Is the time near for cherry-picking the Dodgers?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: Is the time near for cherry-picking the Dodgers?

    In Response to Re: Is the time near for cherry-picking the Dodgers?:
    In Response to Re: Is the time near for cherry-picking the Dodgers? : What exactly is your definition of a "successful thread"? One where everyone agrees? One that spews fantasies and illogical posts? I am participating and have brought up valid points that you don't answer. If the red flops went through all those hoops with the agon contract to avoid the luxury tax what makes you think they are going to add to their payroll now? The dodgers will be looking for salary relief, so it's not like they are going to be eating money on players they trade or taking bloated contracts back in return. Secondly, the farm has very few pieces that other teams would find attractive. And if the sawx trade the few valuable farm pieces they have left, where would that leave the farm system?
    Posted by Babe-1
    You have good points about the RS not wanting to move even more prospects after the A-Gon trade moved three of the best prospects.

    But the luxury tax argument assumes the RS managed when the extension was signed because they had to for a lack of resources and that just may not be. It could be but why do rich people and corporations exercise every tax shelter they can? Because they can't afford to pay the tax? No. They do it because they can and why pay tax if you don't have to.

    The prospects are a much more valid argument IMHO as is the fact that there isn't going to be a fire sale with the Dodgers.You have good points about the RS not wanting to move even more prospects after the A-Gon trade moved three of the best prospects.

    But the luxury tax argument assumes the RS managed when the extension was signed because they had to for a lack of resources and that just may not be. It could be but why do rich people and corporations exercise every tax shelter they can? Because they can't afford to pay the tax? No. They do it because they can and why pay tax if you don't have to.

    The prospects are a much more valid argument IMHO as is the fact that there isn't going to be a fire sale with the Dodgers.

    BTW it probably isn't your arguments as much as it is your taunting that makes people ignore you. You occasionally make good points but they are always wrapped in childish things like calling the Red Sox the red flops. So you really should not be surprised if posters think you are a diversion to serious conversation , which I doubt you are. As many times as you have been deleted from this site you must know the score and IMO you come back because you enjoy being annoying and the attention it brings.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Babe-1. Show Babe-1's posts

    Re: Is the time near for cherry-picking the Dodgers?

    In Response to Re: Is the time near for cherry-picking the Dodgers?:
    In Response to Re: Is the time near for cherry-picking the Dodgers? : You have good points about the RS not wanting to move even more prospects after the A-Gon trade moved three of the best prospects. But the luxury tax argument assumes the RS managed when the extension was signed because they had to for a lack of resources and that just may not be. It could be but why do rich people and corporations exercise every tax shelter they can? Because they can't afford to pay the tax? No. They do it because they can and why pay tax if you don't have to. The prospects are a much more valid argument IMHO as is the fact that there isn't going to be a fire sale with the Dodgers.You have good points about the RS not wanting to move even more prospects after the A-Gon trade moved three of the best prospects. But the luxury tax argument assumes the RS managed when the extension was signed because they had to for a lack of resources and that just may not be. It could be but why do rich people and corporations exercise every tax shelter they can? Because they can't afford to pay the tax? No. They do it because they can and why pay tax if you don't have to. The prospects are a much more valid argument IMHO as is the fact that there isn't going to be a fire sale with the Dodgers. BTW it probably isn't your arguments as much as it is your taunting that makes people ignore you. You occasionally make good points but they are always wrapped in childish things like calling the Red Sox the red flops. So you really should not be surprised if posters think you are a diversion to serious conversation , which I doubt you are. As many times as you have been deleted from this site you must know the score and IMO you come back because you enjoy being annoying and the attention it brings.

    Posted by fivekatz

    C'mon now. We all know they delayed the announcement of the signing to avoid paying the tax. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either a homer or naive.

    Taking on more $ now will push them into luxury tax territory which is what they were avoiding in the first place.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Is the time near for cherry-picking the Dodgers?

    fivekatz thanks for the posts - great reading.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Is the time near for cherry-picking the Dodgers?

    It brings up a larger question: How sound are the finances of other owners. Especially if a large portion from the primary owner is lost in a divorce or a bad investment. McCourt's laundry is being aired out in front of the public. I gotta believe other franchises may also be suspect in the same fashion if so exposed.

    As for the OP, it's all a question of if he can meet payroll,
    and if it's been verified that he can, this becomes a non-issue, which then brings into question why it was made into one.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: Is the time near for cherry-picking the Dodgers?

    The reports are that within two weeks without the money from the TV rights extension with FOX, that McCourt will not be able to meet his payroll. At that point McCourt's hand will really be forced and the MLB take over of his business operations will go the next stage.

    I am sure other owners have some issues but McCourt is kind of unique. MLB knew this guy was under capitalized which is why they rejected his RS bid but FOX wanted out of baseball ownership badly and brought a lot of pressure on MLB to approve Frank and lowered the purchase price in exchange for a favorable TV contract through 2014.

    Much of this was coming divorce or not. All the divorce did was disclose Frank's future plans and created bad PR for him here locally. The divorce made a post nuptual agreement between the McCourt's that gave Frank the Dodgers and Jamie the houses they bought in the Southland null and void. It has no impact on the current cash flow crunch only on Frank's attempts to keep the team since he  has to buy Jamie out or co-own it with her.

    MLB certainly won't end up holding the bag in a temporary take over any more than they did when they took over the Rangers until a new owner could be found. But if this goes to bankrupcy MLB may find itself with an owner they don't prefer as the courts will want the highest bidder to resolve debts.

    But as far as the Dodgers having a fire sale I doubt it. They may become sellers at the deadline but it would be guys like Ted Lily rather than the young veterans. 
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share