-
February 1st, 2002, 01:30 PM
#11
Inactive Member
It's pretty much a non issue. Juan would have been gone through trade almost immediately.
One year 15 mill for him would have found a taker somewhere in the league.
------------------
-
February 1st, 2002, 01:34 PM
#12
Inactive Member
Alex - then the question is moot. The Tribe knew Gonzalez wouldn't accept arbitration.
------------------
-
February 1st, 2002, 01:48 PM
#13
Inactive Member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by *TR:
The Tribe never HAD to cut costs. They made money last year. Dolan thinks they didn't make enough. It's a totally arbitrary decision by a cheap owner.
[This message has been edited by *TR (edited February 01, 2002).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Correction: the Indians made money before revenue sharing but went into the red after coughing up for r.s. And yes, I believe their figures; their revenues are pretty transparent, unlike the teams that can do shady self-dealing with their own cable networks and superstations.
Except maybe for Hicks's Rangers, no team- certainly not the Bankees- is really doing deficit spending. Their budgets are constrained by their revenues, as is the Tribe's. Who are all these whiney fans to propose giving away other people's money? That really makes me laugh.
------------------
-
February 1st, 2002, 02:19 PM
#14
Inactive Member
sleuth,
what's funnier (or sadder, really) is that we even have a poster or two here who thinks it's a good idea to dictate that an owner CAN'T spend his own money on payroll should he choose to do so, and mandate that this owners's personal funds be spent on social issues.
------------------
Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est
-
February 7th, 2002, 09:04 AM
#15
Inactive Member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by supersleuth:
Who are all these whiney fans to propose giving away other people's money? That really makes me laugh.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Cracks me up when the average Joe starts crying because he's afraid some billionaire businessman might give a ballplayer too big a contract. Oh, and how terrible! The billionaire might 'lose' some money! Whaaaah...give me a break.. it's pathetic how the average fan crys for the owners and resents every $$$ paid to the players. You have it all backasswards.
------------------
-
February 7th, 2002, 10:49 AM
#16
Inactive Member
Obviously the idea of a business spending as much money as they take in is a bizarre and strange one....
------------------
-
February 7th, 2002, 02:10 PM
#17
Inactive Member
hey, they're billionnaires! apparently they've taken in a bit more than they've spent, somewhere along the line!
------------------
Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
Bookmarks