Mrs. Meta
Well-known member
Since recovering from a panic attack from Chop to chip's post about ronaldo, this disturbing question entered into what was left of my mind.
Obviously we have a much higher payroll than we ever did with time warner, but we've seen that there are definitely real thresholds that the front office doesn't cross (and then throw in the bizarre shenanigans with Freddie) in terms of what would amount to Legacy player retention, so to speak.
Soooo, I guess what I think I'm asking is this. In today's day and age, does it take an individual owner with the pockets of Steve Cohen or a conglomerate like the LA Dodgers have, to be able to retain a star player from start to finish?
And then I suppose you have the very real calculus, Financial and time related, of if that particular player is capable of being productive into his Sunset years, enough to retain.
Finally, is this maybe where the money comes in, where the infinite resource franchises can and will secure a player from start to finish, no matter what, to ensure the one-team legacy?
Would love y'all's thoughts
Obviously we have a much higher payroll than we ever did with time warner, but we've seen that there are definitely real thresholds that the front office doesn't cross (and then throw in the bizarre shenanigans with Freddie) in terms of what would amount to Legacy player retention, so to speak.
Soooo, I guess what I think I'm asking is this. In today's day and age, does it take an individual owner with the pockets of Steve Cohen or a conglomerate like the LA Dodgers have, to be able to retain a star player from start to finish?
And then I suppose you have the very real calculus, Financial and time related, of if that particular player is capable of being productive into his Sunset years, enough to retain.
Finally, is this maybe where the money comes in, where the infinite resource franchises can and will secure a player from start to finish, no matter what, to ensure the one-team legacy?
Would love y'all's thoughts
Last edited:
