View Full Version : Did Graf really sign for $50g's more than the sox offered?

12-16-2003, 10:21 PM
Yes, according to Phil Rogers. I'm not a huge Graf fan, but come on, seriously.

I agree with sleeze-ak (you dont get that name for nothing), there is only one word for this club: Cheap.

Is there any silver lining?

I think we "could" field a contender, but we have to be willing to spend at least a little...It is clear that the fan base and the ticket sales justify a payroll over $58 million.

12-16-2003, 10:28 PM
Not to defend Reinsdorf or Williams here, but there are a couple of factors you have to look at. Graf was the one who decided to file for free agency. If the Sox would have offered arbitration to Graf, there's no doubt, based on previous cases, he would have made a ton more money. Graf and his agent probably overestimated the market value and didn't realize how little they were going to get until they were out on the open market as free agents. In hindsight, the 50 grand doesn't seem like a lot. If the Sox would have signed him PRIOR to free agency being filed or had gone the arbitration route, they would no doubt have shelled out a lot more money. I don't think they could have signed him for as little as Kansas City did. Correct me if I'm wrong here, as I'm the first one to admit I don't know all of the rules. As for Everett, the same debate applies. If Everett would have accepted such a low-ball deal from the Sox before he even filed for free agency, I'm sure the players association would have come down on him hard for bringing down the average salary across the board. He would have been awarded 9 million easily in arbitration, yet he settled for a little over 3 million from the Expos.

12-16-2003, 10:33 PM
But why wouldnt Graf then want to stay in Chicago?

The cost of moving alone will eat up any increase in income.

12-16-2003, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by SluggersAway
But why wouldnt Graf then want to stay in Chicago?

The cost of moving alone will eat up any increase in income.

No, not even close and the cost of living in KC is lower than it is in Chicago (I am guessing).

12-17-2003, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by SluggersAway
But why wouldnt Graf then want to stay in Chicago?

The cost of moving alone will eat up any increase in income.

Well, what I'm trying to say is that I think Graf and his agent thought they would get more money than that. Until the market was tested, though, they didn't know. Once the Sox didn't offer arbitration on the 7th, Graf was basically forced to sign somewhere else. No player in their right mind is going to miss spring training and over a month of the season (salary not paid) to go back to the previous year's team. It doesn't make sense financially. Bottom line is, correct me if I'm wrong, many of these guys thought they would make more money than they were offered.

12-17-2003, 12:06 AM
not to fly too far from the coop, I try to stick to baseball, but...

...have you seen the $ vs. the euro lately, the current account deficit, national debt, level of taxation, the trade deficit with china, tech jobs in india, cost of doing business, reduction in purchasing power, level of savings, over-extension in the mortgage market, unfunded liabilities, level of foreign ownership of the dollar, cost of doing business...etc.

The costs outweigh the benefits, sadly it is only getting worse, and with greater velocity.

12-17-2003, 12:09 AM
Merry Christmas to you too, Sluggers :D:

You paint a joyous picture for the future of this country.

All because Tony G. got a raise.

Frank the Tank
12-17-2003, 04:31 AM
Let's get over Tony Graffanino. He was a reliable 4th infielder, nothing more. Sure he has made contributions to the team, but did anybody really want him to be a starter? I think Tony G wanted to leave the sox so he could be an everyday starter. He must have felt he would be a 4th infielder 4 life with the sox. The Graffanino loss might be good news. Maybe this is an indication that KW is looking to bring in a quality 2B from Free Agency. If Kenny wanted Tony to be a starter in the infield next year, the money would have been there. I am praying that KW has enough insight not to bank on Willie Harris at 2B.

12-17-2003, 08:28 AM
I think Brian26 may have hit upon a good point in general for this off season. A lot of attention has been focused on what the owners do and the amount of money that the top FA's are getting. But there are so many FA's this year, and many teams are so close to their budget limits. (Many would argue that the latter is self-imposed by the owners, but commitments on earlier contracts and slower growth mirroring the overall economy probably are factors.) A lot of players who don't fit into the top tier are probably finding that they can't command as high salaries as they hoped.

One other comment or question. Will Tony G. be given a chance to start and play regularly in KC? If so, that may also have been a factor.

duke of dorwood
12-17-2003, 08:31 AM
He'll be salary dumped by KC at trading deadline in July anyway