clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Scooping the World

New, 134 comments

Some bloggers really get excited about breaking a story before the traditional media get the chance to do so. It's their thing, and I never understood it. Until now. Now that I get to break a story, I understand how easy it is to be addicted to the adrenalin that comes with that breaking news. So here goes:

Alex Rodriguez has opted out of his contract with the Yankees, and he will now be a free agent.

Since it's all speculation at this point, I don't have a link to back up my source. You're going to have to trust me on this one. And since no one expected this, I thought I'd jump at the chance to discuss...are you ready?...the possibility of A-Rod...to the Giants!

Uh, yeah. So the A-Rod discussion begins and ends with:

  • Signing A-Rod would mean that two players would take up 50% of the payroll.

So no. Forget it. Stop. Spending $50M on two players is insanity, especially if one of those players isn't an All-Star. Or, you know, an average pitcher. It's the little details that count. It turns out that signing Barry Zito might have put a financial burden on the Giants. Who knew?

But now for the comment starter. What if Peter Magowan said this in the "We signed A-Rod W00T!"-press conference:

We don't look at this as an expenditure; we're looking at this as a business investment. We're hoping the contract increases revenue substantially, so it should not affect our operating payroll. Wait, it should not "effect" our payroll. Wait, it was right the first time. I think.

We went into 2007 with a payroll close to $100 million. We are prepared to raise payroll to $130 million to accommodate A-Rod and build a winner around him. It would have been a $100 million payroll without him, and it's now a $130 million payroll with him.

Putting aside the dubious idea that Rodriguez would essentially pay for himself, and putting aside the super-dubious idea that the Giants would think like that, would an A-Rod signing be a good thing? This combines the "it ain't my money"-philosophy with a "the $100M payroll of the past is a self-imposed cap"-philosophy. If the Giants are rolling in the money even after the Mays Field mortgage is taken into account, could they blow up the payroll?

Yeah, this is the same organization that would only pay for Michael Tucker or a first-round draft pick, but not both. So we're obviously dealing in hypotheticals here.