I don't know if this has been brought up or not as I have not been keeping up with AN over the last few weeks, but the conspiracy theorist in me thinks that Lew Wolf has been told by Selig that he will give him San Jose but that Wolf has to play ball. At around the time Selig announced that the stadium was on the "front burner" Beane started signing players like Coco, Gomes, Colon and then trading for Smith. Honestly who saw any of these signings coming? With these moves the A's went from possible 100 games losers to being mediocre to decent. The rest of baseball does not want the A's to be terrible because the worse they are, the worse the revenue they pull in which means the other owner would have to shell out more in revenue sharing. The rest of baseball doesn't want to pay welfare to any team and especially not to a team that is intentionally tanking. So Selig told Wolf that if wants San Jose then he needs to spend more money this season in order to generate more wins and revenue.
I believe Selig has a soft spot for Manny mostly because he helped bring a WS to Boston which MLB undoubtedly loves. I think this is a major factor in Manny's reduced suspension. Maybe its a coincidence, but the A's are the only team "interested" in Manny. I don't think is a coincidence. If the A's sign Manny then its another box checked off on Seligs 'San Jose to Do List' for Wolf.
0 recs | 25 comments
Isn't there a certain quota of money that MLB teams need to spend a year.
Ex: Lets say the A’s spent a total of 60 million each year for the last 3 years, the A’s couldn’t just be allowed to spend 30 million on players. They have to reach a quota so the A’s along with other small market teams can pretend their “improving” every year. I don’t think Lew Wolff and Bud Selig were playing trade offs on this.
The A’s haven’t been awarded San Jose yet because there is so many laws and things to get around with the Giants have territorial rights, it’s a pretty complicated matter. Let’s say the A’s were awarded San Jose, there’s a good chance the Giants would try to sue the MLB citing that territorial rights have been breached… Etc, etc theres just so much to take in to account and the Giants are the biggest obstacle to get around.
Raider08 - February 15, 2012
We'll get our stadium, and I like your theory but unfortunately I think it's just not that simple.
But who knows maybe your right and im wrong. Only time will tell.
Raider08 - February 15, 2012
They have to spend at least the amount they get in revenue sharing
There might be more quotas or whatever, but the A’s could most likely get away with only spending $40 M. (I think they’re projected around $50-55 for the season.)
The Giants can’t sue the MLB or another MLB team, at least for baseball-related stuff. There’s a Congressional exemption (?) that allows it.
Furyan - February 16, 2012
*prevents would probably be better
Furyan - February 16, 2012
No official salary floor
Just as there’s no salary cap. The poor teams have an unspoken guideline that they’re not supposed to breach: keep payroll at around 50% of revenues. Go above that and you’re being irresponsible. The rich teams don’t have to follow this “rule”.
vertig0 - February 16, 2012
Alright wasn't to sure about it.
So is it possible for the A’s to spend around what the get from revenue sharing each year lets say its 30 mil, and save from what they make at home lets say its 20 mil and save like 20 million each year for around 5 years and just spend big the next 2 years?
Raider08 - February 16, 2012
Yes, but it's not sustainable.
They’d be better off saving that money to put towards a stadium, if the league would even allow it.
LoneStranger - February 18, 2012
More likely, when they started realizing that the stadium wasn't going to be ready until 2016,
they decided that it is too early for a rebuild. You’re better off getting players that you can flip within the next four years for the actual rebuild. Players that you can get for money without giving up prospects are good for that.
LoneStranger - February 15, 2012
Oh joy. Be still my heart. Put off... again. :-|
UncleLeo - February 16, 2012
His name is Lewis Wolff, not Wolf
Why can’t people spell it right after 7 years of ownership?
athletics68 - February 15, 2012
Same reason people keep putting a c in Fisher, I suppose.
iglew - February 16, 2012
Lou Wolfe?
UncleLeo - February 16, 2012
Lieu Weaulph?
EddieVegas_NRAF - February 16, 2012
Lough Wulloughf
Nico - February 16, 2012
Wolff has been quoted in the past as saying that MLB
expects about half of revenues to go into the MLB roster payroll. He said this in relation to the revenue sharing issue. The A’s reportedly received $32 million in revenue sharing from 2011.
OaklandSi - February 15, 2012
Wolff is the smartest man in the room.
First off, what you are saying is all speculation. So let me add to the speculation by saying that Wolff is hording/collecting MLB’s revenue sharing money to ultimately give to the Giants as part of the eventual settlement of the SJ territorial rights dispute. So how cool is it that other rich teams will be paying our way into a new ballpark in SJ…
sf drift king - February 15, 2012
“how cool is it that other rich teams will be paying our way into a new ballpark in SJ…”
Ummm…it’s not. That is what a true 15 D-Bag would do (see Lewis Wolff).
cwg46and2 - February 22, 2012
whoops
the 15 should have been 1% LOL
cwg46and2 - February 22, 2012
Why are you wasting our time with a fanpost like this?
I shouldn’t have read this crap.
the_rozeboom - February 15, 2012
-1
I flagged this comment. I didn’t think it was necessary to speak for a group with the word “our” and to come off with the tone and criticism that you did.
JustANotherJoe - February 15, 2012
+1 to your -1
UncleLeo - February 16, 2012
The great part about free will is that you can stop reading whenever you want.
LoneStranger - February 16, 2012
This fanpost is totally within the CGs.
If you don’t like the subject, or the way it is presented, then that is on you. Attacking the fanpost is not called for.
Tutu-late - February 16, 2012
Not his fault you read it
I thought it was perfectly appropriate.
Raider08 - February 16, 2012
What else is there to discuss right now?
It’s not the right side of the site has been hoppin’ lately.
Boonee - February 16, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Athletics Nation to post a comment.