but what percludes them from striking a deal prior to the hearing? arbitration doesn't lock teams (or players) into anything,and the hearings don't start until february, supposedly after clemens will render a decision. it's conceivable he could have announced his intentions to come back, and then we could have struck a deal and avoided arbitration altogether. that's what makes no sense to me. arbitration simply kept clemens within club control. instead, they've risked losing him outright.
much better... I think I can afford the donation, hope all senior members does so, it'd make a nice gift for clutch.
If you're Roger Clemens, you don't have to agree to anything. Why agree to a $10MM deal if you know you can get $20MM in arbitration? If Clemens doesn't agree to a deal, the Astros are forced into abitration - so they have to plan for a scenario where they are paying $20MM. They certainly could agree to a deal, but the Astros asked Clemens for a number and he wouldn't give it to them. So for all they know, and based on last season, they have no reason to assume they'd get him any cheaper.
What if Clemens demand the hearing? Worst case scenario for Clemens, he makes $20 mil. Best case, he makes $23 mil (These numbers are not real in any shape or form, so if someone have better numbers, please correct me). In either case, he would've priced Drayton out.
Roger gave them no indication that he would strike a deal with them before January or February and there's absolutely no guarantee that he would. Not to mention, do you really think Roger would strike a deal below the minimum of what he made last season for playing a full season? I actually think with Roger, it's a battle of conflicting egos (which no one can deny his ego). I don't think he wants to come back one more time and struggle. He's also not going to take less than what he made last season to pitch a full season. I honestly think that this way, he can test his body out in the World games (or whatever it is they're called) and if it doesn't respond like he wants, he simply won't come back. If it does, he'll comeback after May 1 and then he'll take less than the $18 million. It also forces them to pay what the arbitrator rules.
I know the deal got blocked last July, but he had a deal in place with seattle for randy winn and jamie moyer. Just wanted to point that out.
Have you actually put pencil to paper on your thought that Clemens would bring in more than $22M? I doubt it. The Astros have. It likely isn't even close. The team won the NL. Season ticket sales have been brisk. Butts will be in seats, Clemens or no. There just aren't enough seats for Clemens to sell left to equal anything close to $22M. As to building a ballclub, there is a LOT of time left to make a trade. The problem is that people who are complaining that no trades have been made don't know what proposals the team has received. Maybe they don't make sense. Trade proposals tend to become more reasonable as the offseason wears on. Rather than overreact based on things we don't know, you have to wait and see what happens. As for "pulling a McMullen," do you mean that they are buying the team out of receivership? As somebody who lived through the time the credit unions ran the ballclub, I can tell you that being competitive was a luxury we did not have. This team was in BANKRUPTCY. If we aren't careful, it is possible it could end up in Chapter 11. We are coming off a NL championship, and people are acting like we are Tampa Bay, with no hope of competing. These people have no grasp on the realities of baseball today.
Actually, the front office is acting like we have Tampa Bay's budget, despite the $15mm in annual incremental tv revenue, increasing ticket prices, increased ticket sales, increased merchandise sales, a new stadium and post season income galore. Does not compute. With the team so close to winning a title, instead of upgrading the club to achieve the ultimate goal, we are cutting salary? We are declining arbitration to our best pitcher? Is this our path to a championship? For the second off-season in a row, we have sat around and accomplished nothing. How is this acceptable to you? Where is all that extra income going? Chapter 11? Are you nuts? Get a clue.
Yeah, that's why Dawson is selling his house, right???? You again over here?? Come on dude. Get real.
The off-season isnt over yet but the bottom line is: Our team has regressed. Isn't Tim's job to improve the team? When we see other teams making moves and Tim is just talking and not doing it's upsetting. Also, for all of those people saying they're glad we didnt sign that FA, so and so overpayed big time. That was the story last year, it's not overpaying if everyone's doing it - it's the market.
"What have they done and what are they going to do?" Why are you b****ing and moaning about what they are GOING to do when December isn't even over yet? The season doesn't start until April and you're saying "what are they going to do" as if it's a given that nothing will happen. You're the type of fan that perpetuates the b****ing-about-nothing that pisses everyone off. Since nothing has happened, you think nothing will? That's like saying "I don't wear my seat belt, and I'm still alive. Seat belts are unnecessary."
These Astros threads are even more predictable than the ones in GARM. Purpura is an idiot, no he's not, Drayton doesn't spend any money, There hasn't been any good deals out there, etc. I seriously think the same thing has been said in just about every single thread since the Astros season ended. I'd reccomend keeping all of your opinions in a word doc so you can quickly copy/paste your response each time a new thread is created. I agree that Purpura is on the clock and hasn't done anything, but how about we wait until at least 2006 before we start trying to evaluate the off season?
So last offseason, we did "nothing" to address our needs. You would have preferred we signed Glaus to address that glaring hole, right? Oh wait, that would have put Ensberg platooning, and Glaus essentailly producing the same (or maybe less) with a much higher payroll and another year of waiting for Morgan. I guess you didn't want Glaus. Maybe you wanted an OF filler with some power (see: Finley, Steve...Drew, JD). But wait, that would have possibly put Lane in CF with all that ground to cover and Willy T in the minors and Biggio leading off all year with Everett in the 2 hole maybe. That defense would be spectacular, right? Or if Finley, then his hitting production would make up for it, right? Everything good now? <B>right.. great arguments. Purpura just sucked it up all offseason, and it was pure luck that he went with Ensberg and Willy T and Lane. But if he traded them away and then they succeeded, it would be his "bad GMing" right?</B>
If we had signed Glaus, Ensberg would have ended up at 1st base. Man, that offense would have been nice. Btw, I'll get back to ya'll on the trade ideas.
why, magically after may 1, does he decide to take less? both choices are inherent risks; but i'd rather be "stuck" paying the NL's best pitcher $20M than watching someone else do it. no, i have no evidence to back up the claim, but i find it hard to believe clemens doesn't cover, at the very least, a large chunk of whatever salary he winds up with.
Has Ensberg ever played first regularly? So once Bagwell went down for the season, Ensberg would have magically transformed himself as a capable first baseman "on the fly"? Having to learn a totally different position with different responsibilities would have had no affect on his offense?
