Charlie Finley?
Although Marge Schott (Reds) would certainly have stooped to that level as well.
MLB World Series 2018: Eh. Dodgers/Boston. Eh.
- Thread starter Timby
- Start date
- Status
Charlie Finley?
Although Marge Schott (Reds) would certainly have stooped to that level as well.
Let's hope he can do that against the YankeesI’m looking forward to seeing what Ohtani can do against someone other than the A’s.
Damn....
Nah, Steve Schott, who bought the A's, with a partner, from the Haas estate. Schott was the guy illustrated in Moneyball, wherein David Justice was infuriated by having to pay for anything beyond bottled water.
Watching the Yankees/Orioles game now. Announcer said that Manny Machado (who wears #13 to honor his idol, Alex Rodriguez) wanted to change to number 3, which is what A-Rod wore in Seattle, but decided against it because Manny would have had to personally buy up all the unsold O’s gear with his name and #13 on it.
Is this true? Players changing numbers is not unusual by any means, but I’ve never heard of a rule like that...
That can be. It has nothing to do with ownership being skinflints and everything to do with licensing and significant revenue that may be lost in a number change. Way back. when Adrian Peterson wanted to change jersey numbers from 28 to 23 with the Vikings, he was informed he could, but he would have to by back all the unsold number 28 jerseys at a cost of $1 million. (He didn't do it.) Besides the manufacturers, teams make money off of jersey sales, and if a popular player could change his number on a whim, a manufacturer may be stuck with thousands of jerseys that are now obsolete and the team won't get its cut of jersey sales, either. Of course, this will depend on how popular the jersey is, too. If you're some rum-dumb whose mom is the only other person to own your jersey, and even your first cousin isn't buying one, it matters less because there may be only ten or so in existence to sell.
David Justice said that was Hollywood license in "Moneyball". So have others. The A's players never had to pay for soda in the clubhouse. "Moneyball" was an OK piece of fiction. It was too filled with inaccuracies to be called anything else. Art Howe was portrayed so horribly that players came out and defended him after the movie was releaseed. Paul Podesta was so upset about how he was written that he refused to allow them to use his name, so they created a fictional player (Peter Brand) to replace him in the movie. The movie leads you to believe Jeremy Giambi was acquired in 2002 to replace his brother. He had been on the team since 2000. They didn't visit Hatteberg's home or visit any other player's to sign them. It was all done over the phone. Beane didn't meet with the Red Sox owner John Henry in Fenway park to discuss the Red Sox GM job. They met in Florida.
Last edited:
What if a player is forced to change his number?
It could happen. Using Machado as an example...let's say that another player who wears #13 is traded to the O's and will not give up the number, thus forcing Manny to do it. Does he still have to buy back all the gear, even if it wasn't his fault?
I was referring to the book. I can't dig it up right now as I'm at work, but Schott being a cheapass tightwad with players is a running theme throughout the tome, which is rather exhaustively well-researched.
The new player coming in has no claim to the number, of course. The only way he could get it if he wanted it bad enough would be to offer to "buy" it from Machado. This happens. The price could be anything from a Rolex to a case of beer. In most cases, the new player is the better player, maybe even a star who is far better than the player whose number he wants. And of course, the team may say no to it all if the player who would give up his number sells a lot of jerseys that would be worthless if the player's number changed.
Even if he has seniority? (In the game as a whole, of course, not on that specific team)
Also, players like Manny are popular enough that I'd think fans would buy their gear regardless of the number on it. In fact the old ones might even be worth MORE, as collector's items.
Fair enough. It's been quite a while since I read the book. The movie is fresher in my mind. But the soda story is still not true. And to be fair, the A's were (are still) a financially strapped team that really couldn't (can't) bleed money to win.
I just didn't buy into the entire moneyball myth, I guess. So that's my point of view, here. I do remember having big problems with what Lewis stressed and didn't stress in the book. I'm among the critics that have said he tended to cherry-pick things to fit his narrative, and glossed over some pretty significant stuff doing it. For example, there are just a few mentions of the big three pitchers Hudson, Mulder, and Zito because they were well-known big draft picks that don't help the narrative. The A's won largely because of their pitching. Despite all the OBP talk, the A's weren't much at scoring runs. Miguel Tejada and Eric Chavez are glossed over too because they don't fit the Beane OBP mold. Still, all Tejada did in 2002 was win the AL MVP with a team-leading WAR of 5.6. Eric Chavez was second in WAR on the A's in 2002 with a 4.2. There's also a dirty little secret about those A's teams left completely out of the book, and in case Lewis did't know it at the time, he still hasn't mentioned it in revisions: steroids use, particularly by Jason Giambi when he was there and by Tejada. Adam Piatt, a reserve on the team, admitted to providing steroids to several At's over this time, though he only mentioned Tejada by name.
It's one of those unwritten rules in all pro sports. Seniority can matter. If a senior player or a star comes over to a team and wants the number of a junior or scrub player, that guy may give it up out of courtesy. Otherwise, it is pretty much an open market for how the transaction occurs. It will just depend on how much each player values the number.
I would think a team would have less trouble with a player wanting to change numbers in between seasons. I don't know. Probably depends on the team and the player is the best way to put it. Michael Jordan going back to the Bulls as number 45 certainly sold more jerseys that it would've if he had returned to 23. So, changing number can be lucrative too, I guess.
Jeter's going out of his way to make Jeffrey Loria look like a respectable owner.
The Marlins are using treaty law to try to contest jurisdiction of the lawsuit that Miami-Dade County filed against them; they're claiming that because at least one of the shell corporations that comprises Marlins Teamco is based in the Caribbean, the lawsuit should not be held in local court.
The Marlins are using treaty law to try to contest jurisdiction of the lawsuit that Miami-Dade County filed against them; they're claiming that because at least one of the shell corporations that comprises Marlins Teamco is based in the Caribbean, the lawsuit should not be held in local court.
That is such a clusterfuck. I guess you eventually get what you deserve when hopping in bed with Loria. Though I guess that's where I'm confused. Shouldn't Miami be suing Loria and not the current Marlins ownership?
Looks like Jeter and Company are doing their best to run off the few Marlins fans left with the BVI ownership nonsense.
There were only 7,003 people (claimed) to be in attendance at a recent Mets-Marlins game, the smallest claimed attendance for a Marlins game excepting when they had to play in a Little League stadium during one of our annual hurricanes.
I don't see how much more damage the Jeter Marlins can do to their community relationship.
I don't see how much more damage the Jeter Marlins can do to their community relationship.
Loria is a named respondent in the suit, and already put $50 million in escrow. But he signed the deal with Miami both personally and as the Marlins baseball club, and a club's obligations don't go away just because ownership changes hands (otherwise, Jeter could have just dropped Stanton's contract, for example).
The White Sox had an "estimate" of 10,377, but....
Of course it snowed Monday, but it looked just as bad Tuesday. Maybe they can crack 1,000 when it's warmer.
Right - they always base the official estimate on "tickets sold" or some such favorable metric.
- Status