The lastest on Garland

[ZoomSlowik]

The difference being that Sheets and Santana havent gotten to that magic six year mark yet and their teams still own them.  That doesnt apply to Garland.

 

Both would have been free agents after this season anyways unless I'm mistaken (Sheets now has 5 full years in the majors, Santana has 4 and parts of 2 others). They signed earlier than Jon, but they both still got massive deals. How many other people have signed before they were FA? Every one that I can think of signed for less. That's what I'm comparing it to, their extensions that they signed and what Jon was offered now. It's probably going to take at least that much to keep Jon, which doesn't make that much sense to me. Sheets and Johan would probably both get $12-14 mil if they were FA now, and if they were FA some of the other shmucks like Weaver and Morris wouldn't be getting 9 mil because teams would be less desperate to sign mediocre pitchers when there are better options available. However, that doesn't really matter, since they already signed and the difference in money isn't that ridiculous.

 

Edit- Mark is probably going to warrant something like $12 mil (maybe a little more, not entirely sure who'll be there by the time he hits the market. There are some big names, but some might be signed earlier), and I can live with that because he has proven that he is a pretty good starter in the past. Depending on how they pitch in the coming years, Freddy and Jose might be in the same region. Freddy is probably going to have to step up a bit to make quite that much. He'll likely be in the $10-$12 mil range if his numbers are roughly the same as the last two years. Jose's deal won't be as long, but he'll make a lot of money if he keeps pitching like he did in the second half. I don't have a problem with paying pitchers, I have a problem when we are giving average guys with one good season under their belt ace-type money. If we sign Garland for over $10 mil or if we had signed A.J. Burnett, I'd have a problem. If we give Mark 4-48 or sign someone like Oswalt for $14 mil when he hits FA, I don't really have a problem with that. Likewise if Garland had pitched as well as he did last year in 2004 or we signed him after another 15+ win season with a mid-3's ERA, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But that's not the case, and I'd rather get some young talent and take the chance that Jon sustains his performance than sign him to a monster deal and end up overpaying him. I find the latter to be a much more likely scenario, and we've all seen what happens to a teams' payroll when they are stuck with an underachiever like Mo Vaughn or Darren Driefort.

Edited December 22, 2005 by ZoomSlowik

[Cerbaho-WG]

If there was a salary cap in baseball, the problem would solve itself.

 

Let me quote this, but instead of only quoting this, I want to emphasize the point more.

[shawnhillegas]

I don't care if it's illegal, I'm in support of collusion. Refuse to pay starting pitchers who intend on earning ridiculous contracts. Why should players and agents such as Boras pull the strings? How desperate would Milwood, for example, be if no one signed him through spring training? Then we'd be able to negotiate fair deals. When accusations arise of collusion, I'd just say, "We don't believe these players are worth this amount. Obviously, others don't as well." No one is forced to sign anyone.

 

well if your goal is to give the owners more money each year then you are right on track. frankly, i'd rather have jon garland get the money than drayton mcclane.

[SSH2005]

Yep, you beat me to the punch.

 

Why has this not been discussed before?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because that would destroy the MLB's secret agenda of the Yankees having a chance to win the World Series every year.

[RME JICO]

Now if you were Jon, would you rather play on a Championship team for $8 million a year, or a losing team willing to pay you $10-11 million a year?

[Flash Tizzle]

If there was a salary cap in baseball, the problem would solve itself.

 

I wouldn't mind it. You dont' even need to set it at $70 million. $100 million is fine. Obviously, the luxury tax isn't helping lower market teams very much. Something is wrong with baseball when the Yankees outfield is paid more than the entire Devil Rays roster.

[RME JICO]

Because that would destroy the MLB's secret agenda of the Yankees having a chance to win the World Series every year.

Damn, you beat me again. I was thinking, "Then what would the Yankees do?"

[Balta1701]

Yep, you beat me to the punch.

 

Why has this not been discussed before?

It has been discussed many many times, and if it ever happens, it is decades away. Why? Because MLB's union is vastly more powerful than the unions of the other 2 major sports. The union believes (correctly) that a salary cap will put more money in the hands of ownership by limiting overall salaries. That is something they do not want. They would make sure no world series ever happened again before they allowed a salary cap, as it stands now.

[southsideirish71]

Let me quote this, but instead of only quoting this, I want to emphasize the point more.

 

Kiss baseball away for at least 2 years if a Salary cap is thought of.

 

 

Let me emphasize this even more.

 

THE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION WOULD STRIKE. SO JUST LIKE IN 94. SEE YOU IN 2008 OR 2009 FOR BASEBALL.

 

Are we still the same type of team, or are we at 17k a game again.

 

I hate the money they are making, but be careful what you ask for.

Edited December 22, 2005 by southsideirish71

[nitetrain8601]

Kiss baseball away for at least 2 years if a Salary cap is thought of. 

Let me emphasize this even more.

 

THE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION WOULD STRIKE. SO JUST LIKE IN 94.  SEE YOU IN 2008 OR 2009 FOR BASEBALL.

 

Are we still the same type of team, or are we at 17k a game again. 

 

I hate the money they are making, but be careful what you ask for.

 

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who wouldn't like that.

[Balta1701]

Now if you were Jon, would you rather play on a Championship team for $8 million a year, or a losing team willing to pay you $10-11 million a year?

You're assuming he can't have both. Most teams willing to pay him the $10m + per year are probably going to be able to build winning teams at some point. The Royals and Pirates aren't exactly shelling that out for pitching.

[southsider2k5]

Yep, you beat me to the punch.

 

Why has this not been discussed before?

 

The owners can't stick together long enough to get it done and the MLBPA knows it.

[Flash Tizzle]

I'd imagine a salary floor would be more likely to pass within the union than a cap. Force Tampa, Kansas City, whichever other teams hold low payrolls to spend atleast 50 million.

[southsideirish71]

I'd imagine a salary floor would be more likely to pass within the union than a cap. Force Tampa, Kansas City, whichever other teams hold low payrolls to spend atleast 50 million.

 

Tampa, Kansas City would not solve their attendance issues just by jacking up there payroll. So they would incur large losses and eventually would need to be contracted or move.

[ZoomSlowik]

It has been discussed many many times, and if it ever happens, it is decades away.  Why?  Because MLB's union is vastly more powerful than the unions of the other 2 major sports.  The union believes (correctly) that a salary cap will put more money in the hands of ownership by limiting overall salaries.  That is something they do not want.  They would make sure no world series ever happened again before they allowed a salary cap, as it stands now.

 

They might be able to work something out like in the NBA where the salary cap is variable depending on the amount of money coming in. I realize that the league can fudge their numbers, but it would alleviate the conception that the owners were pocketing all of the money somewhat. It would also help if there were a salary floor of something like $60 mil, which would counteract the loss of money from the top teams a bit. If every team had to have a payroll between $60 and $100 mil, the overall payroll of the players would probably in the worst case scenario be about even because there are more teams at $45 mil and below than teams over $100 mil. I realize the Yankees could make 2 teams and still have each over the cap at this point, but that can be ironed out. The revenue sharing also is important, that's a pretty big factor in the NFL. Teams like the Royals already get like $20 mil in revenue sharing, this could make it even more. Of course you'll have a hell of a time getting Steinbrenner to agree to it, but what else is new.

Edited December 22, 2005 by ZoomSlowik

[RME JICO]

If Salary Cap is not an option, then they need to do something along the lines of arbitration on how salaries are determined. Each player gets put into some type of category based off their performance for the year, last 3, and career, etc, etc. Then the teams can negotiate within that window. The flex room would come in incentives.

 

Have you seen some of the crazy salaries from contracts signed years ago? They are hilarious.

 

Jeff Bagwell is going to make something like $17 million this year, signed thru 2007

 

Jason (I robbed the Big Hurt) Giambi will make $18 million in 2006, and that jumps to an absurd $21 million in 2007 & 2008.

 

Mike Hampton? $13.5 million for 2006.

 

Todd Helton? $16.6 million and he is signed thru 2011.

[Flash Tizzle]

Tampa, Kansas City would not solve their attendance issues just by jacking up there payroll.  So they would incur large losses and eventually would need to be contracted or move.

 

The issue here isn't attendance. It's competiting in a league dominated by large market clubs with moderate to high payrolls. You'll never see a talented player travel through Tampa or Kansas City unless the person is at the beginning, or end, of their career. These clubs are already receiving large amounts from the Yankees alone. Where are these funds going? If neither team can't afford to field a 50 million dollar payroll, they don't deserve to exist.

[NorthSideSox72]

Just to clarify...

 

Collusion IS legal in baseball, but not other sports. MLB is unique among professional sports in that the courts have held in more than one case that MLB is ONE business, with 30 operating units. Therefore, they can collude if they want to.

 

But, as people point out, that doesn't mean its practical or logical to just lay down the law with a salary cap. The union would have a fit, and the union is awfully powerful in baseball (which is good in a sense, because it offsets the unusual amount of leverage MLB owners have).

[southsideirish71]

The issue here isn't attendance. It's competiting in a league dominated by large market clubs with moderate to high payrolls. You'll never see a talented player travel through Tampa or Kansas City unless the person is at the beginning, or end, of their career. These clubs are already receiving large amounts from the Yankees alone. Where are these funds going? If neither team can't afford to field a 50 million dollar payroll, they don't deserve to exist.

 

 

Well we are getting to the point were we are the devil also. Our payroll this year is going to be anywhere from 85-90 million(approximately). Dont get me wrong we are not the yanks, but do you think that Minny would like to have Thome vs White. We are a big market, and finally with some revenue changes are becoming a big market type club. So before we all get upset, remember how happy you were looking at the WS Championship DVD and what we had last year, and our possible monster team we have this year.

 

My personal belief is that its how the team is managed. Some teams compete with prospects like Minny, the Indians, and the A's. Other teams use prospects to obtain talent like the Sox. Others just pay through the noise to get what they want the BoSox and the Yanks.

 

But make no mistake, we are now in the upper bracket of overall salary. I am sure that the Indians/Twins/KC fans think we are the NY of the midwest.

[mr_genius]

Have you seen some of the crazy salaries from contracts signed years ago?  They are hilarious.

 

Jeff Bagwell is going to make something like $17 million this year, signed thru 2007

 

Jason (I robbed the Big Hurt) Giambi will make $18 million in 2006, and that jumps to an absurd $21 million in 2007 & 2008.

 

Mike Hampton?  $13.5 million for 2006.

 

Todd Helton?  $16.6 million and he is signed thru 2011.

 

 

whoa

 

those are some bad contracts (for the team atleast).

[nitetrain8601]

Well we are getting to the point were we are the devil also.  Our payroll this year is going to be anywhere from 85-90 million(approximately).  Dont get me wrong we are not the yanks, but do you think that Minny would like to have Thome vs White.  We are a big market, and finally with some revenue changes are becoming a big market type club.  So before we all get upset, remember how happy you were looking at the WS Championship DVD and what we had last year, and our possible monster team we have this year.

 

My personal belief is that its how the team is managed.  Some teams compete with prospects like Minny, the Indians, and the A's.  Other teams use prospects to obtain talent like the Sox.  Others just pay through the noise to get what they want the BoSox and the Yanks. 

 

But make no mistake, we are now in the upper bracket of overall salary.  I am sure that the Indians/Twins/KC fans think we are the NY of the midwest.

 

Exactly. The major problem with the bad teams(KC and such) is the fact that they don't have good management. They usually have no logic in what they want to do. Milwaukee used to be one of those teams, but Doug Melvin seems to know what he wants to do and how to go about it.

 

Naturally there are big market teams who have more flexibility because of more revenue. We're finally one of those teams.

[BlackBetsy]

Just to clarify...

 

Collusion IS legal in baseball, but not other sports.  MLB is unique among professional sports in that the courts have held in more than one case that MLB is ONE business, with 30 operating units.  Therefore, they can collude if they want to.

 

 

Not true when it comes to labor issues. MLB has an "antitrust exemption" that allows it some amount of protection against antitrust lawsuit by competing leagues (e.g., the Federal League in 1915) and against claims by individual owners that the league is restraining trade by not allowing them to move their team into a new city.

 

Not terribly long ago, the owners and players went to Congress after they had agreed that the antitrust exemption should be removed for labor issues. Thus, collusion among teams when it comes to player salaries is no longer OK.

 

In the collusion proceeding relating to the 1986 and 1987 free agent markets (Fred Lynn and Carlton Fisk got a bunch of money out of this), I believe that the owners had agreed NOT to collude in the labor agreement that came out of the 1985 collective bargaining agreement (if you recall, baseball had a 2-day strike in 1985). Thus, when they did collude, it was thus subject of an arbitration over the terms of the contract. I believe the owners paid something like $270 million (maybe it was $170 million) as a result of losing that arbitration.

[quickman]

Just so the record is clear, if Garland is going to be traded, fine.  My points have always been:

 

1.  Don't undervalue him.  The guy was our second best starter last year, and is only going to get better, ie., put up similar years to 2005 in the future.

 

2.  Don't just dump him.  Given his real value, to trade him without getting impact players (or several potential impact players) in return would not be a good deal for the Sox.

 

3.  Keeping him for a single year may give us our best possible chance at repeating as WS Champs.  After all, we've learned the hard way what happens when we are a starter short during the season.  Better to have 6 than 4 (when an injury causes someone to go down). 

 

I trust Kenny Williams agrees with all three of these points.  Thus, I expect we'll either keep him or get great value in return.

 

Your value and the value of the market are different. He is entering his last year before free agency. His value goes down. Therefore the sox will get "what they can" for him and most likely it will be one or two players that will be more ready to play in 2006 or 2007 than draft picks that maybe ready or NOT by 2010. Furthermore they they will stick to a budget..they will not break the budget for John fing Garland especially after his agent told KW there will be no negotiating. THEY WANT HIS ASS OUT OF HERE. KW will do his job and get his peter pan ass out.

[CWSGuy406]

Sure, a salary cap would work. I mean, look at the NFL. It's not like one team is dominating in that league, right? Oh, wait -- New England has won three of the last five titles. And the cap is sure helping teams like Arizona a helluva lot, right? Oh, yeah...

 

Gosh -- it pisses me off when teams like Tampa or Pittsburg cry poor. Teams like that are making stupid move after stupid move, yet the sole reason for their losing is their lack of money. GMAB...

[Guest JimH]

Your value and the value of the market are different. He is entering his last year before free agency. His value goes down. Therefore the sox will get "what they can" for him and most likely it will be one or two players that will be more ready to play in 2006 or 2007 than draft picks that maybe ready or NOT by 2010. Furthermore they they will stick to a budget..they will not break the budget for John fing Garland especially after his agent told KW there will be no negotiating. THEY WANT HIS ASS OUT OF HERE. KW will do his job and get his peter pan ass out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ya think?