A-rod to play for, and own the cubs?

ny_illmatic · Post #1 » by **ny_illmatic** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 9:55 pm

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3033203

wow..hope this doesn't happen... :-?

Pharmcat · Post #2 » by **Pharmcat** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 10:21 pm

if we lose arod, then id go after bonds

Abraham Lincoln · Post #3 » by **Abraham Lincoln** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 10:32 pm

Uh, Bonds? Are you kidding me?

rappa · Post #4 » by **rappa** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 10:59 pm

abe dont you know kandi man is the reason why other people hate the yankees

VinnyTheMick · Post #5 » by **VinnyTheMick** » Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:54 pm

well, a rod haters will tell you that every team that loses him immediately gets better so if he goes to the cubs then we win the WORLD SERIES!!!!!

:rofl:

Pharmcat · Post #6 » by **Pharmcat** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 12:39 am

Abraham Lincoln wrote:Uh, Bonds? Are you kidding me?

its just a suggestion, who else out there could we get to replaced Arods 50 Hr, 97 gajillion rbi seasons?

Texiera wants more than 140 million when he hits the market.

or are we still waiting for E. Duncan to come of age? :roll:

Lord Commander · Post #7 » by **Lord Commander** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:53 pm

Sucks for you guys.... Even the mighty Yankees can't compete with that.

Slamm Goodbody · Post #8 » by **Slamm Goodbody** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 3:35 pm

The story is pure BS.

This would qualify as tampering if true. Boras can't send out feelers to possible ownership with ideas for a player still under contract to another club. Boras would never jeopardize his client by doing something so unnecessarily and riskily stupid, especially not his agency's crown jewel.

I'm also not sure about the stipulations regarding players and team ownership clauses in their contracts. It's been floated around about Santana and now A-Rod, but generally these are figments of the media - I'm not so sure this is legit. If anyone can confirm whether or not a player holding team ownership stipulations is allowed under MLB/MLBPA rules would be helpful in discounting this nonsense.

Lord Commander · Post #9 » by **Lord Commander** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 4:16 pm

Slamm Goodbody wrote:The story is pure BS.

This would qualify as tampering if true. Boras can't send out feelers to possible ownership with ideas for a player still under contract to another club. Boras would never jeopardize his client by doing something so unnecessarily and riskily stupid, especially not his agency's crown jewel.

I'm also not sure about the stipulations regarding players and team ownership clauses in their contracts. It's been floated around about Santana and now A-Rod, but generally these are figments of the media - I'm not so sure this is legit. If anyone can confirm whether or not a player holding team ownership stipulations is allowed under MLB/MLBPA rules would be helpful in discounting this nonsense.

I think the rules only apply to current owners/management.. In any event, you're right - Boras would be pushing the envelop. But technically, I don't think this would be tampering.

Jitpal · Post #10 » by **Jitpal** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:03 pm

Two things. First of all, they are talking about deferring some of his money and giving him some ownership stake in the club after. Which is fine and dandy except that the Yankees can give him $30 million straight up and if he wants to buy a piece of the Cubs, Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Marlins, Royals, Knicks, Nets, Giants, Jets or whatever he can. Second, in the end it is Arod's decision. If he wants to remain a Yankee, he can negotiate his extension at $32-35 million per year for an additional 4-5 years, stick around and win a few championships because we are not far at all. We have the vets, we have the kids, we have the hitting, we have the defense, we have the starters, and all we need to do is add an arm or two in the pen. Joe Nathan and Fransisco Cordero are free agents. So it is entirely possible. -Jitpal