Steff Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 11:44 AM) I just want to point out MLB is in the business of giving guaranteed contracts. Arod could not play another game because of injury yet he'd still get paid. Wha...??? No refund...???? Sorry. Couldn't resist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 11:22 AM) The Yankees and Rangers don't have anything more to agree on. Why do you keep saying they do? The deal for the $67 million was done. There is approx $22 million of that $67 million left to go. If ARod moves, the $22 million goes with him. Why on earth would the Rangers CONTINUE to pay the Yankees money that they agreed to compensate Alex for..? Yes, Alex will get paid regardless. And a TOTAL of $67 million of his pay will come from the Texas Rangers. It doesn't restrict the Yankees. It has nothing to do with the Yankees. It makes sense that the Rangers continue to pay the Yankees funds to compensate a contract for a player that no longer plays there. I wouldn't be laughing about making that claim if you are indeed serious. Here is the practical difference. In your view, whatever team takes ARod, has to accept the compensation that the Yankees and Rangers agreed on. Whatever term and conditions, deferrals, etc. would be required to stay the same. The Yankees and whomever they are negotiating with could not accept anything different. In my view, the Yankees continue to receive the compensation that they agreed on with the Rangers and can negotiate the terms and amounts of any cash included with the next team. The Rangers are writing the same check, yet for some reason, in your view, they insisted as part of the negotiations, that they only pay the team Alex is playing for. I can't see a single reason why. I can't imagine the Yankees insisting on it. QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 11:47 AM) Wha...??? No refund...???? Sorry. Couldn't resist. What is so funny is my argument states the Rangers would still owe the Yankees, your argument would be that since he is no longer playing for the Yankees the Rangers wouldn't have to pay if he isn't playing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 11:51 AM) Here is the practical difference. In your view, whatever team takes ARod, has to accept the compensation that the Yankees and Rangers agreed on. Whatever term and conditions, deferrals, etc. would be required to stay the same. The Yankees and whomever they are negotiating with could not accept anything different. In my view, the Yankees continue to receive the compensation that they agreed on with the Rangers and can negotiate the terms and amounts of any cash included with the next team. The Rangers are writing the same check, yet for some reason, in your view, they insisted as part of the negotiations, that they only pay the team Alex is playing for. I can't see a single reason why. I can't imagine the Yankees insisting on it. Clean your glasses because your view is obstructed. I said nothing about another team having to accept anything, stated the opposite several times actually. I said the money follows Alex. Regardless of how it gets there, it follows him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 MLB rules make any large sum of money to be tied specifically to a player and that sum will follow a player. Otherwise certain teams (or owners) could completely profitize the business and just sell off players for cash and make tons of profits and just pocket them while the team goes to hell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vandy125 Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 11:55 AM) What is so funny is my argument states the Rangers would still owe the Yankees, your argument would be that since he is no longer playing for the Yankees the Rangers wouldn't have to pay if he isn't playing. I don't understand why you keep trying to say I am saying things that I have not at all said.. But no, my argument says nothing like that. My argument from the start is that Alex gets paid $67 million from the Rangers. QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 11:56 AM) MLB rules make any large sum of money to be tied specifically to a player and that sum will follow a player. Otherwise certain teams (or owners) could completely profitize the business and just sell off players for cash and make tons of profits and just pocket them while the team goes to hell. /thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 11:56 AM) Clean your glasses because your view is obstructed. I said nothing about another team having to accept anything, stated the opposite several times actually. I said the money follows Alex. Regardless of how it gets there, it follows him. How it gets there is the entire debate here. You've said the Rangers pay the team Alex is playing for. So would there be new negotiations between the Rangers and that new team, or would the new team have to accept the terms that the Yankees and Rangers agreed to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 12:02 PM) How it gets there is the entire debate here. You've said the Rangers pay the team Alex is playing for. So would there be new negotiations between the Rangers and that new team, or would the new team have to accept the terms that the Yankees and Rangers agreed to? For the 18th or 19th time.. the deal is made - between the players union and MLB by the way, the Yanks and Rangers had no choice but to agree or else the deal would not be approved by Selig. Some how, some way the Rangers will pay ARod a total of $67 million. There is no debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 10:02 AM) How it gets there is the entire debate here. You've said the Rangers pay the team Alex is playing for. So would there be new negotiations between the Rangers and that new team, or would the new team have to accept the terms that the Yankees and Rangers agreed to? Its already been agreed upon. A portion of Arod's contract is paid by the Rangers each season. So now when the White Sox negotiate, they are basically talking about roughly 16 mill per year and at that point they can try and negotiate with the Yanks to include some more cash towards the deal. But the Rangers will be paying a few mill per year (whatever was originally agreed upon when the first trade was made) of Arod's contract with the Sox/Yanks or whoever picking up the 16 mill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 Good luck... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan562004 Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 11:39 AM) Seeing as I'm very lazy, can someone once again tell me if there's actually a chance this happens? Or is it just speculation? A post or two earlier I mentioned that Boras was told by Cashman he's staying, but who knows.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 11:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> MLB rules make any large sum of money to be tied specifically to a player and that sum will follow a player. Otherwise certain teams (or owners) could completely profitize the business and just sell off players for cash and make tons of profits and just pocket them while the team goes to hell. What's the exact amount? When Vazquez was traded to the D'backs, the Yanks sent cash. When Vazquez was traded to the Sox the D'Backs sent cash as well but I don't think it was an equal amount that the Yankees sent. At the time of the trade a lot of people got the impression when the D'backs were sending money, we'd only be paying $6 million a year for Javy. The were taking his salary minus the money the Yanks sent, minus the money the D'backs were sending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hi8is Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 02:07 AM) Fields at the plate could, IMO, do in 2007 what Crede did in 2005 when we won it all, which is be mediocre. I think he'd be better than that, but that's just my opinion. sorry... but... HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH.... edit: i just read what he said again.... and couldnt help myself from laughing more.... BAWHWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAWHWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAWHWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAWHWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAWHWAHHAHAHAHAH HAHHAAWHWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAWHWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAWHWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAWHWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAWHWAHHAHAH HAHAHAHHAAWHWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAWHWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAWHWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAWHWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAWHWAHH HAHAHAHAHAHHAAWHWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAWHWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAWHWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAWHWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAWH AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAWHWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAWHWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAWHWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAWHWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHH AWHWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAWHWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAWHWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA Edited October 25, 2006 by hi8is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxfest Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 Do it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 QUOTE(hi8is @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 12:27 PM) sorry... but... HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH.... edit: i just read what he said again.... and couldnt help myself from laughing more.... BAWHWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAWHWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA What's so untouchable about .252/.303/.454/.756, 22 HR, 62 RBI, 54 R in 438 AB? That's actually pretty mediocre especially the OBP which is atrocious. The 22 HR would be tough for him to reach but I don't see a .252 batting average and 62 RBIs as being something unatainable for Josh Fields' rookie year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ginger Kid Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 I would be concerned about chemistry. A-Rod's a selfish player and I don't think he's a good fit for the current Sox roster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 QUOTE(Kalapse @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 12:46 PM) What's so untouchable about .252/.303/.454/.756, 22 HR, 62 RBI, 54 R in 438 AB? That's actually pretty mediocre especially the OBP which is atrocious. The 22 HR would be tough for him to reach but I don't see a .252 batting average and 62 RBIs as being something unatainable for Josh Fields' rookie year. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 12:06 PM) Its already been agreed upon. A portion of Arod's contract is paid by the Rangers each season. So now when the White Sox negotiate, they are basically talking about roughly 16 mill per year and at that point they can try and negotiate with the Yanks to include some more cash towards the deal. But the Rangers will be paying a few mill per year (whatever was originally agreed upon when the first trade was made) of Arod's contract with the Sox/Yanks or whoever picking up the 16 mill. The Rangers agreed to send money to the Yankees. We all agree on that. Some of that was deferred as was Alex's compensation. IYHO Is there any room for the next team to take the Ranger money under different terms than already agreed to between the Rangers and Yankees? For example, the next team may wish to have the money today to pay Alex's current contract. Could the Yankees agree to send a lower amount, sooner, to the new team. Or does the new team have to accept the Ranger's money the same way the Yankees are? Could the Yankees agree to send the same amount, only spread out over a longer period? Under the "Ranger's pay the team that Alex plays for" theory, unless the Ranger's would be willing to renegotiate, that would be impossible. I believe if the Union and MLB believe the new trade is fair, it could be done. Another reason I believe it could be more or less, is market conditions change and the deal should be evaluated based on today's market. Imagine of ARod lived to the hype and at a future date was now a 60/60 .375 guy with five MVP and World Series rings. He would be worth more than the $16 mil the Yankees are paying. In keeping with the fair trade theory, wouldn't it be unfair to include all the cash? When we see trades where a player plus cash is traded to another team, when is that money considered to be the new teams? Since the cash follows the money, if the Sox traded Crede for a Player plus $5 million, every subsequent trade would have to include cash with that player? They couldn't swap two players for that one and keep the money? However, there is an easy way around this even if the team has to accept the Ranger money as agreed. The Yankees send Alex to team 3, the Rangers send money to team 3 (why would the Rangers send money to the Yankees if Alex isn't playing there), and team 3 sends players and money to the Yankees. Or if the Rangers send money to the Yankees (again I guess that would be stupid), then team 3 could just send money back to the Yankees. Seems like a strange way to do it, but if the Ranger money has to go with the player, this would be a work around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 11:44 AM) I just want to point out MLB is in the business of giving guaranteed contracts. Arod could not play another game because of injury yet he'd still get paid. He would only get paid a predetermined amount by the club. This is an insurance issue. It depends on what potion was covered by the Rangers when they signed him. As I recall the insurance coverage on that large contract was an issue. When a professionalathlete gets injured they get worker's comp just like anyone else. The difference is usually people get 66% of their pay from the insurance company. The owners of the teams can only get a certain amount of coverage for the large contracts which is why (as in Belle's case stated earlier) some must be paid by the team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 02:04 PM) The Rangers agreed to send money to the Yankees. We all agree on that. Some of that was deferred as was Alex's compensation. IYHO Is there any room for the next team to take the Ranger money under different terms than already agreed to between the Rangers and Yankees? For example, the next team may wish to have the money today to pay Alex's current contract. Could the Yankees agree to send a lower amount, sooner, to the new team. Or does the new team have to accept the Ranger's money the same way the Yankees are? Could the Yankees agree to send the same amount, only spread out over a longer period? Under the "Ranger's pay the team that Alex plays for" theory, unless the Ranger's would be willing to renegotiate, that would be impossible. I believe if the Union and MLB believe the new trade is fair, it could be done. Another reason I believe it could be more or less, is market conditions change and the deal should be evaluated based on today's market. Imagine of ARod lived to the hype and at a future date was now a 60/60 .375 guy with five MVP and World Series rings. He would be worth more than the $16 mil the Yankees are paying. In keeping with the fair trade theory, wouldn't it be unfair to include all the cash? When we see trades where a player plus cash is traded to another team, when is that money considered to be the new teams? Since the cash follows the money, if the Sox traded Crede for a Player plus $5 million, every subsequent trade would have to include cash with that player? They couldn't swap two players for that one and keep the money? However, there is an easy way around this even if the team has to accept the Ranger money as agreed. The Yankees send Alex to team 3, the Rangers send money to team 3 (why would the Rangers send money to the Yankees if Alex isn't playing there), and team 3 sends players and money to the Yankees. Or if the Rangers send money to the Yankees (again I guess that would be stupid), then team 3 could just send money back to the Yankees. Seems like a strange way to do it, but if the Ranger money has to go with the player, this would be a work around. Here is what they are saying: The Rangers send the Yankees $. However, the Yankees agreed, as one term in the original trade, that they would pass this money along in any future trade. As you said, there was no reason for either the Rangers or the Yankees to insist on this. However, there may be a reason for MLB to insist on this (to make any future negotiations less onerous). As MLB must approve any trade, the Yankees likely were willing to agree to this (the Rangers certainly wouldn't have cared, and thus would also have agreed). Steff and Jason are saying that MLB made exactly this demand, and thus, the Yankees are OBLIGATED under the terms of the Yankees-Ranger trade to pass this money along in any future trade. It does not preclude the Yankees from including more money, but it does preclude them from including less. You may argue that this is merely semantics -- the Yankees could demand cash payments from the team getting ARod, essentially making the payments less than the Rangers money. However, MLB must approve any significant cash payments, and as a rule, only allows cash to offset some part of a player's contract. (No 'selling' players.) So this could not be done with young players (which is reportedly what the Yankees want), and would at least be finely inspected with high salary players, to ensure that the Yankees aren't trying to end-run the spirit of the original condition. As I understand it, this is not always insisted upon by MLB -- as others have pointed out, this was an issue when the Sox traded for Vazquez -- but the ARod trade was not business as usual. As to whether it could be renegotiated -- yes, of course, but it is VERY doubtful that MLB would accept any renegotiation that reduced the value of the money passed along. So if the team wanted more up front money, MLB would presumably insist that the total payments up front must have at least the same present value as the deferred payments would have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosMediasBlancas Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 01:34 AM) What's wrong with .280 6 16 .362/.485/.847 in 150 PAs? It's not outstanding, but it's far from horrible. Maybe it's his WS numbers I'm thinking of, or his BA w/RISP in the WS stat that I'n thinking of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 01:46 PM) Maybe it's his WS numbers I'm thinking of, or his BA w/RISP in the WS stat that I'n thinking of. ARod has never played in the World Series. Edited October 25, 2006 by Rowand44 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 01:46 PM) Here is what they are saying: The Rangers send the Yankees $. However, the Yankees agreed, as one term in the original trade, that they would pass this money along in any future trade. This is the key here. If this is indeed true (and I just don't remember seeing it) then we have our answer, and can end this nonsense finally. Does anyone have a link that actually said the Yankees are required by MLB to pass along this money if Alex leaves NYY? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 01:59 PM) This is the key here. If this is indeed true (and I just don't remember seeing it) then we have our answer, and can end this nonsense finally. Does anyone have a link that actually said the Yankees are required by MLB to pass along this money if Alex leaves NYY? I haven't been able to find a link but I'm 95 percent sure that what Jackie said is correct. Edited October 25, 2006 by Rowand44 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 03:01 PM) I haven't been able to find a link but I'm 95 percent sure that what Jackie said is correct. Hey, I'm just trying to be a translator here, I don't know if it's true or not. 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.