Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
So, did anything happen yesterday?

I was thinking last night that a number of very specific Bauxite requests were handled yesterday: a payroll increase to the magical $70 million; a new sound system at the location formerly known as SkyDome; out of town scoreboards that give us some more information; no more astroturf.

In addition, Mr. Rogers himself cited some frequent Bauxite logic for the payroll increase: that the Jays are a valuable major asset to Rogers, and that by increasing the payroll now, they increase the value of that asset now and in the future.

Am I missing anything? Were any of your specific requests or concerns addressed?

And what's everybody saying about the big event now that we're 23 hours past it?
Make Your Own Roundup: Wish Fulfillment Edition | 127 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
_Gwyn - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 09:51 AM EST (#1257) #
I liked it so much I ordered my Season Pass yesterday afternoon.
_Matthew E - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 09:53 AM EST (#1258) #
Since this is the thread we're using for the roundup and QOTD and what have you, I'd like to point out that today's the 46th anniversary of the Day the Music Died.

--

Oh, and the budget increase? I was thinking about that last night, and I came to the conclusion that it is not, in and of itself, good news. A higher payroll is only a benefit if it can be turned into on-field results, and that has not (yet) happened.

When Ricciardi acquires talent, I'll cheer that. When the Jays succeed on the field, I'll cheer that. But I'm not going to cheer Rogers moving money from one pocket to another.
_larryB - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 09:55 AM EST (#1259) #
Thank goodness. I don't know which is the better news, the budget or the turf, but I'll gladly take both. It will once again be a pleasure to spend my money at the Skydome...er, Rogers Centre.
_H winfield Teut - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 10:00 AM EST (#1260) #
I will hold out too much judgment, the above are great steps, but if JP uses the money on Brian Cooper etc... I haven't been overwhelmed to date on JP's choices of "talent" to acquire. Clearing payroll and drafting he has done an admirable job, but those alone don't get you passed third.
_Tyler - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 10:03 AM EST (#1261) #
I liked it so much I ordered my Season Pass yesterday afternoon.

If you figure that it's a 20 million increase annually, just 123,456 of them to go for this to be a breakeven endeavour.
Joe - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 10:12 AM EST (#1262) #
http://me.woot.net
If you figure that it's a 20 million increase annually, just 123,456 of them to go for this to be a breakeven endeavour.

Sure, if Gwyn doesn't ever buy any food, closes his eyes and ears at advertisements, and never brings another person along with him.

Just getting people to the stadium practically guarantees a good cash flow for Rogers.

What would I have liked that I didn't get? I think I'd like the 'makeover' of Rogers Centre to be complete, so that the radio jocks would stop talking about the concrete look. (Not that it's ever been a real problem; go to a game and tell me just how much concrete you see.)

What I want more than anything is for the Jays to be successful and respected again. Getting the local media to stop criticising them at every chance would help.
_Christopher - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 10:13 AM EST (#1263) #
I was thinking about that last night, and I came to the conclusion that it is not, in and of itself, good news. A higher payroll is only a benefit if it can be turned into on-field results, and that has not (yet) happened.

It's been a day.
Obviously they have to use it wisely, but it's announcement alone is still good news in my books.
_Matthew E - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 10:16 AM EST (#1264) #
It's been a day.

Unchallenged.

I'm not being impatient; I'm just drawing the line for myself, in my mind, between being a payroll fan and being a baseball fan.
_DeMarco - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 10:20 AM EST (#1265) #
Yesterday was great news! Since I wasn't around, here are my thoughts:

- It's about time they sold the naming rights for the dome, even if it is the right hand paying the left, it is a source of income that should have been taken advantage of.

- The increased budget is great news! I'm hoping for something like the following to happen:

$50 million in 2005
$70 million in 2006
$90 million in 2007
Total $210 million for 3 years.

- I also like all of the changes to the Rogers Centre, those circle video image systems are great for getting the fans excited, they look spectacular at hockey games with the lights down. Also I love getting new turf.

- All in all, this was exactly what Rogers had to do to start getting fans back, especially with the hockey situation. Good work Ted.
Named For Hank - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 10:26 AM EST (#1266) #
Good point, DeMarco, the timing was excellent for such a blockbuster announcement. I wonder -- would the budget increase be as big if hockey wasn't locked out?

(Not that it's ever been a real problem; go to a game and tell me just how much concrete you see.)

Yeah, that's always a sign of someone who only sees the Rogers Centre from outside.
Dave Till - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 10:28 AM EST (#1267) #
With the ballpark and the franchise in the same hands, the Jays are healthier now than they've been in years. Going to the Rogers Centre (I'll have to get used to saying that) should be a much more enjoyable experience this year, as the environment will be more baseball friendly.

When you think of it, investing in the Jays is a worthwhile risk because the potential upside (sellouts again, as in 1993) is huge.
Named For Hank - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 10:34 AM EST (#1268) #
Heh, Dave, I've already typed in SkyDome and deleted it four times today.
_Matthew E - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 10:37 AM EST (#1269) #
I'm still planning on calling it SkyDome. I don't work for Rogers; they can't make me change. Come and get me, coppers!
_Magpie - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 10:43 AM EST (#1270) #
I've always just said "the dome" (generic) for years, but I wonder if the new name will get turned into "The R.C."
_DeMarco - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 10:46 AM EST (#1271) #
Personally, I was never a fan of the name SkyDome, so that could be another reason I don't mind the change.

My gut tells me that even if this was announced in October, JP still would have let Delgado walk. I'm not sure what would have been different this offseason though?
_Wildrose - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 10:55 AM EST (#1272) #
Thank God for Ted Roger's. As a Blue Jay baseball fan I'm glad this fellow has stepped to the plate financially for this team.

It was no secret that the prior owners, Interbrew ,wanted to sell the Jay's. Nobody (possibly because of the asking price) came forward for several years, until some American based investors, SportsCo, bought the Dome with intentions to purchase the team. They were cut off at the pass by Ted Roger's who bought the team in September of 2000. In hindsight SportsCo would have been poor owners, they were under-capitalized ,the various partners seemed to bicker frequently, they were out-siders (as a Calgary Stampeder fan I can tell you how fun that can be), and the group seemed to fall apart on the death of one of its key founders.

To his credit, Roger's who runs a publically traded company, has cajoled the following out of the Roger's group:

- $130 million to purchase the team (all figures US)
- $25 million for the dome
- $30 million for dome renovations
- $100-125 million in stated operating losses.

That's a lot money spent ,without a substantial return, yet, on investment. I say yet, because I think old Ted ,has a good chance to eventually make back his money , given Toronto's (and to a degree Canada's ) relatively large market size.

Give the guy some credit, he's ventured money on the table , in as he stated, a gamble to make some eventual profit. I suppose some would argue MLG would be good owners , but I personally wouldn't want ,in essence, a bunch of tight- wad teachers running the show. Thank you Ted.
_Jim Acker - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 10:57 AM EST (#1273) #
I've complained about the Dome a lot over the years. Yesterday really made me a happy camper.

The changes are by no means perfect, but it's really good step and giving us, real baseball fans, what we want with the in game expirience.

The payroll increase is great, and hopefully it will allow JP to put the right pieces together.

Now let's get Shulman in the booth!....(and maybe ditch those brutal uniforms!)
Pistol - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 10:59 AM EST (#1274) #
So, did anything happen yesterday?

The Red Sox signed Dave Berg to a minor league contract.

Damn those big market teams!!
_Daryn - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 11:00 AM EST (#1275) #
the Dome

"The Centre" doesn't have the same feel.
Thomas - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 11:02 AM EST (#1276) #
The Red Sox signed Dave Berg to a minor league contract.

The Red Sox have put together a pretty good list of NRIs to spring training when you think about McMillon, Berg, Cressend, Pond and a bunch of other names. They'll have good depth this year at Triple-A.
_DeMarco - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 11:06 AM EST (#1277) #
I may be wrong but I remember the Rogers aquisition of the Jays differently, I thought there were a few people interested in buying the Jays, including CanWest Global. Also, I thought Rogers also was in the bidding to buy the Dome, but Sportsco paid more for it.
_Blue in SK - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 11:14 AM EST (#1278) #
I have no issue with switching from "Skydome" to "Rogers Centre" if it helps justify the budget increase. Small price to pay for the potential of a more competitive team.
_Heraclitus - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 11:21 AM EST (#1279) #
I really do like the idea of the outfield scoreboards, but does this mean we won't be able to see the pitchers warming up any longer?

If so, that's too bad. Even from behind the plate at the 500 level, when someone got up in the 'pen, I could usually suss out who it was well before the scoreboard operators got around to putting the names up. How can the second-guessing begin as early now? ("Oh my God, not Ligtenberg!")
_Lee - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 11:25 AM EST (#1280) #
Matthew,

A higher payroll is only a benefit if it can be turned into on-field results, and that has not (yet) happened.

Jeez, I'm no big fan of JP either, but he DID just get the extra money yesterday...
_Vernons Biggest - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 11:26 AM EST (#1281) #
I really do like the idea of the outfield scoreboards, but does this mean we won't be able to see the pitchers warming up any longer?

The bullpen will remain untouched. The changes to the outfield wall will be made closer to center field, near the power alleys. Theres actually a pretty good diagram in the Star today to show the changes.
_Lee - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 11:26 AM EST (#1282) #
Heh, Dave, I've already typed in SkyDome and deleted it four times today.

It will always be SkyDome to me...
Pistol - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 11:29 AM EST (#1283) #
I believe Matthew E is trying to say that he'll get excited when the talent increases, not the budget, because increasing the budget doesn't do anything on its own.

If the team went out and paid me $20 million it wouldn't really change anything, except my checking account balance.
_Matthew E - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 11:32 AM EST (#1284) #
I'm no big fan of JP either

Are you implying that I'm not a big fan of Ricciardi? I'm the original Ricciardista over here.

As I also said, I'm not being impatient; I'm just tired of talking about money when I want to be talking about baseball. Right now it's just money and I'm not interested. Once Ricciardi turns it into baseball I'll be there like Jack the Bear from Delaware.
Named For Hank - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 11:35 AM EST (#1285) #
If the team went out and paid me $20 million it wouldn't really change anything, except my checking account balance.

You'd be invited over to my house a whole lot more, lemme tell ya.
_Heraclitus - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 11:35 AM EST (#1286) #
The bullpen will remain untouched. The changes to the outfield wall will be made closer to center field, near the power alleys. Theres actually a pretty good diagram in the Star today to show the changes.

Cool. I must admit, I find that to be pretty compelling, then.
_Christopher - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 11:36 AM EST (#1287) #
because increasing the budget doesn't do anything on its own.

I don't know about that. I've been travelling around to a few Jays boards and there's a buzz that hasn't been there in long, long time. Sure it's all intertwined with the other announcements regarding turf, scoreboard, etc., but a lot of people are excited about the Jays again, and a large part of that has to do with the budget announcement.
_Axil - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 11:39 AM EST (#1288) #
Would it make sense for the Jays to pick up Denny Graves in exchange for say....Hinske, Miller, and a prospect (in the range of JF Griffin)

It would allow Hillenbrand to move to first, move Cat back to DH and let Gross play LF

We would finally have a closer in a bullpen sorely lacking one
I also think we should pick up another lefty for the bullpen
Maybe moving Reed to Tampa for Trever Miller?
_Geoff - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 11:47 AM EST (#1289) #
Ok - by my estimates if we are able to move Miggy's last year and Hinske's last 2 years and have a 10 million dollar middle relief budget for the life of this budget, then we'd have about 70 million to spend on 2 Starting Pitchers, a First Baseman and a DH. We'd also have a lot of pieces to trade such as Lilly, one of O-Dog, Adams or Hill, the aforementioned Miggy and Hinske, Shea, all soon to be FA, and a boatload of prospects....So basically we'd have an average of 17.5 million to spend on our four marquee players and it shows the longer we wait to buy said player, the better player we get as 17.5 million can get you anything from Corey Koskie to Carlos Beltran depending on how long you have to pay them for.
_sweat - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 11:48 AM EST (#1290) #
I have a feeling that JP isn't ready to give up on Eric. I don't doubt that JP regrets signing Eric to the contract that he did, after all, Eric would be making 500k a year if he hadn't been locked up. I think HP feels that Eric is too hard a worker to give up on. When he worked like crazy on his fielding, he improved immmensly, and I'm hoping that he does the same with his hitting. Jp might be hoping too.
_dsaljurator - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 11:48 AM EST (#1291) #
They can call it whatever they want, but i'm still calling it the dome.
_Vernons Biggest - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 11:51 AM EST (#1292) #
I don't know about that. I've been travelling around to a few Jays boards and there's a buzz that hasn't been there in long, long time. Sure it's all intertwined with the other announcements regarding turf, scoreboard, etc., but a lot of people are excited about the Jays again, and a large part of that has to do with the budget

I asked this question yesterday: It appears the die-hard jays fans are very happy and there is a feeling of renewal in the air. But, has this news (moreso the payroll news) had that much of an affect on the casual fan, and how much of an affect if any.
_Lee - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 11:51 AM EST (#1293) #
Are you implying that I'm not a big fan of Ricciardi? I'm the original Ricciardista over here.

As I also said, I'm not being impatient; I'm just tired of talking about money when I want to be talking about baseball. Right now it's just money and I'm not interested. Once Ricciardi turns it into baseball I'll be there like Jack the Bear from Delaware.


True Matthew. BUT, the money IS the first step towards getting the players, and it's a first step we've all been breathlessly awaiting for some time now. :)

Also, "Ricciardista" and "Jack the Bear from Delaware"??? That's quite a vernacular you've got there... ;-)
_Matthew E - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 12:01 PM EST (#1294) #
That's quite a vernacular you've got there

It's all in the wrist.
_Marc - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 12:07 PM EST (#1295) #
http://www.washnationals.blogspot.com
Axil, I think you underpaid for Danny Graves (why would the Reds want Hinske when they have Randa and Casey) and overpaid for Trever Miller. If the Jays use Schoeneweis properly, I think they could get away with using Downs as their second lefty, for a cheaper cost. The Jays have extra money but let's not be eager to flush it away on a lesser need.
_joemayo - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 12:13 PM EST (#1296) #
richard griffin apparently has no (negative) opinion on yesterdays moves. this fact, along with marty york predicting everything the day before............maybe this is the sign of the apocalypse after all
_Lee - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 12:20 PM EST (#1297) #
richard griffin apparently has no (negative) opinion on yesterdays moves. this fact, along with marty york predicting everything the day before............maybe this is the sign of the apocalypse after all

Very eerie indeed...
_Pete Warren - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 12:28 PM EST (#1298) #
I agree with Marc.

In my opinion, the Jays should stand pat until a a guy becomes "available" (meaning a team is willing to give him up without getting their socks knocked off.) It is one thing to sign or trade for a guy that you'll give anything up for, its another for a guy to fall in your lap. Lets list our realistic needs, plan how much we are going to spend, and go from there. Lets be patient, because these players will come along. Now that we have more money, we can afford to sit and wait for the right player. The Jays don't need 4 more superstars to do this. What they need is goodproduction from Wells and Koskie, with solid contributions from Hillenbrand, Hinske and Cat. They need Halladay to be Halladay, Lilly to be Lilly and let JP and his new resources improve where it is needed. Will the Jays be in a position in July to make a run at things and add some stars? I say yes, because with production from proven guys on their team (the afore mentioned, and non) we are a good enough team to at least be there. Thats when this new money will come in.
_miVulgar - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 12:30 PM EST (#1299) #
"The Centre" doesn't have the same feel.

I agree. I think ACC before I do Skydome if you just throw out the word "Centre".

As a Jays fan, I'm grateful for the money sunk into the team by Uncle Ted... I can imagine far worse ownership situations.

Unfortunately, this doesn't change the fact that the Skydome's new name is stupid.
_Jonny German - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 12:31 PM EST (#1300) #
a bunch of tight- wad teachers running the show

Yes, those lousy cheap teachers, cutting the financial legs out from under the Leafs and Raptors and not giving them a fighting chance...
_Jonny German - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 12:35 PM EST (#1301) #
If the team went out and paid me $20 million

They offered you that too?! I had to turn it down, too much travel.
_Jonny German - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 12:37 PM EST (#1302) #
Maybe moving Reed to Tampa for Trever Miller?

Maybe throw in Speier and Jonny McD as well and get Mark Hendrickson and Kevin Cash.
_Wildrose - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 12:40 PM EST (#1303) #
http://toronto.bluejays.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/index.jsp?c_id=tor
A few more comments about yesterdays press conference and other assorted matters;(Comm for a link to view the entire conference on the team's official web site.)

-Riccardi verified the 210 million can be used in any fashion/ combination he wants in the next 3 years.

-Godfrey mentioned he's pushing a plan for 12 play-off spots for all MLB teams in the new 2007 CBA.

-The team/ stadium has been moved under the auspices of the Rogers media group. Jeff Blair hinted at some emnity between these 2 branches of the Rogers empire last year regarding quality of SportsNet broadcasts and perhaps the fact the broadcaster got a relative bargain for T.V. broadcast rights. Now that their under the same umbrella ,hopefully everybody is pulling in the same direction.

- I love the inclusion of a screen to show pitch count, speed, and type during the game.

-Matthew (majeal)I'm pretty sure coined the phrase "Ricciardista" ,and if you read Primer, has always been a staunch supporter of the current regime in most instances.
_Jonny German - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 12:40 PM EST (#1304) #
if we are able to move Miggy's last year

Quick, name me 3 free agent pitchers who signed better performance/dollar contracts this offseason than the 2 years $9.5M remaining on Batista's contract.
_Matthew E - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 12:46 PM EST (#1305) #
Matthew (majeal)I'm pretty sure coined the phrase "Ricciardista"

The corresponding term is "Quantra", for someone who is negative on Ricciardi, doesn't believe in sabremetrics and thinks the Jays made a huge mistake in trading Paul Quantrill.

(The 'majael' thing comes from the username I use(d) on a number of other websites, including FanHome (or whatever they're calling it these days) which I believe is where wildrose knows me from.)
_Wildrose - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 12:50 PM EST (#1306) #
Jonny you know as well as I do, that owning the ACC(and especially the Leafs) is a veritable licence to print money in Toronto (although with the NHL strike they are hurting). Yes ,the teachers pension fund has given the Leafs in particular, a solid portion of the revenue pie, but I'm not sure they'd show the same commitment to growing a business like the Jay's.
_Richard Griffin - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 12:56 PM EST (#1307) #
Blue Jays Pulling Wool Over Fans Eyes

Yesterday it was announced that the Blue Jays are making sweeping changes to create a more competitive and entertaining baseball team. But what has Rogers really done?

First they announced that Skydome's name has been changed to The Rogers Centre. This is not a benefit to fans, its a cheap way of advertising for Ted Rogers in hopes of lining his pockets with further wealth. With one hand paying the other, Rogers is actually advertising for free. Rogers has taken Toronto's most beloved landmark and turned it into a corporate billboard.

Second Rogers has announced that they will be installing a new Field Turf into their Corporate Centre. They are doing this, despite fans screams for natural grass and trying to fool them with second hand, unattractive and unwanted artificial surface.

Third, the TedDome will now feature a Jumbotron sized video screen. Wow, can you imagine a big screen television to watch while youíre at the baseball game! What will they think of next?

Fourth, Rogers is excited to tell us the have installed a new age way to advertise to it's fans, with a so called 'ribbon board'. Remind me again why fans should be excited to see more Rogers adds, even if they are brought to them in a new fancy way.

Finally there was news of the Blue Jays increasing their payroll. Unfortunately even with this increase the Blue Jays budget will still be one third that of the Yankees and with they still won't have a chance at post season play. Fans should only expect to see Stat head Ricciardi bring in some slightly higher paid, ex-Oakland Athletic, White players.

I for one am not fooled by what Rogers has done and the Blue Jays will still be a terrible baseball team that I really hate.

RICHARD GRIFFIN
_Jonny German - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 12:58 PM EST (#1308) #
What I don't know as well as you do, Wildrose, is what possible reason there is to speculate that MLSE would underfund the Jays. Do they undercut the Raptors? Are they not as smart as that crafty Rogers, they wouldn't try to buy the SkyDome?

Also, I've got a bunch of friends who are teachers, so I found your cheap shot at them distasteful.
_Wildrose - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 01:03 PM EST (#1309) #
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/Sports/2005/02/03/918877-sun.html
I thought (comm) that Steve Simmons had a good column on yesterdays events. He substantiates that Ricciardi only found out about the pay-roll boost a week ago (too late to offer Delgado arbitration I'm afraid), and that he's laying the seeds for possible trades later, where- bye the team takes on salary. These trades won't be painless I'm afraid, we'll probably see promising young infielders or pitchers being moved to this end.

I'll also second the comment, where are Griffin and Elliott? You'd think an announcement of this magnitude would warrant a column.
Named For Hank - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 01:14 PM EST (#1310) #
Jeff Blair hinted at some emnity between these 2 branches of the Rogers empire last year regarding quality of SportsNet broadcasts and perhaps the fact the broadcaster got a relative bargain for T.V. broadcast rights.

Sportsnet's coverage of the Jays looked spectacular if you didn't have Rogers as your cable provider -- for some unknown reason, the Sportsnet analog cable feed was terrible.

However, on StarChoice the quality of coverage was so remarkable that frequently Mrs. Hank wanted to stay home and watch the game on TV instead of going down to the, uh, Rogers Centre. Away games varied, depending on the equipment etc at the host team's stadium, but the stuff out of the RC was just jaw-droppingly good.

I for one am not fooled by what Rogers has done and the Blue Jays will still be a terrible baseball team that I really hate.

Brilliant!
_Rich - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 01:27 PM EST (#1311) #
The corresponding term is "Quantra", for someone who is negative on Ricciardi, doesn't believe in sabremetrics and thinks the Jays made a huge mistake in trading Paul Quantrill.

Funny, I thought we already had 3 terms for that: Richard Griffin, Geoff Baker, and Bob Elliot...
_Rich - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 01:31 PM EST (#1312) #
I'll get me coat...
_Matthew E - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 01:31 PM EST (#1313) #
Funny, I thought we already had 3 terms for that

No, you have to be a Blue Jays fan to qualify as a Ricciardista or Quantra.
_Matt - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 01:33 PM EST (#1314) #
Hey does anyone know where information is on the origin of fantasy sports? Didn't it start out with a bunch of guys eating rotiserrie chicken or something? Thus the name Rotisserie league or roto league for short?

Anyone know anything or better yet have a link?
Named For Hank - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 01:34 PM EST (#1315) #
I'm going to bet that Griffin will lay low a couple of days to avoid mentioning the money and the upgrades at all.
_Four Seamer - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 01:37 PM EST (#1316) #
What I don't know as well as you do, Wildrose, is what possible reason there is to speculate that MLSE would underfund the Jays. Do they undercut the Raptors? Are they not as smart as that crafty Rogers, they wouldn't try to buy the SkyDome?

There's quite a bit to unpack in this particular spat, but let's try and separate out some of the issues.

First of all, the "Teachers" don't own MLSE; their pension fund, which invests pension assets held in trust for the benefit of all teachers with a view to paying pension benefits on retirement, holds a significant stake in the team. The pension fund is a separate legal entity, and is not directly answerable to any individual teacher. There's no cause to impute the business decisions taken by the Fund to any individual teacher, nor is there any need for any teacher, or friend thereof, to take offense at criticism of the same.

That MLSE has a reputation for doing things on the cheap is, I think, part of the public domain, whether it is warranted or not. On the Maple Leaf side of the operation, they are far from stingy with their payroll relative to other teams, although they have been reluctant to spend big dollars in free agency. In an interesting twist, they are criticized by local fans for not being the NHL's equivalent of the New York Yankees, buying up available talent whenever the opportunity presents itself.

On the Raptors side, I confess to caring very little for basketball and have no settled opinion. The local media seems to be of the view that the Raps are petrified of having to pay a luxury task, but I can neither support nor contest that position.

But this reputation for stinginess predates the Ontario Teacher's Pension Fund's taking of a majority stake in MLSE. It extends back through Steve Stavro to Donald Crump to Harold Ballard. If MLSE is cheap, it's only business as usual.

Whether or not large pension funds should be owning professional sports teams, as a sports fan it makes me uneasy. But in reality, it's no different than a public company like Rogers owning a team. The pension fund owes a fiduciary duty to its members to increase the value of their holdings, which obliges them to ice a Leafs outfit capable of maximizing profit, regardless of whether that means winning twenty games or the Stanley Cup. But the directors of Rogers have a similiar fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders, which is why making capital investments and expanding the payroll has to be a supportable business decision. In neither case is it acceptable for the owners to treat the team like a vanity project.

Interestingly, the only league that encourages its owners to treat their teams as vanity projects (the NFL, which I believe prohibits corporate ownership) has the strictest controls in terms of salary caps and revenue sharing.
_Wildrose - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 01:39 PM EST (#1317) #
Jonny sorry to offend you, but as a former teacher, I can most assuredly tell you, that in general, my colleagues and I were somewhat frugal. A very good trait to have , I might add.

I'll restate my opinion, I'd much rather have a venture capitalist, who has the hubris to name his stadium, after himself, and if you watched yesterdays press conference, explicitly stated he was putting his name on the line so to speak regarding this endeavor, rather than to have a pension group, who's stated objective is quite rightly, to preserve its members capital, run a sports team that I barrack for.
_just a fan - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 01:46 PM EST (#1318) #
Am I the only traditionalist left?

Rogers is a better name than some of the other weird corporate names that have arrived in the past few years, but Centre??? What happened to a stadium or a field or a park? Rogers Stadium or Rogers Field - I know I'm talking baseball. Rogers Centre - where's the convention or the shopping?

However, hooray for the new turf. Now if we could only convince them not to close the dome at the slightest suggestion of a cold breeze.
_Wildrose - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 01:48 PM EST (#1319) #
Four Seamer that was a good post. I agree Roger's has a fiduciary responsibility to manage this investment, but as the primary share-holder I imagine he has a lot of clout. As I stated earlier I think this will prove to be a good investment for the Roger's corporation in the long term.
_6-4-3 - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 01:57 PM EST (#1320) #
http://lite.espn.go.com/mlb/news?id=1970454
Hey does anyone know where information is on the origin of fantasy sports? Didn't it start out with a bunch of guys eating rotiserrie chicken or something? Thus the name Rotisserie league or roto league for short?

Anyone know anything or better yet have a link?


Basically, it did involve chicken. A group of people met at "La Rotissiere Francaise" restaurant to play. COMN for one story that mentions this.

As for the name, I don't mind Rogers Centre. It's not a great name, but I'll still call it Skydome. And I thought that the Jays had really improved last year with keeping the Dome open more often.

Now, if they can improve the food, I'm sold.
_Wildrose - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 02:01 PM EST (#1321) #
http://kmbumb.people.wm.edu/06agency.html
Damn its good to know that the Jay's are players again, Comm for a list of potential 2006 free agents.

Jeff Blair hinted at some emnity between these 2 branches of the Rogers empire last year regarding quality of SportsNet broadcasts

Hank, I'm quoting Blair, who's quoting Godfrey, Personally I'm gratefull to have this much baseball on T.V. Do any of you watch the games in high definition? Does it make a difference? Rogers was very proud of the fact yesterday that all home games are done with this technology.
_Four Seamer - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 02:13 PM EST (#1322) #
And I thought that the Jays had really improved last year with keeping the Dome open more often.

Speaking of which, is there an official team policy on when the roof is open and when it's to be closed? I know they're loathe to open it until they're sure the risk of snow has passed, so no matter how gorgeous an April afternoon it may be, the roof will be closed. But what's the rule for the rest of the year?

I think the most egregious example of the Jays closing the lid had to be during a game I attended on Labour Day, back in 2000. It was a gorgeous, sunny day, and of course, it was the last day of summer. My girlfriend, now my wife, debated whether to go to the game or go to the Ex, and suffice it to say, the game won out. We walk in twenty minutes before game time, only to find the roof closed. The whole section was complaining, and the usher tried to pass the blame off on David Wells, who apparently thought it was too hot. Long story short, Boomer leaves after giving up nine hits and seven runs over one and a third inning, and the Jays lose to a young Barry Zito 10-0.

I rarely regret going to a baseball game, but I was absolutely furious that day.
_Matt - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 02:14 PM EST (#1323) #
yeah, I looked at that list last night when I heard about the increase... not a very impressive list of FA's... It's one of the weakest crops in some time... So the few elite FA's that will be ready will likely cost an insane quantity of cash...
_DeMarco - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 02:23 PM EST (#1324) #
I have had the opposite experience at the Dome, I have gone to a few games where it was bloody freezing and I wished the entire game that they would close the dome.

You can't please everybody all of the time.
_Geoff - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 02:23 PM EST (#1325) #
Quick, name me 3 free agent pitchers who signed better performance/dollar contracts this offseason than the 2 years $9.5M remaining on Batista's contract.

No argument there - Thus, it should be fairly easy to move his contract. And if we can acquire Hudson and Zito at their market value, for example, and can afford to pay them now, I don't really care if Miggy gives marginally better performance per dollar - and if we have a front four of Doc, Hudson, Zito, Bush I'd rather have a 5th starter out of our minors than 4.75 for Miggy even if he is good vlaue on the dollar - because certainly Chacin at 300,000 has a near 100% chance to be better value on the dollar
_Matt - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 02:24 PM EST (#1326) #
Thanks for that 6-4-3, I guess it's pretty easy to assume that fantasy baseball was the first of the fantasy sports...
_Vernons Biggest - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 02:32 PM EST (#1327) #
Four Seamer, I had a discussion with the RC's tour guide last year about this. I remember the Saturday game against Montreal in the summer of 2003 and being cramped in the hot shadows of the upper SkyDeck(or is it RogerDeck now?) when the weather was great for a open-roofed game.

The Jays make all the decisions to open it or not as long as it follows MLB policy. MLB allows it to be opened at any time prior to the anthems. If it has remained closed after the anthems, it must remain closed for the entire game. When open however, MLB gives the BlueJays right to close it at any time.

Other than that, I figure the BlueJays have some pretty good weather information presented to them on gamedays. There have been a few times when i was quite surprised that the Dome would be open, such as May 24th, vs. Anaheim. There were some pretty threatening clouds.(I think the Cheer Club was at that game too. I remember the O-Drum).
_Fawaz K - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 02:35 PM EST (#1328) #
Wow! I just regained consciousness after hearing the glorious news (in other news, some guy named Jesus just turned up after 2000 years - I didn't really have time to read the whole story...). Even if the team doesn't improve much next season, the in-game experience should be greatly improved with the demise of that ugly turf and the placement of the new out-of-town scoreboards. I hope they don't go out and blow the money on this season because I don't know what they'd do with the extra 20 million now. I think this team can do some good things with the payroll at $80 million per season over the 2 subsequent years, and even if attendance doesn't go up in the first 2 years (I hope it does; the commitment from ownership, the improved Rogers Centre and the unspent hockey dollars should be enough to get people out to the park), a successful team in '06 - with all that league-minimum talent and a payroll that would have been #11 in MLB in 2004 - should translate to big crowds in '07, which may convince ownership to keep the payroll up for subsequent years.
_6-4-3 - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 02:44 PM EST (#1329) #
http://www.nflplayers.com/fantasy_football/fantasy_history.aspx
Thanks for that 6-4-3, I guess it's pretty easy to assume that fantasy baseball was the first of the fantasy sports...

Actually, it's not. I thought that fantasy football might've been first, and apparently it was first being played in 1963 (COMN). It'd probably would have been a lot easier to track football stats back then. I'm not sure when it became widespread, though.

I have had the opposite experience at the Dome, I have gone to a few games where it was bloody freezing and I wished the entire game that they would close the dome.

Come to think of it, you're right. Most of the time, having the Dome open was great, but if you're sitting in the shade, it can be incredibly cold.
_Matthew E - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 02:47 PM EST (#1330) #
I thought that fantasy football might've been first, and apparently it was first being played in 1963

For what it's worth, Roger Miller's mid-sixties song, 'You Can't Roller-Skate in a Buffalo Herd' includes the lyric, "you can't go swimming in a baseball pool."
_Rob C - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 02:47 PM EST (#1331) #
Four Seamer, I was also at that game - it was the first time I had taken my new wife to a ball game, so of course the Jays get their butts whipped. In fact, we've since been to eleven more games and the Jays have lost every single one of them. So it was probably our fault they lost that day. Sorry. :)

J.P. should use the extra money to acquire a Proven Winner like Tino Martinez. You know, somebody who actually sucks, but for some reason, many people think is Clutch and A Character Guy and Knows How To Win.
_Nicholas - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 02:50 PM EST (#1332) #
Does any one foresee a Detroit Tigers like outcome to potetial FAs coming to Toronto??? Mainly, I'll come there if no one else wants me, but you'll have to over pay to get me. To use Tim Hudson as an example: He's from the ATL area, a great pitching coach, teams ALWAYS wins the division, payroll in the $75 - 85 mil range and is likely to get a lowball offer of 4/48 ( $12 mil per. ) The Yankees have Brown coming off the books and came pay Hudson $15 without increasing an already bloated payroll. How do the Jays convince him to come to TO??
_Four Seamer - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 02:51 PM EST (#1333) #
Come to think of it, you're right. Most of the time, having the Dome open was great, but if you're sitting in the shade, it can be incredibly cold.

At the risk of sounding insensitive, bring a jacket! When it's bitterly cold or when it's raining, I admit that I don't much miss old Exhibition Stadium, but baseball should be played outdoors whenever possible. Not to mention it's a much better place to watch a game from when the roof's open.
_Lee - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 02:59 PM EST (#1334) #
Not to mention it's a much better place to watch a game from when the roof's open.

I've never understood why that is. I go to the game to watch the action field, not the sky. If the game itself is good, I couldn't care less about ANY aspect of the stadium in which it's being played.
_DeMarco - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 03:02 PM EST (#1335) #
At the risk of sounding insensitive, bring a jacket!

I did bring a jacket, but sitting around in the cold, even with a jacket on isn't a lot of fun. I may be in the minority here, but I'd rather be comfortable at a game.
_Four Seamer - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 03:06 PM EST (#1336) #
Not to mention it's a much better place to watch a game from when the roof's open.

I've never understood why that is. I go to the game to watch the action field, not the sky. If the game itself is good, I couldn't care less about ANY aspect of the stadium in which it's being played.


Well, because first of all the game itself often isn't very good, as the Jays' record of last year will attest.

Moreover, natural lighting is far preferable to any artificial invention, and fresh air is a scarce enough commodity as it is.

Incidentally, I can see the Dome from my office. More than once, I've gone home to listen to the game in my backyard rather than go to the ballpark having seen the roof closed at 6:30.
_Four Seamer - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 03:08 PM EST (#1337) #
Get lost italics!
Pistol - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 03:10 PM EST (#1338) #
I was against it when the budget looked like $53 million this year, but it might be a good idea now to see if you can do a Jon Lieber type deal with Scott Williamson.
Mike Green - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 03:18 PM EST (#1339) #
Heavy artillery italics fighter.
_JayWay - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 03:22 PM EST (#1340) #
[i]"I liked it so much I ordered my Season Pass yesterday afternoon.[/i]

How does the Season Pass work (photo I.D, tickets?), and what's it go for? My friend told me about some deal where one could gain access to any seat in the 500-level for the entire season, and at a good price too, but I could never find any information about it on the Jays' website.

Where would I go to purchase such a pass (keep in mind, I'm currently away from Toronto so I can't just walk up to the box office)?
_#2JBrumfield - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 03:28 PM EST (#1341) #
I liked it so much I ordered my Season Pass yesterday afternoon.

That's interesting. I was told by my Jays sales rep that the deadline to buy Season Passes was before Christmas. I think it was December 22nd or 23rd when the rep called me at work to pressure me into buying one, saying I had to do it today or forget about it. I didn't feel like adding any more debt to my credit card, especially before Christmas, so I told him I'll wait until the New Year. I asked him when the deadline was, and he said "today". I told him it's not doable right now, but maybe I'll get a flex pack in the future. Then of course, he tried to sell me on that but I told him, "No, not now!". Nice to see the Jays sales people aren't above lying to their customers.
Mike Green - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 03:30 PM EST (#1342) #
JayWay,

Italics require angled brackets <>, rather than square ones []. Please be careful to turn 'em off after you're done.
Dave Till - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 03:39 PM EST (#1343) #
As for the name, I don't mind Rogers Centre.

Neither do I. If Rogers hadn't bought the building, the existing owners would have sold the naming rights eventually. And "Rogers Centre" beats the heck out of "Monopoly Investments High Performance Growth Fund (7.3% Annual Yield Averaged Over Last Five Years) Dome".
_Lee - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 03:44 PM EST (#1344) #
As for the name, I don't mind Rogers Centre.

Oh, I don't mind it either. I still won't use it though.
_Gwyn - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 03:50 PM EST (#1345) #
How does the Season Pass work (photo I.D, tickets?), and what's it go for?

JayWay - it will cost you $166. If it works like last year a credit card sized 'Season Pass' card will appear in the mail a week or two before the season. Every time you go to a game you hand this over with a piece of ID at one of the ticket windows and they give you a 500 level ticket.

I ordered my pass over the phone yesterday just call the Jays number on the website and ask for ticketing.
_Jonny German - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 03:53 PM EST (#1346) #
it might be a good idea now to see if you can do a Jon Lieber type deal with Scott Williamson.

Williamson signed with the Cubs on Januray 18.
_Jonny German - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 03:54 PM EST (#1347) #
January, even. It was a minor league deal.
_MatO - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 04:26 PM EST (#1348) #
In fact, we've since been to eleven more games and the Jays have lost every single one of them.

Rob C. I BEG you! Don't go to any more games!
_Thaskins - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 04:32 PM EST (#1349) #
http://bluejays.mostvaluablenetwork.com/
To bring this back on subject a bit, what I really like about the increased revenue is the chance to bring in some more star players without the long-term commitment and at a lower cost. The Aís have been able to do this the past and I think this for the most part has gone unnoticed. They have been able to bring in older star players with the selling team paying a large part of their salary. Think what the Oís did with Sammy Sosa. They just got one heck of a player for only $9 million. If he continues his downward spiral then they can let him walk at the end of the year. Hopefully if the Jays are in the race they can parlay this extra money into a guy like Aubrey Huff at the deadline if TB decides heís going to be too expensive.

Any way you slice it, great day for the Jays yesterday.
_mr predictor - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 04:50 PM EST (#1350) #
This Beane quote from the (great) Athletics Nation interview kinda made me chuckle:
"When you're GM comes up and says, 'I've got a five-year plan,' that's him saying, 'We're going to get our butts kicked for four and hopefully we finish .500 in the last year and I can get an extension.'"

More importantly, the Beane quote on the Mulder trade is so smart and so simple, you wonder why most people just don't seem to get it:
"It's not just Haren and Colero because their combined salaries are $600 grand. Let's say the player you traded is going to make 7 million bucks... it's Haren and Calero [and Barton] and whatever else you did with that 7 million bucks."
_Jabonoso - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 04:56 PM EST (#1351) #
Did anything happened yesterday?
A lot.
Do you guys can watch ESPN 2 coverage?. They keep showing bars in Miami and NY following, cheerfully, the games...
Miguel Batista pitched one miserable inning last night.
3 hits, 3 runs, one very bad attempt to field a sacrifice bunt bailed out by Pedro Feliz. And this runs were definite in Venezuela victory, 7-6. His fast ball is flat and hitable (sp?), his cut fast ball is ok, his power slider strong, his power curve all over the place and most important his change up is not fooling anyone. Overall asigment: F. He is programmed to start this Saturday against Venezuela. He looks quite fit, he is specially charming and popular with the fans, and his arm is surprisingly strong since he was not pitching in the winter season
Mexico won again 7-5 to Puerto Rico. Lead by Vinny Castilla, who is playing stronger than when he was 18 years old.
Random notes.
Talking about venerable and seasoned players there are a few worth to mention. The eternal Trenidad Hubbard making his best Ricky Henderson impersonation ( he has been invited to astros ST ), Luis Polonia ( invited to Nationals ST), Orlando Merced, one of the sluggers at PR winter season. Younger and stronger Alex Cabrera is telling everybody to call him to this continent. His contract in Japan finishes this year and do not want to retire there.
There is a phletora of young players that look very promising especially the group of Venezuelan pitchers ( the wave is coming...)
Players wife's are extraordinarily pretty. This young boys sure know how to spend their hefty signing bonuses
later...
_Thaskins - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 05:08 PM EST (#1352) #
http://bluejays.mostvaluablenetwork.com/
You know I never did understand why the heck the Blue Jays thought it would be a good idea for Batista to be the closer. With his erratic control and all of the walks he would have been a nightmare. Iím a lot more comfortable with him in the starting rotation and think he can bounce back a bit this year. After last year, Iím not expecting a Mid-3.00 ERA like he had in Arizona but Iíve got to think heíll bounce back a bit.
_6-4-3 - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 05:18 PM EST (#1353) #
You know I never did understand why the heck the Blue Jays thought it would be a good idea for Batista to be the closer. With his erratic control and all of the walks he would have been a nightmare. Iím a lot more comfortable with him in the starting rotation and think he can bounce back a bit this year. After last year, Iím not expecting a Mid-3.00 ERA like he had in Arizona but Iíve got to think heíll bounce back a bit.

I don't think that they necessarily thought that it would be a good idea. They had an 5 million dollar starter who clearly couldn't start (after July), and a bullpen that had no #1 guy. They managed to demote their starter to the bullpen without (I guess) bruising his ego, and they got to see if he could pull a Gagnť, with a couple of meaningless save opportunities. He didn't, so now they'll hope that he can put up 6 straight months of good starts.

I would've been stunned if Batista had started the season as the closer.
_NDG - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 05:28 PM EST (#1354) #
As for the name, I don't mind Rogers Centre.

I don't either, but why not "Ted Rogers Neighborhood"

You get the kiddie connection, plus all the players would call it the da Hood. Seems like a win-win to me.
_Thaskins - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 05:37 PM EST (#1355) #
http://bluejays.mostvaluablenetwork.com/
Well, I agree with you to a certain extent. But, Iím going off of the pretty strong reports out there that Batista was going to be the closer to start the year if the Jays were able to sign a starter like Clement. I can only surmise that is where he would have started if they could have gotten that third starter they so desperately wanted.
_Thaskins - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 05:41 PM EST (#1356) #
http://bluejays.mostvaluablenetwork.com/
So the question Iíd like to throw out there with regards to this extra cash is what the Jays will do with it. Now, I donít want to sit here and speculate on this player or that player. But, I do think itís reasonable to speculate on the type of player theyíll bring in. A big time closer? A corner OF? A first basemen? Starter? My thoughts are the Jays will look to bring in another starter as they are one guy away from having one heck of a starting rotation. Thoughts?
_bin - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 05:43 PM EST (#1357) #
One thing I found out yesterday that has me dancing with glee is that I'll FINALLY be able to see Jay's games during the season!

See, our local cable company (Shaw, who I believe has some connection to Rogers in some way :) ) decided to move around a few channels on the dial. And lo and behold, Rogers Sportsnet is now available to basic cable customers now!

Now, there are two reasons I can think of that may have caused this change:

1) Rogers has decided that they want more people to see Jay's baseball this year, so has dictated that the channel be located on the "peasent" level for cable subscribers, or (which I think might be more likely)

2) No one wants to 'pay' for Sportnet (in our area you'd have to pay Level 3 subscriber rates) because there is no hockey to watch.

I'm curious, did this channel change occur anywhere else in the country? (I'm in B.C., btw).
_Vernons Biggest - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 05:48 PM EST (#1358) #
Bin, how does the cable work out in BC? Is it all under Shaw/Rogers, and if so how much of B.C. will now be able to see the Jays on basic cable?
_Fawaz K - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 05:58 PM EST (#1359) #
http://www.sportsnet.ca/mlb/article.jsp?content=20050202_111835_5864
COMN - If this nickname sticks, Bauxites may have won the naming rights bidding war without shelling out a cent.
_6-4-3 - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 06:12 PM EST (#1360) #
Well, I agree with you to a certain extent. But, Iím going off of the pretty strong reports out there that Batista was going to be the closer to start the year if the Jays were able to sign a starter like Clement. I can only surmise that is where he would have started if they could have gotten that third starter they so desperately wanted.

That would've made sense, though. Let's say that the Jays managed to sign Clement. They'd have a rotation of Halladay / Lilly / Clement / Bush set up already. In the fifth spot, you'd have one of Batista, Towers, or Chacin. At that point, why not make Batista a swingman, shifting between relief and starting (say, when Towers flames out, or when someone (hopefully Towers again) gets injured). It might've worked, although if Batista's plummet was caused by an injury, instead of fatigue, maybe not.
_Thaskins - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 06:21 PM EST (#1361) #
http://bluejays.mostvaluablenetwork.com/
The rotation would have been great and I agree Batista could have done a good job being the swing man as Bush is bound to have some ups and downs and Iím not overly confident in the ability of Towers (though you can worse having him in the 5-spot). But, to have him in short relief would have been crazy. The only possible explanation I could come up with for him being there would be to see if could piece 5-6 saves in a row together making it easier for JP to trade him.

Personally, I think the best place for him is in the starting rotation. I think heíll pitch OK for us next year.
_Magpie - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 06:32 PM EST (#1362) #
Luis Polonia (invited to Nationals ST)

My jaw dropped when I read that... but he's still much younger than Julio Franco, and he's still got a .293 lifetime average.
_Ron - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 07:09 PM EST (#1363) #
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1983180
Nice mention of Rios as Vladdy Part 2 when it comes to throwing.
_DaveInNYC - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 07:09 PM EST (#1364) #
Woah, in that picture of Rogers and Godfrey inspecting the turf, Rogers looks like an evil scientist! I remember he had the SAME EXACT FACIAL EXPRESSION on when Doc signed his long term deal and they announced it at the press conference.

Ted isn't exactly photo friendly.
_bin - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 07:19 PM EST (#1365) #
Bin, how does the cable work out in BC? Is it all under Shaw/Rogers, and if so how much of B.C. will now be able to see the Jays on basic cable?

You got me.

I 'think' Shaw is availabe as a cable provider for the whole province, but I couldn't tell you if they offer 'regional' packages or not. I would hazzard a guess that everyone north of Kamloops (about 2/3 of the Province) would be strickly Shaw.

All I know for sure is that one Prince George household is going to be here the crack of the bat a whole lot more this spring (fingers crossed). ;)
_bin - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 07:24 PM EST (#1366) #
hear <--> here

Damned hononyms
_Lefty - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 07:39 PM EST (#1367) #
Source: Jeff Blair, The Star

Rogers Communications will also "pay" the Jays an average of $2 million per season for naming rights to the stadium. Such a move is a continuation of a strategy implemented yesterday to fully integrate the Jays within the corporate structure of Rogers Media.

Ooh ooh, I have it the new name for the Skydome.

Ladies and gentleman, drum roll please .... I give you the ....

COMM DOME
_Prisoner of Ham - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 08:12 PM EST (#1368) #
Nice mention of Rios as Vladdy Part 2 when it comes to throwing.

Good to see Rios getting that kind of attention. Great arm. Though he can thank Zaun for sealing the deal in a lot of those assists.
_Ryan Lind - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 09:22 PM EST (#1369) #
Rogers Centre is a decent name, but I wonder why Ted didn't just go with the "Rogers SkyDome." Everybody would win with that name.
_Caino - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 09:30 PM EST (#1370) #
""Ted isn't exactly photo friendly.""

Agreed, but in fairness to him, he looks better in the context of the business section where the bar is set a lot lower.
_greenfrog - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 10:45 PM EST (#1371) #
One bright thing about the payroll increase is the three-year plan. JP can start to think longer-term.

My favourite kind of trade for 2005 would be one that unloads several middling players (one or more of Batista, Hinske, Ligtenberg, Schowenweis, even Cat) for one--just one!--great prospect or young stud. With the higher payroll, JP can abandon the bargain-basement strategy. But to properly rebuild the team, IMHO, he's got to clear some of the mediocre players that are eating up payroll. The worst thing he could do is keep the guys he's got, and add several slightly better mediocre players. This is *exactly* what mired the Ash-era Jays in the doldrums.
_GregH - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 10:46 PM EST (#1372) #
Rogers Centre is a decent name, but I wonder why Ted didn't just go with the "Rogers SkyDome." Everybody would win with that name.

Apparently it was thought that there have always been negative connotations associated with the name SkyDome, from the early days of construction cost overruns through today's impression of it as a concrete wilderness.

I thought "Jays Field at Rogers Centre" would have been cool.
_Nicholas - Thursday, February 03 2005 @ 10:54 PM EST (#1373) #
greenfrog Why would another team trade "a great prospect" or "young stud" for what you admit to being "mediocre players that eat up payroll." The teams that can take on payroll don't have the prospects or young stud and the teams that have the young stud or great prospect don't want mediocre/expensive players...
_UncleJim - Friday, February 04 2005 @ 03:01 AM EST (#1374) #
Im adding my name to the list of relived Jays fans who feel we now still more chance of achieving something in the Am East.

Forget signing Clement or Pedro etc, this has to be the best off season news we could've heard, hopefully putting a competitive team on the field until at least 2007.

Couple of thoughts though

1. 210m over 3. I've seen a few guestimates of the spilt such as 50,70,90 or similar. but surely unless mr Rogers is committed to 90m for the year after thats just setting us up for one of those lovely fire-sales. Chances are this is a simple 70/70/70 with a continued guarentee of 70m and maybe more per if the team is headed in the right direction. Its a chance to put a winning team on the pitch with the aim to increase revenue. If we fail the end result could be a fall back to recent budget levels. So its time to hope for a few good seasons... JP, we need some magic !

2. Theres lots of talk here about who's up for Free Agency in 2006 and which big name free agents we now want to sign,... Is this really the way to go ? We're still well behind the NYY and Red Sox budgets so we can't pretend we'll be able to beat them at their own game. (Theres a telling line from Moneyball, something like "If we try to use the same tactics to win as the Yankee's then we'll lose every time") We need to spend this money carefully and wisely if we're going to succeed. A big name free agent if, and only if, its going to put us over the top. For me the good news is really that this now allows us to keep any stars that we develop within our own system. Im sure we'd have resigned King Carlos if this money was avaliable beforehand. I even think JP would've been happy to do so. Its a shame its arrived to late, this team with Delgado still on first, and some money left over still for another addition might be looking a possibility for a run...
Joe - Friday, February 04 2005 @ 04:35 AM EST (#1375) #
http://me.woot.net
See, our local cable company (Shaw, who I believe has some connection to Rogers in some way :) )

Sorry, bin, but Shaw and Rogers are separate companies (who even compete in some cases). Here's a little tidbit of information: everyone knows Rogers owns Rogers Wireless, the Rogers cable TV empire, a lot of radio stations, etc, but not many know that Shaw owns Star Choice, the satellite TV provider. That's not quite, but almost, like Rogers saying "You have a choice: Star Choice."
_Blue in SK - Friday, February 04 2005 @ 10:38 AM EST (#1376) #
Joe - while true that they are seperate companies, they both have significant interests in each other through share holdings. They used to (and may still) have representation on each other's Boards.

bin - the most likely reason for the change is that it saves your cable operator a whole lotta money. Wholesale rates for analog services vary depending on their carriage (i.e. whether or not they are in located in the basic lineup or in a Tier).

Yes, I work for a cable company.
_R Billie - Friday, February 04 2005 @ 11:37 AM EST (#1377) #
1. 210m over 3. I've seen a few guestimates of the spilt such as 50,70,90 or similar. but surely unless mr Rogers is committed to 90m for the year after thats just setting us up for one of those lovely fire-sales. Chances are this is a simple 70/70/70 with a continued guarentee of 70m and maybe more per if the team is headed in the right direction.

If that were the case they would have outlined a yearly budget and not a 3-year budget. It didn't make sense to make JP spend a specific amount, particularly THIS year when most of the free agents who might have helped are gone already. What would JP spend that extra $20 million on now without spending it in non-optimal ways? Hillenbrand and especially Shoenweiss are probably non-optimal use of funds and that's with a $50 million spend level.

There's any number of reasons why a $90 million payroll in 2007 would be fine. For one you'd have $90 million worth of assets on the team for that season assuming everyone was making what they are worth. For two you have a number of your biggest deals expiring by that year.

After '07: Halladay, Wells, Hinske which is about $22 million per year

After '06: Batista/Cat/Shoenweiss which is about $10 million per year

Hillenbrand could be traded/non-tendered by the end of '05 and he's a free agent after '06. Ted Lilly is in the same boat.

Assuming your minor league system has done it's job by then, you should at least have replacements for the less talented players listed above. Then you have to mix and match around it.

And assuming that a similar three year budget is set after '07 (pending the results of the new collective bargaining agreement) there's nothing to say you can't keep the payroll higher for the first year or two and then bring it down if the team is experiencing success. And if the team IS successful and profitable in '08 then I'm sure Rogers will kick in additional funds for '09 and '10 regardless of what their three year budget was set at.

The point is you can't worry about what will happen after '07. That's so far in the future that no-one could possibly predict what the Jays' fortunes will look like. I don't think anyone predicted a last place finish for this season. You have this money to parcel out however you want in the next three years and how you parcel it out should have to do only with what talent becomes available along the way, not fear of the budget ramping too high.
_bin - Friday, February 04 2005 @ 11:46 AM EST (#1378) #
Blue in SK:

I don't want to be accused to hijacking this thread (too late!), but since it is winding down...

I'm not sure I'm following the logic here...

Shaw is 'saving' a whole lotta money buying bulk subscriptions, to provide a channel that nobody is watching?

It may make sense if Shaw is gambling that the hockey season will be saved, but then why provide the service for 'free'? Could they turn around and instantly pop Sportsnet back on tier 3 if Goody/Betty stop there chest-thumping?
_R Billie - Friday, February 04 2005 @ 11:51 AM EST (#1379) #
I forgot to mention the additional $6 million or so attached to Corey Koskie which will come free after the 2007 season assuming he isn't traded before then.

Also I just read the article in the Star which outlines that the third year budget is updated each year. So the Jays WILL know well in advance of '08 what kind of money they'll have left over and what the risks of spending at a high level in '07 might be.

I would still ramp the payroll up. The Jays have enough affordable younger players that supplementing them with the right front-line talent by 2007 could result in a very interesting team on the field. And the fact that the Jays are blessed with a lot of decent pitching prospects is a good thing because pitchers are probably the most risk for the dollar that you can invest in on the open market. The better ones nearly always end up getting overpaid.
_Blue in SK - Friday, February 04 2005 @ 03:28 PM EST (#1380) #
bin - I probably didn't explain myself very well.

Let me do it by example - assume that there are 1000 Basic Tier subs in a community and that 75% of those also have Tier 3.

The cable operator has a couple of contractual rate options, based on the channel position of Sportsnet. If Sportsnet is placed in the Basic Tier, the rate is $1.00/sub/month. If Sportsnet is placed in Tier 3 the rate is $1.50/sub/month.

If you do the math, the cable operator would pay Sportsnet $1000/month if Sportsnet is placed in the Basic Tier or $1125/month if Sportsnet is placed in the Tier 3.

In my example it only amounts to $125/month, but that is only for 1000 subscribers. Change that to 100,000 subcribers (a typical small city) and the savings becomes $12,500/month or $150,000/year.

Shaw has just over 2 million subs, which in this example would mean savings of $3M/year. And any time you have savings on the expense side, it goes straight to the bottom line.

This price structure is the way many services set their rates. It guarantees them about the same revenue, regardless of the number of people actually subscribing to the service.

And, any revenue lost by Sportsnet by providing a lower rate is offset by the increase in advertising revenue. That is because advertising rates are determined by the number of people that have the potential to see the advertisment. The larger the potential market the higher the advertising rates.

Hope that helps.

Oh, by the way - those rates are for example purposes only. They are not the actual rate structure as I am bound by an NDA.
_Parker - Saturday, February 05 2005 @ 01:10 PM EST (#1381) #
What happened to a stadium or a field or a park? Rogers Stadium or Rogers Field - I know I'm talking baseball. Rogers Centre - where's the convention or the shopping?

I believe the word "centre" implies more importannce and grandiosity. Also, it's only fitting, given that Tee Dot is the centre of the universe.

Personally, I agree with just a fan. I think Rogers Field would've been much more appropriate.
_Vernons Biggest - Saturday, February 05 2005 @ 02:55 PM EST (#1382) #
The best way to name a stadium to give your company the publicity you want and to keep the fans happy is to name it after a tragic hero of some sort.

Can you imagine all the praise Ted Rogers would have got had he named the SkyDome "Terry Fox Memorial Stadium" or the "Pierre Trudeau Memorial Park"? Not only that but fans would be happy, media happy, and it would be better for business since everyone would have known it was still owned by Rogers. And that doesn't mean they still couldn't advertise around the stadium.
_faraway - Sunday, February 06 2005 @ 12:45 AM EST (#1383) #
Exactly, toiling away with mid-level players like in the Ash era will get you nowhere. The Mets did this season after season and came up big once. Why pay a Pat Tabler too much when you can have a stud for a little more. Give J.P time to see how the farm system provides for the big league club before trying to allocate dollars to free agents. Can J.P. have these drafed players producing in three years? Let's wait and see.
Make Your Own Roundup: Wish Fulfillment Edition | 127 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.