Post#13 » by dagger » Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:17 pm
I wish I could have been proven wrong, that someone would rub a big signing in my face and say, see, You're full of it. Seriously. I'd love nothing more than to see a bit of additional spending, even if it just showed the way towards a $100 million payroll over two or three seasons.
But I know better and I know BS when I see it, and Beeston's "we will spend it when the fans come" is about the stupidest rationale for not spending I have ever heard. I mean, what business takes that philosophy? You'd flunk Business 101. And we're supposed to swallow that horse manure?
I knew we were in trouble when no one from the Jays complained about the new CBA which throttles draft and Latin signings which AA has used greatly to advantage. No one talked about reallocating some of the funds spent on signings. Then came the Santos deal, which has good merit on baseball terms, but AA went on and on about the financial side.
Then with the Darvish flop, the refusal to make reasonably competitive offers for top free agents, and so on, it should be clear that Rogers has ordered AA to keep the major league payroll at or below current levels. I even wonder if Kelly Johnson's decision to accept arbitration was unexpected - that the plan was to find a cheaper option for 2B.
And then there was that nasty tidbit about the new CBA costing Rogers its revenue sharing payments in 2014.
The option of being Tampa Bay North is loaded with risks.
1) Does the new CBA with its caps on signing bonuses make the option harder to sustain?
2) Does Miami's big pitch to the Latin market make it harder to sign young Latins, because Tampa Bay didn't play that card aggressively.
3) Does Toronto have the development system to take good picks and turn them into good major leaguers. Tampa has done exceptionally well here, not only turning good young arms and bats into major leaguers but giving the pitchers in particular an identity - a Tampa Bay way of pitching - as they are brought along.
4) Once we have a team full of our current high-end prospects, will Rogers spend money to keep them, or will we be letting the future equivalents of Carl Crawford go as soon as they get closer to their higher yielding arb years and free agency? I think Lawrie is safe because he's really the first and won't hit really big money until after Bautista's deal is over, and of course he's Canadian which is a plus for ratings, but what about an Alvarez if we have minor league pitching depth? And what about Santos when those more expensive options kick in and there is a closer on the market for half the price (and for a reason)?
5) Joey Votto. A lot of posters have been saying this winter, let's save our FA money for two years when Votto hits the market, but what assurance is there that he will leave Cincy, what assurance is there that he will give the cheap bastards at Rogers a discount, and if he wants market rates for his talent, what assurance is there Rogers will even spend on him? I think Votto is a pipedream for fans of cheapo outfit, something like anaesthesia to make you forget the pain while the dentist drills down into a molar.
I don't think Rogers is going to spend until the fans and media turn up the heat on these bastards. But I will make one prediction - there is no downside risk on lighting a roaring fire under the collective arse of Rogers management. They are making money on this team. They aren't going to move the team because they won't want to lose 162 days and nights of content they control for a pittance intend to peddle across every kind of platform imaginable.
Fans have to understand this - they do have leverage here, but they have to swear off the Beeston Kool-Aid and demand more. A lot more. Rogers does have an image to think about and while they may turn a deaf ear to most consumer complaints, I don't think they want a constant media pounding for being a bad stewart of a community asset from which they are sucking a great deal of (cleverly concealed) profit.
2019 will never be forgotten because FLAGS FLY FOREVER
