PDA

View Full Version : This is downright wrong.


Daver
02-12-2002, 06:14 PM
A gives the game a baseball a black eye.


http://www.sportingnews.com/baseball/articles/20020211/381928.html

Jerry_Manuel
02-12-2002, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by daver
A gives the game a baseball a black eye.


I've always thought the game had a black eye.

Then again, I'm a strange guy.

thepaulbowski
02-12-2002, 08:33 PM
It may be wrong, but nobody in South Florida or Montreal cares, so why should we care?

Daver
02-12-2002, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by thepaulbowski
It may be wrong, but nobody in South Florida or Montreal cares, so why should we care?

I care for the simple fact that the league now has control over the players,an unprecedented move.What if the Yankees decide they need another outfeilder to clinch at the trade deadline,and they land Vladimir Guerreo for nothing,because it is better for the league to move a star player to a bigger market?Who is in charge of the day to day decisions concerning player development?What is to keep the rest of the league(as they are all co-owners)from robbing the minor league system of all it's top talent in return for career minor leaguers?Who controls what players go where?

This allows MLB to manipulate what players on the roster go where,as they see fit.They have proven they cannot keep their own house in order,yet they are going to be allowed to take the fate of all the ballplayers in that organization in their hands.

I just have a problem with that scenario.


But then again what the hell do I know? ©

kermittheefrog
02-12-2002, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by daver


I care for the simple fact that the league now has control over the players,an unprecedented move.What if the Yankees decide they need another outfeilder to clinch at the trade deadline,and they land Vladimir Guerreo for nothing,because it is better for the league to move a star player to a bigger market?Who is in charge of the day to day decisions concerning player development?What is to keep the rest of the league(as they are all co-owners)from robbing the minor league system of all it's top talent in return for career minor leaguers?Who controls what players go where?

But then again what the hell do I know? ©

Ah yes but the league will make money off the sale of the Expos and Vlad Guerrero is an asset to that sale. If they move Vlad for nothing they are devaluing their product.

SOXSINCE'70
02-12-2002, 09:27 PM
The game hasn't been the same since 1994.I blame that one squarely on Uncle Jerry.Remember,he had to be A "Hawk",not a "Dove".I guess this is just another case of the rich getting richer,as I also see Vlad Gurrero eventually a Yankmee.

God help us all. :gulp: :gulp:

"That's life,Robin;full of ups and downs.It ill befits any of us
to grow too confident".

Adam West as "Batman"-1966

Daver
02-12-2002, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Ah yes but the league will make money off the sale of the Expos and Vlad Guerrero is an asset to that sale. If they move Vlad for nothing they are devaluing their product.

I disagree Kermit,after what the D'Backs and the Devil Rays paid to get into the league,including not collecting TV money for five years,it would be a bargain to buy the Expo's at 200 mil with no players,because you are buying an established franchise with full rights to all revenue sharing.Then you move the team to Washington DC,or to Las Vegas,and make money hand over fist feilding a minor league team while still drawing a crowd because it is a new team.

Got 200 mil I can borrow?

PaleHoseGeorge
02-12-2002, 09:35 PM
League ownership of teams cuts to the very core of competitive balance. It wasn't too long ago that team like the Yankees all but captured their poorer relations, like the Kansas City Athletics. It was well-known the A's were nothing but an advanced triple-A team for New York for most of the 50's and early-60's. The Sox under Frank Lane cultivated a similar relationship with the St. Louis Browns, then owned by Bill Veeck.

I think it's very telling that Selig went to lengths to state the teams will be run independently, but made no commitment to the future of the franchise. If not to make the point even more obvious, he further stated no fire sales have been discussed.

If I'm the general manager of the Montreal Expos, what the hell am I suppose to make of that? If the guy has two functioning brain cells in his head, he knows his days as GM are numbered. He had better cozy up to somebody right away or he's on the street sometime next fall. A sweetheart deal of Vlad Guerrero is one obvious way to buy some job security for 2003 someplace besides the sinking ship that is the Montreal Expos.

With Loria taking his action to Florida, why am I sure we'll be discussing the same fate for the Marlins in 1-2 years? This is a joke.

Tragg
02-12-2002, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Ah yes but the league will make money off the sale of the Expos and Vlad Guerrero is an asset to that sale. If they move Vlad for nothing they are devaluing their product.

And that loss in value to the league will be more than offset by the revenue gained from the superior ratings that the yankees would bring to the world series.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-12-2002, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Ah yes but the league will make money off the sale of the Expos and Vlad Guerrero is an asset to that sale. If they move Vlad for nothing they are devaluing their product.

Who said anything about selling the Expos? To the contrary, MLB has stated clearly they want to eliminate the Expos. The folks running that franchise have no assurances of anything beyond September of next season.

It's insane of Selig to suggest the Expos won't be cannibalized. If the people running the Expos have a bit of sense, that's precisely what they will do.

Maybe that's why they appointed Frank Robinson? :smile:

Daver
02-12-2002, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
League ownership of teams cuts to the very core of competitive balance. It wasn't too long ago that team like the Yankees all but captured their poorer relations, like the Kansas City Athletics. It was well-known the A's were nothing but an advanced triple-A team for New York for most of the 50's and early-60's. The Sox under Frank Lane cultivated a similar relationship with the St. Louis Browns, then owned by Bill Veeck.

I think it's very telling that Selig went to lengths to state the teams will be run independently, but made no commitment to the future of the franchise. If not to make the point even more obvious, he further stated no fire sales have been discussed.

If I'm the general manager of the Montreal Expos, what the hell am I suppose to make of that? If the guy has two functioning brain cells in his head, he knows his days as GM are numbered. He had better cozy up to somebody right away or he's on the street sometime next fall. A sweetheart deal of Vlad Guerrero is one obvious way to buy some job security for 2003 someplace besides the sinking ship that is the Montreal Expos.

With Loria taking his action to Florida, why am I sure we'll be discussing the same fate for the Marlins in 1-2 years? This is a joke.

Glad to see you agree PHG,though I kinda figured what your opinion would be.:redneck.

czalgosz
02-12-2002, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by Tragg


And that loss in value to the league will be more than offset by the revenue gained from the superior ratings that the yankees would bring to the world series.

First, MLB doesn't give a rat's a** about who is in the World Series, revenue-wise, because their money is guaranteed. It's whatever network that has the World Series rights that cares who's in it.

Secondly, it's been shown that having the Yankees in the World Series does not significantly increase ratings. In fact, the Mets-Yankees series was one of the lowest-rated Series ever.

Finally, most of MLB does not get along with George Steinbrenner, and I doubt that they would do things to help him. In fact, it is mostly due to George Steinbrenner that Major League Baseball is in this mess in the first place.

I think a far more likely scenario than the Expos holding a fire sale is that the Expos make no transactions of significance all season, for fear of the national PR backlash from making such transactions. Which might be just as bad (or worse) for the Expos. But I am willing to bet that Vladimir Guererro will still be an Expo at the end of the season.

czalgosz
02-12-2002, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Who said anything about selling the Expos? To the contrary, MLB has stated clearly they want to eliminate the Expos. The folks running that franchise have no assurances of anything beyond September of next season.

It's insane of Selig to suggest the Expos won't be cannibalized. If the people running the Expos have a bit of sense, that's precisely what they will do.

Maybe that's why they appointed Frank Robinson? :smile:

If the Expos' ultimate fate is to be contracted, as you state, George, wouldn't it be better for everyone involved to just keep the team intact and wait for a contraction draft to happen next winter?

Here's a likely scenario for Frank Robinson, if he were to start selling off players left and right, trading Vlad Guerrero for Orlando Hernandez, and the like. All the press outside of New York will cry foul, and start screaming about how the whole situation is rigged. Then, who do you think will be the fall guy? The guy who will take all the press and will never be able to find a job in organized baseball again? That's right, Frank Robinson.

There is no possible scenario in which it is a good thing for anyone to start giving away the players on the Expos, except maybe for George Steinbrenner, and I don't think that 29 owners will fall on their swords so that King George can have one more World Series ring.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-12-2002, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
I think a far more likely scenario than the Expos holding a fire sale is that the Expos make no transactions of significance all season, for fear of the national PR backlash from making such transactions. Which might be just as bad (or worse) for the Expos. But I am willing to bet that Vladimir Guererro will still be an Expo at the end of the season.

You're assuming the people running the Expos (and making the trades) give a damned what MLB thinks or the PR backlash the league will take from a fire sale of the Montreal roster. Selig already told us (and them) that they are on their own and nothing is assured about 2003 or beyond.

Sure, the Expos GM can sit on his hands, be a good soldier, and fall on his sword on behalf of Selig and the other owners. For his effort, the league will carve up the roster he preserved for the previous six months anyway. Furthermore, he can only hope somebody in the league office puts in a good word for him, because he will have wasted his last best shot to hook on with a franchise with a future--namely working some deals on their behalf.

This isn't conspiracy stuff we're talking about here. This is basic human nature--namely, the will to survive. What's so hard to understand about that?

The Expos are cooked because the people running the team have no better option than to do just that. Frankly, Selig is hoping that's what they do, too. He admitted as much during his conference call today.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-12-2002, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
If the Expos' ultimate fate is to be contracted, as you state, George, wouldn't it be better for everyone involved to just keep the team intact and wait for a contraction draft to happen next winter?

Everyone? LOL! Not for the folks running the Expos who are left on the street after the 2002 season is over.

Get a clue, Cz.

ode to veeck
02-12-2002, 10:00 PM
A gives the game a baseball a black eye.

Baseball starting to look more like the old "brown eye" of professional sports (or at least the armpit).

Its almost bad enough to make fans want Bowie "best interests of baseball" Kuhn back

Daver
02-12-2002, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
But I am willing to bet that Vladimir Guererro will still be an Expo at the end of the season.

I was using Vlad as an example to emphasize the point of who,exactly,will call the shots,as well as the reference to the Yankees.

My point remains,who is to question any moves made?In essence the entity that is supposed to police league can be the guilty party,so who is policing the police?

Reminds of a story about a safecracking gang that existed in the early sixties in the city of Chicago,that was responsible for many jewelry store thefts,that was comprised almost entirely of Chicago cops.What did they say to the merchants that called in reporting a theft?Yeah we know,we were there?

czalgosz
02-12-2002, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge




This isn't conspiracy stuff we're talking about here. This is basic human nature--namely, the will to survive. What's so hard to understand about that?

The Expos are cooked because the people running the team have no better option than to do just that. Frankly, Selig is hoping that's what they do, too. He admitted as much during his conference call today.

Well, I think that MLB will give Robinson his old job back after the 2002 season, but even if that doesn't happen what I'm saying is this - let's say that Robinson starts selling off all his players, to make nice with some team out there. Do you think that team would then turn around and hire Robinson? The local press would crucify team management - "Look, they hired the idiot who traded Vladimir Guerrero for Scott Hatteberg! Either last season was rigged, or the team owners are idiots!" And there's an investigation, and they find out that Robinson is responsible, and he's banned from baseball. That doesn't sound like self-interest to me, that sounds like suicide.

I'm sure whatever team that got sweetheart deals from the Expos would appreciate that, but they're not going to hire the guy who did it and reap the whirlwind of controversy that'll follow him.

The most the Expos might do to make things easier for other teams is pick up crappy overpaid guys on waivers. Say Johnny Damon is hitting a buck-70 in August - the Expos will throw the dice on him and save the Red Sox millions. Drug problems? No problem, the Expos will pick up the guy you don't want! Then at the end of the season, MLB can say, look, we dumped a lot of money into this thing, and it didn't pay off. We'd be better off just scrapping the whole project.

Remember, all the owners have stakes in the Expos, not just the Yankees. If Robinson makes moves that help one team and hurts the others, they'll crucify him.

czalgosz
02-12-2002, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by daver


I was using Vlad as an example to emphasize the point of who,exactly,will call the shots,as well as the reference to the Yankees.

My point remains,who is to question any moves made?In essence the entity that is supposed to police league can be the guilty party,so who is policing the police?

Reminds of a story about a safecracking gang that existed in the early sixties in the city of Chicago,that was responsible for many jewelry store thefts,that was comprised almost entirely of Chicago cops.What did they say to the merchants that called in reporting a theft?Yeah we know,we were there?

I think the media will police the situation. Every transaction the Expos make, from a major trade to putting someone on the DL, will be scrutinized for the kind of shenanigans you described. What that will probably do is completely paralyze the Expos - they won't be able to do any moves at all, which is just as bad for the team, but at least it won't directly help any other team.

ode to veeck
02-12-2002, 10:13 PM
if the media had any power to police the situation ...

.. you'd think they'dve done some thing by now

czalgosz
02-12-2002, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Everyone? LOL! Not for the folks running the Expos who are left on the street after the 2002 season is over.

Get a clue, Cz.

But I don't think they'll be out on the street. If they do their job and make their bosses, the other owners, look good, they'll get taken care of. If they do things to make the other owners look bad, then they're out on the street.

Making it look like the Expos are a crooked organization makes the other owners look very, very bad.

I don't think this is a good thing, either, but what are the other options at this point? If the Expos have to play out their season, for scheduling reasons if nothing else, what other option is there? Has anyone put in a bid to buy the Expos?

czalgosz
02-12-2002, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by ode to veeck
if the media had any power to police the situation ...

.. you'd think they'dve done some thing by now

Done what? Put in a serious offer to buy the Expos?

And this isn't without precedent - the 1902 Baltimore Orioles were run for most of the season by the rest of the American League. The American League then sold the team to a group that moved the team to New York for the 1903 season. That team became the Yankees.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-12-2002, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


Well, I think that MLB will give Robinson his old job back after the 2002 season, but even if that doesn't happen what I'm saying is this - let's say that Robinson starts selling off all his players, to make nice with some team out there. Do you think that team would then turn around and hire Robinson? The local press would crucify team management - "Look, they hired the idiot who traded Vladimir Guerrero for Scott Hatteberg! Either last season was rigged, or the team owners are idiots!" And there's an investigation, and they find out that Robinson is responsible, and he's banned from baseball. That doesn't sound like self-interest to me, that sounds like suicide.

I'm sure whatever team that got sweetheart deals from the Expos would appreciate that, but they're not going to hire the guy who did it and reap the whirlwind of controversy that'll follow him.

The most the Expos might do to make things easier for other teams is pick up crappy overpaid guys on waivers. Say Johnny Damon is hitting a buck-70 in August - the Expos will throw the dice on him and save the Red Sox millions. Drug problems? No problem, the Expos will pick up the guy you don't want! Then at the end of the season, MLB can say, look, we dumped a lot of money into this thing, and it didn't pay off. We'd be better off just scrapping the whole project.

Remember, all the owners have stakes in the Expos, not just the Yankees. If Robinson makes moves that help one team and hurts the others, they'll crucify him.

First off, what on Earth are you talking about when you say "crucify"? Do you mean to say they are going to nail Robinson to a cross? Are they going to use harsh language in his presence? Forget to send him a birthday card? What?

Teams captured by their stronger cousins (like Veeck's Browns to Frank Lane's Sox) do so specifically because they have no better options. For the people running these teams, a future in baseball depends on it. How do you think Bill Veeck managed to snag Dorothy Comiskey's shares of the Sox right from underneath her brother Chuck's nose? Veeck had been sucking up to the Comiskeys for nearly ten years, LOL!!!

We're there shrieks of foul play? Of course there were--mostly from Chucky himself. What did all the hot air get him? I'm sure he wanted to "crucify" Veeck, but we have laws against that, don't we?

One of the funnier stories of the old Yankees/Athletics relationship was the well-known secret the KC general manager wanted a job with the Yankees. However, the Yanks never hired him, and the guy felt double-crossed--and stated so publicly. Why would he feel that way unless there is something to what I say?

Stop fighting human nature. Unless MLB tells Expos management there might be a 2003 season, you can forget the folks running that franchise for anything but the the here and now--specifically for their own survival.

Selig won't even give them a "might".

PaleHoseGeorge
02-12-2002, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


But I don't think they'll be out on the street. If they do their job and make their bosses, the other owners, look good, they'll get taken care of. If they do things to make the other owners look bad, then they're out on the street.

Making it look like the Expos are a crooked organization makes the other owners look very, very bad.

I don't think this is a good thing, either, but what are the other options at this point? If the Expos have to play out their season, for scheduling reasons if nothing else, what other option is there? Has anyone put in a bid to buy the Expos?

Each individual on the 2002 Expos management team needs only ONE owner to give them a job--not the whole 29. If they were aspiring to a job in the league office, perhaps sucking up to Selig would make sense. However, the only people in baseball who aspire to league jobs are lawyers and a handful of baseball people who lost their jobs with their last franchise--like Sandy Alderson, formerly of the A's.

czalgosz
02-12-2002, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


First off, what on Earth are you talking about when you say "crucify"? Do you mean to say they are going to nail Robinson to a cross? Are they going to use harsh language in his presence? Forget to send him a birthday card? What?

Teams captured by their stronger cousins (like Veeck's Browns to Frank Lane's Sox) do so specifically because they have no better options. For the people running these teams, a future in baseball depends on it. How do you think Bill Veeck managed to snag Dorothy Comiskey's shares of the Sox right from underneath her brother Chuck's nose? Veeck had been sucking up to the Comiskeys for nearly ten years, LOL!!!

We're there shrieks of foul play? Of course there were--mostly from Chucky himself. What did all the hot air get him? I'm sure he wanted to "crucify" Veeck, but we have laws against that, don't we?

One of the funnier stories of the old Yankees/Athletics relationship was the well-known secret the KC general manager wanted a job with the Yankees. However, the Yanks never hired him, and the guy felt double-crossed--and stated so publicly. Why would he feel that way unless there is something to what I say?

Stop fighting human nature. Unless MLB tells Expos management there might be a 2003 season, you can forget the folks running that franchise for anything but the the here and now--specifically for their own survival.

Selig won't even give them a "might".

What I mean by crucify is hang him out to dry - the first move made by the Expos' GM that has even the slightest whiff of impropriety - boom, he's out. And they won't wait until the end of the season to do it, either.

I agree with you about the A's-Yankees - there were a bunch of suspicious trades going on between those two teams for years.
But look what you yourself said - the Yankees didn't hire the A's GM. Why? Because they didn't want the controversy over it. They played the A's GM for a fool, but they weren't going to be stupid enough to hire him and confirm everyone's suspicions. So, if you assume that whoever's running the Expos will be dumb, and think that a team that he gives sweetheart deals to will then hire him, well then, you'll be right. They'll make dumb moves.

And the example of Veeck couldn't happen today. MLB has to approve sales of MLB teams, and they wouldn't approve a sale to Veeck today, for the simple reason that there isn't an independent commissioner to be impartial about it, and the other owners didn't like him. They would just say "no". Why do you think that the second-highest bidder got approved for the Red Sox sale? The other owners liked Henry, they didn't like the high bidder.

czalgosz
02-12-2002, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Each individual on the 2002 Expos management team needs only ONE owner to give them a job--not the whole 29. If they were aspiring to a job in the league office, perhaps sucking up to Selig would make sense. However, the only people in baseball who aspire to league jobs are lawyers and a handful of baseball people who lost their jobs with their last franchise--like Sandy Alderson, formerly of the A's.

But what I'm saying is that if a team rigged crooked deals with Expos management, they would try to then distance themselves from the whole thing.

Let's say that George Steinbrenner worked out a deal with Frank Robinson to trade Vladimir Guerrero for a crappy minor-leaguer, pissing off 28 owners. Then let's say that Steinbrenner then hired Robinson (because noone else is going to after that). Don't you think that something will happen after that? If you have 28 owners that are all pissed off, and a commissioner who's just a mouthpiece for those 28 owners, don't you think they'll launch an investigation? Believe me, they've been waiting for an excuse to get Steinbrenner in all sorts of trouble. They've already taken away control of the Yankees once from Steinbrenner, for a whole lot less. And I really doubt that Steinbrenner, or any other owner for that matter, will put up with all that hassle just as a thank you for some nice trades.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-12-2002, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


What I mean by crucify is hang him out to dry - the first move made by the Expos' GM that has even the slightest whiff of impropriety - boom, he's out. And they won't wait until the end of the season to do it, either.

I agree with you about the A's-Yankees - there were a bunch of suspicious trades going on between those two teams for years.
But look what you yourself said - the Yankees didn't hire the A's GM. Why? Because they didn't want the controversy over it. They played the A's GM for a fool, but they weren't going to be stupid enough to hire him and confirm everyone's suspicions. So, if you assume that whoever's running the Expos will be dumb, and think that a team that he gives sweetheart deals to will then hire him, well then, you'll be right. They'll make dumb moves.

And the example of Veeck couldn't happen today. MLB has to approve sales of MLB teams, and they wouldn't approve a sale to Veeck today, for the simple reason that there isn't an independent commissioner to be impartial about it, and the other owners didn't like him. They would just say "no". Why do you think that the second-highest bidder got approved for the Red Sox sale? The other owners liked Henry, they didn't like the high bidder.

You're really reaching here, Cz. I expected better from you.

First, I don't need to prove the Yankees wouldn't hire the KC GM. I only need to show the GM's motive for offering sweetheart deals to the Yankees. There is world of difference I would expect any philosophy major would understand.

Second, Veeck's purchase of the Sox was 100 percent legal and absolutely was approved by the other AL owners. As a minority owner, Chucky finally got frustrated and sold out his remaining interests. Barred from "crucifying" Veeck, I suppose he could have attempted to "hang him out to dry", but I doubt it would have had any more effect.

:smile:

I have no idea how stupid the people running the Expos are. Given Frank Robinson's horrendous track record, MLB may have found just the stooge to play the part of Honest John. But to suggest it's not in Robinson's own interest to wheel and deal Montreal's players simply flies in the face of normal human nature.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-12-2002, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


But what I'm saying is that if a team rigged crooked deals with Expos management, they would try to then distance themselves from the whole thing.

Let's say that George Steinbrenner worked out a deal with Frank Robinson to trade Vladimir Guerrero for a crappy minor-leaguer, pissing off 28 owners. Then let's say that Steinbrenner then hired Robinson (because noone else is going to after that). Don't you think that something will happen after that? If you have 28 owners that are all pissed off, and a commissioner who's just a mouthpiece for those 28 owners, don't you think they'll launch an investigation? Believe me, they've been waiting for an excuse to get Steinbrenner in all sorts of trouble. They've already taken away control of the Yankees once from Steinbrenner, for a whole lot less. And I really doubt that Steinbrenner, or any other owner for that matter, will put up with all that hassle just as a thank you for some nice trades.

I never suggested Vlad Guerrero would be traded, least of all traded to Steinbrenner's Yankees. You're taking the most inflammatory example as the one to base your argument. Who you crappin'?

Robinson can do whatever he damned well pleases. That was Selig's specific edict on today's conference call. If Robinson is dumb enough to trade Vlad to the Yankees, he'll get exactly what he has coming. The notion that MLB can punish Steinbrenner for subsequently hiring Robinson is something I'm sure a federal judge would find amusing. All George needs to do is sue. If he hired Robinson, I'm sure that's precisely what he would be intending to do. Not even MLB's lawyers are dumb enough to think they could win that case.

A smart Robinson (notice the qualifying word) would trade Vlad someplace besides New York. An even smarter Robinson would trade everything of value EXCEPT Vlad--thus covering his tracks from the hounds crying, "Unfair!"

I don't think Robinson is smart enough to do either.

czalgosz
02-12-2002, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge



I have no idea how stupid the people running the Expos are. Given Frank Robinson's horrendous track record, MLB may have found just the stooge to play the part of Honest John. But to suggest it's not in Robinson's own interest to wheel and deal Montreal's players simply flies in the face of normal human nature.

On the surface, it appears to be in Robinson's best interest, but if you stop and think about it, it is exactly the opposite of his best interest to make sweetheart deals.

If noone would notice that Robinson is making sweetheart deals, then yes, it would work. But you can bet that people would notice. The media sh*tstorm that would happen after any major transaction would be huge, considering the current ownership state of the Expos. Then, if the team that got the benefits of the deal then hired Robinson, you can bet that people would notice that. It would definitely not be in the best interests of that team to hire him.

I understand what you're getting at, that the people running the Expos, since they don't have a guarantee of employment in 2003, are going to act in their own best interests rather than the interests of the Expos. I agree with that sentiment. I just disagree with what would be in their best interests. What would be in Robinson's best interests, for example, would be to put his calls on hold, kick back, and ignore the team for the whole season. Then he can say that he did his job, keep his Mr. Clean reputation, and find work for a team in need of some P.R. He might not act in his own best interests, but that, IMO, is what would be in his best interests.

czalgosz
02-12-2002, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


I never suggested Vlad Guerrero would be traded, least of all traded to Steinbrenner's Yankees. You're taking the most inflammatory example as the one to base your argument. Who you crappin'?

Robinson can do whatever he damned well pleases. That was Selig's specific edict on today's conference call. If Robinson is dumb enough to trade Vlad to the Yankees, he'll get exactly what he has coming. The notion that MLB can punish Steinbrenner for subsequently hiring Robinson is something I'm sure a federal judge would find amusing. All George needs to do is sue. If he hired Robinson, I'm sure that's precisely what he would be intending to do. Not even MLB's lawyers are dumb enough to think they could win that case.

A smart Robinson (notice the qualifying word) would trade Vlad someplace besides New York. An even smarter Robinson would trade everything of value EXCEPT Vlad--thus covering his tracks from the hounds crying, "Unfair!"

I don't think Robinson is smart enough to do either.

Okay, you've pointed out why it would be smart for Robinson to trade everyone of value. Explain to me why it would be smart for that team to then hire him. Why, when he's already served their purpose? Why risk all the media embarrassment for some guy who will bring nothing to the table after all the trades are done?

I agree that Robinson isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but if he's smart, he'll see far enough that he wouldn't get a job after he behaved like that.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-12-2002, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
On the surface, it appears to be in Robinson's best interest, but if you stop and think about it, it is exactly the opposite of his best interest to make sweetheart deals.

If noone would notice that Robinson is making sweetheart deals, then yes, it would work. But you can bet that people would notice. The media sh*tstorm that would happen after any major transaction would be huge, considering the current ownership state of the Expos. Then, if the team that got the benefits of the deal then hired Robinson, you can bet that people would notice that. It would definitely not be in the best interests of that team to hire him.

I understand what you're getting at, that the people running the Expos, since they don't have a guarantee of employment in 2003, are going to act in their own best interests rather than the interests of the Expos. I agree with that sentiment. I just disagree with what would be in their best interests. What would be in Robinson's best interests, for example, would be to put his calls on hold, kick back, and ignore the team for the whole season. Then he can say that he did his job, keep his Mr. Clean reputation, and find work for a team in need of some P.R. He might not act in his own best interests, but that, IMO, is what would be in his best interests.

Sure. Each of those 29 individual owners will be eternally thankful to Robinson for not doing one single thing on their selfish behalf--all for the nebulous "common good". Robinson might just be dumb enough to believe that fairy tale.

:smile:

:tool
"Frank, come see me after the season. I've got a deal on a used car I want to offer you, too."

PaleHoseGeorge
02-12-2002, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
Okay, you've pointed out why it would be smart for Robinson to trade everyone of value. Explain to me why it would be smart for that team to then hire him. Why, when he's already served their purpose? Why risk all the media embarrassment for some guy who will bring nothing to the table after all the trades are done?

I agree that Robinson isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but if he's smart, he'll see far enough that he wouldn't get a job after he behaved like that.

You are familiar with the term "quid pro quo"? It hasn't changed in over 2000 years.

:tool
"As a used car dealer, I know 'caveat emptor', but PHG is getting too technical with me to follow."

czalgosz
02-12-2002, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Sure. Each of those 29 individual owners will be eternally thankful to Robinson for not doing one single thing on their selfish behalf--all for the nebulous "common good". Robinson might just be dumb enough to believe that fairy tale.

:smile:

:tool
"Frank, come see me after the season. I've got a deal on a used car I want to offer you, too."

But you still haven't answered my question - why should a team hire you after you make rigged deals for them? Why shouldn't they just double-cross you the way they double-crossed the old A's GM? Any team making sweetheart deals with the Expos would have no incentive to then hire the Expos GM after the season.

Daver
02-12-2002, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


Okay, you've pointed out why it would be smart for Robinson to trade everyone of value. Explain to me why it would be smart for that team to then hire him. Why, when he's already served their purpose? Why risk all the media embarrassment for some guy who will bring nothing to the table after all the trades are done?

I agree that Robinson isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but if he's smart, he'll see far enough that he wouldn't get a job after he behaved like that.

Robinson has no need to look for a job,he can go back to the job he had with MLB,continuing the role of Bud's enforcer.I think the one thing that has been skipped over in this whole discussion is the elimination(by Bud)of the league presidents.If that role still existed there would be a a lot more resistance to this whole farce ever happening.Bud is responsible for abolishing them.Bud is setting himself up for an atounimcal role,and is patient enough to pull it off right under the neath the rest of the owners noses.


But then again what the hell do I know? ©

czalgosz
02-12-2002, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


You are familiar with the term "quid pro quo"? It hasn't changed in over 2000 years.

:tool
"As a used car dealer, I know 'caveat emptor', but PHG is getting too technical with me to follow."

So, you're saying that a baseball owner would hire Robinson, accepting all the mess and controversy, after making moves that violate the spirit of the game, out of a sense of honor?

:reinsy

Ummm... yes, we're all a bunch of honorable men. We wouldn't break any deals. Ever.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-12-2002, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


So, you're saying that a baseball owner would hire Robinson, accepting all the mess and controversy, after making moves that violate the spirit of the game, out of a sense of honor?


LOL, no! I'm saying that a baseball owner would hire Robinson, accepting all the mess and controversy, after making moves that violate the spirt of the game, out of a sense of SELFISH NEEDS .

Quid pro quo = this for that.

czalgosz
02-12-2002, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by daver


Robinson has no need to look for a job,he can go back to the job he had with MLB,continuing the role of Bud's enforcer.I think the one thing that has been skipped over in this whole discussion is the elimination(by Bud)of the league presidents.If that role still existed there would be a a lot more resistance to this whole farce ever happening.Bud is responsible for abolishing them.Bud is setting himself up for an atounimcal role,and is patient enough to pull it off right under the neath the rest of the owners noses.


But then again what the hell do I know? ©

And that's the real issue there. What should have happened is that Loria should have found a buyer for the Expos, or else be stuck with the team. But they were stuck with this idea of contraction, which they obviously didn't think about very much before they started the process, so it killed whatever tiny chance the Expos had of selling the team.

What this is setting things up for is the bad old days of the late 1800s, where teams were merging and swapping ballplayers, players were getting the shaft and jumping ship from league to league, and revenues were dropping everywhere as fans got fed up.

Hopefully, baseball can survive this mess as it did the mess 100 years ago. As much as it pains me to say it, maybe Congress ought to investigate revoking baseball's anti-trust exemption until they prove that they can once again police themselves.

kermittheefrog
02-12-2002, 11:29 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Who said anything about selling the Expos? To the contrary, MLB has stated clearly they want to eliminate the Expos. The folks running that franchise have no assurances of anything beyond September of next season.

It's insane of Selig to suggest the Expos won't be cannibalized. If the people running the Expos have a bit of sense, that's precisely what they will do.

Maybe that's why they appointed Frank Robinson? :smile:

George don't we both know by now it doesn't matter what MLB says? They said they were going to contract for the 2002 season. Dont' think that their grand plans were held up in court as they would like you to belive, they clearly never planned to contract because if they did they would have had a detailed plan of action that at the very least included what teams would be contracted. The whole reason MLB went through this Henry buys BoSox, Loria buys Marlins crap is because the Expos are moving and the owners hate Loria and don't want him to get the profitable move. As profitable as this move will be the Expos have to have something marketable when they get to Washington. An abysmal baseball team isn't enough, the only marketable commodity on the Expos is Guerrero. He's not going anywhere.

czalgosz
02-12-2002, 11:29 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge



LOL, no! I'm saying that a baseball owner would hire Robinson, accepting all the mess and controversy, after making moves that violate the spirt of the game, out of a sense of SELFISH NEEDS .

Quid pro quo = this for that.

Right, but there's a time delay here. Of necessity, the sweetheart trades would have to occur before the hiring on to the new team. Also of necessity, there could be no legally binding document that obliges the team to hire Robinson once the deal is done. It follows then that what would be in the best interest of the team would be to promise such employment without actually following through, thereby getting the good (the nice deals) without the bad (having to hire Robinson). Therefore, while some team could approach Robinson with such an offer, the smart "bizarro-Robinson" would politely refuse, given the lack of assurances he would have about continued employment.

kermittheefrog
02-12-2002, 11:36 PM
Originally posted by daver


I was using Vlad as an example to emphasize the point of who,exactly,will call the shots,as well as the reference to the Yankees.

My point remains,who is to question any moves made?In essence the entity that is supposed to police league can be the guilty party,so who is policing the police?

Reminds of a story about a safecracking gang that existed in the early sixties in the city of Chicago,that was responsible for many jewelry store thefts,that was comprised almost entirely of Chicago cops.What did they say to the merchants that called in reporting a theft?Yeah we know,we were there?

Thing is Daver, you are exactly right and you're not the first one to bring this point up. Rob Neyer wrote a column on this. No one in the lameduck Expos front office has a legit reason to do things in the best interest of the Expos or the players in the organization. MLB doesn't care if the prospects develop or if guys like Brad Wilkerson and Peter Bergeron are on the field everyday. I really do belive the franchise is going to get raped this season, just not in a way that's going to directly help another franchise, i.e. trading away players for nothing.

Daver
02-12-2002, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


And that's the real issue there. What should have happened is that Loria should have found a buyer for the Expos, or else be stuck with the team. But they were stuck with this idea of contraction, which they obviously didn't think about very much before they started the process, so it killed whatever tiny chance the Expos had of selling the team.

What this is setting things up for is the bad old days of the late 1800s, where teams were merging and swapping ballplayers, players were getting the shaft and jumping ship from league to league, and revenues were dropping everywhere as fans got fed up.

Hopefully, baseball can survive this mess as it did the mess 100 years ago. As much as it pains me to say it, maybe Congress ought to investigate revoking baseball's anti-trust exemption until they prove that they can once again police themselves.


Baseball should be stripped of its exemption,they have abused it for far too long.The time has come to force them to face that what they wrought,and sink or swim with the consequences.

As much as I love the game,I fear what will happen as Bud continues to quietley build a base of power,he has already begun the process,and the rest of the owners are already following him like sight inflicted sheep.


But then again what the hell do I know? ©

czalgosz
02-12-2002, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Thing is Daver, you are exactly right and you're not the first one to bring this point up. Rob Neyer wrote a column on this. No one in the lameduck Expos front office has a legit reason to do things in the best interest of the Expos or the players in the organization. MLB doesn't care if the prospects develop or if guys like Brad Wilkerson and Peter Bergeron are on the field everyday. I really do belive the franchise is going to get raped this season, just not in a way that's going to directly help another franchise, i.e. trading away players for nothing.

My sentiments exactly.

Daver
02-12-2002, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Thing is Daver, you are exactly right and you're not the first one to bring this point up. Rob Neyer wrote a column on this. No one in the lameduck Expos front office has a legit reason to do things in the best interest of the Expos or the players in the organization. MLB doesn't care if the prospects develop or if guys like Brad Wilkerson and Peter Bergeron are on the field everyday. I really do belive the franchise is going to get raped this season, just not in a way that's going to directly help another franchise, i.e. trading away players for nothing.

I know nothing about baseball.

Tragg
02-13-2002, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by czalgosz


First, MLB doesn't give a rat's a** about who is in the World Series, revenue-wise, because their money is guaranteed. It's whatever network that has the World Series rights that cares who's in it.

Secondly, it's been shown that having the Yankees in the World Series does not significantly increase ratings. In fact, the Mets-Yankees series was one of the lowest-rated Series ever.

Finally, most of MLB does not get along with George Steinbrenner, and I doubt that they would do things to help him. In fact, it is mostly due to George Steinbrenner that Major League Baseball is in this mess in the first place.

I think a far more likely scenario than the Expos holding a fire sale is that the Expos make no transactions of significance all season, for fear of the national PR backlash from making such transactions. Which might be just as bad (or worse) for the Expos. But I am willing to bet that Vladimir Guererro will still be an Expo at the end of the season.

The money is guaranteed for this contract, not the next.

Of course the large market teams draw better ratings in most cases. If they didn't, there wouldn't be this "small market/large market" differential in the rest of the revenue.

Paulwny
02-13-2002, 07:34 AM
By Ken Fidlin--- Toronto Sun


And while Selig touted the independence that Tavares and Minaya and Robinson will have, you can be sure that the lords will not be amused if the Expos do something ridiculous ... like win.

Imagine how excited those other owners will be if they inadvertently fund a Montreal team that somehow surpasses their own overpaid, under-achieving lineups

ma-gaga
02-13-2002, 03:03 PM
That sounds familiar. Last years run didn't really help out the Twinkies too much though. There are rumors going around that the Twins front office intentionally sabotaged their season last year by trading away one of their best hitters for a pitcher and not getting one in return.

Oakland is looking at getting shut down as well, they have no significant revenue streams, their owners/Selig have tried to handcuff their team as well. If not for the genius of their GM, they'd be mentioned for contraction as well.

Teams that don't have a lot of debt and without binding stadium lease agreements. Oakland & Minnesota are two of the biggest targets outside of Montreal. The success of Oakland has given them a nice stay of execution. Once they fall out of contention, they'll be named as a target.

I only see one reason why MLB won't run the Expos into the ground, they'll probably lose their anti-trust excemption. I'd bet on it.

There is so much wrong with baseball today, it's not even funny.

:tool
"respect the bing."

ode to veeck
02-13-2002, 03:08 PM
might be interesting if the A's tried to move to the south bay (against Bud's made up rules on it being Giants home turf)--could get the anti-trust angle going in an actual court case-plenty of court precedents here in the courts , e.g. Al Davis manhandling the NFL and anyone else in his way over the years

czalgosz
02-13-2002, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by ode to veeck
might be interesting if the A's tried to move to the south bay (against Bud's made up rules on it being Giants home turf)--could get the anti-trust angle going in an actual court case-plenty of court precedents here in the courts , e.g. Al Davis manhandling the NFL and anyone else in his way over the years

A couple Raider fans I know here tried to convince me that Davis's running roughshod over the NFL led directly to the referees making that call against them in the Patriots game. They claim that the NFL will never let the Raiders go to the Super Bowl while Davis is alive. I don't really buy it, but it's an interesting theory...

Iwritecode
02-13-2002, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
A couple Raider fans I know here tried to convince me that Davis's running roughshod over the NFL led directly to the referees making that call against them in the Patriots game. They claim that the NFL will never let the Raiders go to the Super Bowl while Davis is alive. I don't really buy it, but it's an interesting theory...

The key words there being "Raiders fans". Of course they are upset that the call went against them but like it or not it was the right call. Check the rule book. Daver posted it in the PL once I believe.

ode to veeck
02-13-2002, 03:25 PM
al davis is really screwing up now with Grodin, its only a year or two before the raiders are really headed downhill and more people will recognize davis as another football pioneer who wouldn't go out to pasture when he was long a detriment to his team (e.g. Halas)--alas that's a parking lot discussion

the whole thing on the A's can't move to the south bay is ridiculous and wouldn't stand up in court--certainly a better fan drawing base than oakland--look at the sharks, nobody who grew up here plays hockey, yet the large number of transplants here have driven the sharks to some of the highest ticket prices in prof sports over the last ten years, e.g. $130 for a pair of tix not even on the main floor

the selig and jerry club are idiots and the rest of the owners are even dumber (cept those taking the payoffs) for following those two numbskulls

Iwritecode
02-13-2002, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode


The key words there being "Raiders fans". Of course they are upset that the call went against them but like it or not it was the right call. Check the rule book. Daver posted it in the PL once I believe.

Here it is. (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6891&perpage=15&display=&highlight=refs&pagenumber=2)

voodoochile
02-13-2002, 03:39 PM
I for one do not believe the Expos or any team will actually be contracted next year. That in and of itself changes how the teams will be run. If they are gone then expect some fire sales, because they could stock the team with a bunch of cheap AAA or FA players and save a bundle on the operating costs.

However, IF the teams are going to be sold and moved, it makes almost no sense to hold a fire sale, IMO. Not saying it won't happen anyway, but an Expos squad with Vlad is a heck of a lot more valuable than one without.

I think the dynamics of media coverage have changed so dramatically since the times mentioned before that it there would be a righteous s*** storm if the owners tried to have their cake and eat it too in this situation. MLB is under the gun. They are being watched very closely right now by the powers that be. If things start to smell like last weeks tuna, there is going to be another investigation. That could get them in a world of hurt.

Still, it doesn't look good at this point in time - but all we have so far is the whiff of impropriety. Until something troubling actually occurs, it is all just speculation...

Jerry_Manuel
02-13-2002, 06:15 PM
Tony Tavares, who quit the Anaheim Angels last month, was appointed by baseball commissioner Bud Selig as Montreal's team president.

Was this the same guy who cut the Erstad deal?

Daver
02-13-2002, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


Was this the same guy who cut the Erstad deal?

Yes it is.

Jerry_Manuel
02-13-2002, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by daver
Yes it is.

That's weird.

awesomefan
02-18-2002, 11:18 AM
Daver & PaleHoseGeorge: I agree with your thoughts.

This whole mess sounds like it should be illegal how things are being handled.

Hopefully things won't get too ugly...but I doubt it.