Gunnar Henderson 2024

[Philip]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

Jokes can't be gross?

I guess this book is a lie.

Of course jokes can be gross. Mine wasn’t. And I didn’t phrase it in a prurient way.

I deleted it because I don’t want to get into a needless contention.

[Hallas]

8 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Jokes can't be gross?

I guess this book is a lie.

You ever hear about that act called the Aristocrats?

[G54377]

15 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

They said "I'd give him anything" and then follow up with "It's not my money!".

That's nonsense.

And then when I give them an actual situation to respond to, we get nothing.

Almost all of us would gladly give Gunnar a huge contract if it would somehow not impact the rest of the roster in a negative manner.

It doesn't work that way.

 

 

I would have to imagine that if our new ownership is willing to spend 300+ million on Gunnar, they are probably going to be OK to extend our other core players. Maybe not Burnes, but that's another topic. There will be decisions to be made no doubt. But is anyone really arguing that our #1 priority with our payroll is anything but extending Gunnar? The other side of the argument could really only be that if it hamstrings our payroll so much we should trade him in a few years. I just find it hard to believe in this day and age any new ownership group of a sports franchise would come in and immediately want to be frugal and plan to get rid of their best player in the not so distant future. Why TF even bother buying a sports franchise to do that?

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, G54377 said:

I would have to imagine that if our new ownership is willing to spend 300+ million on Gunnar, they are probably going to be OK to extend our other core players. Maybe not Burnes, but that's another topic. There will be decisions to be made no doubt. But is anyone really arguing that our #1 priority with our payroll is anything but extending Gunnar? The other side of the argument could really only be that if it hamstrings our payroll so much we should trade him in a few years. I just find it hard to believe in this day and age any new ownership group of a sports franchise would come in and immediately want to be frugal and plan to get rid of their best player in the not so distant future. Why TF even bother buying a sports franchise to do that?

Ego, desire to invest money in something incredibly stable.

The Marlins were sold in August 2017 and they traded Stanton in December.

Their team payroll was lower in 2018 than 2017.

Maybe 2017 is too far back?  Doesn't seem that long to me.

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, Hallas said:

You ever hear about that act called the Aristocrats?

Not sure what you are getting at.  I called something gross and the reply was "It's just a joke bro!" as if that's an excuse.  So I was asking them if jokes were someone exempt from being gross.

[DrungoHazewood]

53 minutes ago, G54377 said:

I would sign Gunnar to literally any extension he'd agree to. We aren't going to be upset about paying 40-50 million a decade from now when we get his age 26-30+ seasons.

 

49 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

You'd do the Ohtani deal but without the deferred money?

He said literally any extension he'd agree to, so he'd be fine with a 50-year, $50 billion extension.

[RZNJ]

18 minutes ago, Philip said:

Oh my gosh, I’m joking. Sheesh.

edit: however, I don’t want to offend anyone, so I’ll delete them. But gosh, I was just joking, and I didn’t phrase it in an improper way.

Who is Katherine Lee Rubenstein?   

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, RZNJ said:

Who is Katherine Lee Rubenstein?   

Katherine Lee is Gunnar's fiance.

[G54377]

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

 

He said literally any extension he'd agree to, so he'd be fine with a 50-year, $50 billion extension.

Yea that's definitely what I meant. 

This forum has some really fun people on it.

[Philip]

5 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

Who is Katherine Lee Rubenstein?   

It was a joke, forget it.

[G54377]

7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Ego, desire to invest money in something incredibly stable.

The Marlins were sold in August 2017 and they traded Stanton in December.

Their team payroll was lower in 2018 than 2017.

Maybe 2017 is too far back?  Doesn't seem that long to me.

Stanton's contract was already in place when the team was bought. That wasn't their contract. And honestly, it looks pretty smart in hindsight to get rid of it. Stanton at age 27 even with that monster year isn't a direct comparable to Gunnar at age 22 who plays (GG caliber) SS.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, G54377 said:

Stanton's contract was already in place when the team was bought. That wasn't their contract. And honestly, it looks pretty smart in hindsight to get rid of it. Stanton at age 27 even with that monster year isn't a direct comparable to Gunnar at age 22 who plays (GG caliber) SS.

Come on!

You asked what "new ownership group of a sports franchise would come in and immediately want to be frugal and plan to get rid of their best player in the not so distant future"

I gave you an example that was less than a decade old and somehow that's not good enough?

They bought the team with leveraged money and skimmed profits off to pay it off.  From day one the plan was to "be frugal and plan to get rid of their best player".

How could you want a better example of exactly what you said wouldn't happen?

[Hallas]

14 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Not sure what you are getting at.  I called something gross and the reply was "It's just a joke bro!" as if that's an excuse.  So I was asking them if jokes were someone exempt from being gross.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Aristocrats

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Hallas said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Aristocrats

Oh I know the bit.

That wasn't what I was confused about.  I wasn't sure why you were making the reference in the first place.

It's all good.

[G54377]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

Come on!

You asked what "new ownership group of a sports franchise would come in and immediately want to be frugal and plan to get rid of their best player in the not so distant future"

I gave you an example that was less than a decade old and somehow that's not good enough?

They bought the team with leveraged money and skimmed profits off to pay it off.  From day one the plan was to "be frugal and plan to get rid of their best player".

How could you want a better example of exactly what you said wouldn't happen?

You're right that they bought the team and traded their best player (even if in hindsight it looked like the right move frugal or not). I don't know much of the Marlins ownership. I suppose it can happen, I'd like to believe this new Orioles ownership is NOT that. If the new Orioles ownership plans to do what the crappy Marlins ownership has done, this is all moot anyway. If they aren't going to spend any money, talking about what contract we are comfortable giving Gunnar is a dead argument from the start.