|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jan 9, 2012 11:44:47 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2012 12:21:05 GMT -8
So, does this really mean Moores is 100% gone??
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jan 9, 2012 13:30:12 GMT -8
So, does this really mean Moores is 100% gone?? Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by cvtower on Jan 9, 2012 17:07:56 GMT -8
So in theory, is this start of when the Padres payroll is supposed to increase?
|
|
|
|
Post by podpeople on Jan 9, 2012 17:37:58 GMT -8
So in theory, is this start of when the Padres payroll is supposed to increase? No. but soon. Really soon. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2012 21:28:37 GMT -8
$60MM, as Bill is claiming in another thread, would be a good start. I would accept that for 2012, given the youth of the roster.
We'll see. San Francisco is about $115MM, the Dodgers are $105MM (before Kemps extension), and the Rockies are $85MM range. Two of those teams have been to the Fall Classic (one won it) in the last 4 years, and the Dodgers have 3 playoff appearances and an NLCS in 5 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jan 9, 2012 22:25:32 GMT -8
The payroll isn't likely to change to start this season. On the bright side, at least we won't be paying Barry Zito until he's about 600 years old.
|
|
|
|
Post by podpeople on Jan 10, 2012 1:20:45 GMT -8
The payroll isn't likely to change to start this season. On the bright side, at least we won't be paying Barry Zito until he's about 600 years old. yeah, Barry Z should just start busking in the Bart tunnels. He'd at least be appreciated there. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Jan 10, 2012 7:23:07 GMT -8
We better see a $70+ million payroll next year. If we don't see that then we know that this ownership and management group isn't committed to winning. They'll only be committed to winning if they can do it on the cheap.
$75 Million would still put them near the bottom of the division in payroll, but high enough to compete.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jan 10, 2012 9:28:24 GMT -8
75 million would be over 20 million more than Arizona's payroll last year. I doubt the payroll jumps 20 million in a season....let's be realistic here.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jan 10, 2012 10:40:41 GMT -8
$60MM, as Bill is claiming in another thread, would be a good start. I would accept that for 2012, given the youth of the roster. We'll see. San Francisco is about $115MM, the Dodgers are $105MM (before Kemps extension), and the Rockies are $85MM range. Two of those teams have been to the Fall Classic (one won it) in the last 4 years, and the Dodgers have 3 playoff appearances and an NLCS in 5 years. I claimed the Padres will have a $60M payroll? Your reading comprehension is somewhat lacking. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2012 11:46:07 GMT -8
$60MM, as Bill is claiming in another thread, would be a good start. I would accept that for 2012, given the youth of the roster. We'll see. San Francisco is about $115MM, the Dodgers are $105MM (before Kemps extension), and the Rockies are $85MM range. Two of those teams have been to the Fall Classic (one won it) in the last 4 years, and the Dodgers have 3 playoff appearances and an NLCS in 5 years. I claimed the Padres will have a $60M payroll? Your reading comprehension is somewhat lacking. I can read just fine, Bill. When you responded to Aardvark on the other thread with "2. I highly doubt they would raise payroll to close to $60M and do so in a way designed to make the team worse. That is just a silly statement from you" My understanding in reading that was this: --Aardvark was stating the Padres moves were making the team WORSE. -- You were responding by saying that they were not raising the payroll to "close to sixty million" to make the team worse. In which, I would obviously agree with you. We both know the Padres ownership would love to improve. The question is, will they? If you ask me, given what our division competitors are spending (and producing results--including Arizona, whom i left off my original post on this thread), $60MM would be a good start. Perhaps I just misunderstood your post to Aardvark, as I never saw him mention $60MM. That seemed to come from you alone. Perhaps it's your memory that is somewhat lacking. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jan 10, 2012 12:37:14 GMT -8
I claimed the Padres will have a $60M payroll? Your reading comprehension is somewhat lacking. I can read just fine, Bill. When you responded to Aardvark on the other thread with "2. I highly doubt they would raise payroll to close to $60M and do so in a way designed to make the team worse. That is just a silly statement from you" My understanding in reading that was this: --Aardvark was stating the Padres moves were making the team WORSE. -- You were responding by saying that they were not raising the payroll to "close to sixty million" to make the team worse. In which, I would obviously agree with you. We both know the Padres ownership would love to improve. The question is, will they? If you ask me, given what our division competitors are spending (and producing results--including Arizona, whom i left off my original post on this thread), $60MM would be a good start. Perhaps I just misunderstood your post to Aardvark, as I never saw him mention $60MM. That seemed to come from you alone. Perhaps it's your memory that is somewhat lacking. I was simply objecting to "Close to $60M" being replaced with "$60M". There is a difference. I think the Padres would gain a lot in goodwill with the fans if they did surprise them by going to $60M this year. If they can find a move that makes sense and does that, they should. But, as politicians know, it is easy to spend other people's money. And going to $60M this year would make $70 million next year seem like a lot less. I did say close to $60 Million because I heard repots of payroll going to $57M already making assumptions about arbitration. But now I see those that said it backed off and the estimates are now $52M. So close to $60 million is not as accurate as I thought when I wrote it. | Pitchers | | | Anthony Bass, | $480,000 | | Brad Brach, | $480,000 | | Ernesto Frieri, | $480,000 | | Luke Gregerson, | $1,300,000 | | Cory Luebke, | $480,000 | | Clayton Richard, | $2,000,000 | | Dustin Moseley, | $1,800,000 | | Edison Volquez, | $2,300,000 | | Andrew Cashner, | $480,000 | | Tim Stauffer, | $3,000,000 | | Huston Street, | $7,000,000 | | Joe Thatcher, | $800,000 | | | | | Infielders | | | John Baker, | $800,000 | | Nick Hundley, | $1,600,000 | | Yonder Alonso | $1,400,000 | | Jason Bartlett, | $5,500,000 | | Jesus Guzman, | $480,000 | | Chase Headley, | $3,000,000 | | Orlando Hudson, | $5,500,000 | | | | | Outfielders: | | | Kyle Blanks, | $480,000 | | Chris Denorfia, | $1,165,000 | | Mark Kotsay, | $1,250,000 | | Cameron Maybin, | $480,000 | | Will Venable, | $1,800,000 | | Carlos Quentin, | $7,500,000 | | | $ 51,555,000 |
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2012 12:55:55 GMT -8
Fair enough, Bill. So sure, we can nitpick but you did drop that number. Or, "close" to it.
I am more concerned with the Padres finding impact players, than worrying over what the payroll will be.
Teams have proven they can be garbage, even with payrolls at or near $100MM. Smart spending, and player development should be the focal point.
Still, spending at $45MM-$50MM puts you at a competitive disadvantage, and requires your GM and his staff to get nearly every big decision right, with little to no room for error. That is very difficult in today's baseball environment.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Jan 10, 2012 20:27:38 GMT -8
75 million would be over 20 million more than Arizona's payroll last year. I doubt the payroll jumps 20 million in a season....let's be realistic here. I'm not expecting it, but what I'm saying is that they could easily and profitably do it. And then they'd STILL be significantly behind Colorado, LA, and SF in payroll. See, this is why I'm not a fan of MLB. The league is a joke. There should be a much more level playing field so that every team has a reasonable chance of success each season. The playing field, however, is totally uneven and gives the big market teams a HUGE advantage over the rest of the leage. It's shocking news when a big market team has a losing season. It's standard operating procedure for the rest of the league, though, to have losing seasons 3 out of every 4 years. That's bull$#!+. And I gave up on on the league a few years ago and I'm not coming back until teams like the Padres and the Royals and the Brewers have just about the same chance of winning each year as the Red Sox and the Yankees. How good the team is on the field should not be dictated by payroll, but by the intelligence and strategic thinking of the team's GM and Manager. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jan 10, 2012 20:50:26 GMT -8
There will never be a salary cap in baseball because the big market teams will not allow it. They'll pay the luxury taxes and what not, but the status quo will remain. There are two ways to look at it. More payroll equals more responsibility. Like I said above, the Giants will be paying Barry Zito millions of dollars for the next bazillion years. The Marlins paid Jose Reyes about a trillion dollars this offseason, they still won't finish above third in their own division. If added payroll means greater exposure of foolish contracts, count me out. I KNOW payroll will increase gradually, it's just going to take patience. This team is really built to compete probably in 2 seasons. Building from within is the right way to go. Oh, and at least we're not the Pittsburgh Pirates, right?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2012 22:00:21 GMT -8
There will never be a salary cap in baseball because the big market teams will not allow it. They'll pay the luxury taxes and what not, but the status quo will remain. There are two ways to look at it. More payroll equals more responsibility. Like I said above, the Giants will be paying Barry Zito millions of dollars for the next bazillion years. The Marlins paid Jose Reyes about a trillion dollars this offseason, they still won't finish above third in their own division. If added payroll means greater exposure of foolish contracts, count me out. I KNOW payroll will increase gradually, it's just going to take patience. This team is really built to compete probably in 2 seasons. Building from within is the right way to go. Oh, and at least we're not the Pittsburgh Pirates, right? I think Zito is off the books after the 2013 season. ;D What a $#!+ deal it was though. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jan 10, 2012 23:03:53 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Jan 12, 2012 6:59:23 GMT -8
There will never be a salary cap in baseball because the big market teams will not allow it. And isn't it funny that the top 10 teams dictate to the bottom 20 how the league will be run.  That's why MLB sucks. Baseball is a great game. MLB sucks. Everyone should have nearly the same resources - just like in the NFL. In the NFL it's all about how good the management and coaching is. No one can outspend anyone else to take short cuts. Bullcrap. Patience? Watch 2 more bad, losing seasons? Do they REALLY expect people to come out and watch the Padres lose with regularity? How stupid do they think the fans are? I refuse to spend a dime on a team that shows no committment to the fans. Putting out a minor league roster is a total slap in the face to the paying customers. Which goes against legitimately running a sports franchise. The goal EVERY YEAR should be to win the championship. If a team isn't legitimately trying to win a championship THIS YEAR then that team should be forced into new ownership/management. Teams are not supposed to be what Frank McCourt turned the Dodgers into - a personal ATM. Teams are supposed to TRY TO WIN THE CHAMPIONSHIP EVERY YEAR. If you're not trying to win the World Series then you're giving up, and that does NOT make for a competitive league. It's like taking a dive in boxing. Yes, absolutely - but at the same time you can still fill holes with GOOD free agents and try to win NOW, rather than taking a dive. Seriously, it's just like a boxer being told to take a dive now and in return he'll get a title shot in a year or two. The Padres have been taking dives. I cannot and will not support that. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jan 12, 2012 17:20:13 GMT -8
The sale is not done.
MLB didn't vote to approve the sale. They are taking a closer look at Morad and his group. They want to make sure they have the money to be MLB owners.
|
|
