Comments on: Estimating the Tigers financial situation

By: Tigers Pay a Dollar Today to Save Tomorrow | FanGraphs Baseball

Tigers Pay a Dollar Today to Save Tomorrow | FanGraphs Baseball — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:05:07 +0000

[...] what you might have heard earlier this off-season, the Tigers are not broke. That notion was refuted back in December, as was the idea that the the team would hold a fire sale. Yes, they traded both [...]

By: It doesn’t add up

It doesn’t add up — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:24:36 +0000

[...] maybe the financial situation is much more dire than I project it to be? That is certainly a possibility, but the difference between Jackson and Granderson on the payroll [...]

By: It doesn’t add up

It doesn’t add up — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:24:36 +0000

[...] maybe the financial situation is much more dire than I project it to be? That is certainly a possibility, but the difference between Jackson and Granderson on the payroll [...]

By: It doesn’t add up

It doesn’t add up — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 16:52:46 +0000

[...] maybe the financial situation is much more dire than I project it to be? That is certainly a possibility, but the difference between Jackson and Granderson on the payroll [...]

By: Frank

Frank — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 22:16:10 +0000

Well done article. What about the revenue from concessions and merchandise? It probably matches ticket sales. I believe that brings 2010, like 2009, to somewhere in the break-even land.

So you can see, if the Tigers make the playoffs, everybody’s happy…

By: Birdy

Birdy — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 13:21:14 +0000

There have been various journalists that have noted the absurdity of trading Ejax and Granderson if the goal is reducing payroll, especially since there was absolutely no evidence the Tigers were trying to package any of their bad contracts into either of those potential deals.
I’m grateful to Paul Wezner for writing his article, because the situation is truly out of hand. But I’m not sure that he gets everything right. He says that a Detroit beat writer’s suggestion of trading Granderson was what started the firestorm of speculation. While that did come first, there wasn’t much reaction to that when it happened (I see Lynn Henning originally mentioning it July 23). I think the real trigger was Joel Sherman’s article in the NY Post on November 11th. The very first words of the article I think is what got minds racing. He says, “In a cost-cutting frame of mind, the Tigers have let teams now that Curtis Granderson could be had for the right package, an NL executive told The Post.”
“In a cost-cutting frame of mind” immediately makes everyone think that he can be had for lower, or much lower, than market value. But was that part of what the exec told him (how would the exec know?) or was that his embellishment?
And of course then it was easy for writers to simply remind everyone that the city has hit hard times and voila, our best players are on the block and can be had for a song. It escalated from there, to the point that JP Morosi included a suggestion he heard from exec that the Tigers should throw in $5 million a year to open up the possibilities for smaller market teams. Ridiculous.

By: Keith (Mr. X)

Keith (Mr. X) — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 22:25:16 +0000

The Tigers might have fewer holes to fill than we did last Winter. Last Winter, we had no catcher, SS, 4th, or 5th starter, closer, and set-up man. We picked up Jackson, Laird, Everett, Lyon, and brought up Porcello to fill those holes. Rodney won the closer job in ST also.

This year, we just need a SS and some bull-pen help like we did before. I think we’re set at 2ndbase with Sizemore and Santiago. We won’t spend much on a SS. Even if we wanted to spend we couldn’t because all the FA Shortstop’s are brutal. Perhaps Santiago can be our SS, and Don Kelly can be our utility guy. Maybe Bonderman can be the new closer? We can fill those holes in house if needed. Nothing wrong with having question marks going into spring training. I like it when players are fighting for jobs.