PDA

View Full Version : Official answer on the money


Jerry_Manuel
07-25-2002, 10:52 PM
From the A's official site (http://oakland.athletics.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/oak/news/oak_news.jsp?ymd=20020725&content_id=89753&vkey=news_oak&fext=.jsp):

The White Sox are said to be picking up about $500,000 of what Oakland will have to pay Durham for the last 61 games of the regular season -- about $2.37 million -- and Beane wouldn't say if the A's planned on trying to re-sign Durham for 2003.

"I think we'll take it one step at a time and kind of go from there," Beane offered. "I'm not prepared to say yes or no on that one."

PaleHoseGeorge
07-25-2002, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel
From the A's official site (http://oakland.athletics.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/oak/news/oak_news.jsp?ymd=20020725&content_id=89753&vkey=news_oak&fext=.jsp):



This is unbelievable! We OWE Oakland money on top of giving them Ray Durham?

What's the logic in this move for the Sox? We're paying the remainder of Ray's salary while Oakland gets his services. Meanwhile we've got Todd Ritchie-in-waiting down in Charlotte?

Leave it to the Sox to be the first team in history to "dump salary" without dumping salary.

This man is an incompetent fool!

:KW
"I confess. I am an incompetent fool."

Jerry_Manuel
07-25-2002, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
What's the logic in this move for the Sox? We're paying the remainder of Ray's salary while Oakland gets his services. Meanwhile we've got Todd Ritchie-in-waiting down in Charlotte?

This man is an incompetent fool!


The Sox are paying 500,000 of the 2.3 million he's owed for the rest of the year. Either way its' no good.

duke of dorwood
07-25-2002, 11:24 PM
So, we pay for a player we dont have? Right now its hard to tell which is the defining moment of the Williams administration. He keeps outdoing himself. Have you EVER seen anyone that NEVER gets better? Never learns? AND I better hear nothing about money if we can pay players we dont have.

KingXerxes
07-25-2002, 11:36 PM
I guarantee you that Kenny Williams will redefine this deal in the upcoming days, and state that it was the White Sox who, in fact, received cash because they don't need to pay Durham full boat the rest of the way. A Clintonian definition at best, but we'll hear it.

Jerry_Manuel
07-25-2002, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by duke of dorwood
So, we pay for a player we dont have?

Not his whole salary but yes.

One of the stories I was reading made it seem like the deal wouldn't happen if the Sox didn't pay some of his salary.