Guest Failed Mascot Posted January 2, 2005 Report Posted January 2, 2005 McLane is looking to eventually sell the team though anyways. What does he care?
Bored Posted January 2, 2005 Report Posted January 2, 2005 The lower a team's payroll is, the more they can be sold for.
EVIL~! alkeiper Posted January 3, 2005 Report Posted January 3, 2005 One poster on another board pointed out that if Beltran resigns with the Astros, Clemens would likely return as well. So there's value for the Astros in Beltran that goes beyond the usual scope of his skills.
sfaJack Posted January 3, 2005 Report Posted January 3, 2005 Yeah, but what is Clemens worth in the long run? Is it worth overpaying for an outfielder and potentially hamstringing your team financially in the future on the chance he brings a 42-year-old pitcher, who is unlikely to have another year like this last one, along with him? It would sell a lot of tickets, sure, but how does it affect you next year when at least two of your key guys come due for free agency?
Vern Gagne Posted January 3, 2005 Report Posted January 3, 2005 If Beltan moves on Houston should look at signing Magglio Ordonez.
EVIL~! alkeiper Posted January 3, 2005 Report Posted January 3, 2005 Yeah, but what is Clemens worth in the long run? Is it worth overpaying for an outfielder and potentially hamstringing your team financially in the future on the chance he brings a 42-year-old pitcher, who is unlikely to have another year like this last one, along with him? It would sell a lot of tickets, sure, but how does it affect you next year when at least two of your key guys come due for free agency? Keep in mind I wouldn't give Beltran a huge contract. But from the Astros' perspective, they have Bagwell and Biggio nearing the end of the line. They may need to make a run now, as they might need to rebuild afterwards. And if the Astros do sign Beltran, his type tends to age quite well.
The Czech Republic Posted January 3, 2005 Report Posted January 3, 2005 I hope Fat Rodge has a terrible year if he dares to come back in 2005.
Bored Posted January 3, 2005 Report Posted January 3, 2005 Another thing that has to play into their decision is Lance Berkman is a free agent after 2005.
Guest Failed Mascot Posted January 3, 2005 Report Posted January 3, 2005 The lower a team's payroll is, the more they can be sold for. Which is why the Red Sox were sold for over $700mill while the Brewers cost almost half that.
MarvinisaLunatic Posted January 3, 2005 Report Posted January 3, 2005 119 for 7 is the opening bid? Dear lord. There arent that many teams out there that can afford that, which makes me believe that theres no way that the final deal he gets will be anywhere close to that. I doubt he'll even get a 7 year contract.
Vern Gagne Posted January 3, 2005 Report Posted January 3, 2005 The lower a team's payroll is, the more they can be sold for. Which is why the Red Sox were sold for over $700mill while the Brewers cost almost half that. It's different. The Red Sox are one of the most profitable teams in baseball. You're guaranted sellouts every home game, and most years they make it too the playoffs.
Conspiracy_Victim Posted January 3, 2005 Report Posted January 3, 2005 Actuall sfa from what I've heard, McLane liked winning in the postseason, and the thought of bringing in Beltran for a whole year (much less several) has given him the incentive to open up the pursestrings some more. I'd be willing to bet that McLane would consider coming up near Bor-Ass'es contract demands if he knew it would guarantee Beltran signing on the dotted line. As for Berkman, that's a thorny issue. He's a hell of an offensive player but to be honest, the guy's out of position. He's not an outfielder, but they had to find a spot for him when he came up and Bagwell wasn't going anywhere. This injury may cost him the first couple of months of the season, which won't help. But, with Biggio's contract up after this year and Bagwell's coming up in the next couple of years (plus Kent being off the books), McLane might swallow a year or 2 of losses and resign Berkman to a mutually agreeable figure. Then he just has to figure out how to hold on to Oswalt, Lidge, etc. etc. All this is assuming, of course, that Drayton holds on to the team.
Bored Posted January 3, 2005 Report Posted January 3, 2005 Assuming the Randy Johnson trade goes through the Diamondbacks have agreed on a deal with the Dodgers for Shawn Green, according to the L.A. Times. They'll likely then give him a contract extension to further cripple their franchise.
EVIL~! alkeiper Posted January 3, 2005 Report Posted January 3, 2005 EXPN is reporting the deal is in place in principle, sending Green to the D'backs for prospects. Navarro will go if the Johnson trade goes through, but if the trade falls trhough, the D'backs will send a different catching prospect instead.
DerangedHermit Posted January 3, 2005 Report Posted January 3, 2005 The Daily News says there are rumblings that the Mets could be offering Beltran between $120M-$140M over 8 years. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball...9p-229160c.html
sfaJack Posted January 3, 2005 Report Posted January 3, 2005 The Daily News says there are rumblings that the Mets could be offering Beltran between $120M-$140M over 8 years. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball...9p-229160c.html Fucking retards, if that's true.
Brett Favre Posted January 4, 2005 Report Posted January 4, 2005 First Benson, now this. The Mets are idiots.
mike546 Posted January 4, 2005 Report Posted January 4, 2005 Yankees re-sign Sturtze to a one year deal. yay!
EVIL~! alkeiper Posted January 4, 2005 Report Posted January 4, 2005 I could swear this is the third time Sturtze re-signed with the Yankees this offseason.
strummer Posted January 4, 2005 Report Posted January 4, 2005 I don't know if the Mets are idiots, it's just that they feel they have to over pay to get free agents to come to Shea. It's nothing new and has been going on since the disastrous 92-96 years. When was the last time a free agent turned down a bigger offer elsewhere to come to the Mets?
DerangedHermit Posted January 4, 2005 Report Posted January 4, 2005 I don't know if the Mets are idiots, it's just that they feel they have to over pay to get free agents to come to Shea. It's nothing new and has been going on since the disastrous 92-96 years. When was the last time a free agent turned down a bigger offer elsewhere to come to the Mets? I want to say Roger Cedeno in 2002 for some reason...
KingPK Posted January 4, 2005 Report Posted January 4, 2005 I was watching NESN's Sports Desk, and I thought I caught that some team was offering Derek Lowe $10M/yr, but I didn't catch what team it was.
Bored Posted January 4, 2005 Report Posted January 4, 2005 The Stupidest Team Ever would be my guess. Must be the Diamondbacks. It'd be even more delicious if it's the Mariners.
KingPK Posted January 4, 2005 Report Posted January 4, 2005 Apparently it's the Dodgers. That's what I saw on ESPN.com.
DerangedHermit Posted January 4, 2005 Report Posted January 4, 2005 Apparently it's the Dodgers. That's what I saw on ESPN.com. That may fit under "Stupidest Team Ever". The Mets would sign him, but he's not 36 years old.
Guest Failed Mascot Posted January 4, 2005 Report Posted January 4, 2005 That's what the Dodgers wanted to use the Shawn Green savings on anyways. Red Sox would get another first rounder out of it too since D-Lowe has been worth more than Drew or Kent over the past 2 seasons.
Bored Posted January 4, 2005 Report Posted January 4, 2005 There's no way in hell Paul DePodesta would do such a move. None. Sure it wasn't a $10 million deal and not $10 million/year? Red Sox would get another first rounder out of it too since D-Lowe has been worth more than Drew or Kent over the past 2 seasons. They need to seriously re-evaluate the draft compensation system if Derek Lowe is deemed more valuable than those two.
KingPK Posted January 4, 2005 Report Posted January 4, 2005 Lowe is really the only decent starter left, so a team desperate for one is going to overpay. I'm scanning the Dodger board at ESPN, and people aren't too happy with this development, along with the Green trade. And yes, that is $10M A YEAR. EDIT: This is what ESPN insider says: Jan. 3 - If Shawn Green is dealt to Arizona, the Dodgers might have the financial flexibility to pursue free-agent right-hander Derek Lowe, who could command $10 annually in a multiyear deal, The Los Angeles Times reports. Lowe, who declined arbitration from the Red Sox, reportedly is seeking a four-year, $48 million contract. The Tigers have been Lowe's most public suitors thus far. He ain't worth $12M/year, and wouldn't that make him the de-facto ace?
geniusMoment Posted January 4, 2005 Report Posted January 4, 2005 That makes me feel not quite as bad about Eric Milton, even though I am still pissed about it. Unless, he pitches well, then I was behind the move all the way. Thats the way we roll in the 513.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now