matmat wrote:please don't throw at me the small market -- large market arguments, and the revenue sharing ideas, salary caps etc. etc. etc. I understand all that. nonetheless I find it troubling that a lot of owners seem to be interested in extracting every red cent from their franchises and not reinvesting in them. There is a trade-off between viewing a team as a money-making proposition and as valuable entertainment/source of pride for a community. (think Modell and Cleveland). I think (and I very well may be wrong) that a lot of the owners are miserable at running major league clubs... digging up a few oil wells or selling a startup is not the same as setting up media contracts, marketing the team nationwide... if you give show the people living near the stadium that it is "their team" they are more likely to buy caps, jerseys, TICKETS (refreshments) etc. etc.
The problem is you can't talk about one (owners investing in the team) without talking about the other (small market vs big market). Of course the small market fans would love to see the big-time talent resigned or the high-priced free agents join the club, but it simply can not and will not happen. To be truly competitve year in and year out the Royals would need to spend an extra 75-100 million a year. All that money does is buy you an outside chance, it guarentees nothing. Increased mechandise and ticket sales revenue will come no where near recovering that money. I can't, in a sane mind, say David Glass is an ass for not losing 50 million a year on a team that *might* be successful.
Small market teams are basically relegated to emulating the Marlins. Stockpile enough young talent to create a 2-3 year window and take your shot. The Twins, Royals, and Marlins all have the luxury of being in divisions that are somewhat seperated from the big money boys (until Atlanta gets back on track) and will see that window open up more often. Crappy as it is, its the way the game economics are.[/counter rant]
pogotheostrich wrote:The Royals haven't done a great job of getting a return on trading soon to be free agents (Damon and Dye).
Baird is awful at picking free agents but in trades he has a pretty decent track record. Especially considering he is often dealing from a cornered position. Guys like Damon and Dye weren't traded because of a need to upgrade, they were traded because there was no other choice. Neifi Perez for Dye didn't quite work out but it was a good move. The Damon deal got Angel Berroa and a closer they needed at the time (Roberto Hernandez).
My money is still on the Dodgers. Assuming that A) The Dodgers are still in the race after the All-Star Break and B)They are willing to part with Jackson and Looney. Doubtful but perhaps.frog99 wrote:Ealier in the season KC talked to LA Dodgers about Edwin Jackson for Beltran and were turned down.
My second guess is the Cubs for Mark Grudzielanek, Sergio Mitre and Kyle Farnsworth. Reason why? Its the only other plausible trade rumor I have heard.