rwrkb Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 You can't back a wounded and dejected marlin fan into a corner like that and expect him to chuckle. Times like these they are at their most dangerous and are liable to poke you in the eye with that... that... big pointy thing on the end of their nose. i was thinking the same thing Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 You can't back a wounded and dejected marlin fan into a corner like that and expect him to chuckle. Times like these they are at their most dangerous and are liable to poke you in the eye with that... that... big pointy thing on the end of their nose. Basically. Link to post Share on other sites
Spawn's dad Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 I was really mocking the other guy. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Is that a penis in a Santa suit? Link to post Share on other sites
Spawn's dad Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 it's Sam. R.I.P. Sam Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 RIP Sam. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 I remember this link from a discussion a while back and it is a year old, but I think it's telling. Revenue sharing continues to steadily increase in amounts per team each year and here is a rough cut of what teams spend/re-invest in their team from their cut, percentage -wise:(I think that's supposed to read "% of Revenue....") % or Revenue spent on Payroll79% Washington Nationals79% Chicago White Sox74% New York Yankees70% Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim67% Toronto Blue Jays66% Detroit Tigers62% Minnesota Twins60% Houston Astros60% Boston Red Sox59% Los Angeles Dodgers59% St Louis Cardinals57% San Francisco Giants56% New York Mets56% Atlanta Braves55% Chicago Cubs53% Oakland Athletics53% Philadelphia Phillies52% Milwaukee Brewers51% Seattle Mariners49% Baltimore Orioles48% Cincinnati Reds48% Texas Rangers47% San Diego Padres45% Kansas City Royals44% Arizona Diamondbacks43% Pittsburgh Pirates40% Cleveland Indians32% Tampa Bay Devil Rays31% Colorado Rockies15% Florida Marlins Link:http://www.fantasybaseballcafe.com/forums/...ic.php?t=238635 Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 I remember this link from a discussion a while back and it is a year old, but I think it's telling. Revenue sharing continues to steadily increase in amounts per team each year and here is a rough cut of what teams spend/re-invest in their team from their cut, percentage -wise:(I think that's supposed to read "% of Revenue....") % or Revenue spent on Payroll79% Washington Nationals79% Chicago White Sox74% New York Yankees70% Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim67% Toronto Blue Jays66% Detroit Tigers62% Minnesota Twins60% Houston Astros60% Boston Red Sox59% Los Angeles Dodgers59% St Louis Cardinals57% San Francisco Giants56% New York Mets56% Atlanta Braves55% Chicago Cubs53% Oakland Athletics53% Philadelphia Phillies52% Milwaukee Brewers51% Seattle Mariners49% Baltimore Orioles48% Cincinnati Reds48% Texas Rangers47% San Diego Padres45% Kansas City Royals44% Arizona Diamondbacks43% Pittsburgh Pirates40% Cleveland Indians32% Tampa Bay Devil Rays31% Colorado Rockies15% Florida Marlins Link:http://www.fantasybaseballcafe.com/forums/...ic.php?t=238635 But, like I said, the Marlins pretty much the onlyt eam in the league without any real revenue avenues anywhere else. That's the problem. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 But, like I said, the Marlins pretty much the onlyt eam in the league without any real revenue avenues anywhere else. That's the problem.I don't think that justifies how the man runs his team, though. Here's a link to a piece I think does some thinking along these lines, with the key to it highlighted below:http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7527010The shame of it is that a baseball team, operated properly, could thrive in South Florida. The Miami-Ft. Lauderdale-Pompano Beach area is the seventh-largest media market in the country, and an owner willing to reinvest in the team could easily make the Marlins a top destination for free-agent talent. Certainly, it will take a new ballpark and a winning team for that to happen, but Loria is apparently unwilling to do business in a sensible manner unless he's lavished in corporate welfare. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 I don't think that justifies how the man runs his team, though. Here's a link to a piece I think does some thinking along these lines, with the key to it highlighted below:http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7527010The shame of it is that a baseball team, operated properly, could thrive in South Florida. The Miami-Ft. Lauderdale-Pompano Beach area is the seventh-largest media market in the country, and an owner willing to reinvest in the team could easily make the Marlins a top destination for free-agent talent. Certainly, it will take a new ballpark and a winning team for that to happen, but Loria is apparently unwilling to do business in a sensible manner unless he's lavished in corporate welfare. That doesn't really make any sort of point contrary to mine. I wish we had a new owner that was able to put more of his money into the stadium and team, but since we don't (and since MLB can't force him to sell, and he has no intentions of doing so) I'm not going to slag on the team for doing the best they can. He is the owner. It is the reality of the situation. The situation would be much better if we had a stadium that would represent a significant income for the team to take advantage of the large market. Because, as is, even if we had 35,000 coming to each game, we wouldn't be able to spend significantly more money, because we still wouldn't see money from concessions or parking, which represent a significant portion of a team's income. Does it suck? Sure. BUt it's reality. As long as he's owner, I'm not going to rag on him for working within the limitations of the system. Link to post Share on other sites
wheelco Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 I heard the Marlins are moving to Columbus Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 Of the numerous possibilities, I've never once heard Columbus. Link to post Share on other sites
rwrkb Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 fresh out of the oven or something:1:53 a.m., from Jayson Stark Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 I can't wait to watch Juan Pierre get paid 9 million a year to OPS .690 as a corner outfielder while Matt Kemp doesn't hit 30 home runs while sitting on the bench. Ned Coletti is the dumbest man in sports. Link to post Share on other sites
the_fliz1 Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 The Braves played the Tigers this last year and from what I saw there is no way Jones is worth 18 million a year. Even if it was just a "down" year. I guess the fact that it is 2 years makes it a little better. Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted December 6, 2007 Author Share Posted December 6, 2007 I can't wait to watch Juan Pierre get paid 9 million a year to OPS .690 as a corner outfielder while Matt Kemp doesn't hit 30 home runs while sitting on the bench. Ned Coletti is the dumbest man in sports.I bet Pierre is moved in the Dodgers' next trade. Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 And in other news, the NY Post reports that the Mets have signed righty Nate Field to a minor-league deal. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 I bet Pierre is moved in the Dodgers' next trade. For what? A 30 year old A-baller and a tin of snuff? Link to post Share on other sites
Spawn's dad Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 I've been underground it seems. How did the boston/twin's deal fall apart? Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 Twins wanted more than Boston wanted to give them. Word is that the Mets are back in the Santana hunt. Link to post Share on other sites
Spawn's dad Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 huh. I had thought the reports were really strong that it was a done deal. All that whining that boston was unbeatable gone to waste. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 All that whining that boston was unbeatable gone to waste.Not for nothing, but they did win a WS last year with pretty much the same team the've got right now. I don't think the deal is dead, a la with NYY (supposedly) but the Twins are certainly playing it smart to push and see how much they can get for Santana. It'd be great to have him but I don't think giving up both Lester and Ellsbury, in addition to the money required for a Santana contract, is wise. Link to post Share on other sites
Spawn's dad Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 it's true. but that team still wasn't unbeatable. add santana though... Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 it's true. but that team still wasn't unbeatable. Apparently they were though... Link to post Share on other sites
Spawn's dad Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 not even remotely the same thing. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts