Disheartening Article: Magglios GAWN in 05.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Sorry, you've been soeaking for Maggs, I must have gotten carried away.

I never spoke for Maggs. I simply indicated what I read he said.

Then I applied logic to other facts I had read in regards to his contract situation, rumors, etc. & made the decision that he cares more about $ then the White Sox.

I likewise have come to the conclusion that his need to be the highest paid player in White Sox history hurts the team more than it helps it.

 

With that being the case I saluted him with the big Fu in this thread & wished him good riddance.

[southsider2k5]

I listed 7 in-disputable facts in the thread to prove my case.

Let's hear yours.

7 indisputable facts EXCEPT FOR THE ONE YOU BASED YOUR WHOLE ARGUEMENT ON!!!!

 

One bang for each fact.

 

 

 

And KW makes a visit looking for the fact that got away. Don't worry, you and OJ will track down that missing newspaper article with the quote that will find Nicoles killer, and set Kobe free!

[southsider2k5]

I give you Jugg, Tex,Steff, SouthSide, and Ribbie all the award for "most time wasted on nothing"

 

You guys can share it.

Damn I will have to try harder. I already cleared the mantle space for it.

[JUGGERNAUT]

It's obvious you have NO CLUE as to what my original argument was.

 

Educating you:

I never spoke for Maggs. I simply indicated what I read he said.

Then I applied logic to other facts I had read in regards to his contract situation, rumors, etc. & made the decision that he cares more about $ then the White Sox.

I likewise have come to the conclusion that his need to be the highest paid player in White Sox history hurts the team more than it helps it.

 

With that being the case I saluted him with the big Fu in this thread & wished him good riddance.

 

The article which is no longer available on-line as it was from April 14-17 was simply one basis for my argument. Since it was unavailable I formed 7 more:

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.

 

New poll on this subject:

http://www.soxtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=20579

 

Thank you & Good Night!

I am the greatest to ever play this game!

[Texsox]

I never spoke for Maggs.  I simply indicated what I read he said.

Then I applied logic to other facts I had read in regards to his contract situation, rumors, etc. & made the decision that he cares more about $ then the White Sox.

I likewise have come to the conclusion that his need to be the highest paid player in White Sox history hurts the team more than it helps it.

 

With that being the case I saluted him with the big Fu in this thread & wished him good riddance.

You've said Maggs is wrong for negotiating his best contract, yet you've also said a player is right if he whines, b****es, and holds out in the middle of the contract if he is underpaid. You are certainly interesting.

 

I didn't think the White Sox were a charity that players needed to make a donation to. I assume if you make a pledge to a charity, you don't honor that is it is no longer a good deal for you.

 

Do you care more about your employer than money? Would you turn down millions of dollars more because you care? Of course not, you would use "leverage" to get out of your contract.

[JUGGERNAUT]

I never said Maggs was wrong in negotiating the best deal he can get for himself from the SOX. But see again here's where you don't understand the concept of good-faith.

Is it good-faith to ask your partner to fork over 20-25% of the operating budget for your services? You probably think it is but I think most would say it isn't.

 

In all of Thomas years of negotiating with JR he's never set the bar beyond that limit.

Now many criticize Thomas for even signing a dim skills clause contract in the first place but he did that how of "good-faith" to JR & the SOX. JR likewise honored that in 2001 by not invoking the clause then.

 

Now as to what the limit is it's not hard to figure out. The NYY have 3 times the payroll of the White Sox & their limit is about 22 mil. Relatively speaking that would put the SOX limit betw 7-8 million.

[Texsox]

I never said Maggs was wrong in negotiating the best deal he can get for himself from the SOX. But see again here's where you don't understand the concept of good-faith.

Is it good-faith to ask your partner to fork over 20-25% of the operating budget for your services? You probably think it is but I think most would say it isn't.

 

In all of Thomas years of negotiating with JR he's never set the bar beyond that limit.

Now many criticize Thomas for even signing a dim skills clause contract in the first place but he did that how of "good-faith" to JR & the SOX.  JR likewise honored that in 2001 by not invoking the clause then. 

 

Now as to what the limit is it's not hard to figure out.  The NYY have 3 times the payroll of the White Sox & their limit is about 22 mil.  Relatively speaking that would put the SOX limit betw 7-8 million.

This is fascinating. If I piece together all your posts the player should:

 

Recognize he shouldn't take too much of a team total payroll. 15% or so is about tops, if that much. Asking for more is wrong. He should accept whatever the owner tells him about the payroll and he shouldn't expect it to increase. He should also not compare his salary vs. stats to anyone else on other teams because they have a different payroll.

 

If team B has a higher payroll and they will pay him more, and he leaves, he's another greedy athlete.

 

You've also said it wasn't greedy to holdout if the deal no longer as fair.

 

So if you are a free agent, take what the team offers as long as it isn't too much because according to Juggs . . .

 

. . . If a contract is unfair to one party they should use "leverage" to get out of it because it isn't fair to them. Contracts aren't worth the paper they are written on.

 

So Maggs should sign for whatever the Sox can afford, and whine and hold out later if the contract is unfair. Great deal, I wonder why Maggs and the ownership do not jump at it.

 

There are plenty of real world examples of professionals getting paid more than 25% of a companies payroll. I was one of them. I was also responsible for over 90% of that companies income. I had a contract with them and when they choose not to renew, I simply moved my clients different firms and started my own business.

 

In the real world if you are productive and earn your salary, the skies the limit. Almost every year for the past 15 years I've had an employee that made more than me. He has been worth it in spades. In round numbers he is responsible for about $250,000 in bottom line profits to my business. I do not mind paying him $150,000 in total compensation.

 

BTW, and I am certain you have already factored this into your thinking, but what percentage of a team's profits are devoted to player salaries? What if (and I'm not saying it is true) that some team was paying the owner $10 million a year and said they could only afford a $40 million dollar payroll? Would your percentage theory still hold true?

[JUGGERNAUT]

As usual you always leave things out such as a player's performance when you generalize. It's pointless to debate whether the SOX can support a payroll of greater than 70 million. But you always liberalize things into owners vs players so I'm not surprised.

 

The bottom line is that the SOX are spending about 20 million more this year than the teams that draw about the same as their attendance. So using a 70 million payroll as their limit is certainly reasonable. Now you might think it's a vast conspiracy by owners around the league but that doesn't change what it is.

 

Likewise you completely neglect the fact that Maggs is having his worst yr in the last 4. His May was weak even before the DL. When you act like your worth more than your performance & you're performing below your average it makes you look even more greedy.

 

Every time you write a post with regard to contracts you always leave out what good-faith means so I'm not surprised if you don't get. Telling everyone you deserve 75/5 when your performance is it's lowest in 4 yrs is not good-faith.

Telling everyone you would like to extend your contract with the SOX another year when your performance is it's best in 4 yrs is good-faith. It's not something you can generalize because it's specific to the two parties involved. Do you honestly think that Maggs agent does not have enough data on the SOX to where they know what the projected revenue is? You'd have to be crazy to think that.

 

You sound like an arse when you keep comparing MLB to other businesses. Other businesses are not dependant upon MLB players in a lineup, or MLB players in the bullpen, or MLB players in the rotation, or bench players. Sure employees might make 25% or better of the payroll in other businesses. But guess what? They might account for better than 25% of the revenue as well. Maggs doesn't.

[Texsox]

You have said that no player should be paid 20% of the payroll. What difference does it make if the guy is #1, #3?

 

You have posted that a player should not ask for more than 20% of the teams payroll.

 

You claim the player isn't greedy if they whine, moan, and hold out during a contract.

 

You said the same player if he whines, moans, and hold out without a contract is greedy.

 

You have claimed that if a contract is unfair use leverage to get out of it.

 

So in any players case:

 

Accept whatever the team can offer. If another team can offer you more, you are greedy for accepting it.

 

Sign the contract for less, and if it becomes unfair, hold out.

 

And that makes sense to you??

 

So as not to be greedy, Maggs should not even bother talking with other teams. Negotiate a $5 or $6 million dollar reduction to the $10 mil range. If another Sox player makes more for less productivity he should whine. moan, and hold out because it would be unfair.

 

One key fact you are missing out on is a contract should be judged in it's totality. Many times a player may be underpaid one season and over paid the next. How about defered compensation? The guy isn't even playing for the team and they are still paying him. How do you judge that years contract?

 

You clearly have zero experience in real contracts, especially ones for more than the rental on an end table. You somehow think people sign contracts worth tens of millions of dollars based on good faith and expect to renegotiate if it suddenly is unfair one year. You expect players to turn down millions from another team because of fans like you?

 

Write back when you dry off behind the ears.

[Texsox]

Good faith is both parties gaurantee they will live up to their end of the contract. It is negotiating in a frank and honest means.

 

You've already admitted you do not negotiate in good faith. You do not understand that, you've said that contracts are not worth the paper they are printed on and you're questioning me on Good Faith?!

 

Here's a few more definitions

 

A term to describe a party's legitimate and honest efforts to meet her obligations in a given situation.

www.websiteupgrades.com/glossary/free/G.shtml

 

 

having no intention to seek an unfair advantage or to defraud another party; making an honest and sincere effort to fulfill obligations.

www.brockport.edu/~hr/GLOSSARY.HTM

 

 

A basic principle of insurance. The Assured and his broker must disclose and truly represent every material circumstance to the Underwriter before acceptance of the risk. A breach of good faith entitles the Underwriter to avoid the contract. (Proposed changes in law may affect this definition - also see "Utmost Good Faith".)

www.allenins.com/Insurance_Definitions.html

 

 

Something done with good intentions, without knowledge or fraudulent circumstances, or reason to inquire further. Example, a good faith estimate given by a lender.

www.valley-financial.com/loans/glossary.htm

 

Notice that using leverage to back out of a contract would not be in good faith.

 

I believe this is game, set, and match. Only an idiot would try and defend his "good faith". I'll bet he tries.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Here's an example for you to consider. Work I did for a Fortune 100 company netted them a 3 billion gain in revenue. I was under contract & based on the fair market price of the area at the time it was a reasonable one. In otherwords the amount of revenue my work generated for the company had nothing to do with the good-faith negotiation of the contract. I got a bonus on top of the contract money in acknowledgement of the work. That's what is meant by good-faith. That's what fosters better business relations.

 

In otherwords people with a good business relationship don't hide behind contract law to enforce the terms of the relationship. They discuss the relationship & when things are no longer fair or equitable to both parties they re-discuss it. That's what I have done in the past & it's not as rare as you think. It happens so often that it resembles the norm case.

 

I've never heard of a hold-out case in MLB, so I assume you're referring to the other big 3. If you have a specific case then you should mention it, but from what I've read most of the cases of hold-outs have been in the NFL where a player is coming off a career year & playing under a contract that severely undermines his worth. The owner has 3 choices: talk to the player & find out what would make him happy, trade the player, or let him hold-out. Court is not an option because of the collective bargaining agreement. In exchange for published contract terms that put players against each other the leagues forfeit their rights to sue. In otherwords any attempt to sue an individual player for breach of contract would have to include the union. No owner is going to sue the union.

 

If you don't think the union is involved in every hold-out situation then you simply don't understand collective bargaining.

[Texsox]

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.

You mentioned hold out. See above,

 

LOL

[JUGGERNAUT]

TEXSOX, when you resort to insults to make your points you act like a F'g child.

Grow the F up.

 

Using insurance quotes as an example for a contract for hire or services is just plain stupid. Give it up already. Obviously when the world grows too big for you your little world experience isn't going to fit. I've negotiated contracts for hire & services with Fortune 100 companies so I'm pretty good at it. I've never burned a bridge either so they tend to respect people who know their worth more than those who don't. Using leverage is something they respect. They do the same thing on the reverse side so it's like a chess match. Both parites want the relationship but they play against one another to gain their own advantage. The play is careful & cautious & never ridiculous. People don't respect the absurd & ridiculous in the play.

 

A player on the DL having his worst year in 4 asking for more than he's currently being paid borders on the absurd & ridiculous

 

Since your mind is incapable of anything but a generalization I'll make this simple for you. In general what a player should be paid on any one team should be in relation to the revenue that player brings in.

 

On the SOX, revenue & winning are synonymous. So what a player makes should be balanced against the winning % of the team & how much that player impacts it.

[JUGGERNAUT]

I eluded to this earlier but I will emphasize it here. With respect to MLB no contract is signed between a player & an owner with out MLBPA approval. The reason why is that every contract must be governed under the collective bargaining agreement.

 

When a player skips camp or holds out those terms are defined in the CBA. That includes courses of action for the team including fines. In otherwords it's already an action contemplated in the CBA & that's why players use it as leverage. The player is NOT violating the terms of the agreement or even taking actions to break it. He is acting in accordance with the terms defined in the agreement. He's well aware of the consequences defined in the CBA of his actions.

 

That's what is meant by leverage. It doesn't mean violating the terms of acting in such a way as to suggest breach of contract. It means acting in relation to the terms. I've had some experience in contracts with more than two parties & sometimes disagreements between two parties can affect the relationship between other parties in that contract. In otherwords it's a dominoe effect. That's the situation I have found myself in at times & you have to use leverage to end your relationship with one party to continue it with another.

[BrandoFan]

Can we unlock Israel-vs-Palestine thread for Juggs?

 

Cuz...

[Texsox]

Here's an example for you to consider. Work I did for a Fortune 100 company netted them a 3 billion gain in revenue.

 

Wow, you do work for Fortune 100 companies and increased their revenues by 3 Billion. How much was that in sales? Your a fricking genius. I am sorry for ever doubting you. I cannot believe the countries greatest business man has time to argue this. 3 Billion is a 10% jump in revenue for at least a Fortune 51-100. BTW, no fortune 100 company reported a 3 Billion dollar increase in revenues last year according to some quick research. Since that certainly would be reported in their annual report, do you care to mention who it was or will this send us on another goose chase like the Maggs article?

 

I guess you don't want to talk about good faith anymore.

 

A solid business relationship is not built on broken promises like you claim. Yes of course some contracts are renegotiated, but agreeing to play for $X and holding out for $X+1 when somebody signs another contract isn't one of those reasons.

 

A player agrees to play for a given salary. I think he should live up to his word. You do not. It's a morals and ethics thing. I believe a man's signature on a contract is his bond, yours isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

 

You think Maggs should accept whatever the Sox offer and then hold out later if it isn't fair. I have no clue how that works if every player does that.

 

You claim any player would be greedy if they negotiate a contract with another team and leave.

 

The same player is not being greedy if he signs a contract, then wants more money and will not honor the contract.

 

You've explained that a player should not ask for more than 20% of a team's payroll, no matter what their revenue.

[Texsox]

Here's the Fortune 100 if you need some help

 

List of the Fortune 500

NEW YORK (AP) — The Fortune 500 ranking of the nation's largest companies compiled by Fortune magazine on the basis of 2003 revenue. Each entry includes rank, name of company, headquarters, last year's rank and 2003 revenue in billions of dollars.

1. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Bentonville, Ark., 1, $258.681

 

2. Exxon Mobil Corp., Irving, Texas, 3, $213.199

 

3. General Motors Corp., Detroit, 2, $195.645

 

4. Ford Motor Co., Dearborn, Mich., 4, $164.496

 

5. General Electric Co., Fairfield, Conn., 5, $134.187

 

6. ChevronTexaco Corp., San Ramon, Calif., 7, $112.937

 

7. ConocoPhillips, Houston, 12, $99.468

 

8. Citigroup Inc., New York, 6, $94.713

 

9. International Business Machines Corp., Armonk, N.Y., 8, $89.131

 

10. American International Group, Inc., New York, 9, $81.300

 

11. Hewlett-Packard Co., Palo Alto, Calif., 14, $73.061

 

12. Verizon Communications Inc., New York, 10, $67.752

 

13. The Home Depot Inc., Atlanta, 13, $64.816

 

14. Berkshire Hathaway Inc., Omaha, 28, $63.859

 

15. Altria Group Inc., New York, 11, $60.704

 

16. McKesson Corp., San Francisco, 20, $57.129

 

17. Cardinal Health Inc., Dublin, Ohio, 19, $56.830

 

18. State Farm Insurance Cos., Bloomington, Ill., 21, $56.065

 

19. The Kroger Co., Cincinnati, 18, $53.791

 

20. Fannie Mae, Washington, D.C., 16, $53.767

 

21. The Boeing Co., Chicago, 15, $50.485

 

22. AmerisourceBergen Corp., Chesterbrook, Pa., 24, $49.657

 

23. Target Corp., Minneapolis, 25, $48.163

 

24. Bank of America Corp., Charlotte, N.C., 23, $48.065

 

25. Pfizer Inc., New York, 37, $45.950

 

26. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., New York, 26, $44.363

 

27. Time Warner Inc., New York, 29, $43.877

 

28. The Procter & Gamble Co., Cincinnati, 31, $43.377

 

29. Costco Wholesale Corp., Issaquah, Wash., 33, $42.546

 

30. Johnson & Johnson, New Brunswick, N.J., 34, $41.862

 

31. Dell Inc., Round Rock, Texas, 36, $41.444

 

32. Sears Roebuck and Co., Hoffman Estates, Ill., 30, $41.124

 

33. SBC Communications Inc., San Antonio, 27, $40.843

 

34. Valero Energy Corp, San Antonio, 55, $37.969

 

35. Marathon Oil Corp., Houston, 52, $37.137

 

36. MetLife Inc., New York, 38, $36.261

 

37. Safeway Inc., Pleasanton, Calif., 41, $35.553

 

38. Albertson's Inc., Boise, 35, $35.436

 

39. Morgan Stanley, New York, 40, $34.933

 

40. AT&T, Bedminster, N.J., 22, $34.529

 

41. Medco Health Solutions, Franklin Lakes, N.J., new to list, $34.265

 

42. United Parcel Service Inc., Atlanta, 43, $33.485

 

43. J.C. Penney Co. Inc., Plano, Texas, 42, $32.923

 

44. The Dow Chemical Co., Midland, Mich., 51, $32.632

 

45. Walgreen Co., Deerfield, Ill., 45, $32.505

 

46. Microsoft Corp., Redmond, Wash., 47, $32.187

 

47. The Allstate Corp., Northbrook, Ill., 44, $32.149

 

48. Lockheed Martin Corp., Bethesda, Md., 56, $31.844

 

49. Wells Fargo & Co., San Francisco, 46, $31.800

 

50. Lowe's Cos. Inc., Mooresville, N.C., 60, $31.263

 

51. United Technologies Corp., Hartford, Conn., 49, $31.034

 

52. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., Decatur, Ill., 71, $30.708

 

53. Intel Corp., Santa Clara, Calif., 58, $30.141

 

54. UnitedHealth Group Inc., Minnetonka, Minn., 63, $28.823

 

55. Northrop Grumman Corp., Los Angeles, 99, $28.686

 

56. Delphi Corp., Troy, Mich., 53, $28.096

 

57. Prudential Financial Inc., Newark, N.J., 57, $27.907

 

58. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., New York, 48, $27.745

 

59. E.I. du Pont de Nemours, Wilmington, Del., 67, $27.730

 

60. The Walt Disney Co., Burbank, Calif., 61, $27.061

 

61. Motorola Inc., Schaumburg, Ill., 59, $27.058

 

62. PepsiCo Inc., Purchase, N.Y., 62, $26.971

 

63. CVS Corp., Woonsocket, R.I., 68, $26.588

 

64. Viacom Inc., New York, 66, $26.585

 

65. Sprint Corp., Overland Park, Kan., 54, $26.202

 

66. Sysco Corp., Houston, 73, $26.140

 

67. Kmart Holding Corp., Troy, Mich., 39, $26.032

 

68. TIAA-CREF, New York, 89, $26.016

 

69. American Express Co., New York, 69, $25.866

 

70. New York Life Insurance Co., New York, 65, $25.700

 

71. International Paper Co., Stamford, Conn., 64, $25.200

 

72. Tyson Foods Inc., Springdale, Ark., 72, $24.549

 

73. Wachovia Corp., Charlotte, N.C., 70, $24.474

 

74. Goldman Sachs Group Inc., New York, 75, $23.623

 

75. Duke Energy, Charlotte, N.C., 118, $23.483

 

76. Honeywell International Inc., Morristown, N.J., 78, $23.103

 

77. Caterpillar Inc., Peoria, Ill., 85, $22.763

 

78. Best Buy Co. Inc., Richfield, Minn., 91, $22.673

 

79. Johnson Controls Inc., Milwaukee, 86, $22.646

 

80. BellSouth Corp., Atlanta, 77, $22.635

 

81. Ingram Micro Inc., Santa Ana, Calif., 76, $22.613

 

82. FedEx Corp., Memphis, 83, $22.487

 

83. Merck & Co. Inc., Whitehouse Station, N.J., 17, $22.486

 

84. ConAgra Foods Inc. Omaha, 50, $22.053

 

85. HCA Inc, Nashville, 90, $21.808

 

86. Alcoa Inc., Pittsburgh, 82, $21.728

 

87. Electronic Data Systems, Plano, Texas, 80, $21.596

 

88. Bank One Corp., Chicago, 79, $21.454

 

89. Comcast Corp., Philadelphia, 157, $21.263

 

90. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co., Springfield, Mass., 84, $21.076

 

91. The Coca-Cola Co., Atlanta, 92, $21.044

 

92. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., New York, 98, $20.671

 

93. WellPoint Health Networks Inc., Thousand Oaks, Calif., 103, $20.360

 

94. Georgia-Pacific Corp., Atlanta, 74, $20.255

 

95. Weyerhaeuser Co., Federal Way, Wash., 96, $19.873

 

96. Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, Ill., 100, $19.681

 

97. AutoNation Inc., Fort Lauderdale, 93, $19.381

 

98. The Williams Cos. Inc., Tulsa, 196, $19.246

 

99. Supervalu Inc., Eden Prairie, Minn., 81, $19.160

 

100. Cisco Systems Inc., San Jose, Calif., 95, $18.878

[JUGGERNAUT]

Wow, you do work for Fortune 100 companies and increased their revenues by 3 Billion. How much was that in sales? Your a fricking genius. I am sorry for ever doubting you. I cannot believe the countries greatest business man has time to argue this. 3 Billion is a 10% jump in revenue for at least a Fortune 51-100. BTW, no fortune 100 company reported a 3 Billion dollar increase in revenues last year according to some quick research. Since that certainly would be reported in their annual report, do you care to mention who it was or will this send us on another goose chase like the Maggs article?

 

I guess you don't want to talk about good faith anymore.

 

A solid business relationship is not built on broken promises like you claim. Yes of course some contracts are renegotiated, but agreeing to play for $X and holding out for $X+1 when somebody signs another contract isn't one of those reasons.

 

A player agrees to play for a given salary. I think he should live up to his word. You do not. It's a morals and ethics thing. I believe a man's signature on a contract is his bond, yours isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

 

You think Maggs should accept whatever the Sox offer and then hold out later if it isn't fair. I have no clue how that works if every player does that.

 

You claim any player would be greedy if they negotiate a contract with another team and leave.

 

The same player is not being greedy if he signs a contract, then wants more money and will not honor the contract.

 

You've explained that a player should not ask for more than 20% of a team's payroll, no matter what their revenue.

You need therapy. I never said it was last year or even over 1 year. But that's the way your mind works: create assumptions out of your own personal experience

 

The rest of your first paragraph highlights your ability to string along irrelevancies.

 

Now adding your two greatest weaknesses together we get your typical response:

putting in your own words what you think people say. Of course that's pretty dangerous given that there's a great assumption you have any understanding of what someone else says in the first place.

 

Only an idiot would translate using the terms of a contract as leverage to "broken promises".

 

You love the word holding out, so let me explain this to you again:

The terms associated with holding out in MLB are defined in the CBA.

This applies more to draft picks than to established players. Most establish players use ST for their hold out leverage. It is not a broken promise as you suggest.

The fines & penalties for skipping ST or refusing to sign with the team that drafts you are defined in the CBA. It is not a breach of contract.

 

A player has the right to use every leverage he can in accordance with the agreement he signs. Period. This is not a retail business. It's an entertainment business driven by a collective bargaining agreement with one of the most powerful unions in existence. There is nothing dishonorable in that.

 

I think Kenny Williams should have let Maggs go in 2001 after he rejected 26/4.

So I hope Maggs walks so we can free up that money for solid pitching & someone who might perform as well as Carlos.

 

Your brain must be shutting down because you're doing a real s***ty job & telling me what I claim so this is the last time:

 

1) A player is greedy if asks for more than he is being paid at a time when his production is the lowest in his current contract. See Maggs 2004.

 

2) A player is not greedy if he uses the terms in the CBA knowing the consequences to seek more at a time when his production is at it's highest in his current contract.

 

3) A player is not greedy when he asks for more than 20% of the payroll if he's currently producing better than 20% over any other player.

 

Now I realize that's a lot for you to remember, but you just look like a stupid arse when you try to paraphrase into your generalized-think & miss important details.

Perhaps that's why the signature means so much to you on a contract.

Maybe you just ignore the details

 

Here's a thought. Try making revisions to a contract once in a while. You might find the details to be of use to you

[JUGGERNAUT]

I would like to leave this thread because the level of intelligence is dropping among some of the participants. Please do not respond to my posts in this thread.

 

Tex, are you really that stupid to where you think I would tell you which company?

For all I know you could be a terrorist.

[hammerhead johnson]

Your brain must be shutting down because you're doing a real s***ty job & telling me what I claim so this is the last time:

 

blah blah blah

:dips***

[BrandoFan]

I think Kenny Williams should have let Maggs go in 2001 after he rejected 26/4.

Are you insane? Ray Duhram was making 6 per.

 

Let's take a trip down the memory lane......

 

You're talking about 2001-2002, a time of gross market over-valuation; 10 Mill a year was a STARTING POINT in negotions for All-Star players....Raul f***ing' Mondesi was making 15 Mill a year then, FCOL!!

 

In 2001, Magglio was already a proven 925 OPS, 120 RBI, high-RISP, high-'Close and Late' production player. In addition to that, he was one of the BEST defensive RF in the game (only behind Ichiro and Vlad) AND was coming off 1999-2000 seasons where he showed ability to steal and take extra bases at high %.

 

But most importantly, at just 27yo and with only 3 full ML seasons under his belt, there was a good chance he would take the next step (which he briefly did in 2002) and become a legitimate 1000 OPS, possibly HOF-caliber player, especially if he would finally decide to follow Sosa, Mac, Bonds, Boone, Giambi's example and get on steroids. Some experts had him as their dark horse MVP pick as early as 2001-2002 off-season.

 

Sorry, but a 3 year, 29.5 Mill contract for what was considered to be a RISING STAR as well as a home-grown fan favorite and a possible Thomas replacement (remember, at that time nobody knew how Frank would bounce back after the injury or how soon his batspeed would slow down due to extra weight and age...nobody knew) was anything BUT "absurd". In fact, Sox thought they were getting a bargain.

 

I argued that Maggs isn't worth 5/75 to the Sox in their present financial state long before you started posting on this board......but at some poiint you have to knock that "Maggs is worth no more than 7-8 Mill a year" garbage. When you have a base-clogging, mediocre-fielding, 790 OPS-hitting player in Miguel Tejada making 72 over 6 years. WTF?

 

Furthermore, blaming Magglio for basically wanting to get the f*** out of this sorry, classless 2nd rate organization makes very little sense, on any level. It's especially hypocritical and contradictory in light of your well-known views that you now conveniently claim you've discarded as though it were a pair of gloves.

 

Magglio owes YOU nothing. He hasn't delievered on the lofty Sammy Sosa 2.0 promise, true, but he still put up respectable numbers and is quietly playing out the term of his current contract without media boycotts or clubhouse tantrums. He wants more? I would too in his position. Cao. No hard feeling, Maggs - it's Borchard's time to shine.

[The Critic]

One word for this thread:

wow.

Tex, for you I have this:

Even when it fell on deaf ears, which was EVERY TIME, your logic was solid.

 

Note to self:

Never get involved in a contract with Juggs. If I do, I'll use an Etch-A-Sketch.

[YASNY]

500 posts. This thread needs to die.

[Flash Tizzle]

500 posts.  This thread needs to die.

Within the shadows of this thread I have quietly browsed. From the infancy of this thread until now I have followed the arguments of the posters, but have felt no urgency to defend my position (or that of others that support it; Jug). Reason: because every solitary point/argument has been regurgitated numerous times; page after page. No foul in that. It just appears several posters may have become annoyed in this thread continually bumping itself.

 

You bastards have taken my creation and raised it to a level comparable with the b****ass Passionless thread.

[Texsox]

Only an idiot would translate using the terms of a contract as leverage to "broken promises".

Now your signature on a contract has dipped below that of a promise. :headshake

 

Tex, are you really that stupid to where you think I would tell you which company?

For all I know you could be a terrorist. 

 

How is picking one of those companies so we can look at their annual report and seeing the 3 BILLION dollar increase in revenues going to open them up to a possible terrorist attack? You do know that corporate annual reports are public information? Most companies that have helped someone to a 3 BILLION dollar increase in revenues would be advertising that. That is huge. Maybe you meant to say 3 gazillion million dollars?

 

Terrorism? Wait, maybe that's why we cannot find the Maggs article, Homeland Security has purged the records. Pretty sneaky. Too bad it makes you look like a liar.

 

The rest of your first paragraph highlights your ability to string along irrelevancies.

 

You mentioned the Fortune 100 company who you increased revenues by 3 BILLION dollars. Now it isn't relevant? What when you realized you prbably should have lied a little lower?

 

In Juggs World, which would be a great name for a strip bar, and a fitting tribute to his ethics.

 

JR should lock Koch out and use leverage to renegotiate his contrat

 

-- which he will need to do because --

 

Shingo and Uribe should be whining, and holding out for fair contracts.

 

 

 

Juggs, I've ony entered into 500 or 600 contracts, and sadly never with a Fortune Magazine 100 by revenues. Fortune has a few other lists as well that my cients have appeared on. But I'm not using that experience to bolster my argument.

 

Company A has entered into contracts with Company 1 and Company 2.

 

Company Tex has fulfilled each contract to the letter without any problems.

Company Jughead, when they deemed the contract to be unfair, used leverage (I love how you said that, nice attempt at very grown up business-like terms whenever they deemed the contract to be unfair.

 

You said Campany A respects Company Jughead for that. That is wrong. They do not respect the fact that they have to return to something they thought was a done deal and renegotiate. When companies negotiate contracts, taking the time to commit all this to writing, they do not want to go through the negotiation process again. That's the point of a contact. It clearly spells out what both parties have agreed to do.

 

When a new contract is being negotiated, Company Tex is in a far better position than Company Jughead.

 

Jughead, I will give you this. With the current Sox announced payroll for 2004 and assuming no increase for 2005, keeping two star players again is possibly out of the question. So Frank gets the nod ahead of Maggs. I think somoeone who plays the field as well as hits, is more valuable, I also respect Franks contributions to the organization and believe he should be signed. So Maggs moves on.