Leaving $$$ on the table

Drip · Dec 15, 2010

spnited said:

cranberry said:

LongTimeListener said:

Didn't the union make A-Rod go to the Yankees, or at least have a large hand in sending him there, by rejecting the contract concessions he and the Red Sox had agreed to?
Click to expand...

No. The union rejected the initial contract proposal because it violated maximum paycut provisions in the CBA, then it assisted in shaping a deal that would allow him to go to the Red Sox but Larry Luchinno then threw a hissy fit and called off the deal. A-Rod supported the PA throughout the process.
Click to expand...

C'mon Cran. You know the union MADE A-Rod go to the Yanklees because everybody in MLB kowtows to the Yankees money.

Well, everbody but Cliff Lee.
Click to expand...

Fuck the Yankees. Why is everyone making a big freaking deal because he didn't want to play in a fucked up place like New York? Not everyone wants to play with all the bullshit involved. Some people just want to play the game. An athlete can't take a shit without someone wanting to film it. Good for Cliff Lee. Good for MLB.

novelist_wannabe · Dec 15, 2010

cranberry said:

novelist_wannabe said:

cranberry said:

The union hasn't -- nor will it -- say "boo" about the contract (as I mentioned in about the seventh post), so all of this talk is nonsense. However, the union actively encourages players to take the best deal possible, as it should, because taking an undervalued contract undermines your fellow members whose contracts are all affected by each other. Players understand this concept. Some dumbass reporters do not.
Click to expand...

Undervalued is in the eye of the beholder. Value is not measured only in money. Since Cliff Lee is the one who has to sign the contract, he's the only beholder who counts here. And just because he's a member of the MLBPA doesn't mean he has to kowtow to the wishes of the group.
Click to expand...

I don't know why exactly you decided to be argumentative on such a basic point but ... no, not really, the players and their agents spend a lot of time understanding the baseball market and can tell you with pretty strong reliability where specific players fit into it. At the top end within the various categories, free-agent players who have performed well (like Lee this year) have an opportunity to set a market.

Members don't have to "kowtow" nor have they ever been asked to "kowtow." They do understand the interrelationships between contracts and widely consider it their obligation to their fellow players to negotiate contracts for fair market value. What you don't seem to understand is that players do not have an adversarial relationship with their union.

Here's a quote from Jason Bay in today's NY Daily News:

"The Players Association is looking out for the best interests of the player," Bay said. "The best interest of the player isn't to go somewhere you don't want to go. Sometimes that decision is made for you when the gap is so big, but when you're talking about a gap that isn't going to be a huge dent in your pocketbook, the decision is the player's. It always has been. I think a lot is made that the association does this or that ... (but) no one is making you do something you don't want to do."

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/2010/12/15/2010-12-15_sandy_wont_go_over_cliff.html
Click to expand...

Well, you were calling the contract he signed undervalued. It's not argumenative to question whether that's true. If you look at it only in terms of dollars, there's certainly a case that it is, and if Lee only looked at it in terms of dollars, the seventh year and another $20 million would've been a no-brainer. But values are measured in other ways. Lee clearly valued something besides money.

I wasn't saying that Lee has an adversarial relationship with the union. I'm just saying that he has the right -- which he seems to have exercised -- to make up his own mind.

cranberry · Dec 16, 2010

novelist_wannabe said:

cranberry said:

novelist_wannabe said:

cranberry said:

The union hasn't -- nor will it -- say "boo" about the contract (as I mentioned in about the seventh post), so all of this talk is nonsense. However, the union actively encourages players to take the best deal possible, as it should, because taking an undervalued contract undermines your fellow members whose contracts are all affected by each other. Players understand this concept. Some dumbass reporters do not.
Click to expand...

Undervalued is in the eye of the beholder. Value is not measured only in money. Since Cliff Lee is the one who has to sign the contract, he's the only beholder who counts here. And just because he's a member of the MLBPA doesn't mean he has to kowtow to the wishes of the group.
Click to expand...

I don't know why exactly you decided to be argumentative on such a basic point but ... no, not really, the players and their agents spend a lot of time understanding the baseball market and can tell you with pretty strong reliability where specific players fit into it. At the top end within the various categories, free-agent players who have performed well (like Lee this year) have an opportunity to set a market.

Members don't have to "kowtow" nor have they ever been asked to "kowtow." They do understand the interrelationships between contracts and widely consider it their obligation to their fellow players to negotiate contracts for fair market value. What you don't seem to understand is that players do not have an adversarial relationship with their union.

Here's a quote from Jason Bay in today's NY Daily News:

"The Players Association is looking out for the best interests of the player," Bay said. "The best interest of the player isn't to go somewhere you don't want to go. Sometimes that decision is made for you when the gap is so big, but when you're talking about a gap that isn't going to be a huge dent in your pocketbook, the decision is the player's. It always has been. I think a lot is made that the association does this or that ... (but) no one is making you do something you don't want to do."

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/2010/12/15/2010-12-15_sandy_wont_go_over_cliff.html
Click to expand...

Well, you were calling the contract he signed undervalued. It's not argumenative to question whether that's true. If you look at it only in terms of dollars, there's certainly a case that it is, and if Lee only looked at it in terms of dollars, the seventh year and another $20 million would've been a no-brainer. But values are measured in other ways. Lee clearly valued something besides money.

I wasn't saying that Lee has an adversarial relationship with the union. I'm just saying that he has the right -- which he seems to have exercised -- to make up his own mind.
Click to expand...

Well, no, I never called Lee's contract undervalued. I've stated from the first page of the thread that the union would be happy with the AAV. Lee's use of his free agency rights was text book. In addition to market-establishing AAV, he also went to a market and team of his choosing.

Log in or Sign up

Leaving $$$ on the table

Drip Active Member

novelist_wannabe Well-Known Member

cranberry Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Leaving $$$ on the table

Drip Active Member

novelist_wannabe Well-Known Member

cranberry Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches