-=> Quoting Ed Grinnell to Scott Zolnoski <=-
 SZ> aging slugger?  I would've thought that Detroit would go after some
 SZ> pitching!), but the Yankees have far more financial resources than
 SZ> most teams.
 EG> You have to look at the market at what they could get. They would have
 EG> liked to have gotten some prospects but no team was willing to give
 EG> them value in that area for Fielder so they had to take the Yankees
 EG> offer. In lieu of pitching, Detroit chose to take financial relief
 EG> from the Yankees. 
Kinda like the Vaugn trade to San Diego.  Newfield may be a good player
someday, but the main benefit to Milwaukee was relief from Vaughn's
contract, as well as getting something in return for a player who
was almost certain to sign as a free agent elsewhere.
 SZ>  it's a tricky thing to time right.  If a team doesn't produce wins
 SZ>  or increased revenue quickly enough, those young players are going to
 SZ>  sign with another team for a lot more money after three years.
 EG> Malarky. The team has to make a COMMITMENT and if that means a couple
 EG> of years of paper losses then so be it. 
 SZ> See, this is pretty much the point I've been making!  If Pittsburgh
 SZ> had a comparable source of revenue, they'd still have a chance to be
 A couple of years of "paper" losses?  I don't know about you, but *I*
 sure wouldn't like to lose millions of dollars a year, hoping that
 the team will get better sometime in the future!
 It still seems to me that you champion deficit spending as the only
 way to field a competitive team.  
 EG> was "Adios, Pittsburgh." Had they given both players fair market
 EG> value, both players would have signed longer contracts. Pittsburgh
 EG> didn't lose them to them to the free agent market, they lost them
 EG> because they would rather save $2-3 mil a year. Cleveland learned from
 EG> that and they made a pre-emptive strike that got them to the World
 EG> Series last year. 
 Well, I'm no Pittsburgh expert, but there must be a reason they took
 the arbitration route.  Perhaps they didn't HAVE the money to spend?
 EG> fans. Meanwhile, Montreal disappoints their fans, loses more to apathy
 EG> and loses players to free agency because they won't deal in the real
 EG> world. I have no sympathy for the Montreals of the world that would
 EG> rather clear a profit at a low price than clearing one at a higher
 EG> price.  
 I'm getting the feeling that this arguement is going nowhere.   You
 don't seem to be responding to my point, which is that small-market
 teams must spend more than they take in if they wish to compete with
 larger revenue teams.  Obviously the owners think this is the case,
 else why would they be asking for revenue sharing in the basic
 agreement?  (assuming there ever IS a basic agreement...)
... More than anything I want to work it out -Sugar  
--- Blue Wave v2.12 [NR]
---------------