MLB Question

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from kimsaysthis. Show kimsaysthis's posts

    MLB Question

    I've heard that when a team offers a player a extremely large contract, they are expected to accept -- whether they want to or not. It has something to do with the the players' union. Is this true?

    I'm just curious because of the Jason Werth deal with the Nationals. I'm not sure I believe he would have taken that contract if he had a choice. Add Boras into the mix (let's not forget the money he makes on the deal), and it always seemed a little off to me.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from justbaseball. Show justbaseball's posts

    Re: MLB Question

    players definately have a choice, they don't have to accept the largest offer.  Just this off season the yankees offered Kerry Wood 3.5 mil and he chose the Cubs for 1 mil.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: MLB Question

    I don't think the union makes you sign the biggest contract.  But, if you don't, your prized race horse's head will certainly end up severed and in bed with you.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: MLB Question

    In Response to Re: MLB Question:
    [QUOTE]I don't think the union makes you sign the biggest contract.  But, if you don't, your prized race horse's head will certainly end up severed and in bed with you.
    Posted by SpacemanEephus[/QUOTE]

    Good Answer.

    Carol has your prize behind door number 2, or you can take a lifetime supply of Scooter Pies.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: MLB Question

    In Response to Re: MLB Question:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: MLB Question : Good Answer. Carol has your prize behind door number 2, or you can take a lifetime supply of Scooter Pies.
    Posted by ZILLAGOD[/QUOTE]

    I'll take Carol.  JUST KIDDING MRS. EEPHUS!!!!
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from kimsaysthis. Show kimsaysthis's posts

    Re: MLB Question

    I don't think the union makes you sign the biggest contract. But, if you don't, your prized race horse's head will certainly end up severed and in bed with you. -- Space
    --------------------------------------------------------------

    You do, of course, realize that your post only confirms my suspicions that there were only two choices -- yes, or yes. ;)
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from kimsaysthis. Show kimsaysthis's posts

    Re: MLB Question

    Here's one for the J.D. Drew haters...

    I wonder how much say he had in his contract deal, seeing as Boras was in the mix as well -- and that always involves big bucks. I know posters love to bash him for his salary, but how much does a player have to say about the money that a team spends in order to acquire him? 

    And FTR, I love J.D. Drew.  I think he's the most misunderstood player on the entire team. 

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from agone. Show agone's posts

    Re: MLB Question

    i think it's up to that particular player's priorities.
    if a non-contender offers a player 120 million for 6 years and a contending team offers that same player 70 million for 6 years, do you really think the union would have to intercede?

    i think i speak for everyone(especially pro athletes) when i say "SHOW ME THE MONEY!"
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: MLB Question

    I think the Union does have some say in the issue (perhaps unofficially or off the record). If we remember, when Boston first agreed in principle with Texas on a deal for Alex Rodriguez, A-Rod was going to accept a change in his contract for a tad less money and I believe the union forbade it.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from agone. Show agone's posts

    Re: MLB Question

    hey kim,

    misunderstood in what way? i understand he's not worth the money theo paid him, but theo has a knack at doing that; in fact, theo has it down to a science.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: MLB Question

    In Response to Re: MLB Question:
    [QUOTE]i think it's up to that particular player's priorities. if a non-contender offers a player 120 million for 6 years and a contending team offers that same player 70 million for 6 years, do you really think the union would have to intercede? i think i speak for everyone(especially pro athletes) when i say "SHOW ME THE MONEY!"
    Posted by agone[/QUOTE]
    But, what if a contender offers a guy 161 million/7 years and another contender offers 120 million/5 years?  No brainer right?  DOH!!!  

    Cliff Lee, you just won yourself a bloody horse head!
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from justbaseball. Show justbaseball's posts

    Re: MLB Question

    that is correct Jessey, the union will not allow an existing contract to be reduced, however, the question here was about players entering free agency where there is no current contract in place.  I think these are seperate issues.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from agone. Show agone's posts

    Re: MLB Question

    actually, he's making more per year with PHILLIE pitching in an easier league.
    DOH!!!!!
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: MLB Question

    In Response to Re: MLB Question:
    [QUOTE]actually, he's making more per year with PHILLIE pitching in an easier league. DOH!!!!!
    Posted by agone[/QUOTE]

    Right, but these days, the value of a contract seems to be intrinsically about years and total figures.  
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: MLB Question

    According to columnist Jon Heyman at Sports Illustrated:

    • The players union put zero pressure on Lee to choose or even consider the highest bidder (the Yankees). "Absolutely not,'' players union chief Michael Weiner said. "That's just not our approach. We want players to make the best use of their right under the Basic Agreement ... As long as a player makes an informed decision, we're happy. There are non-economic considerations. The fact that Cliff took a deal that wasn't top dollar isn't a problem for us.'' Good for them. Their approach is 100 percent right.

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/jon_heyman/12/17/remaining.free.agents/index.html#ixzz1JWQUO2x7

    Scroll down.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from kimsaysthis. Show kimsaysthis's posts

    Re: MLB Question

    i think it's up to that particular player's priorities. if a non-contender offers a player 120 million for 6 years and a contending team offers that same player 70 million for 6 years, do you really think the union would have to intercede?

    i think i speak for everyone(especially pro athletes) when i say "SHOW ME THE MONEY!"  --- agone
    -------------------------------------------------------

    I don't think Jason Werth had two offers to choose from. I think it was one outrageous offer. The rumor, initially, was he would go to the Sox, but his deal all happened in the blink of an eye. There wasn't even time for a second offer (not that the Sox were going to make one, just saying).
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: MLB Question

    Players are expected to fight for the Union on the money, regardless of how overpaid they are in a closed market. What Lee did won't make the MLBPA happy. Your concerns are on the money. They aren't legally required to, but they are expected to take the biggest offer. Crawford did that, but was a better fit for the Angels. Long term, he will fit the Red Sox, once they let Ellsbury go.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from kimsaysthis. Show kimsaysthis's posts

    Re: MLB Question

    hey kim, misunderstood in what way? i understand he's not worth the money theo paid him, but theo has a knack at doing that; in fact, theo has it down to a science. -- agone
    ------------------------------------------------------

    He's quiet. He's reserved. He doesn't outwardly show his emotions so people assume he doesn't have any. 

    Do you want to know what bothers me the most? While everyone was bashing Drew for not playing well in 2007, no one ever mentioned the fact that he had a 1-year-old son at home in a full-body caste. Do you even know what that must be like for a father? Just imagine a 1-year-old active kid in a full-body caste. I think they had pics of Ellsbury stealing home and Drew looking on, and made fun of the fact he didn't react. I'm not sure how much Drew was really even concentrating on baseball at that time. 

    When he hit the grand-slam in the ALCS, I was so happy for him I was crying. That was one of the best moments for me, not only for the Sox, but for him, in particular, after all he had been through.  

    I think he always does the best he can, and he never gets any recognition when he does well. He's just a quiet, simple guy, which some may read as having no emotions or passion. I don't believe that. I don't believe he's slacking or taking advantage of any contract. I don't think he has that in him. I wish everyone would just get off his back. 
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from kimsaysthis. Show kimsaysthis's posts

    Re: MLB Question

    In Response to Re: MLB Question:
    [QUOTE]Players are expected to fight for the Union on the money, regardless of how overpaid they are in a closed market. What Lee did won't make the MLBPA happy. Your concerns are on the money. They aren't legally required to, but they are expected to take the biggest offer. Crawford did that, but was a better fit for the Angels. Long term, he will fit the Red Sox, once they let Ellsbury go.
    Posted by BaseballGM[/QUOTE]

    Lee might just be a different animal (so to speak). This guy seems like the type that could not be influenced by anyone's opinions (or orders). He's just an anomaly in the MLB.

    I'll always remember him as the guy that couldn't be swayed by the Yankees.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from emp9. Show emp9's posts

    Re: MLB Question

    Griffey Jr. with the Reds way back when took less.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: MLB Question

    I was somewhat impressed with Lee, but he did get megabucks and the team he wanted.  I was more impressed with Kerry Wood, whose 1.5 million deal with the Cubs was probably about 30% of what he could have gotten from the Yankees.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: MLB Question

    "He's quiet , he's reserved , he doesn't outwardly show his emotions."

    Reason #87 to fall in love with J.D.Drew.

    This is starting to sound like Henry Block's 100 reasons to let his people  do your taxes.

    Do the Red Sox pay him to be a librarian or to hit a baseball?

    Is he up for re-election on the school committee or is he here to throw out runners at home plate?

    O.K., granted, we're convinced he's a nice guy. We've gotten that out of the way years back. But , as a ballplayer, come on , really, what's he do for us that some AAA player couldn't be doing for 1/4 the money?

    I mean Wakefield is a great guy , too. So was Brian Daubach, so was Trot Nixon, but when their productive years passed ...they dumped them. Why can't this happen with other "good guys?"

    Really, what is Drew doing for us that Trot Nixon didn't? The stats aren't that different ...considering the talent level and the contract.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from billsrul. Show billsrul's posts

    Re: MLB Question

    I thought that when Sabathia got his contract, he was pressured quite a bit by the union to take the Yankees deal over whatever the Brewers were looking to resign him for.

    There's pressure from not only the union, but also other players, to take the most money because that sets the bar for players in future years.  That being said, while the Phillies offered Lee less than the  yankees did, it wasn't that much less, especially when considering that Lee's deal has a vesting option for the sixth year and the last club option is only really a 15 million dollar option (27.5 club option vs. 12.5 million buyout).

    Given that you are only talking about one year and 15-20 million dollars, Lee is free to choose whichever team he wants since those offers really aren't that different.  If the difference were  something like 2-3 years and  50  million dollars, then there'd be an issue since that would durastically change the market.  However, given Lee's deal, he's not bringing down the market for future players at all by accpeting the deal to go to the Phillies.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: MLB Question

    In Response to Re: MLB Question:
    [QUOTE]Players are expected to fight for the Union on the money, regardless of how overpaid they are in a closed market. What Lee did won't make the MLBPA happy. Your concerns are on the money. They aren't legally required to, but they are expected to take the biggest offer. Crawford did that, but was a better fit for the Angels. Long term, he will fit the Red Sox, once they let Ellsbury go.
    Posted by BaseballGM[/QUOTE]

    Once again you are dead wrong. CC's value to the RedSox equals/surpasses what it would have been to the Angels because of the CRAWBURY tandem.

    Once that tandem is broken up, unless someone comes along equally as fast and able to hit around .300, the long term value of CC is vastly diminished. Not to mention, CC will be at the other end of his prime at the point when Ellsbury is eligible for FA.

    Crawford is an advance stage of Ellsbury. But their presence together adds a whole other dimension. And once both start to hit, this will be readily apparent.


    On the topic of unions, Manny felt a ton of pressure to sign with Boston, despite the fact he was against it.

    But the player has the legal right to choose.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: MLB Question

    Once again you are dead wrong. CC's value to the RedSox equals/surpasses what it would have been to the Angels because of the CRAWBURY tandem

    No, once again you don't have any idea what you are talking about. The "Crawbury" tandem is a joke in the AL and on this roster. The offense will be fine, even Ellsbury is traded today. He will not be around for FA, they'll get rid of him before that. Once they signed Crawford, a value mistake, non-fit for 2011, long term fit when Ellsbury is dumped, once they signed Crawford that's Ellsbury's train tricket for the future. They need a solid young RH OF bat with slugging ability for the AL, and Kalish will be a better overall player than Ellsbury. That leaves a spot for a solid young RH OF'er, and that's not going to be Ellsbury. Ownership will never admit it publicly, but Ellsbury wrote his train ticket when he fired off about being mistreated. Since he took all of last year off, the Red Sox are simply waiting for Ellsbury to return within his career averages. They will then either trade him this summer or winter.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share