Monday, May 09, 2005

Couple articles

1) Josh Levin on why Bud Selig is a great baseball commissioner. Typical slate article -- take the accepted wisdom of the day and argue the opposite, just to be contrarian. Still, he is fair, conceding Selig's big gaffes. He makes one good point I'd missed: a few years back Selig took a lot of flack from the media and fans for intervening in the Red Sox sale on behalf of Henry and Werner. Yes, it sound shady, but...well, I'm not complaining. In my opinion, though Levin does gloss over the the fact that all of mlb's recent positions on steroids have been a direct result of pressure from media and Congress; as someone said on ESPN today, he's a "counterpuncher".

2) Peter Gammons in a typical Peter Gammons article about how the media (which somehow he's not part of) and the owners and mlb are all evil and/or stupid and the players are awesome and innocent and are really just the victims in the whole steroid issue. Best quote:
"If they ban greenies," says one superstar player, "there'll be a lot of boring 2-1, 3-2 games from about Memorial Day on through the end of the season."
Boo fucking hoo. The dominant pitching performances (I'm still updating the list, by the way) have made this early part of the season one of the most interesting in a long time. If low scoring games are what'll happen, then by all means, ban greenies. Maybe some of the bandwagon fans will disappear and stop buying all the tickets. One interesting point though: "'
you'll be seeing players all over baseball trying to find doctors who will diagnose them (with having) ADD or narcolepsy. Heck, the players with ADD will have a big advantage because they can get Ritalin to focus.'" Yikes.

3) Not an article, but on Mike and Mike this morning (sorry, I was held captive on a JetBlue flight) Buster Olney mentioned what the Yankees could end up doing, if they want to get rid of him once and for all while getting some money back: sit down with Giambi and Tellem and offer to buy out his contract for "50, 60 cents on the dollar". If they refuse, tell them he will be permanntly benched, never playing another inning of baseball for the remainder of his contract. Damn.


  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  2. The angry commish5/09/2005 8:23 PM

    What is this crap:

    why is he smiling in that picture?

  3. On the topic of Gammons, this article is awesome. Like Gammons, a bunch of people are blaming the "cold weather in the central part of the country and the East" for the reduced number of homers. Okay, Einsteins, how're homers doing out West? If you're going to make assertions, how about backing them up with some numbers?

    Even better is that some people are saying "it's not the reduction in steroids in MLB, it's that Bonds is on the DL". Um...aren't those the same thing?...

  4. As for Giambi, couldn't they do something like put him on the 60-day DL, repeatedly? What're the rules about that?

  5. Yes, they could buy out his contract, but I think that the entire salary ends up going in to one year and the luxury tax would then (unless George decides to take a financial beating) kill the Yankees for that year.

    Also, Giambi might not be allowed (by the ALMIGHT players' union) to let the Yankees buy out his contract. The long-term implications on huge contracts then forced buyouts would be big...No way the union backs up just one guy (a roid user at that) for the sake of everyone else's future (as they will put it)...

    Also, use of full names in the future (blogger names) should not take place...Can we edit those?

  6. I deleted the comment because I agree about whole names.

  7. Sorry about the names. I forgot that this domain is not password protected like out GYS league and that any idiot can come on. Hey remember the first day we had some kid come on as spew how baseball sucked b/c players were from outside the US and the balls and unis were made in China. That was fun. And we had another random visitor the other day.

    Secondly, I had not thought about the PA role in a Giambi buy out. It raises a good point though - they may be able to save face by saying that the value he gains in return is that he can become a free agent. That approach would not be unprecedented - see Sosa, Sammy.

    I looked up the CBA and it is as follows:

    (ii) If a Club terminates a multi-year Uniform Player’s Contract
    while it remains obligated to pay Salary under either this
    Agreement or a Special Covenant to the Contract, Salary shall be
    allocated to that Club for each Contract Year during which its
    obligation continues. Salary shall be attributed to each such Contract
    Year pursuant to this Article XXIII (subject to any offset
    called for by this Agreement or a Special Covenant). This attribution
    shall apply even if the Club pays the Salary in advance.

    So my take on that is that Giambi's salary would continue to count for tax purposes for this year and next (2007 is a tax free year). I could not find any reference to a reductions (i.e., if they pay him 50 cents on the dollar which makes sense, because the union would not want to open that door). And my guess is MLB would say screw you, its $20 million toward the cap. So the "burden" on the Yanks would not be overwhelming (from a tax standpoint).

    Again, sorry about the names.