Texsox Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 But the Batmobile lost a wheel and the Penguin got away.... oh wait that was the Joker, nevermind. Why bring Steve Miller into this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Why bring Steve Miller into this? You know how those midnight tokers are? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 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. Tex you are arguing out of both sides of your mouth now Greed in sports is about what you are worth & what you are being paid. Period. The contract a player signs has no measure on whether they are greedy. Since you are referring to Thomas, answer one simple question: Based on market value norms in baseball was Thomas paid FAIR MARKET VALUE for his level of performance? It's a simple Yes/No question. If you answer Yes, then you would consider him greedy for b****ing & moaning about not being paid enough. Of course if you answer Yes, I will prove you wrong with RPG & other comparative measure stats. If you answer No, then JR got a bargain. Now as we know JR offered Thomas a pretty good deal at the time of the re-negotiation. It was reported that Thomas turned down more money from the O's to remain with the SOX. So when Thomas showed up in ST & one time indicated that he would like to re-negotiate again after coming off a season where HE BEAT MAGGS in final RPG rankings why would you suggest that's greed? Was it reported that he turned down better offers? Yes. Were those offers substantiated? Yes. Did Thomas beat Maggs in RPG in 2003? Yes. Did Thomas finish 6th in RPG ranking in 2003? Yes. Did Maggs finish 11th in RPG ranking in 2003? Yes. Greed has nothing to do with one person swindling or using their market advantage to pressure another into signing a deal that will result in paying them below market value. Why is RPG a better measure than 30/100/300? Because it measures ALL facets of production in a game that result in run production. This includes times a hitter reaches base, sacrifices, total bases, as well as hit production. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Why bring Steve Miller into this? Well I sure don't want to hurt no one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted 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. I am still running this through my mind. What do you call a guy who doesn't want to play for the amount HE agreed to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 I am still running this through my mind. What do you call a guy who doesn't want to play for the amount HE agreed to? Frank Thomas [quicklyrunsaway] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Well I sure don't want to hurt no one... Go on... take the money & run... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Tex you are arguing out of both sides of your mouth now Where is that damn smiley holding a mirror?!?!?!?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Where is that damn smiley holding a mirror?!?!?!?! How about this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 How about this? I like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Tex you are arguing out of both sides of your mouth now How is this out of both sides of my mouth? As a free agent you are free to negotiate the best possible deal and pick one you are happy with. You aggresivly sell your services and agree to a multi-year deal. Then you go play and do your best. Both you and the owner know that other players will be negotiating contracts during your contract period. Those subsequent contracts may make yours seem high or low. Your performance may go down, it may go up. All parties are taking some risk in the contract. Now you think it is right for the player to whine and hold out on the contract he signed?? What did the player agree to? I'll live up to this contract as long as I think it is fair? As soon as my stats go up, I want a new contract giving me more money? And that isn't greed? Tell me Juggs, does your word mean anything? Have you ever signed a contract? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Go on... take the money & run... LMAO, Damn you Steff, I was setting that up for myself and you beat me to it. Steff 238 Tex 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 The horse is out of blood Tex.... :banghead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 LMAO, Damn you Steff, I was setting that up for myself and you beat me to it. Steff 238 Tex 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Tex you are arguing out of both sides of your mouth now Greed in sports is about what you are worth & what you are being paid. Period. The contract a player signs has no measure on whether they are greedy. Since you are referring to Thomas, answer one simple question: Based on market value norms in baseball was Thomas paid FAIR MARKET VALUE for his level of performance? It's a simple Yes/No question. If you answer Yes, then you would consider him greedy for b****ing & moaning about not being paid enough. Of course if you answer Yes, I will prove you wrong with RPG & other comparative measure stats. If you answer No, then JR got a bargain. Now as we know JR offered Thomas a pretty good deal at the time of the re-negotiation. It was reported that Thomas turned down more money from the O's to remain with the SOX. So when Thomas showed up in ST & one time indicated that he would like to re-negotiate again after coming off a season where HE BEAT MAGGS in final RPG rankings why would you suggest that's greed? Was it reported that he turned down better offers? Yes. Were those offers substantiated? Yes. Did Thomas beat Maggs in RPG in 2003? Yes. Did Thomas finish 6th in RPG ranking in 2003? Yes. Did Maggs finish 11th in RPG ranking in 2003? Yes. Greed has nothing to do with one person swindling or using their market advantage to pressure another into signing a deal that will result in paying them below market value. Why is RPG a better measure than 30/100/300? Because it measures ALL facets of production in a game that result in run production. This includes times a hitter reaches base, sacrifices, total bases, as well as hit production. Stef, I'll say this one more time. His quote in reference as to whether the SOX could sign him as a free agent came on the heels of the 58/4 offer. Now I do not have the resources to find any references to the 58/4 offer. If this were a court of law you would be expected to share your evidence with me. You may not have the evidence either as you only have the Cubune to go consider for the offer & the quote. I've search ESPN & there is no mention of the 58/4. Tex, you asked what do I call a player who doesn't want to play for the amount he agreed to? Again it all depends on the amount. If that amount is well below fair market value then I would say he's justified in using whatever leverage he can to be paid fairly. Since you love common job analogies it's really no different than a salaried person asking for a raise. The employee asks for the raise because he believes the fair market value of his performance warrants more pay. Now what does he have for leverage? His ability to perform. He can either quit, take sick days & vacation days, or perform less & hope to be let go for severance. Now if he's smart he's not likely to apply such leverage unless he's solicited offers elsewhere. But whether he can solicit a better offer again reflects whether he is being paid fair market value. Simply put, if you are being paid what you are worth & ask for more then you are being greedy. If you are being paid less than what you are worth & ask for more you are being smart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 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. This bears repeating again because if Stef is acting as the defense for Maggs then she needs to respond intelligently to the facts presented. I realize that might be difficult for her to do, but then I didn't hire her for Maggs defense. Hopefully useless nonsensical wise cracks are not the crux of her defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Actually while you are trying to turn this into a circus trial, I think the whole point was you said that Maggs said that he would not come back to the Sox if he became a free agent. Instead of finding that particular quote, you have decided to attack Maggs character to try to make up for your lack of that particular quote. Now you have resorted to responding to yourself, still trying to compensate for not having the original point of this whole arguement. Instead of blathering on and and on about nothing originally pertaining to the original problem... find the damned quote or admit you were wrong and drop it. This ain't the OJ trial and circumstancial evidence won't get you a damned thing. I want to see a source for your quote or STFU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Tex, you asked what do I call a player who doesn't want to play for the amount he agreed to? Again it all depends on the amount. If that amount is well below fair market value then I would say he's justified in using whatever leverage he can to be paid fairly. Since you love common job analogies it's really no different than a salaried person asking for a raise. The employee asks for the raise because he believes the fair market value of his performance warrants more pay. Now what does he have for leverage? His ability to perform. He can either quit, take sick days & vacation days, or perform less & hope to be let go for severance. Now if he's smart he's not likely to apply such leverage unless he's solicited offers elsewhere. But whether he can solicit a better offer again reflects whether he is being paid fair market value. Simply put, if you are being paid what you are worth & ask for more then you are being greedy. If you are being paid less than what you are worth & ask for more you are being smart. Juggs, I guess you have never signed an employment contract. The reason players and owners enter into contracts is to protect their interests. If people were not obligated to live up to their promise on the contract, we would have chaos. You do understand the difference between accepting a job without a contract and entering into a contract? The salaried worker does not have a contract, it is understood that either party can terminate the relationship. With a contract, it is understood that both parties will live up to the contract that they agreed to. That is what makes the economy work. Yes, that means that on some contracts the players win and on some the owners win. That is why you have to be careful in negotiating the contract up front. You have to be willing to live up to the contract, or do not sign. Asking to renegotiate is one thing, holding out and refusing to live up to your word is another. Why do you think there are multi-year contracts? Are you saying that a player negotiates a four year deal and would expect if his stats improved he should demand more money in year three? Why not just sign a one year contract? He would be a FA and could earn market rates every year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Actually while you are trying to turn this into a circus trial, I think the whole point was you said that Maggs said that he would not come back to the Sox if he became a free agent. Instead of finding that particular quote, you have decided to attack Maggs character to try to make up for your lack of that particular quote. Exactly, he made something up that Maggs NEVER said and he has nothing to back up his claim. Now for some reason he's just taking shots at Maggs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Actually while you are trying to turn this into a circus trial, I think the whole point was you said that Maggs said that he would not come back to the Sox if he became a free agent. Instead of finding that particular quote, you have decided to attack Maggs character to try to make up for your lack of that particular quote. Now you have resorted to responding to yourself, still trying to compensate for not having the original point of this whole arguement. Instead of blathering on and and on about nothing originally pertaining to the original problem... find the damned quote or admit you were wrong and drop it. This ain't the OJ trial and circumstancial evidence won't get you a damned thing. I want to see a source for your quote or STFU. Nice try but once again it's completely illogical. What I have done is that in the absence of being able to find any reference to the 58/4 offer which I have stated is when Maggs made the quote I have provided considerable evidence suggesting that it is MORE PROBABLE that he made the quote than he didn't. On the defense side of the equation you have neither provided any evidence that he did not make the quote NOR have you provided any evidence that would suggest it is MORE PROBABLE that he didn't make it. So the judge would likely rule in my favor. Further more I have provided evidence that Maggs tune has changed as a result of 3 primary factors: His being on the DL, the 140/8 rumors, & Pujols signing a 100/7. Tex, I have signed many contracts in my past & I have even used leverage against certain parties to break contracts. I am well-versed & experienced in contracts & contract laws. I don't know your background but I will say this they are worth no more than the paper they are written on. Behind every contract is a spirit of good-faith on two parties to agree on something in a fair manner. When the contract no longer appears fair either party has the right to use any leverage they can to get out of it. If there is no spirit of good-faith between the two parties to begin then there is little reason for them to enter a contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wedge Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 I forgot what we are even arguing about anymore; I just know I was trying to disagree with Juggs. I think it mostly had to do with his point #7 being false, due to it being discredited by the fact that the 70/5 offer was never even made, straight from Magg's mouth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Poor Juggs is getting hit from all sides and trying to deflect each one as it comes. It kind of reminds me of an old western gun fight. Look behind you, he's shooting from behind the piano. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Tex, what exactly do you call greed then? I'd like to know what your definition is. I think it's hilarious that Jauggs (bless his pedantic soul) is now outraged by Magglio's supposed willingness to move on to bigger and better things than the (2nd rate, oft-unethical) White Sox......whereas in the years I've seen him post, he's been nothing if not a staunch free market pro-Greedist. Carry on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wedge Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 ::cue The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly music:: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Nice try but once again it's completely illogical. What have done is that in the absence of being able to find any reference to the 58/4 offer which I have stated is when Maggs made the quote I have provided considerable evidence suggesting that it is MORE PROBABLE that he made the quote than he didn't. On the defense side of the equation you have neither provided any evidence that he did not make the quote NOR have you provided any evidence that would suggest it is MORE PROBABLE that he didn't make it. So the judge would likely rule in my favor. Further more I have provided evidence that Maggs tune has changed as a result of 3 primary factors: His being on the DL, the 140/8 rumors, & Pujols signing a 100/7. Tex, I have signed many contracts in my past & I have even used leverage against certain parties to break contracts. I am well-versed & experienced in contracts & contract laws. I don't know your background but I will say this they are worth no more than the paper they are written on. Behind every contract is a spirit of good-faith on two parties to agree on something in a fair manner. When the contract no longer appears fair either party has the right to provide any leverage they can to get out of it. If there is no spirit of good-faith between the two parties to begin then there is little reason for them to enter a contract. Its completely illogicial for you to back up what you say? Wow, that might be the most incredible thing I have ever heard you say. If you don't have that quote, the rest of your arguement is complete bulls***. period. 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.