The lastest on Garland

[Adam G]

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'd trade a year for a hard cap system (just not this year ). No money doesnt buy championships (see the Yanks and their $1 billion spent over the past five years), but it does buy better shots at fielding a competitive playoff level team. There is absolutely no justification for allowing one team to spend four or five times as much as another team in the same league.

 

And a salary cap doesnt have to be about screwing the players and transferring money to the owners. Here's my idea:

 

1) Figure out current total salaries of all the players for the current year ("X" billion)

2) Figure out total league revenue for the current year ("Y" billion)

3) Turn that into a percentage (X/Y) of league revenue that the players will be guaranteed on a year to year basis. (Z%)

4) Multiply that that percentage to each year's revenues going forward, and that will determine the next year's salary level. If the league takes in more money, the players will take in more money (omgpartnership!1)

5) Divide salary level by the number of teams. This becomes a target payroll, of sorts.

6) Allow for some deviation, perhaps 10%, that teams will be allowed to either exceed or miss the target payroll by. Those will be that year's salary cap and floor.

 

 

So basically I'm envisioning a system in which there is a smaller deviation between the haves and the have nots in baseball, but also ensures that the players still get their piece of the pie. My system still doesnt address the problem of have nots who cannot afford to meet the salary floor, but that will have to be addressed with some sort of revenue sharing scheme. It would also probably help if we capped individual salaries (at, say, $15 million/year, adjusted annually for inflation) and tripled league minimum salaries.

[Adam G]

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...

The salary cap isnt supposed to ensure parity, it's supposed to ensure that all teams are on a relatively level playing field. If one team is just that much better at running their organization than everyone else and keeps winning (without resorting to buying all the best players, a la the Yanks), then they shouldnt be punished for that.

[NorthSideSox72]

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.

 

Thanks for the clarification - I wasn't aware of the exemption in the current agreement. So really, the owners are allowed LIMITED collusion, but the collective bargaining agreement in place at any given time (like now) can dictate that it cannot occur related to specific labor issues during that contract. Got it.

[Balta1701]

1) Figure out current total salaries of all the players for the current year ("X" billion)

2) Figure out total league revenue for the current year ("Y" billion)

3) Turn that into a percentage (X/Y) of league revenue that the players will be guaranteed on a year to year basis.  (Z%)

Of course, the problem with this scheme is that over recent years, the %age of MLB revenues going to pay salaries has fluctuated wildly. Someone posted the exact numbers here a few weeks ago...since the late 90's, it has gone from being just above 50%, to jumping over 70% when guys like ARod were getting massive deals, and now with increased revenue in the last few years it's all the way back down in the 50's.

 

Where do you put the number so that both sides will stay happy? That's a hell of a range.

[greg775]

- Garland's agent (Craig Landis) has told the White Sox there will be no

negotiations on a new contract. Doesn't matter if the White Sox say 8,9

10 million per year. No negotiations. Garland wants the leverage.

- Ken Williams, therefore, is attempting to trade Garland for two bullpen arms,

not prospects per se. Although one could be an "on the cusp" guy.

 

(This is the most ridiculous reasoning I've ever heard. If Garland wants

mega dollars in free agency he's going to have to pitch his ass off this year.

A 3-15 implosing won't get him squat. That said, if he goes 20-2 for us in

search of a big deal, more power to him and us.

We have him this year. Keep him!!!!!

 

- He also said that Crede will not sign a long term deal here, that it's Boras'

job to get the player to free agency (duh).

(I guess we'll lose Crede if Boras remains his agent. Again, keep him until

that happens. If Joe hits .260 with 23 home runs and plays great defense,

is anybody else going to offer him much more than the White Sox? I mean I

love Joe but give me a break. Who is going to overpay much more than

we will? Keep Joe).

 

- Levine believes Garland could get as much as $9M in arbitration for 2006.

Further he states the White Sox are, at present, several million over budget.

(Screw the budget. Management needs to ride this into major crowds all season.Getting

rid of Garland would be STUPID for business).

 

No teams were mentioned as possible trading partners. Levine said KW's primary objective right now is moving Garland for bullpen help.

 

--I don't understand how trading Garland will help us a bit. I love BMac's potential but he hasn't proven anything yet. He could turn into the early years Garland before he matures.

 

We've already tinkered enough. Keep the rest of the team intact another season!!!!

[Adam G]

Where do you put the number so that both sides will stay happy?  That's a hell of a range.

Take the average of the past ten years, perhaps?

[Balta1701]

Take the average of the past ten years, perhaps?

Again, I'd say that's still a terrible idea, because even the #'s over the last 10 years have been totally screwed up because of:

 

1. The dramatic drop in revenues coming down from the strike

2. The dramatic inflation of salaries and revenues to the point where no one knows where they will settle.

3. Expansion into new markets, some of which have worked well and some of which have not.

[mr_genius]

If Garland wants

mega dollars in free agency he's going to have to pitch his ass off this year.

A 3-15 implosing won't get him squat. That said, if he goes 20-2 for us in

search of a big deal, more power to him and us.

We have him this year. Keep him!!!!!

 

 

 

 

i agree.

 

as far as the "we will get nothing for him if he walks" argument: i wouldn't consider another championship nothing.

[Flash Tizzle]

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.

 

I won't accept a "what they can gets" package. That suggests we're desperate to trade Garland. Williams isn't in this position. Why is it we never seem to possess good leverage concerning the value of our players? Either we're giving up too much to secure a player, or receiving too little (ie; in Marte's case--no prospects). Few have ever overpaid for a White Sox player. Let the world right itself this offseaon and have ONE general manager overpay for Garland.

 

I'd be willing to bet Garland's next season can only help inflate his contract for 2007--and beyond. If he pitches poorly, or even were to become injured, he'd still receive a healthy contract. If we're given up a 27 year old pitcher with good peripherals and success within a notorious hitters park, I expect top prospects. Or immediate help from the bullpen. One year rental or not.

 

I want to know how Garland could potentially receive 66mil/6 years on the market, but he can't even net the Whtie Sox an impact player? Teams are willing to drastically overpay for a pitcher, yet not even offer quality talent in return for a 2-3 million cheaper Garland? Bull. I'd rather keep Garland for next season than receive s*** for him.

 

I'll continue to repeat this: If Williams were attempting to acquire Garland, does anyone here doubt he'd give up one or two of our top prospects? Or relief pitchers? Hell no.

Edited December 22, 2005 by Flash Tizzle

[Adam G]

Again, I'd say that's still a terrible idea, because even the #'s over the last 10 years have been totally screwed up because of:

 

1.  The dramatic drop in revenues coming down from the strike

2.  The dramatic inflation of salaries and revenues to the point where no one knows where they will settle.

3.  Expansion into new markets, some of which have worked well and some of which have not.

Taking an average over the past "X" years controls for all those variables. If you want to go back 25 years, go for it.

[southsideirish71]

We are over budget. If your company was overbudget, you might be seeing some of your coworkers also being given their release papers or traded to the unemployment line.

 

 

X is the amount of money we have available for the 2006 salary.

 

With the addition of Vasquez The Salary(S) is now greater than X.

 

S > X

 

We need to balance the equation. So we need to remove someone from the team. So lets look at who should go. Should it be a the pitcher who has told KW he wants to become a FA and has broke off contract talks. That person shall be known as G

 

To balance the equation we need some prospects to come back.

 

P is a variable that can be 2 or 3 based on value of G.

 

S - G + P = X

Edited December 22, 2005 by southsideirish71

[Adam G]

We are over budget. 

Well, that's what they say. Whether that's true or not, we dont know.

 

I agree with you on the rest, I'm not advocating moving someone other than Garland. I'd say toss in Crede too if we can find a viable alternative.

[Guest JimH]

I won't accept a "what they can gets" package. That suggests we're desperate to trade Garland. Williams isn't in this position. Why is it we never seem to possess good leverage concerning the value of our players? Either we're giving up too much to secure a player, or receiving too little (ie; in Marte's case--no prospects). Few have ever overpaid for a White Sox player. Let the world right itself this offseaon and have ONE general manager overpay for Garland.

 

I'd be willing to bet Garland's next season can only help inflate his contract for 2007--and beyond. If he pitches poorly, or even were to become injured, he'd still receive a healthy contract. If we're given up a 27 year old pitcher with good peripherals and success within a notorious hitters park, I expect top prospects. Or immediate help from the bullpen. One year rental or not.

 

I want to know how Garland could potentially receive 66mil/6 years on the market, but he can't even net the Whtie Sox an impact player? Teams are willing to drastically overpay for a pitcher, yet not even offer quality talent in return for a 2-3 million cheaper Garland? Bull. I'd rather keep Garland for next season than receive s*** for him.

 

I'll continue to repeat this: If Williams were attempting to acquire Garland, does anyone here doubt he'd give up one or two of our top prospects? Or relief pitchers? Hell no.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Maybe this is a wait and see issue?

 

When people talk about top prospects, that usually means Baseball America. I will wait and see how the players do before saying we got fleeced.

[Mr. Showtime]

THEY WANT HIS ASS OUT OF HERE. KW will do his job and get his peter pan ass out.

 

Glad to have you back Q, I love this quote.

 

[Mr. Showtime]

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...

 

Really all the cap does in the NFL is give teams an excuse for cutting a player that might upset the fanbase.

 

"Sorry, had to cut XYZ 12345, because we couldn't fit him in under the cap"

 

Other than that the season is way to short for it to matter.

[SSH2005]

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...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There will always be good team management and poor team management. A salary cap doesn't solve the latter.

[ptatc]

Actually, even with YES, the Yankees did indeed finish FY 04 in the red.  Forbes published it in their annual list.  About a third of all MLB teams did, in fact.

 

But again, this team is run by a group of very budget-conscious investors.  This has not changed.

 

Which part of the group whcih owns the Yankees was in the red? The problem with the Yankees is they are like the Cubs and owned by a large corporation now. When King George sold the team to the corporation and installed himself as the CEO the money gets lost. Just like the Cubs and the Tribune Co. Don't think for a second that the Cubs inability to sign some big FA this year isn't tied to the Trib Co. financial problems. And Vias versa don't think for a second that the teams don't hide revenue in the companies.

[NorthSideSox72]

Which part of the group whcih owns the Yankees was in the red?

 

Don't know. Ask Forbes - they calculated the numbers somehow.

[Adam G]

Which part of the group whcih owns the Yankees was in the red? The problem with the Yankees is they are like the Cubs and owned by a large corporation now. When King George sold the team to the corporation and installed himself as the CEO the money gets lost. Just like the Cubs and the Tribune Co. Don't think for a second that the Cubs inability to sign some big FA this year isn't tied to the Trib Co. financial problems. And Vias versa don't think for a second that the teams don't hide revenue in the companies.

It doesnt matter who owns it. If the Yankees lose money, then the ownership shares in the losses based on the percentage they own. Steinbrenner is still the controlling owner.

 

Here's a ranking of teams based on oerating income

 

http://www.forbes.com/lists/results.jhtml?...ry&passKeyword=

[Punch and Judy Garland]

If you want to know why Garland might get 6/66 (actually I think he'll get more like Colon's 4/50) then you answered your own question. Because he CAN get that money and leave your team after 06, you don't want to give up too much. That said, just wait until the musical chairs of player movement have left a few teams with no place to sit. A team like Baltimore or someone else might feel really desperate in February if they didn't please their fans with moves so they might act out of desperation. If I'm Kenny Williams, my next move after trying to force Jose or Jon into signing an extension is to come out and say that you plan to keep all 6 guys for this year. That will bring a little leverage back

[TheHawkaroo]

--I don't understand how trading Garland will help us a bit. I love BMac's potential but he hasn't proven anything yet. He could turn into the early years Garland before he matures.

 

We've already tinkered enough. Keep the rest of the team intact another season!!!!

 

This is not a bad idea. However, if we don't trade Garland now then he goes into FA and we get nothing for him. So why not take a gamble on McCarthy (Who I think will have a good year given the chance) and try to get something for Garland while you can. I think Kenny will just sit back and wait with Jon, make it known that he might be available but you don't have to get rid of him. If there is an offer he can't refuse then make the trade, but worst case you can't move him, oh well he pitches another year for us or you move him at the deadline.

[Harry Chappas]

This is not a bad idea. However, if we don't trade Garland now then he goes into FA and we get nothing for him. So why not take a gamble on McCarthy (Who I think will have a good year given the chance) and try to get something for Garland while you can. I think Kenny will just sit back and wait with Jon, make it known that he might be available but you don't have to get rid of him. If there is an offer he can't refuse then make the trade, but worst case you can't move him, oh well he pitches another year for us or you move him at the deadline.

 

He may cost $9M next year that is why he will be traded.

[Rowand44]

- Garland's agent (Craig Landis) has told the White Sox there will be no

  negotiations on a new contract.  Doesn't matter if the White Sox say 8,9

  10 million per year.  No negotiations.  Garland wants the leverage.

- Ken Williams, therefore, is attempting to trade Garland for two bullpen arms,

  not prospects per se.  Although one could be an "on the cusp" guy.

 

(This is the most ridiculous reasoning I've ever heard. If Garland wants

mega dollars in free agency he's going to have to pitch his ass off this year.

A 3-15 implosing won't get him squat. That said, if he goes 20-2 for us in

search of a big deal, more power to him and us.

We have him this year. Keep him!!!!!

 

- He also said that Crede will not sign a long term deal here, that it's Boras'

  job to get the player to free agency (duh).

(I guess we'll lose Crede if Boras remains his agent. Again, keep him until

that happens. If Joe hits .260 with 23 home runs and plays great defense,

is anybody else going to offer him much more than the White Sox? I mean I

love Joe but give me a break. Who is going to overpay much more than

we will? Keep Joe).

 

- Levine believes Garland could get as much as $9M in arbitration for 2006.

  Further he states the White Sox are, at present, several million over budget.

(Screw the budget. Management needs to ride this into major crowds all season.Getting

rid of Garland would be STUPID for business).

 

No teams were mentioned as possible trading partners.  Levine said KW's primary objective right now is moving Garland for bullpen help.

 

--I don't understand how trading Garland will help us a bit. I love BMac's potential but he hasn't proven anything yet. He could turn into the early years Garland before he matures.

 

We've already tinkered enough. Keep the rest of the team intact another season!!!!

Brandon is mature already, that is where he differs from many other pitchers. What Bmac has proven as that we can count on him during big games down the stretch so he has proven something. Trading Jon isn't STUPID for business if you get a good return, it actually makes all the sense in the world now that we have Vaz. JR has already raised the budget 15 mill from last season you can't just expect him to just say ''f*** a budget" when this team and game is still a business.

[LosMediasBlancas]

I think Jon wants out, he's never really seemed overly excited about being here. Then again, I'm only going on the bits and pieces we see or read in the media.

Right after they won the WS, Gail Fischer (is that her name?) told him winning the WS had to be the biggest moment of his life. He kind of hesitated and didn't agree with her and she bailed him out by saying: "Well, it has to be ONE of the biggest moments in your life". His reaction kind of stayed with me.

Good bye and good luck Jon.

[GoodAsGould]

I think Jon wants out, he's never really seemed overly excited about being here.  Then again, I'm only going on the bits and pieces we see or read in the media.

Right after they won the WS,  Gail Fischer (is that her name?) told him winning the WS had to be the biggest moment of his life.  He kind of hesitated and didn't agree with her and she bailed him out by saying: "Well, it has to be ONE of the biggest moments in your life".    His reaction kind of stayed with me.

Good bye and good luck Jon.

 

Thats just Jon's attitude about attitude... he tries to be calm and looks like he doesnt care about anything. Although from what I hear from people close to him is that he really does care just doesnt know how to show it or something like that.