-=> Quoting Ed Grinnell to Scott Zolnoski <=-
 SZ> (well, it could be argued that Monty may not have been as sought-after
 SZ> as other relievers, but that's a whole other topic! :) ).
 EG> There's no doubt in my mind that he would have been involved in a
 EG> bidding war on the open market. 
I agree, but I've run into some who don't think much of Monty.  He's had
a tough year this year, but hopefully this surgery will take care of his
problems.  But even with arm troubles, I believe he's got around 25 saves
for a team that had only won about 65!
 SZ>  However, Cleveland did get more out of Hershiser and Martinez than
 EG> I agree. You alluded earlier to New York and all their free agents but
 EG> if you look at it seriously, you'll see that the guys that they signed
 EG> were, for the most part, unwanted or considered untouchables (Cone is
 EG> an exception). They paid bargain basement prices for some of their
 EG> free agents but have rewarded them later on when they've proven that
 EG> they're worth keeping.
 That may be due to my fondness for several New York players, even before
 they acquird much mainstream status.  I've always thought that O'Neal and
 Bernie Williams could have quality seasons.  I agree that Straw and Gooden
 were signed in part because few other teams were willing to take a chance
 with them, but others on the team are there because of stronger financial
 resources, in my opinion.  Players like Fielder, Tino Martinez, Wetteland,
 Boggs, and Kenny Rogers were pretty much proven when they were signed
 by the Yankees.
 SZ> Well, the Browns drew like 40,000 fans pretty consistently until the
 EG> Your figure would have given the NFL a lot of good reason for them to
 EG> let the team go because they normally average 25,000-30,000 more than
 EG> that.:-)
 I wasn't sure of the figure, so I guessed low.  HOW can a team averaging
 60,000 fans be moved?
 SZ> if teams could only use the income from revenue-sharing for player
 SZ> salaries?
 EG> THAT was the whole concept behind the salary cap that the owners
 EG> wanted to implement. It had a *minimum* as well as a maximum ceiling
 EG> and teams like Montreal would have had to meet minimum levels. The
 EG> rumor is that revenue will eventually go to 100% at the end of the CBA
 EG> and that may cause a lot of grousing among the richer clubs if teams
 EG> like Montreal continue to keep their salary down at the bottom while
 EG> reaping in high profits.
 I've never really seen an arguement against the salary cap.  I think
 that, especially with a minimum, it would introduce more parity into
 the game and increase fan interest in places like Milwaukee.  What I
 can't believe is how competitive the Expos have been, even with their
 low payroll.  Perhaps times are changing in Montreal; they recently
 brought in Mark Leiter to help out the starting staff, something that
 goes against the profit-taking reputation of the front office.
 EG> Dallas wasn't hurt as much by the cap as they were by the penny
 EG> pinching of Jerry Jones. Many of the Cowboys' players were willing to
 EG> sign for fair market value several years back but after Jones screwed
 EG> A cap isn't going to kill a team, only their own stupidity will do
 EG> that. 
 Hey, whatever it takes!  I'm getting sick of the Cowboys, and if it
 takes a meddling owner to break up their dynasty, then so be it!  Gee,
 what OTHER perennial power team has been hurt by a medddling owner?
 Like, say, the Yankees?  :)
... Beat on the brat with a baseball bat! -Ramones  
--- Blue Wave v2.12 [NR]
---------------