Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Mon Sep 22, 2014 7:13 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 124 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Cardinals Expected To Sign Peralta
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:51 pm 
Offline
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:47 pm
Posts: 297
StarlingArcher wrote:
They're riskier because if they fail you're screwed. If the prospects fail, you can sign a guy. Then at least if he bombs you exhausted your options and our in the best effort possible.

There's no upside to the also-rans because even if they're good they're gone in 1-2 years and you need to sign another guy you need to pray isn't Erik Bedard since apparently trying out a prospect in that gap isn't prudent. Like I said, if we're preaching sustainability this isn't the way to go because it's a cycle of gambling on old guys. If the prospect is good he can't leave for 6, and in 99% of cases he's younger.

The beauty of filling holes is that you have mods money to target the top. I'm not concerned about a shallow free agent pool, if we only have 2-3 needs you can target the guys at or near the top of their positions. You aren't trying to sign multiple middling free agents on the cheap.


Here you go with the hyperbole. No one is saying to sign a guy to some enormous long term deal that could blow up on them. You get a vet starting pitcher and a 1B that can help for now. And no one is saying the prospects should't get chances. This all come back to your irrational fear of prospects being blocked. I think it is much more prudent to have a healthy mix of sensible vet signings and prospects than to just turn the keys of the car over to the young guys.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cardinals Expected To Sign Peralta
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 8:10 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:17 pm
Posts: 2436
Location: Tejas
I'm saying I don't want even 2 years of Lyle Overbay on the books because it ties up our ability to get a replacement or another position so if/when the stopgap fails you're back to a prospect anyway.

Eliminate the risk and save yourself a step. Try the prospect and sign a guy if he fails. It beats signing a guy, then trying a prospect, and not being able to sign a guy. You can at least rectify the situation with a prospect. It's not complicated or outside the box thinking.

I don't care about blocking prospects so much as it's dumb to bring in a risky free agent who will tie up payroll and leave you stuck playing your prospect if he sucks. Which is likely given the quantity of free agents we'd need to buy.

Again, we say we want sustainability. Turning over a chunk of your roster every 2 years with old guys is in no way a sustainable model. You either want sustainability or instant gratification. Veterans are the latter.

_________________
Moneyball Saves.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cardinals Expected To Sign Peralta
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 8:23 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:17 pm
Posts: 2436
Location: Tejas
Seriously, we have had 3 players we signed that are worth blocking a prospect for 2 years for. Martin, Burnett, Liriano. Everybody else has been garbage or easily replaceable by a capable prospect (Barmes, Correia).

How is this even a debate? Our odds of actually getting a decent player, let alone multiple decent players repeatedly, are terrible. You're looking at guys who bomb at least as often as prospects and actually tie up valuable resources.

_________________
Moneyball Saves.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cardinals Expected To Sign Peralta
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 8:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 5000
Location: Washington, DC
mjdouble wrote:
Here you go: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/dodgers- ... landscape/

Cards get $14 million/year from Fox Sports Midwest
Pirates get $18 million/year from ROOT Sports

Not sure about radio. I'd assume the Cards probably have a healthier contract with their radio networks than the Pirates. It might make up the difference in the TV contracts. It wouldn't be the reason the Cards can afford the payroll they do. They generate way higher revenues than the Pirates because they put butts in seats and do it at a rather hefty price.


The radio deals are a pittance compared to the TV deals.

So there you go, sisyphus.

And this directly refutes and proves wrong StarlingArcher's theory that ticket and merchandise sales don't matter. They do. That's why the Cardinals have a much higher payroll and budget.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cardinals Expected To Sign Peralta
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 8:55 pm 
Offline
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:47 pm
Posts: 297
StarlingArcher wrote:
Seriously, we have had 3 players we signed that are worth blocking a prospect for 2 years for. Martin, Burnett, Liriano. Everybody else has been garbage or easily replaceable by a capable prospect (Barmes, Correia).

How is this even a debate? Our odds of actually getting a decent player, let alone multiple decent players repeatedly, are terrible. You're looking at guys who bomb at least as often as prospects and actually tie up valuable resources.


You are worried about blocking a player that spent parts of 6 seasons in AA and did pretty terribly in 5 of them. You are worried about blocking starting pitching that is impossible to block. There is a reason they say you can never have enough pitching. Eventually you'll need them. Probably sooner rather than later. When it is July and Lambo is a flop at 1B what do you do then? Trade an asset for the same type of player you could have signed as a free agent?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cardinals Expected To Sign Peralta
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 9:02 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:17 pm
Posts: 2436
Location: Tejas
mjdouble wrote:
You are worried about blocking a player that spent parts of 6 seasons in AA and did pretty terribly in 5 of them. You are worried about blocking starting pitching that is impossible to block. There is a reason they say you can never have enough pitching. Eventually you'll need them. Probably sooner rather than later. When it is July and Lambo is a flop at 1B what do you do then? Trade an asset for the same type of player you could have signed as a free agent?


Claim a guy off waivers or just wait until the offseason and spend on an actual free agent, not a guy who's been nothing but middling for his entire career like James Loney.

If Lambo flops, there's no internal options so you spend big because you have no fix and can't take on a guy for 2 years who may or may not have the best stretch of his career and actually be worth acquiring.

_________________
Moneyball Saves.


Last edited by StarlingArcher on Wed Nov 27, 2013 9:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cardinals Expected To Sign Peralta
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 9:03 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:17 pm
Posts: 2436
Location: Tejas
J_C_Steel wrote:
mjdouble wrote:
Here you go: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/dodgers- ... landscape/

Cards get $14 million/year from Fox Sports Midwest
Pirates get $18 million/year from ROOT Sports

Not sure about radio. I'd assume the Cards probably have a healthier contract with their radio networks than the Pirates. It might make up the difference in the TV contracts. It wouldn't be the reason the Cards can afford the payroll they do. They generate way higher revenues than the Pirates because they put butts in seats and do it at a rather hefty price.


The radio deals are a pittance compared to the TV deals.

So there you go, sisyphus.

And this directly refutes and proves wrong StarlingArcher's theory that ticket and merchandise sales don't matter. They do. That's why the Cardinals have a much higher payroll and budget.


They aren't solely on Fox Sports Midwest. That's one of the channels that carries them in thei region.

_________________
Moneyball Saves.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cardinals Expected To Sign Peralta
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 9:40 pm 
Offline
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:47 pm
Posts: 297
StarlingArcher wrote:
J_C_Steel wrote:
mjdouble wrote:
Here you go: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/dodgers- ... landscape/

Cards get $14 million/year from Fox Sports Midwest
Pirates get $18 million/year from ROOT Sports

Not sure about radio. I'd assume the Cards probably have a healthier contract with their radio networks than the Pirates. It might make up the difference in the TV contracts. It wouldn't be the reason the Cards can afford the payroll they do. They generate way higher revenues than the Pirates because they put butts in seats and do it at a rather hefty price.


The radio deals are a pittance compared to the TV deals.

So there you go, sisyphus.

And this directly refutes and proves wrong StarlingArcher's theory that ticket and merchandise sales don't matter. They do. That's why the Cardinals have a much higher payroll and budget.


They aren't solely on Fox Sports Midwest. That's one of the channels that carries them in thei region.


I think you make stuff up
http://stlouis.cardinals.mlb.com/stl/sc ... sn_faq.jsp

Quote:
FOX Sports Midwest is in its 20th year as the Cardinals television partner and its third as the exclusive television home of Cardinals baseball. FOX Sports Midwest is scheduled to televise 150 regular season games and an all-time high spring training games in 2013. The remaining regular season games will be carried as part of Major League Baseball's national TV packages with FOX and ESPN.


I will say I've seen conflicting reports on the Cards TV deal. Some sources say $14 million. Some say $25 million. I think FOX Sports may have had the option to pay a little more for exclusive rights when a second contract with a different network expired. However, the extra $8-$10 million the Cardinals are making in broadcast revenue more than the Pirates accounts for just a fraction of the extra $50-$60 million more in payroll. Ticket sales and concessions matter a great deal.


Last edited by mjdouble on Wed Nov 27, 2013 10:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cardinals Expected To Sign Peralta
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 9:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 5000
Location: Washington, DC
StarlingArcher wrote:
J_C_Steel wrote:
mjdouble wrote:
Here you go: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/dodgers- ... landscape/

Cards get $14 million/year from Fox Sports Midwest
Pirates get $18 million/year from ROOT Sports

Not sure about radio. I'd assume the Cards probably have a healthier contract with their radio networks than the Pirates. It might make up the difference in the TV contracts. It wouldn't be the reason the Cards can afford the payroll they do. They generate way higher revenues than the Pirates because they put butts in seats and do it at a rather hefty price.


The radio deals are a pittance compared to the TV deals.

So there you go, sisyphus.

And this directly refutes and proves wrong StarlingArcher's theory that ticket and merchandise sales don't matter. They do. That's why the Cardinals have a much higher payroll and budget.


They aren't solely on Fox Sports Midwest. That's one of the channels that carries them in thei region.


Fox Sports Midwest is the Cardinals' regional television network. All such contracts have to be disclosed to and approved by the league. So Fangraphs would know about it. And I have MLB At Bat and I watched a bunch of Cardinals feeds -- every single one was Fox Sports.

Are you suggesting that the Cardinals have a secret regional television contract with a competing network that pays them millions more? Kindly show evidence of this. Otherwise, I'll have to assume that you're just making things up.

The only other channels that play Cardinals games are Fox, ESPN, and the St. Louis NBC affiliate -- all via national television contracts. I looked this up.

Accordingly, as I originally noted, you were wrong. Ticket and merchandise sales DO matter. A lot.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cardinals Expected To Sign Peralta
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 10:25 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:17 pm
Posts: 2436
Location: Tejas
mjdouble wrote:
They aren't solely on Fox Sports Midwest. That's one of the channels that carries them in thei region.


I think you make stuff up
http://stlouis.cardinals.mlb.com/stl/sc ... sn_faq.jsp

Quote:
FOX Sports Midwest is in its 20th year as the Cardinals television partner and its third as the exclusive television home of Cardinals baseball. FOX Sports Midwest is scheduled to televise 150 regular season games and an all-time high spring training games in 2013. The remaining regular season games will be carried as part of Major League Baseball's national TV packages with FOX and ESPN.


I will say I've seen conflicting reports on the Cards TV deal. Some sources say $14 million. Some say $25 million. I think FOX Sports may have had the option to pay a little more for exclusive rights when a second contract with a different network expired. However, the extra $8-$10 million the Cardinals are making in broadcast revenue more than the Pirates accounts for just a fraction of the extra $50-$60 million more in payroll. Ticket sales and concessions matter a great deal.[/quote]

They're also in a completely different part of their cycle. Once we're going to arbitration with all of our young guys the payroll will increase significantly, plus Cutch's contract kicks in to a greater extent. It's not worth spending money on empty contracts now. Save it for an impact contract, like they did with Beltran and Holliday. Then go to arbitration with your big guys while you extend the great players like they did Molina and some pitchers.

We're just now going to arbitration with Pedro, Walker is only in his 2nd year, then Cole and Marte are nowhere close to it.

They're at the end of their cycle. I've always said there's no reason to not spend close to 90 million in your peak years, much like Milwaukee did. And that was before they got more money. So maybe 110M now or so. They aren't at that point yet though.

They'd get more value for their top end if it's largely arbitration cases, some extended great players, and then some impact free agents who you overpaid for but are still getting well above-average production from for 4-5 years.

_________________
Moneyball Saves.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cardinals Expected To Sign Peralta
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 10:30 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:17 pm
Posts: 2436
Location: Tejas
J_C_Steel wrote:
StarlingArcher wrote:
J_C_Steel wrote:
The radio deals are a pittance compared to the TV deals.

So there you go, sisyphus.

And this directly refutes and proves wrong StarlingArcher's theory that ticket and merchandise sales don't matter. They do. That's why the Cardinals have a much higher payroll and budget.


They aren't solely on Fox Sports Midwest. That's one of the channels that carries them in thei region.


Fox Sports Midwest is the Cardinals' regional television network. All such contracts have to be disclosed to and approved by the league. So Fangraphs would know about it. And I have MLB At Bat and I watched a bunch of Cardinals feeds -- every single one was Fox Sports.

Are you suggesting that the Cardinals have a secret regional television contract with a competing network that pays them millions more? Kindly show evidence of this. Otherwise, I'll have to assume that you're just making things up.

The only other channels that play Cardinals games are Fox, ESPN, and the St. Louis NBC affiliate -- all via national television contracts. I looked this up.

Accordingly, as I originally noted, you were wrong. Ticket and merchandise sales DO matter. A lot.


I had them at a solid 25 million after a quick google search. Assumed it was because they had a Comcast or Time Warner deal on the side but it looks like it's just not fully disclosed anywhere since it's all over the place.

Regardless, our issue isn't not being able to spend around what Milwaukee did in their big years. It's that we'd be overpaying earlier than necessary and not building a team that gives you the most bang for your maximized buck down the road.

I've never said they shouldn't spend down the road. Free agency just isn't the. Way to spend money in an intelligent and effective manner. You overspend as a last resort. Not to cling to the past.

_________________
Moneyball Saves.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cardinals Expected To Sign Peralta
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 10:43 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:17 pm
Posts: 2436
Location: Tejas
For instance, we're looking at a 10M bump for Cutch alone, plus Pedro likely around a 10 M bump when it's all said and done, plus whatever increases we see for Cole and Marte. So conservatively maybe 30M in payroll naturally will be added to the 4 guys already established. Without taking into account Polanco and the like plus the bullpen and the likely veterans on the bench.

So it is important to find out where the dollars need to go elsewhere because we can't afford a mistake.

_________________
Moneyball Saves.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cardinals Expected To Sign Peralta
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 10:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 5000
Location: Washington, DC
Nice. StarlingArcher is proven wrong and promptly changes the subject. C'mon. Be a man and admit you were wrong -- ticket and merchandise sales DO matter. A lot. You can admit it. It's OK.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cardinals Expected To Sign Peralta
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 10:58 pm 
Offline
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:47 pm
Posts: 297
I wish I could believe this fantasy that they'd not spend a dollar now so they can spend it later. I just don't buy that. I think they'd have the same budget next year or two years from now whether they spent $60 million this year or $90 million. If carrying over payroll was something they were really willing to consider the best way would be to buy out the Arb years for Pedro and Walker but front load them. Instead of paying Pedro Arb estimates of $5 mill, $9 mill $13 mill, do it in reverse. Could you imagine how much more valuable of a trade chip Pedro would be going into his walk year if he was only scheduled to make his year 1 Arb salary instead of his year 3 Arb salary?

Regardless, not putting the best product on the field could lose some of the traction they have gained with the fan base. As we've already said ticket sales and concessions do matter.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cardinals Expected To Sign Peralta
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:17 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:17 pm
Posts: 2436
Location: Tejas
Because not all 90m teams are created equally. You're spending money needlessly at this point by trying to get up to 90m. Why pay Pedro a ton of money up front when he's the most mercurial player on your team? He's the guy least likely to get a massive pay bump every year. Plus, Boras. He won't take that unless you're very generous with the estimate.

The idea that money = wins is the biggest fallacy in baseball.

Spending now = you're locking yourself into money before you have to before it'll make a positive impact.

Spend where you have no possible solutions. Nowhere else.

_________________
Moneyball Saves.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cardinals Expected To Sign Peralta
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:22 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:17 pm
Posts: 2436
Location: Tejas
J_C_Steel wrote:
Nice. StarlingArcher is proven wrong and promptly changes the subject. C'mon. Be a man and admit you were wrong -- ticket and merchandise sales DO matter. A lot. You can admit it. It's OK.


You're coughing up 1/3 of what you make and getting a significantly smaller chunk back, if anything. As opposed to paying in very little and getting back a lot. You go from making a profit on revenue sharing to taking a loss. At least if the money is anywhere near as big as believed to be.

Let's say we get an extra 15 million. We pay back 5+ of it and get nothing back since we're apparently now rolling in big boy money. Pretty much the most we're making above another team is 10M. That's assuming they don't get money back either. But, if that's the case, they're likely LA or NY with a huge media deal so it's moot. We can spend at the 90M level (110 now). There's just no reason to now. All of the FAs suck and will have equally crappy options available at some other point if we're desperate.

_________________
Moneyball Saves.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cardinals Expected To Sign Peralta
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 12:07 am 
Offline
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:47 pm
Posts: 297
StarlingArcher wrote:
J_C_Steel wrote:
Nice. StarlingArcher is proven wrong and promptly changes the subject. C'mon. Be a man and admit you were wrong -- ticket and merchandise sales DO matter. A lot. You can admit it. It's OK.


You're coughing up 1/3 of what you make and getting a significantly smaller chunk back, if anything. As opposed to paying in very little and getting back a lot. You go from making a profit on revenue sharing to taking a loss. At least if the money is anywhere near as big as believed to be.



That isn't how revenue sharing works. All teams throw in 35%. Every team gets back 1/30th of the total from the sharing pool. So saying they get a smaller chunk back is wrong. All teams get the same share. Yankees get back the same 1/30th share as the Pirates. Essentially every extra dollar the Pirates make they'll keep roughly 66.5 cents of it. (The 65 cents that isn't shared + 1/30 of the 35 extra cents they put in the pool). Bottom line is with the Bucs raising ticket prices a little more than a $1 and selling an additional 200K tickets generates a little more than $6 million extra which after the sharing puts an extra $4 mill in their own coffers. And that is just from ticket sales. Parking, concessions, etc would be boosted too. Another good year in 2014 could mean even more growth and maybe even a bigger ticket hike. Now what happen if Lambo blows chunks and you roll with a rotation that has Pimentel and Cumpton and they wash out. The team struggles. Fans are pissed. A half million less show up. That could be a big revenue swing.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cardinals Expected To Sign Peralta
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:25 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:17 pm
Posts: 2436
Location: Tejas
What about the phaseout? Aren't they slowly starting to disqualify teams and rearranging the splitting up of the pot based on who is in the top 15? Or is the phaseout beginning in 2016 instead of completing in 2016? If we're saying that merchandise and tickets are what will get us to a big payroll I'd assume we would lose a chunk of what we usually got, or all of it, when the extra revenue comes in.

Regardless, let's take your $4M and double it to 10M and say that's the difference with their share of concessions and whatever lots the Pirates own. That won't preclude them from any deals in the future. They'll have the resources to get to 90M in past year dollars pretty easily.

They probably won't get to Cardinal levels, but I don't know that I'd want them to since they've put quite a bit of money in pitching extensions. But between building around Molina and taking on a lot of payroll for 2 guys who played positions they were weakest in, they're a decent team to aspire to somewhat. We can probably spend a little under 100M (again, past dollars) which won't make a lot of difference in terms of acquisitions since we're only looking for 2-3 guys.

If they want to get to 90m dollars this year you're either WAY overpaying for guys on 1 year deals (no good player will take a 1 year deal) or you're signing guys to long-term deals (which is premature) or you're extending guys (we have no extension candidates currently).

They soldiered through last year with Garrett Jones and Justin Morneau aimlessly flailing around on the RHP side of a platoon and were fine. Posted a 104 wRC+ from the position which isn't great but doesn't bury you. You could get bigger offensive increases by platooning Pedro and/or Walker permanently and not having Travis Snider weigh so heavily in your RF numbers. Gives them more than enough flexibility to try out Lambo and then get a legitimate long-term solution if he doesn't work out.

The end goal is a long-term solution either way. It's just better to not commit the money until you have zero options.

None of the current options are either long-term solutions or, plainly, all that good. It's spending money to spend money instead of spending money to improve the franchise's position.

_________________
Moneyball Saves.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cardinals Expected To Sign Peralta
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 7:52 am 
Offline
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:47 pm
Posts: 297
StarlingArcher wrote:
What about the phaseout? Aren't they slowly starting to disqualify teams and rearranging the splitting up of the pot based on who is in the top 15? Or is the phaseout beginning in 2016 instead of completing in 2016? If we're saying that merchandise and tickets are what will get us to a big payroll I'd assume we would lose a chunk of what we usually got, or all of it, when the extra revenue comes in.

Regardless, let's take your $4M and double it to 10M and say that's the difference with their share of concessions and whatever lots the Pirates own. That won't preclude them from any deals in the future. They'll have the resources to get to 90M in past year dollars pretty easily.

They probably won't get to Cardinal levels, but I don't know that I'd want them to since they've put quite a bit of money in pitching extensions. But between building around Molina and taking on a lot of payroll for 2 guys who played positions they were weakest in, they're a decent team to aspire to somewhat. We can probably spend a little under 100M (again, past dollars) which won't make a lot of difference in terms of acquisitions since we're only looking for 2-3 guys.

If they want to get to 90m dollars this year you're either WAY overpaying for guys on 1 year deals (no good player will take a 1 year deal) or you're signing guys to long-term deals (which is premature) or you're extending guys (we have no extension candidates currently).

They soldiered through last year with Garrett Jones and Justin Morneau aimlessly flailing around on the RHP side of a platoon and were fine. Posted a 104 wRC+ from the position which isn't great but doesn't bury you. You could get bigger offensive increases by platooning Pedro and/or Walker permanently and not having Travis Snider weigh so heavily in your RF numbers. Gives them more than enough flexibility to try out Lambo and then get a legitimate long-term solution if he doesn't work out.

The end goal is a long-term solution either way. It's just better to not commit the money until you have zero options.

None of the current options are either long-term solutions or, plainly, all that good. It's spending money to spend money instead of spending money to improve the franchise's position.

The phaseout isn't based on who is in the top 15 in revenue. It is based on who is in a top 15 in market size. Those 15 teams are already predetermined. There is one exception. The A's are exempt until they work out a stadium deal. And the phase doesn't begin until 2016. The phaseout only really affects a couple of teams.

Again, your belief that past unused dollars will get rolled into future payrolls is a fantasy. If the Pirates don't grow revenue they won't commit to higher payrolls.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Cardinals Expected To Sign Peralta
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 1:03 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 10:28 am
Posts: 1080
I'd be perfectly content if we signed Morneau back to platoon with Gaby on a 2 year, incentive driven deal (which the Rockies are after him), and signed a vet SP like Paul Maholm. You would have a solid opening day lineup, with youth like Polanco and Taillon coming. Lambo and Tabata could platoon in RF.

That doesn't break the bank or block anyone and leaves a lot of options for bench roles. Could even leave room to try and extend Martin or Liriano.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 124 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits