the game but Baseball no.

This. Until you have some kind of salary parameters that teams must follow you can't complain about moves like this.

Pinstripe pride
11-19-2012, 12:29 PM
totally different situations... if they wanted to veto this trade for "fairness of the game" then they wouldnt allow the yankees to spend double what every other team spends every year and have super teams bought year in and year out....

If you want "fairness to the game" then have a salary cap and a minimum salary a team must carry.... then it would be fair and you would have a reason to veto this .... just like the NBA and the CP3 trade ... there is a salary cap and a desire to have fairness and equalness in the game but Baseball no.

first of all, how has that worked out for the yankees? you should be thanking them, because normally their big spending saddles rthem with albatross contracts instead of another team.


second, free agenc and trades are much different. high spending on free agents is good for the game and the players, scrap yarding a team and getting little in return is not.


either way, the trade is not getting vetoed so its a moot point.

DubbyDubbs
11-19-2012, 12:39 PM
first of all, how has that worked out for the yankees? you should be thanking them, because normally their big spending saddles rthem with albatross contracts instead of another team.


second, free agenc and trades are much different. high spending on free agents is good for the game and the players, scrap yarding a team and getting little in return is not.


either way, the trade is not getting vetoed so its a moot point.

yeah ur right... where are my manners? I should be thanking the yankees for buying their way into the playoffs the past decade and not being able to see my team in the playoffs since 93..... \baltimore as well the same thing until this past year....

So no i do not think having the same teams in the playoffs each year is "good for the game"...

I would even argue that buying free agents and spending 200 million dollars is worse than making a trade like this... this trade actually took years of good drafting and building (something that should be a part of baseball). the jays gathered prospects and pieces over years to make this baseball move... which is better for the game than just buying players each year and spending 100 million more dollars than a smaller market team..

faridk89
11-19-2012, 01:13 PM
yeah ur right... where are my manners? I should be thanking the yankees for buying their way into the playoffs the past decade and not being able to see my team in the playoffs since 93..... \baltimore as well the same thing until this past year....

So no i do not think having the same teams in the playoffs each year is "good for the game"...

I would even argue that buying free agents and spending 200 million dollars is worse than making a trade like this... this trade actually took years of good drafting and building (something that should be a part of baseball). the jays gathered prospects and pieces over years to make this baseball move... which is better for the game than just buying players each year and spending 100 million more dollars than a smaller market team..

:clap::clap:

mtf
11-19-2012, 01:42 PM
no no. fairness to the game. similiar to how stern vetoed the CP3 trade for basketball reasons. they would say its not in the best interest of baseball. nothing to do with the individual players

I think you're confused about this scenario. The entire controversy that has the commissioner's office involved has nothing to do with the fact that a team is basically cashing out and trying to rebuild. That is rather common, just look at Boston's trade with the Dodgers after the trade deadline had passed earlier this season.

The issues here are the extenuating circumstances of the stadium and to a lesser extent revenue sharing among the owners. If this were Oakland trading these 3 all-stars to the Philadelphia for these prospects, there would be no issue. That's fine, I'm not complaining. It's just I think you have the wrong idea of what the problem here is.

mtf
11-19-2012, 01:48 PM
first of all, how has that worked out for the yankees? you should be thanking them, because normally their big spending saddles rthem with albatross contracts instead of another team.

This is pretty twisted and bias logic. Big spending, when done with some degree of intelligence, significantly lowers your variance of missing the playoffs. It doesn't guarantee championships because in a short best of 5 or 7 game series, any team can beat any other team, but in a 162 game season it can pretty much assure that your team wins 90-100 games.


second, free agenc and trades are much different. high spending on free agents is good for the game and the players, scrap yarding a team and getting little in return is not.

As Yankees fans have been quick to remind anyone over the past few years whenever a salary cap discussion comes up, they've acquired more star talent from trades rather than free agency over the past 15 years.

StryderSox
11-19-2012, 02:59 PM
This is pretty twisted and bias logic. Big spending, when done with some degree of intelligence, significantly lowers your variance of missing the playoffs. It doesn't guarantee championships because in a short best of 5 or 7 game series, any team can beat any other team, but in a 162 game season it can pretty much assure that your team wins 90-100 games.

As Yankees fans have been quick to remind anyone over the past few years whenever a salary cap discussion comes up, they've acquired more star talent from trades rather than free agency over the past 15 years.

Ok well if people are going to argue that its not fair for big market teams that sell out their stadiums year after year to have the ability to spend more in free agency to build a winner then I am going to argue that its not fair that small market teams playing in empty stadiums get to draft first every year and get the rights to the premium young prospects.

mtf
11-19-2012, 03:03 PM
Ok well if people are going to argue that its not fair for big market teams that sell out their stadiums year after year to have the ability to spend more in free agency to build a winner then I am going to argue that its not fair that small market teams playing in empty stadiums get to draft first every year and get the rights to the premium young prospects.

Feel free to argue that if you wish, although I have no idea why you are arguing it here or in response to my previous message. I think you misinterpreted my previous message to be some sort of lobbying for a salary cap. While I have my opinions on that matter, it was not expressed in the post which you quoted.

StryderSox
11-19-2012, 03:23 PM
Feel free to argue that if you wish, although I have no idea why you are arguing it here or in response to my previous message. I think you misinterpreted my previous message to be some sort of lobbying for a salary cap. While I have my opinions on that matter, it was not expressed in the post which you quoted.

The message I quoted was an argument that teams that spend big in Free Agency with some level of responsibility and intelligence greatly increase their chances of making the playoffs year after year. If your intent was not to insinuate that big market teams with big budgets have a decided advantage in making the playoffs then it certainly didn't come across that way.

StryderSox
11-19-2012, 03:28 PM
yeah ur right... where are my manners? I should be thanking the yankees for buying their way into the playoffs the past decade and not being able to see my team in the playoffs since 93..... \baltimore as well the same thing until this past year....

So no i do not think having the same teams in the playoffs each year is "good for the game"...

I would even argue that buying free agents and spending 200 million dollars is worse than making a trade like this... this trade actually took years of good drafting and building (something that should be a part of baseball). the jays gathered prospects and pieces over years to make this baseball move... which is better for the game than just buying players each year and spending 100 million more dollars than a smaller market team..

Give me a break...... you know this deal involved you taking like 150+ million dollars off of Miami's hands right?

The trade was made possible by years of good drafting???? Those prospects the Jays gave up (although decent) could have been matched by 90% of the teams in baseball. Its not like they traded away their top pieces. What it comes down to is that the Jays were the team willing to take on the large amount of salary involved in the deal

Jeffy25
11-19-2012, 03:37 PM
yeah ur right... where are my manners? I should be thanking the yankees for buying their way into the playoffs the past decade and not being able to see my team in the playoffs since 93..... \baltimore as well the same thing until this past year....

So no i do not think having the same teams in the playoffs each year is "good for the game"...

I would even argue that buying free agents and spending 200 million dollars is worse than making a trade like this... this trade actually took years of good drafting and building (something that should be a part of baseball). the jays gathered prospects and pieces over years to make this baseball move... which is better for the game than just buying players each year and spending 100 million more dollars than a smaller market team..

Dynasties are fantastic for every sport that has them.

You have a team to hate, to root against, it's very healthy for the sport.

As well, having a dynasty is very financially beneficial for the sport.

The Yankees have done far more good for baseball than bad.

Also, the pieces you traded away, basically every ball club in baseball has similar pieces they could have traded. It's that the Jays were willing to take on 160 million dollars in future payroll.

Pinstripe pride
11-19-2012, 03:48 PM
I think you're confused about this scenario. The entire controversy that has the commissioner's office involved has nothing to do with the fact that a team is basically cashing out and trying to rebuild. That is rather common, just look at Boston's trade with the Dodgers after the trade deadline had passed earlier this season.

The issues here are the extenuating circumstances of the stadium and to a lesser extent revenue sharing among the owners. If this were Oakland trading these 3 all-stars to the Philadelphia for these prospects, there would be no issue. That's fine, I'm not complaining. It's just I think you have the wrong idea of what the problem here is.

there is no problem. it will be accepted

Pinstripe pride
11-19-2012, 03:51 PM
This is pretty twisted and bias logic. Big spending, when done with some degree of intelligence, significantly lowers your variance of missing the playoffs. It doesn't guarantee championships because in a short best of 5 or 7 game series, any team can beat any other team, but in a 162 game season it can pretty much assure that your team wins 90-100 games.

making the playoffs is not the ulitmate goal. winning the world series is. who cares if you make it and odn't win, you are in the same boat as 28 other teams. the difference is those other teams dont ahve those massive contracts effecting the moves they can make, as cna be seen by the yankees off seaosn this year that is expected to be quite because they are trying to trim down payroll



As Yankees fans have been quick to remind anyone over the past few years whenever a salary cap discussion comes up, they've acquired more star talent from trades rather than free agency over the past 15 years.

there big albatross contracts screwing up their payroll now were all free agentes..................

Jeffy25
11-19-2012, 04:06 PM
making the playoffs is not the ulitmate goal. winning the world series is. who cares if you make it and odn't win

When a GM is assembling their team, the only thing they can build for is the playoffs.

A 162 game season you can build a team for, and have the ability to repeatedly get there. In the off-season, you build your team to have the best 162 game record in the sport.

The playoffs are a completely new season in of themselves. No GM can ever build a team for the playoffs only, there is so much variance, unpredictable nature that happens in the playoffs.

I understand that people expect, or the goal is to win it all. But you can't build a team to win it all. You have to build a team to be the best 162 game team you can. And then hope for the best, and depend on a good manager for a playoff series. It's not something you can prepare for in January that plays in October.

And the entire team dynamic is different, you don't use your 5th starter, you don't sit guys for rest, you assemble your bench differently etc. It's a different set up in the playoffs. Sure, that's the ultimate goal, but no GM can properly prepare for it.

mtf
11-19-2012, 04:07 PM
The message I quoted was an argument that teams that spend big in Free Agency with some level of responsibility and intelligence greatly increase their chances of making the playoffs year after year.

It's not an argument, it's a fact. The ability to sign big name free agents is an asset. It's not an insult against to the teams with the ability to sign the best players in the game to acknowledge that fact.


If your intent was not to insinuate that big market teams with big budgets have a decided advantage in making the playoffs then it certainly didn't come across that way.

No, my comment was intended to refute the biased claim from a Yankees fan that when the Yankees (or anyone else who signs these players) it is done with the expressed intent of significantly improving their own team. He was claiming that it's something that the rest of the league should be thanking the Yankees for.

You then went on to build up a straw man argument about the draft favoring smaller market teams (which it doesn't, it simply favors bad performing teams) which is ridiculous because if you are going to take the approach that small market teams benefit unfairly from the draft, then you're acknowledging that they get the best prospects but it doesn't help them because big markets and big budgets would still get the better teams overall.

However, it was meaningless for you to try to become a defender of big budgets since I wasn't arguing in this case that there should be a salary cap or something. I was merely refuting the ridiculous claim that the somehow when the Yankees sign a player like, CC Sabathia for example, that it's somehow a benefit for the rest of the teams (on a competitive level) because they're willing to take on his contract.

For nearly 15 years, they've outspent the competition without limits. Bad years at the end of a contract would only hurt a team theoretically, if that limited their future ability to sign players (as it would for a small market team who operates on a budget). Now, the Yankees are deciding to impose such a restriction on themselves, while the Dodgers are picking up where the Yankees left off on spending without limits.

Once again (because I know this will be misinterpreted), this isn't an argument for a salary cap. I'm just trying to say that these "bad" contracts don't actually hurt teams unless the team is in some way limited in future moves because of it.

Bob Loblaw
11-19-2012, 04:10 PM
Its Officially been approved now

Faabs89
11-19-2012, 04:14 PM
finally!

mtf
11-19-2012, 04:15 PM
making the playoffs is not the ulitmate goal. winning the world series is.

That's true, but the regular season record is much more indicative of the true strength of the team and much more representative of the state of parity in the game, which was the point I clearly made before.

The Washington Nationals were the best team in baseball this year and they lost in a 5-game series to the St. Louis Cardinals, a team who won 10 fewer games than the Nationals in the regular season. You may have your opinions on which team is actually better, but I think years from now anyone looking back on 2012 would say the Nationals (98 wins) were much better than the Cardinals (88 wins).

Luca68
11-19-2012, 04:17 PM
trade has been approved woooo! :clap:

mtf
11-19-2012, 04:24 PM
there big albatross contracts screwing up their payroll now were all free agentes..................

You can put as many periods at the end of that statement you'd like, but the only reason it's affecting them at all now is because they're choosing to operate under a budget of $189,000,000 per year after the 2013 season.

As Joel Sherman of the New York Post wrote yesterday, Hal Steinbrenner is potentially risking a billion dollar brand to save millions of dollars. It's a choice, not a necessity, for the Yankees. He also wrote that even if they do get under the luxury cap for 2014, that in 2015 they'll be big spenders again because the penalties reset after only 1 year of being under it.

As you can see with the Dodgers, they're choosing to spend without consequence. For teams rich enough, the option still remains.

Vampirate
11-19-2012, 04:45 PM
You can put as many periods at the end of that statement you'd like, but the only reason it's affecting them at all now is because they're choosing to operate under a budget of $189,000,000 per year after the 2013 season.

As Joel Sherman of the New York Post wrote yesterday, Hal Steinbrenner is potentially risking a billion dollar brand to save millions of dollars. It's a choice, not a necessity, for the Yankees. He also wrote that even if they do get under the luxury cap for 2014, that in 2015 they'll be big spenders again because the penalties reset after only 1 year of being under it.

As you can see with the Dodgers, they're choosing to spend without consequence. For teams rich enough, the option still remains.

Yes, but if even the Yankees are hesitant to go 1 penny over 189 mill, so will the Dodgers be.

Jeffy25
11-19-2012, 04:45 PM
You can put as many periods at the end of that statement you'd like, but the only reason it's affecting them at all now is because they're choosing to operate under a budget of $189,000,000 per year after the 2013 season.

As Joel Sherman of the New York Post wrote yesterday, Hal Steinbrenner is potentially risking a billion dollar brand to save millions of dollars. It's a choice, not a necessity, for the Yankees. He also wrote that even if they do get under the luxury cap for 2014, that in 2015 they'll be big spenders again because the penalties reset after only 1 year of being under it.

As you can see with the Dodgers, they're choosing to spend without consequence. For teams rich enough, the option still remains.

The goal for the Yankees is to get under the luxury tax for just one opening day, that's it, then they can go and add a lot of money until A-Rod is a free agent again (I believe after 2017).

The entire goal is to reset the luxury cap limit (as you said).

If they can, they will fit under it this year, so they can go back to spending for the next four years, only to fit under it one more time, and continue to reset their penalties.

StryderSox
11-19-2012, 05:19 PM
It's not an argument, it's a fact. The ability to sign big name free agents is an asset. It's not an insult against to the teams with the ability to sign the best players in the game to acknowledge that fact.

No, my comment was intended to refute the biased claim from a Yankees fan that when the Yankees (or anyone else who signs these players) it is done with the expressed intent of significantly improving their own team. He was claiming that it's something that the rest of the league should be thanking the Yankees for.


And if you read the post one or two above that Yankees fan claim you will find that his comment was in defense of a Blue Jays fan going off on a tirade about how he hasn't been able to see his team in the playoffs since 1993 because teams like the Yankees spend 200 million per year and are ruining the sport. He even claimed it was worse than what the Marlins are doing. The claim that the rest of the league should be thanking the Yankees was a rebutal to that and in some ways true because the luxury tax that some big market teams pay keep the small market teams a float.




You then went on to build up a straw man argument about the draft favoring smaller market teams (which it doesn't, it simply favors bad performing teams) which is ridiculous because if you are going to take the approach that small market teams benefit unfairly from the draft, then you're acknowledging that they get the best prospects but it doesn't help them because big markets and big budgets would still get the better teams overall.


Ok but how can you argue that a large budget greatly improves your ability to make the playoffs (ie. better record) and then claim the draft doesn't favor small market teams only ones that don't preform. According to you the "fact" that a larger budget equals improved odds of making the playoffs must also mean that a small budget also means a lower chance of making the playoffs and therefore a high chance of drafting in a top 10 slot. Done correctly and with some patience that is a huge advantage because you dont end up paying a broken down player that used to be elite 20+ million a year to sti on the bench.



However, it was meaningless for you to try to become a defender of big budgets since I wasn't arguing in this case that there should be a salary cap or something. I was merely refuting the ridiculous claim that the somehow when the Yankees sign a player like, CC Sabathia for example, that it's somehow a benefit for the rest of the teams (on a competitive level) because they're willing to take on his contract.


So when the Yankees run with a 200+ million dollar payroll and pay millions in luxury tax the league doesn't benefit? There aren't small market teams out there that greatly benefit from revenue sharing that big market teams like the Yankees generate? The Marlins have almost made a business model out of gutting their payroll and letting the revenue sharing they recieve from teams like the Yankees pay their operating expenses while the owners pocket any revenue the team generates.



For nearly 15 years, they've outspent the competition without limits. Bad years at the end of a contract would only hurt a team theoretically, if that limited their future ability to sign players (as it would for a small market team who operates on a budget). Now, the Yankees are deciding to impose such a restriction on themselves, while the Dodgers are picking up where the Yankees left off on spending without limits.


It only makes good business sense for them to cut payroll and get below the luxury tax so it resets and then use their money again.



Once again (because I know this will be misinterpreted), this isn't an argument for a salary cap. I'm just trying to say that these "bad" contracts don't actually hurt teams unless the team is in some way limited in future moves because of it.

How many teams do you think there are in baseball that can sustain multiple bad contracts? Most teams might be able to handle one but not many can handle 3 or 4. The fact is that aside from the Yankees there is no other team in baseball that has proven they can hand out multiple bad contracts and not have suffer because of them at some point down the road. Look at what happenned when Boston (one of the biggest markets and deepest pockets) tried to play that game. The Dodgers might be spending now but have in no way proven they can sustain this long term and I am willing to bet that in a couple years from now they are going to regret a few of these contracts they are taking on.

lajoie
11-19-2012, 05:29 PM
making the playoffs is not the ulitmate goal. winning the world series is. who cares if you make it and odn't win, you are in the same boat as 28 other teams. the difference is those other teams dont ahve those massive contracts effecting the moves they can make, as cna be seen by the yankees off seaosn this year that is expected to be quite because they are trying to trim down payroll



there big albatross contracts screwing up their payroll now were all free agentes..................

I don't know about you, but Im sure a team like the Tampa Rays or Orioles would appreciate the increased revenue that comes from selling out a stadium.

mtf
11-19-2012, 05:43 PM
And if you read the post one or two above that Yankees fan claim you will find that his comment was in defense of a Blue Jays fan going off on a tirade about how he hasn't been able to see his team in the playoffs since 1993 because teams like the Yankees spend 200 million per year and are ruining the sport. He even claimed it was worse than what the Marlins are doing. The claim that the rest of the league should be thanking the Yankees was a rebutal to that and in some ways true because the luxury tax that some big market teams pay keep the small market teams a float.

It doesn't matter what he was responding to. I was responding to his claims about the Yankees now suffering the consequences of bad contracts. I will reiterate that they're only suffering because they're choosing not to spend their way out of the hole like they've done in the past. It's a choice, and as Jeffy25 and I both reminded you, that is merely a very short-term temporary measure to avoid being penalized for spending.


Ok but how can you argue that a large budget greatly improves your ability to make the playoffs (ie. better record) and then claim the draft doesn't favor small market teams only ones that don't preform. According to you the "fact" that a larger budget equals improved odds of making the playoffs must also mean that a small budget also means a lower chance of making the playoffs and therefore a high chance of drafting in a top 10 slot. Done correctly and with some patience that is a huge advantage because you dont end up paying a broken down player that used to be elite 20+ million a year to sti on the bench.

Well, first of all, it is a fact that a higher payroll is an asset. It gives you more options on how to manage your team. It is indisputable. The fact that some people mismanage their assets doesn't negate the fact that they do have that asset to manage.

Yes, drafting higher than another team is an advantage. It is an asset. That is also an indisputable fact. It is, however, intended to bring some modicum of fairness and parity to the game. It is a consolation prize. It should also be noted that the advantage you reference is available to all teams equally. If the Yankees chose to operate like the Rays, that option is available to them.


So when the Yankees run with a 200+ million dollar payroll and pay millions in luxury tax the league doesn't benefit? There aren't small market teams out there that greatly benefit from revenue sharing that big market teams like the Yankees generate? The Marlins have almost made a business model out of gutting their payroll and letting the revenue sharing they recieve from teams like the Yankees pay their operating expenses while the owners pocket any revenue the team generates.

I'll restate my position which you quoted and then responded to here:

"I was merely refuting the ridiculous claim that the somehow when the Yankees sign a player like, CC Sabathia for example, that it's somehow a benefit for the rest of the teams (on a competitive level) because they're willing to take on his contract"

Having CC Sabathia, in this case, on your roster is a clear benefit to your roster on a competitive level. Ask the Boston Red Sox, who do not benefit from revenue sharing, if they'd rather Sabathia was a member of the Yankees or still with the Brewers.


It only makes good business sense for them to cut payroll and get below the luxury tax so it resets and then use their money again.

So? How is that relevant? The argument by the Yankees fan was that they were going to suffer the burden of big contracts. The fact that they've found away around it merely shows it isn't really a burden.


How many teams do you think there are in baseball that can sustain multiple bad contracts? Most teams might be able to handle one but not many can handle 3 or 4. The fact is that aside from the Yankees there is no other team in baseball that has proven they can hand out multiple bad contracts and not have suffer because of them at some point down the road. Look at what happenned when Boston (one of the biggest markets and deepest pockets) tried to play that game. The Dodgers might be spending now but have in no way proven they can sustain this long term and I am willing to bet that in a couple years from now they are going to regret a few of these contracts they are taking on.

It's a small few who have the assets to do so. I'm not sure why that's relevant to this discussion though.


To conclude, I should restate that I am not trying to make a case (at least not in this thread) that MLB should institute a salary cap. I'm merely trying to refute these ridiculous arguments as they come up. As a Jays fan, I love that the Blue Jays are now spending because it means they are being proactive in trying to put a contending team on the field. Regardless of whether they succeed or fail, I love that they're making the effort.

Pinstripe pride
11-20-2012, 09:52 AM
I don't know about you, but Im sure a team like the Tampa Rays or Orioles would appreciate the increased revenue that comes from selling out a stadium.

tampa bay made the world series and still couldnt sell out..................

koreancabbage
11-20-2012, 10:14 AM
tampa bay made the world series and still couldnt sell out..................

it could be the state of baseball in the florida region. Miami, Tampa or just Florida itself. There simply hasn't been enough great baseball for a tradition to settle in yet.

dolphan
11-20-2012, 10:22 AM
Its Official :) :) :)

Pinstripe pride
11-20-2012, 12:31 PM
it could be the state of baseball in the florida region. Miami, Tampa or just Florida itself. There simply hasn't been enough great baseball for a tradition to settle in yet.

that was in 2008. they've been good since and still can't sell out. the marlins have won 2 world series in the last 15 years, and still can't sell.

koreancabbage
11-20-2012, 02:09 PM
that was in 2008. they've been good since and still can't sell out. the marlins have won 2 world series in the last 15 years, and still can't sell.

4 years ago isn't a tradition of winning. how about before that?

maybe people have better things to do in Florida. iono.

Pinstripe pride
11-20-2012, 02:30 PM
4 years ago isn't a tradition of winning. how about before that?

maybe people have better things to do in Florida. iono.

so they have to be good for 20 years before fans start shwoing up? i know it s ashort span, but their attendance with a good team is iunexcuseable.

Tmath
11-20-2012, 02:41 PM
Marlins fans protesting after the trade was made official.

http://img.viame-cdn.com/photos/d3173830-1563-0130-640c-12313908073f/r600x600.jpg

ciaban
11-20-2012, 02:57 PM
that was in 2008. they've been good since and still can't sell out. the marlins have won 2 world series in the last 15 years, and still can't sell.

the 2 world series were negated by the sell offs that happened directly after.

fwiw mid way through the season the marlins were about 3 games back, and were 15th-16th in attendance, then they sold off hanley, the team got worse, fell out of contention and people stopped showing up, guess what, the great baseball area that is new england stopped going to RedSox games, their sellout streak ended because they started to suck.

It's pretty simple, people will only pay for a good product.

Leandres_sf
11-20-2012, 02:58 PM
Marlins fans protesting after the trade was made official.

http://img.viame-cdn.com/photos/d3173830-1563-0130-640c-12313908073f/r600x600.jpg

Those 4 guys are the entire Marlins fan base :laugh:

2009mvp
11-20-2012, 03:22 PM
Marlins fans protesting after the trade was made official.

http://img.viame-cdn.com/photos/d3173830-1563-0130-640c-12313908073f/r600x600.jpg

Oh my goodness that is amazing.


the 2 world series were negated by the sell offs that happened directly after.

fwiw mid way through the season the marlins were about 3 games back, and were 15th-16th in attendance, then they sold off hanley, the team got worse, fell out of contention and people stopped showing up, guess what, the great baseball area that is new england stopped going to RedSox games, their sellout streak ended because they started to suck.

It's pretty simple, people will only pay for a good product.

But again, other markets with brand new ballparks and worse teams who didn't even get the kind of talent infusion the Marlins saw last offseason fared better selling tickets than the Marlins were on pace for even when they were still in a race. It's just not a good baseball market.

Pinstripe pride
11-20-2012, 03:25 PM
the 2 world series were negated by the sell offs that happened directly after.

fwiw mid way through the season the marlins were about 3 games back, and were 15th-16th in attendance, then they sold off hanley, the team got worse, fell out of contention and people stopped showing up, guess what, the great baseball area that is new england stopped going to RedSox games, their sellout streak ended because they started to suck.

It's pretty simple, people will only pay for a good product.

gee, negated for exactly what they are doing right now.....................


kind of proves my point that big spending isn't the problem, firesaling teams is

koreancabbage
11-20-2012, 03:31 PM
Marlins fans protesting after the trade was made official.

http://img.viame-cdn.com/photos/d3173830-1563-0130-640c-12313908073f/r600x600.jpg

and thats about all of them

ciaban
11-21-2012, 02:07 PM
Oh my goodness that is amazing.



But again, other markets with brand new ballparks and worse teams who didn't even get the kind of talent infusion the Marlins saw last offseason fared better selling tickets than the Marlins were on pace for even when they were still in a race. It's just not a good baseball market.

the fans were right not to show up because the sell off happened again, this is why they don't go, they don't trust ownership, if the Jays sell off all these pieces next year you will see far less fans in the stadium.

You can build a good market anywhere, but you need continuity and winning. Location helps a lot too, but not as much as the others.

SenorGato
11-21-2012, 02:19 PM
gee, negated for exactly what they are doing right now.....................


kind of proves my point that big spending isn't the problem, firesaling teams is

Big spending is always the problem.

Pinstripe pride
11-21-2012, 03:20 PM
Big spending is always the problem.

blue jays just added 150 mil in payroll, and people are pissed at the marlins. clealry thats not the case. the people who are dumping the salary are viewed as the bad guys, not the ones taking it

j-bay
11-21-2012, 03:28 PM
Joe Capozzi‏@joecapMARLINS

Mark Buehrle on #marlins trade: "Just like the fans in South Florida, I was lied to on multiple occasions."

oh snap

h2r09
11-21-2012, 03:58 PM
Feel awful for Buehrle. He came here to finish his career for 4 years under Guillen. He had to give up his dog because pitbulls cant live in miami, now he was lied to and traded out of the country and now he is gettign even less of his contract because of Canadian taxes. Awful.

Vampirate
11-21-2012, 04:04 PM
Feel awful for Buehrle. He came here to finish his career for 4 years under Guillen. He had to give up his dog because pitbulls cant live in miami, now he was lied to and traded out of the country and now he is gettign even less of his contract because of Canadian taxes. Awful.

Yes, let's all feel sorry for the pitcher who is earning millions, is going to a better organization with fans that have proved to fill the organization with a contending team.

And speaking of the team the Jays have a higher cieling than the Marlins did last year.

Yes, let's feel sorry for someone who now is on a team that can possibly and realistically win 90-100 games (with some luck of course), the penant and the world series.

I feel so bad for him.

h2r09
11-21-2012, 04:16 PM
Yes, let's all feel sorry for the pitcher who is earning millions, is going to a better organization with fans that have proved to fill the organization with a contending team.

And speaking of the team the Jays have a higher cieling than the Marlins did last year.

Yes, let's feel sorry for someone who now is on a team that can possibly and realistically win 90-100 games (with some luck of course), the penant and the world series.

I feel so bad for him.

Believe it or not some people have a life outside of the field. He signed to be in Miami, which was a largely non monetary decision especially for him, for 4 years with a promise he would not be moved. HE was moved after 1 year.


No one feels sorry for him because he is on a better team now genius, its because he gave up his free agency to choose a team that disrespected the living **** out of him and also because he gave up part of his life and his kids lives in Chicago for a specific place, only to be forced to move from that place 1 year later.

Vampirate
11-21-2012, 04:28 PM
Believe it or not some people have a life outside of the field. He signed to be in Miami, which was a largely non monetary decision especially for him, for 4 years with a promise he would not be moved. HE was moved after 1 year.


No one feels sorry for him because he is on a better team now genius, its because he gave up his free agency to choose a team that disrespected the living **** out of him and also because he gave up part of his life and his kids lives in Chicago for a specific place, only to be forced to move from that place 1 year later.

I bet he's glad he isn't on that organization now though, if I was to feel sorry for anyone, it's Stanton, not Mark.

Also, nothing is stopping him from going to Florida or anywhere in the offseason.

MetsFanatic19
11-21-2012, 04:35 PM
Joe Capozzi‏@joecapMARLINS

Mark Buehrle on #marlins trade: "Just like the fans in South Florida, I was lied to on multiple occasions."

oh snap

Good for him. I would **** all over Miami if I were him or Reyes or Emilio or Hanley, etc.. as well.

MetsFanatic19
11-21-2012, 04:37 PM
Yes, let's all feel sorry for the pitcher who is earning millions, is going to a better organization with fans that have proved to fill the organization with a contending team.

And speaking of the team the Jays have a higher cieling than the Marlins did last year.

Yes, let's feel sorry for someone who now is on a team that can possibly and realistically win 90-100 games (with some luck of course), the penant and the world series.

I feel so bad for him.

While I somewhat agree, he's still a person. Say you had normal job that paid a high salary and after one year in a beautiful city, your owner said "Okay, pack your things, we're moving to Canada." You wouldn't be pissed at all?

Vampirate
11-21-2012, 04:41 PM
While I somewhat agree, he's still a person. Say you had normal job that paid a high salary and after one year in a beautiful city, your owner said "Okay, pack your things, we're moving to Canada." You wouldn't be pissed at all?

I live in Canada, I like it here, why would I complain?

You're making the assumption that Toronto is a bad place to live.

RoyMunson
11-21-2012, 04:45 PM
I live in Canada, I like it here, why would I complain?

You're making the assumption that Toronto is a bad place to live.

I don't think people realize that Toronto is New York City with a few less people.

h2r09
11-21-2012, 05:07 PM
I bet he's glad he isn't on that organization now though, if I was to feel sorry for anyone, it's Stanton, not Mark.

Also, nothing is stopping him from going to Florida or anywhere in the offseason.
I bet he isnt. HE might not like the leaders of the organization now but there is a reason he signed his free agency away with this team.

He didnt sign u to be in florida during the offseason, he signed up to be with the team in miami for the other 6-7 months of the year.

h2r09
11-21-2012, 05:08 PM
I live in Canada, I like it here, why would I complain?

You're making the assumption that Toronto is a bad place to live.

thats you. you are making the choice to live in toronto. you like it there.

he made the choice to live as far away from toronto as possible when he signed in miami.

Brewhouse94
11-21-2012, 05:14 PM
Feel awful for Buehrle. He came here to finish his career for 4 years under Guillen. He had to give up his dog because pitbulls cant live in miami, now he was lied to and traded out of the country and now he is gettign even less of his contract because of Canadian taxes. Awful.

If you dont want to have to move dont sign a contract to a place that wont give you a no trade clause and is known for dumping salary when things go bad. Also Toronto is a beautiful city as well, Maybe if he was forced to move to some town out in the boonies but hes closer to chicago where im sure he probably has family and friends he will be just fine.

jakedajewler
11-21-2012, 05:41 PM
I don't feel bad for anyone who makes millions of dollars a year, i'd leave my family right now and move to Afghanistan if I could make millions of dollars a year

Vampirate
11-21-2012, 05:43 PM
I bet he isnt. HE might not like the leaders of the organization now but there is a reason he signed his free agency away with this team.

He didnt sign u to be in florida during the offseason, he signed up to be with the team in miami for the other 6-7 months of the year.


thats you. you are making the choice to live in toronto. you like it there.

he made the choice to live as far away from toronto as possible when he signed in miami.

You are making the assumption he absolutely doesn't want to play here now.

For his entire career he played in Chicago, the windy city.

Also, the fact he didn't want to play here before probably had something to do with that Toronto was considered a team that won't contend.

SenorGato
11-21-2012, 05:55 PM
which was a largely non monetary decision especially for him,

Hard to say on that considering Florida has no income tax.

h2r09
11-21-2012, 06:45 PM
Hard to say on that considering Florida has no income tax.

im sure that didnt hurt, but he himself has said that he has made more than enough money in his career and he wanted to be comfortable more than anything. Ozzie played a huge role in him coming here as well and he was fired.

h2r09
11-21-2012, 06:49 PM
You are making the assumption he absolutely doesn't want to play here now.

For his entire career he played in Chicago, the windy city.

Also, the fact he didn't want to play here before probably had something to do with that Toronto was considered a team that won't contend.

No im not. I dont care about toronto in my opinion. What im saying is it sucks for him that he signed here because he wanted to play in MIAMI for the next 4 years and be comfortable here with HIS manager. He didnt sign the deal to play in Toronto. He had to change many things in his life to move here including getting rid of his dog and moving his entire family so he could play for the marlins.

That doesnt mean he wont enjoy playing in toronto. Im sure hell be fine there, that doesnt mean it doesnt suck that he planned everything in his life around living and playing in miami the next 3-4 years.

LanceUpperCut
11-21-2012, 07:00 PM
While I somewhat agree, he's still a person. Say you had normal job that paid a high salary and after one year in a beautiful city, your owner said "Okay, pack your things, we're moving to Canada." You wouldn't be pissed at all?

I here ya if I as told I had to move to the USA I'd be pissed but the fact that I travel all the time for work and am away from my family for months at a time, I really don't feel bad for someone who is overpaid by millions of dollars and might be away from his family for a week or two every so often. Even playing in Miami he would be on the road away from his family all the time.

Sanyo
11-21-2012, 07:06 PM
The whole Canadian tax thing is a myth.

The players can still make their residence in Florida (you become a Canadian residence for tax purposes once your in the country for 183 days or more). None of these players will be there for 183 days considering they also play half their games in the United States.

They refuted this myth. Yes they do have to pay an increase but its not like millions like some people pointed out. It was something in the $600k range for Buhrele, which if you think about the fact he makes over $10 mil, its not really much.

mike_noodles
11-21-2012, 07:29 PM
Yeah, its a huge misconception about the taxes. And these guys aren't the first ones to be traded a year after they signed the deal.

Kenny Powders
11-21-2012, 09:15 PM
No im not. I dont care about toronto in my opinion. What im saying is it sucks for him that he signed here because he wanted to play in MIAMI for the next 4 years and be comfortable here with HIS manager. He didnt sign the deal to play in Toronto. He had to change many things in his life to move here including getting rid of his dog and moving his entire family so he could play for the marlins.

That doesnt mean he wont enjoy playing in toronto. Im sure hell be fine there, that doesnt mean it doesnt suck that he planned everything in his life around living and playing in miami the next 3-4 years.

Boo Hoo. He is making an insane amount of money of the next three years, and if he was so intent on staying he should of signed a NTC. There's not too many place I wouldn't go live for two years for 37 million dollars. He'll I am 4,000 kms away from working 12 hours a day 7 days a week and never get to see my family, for a very small fraction of what he is making You going to shed a tear for me too?

con_artist
11-21-2012, 11:12 PM
Apparently Johnson, who is losing about 700K next year, had this to say about his extra taxes

Everybody tells me it’s a great city, great people, and great fans, so that’ll be worth it. Maybe I can make it up in playoff share, that’ll be cool.

Halladay
11-22-2012, 04:03 AM
thats you. you are making the choice to live in toronto. you like it there.

he made the choice to live as far away from toronto as possible when he signed in miami.

Yes, that's what his intentions were. Get me as far away from Toronto as possible! I don't care where! Look, you're only fooling yourself here. He only signed in Miami because of the ridiculous money they offered and nothing else. If you truly believe he only wanted to be in Miami because he loves it there, you're only kidding yourself. The guy didn't even know his dog wasn't even allowed within the city. He had to know this team dumps players left and right and found it oddly suspicious that it's club policy not to hand out NMCs.He signed in Miami for one reason-MONEY.