forkit Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Ok, I'm just curious. Even in a post about the renovation of the Cell, people are bringing up how stupid Konerko's contract is... Obviously, the Sox gave him a huge salary right before the salary market got really soft. And of course, he didn't perform well last year. But what was the general concensus when the deal was struck? Were there a great deal of people wringing their hands because they felt the Sox just overpaid for a slow first baseman? Or is this just a case where the people are stating the obvious [a player had a bad year and got a huge contract before the bad year] coupled with the "new" reality of player lower contracts, as though they "knew" he was never going to be worth the new contract? Frankly, I don't remember batting an eye when the new contract was announced, but maybe someone will jog my memory. Forkit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Critic Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Personally, I don't remember having a strong opinion either way. I've always felt that PK was a good hitting, slow running, decent fielding 1B. Solid, but not spectacular. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 I think we offered him that 3 year deal, 6 million in 2003, 8 million in 2004, and 8.5 million with a $500,000 buyout in 2005, at the end of last season. Every1 seemed ok with it cos he'd hit sumthin over .300 in the first half of last season and was in the HR derby if I can recall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastime Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 I would love to dump Kong tomorrow and his albatross contract. The league finally figured him out. He'll be a decent hitter, but he will never approach his former statistics with a ten foot pole. By the way, congratulations goes out to Paul Konerko. He finally reached first base yesterday after hitting a ground ball back on September 29th. Way to go, SLOTH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Konerko very well may get back to the level of success he had before. The guy just had a bad year. It happpens. The reason I am calling for the Sox to trade PK has nothing to do with his bad year. I just think we need some power from the left side and I think moving PK would allow us to fill his spot with a good LH hitter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Konerko very well may get back to the level of success he had before. The guy just had a bad year. It happpens. The reason I am calling for the Sox to trade PK has nothing to do with his bad year. I just think we need some power from the left side and I think moving PK would allow us to fill his spot with a good LH hitter. Is Spiezio a LH hitter? Also what about that Korean guy who's thinkin bout comin over to America who's been lighting up the league ova there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winninguglyin83 Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 I'm not in favor of trading Konerko. His value is down so you won't get that much, probably another team's bad contract. He's young enough to bounce back, and I predict he will because he was embarrassed by his play last season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Hindsight is 20/20 forkit. The contract they gave Konerko didn't seem to be a problem at the time. In reality, Paulie, had two bad halves.... the second half of 2002 and the first of 2003. He hit well in the second half of this past year, however he did struggle some late. I think Paulie will be fine, but I do agree that we are heavy as a RH hitting team and slow, so if he could be moved to improve that situation or to give us more payroll flexibility so we can acquire pitching, I would not be against it. I do think he will bounce back, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forkit Posted November 10, 2003 Author Share Posted November 10, 2003 Rex: That is eactly my point. Even *I* know which horse will win the Kentucky derby in 2003. I even know which American League team will win the 2003 ALCS. Even *I* know that Konerko's contract is bloated by the current standards and that he had a bad year in 2003. Oh, he's slow and he will ground into lots of double plays in 2003, in case you want to know. But I don't remember thinking the contract was out of line at the time, nor do I remember anyone here or at any of the other forums talking about his new contract when it was announced. But now, all these people are criticizing the Sox organization, writing what a stupid deal it was and how typical it is of how they spend their money. Errr...where were you all when they were negotiating with Konerko? Did one of you post that signing him to a long-term deal as stupid, because he was gonna be a slow bust in 2003? This isn't a pro-Sox post, before someone tries to tag me with that line. It's a post pointing out the obvious: It's easy to take shots at these contracts that suck after the fact. Sometimes, they're just "normal" contracts when they are signed and no one thinks twice. A confluence of events can make decisions look foolish after the fact, but that's always the case in life. Hell, if I could make a living pointing out stupid decisions people make *after the fact,* I'd be rich! To me, there are obvious bad decisions that owners have made: I think paying ARod $250 mill was bad business for everyone involved. In fact, I even think it took some of the bloom off of ARod and took lots of the bloom off of Boras. It certainly finished off the Rangers. Similarly, Kevin Garnett in the NBA has a similar situation. I remember when the team owner said publicly that he was not going to give in to the agent's demands, because he would soon be paying a player more than he paid for the rights to own the team...Unfortunately for him, he buckled to league pressure and is now continually trying to get out from under the albatross contract, as is Garnett, who is now tired of losing on a one man team. But most deals aren't that easy to point out as "stupid and a waste of money." Unless you do it several years later. Just my three cents. Forkit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 I'll add that I am in total agreement, forkit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elrockinMT Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Konerko very well may get back to the level of success he had before. The guy just had a bad year. It happpens. The reason I am calling for the Sox to trade PK has nothing to do with his bad year. I just think we need some power from the left side and I think moving PK would allow us to fill his spot with a good LH hitter. I guess I am not really that excited about trading Konerko either. Paulie spiraled downward from mid 2002 till mid 2003 and then caught fire. Just like anyone else could have had Paulie had a bad year. However, if we are to improve the Sox we may need to trade somebody and the one's who come to mind are the likes of Koch, Paulie, Maggs and Lee. But, only if we get quality in return. I would rather see at least 3 out of the 4 stay with the team. I don't understand why these big dollar contracts don't include clauses that require the players to give back part of their multi-millions for non-production. Add clauses in the terms that allow them to get more the next year for a return to productivity. No wonder we have fans who complain when a player gets $8M for batting .200 and/or sits out the year with an injury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Lopez Ghost (old) Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Konerko very well may get back to the level of success he had before. The guy just had a bad year. It happpens. I am calling for the Sox to trade PK has nothing to do with his bad year. I just think we need some power from the left side and I think moving PK would allow us to fill his spot with a good LH hitter. I don't understand why these big dollar contracts don't include clauses that require the players to give back part of their multi-millions for non-production. Add clauses in the terms that allow them to get more the next year for a return to productivity. Was that supposed to be in green? If not, the answer is because no player would sign such a contract, and the player's association would go postal on whoever did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forkit Posted November 10, 2003 Author Share Posted November 10, 2003 Actually, someone was willing to give ARod and his people offices and a staff as part of his contract. And of course, someone accepted a diminished skills clause. Never say never...it just hasn't been done yet. Maybe someone will offer a player a greater amount than he or she could get elsewhere, but the option portion of the clause deminishes the value of the "overpayment" if the player performs poorly. What sounds crazy now sometimes becomes normal. And what is now normal may later sound...well, crazy. Forkit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.