Jump to content

Disheartening Article: Magglios GAWN in 05.


Flash Tizzle

Recommended Posts

"Hey Bob, who did you go with on the Reyosa project?"

 

" I went with Jugghead"

 

"What's it going to cost you?"

 

"I don't know really. I really respect the fact with Jugghead, if we get in the middle of the contract and they think it's unfair, they'll use leverage to get me to change. I could never deal with a company who actually follows through with a contract and whose signature is their bond. That's medieval."

 

"Why does Jughead sign contracts if they aren't going to live up to them?"

 

"Well we know they really aren't worth the paper they're printed on. See, in a business relationship with a 3 BILLION dollar deal. If we have to enforce something through a contract, well that's just not a good relationship. You don't understand good faith"

 

Juggs World Juggs World. I think Juggs aso does a cable show from his basement

 

 

06x.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 548
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Very nice analysis Brando.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

LMAO.

 

You think in the CBA there is procedures for when a player thinks the contract he signed is unfair!? :D Why then didn't half the major league hold out when A-rod signed his contract?

 

So every contract is valid until the player doesn't like it anymore then he can refuse to play.

 

Would you care to define leverage? This should be entertaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

It seemed to work for the Florida Marlins last season. I-Rod's contract was for $10 mil on a $48 mil payroll. That's over 20%. What idiots.

 

And once again, how are you defining "good faith"? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

blah blah blah ... more stupid dumb arse questions that have already been addressed in the thread. My reading skills suck that's why I keep asking the same dumb questions over & over.

 

blah blah blah ... I'm so stupid I need to string together irrelevancies & relationships that have no relation whatsoever.

 

blah blah blah ... since I can't read .. just tell me where to put my X on the contract

It's pretty pointless for me to respond. Because any one with a brain reading this thread can see the obvious pattern & with that pattern it will never end:

 

Tex makes dumb-arse assumptions (annual contracts) & dishonestly paraphrases what Juggs writes. Juggs then has to point out the stupidity in Tex's assumptions.

 

Repeat loop .. over and over again. I'm not here to educate Tex. I didn't sign up for that job.

 

Bf, I'll debate the last Maggs contract extension in the other thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pretty pointless for me to respond.   Because any one with a brain reading this thread can see the obvious pattern & with that pattern it will never end:

 

Tex makes dumb-arse assumptions (annual contracts) & dishonestly paraphrases what Juggs writes.  Juggs then has to point out the stupidity in Tex's assumptions.

 

Repeat loop .. over and over again.   I'm not here to educate Tex.  I didn't sign up for that job.  

 

Bf, I'll debate the last Maggs contract extension in the other thread.

Tell me which you disagree with:

 

You said a player is greedy if he negotiates and signs a contract for more money with another team.

 

You said a player is not greedy if he decides he no longer thinks his contract is fair and he can whine, moan, and hold out. That is NOT greedy. In fact it is "leverage" built into the CBA. Owners will respect someone who knows what they are worth.

 

You said businesses respect someone who will not uphold their end of a contract if it is no longer fair to them. That contracts are not worth the paper they are printed on.

 

You said you negotiated contracts and worked on a project that increased a fortune 100 company by 3 BILLION dollars, yet will not mention the company citing the fact I may be a terrorist.

 

You claimed Maggs said several things and cannot find the article. I'll give you that one, it can be hard sometimes to find an article on the net.

 

You retorically asked if it is in good faith for one player to ask for 20% - 25% of a teams payroll for himself? When pointed out the Marlins did that you were quiet.

 

You pointed to the A's as a successful team, yet that had not been to a World Series in 15 seasons.

 

So, which statement is wrong?

 

Show me my statements that you say are wrong?

 

And to your final statement. Why do you even read a contract? I read it to know my obligations. When I sign I expect to fulfill my agreement. That is good faith. You claim it is good faith to sign the contract knowing you have no intention of honoring it if you are unhappy later.

 

Feeling lonely Jugghead?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell me which you disagree with:

 

You said a player is greedy if he negotiates and signs a contract for more money with another team.

 

You said a player is not greedy if he decides he no longer thinks his contract is fair and he can whine, moan, and hold out. That is NOT greedy. In fact it is "leverage" built into the CBA. Owners will respect someone who knows what they are worth.

 

You said businesses respect someone who will not uphold their end of a contract if it is no longer fair to them. That contracts are not worth the paper they are printed on.

 

You said you negotiated contracts and worked on a project that increased a fortune 100 company by 3 BILLION dollars, yet will not mention the company citing the fact I may be a terrorist.

 

You claimed Maggs said several things and cannot find the article. I'll give you that one, it can be hard sometimes to find an article on the net.

 

You retorically asked if it is in good faith for one player to ask for 20% - 25% of a teams payroll for himself? When pointed out the Marlins did that you were quiet.

 

You pointed to the A's as a successful team, yet that had not been to a World Series in 15 seasons.

 

So, which statement is wrong?

 

Show me my statements that you say are wrong?

 

And to your final statement. Why do you even read a contract? I read it to know my obligations. When I sign I expect to fulfill my agreement. That is good faith. You claim it is good faith to sign the contract knowing you have no intention of honoring it if you are unhappy later.

 

Feeling lonely Jugghead?

death_valley-lone_sagebrus.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Repeat loop .. over and over again. I'm not here to educate Tex.  I didn't sign up for that job.

Teach me something.

 

If you are the owner of a company looking to open up an International Procurement office in Tiawan and hiring a firm to do that. Would you rather have

 

Company A who believes a contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on, who has told you he uses leverage to get out of contracts he signed which he later feels are unfair.

 

or

 

Company B who believes his word is his bond, and has never used leverage to get out of a contract?

 

Wouldn't it be a little scary to get half way through the project and have company A tell you that they should be getting more money and are trying to get out of the contract? Don't you think businesses make decisions based on the terms of the contract, buy materials, hire people, expand production? How could American business survive if everyone thought like you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Repeat loop .. dishonest paraphrasing .. questions that have already been answered .. dumb-arse assumptions.

I could engineer a Texsox he's so F'g pathetically predictable. As are some others :rolleyes:

 

If you bother to ask a question that has yet to be asked in this thread & can train your short term memory to avoid being dishonest in your paraphrasing I'll give you the time of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could engineer a Texsox he's so F'g pathetically predictable. As are some others  :rolleyes:

 

If you bother to ask a question that has yet to be asked in this thread & can train your short term memory to avoid being dishonest in your paraphrasing I'll give you the time of time.

look above your post

 

and Jugghead, scroll back through the pages and find the last time anyone agreed with you. :lolhitting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could engineer a Texsox he's so F'g pathetically predictable. As are some others  :rolleyes:

 

If you bother to ask a question that has yet to be asked in this thread & can train your short term memory to avoid being dishonest in your paraphrasing I'll give you the time of time.

I just gave you a summary of what I believe you have said. Please contradict one of those statements and I will gladly issue an appology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could engineer a Texsox he's so F'g pathetically predictable. As are some others  :rolleyes:

 

If you bother to ask a question that has yet to be asked in this thread & can train your short term memory to avoid being dishonest in your paraphrasing I'll give you the time of time.

dishonest in my parahrasing?? May I offer what you lied to and implied was a quote from me

 

blah blah blah ... more stupid dumb arse questions that have already been addressed in the thread. My reading skills suck that's why I keep asking the same dumb questions over & over.

 

blah blah blah ... I'm so stupid I need to string together irrelevancies & relationships that have no relation whatsoever.

 

blah blah blah ... since I can't read .. just tell me where to put my X on the contract 

That wasn't dishonest?

 

By the way Jugghead, who's more likely to read a contract, someone who plans on living up to the agreement or someone who doesn't believe it is wrth the paper it is printed on? Oh yes, you will read it to make certain it has some leverage you can use later to get out of the contract if it doesn't favor you anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could engineer a Texsox he's so F'g pathetically predictable. As are some others  :rolleyes:

 

If you bother to ask a question that has yet to be asked in this thread & can train your short term memory to avoid being dishonest in your paraphrasing I'll give you the time of time.

You're an asshole. A lying asshole to boot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Company A is not going to tell you that. They would be stupid to do so.

You will sign the contract with Company A because of their past success, a reference you have on Company A, or some other personal knowledge.

 

In most cases there are confidentiality agreements that bar any company for which company A has worked for from disclosing prior contract details. So as to whether company A used the terms of a contract to seek respectful dissolution of the contract you won't know about.

 

Therefore in deciding whether company A & company B get the contract I would rely on their past success rate & personal references.

 

What you foolishly are assuming in this is that company C (the company A ended a contract with) has greater credibility that company A. Again bad assumption.

Likewise you are foolishly assuming that company A ended it's contract with company C because it deserved more money. Again bad assumption.

 

What was explained to you earlier is that not all contracts are between ONLY two companies. Sometimes company C & company E &/or company F no longer wish to do business together. That leaves company A caught in the middle & must choose sides.

 

I do not have any experience with respect to CBA's professionally so I can not think of how hold-outs, or seeking more money in the midst of contract would apply in a non-sports world. I can say that is not uncommon in contracts for hire for re-negotiation & extensions to occur where the company providing services offers more months or years in exchange for greater compensation. That's about the only relevance I can see in terms of comparing sports to the non-sports world. In my industry of work it's un-professional to end a contract before completition. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but I & others see it that way.

 

Grant it from what you've posted your experience seems limited to two party contracts so I should be more kind in my words to you. I will use an example that might help explain this. The US Govt gave a contract to Haliburton for over-seeing the re-building of Iraq. Haliburton then turned around and offered contracts for hire

with other firms & that dominoe effect continues until it gets down to company J. which performs the work. The higher you go up the food chain the greater the power of the company in the relationship. Company H hired by company G ends their contract with company I or refuses to sign the terms of an extension. Company H then pursues company J directly. Since company J's contract is specific for the work ultimately provided by company H company J has to seek termination of it's contract with company I so that it can continue the work provided by company H.

 

Basically company J has two options: continue working for I & hope that I can secure a new contract & similar pay soon or terminate it's contract with I & work for H directly. This is not as rare a situation as you would think & I would suspect it's already happened in the Haliburton situation more than once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Company A is not going to tell you that.  They would be stupid to do so.

You will sign the contract with Company A because of their past success, a reference you have on Company A, or some other personal knowledge.

 

In most cases there are confidentiality agreements that bar any company for which company A has worked for from disclosing prior contract details.  So as to whether company A used the terms of a contract to seek respectful dissolution of the contract you won't know about.

 

Therefore in deciding whether company A & company B get the contract I would rely on their past success rate & personal references.

 

What you foolishly are assuming in this is that company C (the company A ended a contract with) has greater credibility that company A. Again bad assumption.

Likewise you are foolishly assuming that company A ended it's contract with company C because it deserved more money.  Again bad assumption.

 

What was explained to you earlier is that not all contracts are between ONLY two companies.  Sometimes company C & company E &/or company F no longer wish to do business together.  That leaves company A caught in the middle & must choose sides.

 

I do not have any experience with respect to CBA's professionally so I can not think of how hold-outs, or seeking more money in the midst of contract would apply in a non-sports world.  I can say that is not uncommon in contracts for hire for re-negotiation & extensions to occur where the company providing services offers more months or years in exchange for greater compensation.  That's about the only relevance I can see in terms of comparing sports to the non-sports world.  In my industry of work it's un-professional to end a contract before completition.  That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but I & others see it that way.

 

Grant it from what you've posted your experience seems limited to two party contracts so I should be more kind in my words to you.  I will use an example that might help explain this.  The US Govt gave a contract to Haliburton for over-seeing the re-building of Iraq.  Haliburton then turned around and offered contracts for hire

with other firms & that dominoe effect continues until it gets down to company J. which performs the work.  The higher you go up the food chain the greater the power of the company in the relationship.  Company H hired by company G ends their contract with company I or refuses to sign the terms of an extension.  Company H then pursues company J directly.  Since company J's contract is specific for the work ultimately provided by company H company J has to seek termination of it's contract with company I so that it can continue the work provided by company H.

 

Basically company J has two options: continue working for I & hope that I can secure a new contract & similar pay soon or terminate it's contract with I & work for H directly.  This is not as rare a situation as you would think & I would suspect it's already happened in the Haliburton situation more than once.

Confidentialiy agreements would not stop a company from getting a reference. They only refer to trade secrets.

 

Why do I even bother. You lie. Enjoy your life. No wonder you favor ethics being taught in school instead of at home. This explains everything.

 

 

Link to Jugghead quote

Again let me remind you all the behavioral science & social science data available

leads to the basic fact that by & large today's students do not mature with a good sense of ethics or morals. That reflects in society when they graduate. So to simply ignore this, or continue to blame the parents is useless. You do not solve a problem by hoping people will accept responsibility for it. The majority of parents clearly do not.

So you representing society must do so. You may not like it but that's the way a democracy works. When personal responsibility fails the nation must act.

 

Well I guess we found the poster child for failed parents and ethics training. Have a nice day. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...