Starting Pitching, ought-nine

[nymr83]

sounds good to me, lets see what happens

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

Damn, I knew this day would come. This thread has finally turned the page and now the mysterious honeydew smuggler has gotten away.

It's a sad day I tell you.

[Benjamin Grimm]

="seawolf17"] ="John Cougar Lunchbucket"] I just wanted to make sure she was at the top of page 3 of the thread also.

[Centerfield]

Ken Rosenthal reporting that the Red Sox are close to signing Brad Penny. You'd have to think this bodes well for us on the Lowe front.

[metirish]

="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]

Her husband just got charged with assault and affray after spending the last 24 hours in jail following a beating of a DJ in a pub after Liverpool FC beat Newcastle Sunday. Gerrard along with five others got arrested in the early hours Monday morning after allegedly beating the DJ up , apparently the DJ wouldn't let Gerrard spin his favorite tunes. His favorite singer is Phil fucking Collins , hard to blame the DJ on that.

[Guest Vince Coleman Firecracker]

Phil Collins' solo efforts seem to be more commercial and therefore more satisfying in a narrower way, especially No Jacket Required and songs like "In the Air Tonight" and "Against All Odds" (though that song was overshadowed by the masterful movie from which it came) and "Take Me Home" and "Sussudio" (great, great song; a personal favorite) and his remake of "You Can't Hurry Love," which I'm not alone in thinking is better than the Supremes' original. But I also think that Phil Collins works better within the confines of the group than as a solo artist- and I stress the word artist. In fact it applies to all three of the guys, because Genesis is still the best, most exciting band to come out of England in the 1980s.

[Frayed Knot]

Beating up a DJ is like the guy who shot someone in a movie theatre the other day for yapping too much: either may be justifiable depending on the specifics.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

="Vince Coleman Firecracker"]Phil Collins' solo efforts seem to be more commercial and therefore more satisfying in a narrower way, especially No Jacket Required and songs like "In the Air Tonight" and "Against All Odds" (though that song was overshadowed by the masterful movie from which it came) and "Take Me Home" and "Sussudio" (great, great song; a personal favorite) and his remake of "You Can't Hurry Love," which I'm not alone in thinking is better than the Supremes' original. But I also think that Phil Collins works better within the confines of the group than as a solo artist- and I stress the word artist. In fact it applies to all three of the guys, because Genesis is still the best, most exciting band to come out of England in the 1980s.

Wait, what?

[Guest Edgy DC]

I heard the guy beat up the DJ after he played Jay-Z's new joint, "The Riddler Got Some Titties."

VC Firecracker, meanwhile, just made the Oddest Stories of the Year list.

[Guest Vince Coleman Firecracker]

Sorry, I just always think of Patrick Bateman when I hear that someone likes Phil Collins. Or Huey Lewis.

[metirish]

="Vince Coleman Firecracker"]Phil Collins' solo efforts seem to be more commercial and therefore more satisfying in a narrower way, especially No Jacket Required and songs like "In the Air Tonight" and "Against All Odds" (though that song was overshadowed by the masterful movie from which it came) and "Take Me Home" and "Sussudio" (great, great song; a personal favorite) and his remake of "You Can't Hurry Love," which I'm not alone in thinking is better than the Supremes' original. But I also think that Phil Collins works better within the confines of the group than as a solo artist- and I stress the word artist. In fact it applies to all three of the guys, because Genesis is still the best, most exciting band to come out of England in the 1980s.

In the article I read which I can't be bothered to look for it mentioned that his favorite album ever is Phil Collins "Hits"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hits_(Phil_Collins_album)

[Centerfield]

Three year, $36 million offer to Lowe says Tom Singer at Mets.com.

It cites a Times report but I couldn't find the article.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20081230&content_id=3730397&vkey=hotstove2008&fext=.jsp

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

]Mets Offer Lowe a Deal: 3 Years and $36 Million By JACK CURRY Published: December 30, 2008 After methodically studying the starting pitchers left on the free-agent market, the Mets have determined that Derek Lowe would be the best addition to their club. The Mets have shown that by offering Lowe a three-year contract for about $36 million, according to people who have been briefed on the discussions. As the Mets try to add a reliable starter, they have marked Lowe as their priority over Oliver P�rez, who has pitched for them since 2006. Lowe, a durable pitcher with a superb sinker, was 14-11 with a 3.24 earned run average for the Los Angeles Dodgers last season. Scott Boras, the agent who represents Lowe and P�rez, would not comment specifically about the Mets� offer to Lowe. But he said, �Obviously, we�ve taken offers from a number of teams.� Boras also said he was still talking to teams and was in the process of establishing Lowe�s value. Lowe is believed to be seeking a five-year, $90 million deal. The Mets do not want to offer Lowe more than three guaranteed years, so if he holds firm in his pursuit of five years, he may not be close to signing. Lowe, who turns 36 in June, has averaged more than 200 innings and 15 wins the last seven seasons. When the Mets pursued the free agent Francisco Rodr�guez, they benefited from being one of the only teams willing to spend for a closer. Before the season ended, there was speculation that Rodr�guez would receive a $75 million deal. The Mets signed Rodr�guez for about half that, giving him a three-year, $37 million deal. The Mets are hoping the same happens with Lowe, and that he eventually falls to them for less than the $18 million a year he is seeking. Boras would not say how many teams had made offers to Lowe, but he said there were more teams involved in talks with Lowe than a week ago. Boras will probably remind teams that Ryan Dempster, a converted closer who had a stellar year as a starter with 17 victories, received a four-year, $52 million deal from the Chicago Cubs last month. The Mets have emerged as the favorites to sign Lowe, but the Boston Red Sox and the Philadelphia Phillies have also expressed interest. It is unclear if either team would outbid the Mets or offer more than three years. Lowe pitched for the Red Sox from 1997 to 2004 and has spoken about his desire to return to Boston. If the Mets are unable to sign Lowe, they will pursue P�rez, who was 10-7 with a 4.22 E.R.A. They may also go after Randy Wolf, who, like P�rez, is left-handed. Wolf was 12-12 with a 4.30 E.R.A. for the San Diego Padres and the Houston Astros. But by making their first offer to Lowe, the Mets have told him and Boras that Lowe is the pitcher they would prefer. Before that can happen, the Mets and Boras need to agree on Lowe�s value.

[Frayed Knot]

Beats the hell out of both the asking price (5x$18) and the widely rumored price (4x$15).
Maybe we wind up getting trumped here, but I'd have trouble going more than 3 years.


Guess that's what they mean by 'Going Lowe' on a bid.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

The Mets should give Lowe and Borass a few days to respond, then if they don't get a response that looks favorable they should offer Oliver Perez an offer in the neighborhood of 4 years for $36 mil. and tell Boras that the first accept will get the one rotation slot available.

I would love to see a few of Boras' high profile clients get stuck because of his blustering and posturing. I believe Manny Ramirez just may be the one to lose big because of Boras overplaying his hand in these difficult financial times.

[nymr83]

="Rockin' Doc":sf7zf4o4]The Mets should give Lowe and Borass a few days to respond, then if they don't get a response that looks favorable they should offer Oliver Perez an offer in the neighborhood of 4 years for $36 mil. and tell Boras that the first accept will get the one rotation slot available. I would love to see a few of Boras' high profile clients get stuck because of his blustering and posturing. I believe Manny Ramirez just may be the one to lose big because of Boras overplaying his hand in these difficult financial times.[/quote:sf7zf4o4] i would love to play Boras' clients against each other by making reasonable offers to both pitchers and say its first come first served. this puts Boras in a position where he can't do right by both clients.

MFS62 Dec 31 2008 06:42 AM

Now we're going to find out if Omar has friends in Lowe places. Later

Edgy DC Dec 31 2008 07:15 AM

="Nymr83":jqmfi9t3]i would love to play Boras' clients against each other by making reasonable offers to both pitchers and say its first come first served. this puts Boras in a position where he can't do right by both clients.[/quote:jqmfi9t3] Well, he can advise them both to hold out for more. I'm not saying it'll work, but he's got a corner of the market by holding the best two remaining pitchers. Benjamin Grimm Dec 31 2008 07:19 AM I notice the article says the Mets don't want to guarantee more than three years. My prediction: They'll sign him to a deal that guarantees $39 million over three years, with a clause that gets him a fourth year (at another $13 million) based on some innings pitched criteria. An article in the Daily News this morning said that the Mets were the lone remaining suitor. I don't know if that's true or not, but if it is Boras will, of course, try to get them to bid against the mysterious phantom team. metirish Dec 31 2008 07:23 AM Thankfully Minaya is't Cashman who at this point with no other suitors would sweeten the pot by at least $60 million. soupcan Dec 31 2008 07:50 AM I'd love to see Boras get his comeuppance as well but it just doesn't happen. We all thought the A-Rod opt-out would backfire and that certainly did not. Boras turned that around from a disaster to friggin' no-holds barrred success. Boras is a smart guy - he knows exactly what he is doing and always gets the most for his clients. As a fan I hate him, but if I were an athlete he'd be my guy. Edgy DC Dec 31 2008 08:03 AM I'm perfectly happy seeing Boras clients walk off with all the money they can get --- as long as my team drives a harder bargain than everybody else's. He got the Yankees to bid against themselves to pay Alex Rodriguez more, even though everybody hates the guy? I applaud him. Frayed Knot Dec 31 2008 08:09 AM ="soupcan":388olj2s]I'd love to see Boras get his comeuppance as well but it just doesn't happen.[/quote:388olj2s] It does occasionally. A couple years back he was telling anyone who would listen that he had a multiple 5-year offers for Kenvin Millwood at something like $15 per. Millwood eventually settled for a one-year arbitration settlement for around $10 or so. And there have been others as well - usually with smaller/mid-range clients. It's the big boys who generate most of the publicity and those are the ones he hits on - but, of course, it's a lot easier when you've got the goods. What remains to be seen here is whether this year is going to be a downward trend after several years of rapidly rising salaries like happened a few years ago following the 1999-2001 spending boom. So far the only player for whom there was a serious bidding war was Teixeira. Sabathia certainly got a chunk of change but it's not clear whether than was necessary, and guys like F Rodriguez got a whole lot less than what was suspected even 2-3 months ago. Centerfield Dec 31 2008 08:24 AM ="soupcan":1gdt0nu9]As a fan I hate him, but if I were an athlete he'd be my guy.[/quote:1gdt0nu9] Why do you hate him as a fan? As an owner or GM, he might be the scum of the earth, but do fans really have a rooting interest in negotiations between player and team? metsmarathon Dec 31 2008 08:41 AM i only hate him when players i want the mets to get have him as their agent, and that drags out the process of signing said player, and typically means that, if we do get said player, its at a higher cost and because we offered the most money (as opposed to the fictional world i wish to live in where free agents choose the mets not for the most money but because they're the awesomest destination, and do so cheaply and before christmas). soupcan Dec 31 2008 08:45 AM ="Centerfield"] ="soupcan"]As a fan I hate him, but if I were an athlete he'd be my guy. Why do you hate him as a fan? As an owner or GM, he might be the scum of the earth, but do fans really have a rooting interest in negotiations between player and team? I suppose its not him I hate but rather the escalating salaries that continue to move the players and the game farther away from the fan. As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game. Edgy DC Dec 31 2008 08:50 AM ="soupcan":f7bp71p6]As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game.[/quote:f7bp71p6] I don't believe that for a minute. Prices are driven by demand, not by salary expenses. Don't let the owners convince you otherwise Centerfield Dec 31 2008 09:08 AM ="soupcan"] ="Centerfield"] ="soupcan"]As a fan I hate him, but if I were an athlete he'd be my guy. Why do you hate him as a fan? As an owner or GM, he might be the scum of the earth, but do fans really have a rooting interest in negotiations between player and team? I suppose its not him I hate but rather the escalating salaries that continue to move the players and the game farther away from the fan. As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game. So you're saying you don't hate the playa, you hate the game. Benjamin Grimm Dec 31 2008 09:14 AM One reason not to like Boras: He represents Mike Pelfrey. If Pelfrey continues to develop into the pitcher we'd like him to be, we have little to no hope that he'll sign a contract like Wright and Reyes did. He'll do the arbitration thing each year that he can, and then he'll test the market. It makes it just a teeny bit harder to get attached to a home-grown player. attgig Dec 31 2008 10:29 AM ="Edgy DC":6u8g9kac] ="soupcan":6u8g9kac]As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game.[/quote:6u8g9kac] I don't believe that for a minute. Prices are driven by demand, not by salary expenses. Don't let the owners convince you otherwise[/quote:6u8g9kac] not only demand, but supply. all these new ballparks have less seats. friggin owners. BUT, I would love to see how ticket prices changed from before Free Agency to the early nineties (when contracts started going into the millions). soupcan Dec 31 2008 10:58 AM ="Edgy DC":2ijnmyx6] ="soupcan":2ijnmyx6]As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game.[/quote:2ijnmyx6] I don't believe that for a minute. Prices are driven by demand, not by salary expenses. Don't let the owners convince you otherwise[/quote:2ijnmyx6] I don't mean to say that salaries are the only thing but they are a significant contributing factor. ="Centerfield":2ijnmyx6]So you're saying you don't hate the playa, you hate the game.[/quote:2ijnmyx6] Word. Edgy DC Dec 31 2008 11:14 AM ="soupcan":osy3ctu2]I don't mean to say that salaries are the only thing but they are a significant contributing factor.[/quote:osy3ctu2] I don't think they mean a thing. All the restraints of a salary cap haven't made basketball and football tickets any more affordable. soupcan Dec 31 2008 11:29 AM ="Edgy DC":r44vyrx7] ="soupcan":r44vyrx7]I don't mean to say that salaries are the only thing but they are a significant contributing factor.[/quote:r44vyrx7] I don't think they mean a thing. All the restraints of a salary cap haven't made basketball and football tickets any more affordable.[/quote:r44vyrx7] It's not like their salary caps have kept those other sports salaries low either though. Frayed Knot Dec 31 2008 12:07 PM Not low, but lower than they'd be under a true open market -- and yet the NFL with its hard cap and often elusive FA system has still managed to be the sport to virtually invent and exploit things like seat licensing and mandatory pre-season buys.

[MFS62]

Now we're going to find out if Omar has friends in Lowe places.

Later

[Guest Edgy DC]

="Nymr83":jqmfi9t3]i would love to play Boras' clients against each other by making reasonable offers to both pitchers and say its first come first served. this puts Boras in a position where he can't do right by both clients.[/quote:jqmfi9t3] Well, he can advise them both to hold out for more. I'm not saying it'll work, but he's got a corner of the market by holding the best two remaining pitchers.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 31 2008 07:19 AM

I notice the article says the Mets don't want to guarantee more than three years. My prediction: They'll sign him to a deal that guarantees $39 million over three years, with a clause that gets him a fourth year (at another $13 million) based on some innings pitched criteria. An article in the Daily News this morning said that the Mets were the lone remaining suitor. I don't know if that's true or not, but if it is Boras will, of course, try to get them to bid against the mysterious phantom team.

metirish Dec 31 2008 07:23 AM

Thankfully Minaya is't Cashman who at this point with no other suitors would sweeten the pot by at least $60 million.

soupcan Dec 31 2008 07:50 AM

I'd love to see Boras get his comeuppance as well but it just doesn't happen. We all thought the A-Rod opt-out would backfire and that certainly did not. Boras turned that around from a disaster to friggin' no-holds barrred success. Boras is a smart guy - he knows exactly what he is doing and always gets the most for his clients. As a fan I hate him, but if I were an athlete he'd be my guy.

Edgy DC Dec 31 2008 08:03 AM

I'm perfectly happy seeing Boras clients walk off with all the money they can get --- as long as my team drives a harder bargain than everybody else's. He got the Yankees to bid against themselves to pay Alex Rodriguez more, even though everybody hates the guy? I applaud him.

Frayed Knot Dec 31 2008 08:09 AM

="soupcan":388olj2s]I'd love to see Boras get his comeuppance as well but it just doesn't happen.[/quote:388olj2s] It does occasionally. A couple years back he was telling anyone who would listen that he had a multiple 5-year offers for Kenvin Millwood at something like $15 per. Millwood eventually settled for a one-year arbitration settlement for around $10 or so. And there have been others as well - usually with smaller/mid-range clients. It's the big boys who generate most of the publicity and those are the ones he hits on - but, of course, it's a lot easier when you've got the goods. What remains to be seen here is whether this year is going to be a downward trend after several years of rapidly rising salaries like happened a few years ago following the 1999-2001 spending boom. So far the only player for whom there was a serious bidding war was Teixeira. Sabathia certainly got a chunk of change but it's not clear whether than was necessary, and guys like F Rodriguez got a whole lot less than what was suspected even 2-3 months ago. Centerfield Dec 31 2008 08:24 AM ="soupcan":1gdt0nu9]As a fan I hate him, but if I were an athlete he'd be my guy.[/quote:1gdt0nu9] Why do you hate him as a fan? As an owner or GM, he might be the scum of the earth, but do fans really have a rooting interest in negotiations between player and team? metsmarathon Dec 31 2008 08:41 AM i only hate him when players i want the mets to get have him as their agent, and that drags out the process of signing said player, and typically means that, if we do get said player, its at a higher cost and because we offered the most money (as opposed to the fictional world i wish to live in where free agents choose the mets not for the most money but because they're the awesomest destination, and do so cheaply and before christmas). soupcan Dec 31 2008 08:45 AM ="Centerfield"] ="soupcan"]As a fan I hate him, but if I were an athlete he'd be my guy. Why do you hate him as a fan? As an owner or GM, he might be the scum of the earth, but do fans really have a rooting interest in negotiations between player and team? I suppose its not him I hate but rather the escalating salaries that continue to move the players and the game farther away from the fan. As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game. Edgy DC Dec 31 2008 08:50 AM ="soupcan":f7bp71p6]As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game.[/quote:f7bp71p6] I don't believe that for a minute. Prices are driven by demand, not by salary expenses. Don't let the owners convince you otherwise Centerfield Dec 31 2008 09:08 AM ="soupcan"] ="Centerfield"] ="soupcan"]As a fan I hate him, but if I were an athlete he'd be my guy. Why do you hate him as a fan? As an owner or GM, he might be the scum of the earth, but do fans really have a rooting interest in negotiations between player and team? I suppose its not him I hate but rather the escalating salaries that continue to move the players and the game farther away from the fan. As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game. So you're saying you don't hate the playa, you hate the game. Benjamin Grimm Dec 31 2008 09:14 AM One reason not to like Boras: He represents Mike Pelfrey. If Pelfrey continues to develop into the pitcher we'd like him to be, we have little to no hope that he'll sign a contract like Wright and Reyes did. He'll do the arbitration thing each year that he can, and then he'll test the market. It makes it just a teeny bit harder to get attached to a home-grown player. attgig Dec 31 2008 10:29 AM ="Edgy DC":6u8g9kac] ="soupcan":6u8g9kac]As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game.[/quote:6u8g9kac] I don't believe that for a minute. Prices are driven by demand, not by salary expenses. Don't let the owners convince you otherwise[/quote:6u8g9kac] not only demand, but supply. all these new ballparks have less seats. friggin owners. BUT, I would love to see how ticket prices changed from before Free Agency to the early nineties (when contracts started going into the millions). soupcan Dec 31 2008 10:58 AM ="Edgy DC":2ijnmyx6] ="soupcan":2ijnmyx6]As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game.[/quote:2ijnmyx6] I don't believe that for a minute. Prices are driven by demand, not by salary expenses. Don't let the owners convince you otherwise[/quote:2ijnmyx6] I don't mean to say that salaries are the only thing but they are a significant contributing factor. ="Centerfield":2ijnmyx6]So you're saying you don't hate the playa, you hate the game.[/quote:2ijnmyx6] Word. Edgy DC Dec 31 2008 11:14 AM ="soupcan":osy3ctu2]I don't mean to say that salaries are the only thing but they are a significant contributing factor.[/quote:osy3ctu2] I don't think they mean a thing. All the restraints of a salary cap haven't made basketball and football tickets any more affordable. soupcan Dec 31 2008 11:29 AM ="Edgy DC":r44vyrx7] ="soupcan":r44vyrx7]I don't mean to say that salaries are the only thing but they are a significant contributing factor.[/quote:r44vyrx7] I don't think they mean a thing. All the restraints of a salary cap haven't made basketball and football tickets any more affordable.[/quote:r44vyrx7] It's not like their salary caps have kept those other sports salaries low either though. Frayed Knot Dec 31 2008 12:07 PM Not low, but lower than they'd be under a true open market -- and yet the NFL with its hard cap and often elusive FA system has still managed to be the sport to virtually invent and exploit things like seat licensing and mandatory pre-season buys.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I notice the article says the Mets don't want to guarantee more than three years.

My prediction: They'll sign him to a deal that guarantees $39 million over three years, with a clause that gets him a fourth year (at another $13 million) based on some innings pitched criteria.

An article in the Daily News this morning said that the Mets were the lone remaining suitor. I don't know if that's true or not, but if it is Boras will, of course, try to get them to bid against the mysterious phantom team.

[metirish]

Thankfully Minaya is't Cashman who at this point with no other suitors would sweeten the pot by at least $60 million.

[soupcan]

I'd love to see Boras get his comeuppance as well but it just doesn't happen.

We all thought the A-Rod opt-out would backfire and that certainly did not. Boras turned that around from a disaster to friggin' no-holds barrred success.

Boras is a smart guy - he knows exactly what he is doing and always gets the most for his clients. As a fan I hate him, but if I were an athlete he'd be my guy.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I'm perfectly happy seeing Boras clients walk off with all the money they can get --- as long as my team drives a harder bargain than everybody else's.

He got the Yankees to bid against themselves to pay Alex Rodriguez more, even though everybody hates the guy? I applaud him.

[Frayed Knot]

="soupcan":388olj2s]I'd love to see Boras get his comeuppance as well but it just doesn't happen.[/quote:388olj2s] It does occasionally. A couple years back he was telling anyone who would listen that he had a multiple 5-year offers for Kenvin Millwood at something like $15 per. Millwood eventually settled for a one-year arbitration settlement for around $10 or so. And there have been others as well - usually with smaller/mid-range clients. It's the big boys who generate most of the publicity and those are the ones he hits on - but, of course, it's a lot easier when you've got the goods. What remains to be seen here is whether this year is going to be a downward trend after several years of rapidly rising salaries like happened a few years ago following the 1999-2001 spending boom. So far the only player for whom there was a serious bidding war was Teixeira. Sabathia certainly got a chunk of change but it's not clear whether than was necessary, and guys like F Rodriguez got a whole lot less than what was suspected even 2-3 months ago.

Centerfield Dec 31 2008 08:24 AM

="soupcan":1gdt0nu9]As a fan I hate him, but if I were an athlete he'd be my guy.[/quote:1gdt0nu9] Why do you hate him as a fan? As an owner or GM, he might be the scum of the earth, but do fans really have a rooting interest in negotiations between player and team? metsmarathon Dec 31 2008 08:41 AM i only hate him when players i want the mets to get have him as their agent, and that drags out the process of signing said player, and typically means that, if we do get said player, its at a higher cost and because we offered the most money (as opposed to the fictional world i wish to live in where free agents choose the mets not for the most money but because they're the awesomest destination, and do so cheaply and before christmas). soupcan Dec 31 2008 08:45 AM ="Centerfield"] ="soupcan"]As a fan I hate him, but if I were an athlete he'd be my guy. Why do you hate him as a fan? As an owner or GM, he might be the scum of the earth, but do fans really have a rooting interest in negotiations between player and team? I suppose its not him I hate but rather the escalating salaries that continue to move the players and the game farther away from the fan. As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game. Edgy DC Dec 31 2008 08:50 AM ="soupcan":f7bp71p6]As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game.[/quote:f7bp71p6] I don't believe that for a minute. Prices are driven by demand, not by salary expenses. Don't let the owners convince you otherwise Centerfield Dec 31 2008 09:08 AM ="soupcan"] ="Centerfield"] ="soupcan"]As a fan I hate him, but if I were an athlete he'd be my guy. Why do you hate him as a fan? As an owner or GM, he might be the scum of the earth, but do fans really have a rooting interest in negotiations between player and team? I suppose its not him I hate but rather the escalating salaries that continue to move the players and the game farther away from the fan. As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game. So you're saying you don't hate the playa, you hate the game. Benjamin Grimm Dec 31 2008 09:14 AM One reason not to like Boras: He represents Mike Pelfrey. If Pelfrey continues to develop into the pitcher we'd like him to be, we have little to no hope that he'll sign a contract like Wright and Reyes did. He'll do the arbitration thing each year that he can, and then he'll test the market. It makes it just a teeny bit harder to get attached to a home-grown player. attgig Dec 31 2008 10:29 AM ="Edgy DC":6u8g9kac] ="soupcan":6u8g9kac]As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game.[/quote:6u8g9kac] I don't believe that for a minute. Prices are driven by demand, not by salary expenses. Don't let the owners convince you otherwise[/quote:6u8g9kac] not only demand, but supply. all these new ballparks have less seats. friggin owners. BUT, I would love to see how ticket prices changed from before Free Agency to the early nineties (when contracts started going into the millions). soupcan Dec 31 2008 10:58 AM ="Edgy DC":2ijnmyx6] ="soupcan":2ijnmyx6]As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game.[/quote:2ijnmyx6] I don't believe that for a minute. Prices are driven by demand, not by salary expenses. Don't let the owners convince you otherwise[/quote:2ijnmyx6] I don't mean to say that salaries are the only thing but they are a significant contributing factor. ="Centerfield":2ijnmyx6]So you're saying you don't hate the playa, you hate the game.[/quote:2ijnmyx6] Word. Edgy DC Dec 31 2008 11:14 AM ="soupcan":osy3ctu2]I don't mean to say that salaries are the only thing but they are a significant contributing factor.[/quote:osy3ctu2] I don't think they mean a thing. All the restraints of a salary cap haven't made basketball and football tickets any more affordable. soupcan Dec 31 2008 11:29 AM ="Edgy DC":r44vyrx7] ="soupcan":r44vyrx7]I don't mean to say that salaries are the only thing but they are a significant contributing factor.[/quote:r44vyrx7] I don't think they mean a thing. All the restraints of a salary cap haven't made basketball and football tickets any more affordable.[/quote:r44vyrx7] It's not like their salary caps have kept those other sports salaries low either though. Frayed Knot Dec 31 2008 12:07 PM Not low, but lower than they'd be under a true open market -- and yet the NFL with its hard cap and often elusive FA system has still managed to be the sport to virtually invent and exploit things like seat licensing and mandatory pre-season buys.

[Centerfield]

="soupcan":1gdt0nu9]As a fan I hate him, but if I were an athlete he'd be my guy.[/quote:1gdt0nu9] Why do you hate him as a fan? As an owner or GM, he might be the scum of the earth, but do fans really have a rooting interest in negotiations between player and team?

metsmarathon Dec 31 2008 08:41 AM

i only hate him when players i want the mets to get have him as their agent, and that drags out the process of signing said player, and typically means that, if we do get said player, its at a higher cost and because we offered the most money (as opposed to the fictional world i wish to live in where free agents choose the mets not for the most money but because they're the awesomest destination, and do so cheaply and before christmas).

soupcan Dec 31 2008 08:45 AM

="Centerfield"] ="soupcan"]As a fan I hate him, but if I were an athlete he'd be my guy. Why do you hate him as a fan? As an owner or GM, he might be the scum of the earth, but do fans really have a rooting interest in negotiations between player and team? I suppose its not him I hate but rather the escalating salaries that continue to move the players and the game farther away from the fan. As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game.

Edgy DC Dec 31 2008 08:50 AM

="soupcan":f7bp71p6]As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game.[/quote:f7bp71p6] I don't believe that for a minute. Prices are driven by demand, not by salary expenses. Don't let the owners convince you otherwise Centerfield Dec 31 2008 09:08 AM ="soupcan"] ="Centerfield"] ="soupcan"]As a fan I hate him, but if I were an athlete he'd be my guy. Why do you hate him as a fan? As an owner or GM, he might be the scum of the earth, but do fans really have a rooting interest in negotiations between player and team? I suppose its not him I hate but rather the escalating salaries that continue to move the players and the game farther away from the fan. As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game. So you're saying you don't hate the playa, you hate the game. Benjamin Grimm Dec 31 2008 09:14 AM One reason not to like Boras: He represents Mike Pelfrey. If Pelfrey continues to develop into the pitcher we'd like him to be, we have little to no hope that he'll sign a contract like Wright and Reyes did. He'll do the arbitration thing each year that he can, and then he'll test the market. It makes it just a teeny bit harder to get attached to a home-grown player. attgig Dec 31 2008 10:29 AM ="Edgy DC":6u8g9kac] ="soupcan":6u8g9kac]As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game.[/quote:6u8g9kac] I don't believe that for a minute. Prices are driven by demand, not by salary expenses. Don't let the owners convince you otherwise[/quote:6u8g9kac] not only demand, but supply. all these new ballparks have less seats. friggin owners. BUT, I would love to see how ticket prices changed from before Free Agency to the early nineties (when contracts started going into the millions). soupcan Dec 31 2008 10:58 AM ="Edgy DC":2ijnmyx6] ="soupcan":2ijnmyx6]As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game.[/quote:2ijnmyx6] I don't believe that for a minute. Prices are driven by demand, not by salary expenses. Don't let the owners convince you otherwise[/quote:2ijnmyx6] I don't mean to say that salaries are the only thing but they are a significant contributing factor. ="Centerfield":2ijnmyx6]So you're saying you don't hate the playa, you hate the game.[/quote:2ijnmyx6] Word. Edgy DC Dec 31 2008 11:14 AM ="soupcan":osy3ctu2]I don't mean to say that salaries are the only thing but they are a significant contributing factor.[/quote:osy3ctu2] I don't think they mean a thing. All the restraints of a salary cap haven't made basketball and football tickets any more affordable. soupcan Dec 31 2008 11:29 AM ="Edgy DC":r44vyrx7] ="soupcan":r44vyrx7]I don't mean to say that salaries are the only thing but they are a significant contributing factor.[/quote:r44vyrx7] I don't think they mean a thing. All the restraints of a salary cap haven't made basketball and football tickets any more affordable.[/quote:r44vyrx7] It's not like their salary caps have kept those other sports salaries low either though. Frayed Knot Dec 31 2008 12:07 PM Not low, but lower than they'd be under a true open market -- and yet the NFL with its hard cap and often elusive FA system has still managed to be the sport to virtually invent and exploit things like seat licensing and mandatory pre-season buys.

[metsmarathon]

i only hate him when players i want the mets to get have him as their agent, and that drags out the process of signing said player, and typically means that, if we do get said player, its at a higher cost and because we offered the most money (as opposed to the fictional world i wish to live in where free agents choose the mets not for the most money but because they're the awesomest destination, and do so cheaply and before christmas).

[soupcan]

="Centerfield"] ="soupcan"]As a fan I hate him, but if I were an athlete he'd be my guy. Why do you hate him as a fan? As an owner or GM, he might be the scum of the earth, but do fans really have a rooting interest in negotiations between player and team?

I suppose its not him I hate but rather the escalating salaries that continue to move the players and the game farther away from the fan.

As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game.

[Guest Edgy DC]

="soupcan":f7bp71p6]As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game.[/quote:f7bp71p6] I don't believe that for a minute. Prices are driven by demand, not by salary expenses. Don't let the owners convince you otherwise

Centerfield Dec 31 2008 09:08 AM

="soupcan"] ="Centerfield"] ="soupcan"]As a fan I hate him, but if I were an athlete he'd be my guy. Why do you hate him as a fan? As an owner or GM, he might be the scum of the earth, but do fans really have a rooting interest in negotiations between player and team? I suppose its not him I hate but rather the escalating salaries that continue to move the players and the game farther away from the fan. As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game. So you're saying you don't hate the playa, you hate the game.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 31 2008 09:14 AM

One reason not to like Boras: He represents Mike Pelfrey. If Pelfrey continues to develop into the pitcher we'd like him to be, we have little to no hope that he'll sign a contract like Wright and Reyes did. He'll do the arbitration thing each year that he can, and then he'll test the market. It makes it just a teeny bit harder to get attached to a home-grown player.

attgig Dec 31 2008 10:29 AM

="Edgy DC":6u8g9kac] ="soupcan":6u8g9kac]As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game.[/quote:6u8g9kac] I don't believe that for a minute. Prices are driven by demand, not by salary expenses. Don't let the owners convince you otherwise[/quote:6u8g9kac] not only demand, but supply. all these new ballparks have less seats. friggin owners. BUT, I would love to see how ticket prices changed from before Free Agency to the early nineties (when contracts started going into the millions). soupcan Dec 31 2008 10:58 AM ="Edgy DC":2ijnmyx6] ="soupcan":2ijnmyx6]As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game.[/quote:2ijnmyx6] I don't believe that for a minute. Prices are driven by demand, not by salary expenses. Don't let the owners convince you otherwise[/quote:2ijnmyx6] I don't mean to say that salaries are the only thing but they are a significant contributing factor. ="Centerfield":2ijnmyx6]So you're saying you don't hate the playa, you hate the game.[/quote:2ijnmyx6] Word. Edgy DC Dec 31 2008 11:14 AM ="soupcan":osy3ctu2]I don't mean to say that salaries are the only thing but they are a significant contributing factor.[/quote:osy3ctu2] I don't think they mean a thing. All the restraints of a salary cap haven't made basketball and football tickets any more affordable. soupcan Dec 31 2008 11:29 AM ="Edgy DC":r44vyrx7] ="soupcan":r44vyrx7]I don't mean to say that salaries are the only thing but they are a significant contributing factor.[/quote:r44vyrx7] I don't think they mean a thing. All the restraints of a salary cap haven't made basketball and football tickets any more affordable.[/quote:r44vyrx7] It's not like their salary caps have kept those other sports salaries low either though. Frayed Knot Dec 31 2008 12:07 PM Not low, but lower than they'd be under a true open market -- and yet the NFL with its hard cap and often elusive FA system has still managed to be the sport to virtually invent and exploit things like seat licensing and mandatory pre-season buys.

[Centerfield]

="soupcan"] ="Centerfield"] ="soupcan"]As a fan I hate him, but if I were an athlete he'd be my guy. Why do you hate him as a fan? As an owner or GM, he might be the scum of the earth, but do fans really have a rooting interest in negotiations between player and team? I suppose its not him I hate but rather the escalating salaries that continue to move the players and the game farther away from the fan. As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game.

So you're saying you don't hate the playa, you hate the game.

[Benjamin Grimm]

One reason not to like Boras: He represents Mike Pelfrey. If Pelfrey continues to develop into the pitcher we'd like him to be, we have little to no hope that he'll sign a contract like Wright and Reyes did. He'll do the arbitration thing each year that he can, and then he'll test the market. It makes it just a teeny bit harder to get attached to a home-grown player.

[Guest attgig]

="Edgy DC":6u8g9kac] ="soupcan":6u8g9kac]As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game.[/quote:6u8g9kac] I don't believe that for a minute. Prices are driven by demand, not by salary expenses. Don't let the owners convince you otherwise[/quote:6u8g9kac] not only demand, but supply. all these new ballparks have less seats. friggin owners. BUT, I would love to see how ticket prices changed from before Free Agency to the early nineties (when contracts started going into the millions). soupcan Dec 31 2008 10:58 AM ="Edgy DC":2ijnmyx6] ="soupcan":2ijnmyx6]As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game.[/quote:2ijnmyx6] I don't believe that for a minute. Prices are driven by demand, not by salary expenses. Don't let the owners convince you otherwise[/quote:2ijnmyx6] I don't mean to say that salaries are the only thing but they are a significant contributing factor. ="Centerfield":2ijnmyx6]So you're saying you don't hate the playa, you hate the game.[/quote:2ijnmyx6] Word. Edgy DC Dec 31 2008 11:14 AM ="soupcan":osy3ctu2]I don't mean to say that salaries are the only thing but they are a significant contributing factor.[/quote:osy3ctu2] I don't think they mean a thing. All the restraints of a salary cap haven't made basketball and football tickets any more affordable. soupcan Dec 31 2008 11:29 AM ="Edgy DC":r44vyrx7] ="soupcan":r44vyrx7]I don't mean to say that salaries are the only thing but they are a significant contributing factor.[/quote:r44vyrx7] I don't think they mean a thing. All the restraints of a salary cap haven't made basketball and football tickets any more affordable.[/quote:r44vyrx7] It's not like their salary caps have kept those other sports salaries low either though. Frayed Knot Dec 31 2008 12:07 PM Not low, but lower than they'd be under a true open market -- and yet the NFL with its hard cap and often elusive FA system has still managed to be the sport to virtually invent and exploit things like seat licensing and mandatory pre-season buys.