Re: Diamond Backs on drugs?


"Ruben" <ruben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.01.13.00.18.19.278141@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 07:08:47 -0500, Micheal Ray wrote:

this is how I understood it, but it doesn't make sense to me to then
trade
for Johnson. If they want to sell Johnson stock, they need a stock
broker, not a 2 year 30 million deal with a player they already can't
afford.


What makes you think Johnson would buy their stock without some kind of
current, real value to the deal?

The deal doesn't get better if the ownership makes a bad business deal
with Johnson.

It doesn't get better for whom?


He already had a nice safe salery from an ownership that
could pay. Now he will trade that for another year from an ownership that
can't afford to pay him? and then in lew of payment, run an ownership
investment on him?

It seems that Johnson had two choices: Stay with the Yanks for one more year
and $16 million, and then pray to get the $40 million owed to him by a
floundering Arizona franchise -- or go to Arizona for two more guaranateed
years and a likely ownership stake in said franchise.


This is three card monte. If they want to give him a
sweet ownership deal, no matter how one looks at the deal, they are in a
better finacial position to make a sweethert deal with him if they are NOT
straddled with an extra 10million plus of debt (or whatever it comes to).


I think the ownership deal is in play _because_ they aren't likely to find
$40 million in the future to pay Johnson. Instead, they might be willing to
pay him $26 million now to offset the money owed to him in the future.


.