RealGM

http://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/2012/0 ... e_fielder/

Grange puts some balanced perspective into the free agent discussion.

Swinging for the financial fences is the American League way.

Like it or not, that's who the Blue Jays are a fighting with. Perhaps they should arm themselves accordingly.

Most of those teams gave out bad deals that they re going to regret. I would still rather trade prospects for an established bat or two. I mean we almost traded for Uggla last year but it didnt work out. We have the best farm team in the league as per Sickels so might as well use it. The only reason I havent freaked like most people here is because I ve believed in what AA has been doing.

The semi-panacing from this offseason is pretty funny. While I absolutely 100% agree that perennial contention will require significantly higher payrolls and the Jays chances of making it have been diminished by the offseason, the situation is hardly as dire as many want to make it out to be.

Consider there are 2 spots the Jays can't take part in and the two teams who owned those spots got better and spent big money (DET and TEX). If that does anything to TOR's chances it actually helps them as their competitors for the WC play more games against better teams in those divisions.

So two down, and in the past there were only 2 more and soon there will be 3 more. NYY got better, although when you look at the numbers the end of their rotation put up last year, they now have a chance to continue it, but I don't see them statistically improving all that much and there goes a spot (BTW, I'd argue close to the same thing about TEX). So 2 spots left instead of 1 now for Bos, TB, LAA, the Jays, and whoever else might surprise, but from last year that's who we're chasing. Only 1 of those teams got significantly better, give them the extra spot if you want to (which also helps 'cause it keeps TEX out of the potential WC conversation since two spots go out West) and the Jays are still, just like last year, chasing Bos and TB for the last WC spot.

For all the woe is me that seems to be spreading, we're the same or better team chasing the same teams as last year for the same spot and like the Jays they didn't spend gobs of money on premium upgrades. Was it a better bet when the Jays only had to catch one of them instead of both and LAA looked like a comparable instead of out front? Absolutely 100% no question it was. Does that mean we should all wring our hands and do nothing but bemoan the fate that left us fans of a team owned and operated by a bunch of corporate suckhole misers? Feel free if you so choose, but that doesn't sound like a lot of fun to me.

Maybe this wasn't the right place for this little rant, but so much of what happened with big names did not change the landscape for the Jays appreciably and this last one if you're spinning it, spins far easier as a pre-emptive CLE/KC knockout than it does as a boy now the Jays are really screwed story.

Kudos to Grange for being the only Rogers employee willing to directly call out his bosses.

Wasn't Grange telling us last week how signing Fielder wasn't the way to go?

Btw, anyone hear AA on McCown's show last night? Bob asks him why the payroll is only ~$81M when AA told Bob he expected payroll to be ~$89M. AA goes on to explain how there are other considerations to payroll like the costs of sending players up and down from the minors.

We are so far off contending.

J-Roc wrote:
Btw, anyone hear AA on McCown's show last night? Bob asks him why the payroll is only ~$81M when AA told Bob he expected payroll to be ~$89M. AA goes on to explain how there are other considerations to payroll like the costs of sending players up and down from the minors.

WTF? I'm calling Rogers and telling them to immediately raise all my bills. If we live in a world where a nice little company like them, risks minimizing their hard earned negligible profits from calling up/sending players down to the minors... I don't even want to think about it.

I will be asking for a 20% monthly raise and donating some up front. Please, I urge you to join the cause boys.

J-Roc wrote:Wasn't Grange telling us last week how signing Fielder wasn't the way to go?

I think you have him confused, unless he completely contradicted this column that he wrote in December:

http://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/2011/1 ... e_fielder/

Rhettmatic wrote:Kudos to Grange for being the only Rogers employee willing to directly call out his bosses.

I hope the next story he does is about how much Rogers actually pockets from TV revenue and sponsors. That would surely get the ball rolling, but no one from SN would have the guts to write about it.

darth_federer wrote:Most of those teams gave out bad deals that they re going to regret. I would still rather trade prospects for an established bat or two. I mean we almost traded for Uggla last year but it didnt work out. We have the best farm team in the league as per Sickels so might as well use it. The only reason I havent freaked like most people here is because I ve believed in what AA has been doing.

Trading prospects for established players is a great way to put the finishing touches on a team - but it's a short term fix, at best.

Remember, if you want to KEEP those established players when their contract runs out, you're going to have to pay market rates (and that's assuming that they're currently on an undervalued contract).

For long-term success, the money is going to have to be spent, one way or another - regardless of if you're re-signing players that you gave away prospects for, or signing players who are FAs.

Rhettmatic wrote:

J-Roc wrote:Wasn't Grange telling us last week how signing Fielder wasn't the way to go?

I think you have him confused, unless he completely contradicted this column that he wrote in December:

http://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/2011/1 ... e_fielder/

Maybe I just read too much into this tweet, but at the time it seemed to me he was setting us up, as a Rogers employee, to become more understandable to how the Jays were operating.

Michael Grange @michaelgrange

Not to ruin your Saturday, Jays fans, but just try to understand how Jays don't go all in on Fielder: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/swing-an ... 35213.html #Jays

To me it's simple. Either we can afford to play the game of baseball or we can't. If we can't then I want my ownership leading the charge for change. Wildcards, new divisions, salary caps.... Instead, how long is this current CBA?

J-Roc wrote:To me it's simple. Either we can afford to play the game of baseball or we can't. If we can't then I want my ownership leading the charge for change. Wildcards, new divisions, salary caps.... Instead, how long is this current CBA?

A new one was just signed and probably penalized Toronto more than helped.

Parataxis wrote:Trading prospects for established players is a great way to put the finishing touches on a team - but it's a short term fix, at best.

Remember, if you want to KEEP those established players when their contract runs out, you're going to have to pay market rates (and that's assuming that they're currently on an undervalued contract).

For long-term success, the money is going to have to be spent, one way or another - regardless of if you're re-signing players that you gave away prospects for, or signing players who are FAs.

This was 100% true in the days when the Expos and even A's just kept recycling talent over and over and over again and eventually ran dray, but I actually think you can build a more than sustainable model avoiding exactly what you describe.

If you get 6 years out of the majority of your successful picks at below market rates (and pre-FA they almost have to be), then that's pretty fantastic ROI. Figuring out how to flip them at the very end is valuable, but I'm fine letting lots of them walk at that point. The genuinely valuable guys, the ones you want to keep as long as possible, require early investment or Morrow type contracts later, that buy out just a year or two of FA. For instance, if I go 2 years with Lawrie and then lock up a 5+2 deal buying giving him money a year before arb and buying out potentially 2-3 years of FA, I'm, theoretically, getting everything good out of that player and am perfectly content to let someone else pay him his gigantor salaries for ages 29-35 while I had him for cheap from 22-29.

IMO, using the 6 year system, to pay slightly more than you have to, to save just a bit and gain early control over the extra year or two of FA is perfect. It's impossible to point to specifics and I just used Lawrie as a generic example of a guy we'd probably like to keep as long as possible, but to me using your leverage as a GM to pay a bit for 7-8 years of control makes it so much easier to avoid the gigantic mistake contracts paid out for fan favourite, must keepers 'cause they're only 26-27.

I'm not saying it doesn't require lots of money to sustain. Getting enough young and talented players worth keeping extra and then paying more than arby rates for them easily gets you into 9 figure salary territory, especially as you'll need to supplement with some FA, but if you're a long-lasting GM with some credibility and faith, you can, for example, develop Jennings for Crawford and be far better off than if you tried to shoehorn him into your budget, even if he'd been the same Crawford last year as he'd been the year before. I'm sure there are plenty of counter-arguments/examples, I'm certainly not proving anything here, but I don't think long-term retention is all it's cracked up to be. If you can just extend a bit, you're getting all the good stuff you want and letting them get paid for it somewhere else.

CBC gives us the counter argument to Grange: http://www.cbc.ca/sports/baseball/opini ... nting.html

Wo1verine wrote:

Rhettmatic wrote:Kudos to Grange for being the only Rogers employee willing to directly call out his bosses.

I hope the next story he does is about how much Rogers actually pockets from TV revenue and sponsors. That would surely get the ball rolling, but no one from SN would have the guts to write about it.

You actually have this information? Awesome. Feel like sharing it?

Strav wrote:CBC gives us the counter argument to Grange: http://www.cbc.ca/sports/baseball/opini ... nting.html

I don't think it's a counter-argument. The author is talking about the upcoming season now that the biggest FA names are off the table. He isn't saying AA was right to pass on the big names, or that that should be his strategy for the trade deadline or winter of 2012-13.

its been like this for past decade and isn't slowing down ace or big bat will cost 20-25m over 8-10 years, a good pitcher/bat 15-20 over 4-6...hope we're ready to spend soon

I don't know about you guys, but I've been completely turned off from the Blue Jays this offseason because of Rogers. Are we rebuilding or trying to contend? Why are they wasting Bautista prime years by not spending money on some more help? Wouldn't they be better of trading him for a prime return? I'm just glad I'm not a hardcore Jays fan, it makes cutting ties with the Jays much easier.

lol @ Rogers, Spending = more profit too in ticket sales and tv viewership,

If it wasn't then why not just let anyone come to Rogers Center and watch for free seeing as how they don't want to make profit off ticket sales and national tv sponsors.

Here's an article about the money flowing into teams from selling rights to TV nets. Major league baseball puts a value on the Blue Jays rights, but those numbers aren't disclosed to the public. The trend is clear and it would be nice if our media would try to get at least a ballpark indication of what those rights are worth. The Jays' TV audiences are known to be larger than a lot of US teams draw, just as the Raptors actually do a lot better in TV ratings than smaller US markets despite the lack of success on the court. Rogers owns the team, the stadium (which it got for $20 million, a pittance), the rights, the TV channels and a significant proportion of the country's cable and internet pipelines. How they value baseball and what they do with the TV profits - how much of it makes it to the Jays' budget and how much is used to subsidize other Rogers activities - is one of the great mysteries of sports business in this country. For Jays fans, it has considerable relevance.

http://www.cleveland.com/tribe/index.ss ... hts_m.html

Tribe games are broadcast by SportsTime Ohio, which the Dolan family created in late 2005 rather than extend a contract with what is now Fox Sports Ohio. STO was launched with an eye toward boosting team finances.
''We think this is the way to generate more revenue, and we will put it back in the payroll in order to support the team," Indians Chairman and Chief Executive Paul Dolan said at the time.
Besides Indians games, STO programming includes coverage of the Browns, Ohio State, high school sports, the Mid-American Conference, golf and the outdoors.
In a recent interview, Dolan said the network has allowed the Indians to double their broadcasting rights fees since his family bought the club in 2000.
"It's provided a buffer for the team," he said.