Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Shadows paintin' our faces
Traces of romance in our heads
Heaven's holdin' a half-moon
Shinin' just for us

  1. Three cheers to Scott for finding this one: "Rogers Communications Reports Strong Third Quarter 2004 Results"


      During the two months ended September 30, 2004, the Blue Jays generated
      revenue of $42.1 million primarily related to baseball revenue, which
      comprises home game and concession revenue, and revenue generated from Major
      League Baseball's revenue sharing agreement whereby funds are distributed to
      and from clubs based on the clubs' respective revenues.

      Operating expenses for the two months ended September 30, 2004 were $51.2
      million, which consist primarily of player salaries, team costs, scouting and
      stadium operations. During the quarter, the Blue Jays took a non-cash write
      off of $15.2 million relating to deferred receivables which were considered
      uncollectible. As such, an operating loss of $9.1 million was recognized for
      the two months ended September 30, 2004.

      On a cash basis, for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, we advanced
      the Blue Jays $7.8 million compared to $22.2 million in the third quarter of
      2003.

    Another interesting point is that Rogers overall realized a pretty significant gain from the rise in the Canadian Dollar:

      The foreign exchange gain of $35.8 million in the third quarter of 2004
      arose primarily from the translation of the unhedged U.S. dollar-denominated
      debt and reflects a strengthening of the Canadian dollar relative to that of
      the U.S. dollar from an exchange rate of $1.3338 as at June 30, 2004 to a rate
      of $1.2639 at September 30, 2004.

    To put this figure into perspective, the Jays represent 2.9% of Rogers' overall operating revenue for the period and 5.2% of Rogers' overall operating expenses.

Discuss!
Jays Roundup - Send Your Camel To Bed | 59 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Pistol - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 08:26 AM EDT (#23091) #
During the quarter, the Blue Jays took a non-cash write
off of $15.2 million relating to deferred receivables which were considered uncollectible.


Anyone have an idea of what this was?
_Moffatt - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 08:27 AM EDT (#23092) #
Season ticket fees from former Enron executives?

Honestly, I have no idea.
Gerry - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 08:50 AM EDT (#23093) #
Rogers could use the FX pickup to have a party, maybe at midnight at the oasis?
Gerry - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 08:52 AM EDT (#23094) #
The word deferred means that the payments were due from something that happened some time ago, deferred means deferred, or delayed, from an earlier period. Could it relate to skyboxes? Or could it relate to some marketing deal signed a number of years ago where the deal never took off and fell by the wayside?
_MatO - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 09:26 AM EDT (#23095) #
Rogers could use the FX pickup to have a party, maybe at midnight at the oasis?

Maybe they could also have Maria Muldaur as entertainment?
_MatO - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 09:44 AM EDT (#23096) #
I didn't see anyone mention this anywhere but JP was on with McCowan and Brunt at 5:30 yesterday on the FAN and RSN (or at least his picture was). These were the main topics of discussion.

He was at both weekend games and felt that the Cards were intimidated by their surroundings and felt their starters were pretty lame.

The Jays had a meeting Monday with Rogers to go over budgetary issues but JP indicated the total budget was not discussed or set. McCowan offered to intercede on his behalf (jokingly) with Ted Rogers and asked JP how much did he need? $100M? To which JP replied that they didn't need that much. McCowan kept pressing as to how much he'd like and you could tell that JP was rather uncomfortable with the question. Finally McCowan managed to squeeze '$60M' out of JP.

Finally they discussed Delgado. Godfrey's involvement was no big deal, he was available that day. They both talk to Sloane, Delgado's agent. Delgado will likely at least try and find out what he can get on the market but would prefer to stay in T.O.. JP reiterated that there was no point in bringing Delgado back if it meant putting the same team out there as this year because of financial constraints caused by signing Delgado.
_MatO - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 10:00 AM EDT (#23097) #
The fact that Rogers now has to (as of July 31, 2004) consolidate the Blue Jay financial results will add a great deal of transparency to financial performance of the Jays.
_DeMarco - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 10:05 AM EDT (#23098) #
This sounds to me like Delgado is most likely leaving.

Also that $15.2 million deferred payment is most likely some fancy accounting that coninues to make the Jays look like they are losing money. Could be something losely associated with the Jays that came from another part of the Rogers media empire.
Pistol - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 10:11 AM EDT (#23099) #
Actually, I don't think there'll be too much more light shed on the Jays now. There was just as much detail in the last annual report as there was in this quarterly report. It's just accounted for differently now.

If anything they might be able to do more tricks with the books now that the team is wholly owned. Push the revenues away from the team and rake in the revenue sharing!
_MatO - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 10:12 AM EDT (#23100) #
Also that $15.2 million deferred payment is most likely some fancy accounting that coninues to make the Jays look like they are losing money.

But it would have been included in Jays income in the past in order for it to be receivable. The net effect is zero.
Mike D - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 10:13 AM EDT (#23101) #
D'oh! Both Hinske and Sparky made the Hacking MASS All-Star team.
Pistol - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 10:15 AM EDT (#23102) #
Also that $15.2 million deferred payment is most likely some fancy accounting that coninues to make the Jays look like they are losing money. Could be something losely associated with the Jays that came from another part of the Rogers media empire.

No, I'm fairly sure that's very real. If it was a part of Rogers it would be washed out in the consolidation.
_MatO - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 10:18 AM EDT (#23103) #
Actually, I don't think there'll be too much more light shed on the Jays now

I think there a few more interesting little tidbits sprinkled throughout and it's only a quarterly report.
_Jim - TBG - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 10:44 AM EDT (#23104) #
http://www.torontobaseballguys.com/20041024jim.html
Off-topic, but in the spirit of yesterday's make your own roudup, COMN for a brief history of Canadians in the World Series. I was surprised at how few there have been.

_Jays1fan1 - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 10:45 AM EDT (#23105) #
No, I'm fairly sure that's very real.

Maybe it's the value of all the free and discounted tickets from this season?

Whatever it is, it would be interesting to find out.
_Quick Tip - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 10:57 AM EDT (#23106) #
Check message #21 from yesterday's roundup. :)
_Moffatt - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 11:03 AM EDT (#23107) #
Before I award any prizes (which probably won't be until this evening... damn deadlines!), I'm a little curious to what the FX refers to in Gerry's answer. I'm only familiar with MatO's answer for artist.

Does anyone remember those casette tapes of 60's and 70's music you used to be able to get at Shell during the late 80's? I swear my Dad and I had pretty close to them all. That's where I know today's song from, as it was on one of the tapes.
Named For Hank - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 11:06 AM EDT (#23108) #
Moffatt, those tapes haunt the nooks and crannies of every vehicle my family has ever owned.
_Moffatt - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 11:11 AM EDT (#23109) #
What the heck were they called? Solid Gold something or other?

All those precious tapes of mine were sent to Goodwill in the great garage cleaning purge of aught two!
_DeMarco - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 11:21 AM EDT (#23110) #
Opps I used my old name in my last post.

Anyway, did anyone here Buck Martinez on the radio this morning? He made a comment about how its nice to see two old style baseball teams like the Cardinals and the Red Sox in the world series. And because of their success, more teams will start using the stolen base, etc, and not wait for the 3 run home run. We will see more teams like the Cardinals of the early 80's.

Was Buck always this ignorant?
_Toolsy/Pfizer - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 11:28 AM EDT (#23111) #
Just thought I'd share this with you folks:

A friend of mine is appearing on Off the Record today (Tuesday) along with Paul Godfrey. He's not a sports fan at all so he called for some info on the day's topics. I advised him as best I could and with there to be some talk about the Red Sox and the Curse, there may be a CHB mention!
_R Billie - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 11:41 AM EDT (#23112) #
Was Buck always this ignorant?

Pretty much yeah. As much as I like the guy as a commentator and a character he's really out there when it comes to actual baseball strategy. Alex Gonzalez will forever be a superstar shortstop.

The Cardinals were called the best small ball team in baseball by commentators during the NLCS because they were able to steal a handful of bases and get a few sac bunts down at opportune times. I'm wondering where this small ball is for the Cards during this World Series. I'm sure having Walker, Edmonds, Pujols, Rolen, and Renteria in the lineup didn't have much to do with their success.
Mike Green - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 11:48 AM EDT (#23113) #
I'm not a big fan of small ball in general, but Busch Stadium encourages it, whereas Fenway discourages it. The Cards, with all their sock, hit 93 homers in Busch this year. We'll see some hitting and running tonight, and maybe a sac bunt or two, I'll bet.
_DeMarco - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 11:49 AM EDT (#23114) #
I've always wondered if the only reason I liked Buck so much as a commentator was because Dan Shulman can make anyone look good.

I miss Dan.
_bro__dh - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 11:50 AM EDT (#23115) #
I read about the $15 million write down. It's probably a situation that one of Rogers' associated companies had an expense owing to the Jays and they're defaulting on it thus lowering its profitability. Makes sense they'd do it that way.
_Ducey - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 11:50 AM EDT (#23116) #
It the same old story from Rogers, they report the Jays lose money but they don't account for the revenue the Jays create on the cable/ programming side of things.
_bro__dh - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 11:52 AM EDT (#23117) #
And I must admit, I prefer the base stealing and defense style of baseball as well. The 7 jackrabbit Cardinals plus a 1b of the White Rat were the best to watch.
_DeMarco - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 11:55 AM EDT (#23118) #
I still don't know why neither the Yankee's or the Cardinals tested Schilling with a few bunts.

As for small ball, I definitely think when the pitcher and Mike Matheny are in your line up, you have to employ the bunt a little more often. However, only a crazy person would ask Rolen, Walker, Edmonds, Pujols or Renteria to bunt.

Also I don't believe teams that employ SABR idea's are against the stolen base, just against players stealing that have less than a 75% chance of doing so. A guy like Dave Roberts attempting a stolen base does not go against the new way of thinking.
Mike Green - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 12:01 PM EDT (#23119) #
However, only a crazy person would ask Rolen, Walker, Edmonds, Pujols or Renteria to bunt.

Edgar Renteria hit .287/.327/.401 this season, and had 6 sacrifices. I don't think that Tony LaRussa is crazy at all.

As for hitting and running, Renteria would be a primo candidate for it as a hitter especially in Busch where he is no home run threat at all.
Gerry - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 12:09 PM EDT (#23120) #
FX stands for Foreign eXchange. I was trying to tie the Rogers news to midnight at the oasis.
_Moffatt - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 12:11 PM EDT (#23121) #
It the same old story from Rogers, they report the Jays lose money but they don't account for the revenue the Jays create on the cable/ programming side of things.

Yes they do, though they might be understating it. Given the poor TV ratings and same commercials being played over and over on TV and on The Fana 590, I doubt it.

Why is it so hard to believe that a team that is practically giving it's tickets away for free and is behind the CFL in ratings is losing money?
_Moffatt - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 12:12 PM EDT (#23122) #
The grammar police tells me that I should have used its instead of it's :)
Mike Green - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 12:15 PM EDT (#23123) #
It's OK, you'll get off with a warning, but next time, it will be 20 sentences in the Roundup.:)
_MatO - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 12:17 PM EDT (#23124) #
It the same old story from Rogers, they report the Jays lose money but they don't account for the revenue the Jays create on the cable/ programming side of things.

It was previously noted that the Jays receive $12M from Rogers for local TV (or was that total local revenue?). In any case, they are at least putting an effort into paying the Jays for the TV rights. Now you can argue that Rogers doesn't pay enough but we don't have enough info for that. Also, because of the team's poor play this year the ratings were down so it's debatable whether Rogers benefited very much from owning the rights.
_elston - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 12:20 PM EDT (#23125) #
In Game 1 in the top of the 2nd and down 4-0, LaRussa bunted with runners on 1st and 2nd, nobody out,the 8th and 9th hitters coming up and Wakefield not being able to throw a strike. That wasn't small ball as much as it was stupid ball.
_Wildrose - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 12:26 PM EDT (#23126) #
I think one way to examine the Jay's financial picture would be to examine information given by Bud Selig in December of 2001 to congress, and then extrapolate as best we can ,this data to the present.

I'm not a financial guy so the language is going to be pretty straight forward. Any revelant input would be appreciated. All numbers are in U.S. denomination.

Revenue:

Gate Revenue:

In 2001 the Jays claimed $ 25,363,000 in ticket revenue based on attendance of 1,915,000 patrons.
In 2004 the team's home attendance was about 1,950,000. Basically quite similar. Since 2001 you'd think ticket prices have probably gone up a bit , plus the Jay's started a premium ticket policy for some popular games. I think it fair to bump up their 2004 gate revenue to about 26 million.

Local Media:

This is money from the teams local radio and TV broadcast rights. In 2001 the team claimed 14,460 million off these properties. In the 2003 Rogers Corporate report they claimed to have made 9 million from these rights. This figure is in much dispute. Most who examine this issue feel the team is selling its media rights to its sister corporations (Rogers Sportnet and the Fan radio network)at a discounted rate. We'll take it at face value for now and accept the 9 million dollar claim.

National Revenue:

National revenue is money in which all teams share equally from such things as the Fox national TV contract and the sale of MLB paraphenelia. When a kid buys a Matsui NY Yankee cap in Tokyo the money does not flow to the "evil empire" , instead its shared amongst all 30 teams. In 2001 each team got $24,401 million as its portion of this pie. In 2004 I think it fair to bump the number up to 25 million. I believe we are still on the same Fox TV contract and baseball seems to be having somewhat of a rennisance.

Local operating revenue:

This is a tough one to figure. This is revenue from concessions ,signage, parking etc.. The Jay's however ,are the only team in MLB who do not own or administer their own ball park. They are in fact tennants. In lieu of rent the Jay's "share" ball park revenue with Sportsco the Skydome's owner. In 2001 they made $14,255 million from this arrangement. My understanding is that this sharing arrangement is quite complicated. I've heard Sportsco gets all signage money, keeps the revenue from box rentals and gives the Jays a set fee for this, gets the lions share of concession revenue,and shares advertising on the jumbo tron in 30 second increments. Lets estimate the 2004 number for the Jays at a conservative $14,5 million.

Revenue sharing:

You won't hear Bud Selig's name publically taken in vien in the Blue Jays office thanks to this figure. In 2001 Doug Pappas estimated the Jay's of money given to them by their MLB brethren to be $9,83 million. Thanks to the new basic agreement where-by teams now share 33% of all local revenues( its 50% in the NFL), a published report has the Jay's at 20 million for 2004 (sorry I couln't find the citation), in the top 5 of all of baseball. This number does not include the $5 million that the Jays get for currency adjustment from the commisioner's discretionary fund which is new since 2001. With the way the Canadian dollar is going however,you have to wonder how long the team will still get this money. At any rate that's 25 million from other teams success that the Jay's now share.

If you add all the revenue up, thats 99.5 million. I was pleased and somewhat surprised that Forbes estimated the teams revenue to be at about 99 million as well.

I'm sorry for the length of the post. I hope it helps some of our discussions. I'm going to take a break and attack expenses in a few minutes.
_Wildrose - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 12:31 PM EDT (#23127) #
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/stories/2001-12-05-focus-expenses.htm
Comm for the Senate report.
_Wildrose - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 12:33 PM EDT (#23128) #
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1320
Comm for a brilliant set of articles by the deceased Doug Pappas that analyzed the Selig report and I used to try to understand the numbers.
Dave Till - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 12:46 PM EDT (#23129) #
JP reiterated that there was no point in bringing Delgado back if it meant putting the same team out there as this year because of financial constraints caused by signing Delgado.

But can JP, or anyone, sign one or more players that can help the team more than Delgado would help it?

I'm worried that the Jays might use the Delgado money to sign a bunch of middling players who won't help much (such as, say, Tino Martinez). This is the Pittsburgh approach, and it doesn't work. A far better approach would be to re-sign Delgado and hope that everybody stays healthy and that the kids grow into their jobs. Since the Jays aren't an old team, these aren't unreasonable assumptions.
_DeMarco - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 12:50 PM EDT (#23130) #
I'm worried that the Jays might use the Delgado money to sign a bunch of middling players who won't help much

While I'm curious to see what JP would do if they don't re-sign Delgado, I have the exact same fear.

This off season will go a long way toward confirming my beliefs that JP is a very smart GM, or realizing that he's not the person I thought he would be. The Jays offense is teetering on horrible.
Pistol - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 12:52 PM EDT (#23131) #
In Game 1 in the top of the 2nd and down 4-0, LaRussa bunted with runners on 1st and 2nd, nobody out,the 8th and 9th hitters coming up and Wakefield not being able to throw a strike. That wasn't small ball as much as it was stupid ball.

Actually there was an article at Prospectus that showed that this was a (marginally) good move, primarily because Womack and Matheny are light hitters and Womack is fast & can bunt.

I'd link it, but it's a premium article.
_Wildrose - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 01:03 PM EDT (#23132) #
All right expenses. We know the Jays payroll to be at 50 million for 2004. You have to add about 5 million for pensions,health care deductions, employer payroll taxes etc.. Next you have local expenses. This is team travel, the cost of running minor league teams,Draft bonuses, J.P.'s salary, costs of scouting and so on. In 2001 the Jay's spent 47.6 million in these areas. Whats changed since then? Well according to Bob Elliot, Riccardi has decimated and purged the teams scouting department making huge cuts. Interesting to note the 2001 Oakland local expenses were only 38 million, despite having higher travel costs associated by being a West Coast team and not being as centralized as Toronto. Whats the 2004 number? Your guess is as good as mine. I'll say J.P.'s cost cutting has been negated by inflation and increased travel costs and lets use 48 million as our number.

Thats 103 million in expenses, 99.5 in revenue. When the team says it losing about 5 million a year, that number sounds reasonable.

Have to get the rugrat from school.
_bro__dh - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 01:08 PM EDT (#23133) #
Superb analysis, Wildrose. I am a numbers guy and have looked into it a bit. I find it funny that the $15 or so million write down on the team was remarkably close to the amount from Rogers' media.
Looking at the expense side, you'd have to include the players salary plus minor league operations total of about $60 million plus rent for the stadium. In short, it doesn't look that bad for Mr. Rogers.
Thomas - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 01:10 PM EDT (#23134) #
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/cardinals/story/87F4BAC3EFD7F06386256F370025CEA3?OpenDocument&Headline=Redbirds+pitchers+commit+sin+of+ill-advised+walks
In Game 1 in the top of the 2nd and down 4-0, LaRussa bunted with runners on 1st and 2nd, nobody out,the 8th and 9th hitters coming up and Wakefield not being able to throw a strike. That wasn't small ball as much as it was stupid ball.

Regardless of whether it was a good move or not, it wasn't LaRussa's call. Womack bunted on his own and LaRussa said afterwards he didnt' support the move in that situation. COMN and scroll to the last paragraph.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. LaRussa certainly has his weakensses as a manager, but I think the backlash against him has overshadowed the positive attributes he brings to a team.
Mike Green - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 01:42 PM EDT (#23135) #
In the AFL yesterday, Big Vito went 1-5 with 3Ks. Hill and Hattig had the day off.
robertdudek - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 02:40 PM EDT (#23136) #
The Cardinals were the best baserunning team I saw this year in the majors (and I've seen a lot of baseball). I'm not talking about stolen bases, but rather taking the extra base on hits, taging up of fly balls and making wise decisions. Pujols is a very smart baserunner and Larry walker was once one of the best in baseball. They were also very good at executing bunts.

All this wouldn't mean much if they didn't have big bats in the lineup, but it does constitute a nice sauce in the main dish.

Despite the pitching matchup tonight, which favours Boston, I think the Cards are likely to take 2 of 3 in Saint Louis and force a game 6.
_DeMarco - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 02:48 PM EDT (#23137) #
I think there is a good chance St. Louis will take 2 of 3, which works for me anyway because I would like to see Boston win it at home.
_6-4-3 - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 04:30 PM EDT (#23138) #
That situation would lead to an interesting game 6.

Will Carroll quoting an anonymous Red Sox source on the chances of Schilling pitching again:

ďIf it were today, no way. Not a chance. Everything [the sutures] attach to is tearing away from the bone. Thereís no way that even a World Series game as important as [what Game Six] would be could change things. [The doctors] will be looking to see if [the procedure] can be changed between now and Friday, but donít count on it. Even Curt Schilling canít pitch on one leg. (pause.) I think.Ē

Yeah, I think when things are "tearing away from the bone", the might be a problem. The Red Sox have to hope for either A) Big win Pedro, or B) No wind blowing in for the next Wakefield start.
_6-4-3 - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 04:30 PM EDT (#23139) #
That should read A) A big win for Pedro, but that should be obvious anyways.
Lucas - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 04:31 PM EDT (#23140) #
AL Manager of Year split between Buck Showalter and Ron Gardenhire.
_Wildrose - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 04:57 PM EDT (#23141) #
What implications does the Blue Jay revenue picture have on the team? Lets examine the re-signing of Delgado as an example.

A.) When over 25% 0f your revenue comes from other teams you'd better make an honest effort to plow back that money into the teams payroll, lest you anger the "hand that feeds you".

B.) Its not a question of the Jays resigning Delgado, but more accurately, its the Rogers conglomerate resigning Delgado, given his value to the Sportsnet's apparent profitability.

C.) If you really want to see Carlos a Jay ,pray for the day Rogers buys the skydome. The team is probably missing out on 20 million a year in ancillary revenue that could be used to improve payroll.
_Magpie - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 05:35 PM EDT (#23142) #
The Cardinals were the best baserunning team I saw this year in the majors (and I've seen a lot of baseball). I'm not talking about stolen bases, but rather taking the extra base on hits, tagging up of fly balls and making wise decisions.

LaRussa's teams have historically been very aggressive baserunners, and it has often come back to bite them in the post-season when they try the same thing against good defensive teams.

Of course, that's probably not all that relelvant right now... :-)

But what you're saying is that this bunch isn't going to run themselves out of innings the way his Chicago team did against Baltimore, the way his Oakland team did against Toronto (and Los Angeles and Cincinnati).
_Caino - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 06:03 PM EDT (#23143) #
"If you really want to see Carlos a Jay ,pray for the day Rogers buys the skydome. The team is probably missing out on 20 million a year in ancillary revenue that could be used to improve payroll."

Our owner, Who's in his office.
Rogers be thy name.
The season's done, let the deal be done,
and the Sky Dome be your possesion.
Gives us the year, new astro turf.
and re-paint the concrete.
as we pay you back through tickets and concessions.
and lead us not to the basement,
but increase the budget.

Play ball.
_Wildrose - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 06:10 PM EDT (#23144) #
Amen!
_Willy - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 06:34 PM EDT (#23145) #
I read today that the Canadian dollar has increased in value by 14% against the U.S. dollar since last May! All player salaries are paid in U.S. dollars, right? That's a lot of money saved, now and in the near future. Enough to pay for Carlos, I'd guess.
_Scott - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 08:21 PM EDT (#23146) #
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041026.wjays26/BNStory/Sports/
A good roundup on the Jays finances, Delgado, payroll, Skydome etc by CP. COMN.
_Mosely - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 09:36 PM EDT (#23147) #
Suppan!! That was terrible. Terrible.

Now excuse me while I go manufacture a sandwich.

/just got home from werk.
_Mosely - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 09:37 PM EDT (#23148) #
wrong thread!
_Annon - Tuesday, October 26 2004 @ 10:25 PM EDT (#23149) #
Wow Caino. What a well constructed poem. Great job ol' chap.
You most certainally are the man.
Jays Roundup - Send Your Camel To Bed | 59 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.