Disheartening Article: Magglios GAWN in 05.

YASNY · June 16, 2004

The June 15th portion of this thread was very interesting, to say the least. I liked the way people called out the BS and asked for proof. Never produced, BTW.

Good job. :cheers

Steff · June 16, 2004

Steff, you're wrong. The Herald, Southtown, Times, & Cubune do not have archives you can search past 30 days. So I can't find even a reference to the day the 58/4 offer was revealed. But I assure you his comment of either "never" or "no" in response to being asked whether he would sign as a free agent of the White SOX.

No, I'm right. I just looked up articles from the Trib all the way back to Colon being signed. I am a subscriber, perhaps that's the difference.

But it doesn't matter.. Magglio never said what you said he did so let it go.

NUKE_CLEVELAND · June 16, 2004

I'll agree with one, not with two.

A man has a responsibility to his family. Why should a guy accept less money to stay with a company? Would you want a player who is so uncompetitive he will accept less? Out of loyalty? To the fans? Are these the same fans that have been arguing he isn't worth it?

I don't think anyone is greedy in wanting to make more for himself and his family. This by all accounts will be his last big contract, he's setting up his future grandkids and their families. I would want that for my family.

Responsibility to his family? It's not like this guy is choosing which factory job he wants ya know. If you cant set up members of your own family on a salary of 15 million a year then there's something wrong with you. Trust me dude, there's no danger of anybody in Ordonez's family EVER going broke.

Steff · June 16, 2004

Responsibility to his family? It's not like this guy is choosing which factory job he wants ya know. If you cant set up members of your own family on a salary of 15 million a year then there's something wrong with you. Trust me dude, there's no danger of anybody in Ordonez's family EVER going broke.

And I'm sure they wont, but that's besides the point. The bar has been set. The lifestyle has been created BY the OWNERS who sign the checks. Maggs should forgo getting the maximum to satisfy fans who think he's being greedy..? :unsure:

NUKE_CLEVELAND · June 16, 2004

And I'm sure they wont, but that's besides the point. The bar has been set. The lifestyle has been created BY the OWNERS who sign the checks. Maggs should forgo getting the maximum to satisfy fans who think he's being greedy..?

I'm all about Maggs getting paid what he's worth compared to other players of his caliber but when is enough enough?

Steff · June 16, 2004

I'm all about Maggs getting paid what he's worth compared to other players of his caliber but when is enough enough?

When the owners stop paying I guess... :huh

JUGGERNAUT · June 16, 2004

No, I'm right. I just looked up articles from the Trib all the way back to Colon being signed. I am a subscriber, perhaps that's the difference.

But it doesn't matter.. Magglio never said what you said he did so let it go.

Steff, you need to pay for that. Do you pay? All you get for free as a subscriber is a preview. The other sites only go back 30 days.

Tex, what exactly do you call greed then? I'd like to know what your definition is.

I've listed 6 players who have given their team of choice discounts. Then of course there are the players who sign for fair market value & then those who sign for the best offer. If not for the SOX Maggs would never have made the big leagues. If you believe otherwise you're ignoring how hard it is for any kid to get a chance as an underacheiver. If you're not prospect stuff it's very hard to make it.

So far Maggs has made the SOX pay top dollar for every year of his service.

We all know the SOX are not a rich team. Attendance alone is a good measure of that.

Your definition is so liberal that in effect no one in the world is greedy :rolleyes:

Steff · June 16, 2004

Steff, you need to pay for that. Do you pay? All you get for free as a subscriber is a preview. The other sites only go back 30 days.

Tex, what exactly do you call greed then? I'd like to know what your definition is.

I've listed 6 players who have given their team of choice discounts. Then of course there are the players who sign for fair market value & then those who sign for the best offer. If not for the SOX Maggs would never have made the big leagues. If you believe otherwise you're ignoring how hard it is for any kid to get a chance as an underacheiver. If you're not prospect stuff it's very hard to make it.

So far Maggs has made the SOX pay top dollar for every year of his service.

We all know the SOX are not a rich team. Attendance alone is a good measure of that.

Your definition is so liberal that in effect no one in the world is greedy

I get it with my paid Trib sub. Jim entered in our account number moons ago and we have full access.

Maggs has MADE the Sox pay him top $$..? GTFOOH!! Maggs didn't FORCE them to give him his current contract. Maggs doesn't FORCE Jerry to sign the check.

And your argument is still full of s*** since you can't produce ONE comment from Maggs saying that he said the bulls*** YOU claim. On the other hand.. you did provide one showing the Sox said it. :headshake

Texsox · June 16, 2004

Steff, you need to pay for that. Do you pay? All you get for free as a subscriber is a preview. The other sites only go back 30 days.

Tex, what exactly do you call greed then? I'd like to know what your definition is.

I've listed 6 players who have given their team of choice discounts. Then of course there are the players who sign for fair market value & then those who sign for the best offer. If not for the SOX Maggs would never have made the big leagues. If you believe otherwise you're ignoring how hard it is for any kid to get a chance as an underacheiver. If you're not prospect stuff it's very hard to make it.

So far Maggs has made the SOX pay top dollar for every year of his service.

We all know the SOX are not a rich team. Attendance alone is a good measure of that.

Your definition is so liberal that in effect no one in the world is greedy

By your definition, everyone who ever asked for a raise or felt they deserved one is greedy.

Baseball players are already making money far beyond their worth to society. Let's for a second look at other jobs and see what happend if they suddenly stopped working. Garbage men, teachers, military, police, fire, sewage plant, etc. are all "worth" more to our society than a baseball player. Those guy suddenly quit wihtout replacements and we are dead in our tracks, baseball goes on strike and life moves on. So we could easily call all of them greedy. Why not have players making $75,000 a year and get jobs when they finish playing? Of course its because the owners would be rolling in hundreds of millions of dollars in profits.

So you ask what is greed, what is fair to the owners, fans, and players. What we have now is everyone for themselves. Frank is leading the league and playing out his ass. Will JR exercise the clubs $11 million option? You and I agreed they will not. Was that greed from JR?

But to answer your question:

I think negotiating with a couple teams and accepting the best offer is not greedy. I think faking a crisis back home, leaving a team, being declared a free agent, then signing with a contending team is greedy. I think signing a contract then holding out when you no longer like the terms is greedy. Once you sign a contract, live up to it, but negotiate the best you can. I think it is greedy to sign a contract and two years later complain you are no longer the highest paid player.

Steff · June 16, 2004

I think it is greedy to sign a contract and two years later complain you are no longer the highest paid player.

LOL.. Blame the ass that gave him the clause on that one!! Jerry NEVER imagined that someone would make more than Albert so quickly. He laughed his ass off the day that call came in. Jerry was just plain stupid on that one. And for the record.. Albert didn't complain once. It was what it was and Jerry called and said we're not going to raise your salary and Baltimore had been calling since he was with the Indians so he took the deal with them.

JUGGERNAUT · June 16, 2004

I get it with my paid Trib sub. Jim entered in our account number moons ago and we have full access.

Maggs has MADE the Sox pay him top $$..? GTFOOH!! Maggs didn't FORCE them to give him his current contract. Maggs doesn't FORCE Jerry to sign the check.

And your argument is still full of s*** since you can't produce ONE comment from Maggs saying that he said the bulls*** YOU claim. On the other hand.. you did provide one showing the Sox said it. :headshake

Steff what exactly needs to be proved here?

There was a reference from Feb that when Williams first approached Maggs about an extension Maggs said he wanted to test free agency. That's a fact. Likewise, if you read the AP, ESPN, & other columns around the nation not one of them is suggesting Heyman's facts are wrong. Most of them point out the fact that Maggs simply denied the remarks made to his wanting to be a Met. That's a fact.

You haven't provided one link to a reference of the 58/4 offer from several weeks back.

You appear to be the only one who can with your paid subscription. So the burden really falls on you to provide Maggs response in regards to the SOX being able to sign him as a free agent.

Not that any of this matters really because the consensus is that with the Orioles GM declaring Maggs as their #1 off-season priority & indication that the Mets are willing to double the SOX offer in terms of $ & years it's pretty obvious that if Maggs intends to sign with the highest bidder he's GAWN.

The rest of this is semantics.

Steff · June 16, 2004

You need to go back and read your bulls***. You stated loud and clear that Maggs said he would not come back to the Sox if he tested FA. That's a lie. And the February revolation about him testing FA was nothing new. Hawk announced it at Soxfest.

I don't need to prove anything because you have yet to provide anything to discredit. No quote from Maggs about not returning with the Sox if he tests FA. Not one.

No semantics. You lied about that quote. End of story.

By the way.. ESPN.Com lets you research waaaaay back.. for free.

RibbieRubarb · June 16, 2004

You need to go back and read your bulls***. You stated loud and clear that Maggs said he would not come back to the Sox if he tested FA. That's a lie. And the February revolation about him testing FA was nothing new. Hawk announced it at Soxfest.

I don't need to prove anything because you have yet to provide anything to discredit. No quote from Maggs about not returning with the Sox if he tests FA. Not one.

No semantics. You lied about that quote. End of story.

By the way.. ESPN.Com lets you research waaaaay back.. for free.

Your Honor the Defense rests... :bang

Steff · June 16, 2004

Your Honor the Defense rests...

:lolhitting

JUGGERNAUT · June 16, 2004

So you ask what is greed, what is fair to the owners, fans, and players. What we have now is everyone for themselves. Frank is leading the league and playing out his ass. Will JR exercise the clubs $11 million option? You and I agreed they will not. Was that greed from JR?

But to answer your question:

I think negotiating with a couple teams and accepting the best offer is not greedy. I think faking a crisis back home, leaving a team, being declared a free agent, then signing with a contending team is greedy. I think signing a contract then holding out when you no longer like the terms is greedy. Once you sign a contract, live up to it, but negotiate the best you can. I think it is greedy to sign a contract and two years later complain you are no longer the highest paid player.

We have different definitions of greed. I do not consider players who b**** & moan or even holdout on a contract greedy when their past performance clearly shows that they are being paid BELOW MARKET VALUE. Market value is considered the norm & not the top.

In otherwords in terms of professional sports player greed is when a player threatens a team in the course of a season to pay him ABOVE MARKET VALUE pay. It's tied to performance. If Maggs had been performing at a level of Manny Ramirez or Barry Bonds these past few years no one would question his right to better than a 70/5 contract. But the plain simple fact is that he hasn't. Even in his best year (2002) on avg his OPS per month was 200 pts lower than that caliber of a player. That's why the best Maggs has even finished in RPG is 6th. Thomas is currently #1 & has finished as high as 4th.

Greed is not about whether a stupid owner exists who will pay you more than you're worth. Greed is about forcing a situation to where you are paid more than you're worth. If the year before free agency is suppose to be the make/break year for any player's pay day then Maggs is clearly acting greedy based on his 2004 performance.

Now you asked whether JR picks up Thomas' 11 million option. Why wouldn't he?

Thomas is #1 in RPG right now in the AL. His 11.01 RPG rating dwarfs the #2 guy's value of 9.66 (Mora Melvin). Again it's not the number that matters as much as the difference between them. That's a sizeable difference. If you were to ask who's the front runner for AL MVP right now it would have to be Frank.

In comparison Magglio Ordonez ranks #6 in a B-class RPG. DL time matters for FA's. His RPG is 6.58. Consider the difference between the two. Both Konerko (7.36), & Uribe (6.99) have performed better than Maggs. Do you know what Maggs highest RPG rating has been in his career? 7.72. At best 1 run better than Konerko.

So yeah, I expect 1 of 2 things to happen with respect to Thomas:

1) They renegotiate a 30/3 w incentives that could pay him as high as 36/3.

2) JR picks up the 11 million option.

Texsox · June 16, 2004

Your Honor the Defense rests...

Nope,

This is the thread that never ends, it goes on and on my friend. Some people started posting it, not knowing what it was; and they'll continue posting, forever just because

southsider2k5 · June 16, 2004

Hey wait, it ended.... or did it? :unsure:

JUGGERNAUT · June 16, 2004

Hey wait, it ended.... or did it?

No, the Maggs s*** don't stink love-fest continues. So those of us who believe his s*** really stinks continue to wage the battle.

Steff, ESPN doesn't have one article on the 58/4 year offer. That's when he made the quote. Do you deny the 58/4 year offer was ever made? If you're answer is no then you can't deny he didn't say it either. Because so far neither of us have provided any proof of the offer or the quote.

What we do know about the greedy player is the following:

1) His 2004 year is proving to be his worst.

2) In early Feb he stated as saying he was not interested in an extension & wanted to test FA.

3) In late Feb he believed he stated he was worth somewhere between 72/6 & 70/5 using the Tejada & Guerrero comparisons.

4) There have been suggestions that Beltran & Maggs can get 140/8 offers in NY.

5) Pujols signed a 100/7 deal with STL after rejecting a 55/5 deal.

6) Maggs has stated he believes the market for player salaries is on an upswing.

7) Heyman who broke the story on Ordonez-A-Rod-Nomar trade has reported that Maggs rejected a 70/5 offer.

8) Maggs only denied that part of the article which implies he wants to be a Met.

The prosecution believes that the evidence strongly suggests there is no reasonable offer the SOX can make that will secure his services & that this is all a PR battle by the SOX to try & corner Maggs into signing an extension.

Steff · June 16, 2004

No, the Maggs s*** don't stink love-fest continues. So those of us who believes his s*** really stinks continue to wage the battle.

As well does the Jugger is a dips*** who can't concentrate on one debate at a time or back up erroneous statements he makes fest.

By the way.. who said his "s*** don't stink"... I missed that post. Or... are you embellishing the "facts" again..? :rolleyes:

Texsox · June 16, 2004

We have different definitions of greed. I do not consider players who b**** & moan or even holdout on a contract greedy when their past performance clearly shows that they are being paid BELOW MARKET VALUE. Market value is considered the norm & not the top.

:lolhitting

Interesting. A player agrees to a 5 year contract, taking the security in exchange for up to the minute comparisons. Why have a contract in the first place if either party should demand a renegotiation when ever they feel it isn't fair? Should owners lock out any player who is "over paid" until they accept less?

Isn't it fair for the club to expect a player to play well after signing a contract? I'm surprised. I believe once both parties agree to a contract, your word is your bond, live up to it. I guess your word isn't. You agree as long as it is advantagous to you. I hope you never enter into a contract expecting someone to renegotiate if it is no longer to your liking.

You believe when someone is under contract they are correct in asking for more money, but if they are FA, they are greedy to negotiate their best contract?

I guess I'm old fashion in believing someone's signature on a contract means something.

Contracts are signed for a period of time. In many contracts, players are over paid in the beginning and underpaid at the end. That is the risk and reward of long term contracts for the owners and players. To renegotiate in the middle, totally ignores that premise.

JUGGERNAUT · June 16, 2004

As well does the Jugger is a dips*** who can't concentrate on one debate at a time or back up erroneous statements he makes fest.

By the way.. who said his "s*** don't stink"... I missed that post. Or... are you embellishing the "facts" again..?

No, the Maggs s*** don't stink love-fest (READ BETWEEN THE LINES) continues. So those of us who believe his s*** really stinks continue to wage the battle.