Brandon fucks up again!  Tonight was awfully satisfying.

JV wrote:

And how fitting that on the night I become Bigbie that Little B soils himself again.

I didn't get to watch the game, but I have a feeling I would have enjoyed it.

Max wrote:

to be fair, he has only screwed up . . . he has't yet whined about it.  but just for fun, let's take another look:

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=12782449

Funny... I didn't even know about that.  I was referring to the relay throw he dropped in the seventh, after Bruce lost that liner in the lights.  But I must admit he was very much whine-free when interviewed afterward, although I'll choose to take his claim to have been screened on the error that cost the Reds home field as "whining" - just a little.

If the Reds dont win the next game the NL central wont have won a playoff game in 4 years win the Cardinals won the WS.

JV wrote:

APRTW wrote:

If the Reds dont win the next game the NL central wont have won a playoff game in 4 years win the Cardinals won the WS.

I'll sacrifice NLC pride to see Cueto tagged with about five runs in the first inning tomorrow.  Or spiked in the head.

My NLC pride is limited to teams in the city of St. Louis, Missouri. Death to the Reds.

APRTW wrote:

I wasnt saying I wanted the Reds to win.  It is pretty bad for a division to get the broom 4 years in a row though.  I think I could root for the Cubs before I could root for the Reds.

No kidding.  And dare I pile on, but THIS is the division that DeWitt thinks is the ultimate goal: win this and you have a chance at a championship, and thus you have succeeded for the year.

Not good enough, chairman, at least not when there seem to be additional financial resources that could be committed.

tkihshbt wrote:

Nobody has ever said it's the ultimate goal. And not winning a World Series does not mean you have failed for the year, either.

Nor did I use quotation marks around the phrase 'ultimate goal'.  You are a fine one to get picky about hyperbole. 

Last offseason I recall you argued endlessly with my assertion that payroll should have been back up around $100-103 million, with the plan that it continue bumping north toward the $110-120 million range over the next 5 years or so.  My point was not that our chances of winning the NLC were low; it was that, as of last November, the Phillies were already the team to beat and they showed no signs of complacency, no signs of slowing down, they kept trying to improve in terms of player acquisition, and so should have we.  The Cardinals ownership group, on the other hand, has seemed complacent--get to the playoffs and then anyone can win (that, by the way, is closer to DeWitt's actual words).  No need to increase payroll for the past 3-4 years.  That would all be fine if the people making the decisions were committed to winning for winning's sake; but that does not seem to be the case.  They are businessmen, pure and simple, making money . . . off of us.

APRTW wrote:

Max everyone agrees that payroll needs to increase to 120 and that ownership should have the money to do it.  However it seems like you think payroll increases your chances of winning and it doesnt.  Spending money smartly does.  Braves starting payroll was 83 million.  Gaints 96 million.  The Padres almost made it with a 37 million payroll.  Rangers 64 million.  Reds 76 million.  Twins 97 million.  Of the 8 teams that spent over 100 million this year only 2 made the payoffs.  The phillies and yankees.  I think you should put more stress on ownership making good personal moves.

Does anyone here think it would be possible that the team and Pujols would consider an ownership stake in lieu of part of his salary?  The guys who know the actual numbers could structure something that starts with a salary around, say, $25MM and gives him a small percentage of the team that increases each year or two over the life of the contract?  Say for example that the franchise is currently worth $500MM.  In Year 1, Albert gets .1%, worth $500k, and this percentage increases by 50%/year during the contract period.  At five years, he's still earning $25MM in salary but owns .5% of the franchise, in perpetuity, that assuming a constant value of $500MM is worth around $2.5MM to Pujols, or around $3/4 million for each of the five contract years, but is permanent and will grow with the franchise forever.  if the term is seven years, at the end he'd own 1.1%, worth about $5.7MM.  If DeWitt would be willing to give up a (perhaps smaller than my example) piece of the team to keep Pujols a Cardinal for life and maintain some payroll flexibility, wouldn't Albert also see this as a nice deal?

The numbers above are compounded; in other words, the deal adds 50% to Albert's stake as of each previous year, like compounded interest.  If instead it's just a straight adder of .05% per year, then he would own less of the team.

[img]"Franchise
Value"    500000000    Year1    Year2    Year3    Year4    Year5    Year6    Year7    Year8
Percentage-Compounded        0.001    0.0015    0.00225    0.003375    0.0050625    0.00759375    0.011390625    0.017085938
Pujols Stake        $500,000    $750,000    $1,125,000    $1,687,500    $2,531,250    $3,796,875    $5,695,313    $8,542,969
Percentage-Straight        0.001    0.0015    0.002    0.0025    0.003    0.0035    0.004    0.0045
Pujols Stake        $500,000    $750,000    $1,000,000    $1,250,000    $1,500,000    $1,750,000    $2,000,000    $2,250,000[/img]

Last edited by JV (10/10/2010 11:42 am)

The argueing was about how to spend money and that raising the payroll isnt going to help the team if it was spent on some of the guys who were on the market at the time.  Bad contracts cripple every team but the Yankees.

JV wrote:

Does anyone here think it would be possible that the team and Pujols would consider an ownership stake in lieu of part of his salary?

I was thinking a while back, more generally, what professional sports might be like if the players were owners of a co-op.  What would they pay themselves, what would they charge for tickets, etc.?  They would need to hire a team of professionals to administer the team, of course, but even those decisions would be interesting.  At first, I think they'd be like kids in candy stores, but after a while I would hope that professionalism and dedication would take over.

Max wrote:

APRTW wrote:

The argueing was about how to spend money and that raising the payroll isnt going to help the team if it was spent on some of the guys who were on the market at the time.  Bad contracts cripple every team but the Yankees.

Then there must be a misunderstanding, because my recollection is that the initial claim was that by signing Holliday, DeWitt had demonstrated that he was "all in" for success in 2010, to which I responded that by shifting payroll from one set of assets to another he had done nothing more than rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, and that while the rearrangement might be pleasing to all of us, that demonstrating new commitment to success would require raising payroll . . . which precipitated 6 months of debate as to whether DeWitt was all in, or not.

That's the debate I remember.

And the reply to that was that most of us thought ownership did a pretty good job of filling needs.  I am speaking for other but I think the general feeling was that we were happy with having Penny in the rotation and an a middle infield of Skip and Ryan should be solid enough.  Third base was the real fear and when they got Lopez most thought that was good enough.  Cowboy wanted them to waste money on bullpen pitchers but he was the only one.  Simply raising the payroll doesnt help.  I think it would make a better debate if you could show what contract the Cardinals should have got in on to fix our needs and how a 120 payroll would have helped.  It should be pretty easy to do right now that we know the weaknesses of the 2010 Cardinals and what free agents were able to put up solid numbers.  For a real debate jump into 2011 payroll and what free agent contracts they should dive into.  Then take into account that they need to resign Pujols for 30 million a year.  If you did all that I think you would find that raising the payroll is only a fraction of the solution.  I also think you would be less likely to believe the Phillies, Yankees, Tigers, Red Sox and other high payroll teams are being smart by having so many players locked up to long term contracts.

So basicly you are going to blame lack of spending as a reason for missing the playoffs and if they do spend more you will blame their judgement?  I guess that way you will always be right.  If you are unwilling voice your opinion on player moves then why voice it on payroll?  You say you are not a GM and will leave the player moves up to him but you are not an owner either so why tell DeWitt what to spend.  I am sure I am coming acrossed kind of harsh but I get sick of everyone sitting around talking about what went wrong in life but nobody wants to talk about what needs done in the future.

Last edited by APRTW (10/10/2010 7:31 pm)