PDA

View Full Version : Rozner: If Bulls get Kobe, Sox could get A-Rod


Sockinchisox
10-19-2007, 11:24 AM
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=60316

He thinks if Reinsdorf swung a deal for Kobe, Reinsdorf could use the money he brings in to sign A-Rod and more than quadruple his earnings, because of how much money those two would bring in.

Thought this was kind of interesting, though this would never happen.

Rocky Soprano
10-19-2007, 12:08 PM
That would be beyond awesome if it happened.

slavko
10-19-2007, 12:28 PM
I'm glad Rozner mentioned Albert Belle, because if the team is mediocre with Alex, as Texas was with him, attendance will be mediocre at the Cell, as it was here with Albert. So, Barry, what are you smoking? The problem with a $300M contract, as Texas found out, is that it puts a chokehold on the rest of your payroll unless you're the Yankees and we're not.

Kobe? I don't see Ben Gordon getting much better (or taller, or faster) so I'd let him go in a trade. Which of Hinrich and Deng to trade? They're both improving, D more than H, that'd be a tough call. What do you guys think?

HomeFish
10-19-2007, 12:40 PM
Translation:

I IS SPORTSWRITER, HEAR ME SPECULATE!

Randar68
10-19-2007, 12:58 PM
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=60316

He thinks if Reinsdorf swung a deal for Kobe, Reinsdorf could use the money he brings in to sign A-Rod and more than quadruple his earnings, because of how much money those two would bring in.

Thought this was kind of interesting, though this would never happen.

Except for the fact that the Bulls and Sox have different investors and are operated as entirely separate entities, IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE!

dumbass.

IlliniSox4Life
10-19-2007, 01:03 PM
He thinks if Reinsdorf swung a deal for Kobe, Reinsdorf could use the money he brings in to sign A-Rod and more than quadruple his earnings, because of how much money those two would bring in.

Thought this was kind of interesting, though this would never happen.

First of all, I don't know if you misread the article or something, but there's no way that Reinsdorf "could use the money he brings in to sign A-Rod", and I don't think that the article says that anywhere. The Bulls and Sox, while both run and partially owned by Reinsdorf, are different businesses and have different ownership groups. I'm sure a lot of the owners are similar, but you can't just take money from one business and give it to the other.

Secondly, Kobe isn't going to help the Bulls make more money. They already pretty much sell out the UC every game. Trading for Kobe isn't going to magically increase the seating capacity. Technically you could argue that it would allow them to raise ticket prices, but they aren't raising prices this year, and any raise next year above what is already scheduled would be very little.

dickallen15
10-19-2007, 01:05 PM
He doesn't write that he uses the money he makes from one for the other. It just speculates that he'd like to add both of them to his teams.

The Immigrant
10-19-2007, 01:13 PM
Secondly, Kobe isn't going to help the Bulls make more money.

I don't want Kobe on the Bulls, but he would make the team a boatload of money in merchandise sales and better TV/radio contracts.

Frater Perdurabo
10-19-2007, 01:17 PM
Not that past results is an accurate predictor of the future, but at one time Reinsdorf did take a measure of pride in the fact that he "signed the paychecks" of the two biggest names in sports at the time: Michael Jordan and Bo Jackson.

Steelrod
10-19-2007, 01:32 PM
I don't want Kobe on the Bulls, but he would make the team a boatload of money in merchandise sales and better TV/radio contracts.
TV contract only has another 10-15 years to go.

gobears1987
10-19-2007, 02:09 PM
TV contract only has another 10-15 years to go.
Reinsdorf owns 40% of CSN Chicago so he would benefit from increased viewership.

russ99
10-19-2007, 02:11 PM
I think the only thing funnier than seeing Kobe have to deal with Skiles would be to see A-rod having to deal with Ozzie.

Manny-like lazyness is not allowed in either clubhouse.

As for a potential Kobe deal, Kobe asking to go to Dallas or Chicago really strengthens the Bulls bargaining position, since there's no way Buss wants to send him to a Western Conference rival.

So I say neither on Heinrich and Deng. Pax could find some other non-Wallace players to make up the cap difference...

I say there can't be a deal if the Bulls send equal value back to LA. If Pax can fleece the Lakers (like the Garnett deal) then I'm for it, otherwise no.

areilly
10-19-2007, 02:16 PM
Manny-like lazyness is not allowed in either clubhouse.


Source?

I've heard people question Rodriguez' motivations and some of his on-field stunts, but never his work ethic, and you can't maintain that kind of physical condition by being lazy.

oeo
10-19-2007, 02:19 PM
I think the only thing funnier than seeing Kobe have to deal with Skiles would be to see A-rod having to deal with Ozzie.

Manny-like lazyness is not allowed in either clubhouse.

They both have their issues, but 'Manny-like laziness' is not one of them.

Flight #24
10-19-2007, 02:19 PM
Obviously, any deal that leaves the Bulls with Hinrich-Kobe-Deng and one of the young PFs is the best from the Bulls perspective, but it may be impossible to swing from LA's unless Gordon and/or Tyrus/Noah show significant improvement (and in that case you wonder if youd trade them).

But that said, Thabo-Kobe-Deng-Noah-Wallace with Noc-Duhon-Gray-Smith on the bench is a more title-worthy team than Hinrich-Gordon-Deng-Tyrus-Wallace with Noce-Noah-Duhon-Thabo-Gray-Smith on the bench.

So if it takes Gordon+Hinrich+Tyrus to make it happen, I do it.

munchman33
10-19-2007, 02:40 PM
you can't maintain that kind of physical condition by being lazy.

Jose Canseco did.

oeo
10-19-2007, 02:52 PM
Jose Canseco did.

I definitely see the similarities.

:?:

Zisk77
10-19-2007, 03:06 PM
I think If A-Rod's name isn't sullied by the mitchell's report findings in anyway, then he would be a a financial boon for the sox for many reasons.

Flight #24
10-19-2007, 03:33 PM
What's the boost ARod provides financially? $5M/yr? $10M/yr?

From a wins perspective, if you can dump Contreras for a young relief arm (which given his rebound at the end of the year and his relatively cheap 2/$20 deal is IMO possible), then you can run out the following:

Rotation: Buehrle($14)-Vazquez($12M)-Garland($10M)-Danks ($.33M)-Floyd/Gio/Broadway ($.33M).
Bullpen: Jenks($1M)-Thornton($.875M)-Wasserman($.33M)-Veteran ($3M)-Young arm in trade($.33M)-Logan ($.33M).
Order: Owens ($.33M)-Fields($.33M)-ARod($30M)-Thome($8M)-Konerko($12M)-Dye($9M)-Crede($5M)-AJ($6M)-Richar($.33M).

Total payroll before bench: $113.5M. Add in a couple mil for a bench including Hall, Anderson/Sweeney, Ozuna,

That team has improved speed with Owens-Fields-ARod-Richar. It's got excellent infield D. The weakness is OF D, primarily the arm in CF(Owens IMO can go get the beal reasonably well). But I think you gain a ton more runs with that lineup than you lose on D with Owens & ARod v. the offensive (and defensive at SS) downgrade to say Hunter & Furcal.

All for a $15M payroll increase, which IMO you get back easily in the incremental revenues from ST sales & merchandise sales plus the potential playoff revenues. And the whole HR Record and "best player in baseball" thing wil factor into all of that and then some.

Lip Man 1
10-19-2007, 04:34 PM
Flight:

That's interesting. I suggest you pass it along to those who may have a chance to make it a reality.

Lip

areilly
10-19-2007, 04:52 PM
Jose Canseco did.

Simply taking steroids won't make you leaner, stronger, or more muscular; you still have to work out, still have to exercise. In fact, to realize the "benefits" of taking them you have to engage in more physical activity than you were without taking them - but what goes with that is that you can enage in more.

Canseco may be a sleazeball, a cheat and liar, but you don't build muscle tissue by sitting on the couch.

BeeBeeRichard
10-19-2007, 05:26 PM
What's the boost ARod provides financially? $5M/yr? $10M/yr?

From a wins perspective, if you can dump Contreras for a young relief arm (which given his rebound at the end of the year and his relatively cheap 2/$20 deal is IMO possible), then you can run out the following:

Rotation: Buehrle($14)-Vazquez($12M)-Garland($10M)-Danks ($.33M)-Floyd/Gio/Broadway ($.33M).
Bullpen: Jenks($1M)-Thornton($.875M)-Wasserman($.33M)-Veteran ($3M)-Young arm in trade($.33M)-Logan ($.33M).
Order: Owens ($.33M)-Fields($.33M)-ARod($30M)-Thome($8M)-Konerko($12M)-Dye($9M)-Crede($5M)-AJ($6M)-Richar($.33M).

Total payroll before bench: $113.5M. Add in a couple mil for a bench including Hall, Anderson/Sweeney, Ozuna,

Hmm... that leaves no backup (as in even our lame backup plan this year of Erstad/Podsednik/etc.) when one or more of this group breaks down or fails to perform: Owens, Thome, Dye, Crede, Richar (I'll concede Josh Hits is a bona fide MLBer). At least one of those five will be out of the lineup next year, either due to injury (the vets) or poor performance (this year's rookies).

Also, it leaves us short in the bullpen -- even with that $3 mil slot, we need two more true setup men in addition to Thornton. Wasserman is a specialist at this point -- he's no Pat Neshek yet.

And Danks as the number 4 starter is shaky at best. He demonstrated this year that he couldn't make it through a full season. I expect better next year, but if we're in the race we can't afford to chance it. Starting pitching is the one strength that we have over everyone else, and it's always at a premium. If we're out of it at the midpoint next year, yeah let one of them go.

But if we're going to go get another RH power hitter like A-Rod, then the player to trade this offseason is Konerko. Despite the LF experiment (the only place he fits on our current roster with Crede healthy), Josh Hits is ultimately going to go the Thome route -- 3B to 1B and finally to DH. Clear first base for him now while you can get something for Konerko (relief help, bench/OF help). And when Thome is done in a couple of years Josh can at least split time between DH and 1B.

FedEx227
10-19-2007, 06:12 PM
Simply taking steroids won't make you leaner, stronger, or more muscular; you still have to work out, still have to exercise. In fact, to realize the "benefits" of taking them you have to engage in more physical activity than you were without taking them - but what goes with that is that you can enage in more.

Canseco may be a sleazeball, a cheat and liar, but you don't build muscle tissue by sitting on the couch.

Thank you. People think these guys that do steroids, shoot up in the morning then sit on the couch the rest of the day before a game. All steroids do are enhance the result of working out, build your muscles faster meaning you can workout more than you did before.

It's not some magical drug that instantly makes you a muscular machine.

Flight #24
10-19-2007, 10:24 PM
FWIW, here's CNN on the value of ARod to a team. Not super analytical, but not a horrid read:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/19/commentary/sportsbiz/index.htm?cnn=yes






The team that might see the greatest economic boost from signing A-Rod could be the lowly Florida Marlins, which paid its entire roster about $30.5 million this year, and is in negotiations with elected officials about a new stadium deal.
If Miami-native A-Rod were to return to his hometown team, it wouldn't have to worry about paying 40 percent of his salary to the league as a luxury tax, as the Yankees would.
And if good young players there continue to develop, A-Rod might actually help lead the team back into postseason, producing revenue that could be worth between $2 million to $15 million a year. The Yankees have a far better chance of making the playoffs without A-Rod than would the Marlins.
"The Marlins are an interesting possibility," said Tim Mahon, principal for Anderson Economic Group, a business valuation service, who has studied team values. "I think it makes much more sense than it does for some of the other choices."
Mahon said that for deep-pocketed successful teams like the Yankees, Mets, Cubs, Red Sox or Angels, "there's a marginal economic benefit from bringing him in, even as fabulous a player as he is. But look at the upside for the Marlins, not just in ticket revenue but also the structure of a new stadium deal."
Finally, there is one reason why giving A-Rod pretty much a blank check makes sense. A 10-year deal that may seem shocking today might be considered a bargain by the end of the contract.
Baseball's popularity is growing. Ticket sales are rising. Sports programming are increasingly important for advertisers in a world of TiVo and video downloads. Add in the increased dollars from new sources such as new media and international growth and that means revenue for all teams is likely to increase. Salaries should, and will, follow suit.

Yes, it says Marlins. But I believe all the same things apply to the Sox: No luxury tax, if they get him, they get a nice economic externality (instead of a stadium, attention in a 2-team town), and they have their own network (CSN).