A-Rod is opting out of his contract!
by gotgreen on Oct 28, 2007 7:58 PM PDT
108 comments
from Si.com:
DENVER -- Alex Rodriguez notified the Yankees on Sunday that he's opting out of his record $252 million contract, SI.com has learned.
Rodriguez's decision means he will become a free agent and be able to negotiate with all clubs. Rodriguez's bombshell move will shake up the entire winter for the Yankees -- who had hoped to retain him with a big extension -- as well as other big-market clubs that will now pursue him.
The Yankees have said that once A-Rod opts out, they wil not pursue him, since they will lose the benefit of the Texas Rangers' $30-million subsidy.
"Alex made the decision today,'' Boras said. "I thought we should notify the club.''
The Yankees were preparing an extension to his current contract for either five or six years, believed to be for close to $30 million annually. However, team officials said Boras has politely declined to meet with them in recent days, and they never presented the offer.
Interesting.
Where are the likely destinations for A-rod? To the Red Sox? To the Angels?
0 recs |
108 comments
Email
Print
Comments
"the Texas Rangers' $30-million subsidy"
that's all the rangers would have had to pay a-rod if he didn't opt out? i thought it was more than that...
by xbhaskarx on Oct 28, 2007 8:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
re
Go Dodgers! (We'll take LaRoche :P)
by 31Boots on Oct 28, 2007 8:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If he would play 3rd again
he'd be a great fit for the Halos. {gulp}
by IM4Oakgal on Oct 28, 2007 8:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm not one to speak in extremes,
but if A-Rod signs with the Angels, I think the Angels have pretty much wrapped up the AL West for the next few years. Not a fun thought. So let's look at alternatives...
Go play SS for the Red Sox to rub it in the Yankees' collective faces?
Giants decide they can afford A-Rod's contract because they are losing Bonds' contract?
The Mets decide that Reyes and Wright aren't good enough? ...
... Ok, now I'm just losing it. But please don't sign with LAA, Mr. Rod.
by Nico on Oct 28, 2007 9:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It is such a daunting thought.
I want to see his behind reunited with Lew Piniella. Arod to the NL...Please!!!!!!!!!!!!
by IM4Oakgal on Oct 28, 2007 9:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A-Rod to Cubs
They'll appreciate him at my NL team.
by oaklandSMASH on Oct 28, 2007 11:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is an
ominous development. It's a very short list of teams who could afford his services, and I fear the Angels will be featured prominently on it. Arte Moreno is no fool, and it's an open secret that he is marketing heavily to the Latin community. A-Rod could well be the "big bat" Angels fans crave and the face of the franchise for years to come to boot. It's positively frightening imagining him and Vlad in tandem.
by alox on Oct 28, 2007 9:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Vlad an Arod would be unstoppable.
Truly horrifying. And he's perfect for their team. That's why I was praying he'd stay with the Yankees.
by IM4Oakgal on Oct 28, 2007 9:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Our only hope
is that he wants to stick it to the Yankee's and signs with Boston for spite.
by alox on Oct 28, 2007 9:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or that a less successful
and "dark horse" team decides that A-Rod could make them competitive again and money is no object. Someone along the lines of Baltimore or Atlanta, or San Diego - which hasn't been in contention since, like, October 2nd.
by Nico on Oct 28, 2007 10:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The A's cannot, under any circumstances,
allow the Angels to sign A-Rod. If he signs with Los Angeles, they might as well trade every player making above the league minimum, because the extra dollars will be completely wasted. Spend the extra dollars to lobby Congress for a salary cap, or something.
They need to make a blanket policy of matching or bettering any offer that the Angels make.
by PaulThomas on Oct 28, 2007 10:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it just seems like the logical choice for him
To get away from the NY media and Yankee fans to go to a place like Anaheim will be like going to Disneyland every day (pun intended).
I'm already getting sick just thinking about it.
by 67MARQUEZ on Oct 28, 2007 11:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha..cmon
They could never match anything the Angels offer....It's a good chance he ends up in Anaheim....It just fits and there just aren't that many other places he could end up.
Scary.
by OaktownPower on Oct 29, 2007 12:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ever hear of Mutually Assured Destruction?
This is the baseball equivalent. The A's need to make it very clear to the Angels that any attempt by either team to sign A-Rod will result in financial catastrophe for one team or the other.
In this game of financial chicken, the A's would actually be properly served to put on a blindfold before starting their engine.
by PaulThomas on Oct 29, 2007 8:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Angels would laugh at that bluff....
They know the A's have zero chance or intention to sign Alex. Zero.
by OaktownPower on Oct 29, 2007 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm saying, they'd damn well better have
a "chance or intention" to sign him for as much money as it takes to keep him away from the Angels. Anything else dooms the team to 5 years without a playoff appearance.
I'm not saying they WILL. Never underestimate the cowardice and tight-fistedness of baseball owners. But they have to prevent Anaheim from getting him if they want to remain a competitive MLB franchise instead of turning into a glorified farm club.
by PaulThomas on Oct 29, 2007 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's still the Wild Card
by methodrampage on Oct 29, 2007 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The A's finished 9th in the AL this year
Even assuming that the Twins run out of money, the Mariners drop back to Pythagorean reality, the Royals and D-Rays stay... well, the Royals and D-Rays, and Troy Glaus is indicted for steroids and cops a plea to out half of his teammates, the A's still would need to bypass the Yankees and the Tigers to obtain the Wild Card.
Sure seems easier to just win 13 of 19 from the Angels.
by PaulThomas on Oct 29, 2007 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm going to throw a curveball out there:
Toronto.
Three reasons:
- The Canadian dollar is now worth more than the US dollar, and looks to be headed even further beyond it, making the deal more attractive than previously, where the Jays had to pay up to 40% more (four years back) on contracts when dealing with currency conversions.
- Rogers, the company that owns the Blue Jays, has money to burn, so much so that they're looking to bring the Buffalo Bills across the border.
- If they're ever going to beat the Yankees and Sox again, they need to compete in the 'FU FA' market.
I'm not saying it's a certainty. I'm just saying it's a possibility, and the way things are looking in the US economy, it's only going to get more doable as spring training nears.
by Ozzz on Oct 28, 2007 10:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Interesting points...
I don't think he'd ever go there though....He loves bring the headliner way too much.
by OaktownPower on Oct 29, 2007 12:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, but...
by Ozzz on Oct 29, 2007 1:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He did go to the Texas Rangers.
He would probably turn down a crap team like the Pirates, no matter how much money they offered, but the Jay are actually a decent team.
by rfloh on Oct 29, 2007 2:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
interesting
but with the insane taxes up north, they usually have to have equivalency clauses and that would a ton of $$$$ for the Blue Jays to pick up in tax differential
by jubjub on Oct 29, 2007 5:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Insane taxes?
The same ones Troy Glaus, BJ Ryan, and Roy Halladay pay?
by Ozzz on Oct 29, 2007 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Income taxes ...
The maximum federal income tax in Canada is 29%. The maximum provincial income tax in Ontario (where Toronto is) is 11.16%
The maximum federal income tax in the US is 35%. The maximum state income tax in California is 9.3%. In New York it's 7.7%. In Massachusetts it's 5%. In Illinois it is 3% of whatever you owe the Feds -- which works out to roughly 1%.
It varies quite a bit by state, but in most of the states that matter for A-Rod's consideration, taxes would be similar or higher in the U.S.
by devo on Oct 29, 2007 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How dare you offend people's preconceptions
about tax-and-spend liberal Canadians with actual facts.
by PaulThomas on Oct 29, 2007 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
so taxes are way too high in the US?
by xbhaskarx on Oct 29, 2007 5:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Umm ...
well given that the country isn't actually paying its bills, no, not unless we drastically cut spending.
by devo on Oct 29, 2007 5:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
paying bills
well the US budget deficit as a percentage of GDP is shrinking quite rapidly, it's already below 2003 tax-cut levels.
by xbhaskarx on Oct 29, 2007 5:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comparing the deficit to corporate profits..
GNP don't pay most people's bills. Real wages are falling, and the actual deficit is climbing. Unless Wall Street is about to volunteer to pay next year's social security bill, the situation be dire.
by Ozzz on Oct 29, 2007 11:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you're wrong on multiple levels
first of all it's GDP not GNP.
more importantly, the actual budget deficit is NOT climbing, it's falling. it's falling as a percentage of GDP because of economic growth, but it's also falling in terms of "actual deficit":
...over the past three years the federal deficit has shrunk by 58%. The Congressional Budget Office--not the White House--is estimating that the current year's deficit (for fiscal 2007) will fall to $172 billion. That's not bad given continuing Katrina relief spending, $30 billion for homeland security, and a couple hundred billion or so to fight the war on terror.
The White House is projecting that its new budget will eliminate the deficit by 2012 assuming Mr. Bush's tax cuts are extended after 2010. We don't put much stock in future budget forecasts because they depend on so many variables. But even CBO predicts the deficit should remain near or below 1% of GDP for the rest of the Bush Presidency. That's well below the 40-year average of 2.4% of GDP.
and your also wrong about the "as a percentage of GDP" part not mattering. this is so obvious that i'm not even going to bother arguing it.
but getting back to tax rates and tax cuts:
The other news you won't often hear concerns the soaring tax revenues in the wake of the 2003 supply-side tax cuts. Tax collections have risen by $757 billion, among the largest revenue gushers in history. Receipts, especially from high-income individuals and corporations, have been growing for some two years at nearly twice the rate of spending, which explains the falling deficit.
by xbhaskarx on Oct 30, 2007 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow
You mean, tax revenues went up because the economy improved?
Well, shut my mouth and paint me red. That's a shocker.
Economic performance is like BABIP. It's @#%^ing luck. If you're really good at it, you might be able to influence it a little bit.
The miniscule hypothetical benefits of income tax cuts are overwhelmingly outweighed by the known, obvious pernicious effects on wealth inequality and the social fabric.
by PaulThomas on Oct 30, 2007 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
so nothing above was wrong
it was just obvious?
it's interesting this caused a bit of controversy (although no one seems to disagree with the actual numbers), when no one seemed to mind oz saying "he actual deficit is climbing" and that it deficit as a % of GDP is like corporate profits or his neighbor's mortgage....
by xbhaskarx on Oct 30, 2007 4:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Saying that the economy improved after tax cuts
is like saying that the Red Sox improved after putting Lenny DiNardo on waivers.
by PaulThomas on Oct 30, 2007 5:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the economy has improved
and budget deficits have been declining since 2003, which is when the tax cuts when into effect.
saying "the actual deficit is climbing" is like saying "the red sox lost the 2007 world series."
by xbhaskarx on Oct 30, 2007 5:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"The economy has improved" ...
is debatable at best.
Personally, I'm more concerned about the real buying power for poor and middle class families than, well, any other indicator ... and the economy isn't doing so well in that one.
by devo on Oct 30, 2007 8:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's
some impressive rhetoric - not once, but twice, implying, without actually stating, the discredited notion that lower tax rates lead to higher tax revenues. From the CBO:
Orszag concluded that the tax cuts’ indirect impact on economic growth, investment and saving and could affect this year’s budget deficit anywhere from an increase of $3 billion to a reduction of $14 billion, depending on the assumptions used. That is separate from the direct boost to the deficit through lost revenue and the added interest on borrowing to cover the gap of $211 billion.
It currently expects this year’s deficit to be between $150 billion and $200 billion, implying that without the tax cuts, the budget would probably be in surplus this year.
(btw, this is economics, not politics, right?)
by andeux on Oct 30, 2007 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't trust anything from the CBO
since they're bitter their modeling of the effects of fiscal policy changes is always so inaccurate. For an economist, working at the CBO is like a nuclear physicist teaching freshman lab at a community college.
by jubjub on Oct 30, 2007 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, all the cool economists work at Chicago
SO much more hip than modeling the economy.
by PaulThomas on Oct 30, 2007 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
do they get awarded nobel prizes
for looting poor countries? damn, that's even worse than the peace prize...
by xbhaskarx on Oct 30, 2007 5:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and can you list the poor countries
that were looted with the help of chicago economists?
by xbhaskarx on Oct 30, 2007 5:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure
I happen to be reading a book on it right now, so this one is kinda easy.
Chile
Argentina
Bolivia
Brazil
Indonesia
Thailand
South Korea (OK, more of a middle-class country)
China
Poland
Russia
Afghanistan
Iraq
Might be more-- I'm not done with the book yet. :p
by PaulThomas on Oct 30, 2007 6:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Guys, you really need to stop -
As per, no "Comments that bring politics into AN (which is a non-political blog), e.g., "Bush/Clinton ruined this country by...", "Check out this link about the war in Iraq," etc."
Baseball, A-Rod, Baseball economics...etc...
I'm not aiming this at anyone, I'm aiming it at everyone who has helped take the discussion farther and farther away from the bell curve of what belongs on AN.
by Nico on Oct 30, 2007 6:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"bell curve"?
whoa, careful nico.
but seriously, paulthomas, can you email me the name of this book?
by xbhaskarx on Oct 30, 2007 7:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he meant "double-helix."
by The Dogfather on Oct 30, 2007 7:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
is that Confessions of an Economic Hitman?
by jubjub on Oct 31, 2007 7:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, I actually found that book
not very interesting.
Plus, I saw the abridged Mime Troupe version, which kind of killed the suspense.
by PaulThomas on Oct 31, 2007 8:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
wait a minute
maybe i came close to implying that, but i never said tax cuts pay for themselves, or that they shrink the budget deficit.
but clearly one can have tax cuts and still have a budget deficit that is shrinking or at least not out of control.
i don't see how anything in your blockquotes contradicts anything in mine.
are you saying any of the numbers above are false? the deficit has shrunk over the past three years and continues to do so. as a percentage of GDP the deficit is relatively low (as is the debt, compared to other large developed countries like japan, germany, france). tax revenues are way up since the 2003 tax cuts (not as a result of).
by xbhaskarx on Oct 30, 2007 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The sentences in question
(both in your blockquotes, wherever they are from, not in your own text):
"The White House is projecting that its new budget will eliminate the deficit by 2012 assuming Mr. Bush's tax cuts are extended after 2010."
and
"The other news you won't often hear concerns the soaring tax revenues in the wake of the 2003 supply-side tax cuts."
both of which seem to imply without quite stating (which is what I said) that there is some causal relationship between the tax cuts and revenue increases. In fact, the real relationship is "in spite of."
I have no reason to disbelieve the numbers you cite, though I would think that jubjub's caveat about CBO projections would apply equally (if not more so) to White House projections about what the deficit will be in 2012. In fact, here are some specific critiques of that particular projection
by andeux on Oct 30, 2007 5:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
both sentences not bolded
as far as the white house thing, yeah it's totally irrelevant what their projection is. but the next sentence (in that WSJ article) is "We don't put much stock in future budget forecasts..."
by xbhaskarx on Oct 30, 2007 5:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not wishing to get into a long drawn out CGV fight
It's nice that you quote a random unnamed person to back your opinion, without any link or sourcing of the quote, but what you quoted was an incorrect statement.
The war has been financed through supplementary requests that go outside the budget. Source of much contention in the halls of power, and surprisingly little contention in the traditional media.
As for the rest... well, let's just leave it at that, so as to avoid the wrath of unnamed CGV flingers.
by Ozzz on Oct 30, 2007 9:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol
wall street journal article. i'll email you the link if you want.
do you have a source that says the US budget deficit has really been increasing over the last three years? if so please email it to me.
by xbhaskarx on Oct 30, 2007 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seems odd you wouldn't just post the link.
Either way, from Wikipedia:
For 2007, the [military] budget was raised to a total of US$132.8 Billion.[1] This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance and production (which is in the Department of Energy budget), Veterans Affairs or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which are largely funded through extra-budgetary supplements, e.g. $120 Billion in 2007).[2]
Now, let's see... if we add that $120b to the deficit you quoted of $170b, we're left with $290 billion - or more debt than was reported in 2006.
Taking it further back, if we include the full $400b or so spent on the wars so far (nearly half a trillion bucks), that makes the deficit blow out to $600b+, which is where it was when the current administration set the record in 2004.
Let's be clear, I'm not taking a shot at any political side here (there's hardly any need, if polls are on the money), I'm just describing a financial reality - that you can't claim you're reducing the deficit, and then conveniently leave out one of your biggest line items.
That'd be like the Yankees trying to get A-Rod's wages taken out of luxury tax calculations because he 'never really felt like a Yankee'.
by Ozzz on Oct 31, 2007 12:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
source
"surprisingly little contention in the traditional media."
i assume it's "non-traditional" media. ronpaul.com?
by xbhaskarx on Oct 30, 2007 10:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
obvious.com?
by Nico on Oct 31, 2007 7:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So, what you're saying is ...
taxes are still too low because even in the "best" of times, we're continuing to accumulate unpaid bills, yes?
by devo on Oct 30, 2007 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
these are the best of times??
don't tell hollywoodoz.
by xbhaskarx on Oct 30, 2007 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
they're the best in a while ...
and we're still doing just not nearly as badly ...
by devo on Oct 30, 2007 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and I'm only talking about
budgetary math ... not how it affects actual people.
by devo on Oct 30, 2007 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And, by some shocking coincidence,
virtually every other developed country in the world.
You'd almost think that average people actually liked the results of high taxes on ridiculously large incomes.
by PaulThomas on Oct 29, 2007 5:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And...back to baseball.
Por favor.
by Nico on Oct 29, 2007 6:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
he's was talking about Canada
not Mexico....
self-granted CGV
by jubjub on Oct 29, 2007 7:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes
and the same ones that cause the Blue Jays to have to offer a premium to players to play there.
tax rates aren't that different, it's the lack of many of the standard deductions and credits Americans enjoy (mortgage interest, etc) that make the effective rate of taxes in Canada higher.
by jubjub on Oct 29, 2007 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's weird.
In actual fact, non-Canadian citizens get to claim their GST back when they leave the country, so a chunk of the taxes A-Rod might pay up here are refundable.
And, on top of that, the Blue Jays aren't paying a premium for tax reasons. They were paying a premium because the Canadian dollar was ass compared to the US dollar... until 2006 hit.
Now it would actually earn A-Rod 5% on his money to get paid in Canuck bucks.
I know this, as I make my US clients pay their invoice in Canadian dollars nowadays. Earns me 5% on every transaction.
by Ozzz on Oct 29, 2007 11:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
4. That woman.
by The Dogfather on Oct 29, 2007 8:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, maybe NYY will stick to their guns?
"It’s a shame," said Hank Steinbrenner, who is now running the Yankees, "but we are all in agreement: myself, my dad, my brother, all the baseball people. If you don’t want to be a Yankee and paid what you’re being paid, we don’t want you, that’s the bottom line. You’d be hard-pressed to argue that point. If you don’t understand the magnitude of being a Yankee and understand what that means, and being the highest-paid player in baseball, I think it’s pretty obvious."
by OaktownPower on Oct 29, 2007 12:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
ARod as a Toledo Mud Hen
So says Hank.
by rfloh on Oct 29, 2007 2:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's nice for Hank to remind us
why everyone hates the Yankees.
"If you don't understand the magnitude of being a Yankee and understand what that means..."
Christ, what an asshole.
by Nick on Oct 29, 2007 6:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who's Christ?
Hank's son, right?
by Nico on Oct 29, 2007 6:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A-Rod AND Bonds to the Angels.
<thud>
by Poppy on Oct 29, 2007 6:21 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Don't
Don't even joke around about that scenario. A lineup with Vlad, A-Rod, and Bonds (even a really old Bonds) is like murderers row, 1927 Yankees status. Scary sh*t.
by Travis Buck Nuckin on Oct 30, 2007 12:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wasn't joking.
I'm actually quite frightened of that scenario... :\
by Poppy on Oct 30, 2007 6:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Red Sox
The Red Sox need a shortstop. If they don't re-sign Lowell and Schilling and don't re-sign Manny after next year the money is probably close to a wash for them. The comments by Steinbrenner's son only encourage A-Rod to go play for the Red Sox.
by SA on Oct 29, 2007 7:18 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
so you're saying
they should pay 30 million for a-rod, then pay lugo $9 million to be a below-average third baseman?
by flipgatey3 on Oct 29, 2007 7:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does anyone think it's funny..
...that Red Sox fans actually think Mike Lowell is better than A-Rod! HA!
Oh wait, they're Red Sox fans, they know one thing: ESPN....
by Travis Buck Nuckin on Oct 30, 2007 12:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's going to go to a team in contention.
Which, along with the amount of money he's going to demand, narrow the list down considerably. Toronto don't make that list in my opinion.
Unfortunately it looks like the Angels are going to be his destination.
by OldhamA on Oct 29, 2007 7:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Put A-Rod on the Jays roster..
...that team is suddenly in contention.
IMO.
by Ozzz on Oct 29, 2007 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So classy
to upstage the World Series with an announcement you could have made 10 days from now.
by jeepers on Oct 29, 2007 8:01 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Classic Boras move
I have no doubt whatsoever that it was planned in advance.
by PaulThomas on Oct 29, 2007 8:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Yankees were leaking
info to the NY press, both about their offer to him, and when they were going to make their offer. They were trying to play hardball with him.
by rfloh on Oct 29, 2007 9:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that may be
but Peter Gammons calling him out for that was so utterly absurd. You could practically hear the ESPN execs off in the background slobbering over the news that they could joyfully flog for the next 2 weeks.
by batgirl on Oct 29, 2007 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
please..
the WS was already being upstaged by great college and pro football games, no one I knew outside of redsox fan was talkin world series.
by sf drift king on Oct 29, 2007 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nobody seems to have a problem with..
...Taco Bell upstaging the event as it happened.
So why not?
by Ozzz on Oct 29, 2007 1:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd be more worried
that one single player actually has the clout to upstage the sport's premier event.
And why was it such big news? Because reporters were falling over each other to tell us about it.
Sure it was a bush move (that has new meaning doesn't it?) but baseball has much bigger fish to fry than this little incident.
by 67MARQUEZ on Oct 29, 2007 7:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LA Dodgers
The Dodgers make a lot of sense to me. They missed out on Vlad because the team was going through the being sold/bought transition and I'd don't think they'd like to see A-Rod join Vlad in LA of A.
Also, the Dodgers are can cut a lot of salary this offseason if they choose to do so in order to make way for A-Rod.
Kent - Club opt. '08 ($9M)
Wolf - FA ($8M)
Gonzalez - FA ($7.35M)
Nomar - Signed thru '08 ($8.5M)
If Nomar could play his remaining year out at 2B, or trade him, it seems it would make sense to bring in A-Rod. Between Kent, Wolf, and Gonzalez about $24.35M would be coming off the books for next season and assuming they don't resign Nomar in '08 another $8.5M comes off. But seriously would you rather have A-Rod or Kent, Wolf, and Gonzalez? I think Furcal is signed thru '08 as well so they didn't want to resign him they could slide A-Rod to SS to make room for LaRoche at 3B.
The Dodgers would have a pretty formidable lineup if they added A-Rod, with some pretty solid up and coming talent.
Furcal - SS
Pierre - CF
Martin - C
A-Rod - 3B
Loney - 1B
Kemp - LF
Nomar - 2B
Either - RF
by methodrampage on Oct 29, 2007 8:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If the Dodgers get Arod
Then they could perfectly trade Laroche, Kemp and Kershaw for Santana.
by jahs34 on Oct 29, 2007 8:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dodgers apparently are down on LaRoche
and want a good 3B, so its possible.
by Zonis on Oct 29, 2007 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think he would consider LAD
since it would suppress his HR totals, which is all he is interested in at this point (besides $$$ and manly looking women). That's why I think the Red Sox and Cubs make sense given the number of popfly homeruns there. Cubs are probably out of it given their ownership situation, but since the Red Sox are the new Yankees, John Henry would love to stick it in the eye of the Yankees by taking their best player. I could see the Red Sox offering $35MM/year, but for a shorter contract (maybe 4 years) since they are all about risk mitigation.
by jubjub on Oct 29, 2007 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dodgers stadium is no longer a pitchers' park
It's park factor this year was 105, last 3 years 104. Above 100 favours hitters.
by rfloh on Oct 30, 2007 1:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
have you ever looked at those park factors?
Most of them make no sense at all.
Even if it is a slightly hitter friendly park in terms of hits, he wouldn't care that it's easier to get hits, he wants HR's. The leading HR hitters for the Dodgers the last two seasons have had 20 hr's. And all the top hitters this year hit more away than at home. Not a HR-friendly stadium (unless you're Adrian Beltre in a contract year on HGH/Clear/Cream/Dexatrim)
by jubjub on Oct 30, 2007 6:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
20 HR
It has more to do with the Dodger's biggest power threat coming from a 38-39 year old 2B. The Dodgers haven't had a legit HR hitter for a while now.
I'm also pretty sure the women are better to look at in LA then in Chicago or Boston. So I guess we'll find out where his priorities lie.
by methodrampage on Oct 30, 2007 7:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Joe Torre...
...is also the Dodgers manager, so that could help too...if ARod in fact liked him..?
by Travis Buck Nuckin on Oct 30, 2007 12:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd love to see
Chavez and Kotsay being packaged to the Yankees somehow. Stick Hannahanahhanahanahan at 3B and Buck in CF
by closetasfan on Oct 29, 2007 9:01 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Putting Buck in CF
would make the games a lot more exciting.
by kaweahkaweah on Oct 29, 2007 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rooting for the Dodgers
Being a Southern California resident AND an A's fan I am inclined to pull hard for the Dodgers in the A-Rod sweepstakes.
First off, every year that the Dodgers miss the playoffs while the Angels make it, the Dodgers lose valuable media market share. There are already "This is Angels' Country" billboards along I-5 in Los Angeles County near Dodger Stadium...it's sickening. A-Rod to the Angels would put the nail in the coffin of Dodger plans to regain regional supremacy.
Secondly, the Dodgers are a team flush with tradition and great players. The Angels are not. The Dodgers need a marketable, superstar veteran face to put in front of all of their young talent which they haven't had in years.
Thirdly, the Dodgers have money to spend and the clear on-field need. They are in the biggest media market in the country and have salary coming off the books.
Fourth, LA is close enough to Boras's HQ in Newport that he'll be able to personally oversee Arod's move-in and upkeep.
Fifth...someone needs to keep him away from the Angels, for the sake of the entire AL West!
Let's go Dodgers (thump-thump-thump-thump-thump!)
by Taj Adib on Oct 29, 2007 10:37 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
totally agree
and I also think since the Giants will be a major player for AROD, that this too will drive the Dodgers to aggressively bid on his services.
by sf drift king on Oct 29, 2007 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree about SF.
They are sorely in need of a marquee player to put fannies back in the seats, and may think they can renew their hold on the local public's imagination with Big Deal, Part Deux.
by The Dogfather on Oct 29, 2007 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
GG: care to post a poll?
Contendas
Bosox
Wankees
Trono
Cubbies
Giaunties
LAA
LAD
Wild cards (lower case "c")
Phils
Ohrios
Rangers, out of habit
Pods
by The Dogfather on Oct 29, 2007 1:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
God, imagine ARod playing 81 games a year
at Citizens Bank -- he'd have a good shot at getting to 60 or 70 HR a year, and could end up with 800 for his career easily. Maybe even 850.
Still, I think that's a huge longshot.
by Nick on Oct 29, 2007 6:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also, he'd probably hit a teller,
or a customer, before he even got to 700 HR.
by Nico on Oct 29, 2007 7:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
...or a blonde.
by The Dogfather on Oct 29, 2007 7:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really think A Rod going to the Giants
is a very real possibility. A rod, said during the all star game that he loves SBC and would love to play there. And from the Giants standpoint, they have built their franchise and stadium, around a one man Show that crushes homeruns into the cove. Bonds is gone, and people are already saying AROD is next in line for the homerun crown.... It all makes sense to me... Shit if they gave that kind of contract to ZITO, what makes you think they wouldnt shell out twice as much for AROD? and not to mention, that they have at least 18 million a year to play with, now that Bond's contract is off the books....
by Shippee33 on Oct 29, 2007 5:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree here...
by ZeroIndulgence on Oct 30, 2007 9:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
WSJ suggests pkg of pay and deferred equity.
Apparently written by a Cubbies fan, article is here. Not sure whether you need a subscription to see it.
Basically, "...If A-Rod were to convert 40% of the present value of his contract into an eventual ownership position, he could wind up with about 13% of the Cubs. Of course, for that bet to pay off for A-Rod, the value of the Wrigleyville franchise would need to more than double over 10 years."
The idea is that non-Wankee teams might use this strategy to compete for him, without all that comp having to come from current operations -- not-unlike SiliValley start-ups that want to conserve cash. When the numbers get this big, the options get creative.
Anyway, I htought it was interesting enough to contribute to the conversation.
by The Dogfather on Oct 30, 2007 7:25 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
For comparison, Cubs worth $600M, A's $234M
So I think that means the stake numbers would have to go up by about 2.5X in our case. Lew has shown willingness to take-in equity participants (BB), but the scenario above gives ARod about a 1/3 stake, which is likely way too rich for our blood.
by The Dogfather on Oct 30, 2007 8:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Athletics Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
