The Angels Can Afford A-Rod Because You and I Will Pay Him !!!

by Rev Halofan on Oct 30, 2007 11:58 PM PDT in News Comment 73 comments

Here is the math on how the Angels can afford to sign A-Rod: You and I will have to pay for it.

IF MY MATH IS WRONG LET ME KNOW

With the recent announcement of an Angel Stadium ticket concierge service arriving for season seat holders, the writing is on the wall for a big raise in ticket prices. If they sign A-Rod, at least we know who will be getting that money.

Assume that first, season ticket holder discounts go away - all tickets are sold for the same price. Last season my $10 ticket would have had a face value of $15 at the gate. A Diamond Club ticket valued at $110 sold to season seat holders for $93 apiece. So that is all a thing of the past. Face for one is face for all.

Let's assume that there are 20,000 seats in the upper deck and 15,000 seats on the Field Level, 5,000 seats in the club level and 5,000 in the left field and right field pavilion seats.

View Level
View seats ranged from $12-$26. The median price then was $19, but since there were a lot more $12 seats than $26 seats, let's bring it down to averaging $18. 18 x 20K = $360,000. Sell out the View Section at face value and that is how much you make per game off of it.

Field Level
The Field Level ranges from $26 - $60, plus the elite Diamond Club. A majority of the seats are under $40, but a good chunk of them are almost triple that, so let's call the Field level average about $45. 15,000 seats times $45 = $675,000. Sell out the Field Section at face value and that is how much you make per game off of it.

Club Level
The club section houses the luxury boxes and tickets run $34 - $60. Let's call it an even $50 average and the Club level brings in $250,000 when sold out. Sell out the Club Section at face value and that is how much you make per game off of it.

LF/RF Seats
Seats in the outfield range from $9 - $15, but the option is available of buying a $5 children's ticket to some seats in this section. So make it an average here of $11 and this section generates $55,000 during a sellout.

This gives us a grand total of $1.34 million per sellout. Seeing as many games do not sell out, let's average the Angels' gross per game at $1 million per game simply by erasing the season ticketholder's discount. That is $81 million dollars a year in ticket sales.

If the Angels raise their ticket prices 10%, they will make $8.1 million dollars. If they raise them 20%, they will make $16.2 million. A 40% raise in ticket prices would bring in more than enough money to cover A-Rod's contract, assuming it is $30 million a year for 10 years.

At face value, my two season seats in centerfield would currently cost $30 per year. The A-Rod raise would make the pair cost $42. Quite frankly, a pinch. And I am in the cheapie seats. $3,402 a season for the 2007 division champs and A-Rod.

Okay, if you put it that way, I am in. How about you?

0 recs | Comment 73 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Well...

I don't even think they need to up the ticket prices that much. Remember we are losing Colon's $16MM, plus think of the extra revenue coming in because of A-Rod jerseys, shirts, posters, etc. I would love to see A-Rod land with the Halos, but I'd also like to see Arte make an offer and stick with it. I say 8yrs/$184MM is as high as Arte should go.

by Howie the Halo on Oct 31, 2007 1:07 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Si und non

Given the economics of the situation, an increase in ticket prices seems inevitable, and as a fan I'd certainly be willing to accept one to keep the team both profitable and in contention. But a 40% increase would be excessive, and I think unnecessary, even to acquire A-Rod without breaking the bank.

After all, the team does have a good chunk of money coming off the payroll with the conclusion of Colon's and Hillenbrand's contracts, and the acquisition of A-Rod would make the team instantly more profitable in areas other than ticket sales.

I think an increase of 20% would be enough to get the job done. Moreover, I suspect it's the most the team could get away with in the aftermath of the rat fiasco without generating some bad feelings.

Of course, if the team acquired A-Rod and Johan Santana, a 40% increase would be far more palatable and easier to justify.

". . .and the young lions will lock horns!" -- Ron Fairly, from an Angels telecast

by rspencer on Oct 31, 2007 1:12 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree

Most of the true fans will pay the higher costs, if the product on the field justifies the increase (i.e. ARod and Johan Santana). I have no problem paying 40 percent more if those two are in red and white next year.

I hate the Red Sox...

by Crapper John MD on Oct 31, 2007 7:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am so game

We need a third baseman. We need someone to hit home runs. We need someone to protect Vlad and keep him from getting drilled over and over again.

Now, the best power hitting third baseman in the world is a free agent. What excuse does Arte have NOT to sign A-Rod?

by NPCody on Oct 31, 2007 7:21 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I'll pay. I'll pay.

Just bring us A-Rod.

(And I'll die laughing when A-Rod destroys the Yankees in the postseason.)

by 10 27 02 on Oct 31, 2007 7:39 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

According to Baseball Reference:

2007 salaries for players not coming back next year.
Bartolo Colon $16,000,000
S Hillenbrand $ 6,000,000
H Carrasco $ 3,000,000
J Molina $ 1,350,000
TOTAL $26,350,000

Their replacements are making nowhere near that kind of money. And I know some players will be making more this year and I hope some of the young guys will be tied up long term, etc. That still won't come anywhere near $26M.

So I think the real issue is if they don't sign A-Rod. If we don't, we will have a drastically, ~20%, lower payroll next year. Unless someone mediocre gets signed for a god-awful amount.

If tickets go up and payroll goes down that much then we can all call Bull$$$$. I hope that doesn't happen.

by halos27 on Oct 31, 2007 8:08 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

According to this morning's L.A. Times . . .

'The loss of Bartolo Colon -- a free agent whom the Angels will not attempt to re-sign -- Shea Hillenbrand and Hector Carrasco will clear $25 million off the books, but it's not as if the Angels can plug Rodriguez's salary -- he's expected to command $25 million to $30 million a year -- into that slot and call it even.

'Raises to core players such as Guerrero, Gary Matthews Jr., Orlando Cabrera, John Lackey and Garret Anderson, and a significant jump in closer Francisco Rodriguez's salary will add at least $16 million to the 2008 payroll.

'That leaves the Angels at about $100 million. Add Rodriguez, and the payroll jumps to about $130 million, not including the millions it would cost to insure his contract. The Angels, in need of rotation depth, also would have little room to add a quality pitcher.

'Unless the Angels, who could receive stiff competition in their pursuit of Rodriguez from the Dodgers, increase revenue significantly -- they're close to maxed out now -- Moreno could go from netting $5 million to $10 million a year to losing $15 million to $20 million a year . . . .'

http://www.latimes.com/sports/baseball/mlb/angels/la-sp-angels31oct31,1,7645005.story?coll=la-headli nes-sports

by G Abbes on Oct 31, 2007 8:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

UM

The Angels, in need of rotation depth, also would have little room to add a quality pitcher.

Last time I looked we have 6 starting pitchers on the roster. That article seems a little slanted towards the "Angels can't afford A-Rod" opinion. I just don't agree with his "facts".

by anaheimisnotla on Oct 31, 2007 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You forgot the flip side

"On the flip side, any annual losses are mitigated by the fact that the Angels, now worth $431 million according to the latest Forbes figures, have more than doubled in value since Moreno bought the franchise for $184 million in 2003."

The economics of owning a baseball team are a lot more complicated than just taking annual operating losses into account. As long as Arte can manage the cash flow situtation (he is a billionaire), he is building equity in the team. If the Angels win a WS title in the next 2 years, how much is that going to add to the team's worth?

by akathelorax on Oct 31, 2007 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

They are right. It would not be even.

The Halos would be AHEAD!

Think about it. For the same amount of money that the Angels spent on Colon/Hillenbrand/Carrasco/Molina, they could plug one guy into that payroll structure and would get a hell of a lot more production then they got from all those guys combined last year!

That is one hell of a value proposition! 4 guys for $26 mill or one guy for $26 mill? 3 flame-outs and 1 journeyman for $26 mill, or 54 HRs and 156 RBI's and a league MVP out of one guy for that $26 mill?

Loss, Loss, Loss, Win, Win, Loss, Loss, Loss, Loss

by Stirrups on Oct 31, 2007 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd do it

Hell, I've expected the discounts and whatever to dissapate as the sell-outs increase. I'm in MVP upper view and if it gets too pricey I drop from 8 seats to four and some of the family watches on TV. But at least they'll be watching games in October.

GA GA he's the man, if he can't do it, no one can

by Moondoggy on Oct 31, 2007 8:14 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Hey Rev

good break down but as a gentleman with an MBA and who has a lot of experience at determining prices for products (its what I do) They are unlikely to raise prices in one area, because its too obvious. The goal for them is to make it not so noticable. My feeling on this is that everything will go up by %10 tickets, merchandise, food, This should bring in a lot of income, I already have all the shirts and bats ect... that I could need so I don't care about merchandise. The tickets I care about because it is something that we call have to buy, %10 wouldn't be horrid however. The food sucks at the stadium, but don't look for it to improve, The most likely scenario is they will renegotiate their contracts with their food and drinks vendors, if they won't either lower their prices they will threaten to go elsewhere you might see some changes with the food at the stadium but not neccasaraly better food just more 'cost effective food options'. These changes will most likely pay for 85-100% of Arod's would be salary, which might be enough for Arte to say go ahead and make an offer.

by Sinatrasratpack on Oct 31, 2007 8:54 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

They are two years into

a ten year deal with ARAmark for Stadium food - so far they have kept food prices static by drastically lowering portion sizes.

by Rev Halofan on Oct 31, 2007 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Being that I work for Aramark vending...

Our union contract is up, but I can't see them doing much different as far as what we get paid. The cost of the product is set more by the Angels than Aramark. During motor cross and monster trucks the prices all jump higher--and it still sells the same. For example, cotton candy raised up to $4.25 for these other events while it is normally $3.25.

Dang--all we would have to do is raise cotton candy prices and then we could afford A-Rod:

50 cotton candy per rack x $1 increase x 15 vendors x 3 racks x 82 games (don't forget the "Freeway game") = $184,500

Opps, maybe that could pay for Brandon Woods trips back and forth from Salt Lake

Peanuts...Get your Overpriced Peanuts!

by Angel Hawker on Oct 31, 2007 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I forgot to mention

also along with the slight trimming in payroll for the expiring contracts means that Arte doesn't have to come up with 30 extra million over this years payroll, most likely about 10 million in actual dollars when you consider the slight rise in prices in all areas will mean more money.
Remember Owners don't care what the yearly payroll is, it's in a sense pointless, if the money is there they can spend it. 100 mill last year 125 mill this year but 15 mill more in income means that he is only really upping his payroll by 10 mill. not 25-30 as its seems on the surface.
This does seem doable

by Sinatrasratpack on Oct 31, 2007 9:01 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

they already trimmed player payroll

Bye Bye Erstad, Kennedy. So many core Angels are at the league minimum htt they will not be skimping in this area.

by Rev Halofan on Oct 31, 2007 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ugh

God I hate athletes and their ridiculous salaries.

by Higz on Oct 31, 2007 10:16 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Why?

I never understood why people begrudge others for making a lot of money.

by akathelorax on Oct 31, 2007 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Uh

Because it translates to higher prices for those of us who don't make much money.

I'm all for people getting rich, but I'm not allowed to bitch when it costs me more money? Well, soooooorrrrrrryyyyy.

by Higz on Oct 31, 2007 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's the ownership...

Passing the buck to us to keep their ridiculous profits intact. Don't get upset at the players for getting what they deserve.

Like Chris Rock said, "Shaq's not wealthy, Shaq's rich. The old white man that signs Shaq's check is wealthy." - Or something like that.

I believe the paper said yesterday that the Marlins will be getting $30 million in profit sharing this year! That could pay A-Rod next year, but probably won't happen.

by Wytelitning on Oct 31, 2007 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I could be wrong...

but I don't think most sports teams make ridiculous profits - if any profits at all.

Also, nobody who hits a ball with a bat "deserves" to make $30 million a year.

Wealthy, rich... it's the same thing.

Anyway, sure, having A-Rod would be great for this team. But I'm not going to be like everyone else in this thread and be all "Ooo, Angels, I'm all lubed up and waiting for you guys to rape my butt so we can have A-Rod."

by Higz on Oct 31, 2007 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Deserves...

What does deserve have to do with it? Do you "deserve" to have a higher standard of living and make more money than someone in Ethiopia who works just as hard (if not harder)?

by akathelorax on Oct 31, 2007 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, um, that was kind of my point.

Wytelighting was the one who said that ballplayers are earning what they "deserve." He brought the term into the debate - not me.

Do you know any good Ethiopian jokes?

by Higz on Oct 31, 2007 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You don't think they make profit???

What did Steinbrenner buy the Yankees for, and what is it worth now? What did Arte pay and what is it worth now? I don't feel like looking it up, but I believe there's a little profit there.

Each team making $30 million or so just from MLB.com? Is that ridiculous profit from a
website? Maybe its just me.

by Wytelitning on Oct 31, 2007 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Profits

You're using the Yankees and the Angels as proof that MOST (which is what I said) sports teams make profits?? Gimme a break. Those are the EXCEPTIONS to the rule.

If sports franchises are hugely profitable - even marginally profitable - then why is it so hard for teams to finance new stadiums? Why do some owners use sports teams as tax shelters? Why does profit-sharing exist (other than the ostensible purpose of "leveling the playing field")?

by Higz on Oct 31, 2007 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's who we are talking about.

This isn't a thread to discuss how the Royals or the Devil Rays are going to make a play for A-Rod.

by Wytelitning on Oct 31, 2007 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Technically no profit

Very often teams make a minimal or 0 profit.

However there are often family members on the payroll at huge salaries (treated as fixed costs, not profits). Also, many owners own the regional sports network also, which happen to make enormous profits (and charge below market rates for rights fees).

But the #1 way owning a team is worthwhile is the value of the asset appreciates very fast. So you by a team for 200M, break even every year while giving your lazy kids and brothers a job, then sell for 500M after 7 to 10 years and you made out great.

by elricsi on Oct 31, 2007 1:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

wealthy does not equal rich

i can win the lottery and have lots of money for a short time but it would not ensure my wealth.

by SCHalo on Oct 31, 2007 10:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

true

half of yje lottery winners end up in jail.

by blaqhalo on Oct 31, 2007 10:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Go be DRays fan...

not much in the way of player costs to pass on. Do you dislike Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, etc... we live in a market economy and (without getting into a huge debate here) it has resulted in a much higher standard of living where we can afford to spend money on leisure activities like baseball.

by akathelorax on Oct 31, 2007 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh I see...

so I have to either blindly accept price gouging or change my allegiance to another team? Gotcha.

by Higz on Oct 31, 2007 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gouging?

When a gas station in a town under mandatory evacuation because of a fire charges $10 a gallon for gas, that is gouging. When a sports team raises ticket prices, you can decide not to go and watch for next to nothing on cable or free tv... it isn't gouging. You have a choice of not going if the price is too high.

My point was that if you want to watch a team that pays low wages to its players, you have other options.

by akathelorax on Oct 31, 2007 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't let your monocle fall out.

Yes, I can watch on TV for free, however I'd like to go to some of the games and not pay NFL prices for a ticket. I would also like my team to have good players. This is possible to do, you know.

You seem to think that the only way to defray the costs of a huge player contract is through sticking it to the fans.

How about FSN pays some of A-Rod's salary? How about not creating the concierge position and use the saved money toward the salary? Find cheaper advertising outlets. Raise the price of ad space in the stadium. Shit, there's probably a million ways to pay for A-Rod's contract besides raising ticket prices.

But let's not consider any of these options. After all, everyone in Orange County is rich anyway so who cares if the ticket prices go up? Let the poor be Devil Rays fans!

by Higz on Oct 31, 2007 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

This whole thing started with your "Ugh
God I hate athletes and their ridiculous salaries" comment. So don't try to change the subject.

And FYI, the Angels are on the low end of the ticket price scale.

by akathelorax on Oct 31, 2007 8:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Top 5 payroll bottom 15 prices

and you are complaining?

Mike wants some slugging and so do I.

by hauldog on Oct 31, 2007 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's great.

I'm just being wary. I'm surprised that so many people here are so willing to pay through the nose for a baseball game.

by Higz on Oct 31, 2007 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

haha

not me.

by blaqhalo on Oct 31, 2007 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't live in LA any longer

So spend and raise prices away!!! ;-)

by anaheimisnotla on Nov 1, 2007 6:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

go get him, arte

by yeswecan on Oct 31, 2007 10:24 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Sign him

and Bonds too!

Imagine Vlad, Bonds, and A-Rod. Jebus.

War, not pease.

by george bush on Oct 31, 2007 11:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

a rod

sign him up. i am not a season ticket holder. so i is not gettin fuct.

by blaqhalo on Oct 31, 2007 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Los Angeles A-Rods of Anaheim?

C'mon, it's not gonna happen. It'd be disrespectful to Vladimir, and an affront to Higz' 2004 Toyota Camry lease...

The mid-revenue Padres strongly expect the Marlins to shop and trade third baseman Miguel Cabrera within five weeks.

*Disclaimer: Not sure why the insider information on San Diego's part.

Two potential benefits:

No immediate increase in ticket prices.
Immediate increase in Aramark portions.

by Bilko 420 on Oct 31, 2007 3:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

rofl

East coast bias

by Carl Johnson on Oct 31, 2007 6:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

A-Rod

I sure hope Arte doesn't let the Dodgers get A-Rod. He is EXACTLY what the Angels have needed since they let Troy Glaus go. A power hitting infielder. Arte has 1.1 BILLION dollars. The interest alone on that kind of money could more than pay for 2 A-Rods, trust me I calculated it and that's only at 5.25 interest.

by MH25 on Oct 31, 2007 4:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

He is worth more

he did not participate in the current year Forbes list.

Mike wants some slugging and so do I.

by hauldog on Oct 31, 2007 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

One thing about the math.

The Angels are sure to raise ticket prices some percentage no matter what happens with ARod. So any ARod increase would have to come on top of the any impending increase.

So if they are going to raise ticket prices 15% over last year as it is, then (in your example) they would need an ADDITIONAL 40% to cover ARod, equating to a total increase of 55%.

Conversely, with $26 million in payroll coming off the books, the Angels need only raise their payrool $4 million over 2007 to come up with a $30 million offer to ARod. By your example, that would put the "ARod Tax" at only 5%.

So, who would NOT want 54 home runs out of your 3B position in 2008 for only a 5% increase in ticket prices???

Loss, Loss, Loss, Win, Win, Loss, Loss, Loss, Loss

by Stirrups on Oct 31, 2007 4:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

In 1984 I was involved with a group

that contracted to buy the Twins for a valuation of $28mm. They had one of the lowest payrolls in MLB because they were owned by Calvin Griffith and his wife, and they lived off the team's cash flow.

In 1986 the Twins (Thanks to Bert Blyleven and Kirby Puckett) won the Series and their value skyrocketed to $100mm.

We never bought the team. It was sold to Carl Pohlad instead.

Steinbrenner bought the Yanks for $10mm from CBS in 1973. Forbes values them at over $1 billion today. The annual cash flow is irrelevant to Arte if he can win a coupla Series. The annual losses are just paraded around the press to make fans feel sorry for the owners and justify ticket prices.

by SocalAngelFaninOC on Oct 31, 2007 4:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

phunny

ur talkin bout da nu math?

by blaqhalo on Oct 31, 2007 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Mets won it in 1986

The Twins won in 1987. Funny how the franchise was valued at what Johann Santana's next annual paycheck will be...

by Rev Halofan on Oct 31, 2007 5:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Easy

Seeing as i'm five thousand miles away and ticket prices don't impact on me too much, I vote yes!

DFA Mota and Gubicza

by UK Halo on Oct 31, 2007 5:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Sounds good to me!

Ticket prices don't affect me all that much, considering I live in Hawaii and only make it to a couple games a season... But by your calculations Rev, it wouldn't be such a drastic jump in prices.

by HawaiiHaloFan35 on Oct 31, 2007 6:41 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Do it.

Increase in ticket prices: $16

Screwing the Dodgers out of becoming relevant in baseball: $30 million dollars/yr

Kicking the Red Sox out of the playoffs with an Ex-Yankee who spoiled their game 4 sweep in the Fall Classic: Priceless

by atung on Oct 31, 2007 9:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

How feasible

would it be to add more seats? Get rid of the rock-pile and maybe add another level of bleacher seats and more premium field seats.

by thehasegawaexpress on Nov 1, 2007 2:11 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

What about the Monster Trucks?

by 44FAN on Nov 1, 2007 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

crusade

what bout da greg laurie harvest crusade?

by blaqhalo on Nov 1, 2007 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ummmm

Is poison gas too harsh?

How about neutering?

by anaheimisnotla on Nov 1, 2007 6:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

neutering

i got 3 balls. its hard 2 neuter me.

by blaqhalo on Nov 1, 2007 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

sadly, it's also going to be hard for you to have

children.

"it's mind-bottling."

by retrohalo on Nov 1, 2007 7:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

please

with 3 balls i have a gift from god.

by blaqhalo on Nov 1, 2007 7:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

you do realize that that's a genetic disorder?

and that having three balls is the equivalent of having one ball in that they're all useless?

"it's mind-bottling."

by retrohalo on Nov 1, 2007 7:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

check

i am gonna check my sperm under a microscope. but i was a bad swimmer so maybe my sperm can't swim either. can i send u my sperm so u can check it out for me dr?

by blaqhalo on Nov 1, 2007 7:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

it's common sense, dude.

common sense. three balls = not good.

"it's mind-bottling."

by retrohalo on Nov 1, 2007 7:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

3 balls

i am just god's way of testing new products. like when god gave us thumbs. their were skepitcle humans back then cuz they had no thumbs.

by blaqhalo on Nov 1, 2007 8:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

El Gordo

I'd rather trade for MCab than get ARod. Anybody interested in Schilling for one year? Crafty vet who can win in the postseason AND at Fenway? I'll take him over Saunders. Who's with me?

by The Spirit of Erstad on Nov 1, 2007 5:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

schilling

i still got sum flake blood from halloween 4 him.

by blaqhalo on Nov 1, 2007 6:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No thx

I'd rather trade for MCab than get ARod. No

Anybody interested in Schilling for one year? No

Crafty vet who can win in the postseason AND at Fenway? He's Done.

I'll take him over Saunders. No

Who's with me? Not me...

by anaheimisnotla on Nov 1, 2007 6:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

i'm against everything you wrote.

just saying.

"it's mind-bottling."

by retrohalo on Nov 1, 2007 7:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Haha, yeah

I second that. Completely against everything right there.

by matt92130 on Nov 4, 2007 10:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

MCab

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3089536&name=gammons_peter&CMP=ILC

by The Spirit of Erstad on Nov 2, 2007 9:18 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

"Battling Boras"

From Hardballtimes.com . . .

"How does a team wanting to acquire Alex Rodriguez avoid giving a contract guaranteed to generate a severe case of buyer's remorse? The first thing to understand is that Boras' pie-in-the-sky projections are just that. In 2000, as we've discussed before, it was not the worst thing to overpay for what A-Rod might bring. In 2000..."

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/battling-boras/

by G Abbes on Nov 2, 2007 10:23 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Evil Empire West?

Whining about payroll and the Red Sox and now some of the same people want to sign AROD. At least the Red Sox owners spread their wealth instead of just keeping it in their own pockets.

by jimbo1 on Nov 2, 2007 10:39 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Spread their wealth?

Do tell.

or are you referencing Neckcar?

Mike wants some slugging and so do I.

by hauldog on Nov 2, 2007 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I can understand why some of you

don't want A-Rod...based off of principle. But surely you jest if you are saying that A-Rod wont make you a better team. When Vlad signed with the Angels, my first thought as a Mariner's fan was "we're #!#$%ed." Well, take that thought and triple it. A-Rod is without a doubt one of the best players in the game and you would be a fool not to welcome him with open arms. I envision Red Sox/Angels/Indians ALCS's for the next 5-6 years.

Visiting Mariners fan.

by Omerta on Nov 2, 2007 11:14 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs