PDA

View Full Version : Russ Ortiz to D'backs official...


rdivaldi
12-10-2004, 04:18 PM
Check out part of the Press Release:

"The Arizona Diamondbacks (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/teams/ari/) continue to make waves in the free agent marketplace, reportedly signing veteran righthander Russ Ortiz (http://bigleaguers.yahoo.com/mlbpa/players/5954/) on Friday in what could be a precursor to a blockbuster involving Randy Johnson (http://bigleaguers.yahoo.com/mlbpa/players/4288/).

The team has called a news conference for 5 p.m. EST. The deal reportedly is for four years and worth $34 million."

Could be some big news coming....

MushMouth
12-10-2004, 04:21 PM
In a heartbeat I'd do Ortiz and Vazquez for Garland and Paulie. In a heartbeat!

voodoochile
12-10-2004, 04:22 PM
In a heartbeat I'd do Ortiz and Vazquez for Garland and Paulie. In a heartbeat!
Is that even legal?

the_valenstache
12-10-2004, 04:23 PM
In a heartbeat I'd do Ortiz and Vazquez for Garland and Paulie. In a heartbeat!That would be pretty solid.

*cue someone posting re-visioned pitching roto/batting lineup*

Flight #24
12-10-2004, 04:24 PM
In a heartbeat I'd do Ortiz and Vazquez for Garland and Paulie. In a heartbeat!
IIRC, you can't trade FAs for a while after you sign them. Isn't that right?

MushMouth
12-10-2004, 04:28 PM
IIRC, you can't trade FAs for a while after you sign them. Isn't that right?

hmmm - I don't know the rule on that. However, if the Yanks eat some of Vazquez's salary, this could work out financially, right?

Anyway, it makes more sense than giving up Paulie and Garland for just Vazquez (as rumored in a few of these articles), which seems totally absurd if our goal is to win more games than last year.

Randar68
12-10-2004, 04:29 PM
Is that even legal?
No.

OEO Magglio
12-10-2004, 04:33 PM
Is that even legal?
No. By the way the dbacks are real dumb to give this kind of contract to Ortiz.

DumpJerry
12-10-2004, 04:43 PM
I believe there were some postings on here about a month ago regarding the 60 day rule when signing FA's. I think it is if you sign your own FA, you trade him any time, but if you sign a FA from another team, you're stuck for 60 days......

Glad to see Ortiz is out of the AL. He killed us.

rdivaldi
12-10-2004, 04:45 PM
Glad to see Ortiz is out of the AL. He killed us.
Russ Ortiz, not David Ortiz...

Jjav829
12-10-2004, 04:45 PM
Glad to see Ortiz is out of the AL. He killed us.
Ortiz was never in the AL...:?:

SomebodyToldMe
12-10-2004, 04:51 PM
This is under his picture on mlb.com's Hot Stove Report:

Russ Ortiz, a resident of the Phoenix area, was 15-9 with a 4.13 ERA in 204.
204! And you guys were complaining about getting a 41 year old Randy Johnson!

DumpJerry
12-10-2004, 04:58 PM
Russ Ortiz, not David Ortiz...To quote Roseanne Rosanna Danna: "Ooops! Never mind" :redface:

Wealz
12-10-2004, 06:31 PM
According to Gammons, the D'Backs haven't yet funded the $55M in deferred payments they owe this season. Interesting to see if the union might file a grievance over them spending $80M on Glaus and Ortiz before funding the $55M in deferrals.

Ol' No. 2
12-10-2004, 06:38 PM
According to Gammons, the D'Backs haven't yet funded the $55M in deferred payments they owe this season. Interesting to see if the union might file a grievance over them spending $80M on Glaus and Ortiz before funding the $55M in deferrals.They may not have to fund them yet. Any contracts signed before the CBA operate under different rules. They have to be funded by the THIRD Jan 1 following the year in which they were earned. So, for example, they owe Schilling deferred money for 2003, so it has to be funded by Jan 1, 2006. Any deferred money from 2002 will need to be funded by Jan 1, 2005. They've still got some breathing room, but it's closing up fast.

Flight #24
12-10-2004, 06:47 PM
According to Gammons, the D'Backs haven't yet funded the $55M in deferred payments they owe this season. Interesting to see if the union might file a grievance over them spending $80M on Glaus and Ortiz before funding the $55M in deferrals.
I can almost guarantee that the union would turn a blind eye (if indeed they were required to fund it already). Their #1 goal is to drive player salaries up, so they're certainly not going to complain when the DBacks do exactly that with their signings.

Lip Man 1
12-10-2004, 08:04 PM
But the Diamondbacks are broke. They are emblematic of all that's wrong in baseball!

So said The ****...LOL

Broke my ass...that's nothing but 'creative' accounting.

Lip

Wealz
12-10-2004, 08:50 PM
But the Diamondbacks are broke. They are emblematic of all that's wrong in baseball!

So said The ****...LOL

Broke my ass...that's nothing but 'creative' accounting.

Lip
I'd imagine that the players due that $55M in deffered payments aren't real happy that the D'Backs just spent $80M before funding it.

Ol' No. 2
12-10-2004, 08:55 PM
I'd imagine that the players due that $55M in deffered payments aren't real happy that the D'Backs just spent $80M before funding it.I don't know the details of what the D-backs owe. If they have any money deferred from 2002, it's got to be funded on Jan 1, 2005. It will be interesting to see what happens if they don't have the jack to do it.

southsider17
12-10-2004, 10:19 PM
Here's a post from a CBSSportsline board that tries to explain the D-backs free spending ways:

"Actually, the answer is pretty easy..............their starting 2005 contractual commitments are only about $21.5M...............here are some examples of what they have lost since last year........

Sexson-------8.0M
Hillenbrand--2.6
Finley-------6.75
Bautista-----4.0
Colbryunn----2.75
Mantei-------7.0
Baerga-------1.0
Reynolds-----1.0

By my math, that's $33.1M......"

These numbers can be confirmed at http://dugoutdollars.blogspot.com/2003_08_17_dugoutdollars_archive.html