Uggla for Sanchez/Tanner trade from the marlins point of view

nomisnala

unread,

Dec 18, 2009, 12:01:32 AM12/18/09

to

Note the author of the article lists Sanchez as a righty so I wonder
how much he really knows! http://marlinmaniac.com/2009/12/17/rumors-of-sanchez-for-uggla-again/

Jesse Radin

unread,

Dec 18, 2009, 4:41:00 AM12/18/09

to

On Dec 17, 9:01 pm, nomisnala <ari...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Note the author of the article lists Sanchez as a righty so I wonder
> how much he really knows! http://marlinmaniac.com/2009/12/17/rumors-of-sanchez-for-uggla-again/

why are you posting some scrub's blog? This isn't newsworthy... even
by your standards

Kay Cee

unread,

Dec 18, 2009, 11:23:10 PM12/18/09

to

On Dec 17, 9:01 pm, nomisnala <ari...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Note the author of the article lists Sanchez as a righty so I wonder
> how much he really knows! http://marlinmaniac.com/2009/12/17/rumors-of-sanchez-for-uggla-again/

The Uggla deal is dead. The Giants can't afford to sign anyone whose
names aren't Overbay or LaRoche.

nomisnala

unread,

Dec 19, 2009, 1:05:30 AM12/19/09

to

I didn't say he wasn't dyslexic.

Peter Lawrence

unread,

Dec 19, 2009, 5:33:30 AM12/19/09

to

Uh no. The Giants can afford to sign a lot of players. They are one of the
top revenue generating and profitable clubs in the National League. They
have one of the best TV deals for a National League club and a very large
season-ticketholder base.

They're not poor.

That they choose not too sign top-tier free agent hitters is just their
prerogative. They can certainly afford them but they would rather maximize
their yearly profits than maximize their chances of winning a World Series.
They like to limit their total for players salaries to an amount thats far
below what they can afford (and still break-even).

But the Giants are not interested in being a breaking-even team (profitwise)
to maximize their chances of winning a World Series. They in business to
maximize profit which to them means spending *just enough* to make the team
competitive enough to hopefully be in a playoff chase come September, but
spending no more than that because then it would eat into their precious
profit margin.

- Peter

nomisnala

unread,

Dec 23, 2009, 12:52:08 AM12/23/09

to

I would think that getting into the playoffs would open up a bunch of
revenue streams.

poldy

unread,

Dec 23, 2009, 1:03:16 AM12/23/09

to

In article <hgia5s$bnt$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com> wrote:

> Uh no. The Giants can afford to sign a lot of players. They are one of the
> top revenue generating and profitable clubs in the National League. They
> have one of the best TV deals for a National League club and a very large
> season-ticketholder base.

Is that still true in the last few years?

I can see the first couple of years of the new park, when they fielded a
competitive team.

But recently? Attendance has to be down.

Peter Lawrence

unread,

Dec 24, 2009, 12:55:46 AM12/24/09

to

While the Giants had lost quite a few season ticketholders after the 2008
season (the first season after the 2007 All Star Game that season
ticketholders who bought All Star Game tickets could decline to renew, they
still have a very sizable season ticketholder base. IIRC, it was somewhere
between 18,000-21,000 people during the 2009 season. That is sizably down
from the maximum they had of about 29,000 when they opened the ballpark and
during the All-Star game and 2008 season, but it still that's a lot more
season tickholders than many other major league clubs have.

- Peter