PDA

View Full Version : Mariniers likely to get Delgado and one of Sexson/Glaus


MRKARNO
11-26-2004, 12:04 PM
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/baseball/201207_mari26.html


Despite a report on Toronto-area radio Wednesday night, the Mariners continue to be the front-runner in the Carlos Delgado sweepstakes.

Baseball sources said the Mariners have asked Delgado, the first baseman and cleanup hitter for the Toronto Blue Jays for the better part of a decade, if he would be willing to bat third in Seattle.

Delgado has confirmed that he'd be willing to make the switch, the sources said. That would leave the Mariners free to follow the addition of Delgado with another move in free agency, adding either first baseman Richie Sexson or third baseman Troy Glaus. This would immediately help out the Mariners. An Ichiro-Reed-Delgado-Sexson first four would be pretty damn good, but then again, the Orioles had Mora-Tejada-Palmeiro-Lopez 2-3-4-5 and couldnt do too much with that because of a lack of pitching.

What does this mean for the White Sox? If the Marniners plan on taking two of the top 3 first basemen (It's probably a foregone conclusion that Glaus moves to first), that means the market for Konerko is an expanded one and his trade value is higher. We will be more likely to get pitching (or something else I guess) in exchange for him. It might mean that Arizona ends up needing a first basemen so desperately that they decide it's better to take Konerko and Garland (Improving pitching and getting someone they can honestly say can replace Sexson), than just Vazquez and a few other mediocre Yankees prospects for Randy Johnson.

CubKilla
11-26-2004, 01:12 PM
Must be nice to be a fan of a team that is seriously considering Delgado, Sexson, and/or Glaus.

fquaye149
11-26-2004, 03:38 PM
i guess....but if the mariners are thinking they are gonna slug their way to victory in that ballpark with their shortage of pitching....my mind says they have things ass backwards

munchman33
11-26-2004, 04:46 PM
Must be nice to be a fan of a team that is seriously considering Delgado, Sexson, and/or Glaus.
But Seattle wan't built on the premise of buying their way into success. They built a young core without free agency help, and the fans slowing started coming. It wasn't until they were packing the house for years before they started splurging.

Lip Man 1
11-26-2004, 08:50 PM
Ummm...the Mariners payroll was in the high 80's / low 90's as soon as they moved into Safeco Field.

So much for another 'small market' franchise eh?

Lip

Soxzilla
11-26-2004, 08:53 PM
Why would Glaus move to first if Sexson plays first?

Last I checked you can't play with 2 firstbasemen or 2 DH's:tongue:

MRKARNO
11-26-2004, 09:40 PM
Why would Glaus move to first if Sexson plays first?

Last I checked you can't play with 2 firstbasemen or 2 DH's:tongue:
The plan is to have one DH and the other play first. What I meant by that is that for the purposes of Free Agency, Glaus is going to be considered and paid as a first basemen. He'd probably DH on the Mariners. Plus, I dont think they'll get both Sexson and Glaus. They'll probably get Delgado and maybe one of that duo as the article states.

munchman33
11-27-2004, 01:15 AM
Ummm...the Mariners payroll was in the high 80's / low 90's as soon as they moved into Safeco Field.

So much for another 'small market' franchise eh?

Lip
They were drawing in the Kingdome those last few years. The Mariners built a good young team from their farm system. Not great, but competitive. Their fans came out and supported that team with great attendance. Ownership rewarded them for it.

I'm confounded by your query. Is your contention that the Mariners were never a small market team (which couldn't be more wrong), or were you just trying to be confrontational?

gosox41
11-27-2004, 09:11 AM
Ummm...the Mariners payroll was in the high 80's / low 90's as soon as they moved into Safeco Field.

So much for another 'small market' franchise eh?

Lip
How'd that work out for the M's last season?


Bob

Soxzilla
11-27-2004, 12:32 PM
The plan is to have one DH and the other play first. What I meant by that is that for the purposes of Free Agency, Glaus is going to be considered and paid as a first basemen. He'd probably DH on the Mariners. Plus, I dont think they'll get both Sexson and Glaus. They'll probably get Delgado and maybe one of that duo as the article states.
Yeah sorry, I read another thread before this one that stated they wanted all three. Then I read your post and was like ... *** ... and everything became blended together.:redneck

Foulke You
11-27-2004, 01:24 PM
i guess....but if the mariners are thinking they are gonna slug their way to victory in that ballpark with their shortage of pitching....my mind says they have things ass backwards
I was thinking the same thing. That is a huge pitchers park and they seem to want to load up on power guys like Sexson and Delgado. A curious move for sure.

Lip Man 1
11-27-2004, 02:12 PM
Bob:

How'd that work for the Mariners in 2000 and 2001? I'll take four or five good years in a tough division followed by a bad one. If these reports are true they are trying to rebuild in a hurry aren't they?

Munch...the point was the SEATTLE Mariners, one of the smallest markets in baseball had one of the top payrolls in the American League for a number of years. Ummmm...what's the market size of Chicago again?

The dumbing down of Sox fans continues thanks to the ****.

Lip

santo=dorf
11-27-2004, 02:56 PM
How'd that work out for the M's last season?


BobAre you suggesting that we shouldn't try to spend more money for our team because of the Mariners' lack of success last season?

Who won that division again?

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/bschalle/www/****.jpg

munchman33
11-27-2004, 03:32 PM
Bob:
Munch...the point was the SEATTLE Mariners, one of the smallest markets in baseball had one of the top payrolls in the American League for a number of years. Ummmm...what's the market size of Chicago again?
Lip
My point is that their fans fill the stadium when the team is competitive. Our fans, with as large as the city of Chicago is, do not. Makes it really difficult to justify adding salary to move to the next step.

ewokpelts
11-27-2004, 07:14 PM
mariner's ownership is actually cheap...they just have had pricey veterans for the last few years....remember...they let randy johnson, ken griffey, pay-rod, and freddy garcia(who they GOT for randy johnson) go..as well as force edgar martinez to retire, and kick olerud to the curb....

thier various gms in the last few years continually get frustrated when ownership WONT open pocketbooks for a stretch run..... if you notice, the payroll at the beginning of the season is almost exactly like the payroll at the end of the season, while revenues goe up, and the years without a world series title add up...sound like anyone we know?
Gene

MisterB
11-27-2004, 07:37 PM
Munch...the point was the SEATTLE Mariners, one of the smallest markets in baseball had one of the top payrolls in the American League for a number of years. Ummmm...what's the market size of Chicago again?
1) Seattle is NOT one of the smallest markets in baseball. There's about a dozen that are smaller making it at least midsize, and not that far behind the Sox 'half' of the Chicago market.

2) The Mariners have been in the top 4 in AL attendance 8 out of the last 9 years. They have been outdrawing the Sox by anywhere from 1 - 2 million fans a year.

3) The Mariners' payroll has been #4 in the AL the last 3 years (topping out at $86M in '03). Before that they were routinely in the bottom half of the league payroll-wise despite having a competitive team and drawing well for the last 9 years.

The Mariners built a good, inexpensive team in the mid 90's - that got fans in the seats (which only got better with a new ballpark) - but they didn't pump the payroll up until after they led the AL in attendance. They didn't spend until they had the cash to do it - no different from the Sox - they just had better people making the personnel decisions.

Lip Man 1
11-27-2004, 10:38 PM
B:

Here's the difference which both of us left out. The M's made the playoffs for the first time in 95 then a few short years later consistently became a contender and made the playoffs a few times. Even when they didn't make the post season they'd win over 90 games.

The point is that unlike the Sox the M's gave their fans a reason to come out. They didn't make the playoffs once and then not see it again for ten years (like a certain South Side club...) The ONLY way the Sox get their fans to make that type of committment is by making the playoffs a few times (or having a few good seasons in a row...and I don't mean 83 wins.) The ONLY way the Sox get in that position is to produce a good team. That takes a financial committment, not 'lip service' to winning.

and Seattle is a smaller market then Chicago, don't give me any of this BS 'well you have to split Chicago up because it has two teams...' There's no law that says a baseball fan can't see games in both parks (ever notice the number of Cub fans who show up at Comiskey?)

Lip

cubhater
11-28-2004, 12:04 AM
mariner's ownership is actually cheap...they just have had pricey veterans for the last few years....remember...they let randy johnson, ken griffey, pay-rod, and freddy garcia(who they GOT for randy johnson) go..as well as force edgar martinez to retire, and kick olerud to the curb....

thier various gms in the last few years continually get frustrated when ownership WONT open pocketbooks for a stretch run..... if you notice, the payroll at the beginning of the season is almost exactly like the payroll at the end of the season, while revenues goe up, and the years without a world series title add up...sound like anyone we know?
Gene
Seems to me the Mariner's front office is smart, not cheap. Didn't they contend AFTER trading RJ, Griffey, and A-Rod for a few years. I'd take Cameron over Griffey considering he's been a shell of his former self since leaving the M's. How many teams could pay what A-Rod/Boras wanted? Martinez' numbers went down, knew it was time to retire, and gracefully left. Last season was a lost cause so they traded Garcia for two of our top prospects (if you consider Olivo a prospect) with an eye to the future.

FarWestChicago
11-28-2004, 12:21 AM
Some of you guys need to read more than the sports pages. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Nintendo has bang up year (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=581&e=6&u=/nm/20041125/tc_nm/tech_japan_nintendo_dc)

Nintendo increases stake in M's (http://msn.foxsports.com/story/3194722)

Notice when Nintendo acquired a piece of the M's and when their fortunes on the field changed.

RichH55
11-28-2004, 12:51 AM
Some of you guys need to read more than the sports pages. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Nintendo has bang up year (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=581&e=6&u=/nm/20041125/tc_nm/tech_japan_nintendo_dc)

Nintendo increases stake in M's (http://msn.foxsports.com/story/3194722)

Notice when Nintendo acquired a piece of the M's and when their fortunes on the field changed.
Shush...unless it allows a chance to rail against the Sox, Lip doesnt want to hear it

And this new: If you don't agree with me, then you are a **** is ridiculous....even for Lip

FarWestChicago
11-28-2004, 02:04 AM
And this new: If you don't agree with me, then you are a **** is ridiculous....even for LipIt's called trolling... http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/troll.gif

And some of the FOLIPs are in desperate need of a timeout. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

gosox41
11-28-2004, 09:11 AM
Bob:

How'd that work for the Mariners in 2000 and 2001? I'll take four or five good years in a tough division followed by a bad one. If these reports are true they are trying to rebuild in a hurry aren't they?

Munch...the point was the SEATTLE Mariners, one of the smallest markets in baseball had one of the top payrolls in the American League for a number of years. Ummmm...what's the market size of Chicago again?

The dumbing down of Sox fans continues thanks to the ****.

LipLip,

One thing I've notcied about you is inconsistency. You won't give a team like the A's credit for going to the playoffs 4 years in a row but you're more then happy to jump on the Mariners bandwagon. As you would ask, how many WS has the Mariners won?

I see your point about the Mariners, I'm just pointing out that the grass isn't always greener on the other side. Over the last 5 years the A's have more wins and more playoff appearnces then the M's. Over the last 5 years the M's have had a signifcantly higher payroll. Yet you seem to ignore the stronger one and acknowledge the weaker team.

So, to paraphrase you, talk to me win the M's make the World Series, let alone win one. With a $90 mill. payroll they should have a lot more pressure and expectations then the A's.


Bob

gosox41
11-28-2004, 09:15 AM
B:


and Seattle is a smaller market then Chicago, don't give me any of this BS 'well you have to split Chicago up because it has two teams...' There's no law that says a baseball fan can't see games in both parks (ever notice the number of Cub fans who show up at Comiskey?)

Lip
But Lip, aren't ticket prices expensive these days? So now you're blaming the majority of people who don't go to twice as many games for the Sox not having high attendance?


Bob

gosox41
11-28-2004, 09:18 AM
[QUOTE=santo=dorf]Are you suggesting that we shouldn't try to spend more money for our team because of the Mariners' lack of success last season?

Who won that division again?
QUOTE]

Just point out the fact that it takes more then spending money to win.

Of course I think the Sox should spend more. Show me where I didn't say that. Don't assume or put words in my mouth. It happens enough around here with others.


Bob

gosox41
11-28-2004, 09:29 AM
1) .

2) The Mariners have been in the top 4 in AL attendance 8 out of the last 9 years. They have been outdrawing the Sox by anywhere from 1 - 2 million fans a year.

.
Just to clarify this point for those who don't want to do math. 2004 minus 9 years ago=1995.

1995 was when the Mariners had their first shot at the playoffs. Since that first chance the Mariners have been in the top 4 in attendance for 8 of 9 years. So it didn't take multiple playoff appeances for this to happen. Interesting.

Also, they still drew 2.9 million people in 2004 even after their team stunk it up right out of the gate. And their tickets don't for 2005 don't look any cheaper then the Sox. In fact, some may be more expensive. Outside of that new seating the Sox offer which effects about 250 seats, do the Sox offer any lower box tickets that cost $50 for a single game purchase for each and every game? Or how about $55 for the terrace club infield, which I assume is the equivalent of the Club Level at the cell.

In 2004 Mariners avg. ticket price was $24 per ticket, the fifth highest in the majors.


Bob

Lip Man 1
11-28-2004, 02:12 PM
Bob:

I think you are confusing me with someone else. I don't have anything against the A's save for the fact that they haven't won a playoff series. I'd love for the Sox to have their record.

The problem is the Sox don't have the same talent in the front office that the A's do and Uncle Jerry is not going to spend the cash and allow unlimited authority to any experienced, good G.M. so to me the only chance the Sox have of winning right now with the front office talent they have is by spending more.

A larger payroll gives you more room for error.

Lip

Lip Man 1
11-28-2004, 02:16 PM
Bob:

I'm not blaming anyone at all. The Sox don't draw because of residual disgust with ownership plus the fact that this club in a major market acts like it's Cincinnati. Simple solution....win and you'll have to beat fans away with a stick. But to win, it takes talent...acquiring talent takes spending money.

Therein lies the problem. The Sox won't spend money and the Sox won't spend money to get the front office talent to start drafting and producing kids like the A's and the Twins.

Basically it's a paradox with no answer save for new ownership and a fresh start. Till then it's an endless trip towards mediocrity.

Lip

MisterB
11-28-2004, 03:14 PM
and Seattle is a smaller market then Chicago, don't give me any of this BS 'well you have to split Chicago up because it has two teams...' There's no law that says a baseball fan can't see games in both parks (ever notice the number of Cub fans who show up at Comiskey?)
So 2 competitors in the same market can draw more than 100% of the market share combined? I believe you've made a mathematical breakthrough there. :?:

100% of the Chicago MLB market = Sox customers + Cubs customers. It can be a 60-40 split or a 50-50 split or whatever, but the market HAS to be split between the two. You can't have more than 100% of anything.

Lip Man 1
11-28-2004, 06:21 PM
B:

The population of the Chicago area is roughly nine to ten million. PLENTY of fans to go around. My reference was to comment on this BS that some are postulating that Chicago is a two team town therefore it's a 'medium' size market like Houston or Atlanta or Cleveland because the loyalties are split. Even if they are, that's still a tremendous number of people to draw on.

Unadulterated pap. Each team if run properly and wins consistently can easily draw 2.5 to 3 million fans.

Lip

fquaye149
11-28-2004, 07:17 PM
um..houston and atlanta are roughly the same size as chicago.....if not bigger

Lip Man 1
11-28-2004, 10:41 PM
I don't believe they are market size wise. Chicago is the 3rd largest city in the U.S. I thought Philly or Detroit was 4th.

Lip

FarWestChicago
11-28-2004, 11:16 PM
I don't believe they are market size wise. Chicago is the 3rd largest city in the U.S. I thought Philly or Detroit was 4th.

LipYou guys still need to get out more (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html). http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

MRKARNO
11-28-2004, 11:21 PM
Unadulterated pap. Each team if run properly and wins consistently can easily draw 2.5 to 3 million fans.


I'm not sure if I buy this entirely, but I think both teams could draw about 2.5 million fans each. I draw upon 1991-1993 attendence records of the two teams as the basis for this opinion. I dont think the combined total could be any more than 5.5 million and that probably wouldnt be reached annually, but I do agree that both teams could draw at least 2.5 mil if they both performed at a high level annually. The Cubs fans are coming out in full force to Wrigley and the White Sox fans would be coming out in full force if they had something more to come out for.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/wsoxatte.shtml
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/cubsatte.shtml

gosox41
11-29-2004, 11:05 AM
Bob:

I'm not blaming anyone at all. The Sox don't draw because of residual disgust with ownership plus the fact that this club in a major market acts like it's Cincinnati. Simple solution....win and you'll have to beat fans away with a stick. But to win, it takes talent...acquiring talent takes spending money.

Therein lies the problem. The Sox won't spend money and the Sox won't spend money to get the front office talent to start drafting and producing kids like the A's and the Twins.

Basically it's a paradox with no answer save for new ownership and a fresh start. Till then it's an endless trip towards mediocrity.

Lip\

Lip,
This can become circular, but I do see your side (though I never said I agree 100% with it.) Some debt= good. Lots of debt= bad. And I do have a good reason for saying this before anyone you or anyone else feels the need to take the argument, disagree, and show disagreement by harmonizing (doesn't really show all that much.)

But we both agree on is that KW isn't the answer.

So again, let me throw you a solution to that problem: Gerry Hunsiker.


Bob

munchman33
11-29-2004, 11:20 AM
You guys still need to get out more (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html). http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gifNot too mention the fact that the Astros are the nearest team for the large markets of Austin (16th largest city in country) and San Antonio (8th largest city in the country). Chicago's nearest major market is Milwaukee, and that has its own team (and the Cubs are closer).

Lip Man 1
11-29-2004, 12:03 PM
Bob:

I heard an interview with Hunsaker on The Sporting News radio network a few days after he resigned. The host was speculating after the interview that Hunsaker left Houston because he got tired of having to fight Drayton McClain every year on budget and have to be 'creative' in acquiring the talent that Houston needed to remain playoff bound.

IF that's true why would he want to work for Uncle Jerry and go through the same old s#$%?

That's my point with most of these G.M. suggestions and not just from you. Any G.M. worth his ass wants the authority to do what they feel they need to do without having to ask the owner. I think we can all agree that in any major decisions, the hand of Uncle Jerry is right there. Factor in the constant fight on the budget and the Sox in my opinion, are NOT an appealing destination for anyone worth a damn.

The only name that I ventured who MIGHT be willing to take on the intertwined and complex issues the Sox have would be Dave Dombrowski, the guy who rebuilt the Expos farm system, won a title in 97 with Florida and is rebuilding the Tigers (and showing marked improvement.)

He's from Chicago...he started with the Sox under Hemond and he was treated well by Uncle Jerry when Hawk forced him out. He might do it out of loyalty and wanting to come home.

It doesn't matter I guess anyway. Williams isn't going anywhere.

Lip

Lip Man 1
11-29-2004, 12:06 PM
West:

I'm assuming your info is stickly the city limits. There are millions more people in the metro Chicago area then approximately three million. Those numbers for all cities are low.

Lip

Paulwny
11-29-2004, 12:34 PM
West:

I'm assuming your info is stickly the city limits. There are millions more people in the metro Chicago area then approximately three million. Those numbers for all cities are low.

LipFrom a previous thread, part of a Feb. 2004 article:
According to the most recent census, the New York metropolitan area is 21,199,865 strong. The figure for Los Angeles is 16,373,645; for Chicago, 9,157,540.

Flight #24
11-29-2004, 12:40 PM
Bob:

I heard an interview with Hunsaker on The Sporting News radio network a few days after he resigned. The host was speculating after the interview that Hunsaker left Houston because he got tired of having to fight Drayton McClain every year on budget and have to be 'creative' in acquiring the talent that Houston needed to remain playoff bound.

IF that's true why would he want to work for Uncle Jerry and go through the same old s#$%?

The question is where he can go where the situation will be any different. Unless Big Stein cans Cashman, I don't see any. Boston, LA, Cubs, Atlanta, Mets, Seattle, and many more are all keeping their guys. I suppose the Orioles job might open up with big resources, but Angelos has to be as meddling an owner as there is. Most teams in baseball operate on a budget that forces GMs to be creative or develop most of their talent in house. So unless he wants to sit around and wait for a while, he'd likely take the Sox job if offered, IMO.

But as you say, I don't see KW going anywhere.

gosox41
11-29-2004, 02:38 PM
Bob:

I heard an interview with Hunsaker on The Sporting News radio network a few days after he resigned. The host was speculating after the interview that Hunsaker left Houston because he got tired of having to fight Drayton McClain every year on budget and have to be 'creative' in acquiring the talent that Houston needed to remain playoff bound.

IF that's true why would he want to work for Uncle Jerry and go through the same old s#$%?

That's my point with most of these G.M. suggestions and not just from you. Any G.M. worth his ass wants the authority to do what they feel they need to do without having to ask the owner. I think we can all agree that in any major decisions, the hand of Uncle Jerry is right there. Factor in the constant fight on the budget and the Sox in my opinion, are NOT an appealing destination for anyone worth a damn.

The only name that I ventured who MIGHT be willing to take on the intertwined and complex issues the Sox have would be Dave Dombrowski, the guy who rebuilt the Expos farm system, won a title in 97 with Florida and is rebuilding the Tigers (and showing marked improvement.)

He's from Chicago...he started with the Sox under Hemond and he was treated well by Uncle Jerry when Hawk forced him out. He might do it out of loyalty and wanting to come home.

It doesn't matter I guess anyway. Williams isn't going anywhere.

Lip
I read an article (maybe by Rogers) that Huniker was sick of the owner butting in on player personnel moves. I thought there was something with the negotiations with a player where the owner basically went after somebody without letting the GM know.

I maybe mistaken on that story. But I heard the Astros owner (McClaine) is a big pain when it comes to day to day operations.


Bob

gosox41
11-29-2004, 02:38 PM
But as you say, I don't see KW going anywhere.
That's too bad.


Bob

Flight #24
11-29-2004, 03:24 PM
I read an article (maybe by Rogers) that Huniker was sick of the owner butting in on player personnel moves. I thought there was something with the negotiations with a player where the owner basically went after somebody without letting the GM know.

I maybe mistaken on that story. But I heard the Astros owner (McClaine) is a big pain when it comes to day to day operations.


Bob
FWIW, I don't believe that JR intrudes into baseball decisions, except in the sense that he sets the budget. Some of the bigger budget owners are known to be much more intruding (Steinbrenner, Angelos). Given that most teams operate on a budget and that the Sox are generally in the middle to the upper middle in payroll rank, I'd guess GMs wouldn't have many issues with working for JR. More money+Angelos butting in v. less money but no interference is a debate I'd bet leans towards less interference.

FarWestChicago
11-29-2004, 04:18 PM
West:

I'm assuming your info is stickly the city limits. There are millions more people in the metro Chicago area then approximately three million. Those numbers for all cities are low.

LipHere is one ranking of metropolitan areas (http://www.demographia.com/db-usmet2000.htm). Much like the city only populations understate things, I believe these overstate population because some of these metro areas seem to include a LOT of turf. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Flight #24
11-29-2004, 04:39 PM
Here is one ranking of metropolitan areas (http://www.demographia.com/db-usmet2000.htm). Much like the city only populations understate things, I believe these overstate population because some of these metro areas seem to include a LOT of turf. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
This is an old debate. Even using the highest # of 9.1mil (which includes Kenosha, where I'd guess there are a lot of Brewer fans), unless one really believes that the Sox would "own" more than 60% of the market, they have access to the equivalent of a market of similar size as Detroit, Houston, Texas, Atlanta.

Given that regardless of what Sox ownership could have done, the Cubs would still have the advantages of Tribune ownership (and marketing via their media properties), and the Wrigleyville/Lincoln Park bar scene, I think it's unrealistic to expect anything north of 60% (and IMO even that's high). Of course, things are much worse than they should be, but this franchise has a realistic market of about 5 million.

Now what type of payroll a 5mil market should entail is a different question.

Lip Man 1
11-29-2004, 07:24 PM
Flight:

This is known to have occured and been reported on by the newspapers.

Uncle Jerry has final approval of hiring a G.M.
Uncle Jerry has input in hiring a field manager.
Uncle Jerry stepped in and re-worked Frank Thomas deal bypassing Williams.
Uncle Jerry put in the 'diminshed skills' clause in Thomas' deal in the first place.

Uncle Jerry negotiated the Albert Belle deal with the 'out' clause.

The record shows that in all major decisions, he either has final say or has inserted himself into the negotiations. I'm not saying that's good or bad. I'm simply saying that's the way it is with him.

Lip

Flight #24
11-29-2004, 07:32 PM
Flight:

This is known to have occured and been reported on by the newspapers.

Uncle Jerry has final approval of hiring a G.M.
Uncle Jerry has input in hiring a field manager.
Uncle Jerry stepped in and re-worked Frank Thomas deal bypassing Williams.
Uncle Jerry put in the 'diminshed skills' clause in Thomas' deal in the first place.

Uncle Jerry negotiated the Albert Belle deal with the 'out' clause.

The record shows that in all major decisions, he either has final say or has inserted himself into the negotiations. I'm not saying that's good or bad. I'm simply saying that's the way it is with him.

Lip
I'd guess that all owners have at least some, if not final say in hiring of GMs & Managers, and when it comes to contracts to franchise players, that as well. The point is that JR hasn't been the guy to tell the GM "go get this guy, don't get that guy", which other owners have been known to do. I believe the closest he's come is the rumored "Frank - would you rather we go get Barry Bonds or Albert Belle?" question.