Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:24 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Jack Wilson and Freddy Sanchez
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 11:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:01 pm
Posts: 7196
I'm hoping Neil makes an appearance but thats alright...Rumor I've heard is PBS is filming the show in celebration of their 40th anniversary...

I'm trying to get out and see all my music idols before they give it up or worse...

_________________
I say keep the $50 and ban him anyway...

For those jumping ship, we'll keep the bandwagon warm for you...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack Wilson and Freddy Sanchez
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 11:10 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:22 pm
Posts: 2495
Approaching this debate from another angle. How would the group that thinks NH cheaped out react to a two year $13 million contract offer? Afterall, it's fair in that it incorporates his $8 million bonus and his perceived $5 million 2011 FMV.

Just curious considering that is exactly the type of contract that most of us have been clamoring against for years.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack Wilson and Freddy Sanchez
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 11:33 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:41 pm
Posts: 843
Argentum wrote:
Approaching this debate from another angle. How would the group that thinks NH cheaped out react to a two year $13 million contract offer? Afterall, it's fair in that it incorporates his $8 million bonus and his perceived $5 million 2011 FMV.

Just curious considering that is exactly the type of contract that most of us have been clamoring against for years.


The guy is guaranteed $8 mil next year...he doesn't care if it's his FMV or not, it's what he was promised. Beyond that, he's probably going to be making $3-4 mil a year. So NH was basically docking Freddy's pay and guaranteeing him less than he could have made anyway. Freddy was right to reject it out of hand. Any good faith negotiation should have started with his option year unchanged.

The folks on this board have been clamoring against a NEW $13 million, 2 year deal...if Freddy reaches 600 PAs, the $8+ mil is a sunk cost.

I think this whole thing with Jack and Freddy has been a thinly veiled threat to other GMs that the Bucs will keep their middle infield if trade offers aren't improved. (Others have pointed this out, I'm just reiterating and agreeing.) So once NH said he was going to try and keep them, he had no option but to make some kind of offer whose dollar value was most likely constrained at $18 mil total by Nutting. The weak offer to Freddy went public, and now NH is really dealing from a position of weakness with other GMs if he's trying to make a trade. This was all a bluff gone terribly wrong.

I've argued in other threads that we should trade Freddy because his value is at its peak right now, but I was neglecting how unattractive his option next year must be to other clubs. Now I'm thinking NH should have entertained offers for Freddy until the deadline and kept him for next year if nothing came along. Yes, the Pirates would have been stuck with an $8 mil tab next year. But 2010 would be a contract year for Freddy, and chances are he'd put up some respectable numbers. Then, they could test the trade market for him again.

I suspect that NH knows how unlikely it is that Freddy's part of the next winning Pirate team, and he knows he needs to turn Freddy into something. I just don't like the way he handled it.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack Wilson and Freddy Sanchez
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 11:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Argentum wrote:
Approaching this debate from another angle. How would the group that thinks NH cheaped out react to a two year $13 million contract offer? Afterall, it's fair in that it incorporates his $8 million bonus and his perceived $5 million 2011 FMV.

Just curious considering that is exactly the type of contract that most of us have been clamoring against for years.

I'd be more comfortable with a $12M offer for 2 years, but yes, I'd be happier with that offer because it appears to me a more legitimate offer -- one that is made in good faith. The thing is, there's no escaping that $8M, due to the nature of his poorly-conceived current contract. So if one is going to make a fair offer for Sanchez, one has to treat that $8M as a sunk cost. If Sanchez were a free agent next year, I imagine most people on this board would not think that offering Sanchez a $4M, 2-year contract is a fair offer. $2M per year is too little to be offering if you are honestly expecting him to consider accepting it. In the same token, offering Sanchez $2M for the extra year is offering very little consideration for him to postpone free agency for one more year.

Personally, I agree with the disdain for a contract that large for an aging middle infielder. They are the same reasons why the Jason Kendall deal was a mistake. That's why I would have made no offer at all. Just eat Sanchez's option salary, and if it hurts his trade value, offer to include part of his salary in trade talks. I see no value in making the offer NH made, because it basically hopes that either Sanchez or his agent is an idiot, and it potentially harms Huntington's reputation as a negotiator and as an employer. I realize that the tanked economy will have an adverse effect on free agent salaries, but that does not give Huntington reason to pretend that the Pirates do not have contractual obligations to which they are bound.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack Wilson and Freddy Sanchez
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 12:03 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:10 am
Posts: 1326
Willton wrote:
Argentum wrote:
Approaching this debate from another angle. How would the group that thinks NH cheaped out react to a two year $13 million contract offer? Afterall, it's fair in that it incorporates his $8 million bonus and his perceived $5 million 2011 FMV.

Just curious considering that is exactly the type of contract that most of us have been clamoring against for years.

I'd be more comfortable with a $12M offer for 2 years, but yes, I'd be happier with that offer because it appears to me a more legitimate offer -- one that is made in good faith. The thing is, there's no escaping that $8M, due to the nature of his poorly-conceived current contract. So if one is going to make a fair offer for Sanchez, one has to treat that $8M as a sunk cost. If Sanchez were a free agent next year, I imagine most people on this board would not think that offering Sanchez a $4M, 2-year contract is a fair offer. $2M per year is too little to be offering if you are honestly expecting him to consider accepting it. In the same token, offering Sanchez $2M for the extra year is offering very little consideration


You are not taking into account the risk that Sanchez is assuming. You say that there is no escaping the $8M but there is. Sanchez could blow out his knee tomorrow, not vest the option and never play again. Or, the Pirates could screw him by sitting him for the month of September. Chances are, neither of these will happen but either could. It is not a no brainer to walk away from a guaranteed $10M for a probable $8M + another contract.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack Wilson and Freddy Sanchez
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:35 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:22 pm
Posts: 2495
burghermeister wrote:
You are not taking into account the risk that Sanchez is assuming. You say that there is no escaping the $8M but there is. Sanchez could blow out his knee tomorrow, not vest the option and never play again. Or, the Pirates could screw him by sitting him for the month of September. Chances are, neither of these will happen but either could. It is not a no brainer to walk away from a guaranteed $10M for a probable $8M + another contract.


I would add that the $8 million only becomes a sunk cost at 600 PAs. He's about 50 games away from that number, why should NH include that figure in determining what to offer him now?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack Wilson and Freddy Sanchez
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:07 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5361
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
Willton wrote:

I'd be more comfortable with a $12M offer for 2 years, but yes, I'd be happier with that offer because it appears to me a more legitimate offer -- one that is made in good faith.


You keep saying "good faith." I just don't see there being any duty/responsibility/obligation for Huntington to make an offer to Sanchez which must start at a certain level. I might agree with you if Sanchez was offered $8M over two years. That would be asking him to work for free. But . . . to offer an amount essentially $1.3M less (as an opening salvo) than what Hudson received in last year's market . . . how is that not in "good faith?" If Huntington offers $12M over 2 years, that becomes the point from which negotiations start and no deal would be done unless the Pirates come up with more money.

Willton wrote:
The thing is, there's no escaping that $8M, due to the nature of his poorly-conceived current contract. So if one is going to make a fair offer for Sanchez, one has to treat that $8M as a sunk cost. If Sanchez were a free agent next year, I imagine most people on this board would not think that offering Sanchez a $4M, 2-year contract is a fair offer. $2M per year is too little to be offering if you are honestly expecting him to consider accepting it. In the same token, offering Sanchez $2M for the extra year is offering very little consideration for him to postpone free agency for one more year.

Personally, I agree with the disdain for a contract that large for an aging middle infielder. They are the same reasons why the Jason Kendall deal was a mistake. That's why I would have made no offer at all. Just eat Sanchez's option salary, and if it hurts his trade value, offer to include part of his salary in trade talks. I see no value in making the offer NH made, because it basically hopes that either Sanchez or his agent is an idiot, and it potentially harms Huntington's reputation as a negotiator and as an employer. I realize that the tanked economy will have an adverse effect on free agent salaries, but that does not give Huntington reason to pretend that the Pirates do not have contractual obligations to which they are bound.


IMO, you are trying to read way too much into this. How can you seriously conclude that Huntington is "pretending" that the Pirates don't owe $8M next year? It is eminently clear to me that the market for teams willing to trade for Sanchez is practically non-existant. Why? Because of the $8M salary next year. Teams have to be asking the Pirates to pick up a significant chunk of that cash. So . . . if teams aren't willing to pay Sanchez $8M next year . . . and the following year he will be one year older and a free agent . . . you think that the market will be $4M for him? Maybe? $5M, $6M, $7M, $8M? Very unlikely. So . . . if you believe that the market for Sanchez will be $4M, then Huntington offered 50% of that amount. If I'm Sanchez's agent, I counter at $6M for 2011. The parties work towards a total of $12M (either $8M in 2010 and $4M in 2011/a guaranteed contract of $3M with loads of incentives that will be easily reached if Sanchez plays regularly and isn't sitting on the bench due to injury or splitting 2010 and 2011 at $6M per year - Bucs slice $2M next year and "overpay" Sanchez in 2011). This whole notion of Huntington's credibility is - IMO - overanalysis and overreaching.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack Wilson and Freddy Sanchez
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:55 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
No. 9 wrote:
Willton wrote:

I'd be more comfortable with a $12M offer for 2 years, but yes, I'd be happier with that offer because it appears to me a more legitimate offer -- one that is made in good faith.


You keep saying "good faith." I just don't see there being any duty/responsibility/obligation for Huntington to make an offer to Sanchez which must start at a certain level. I might agree with you if Sanchez was offered $8M over two years. That would be asking him to work for free. But . . . to offer an amount essentially $1.3M less (as an opening salvo) than what Hudson received in last year's market . . . how is that not in "good faith?" If Huntington offers $12M over 2 years, that becomes the point from which negotiations start and no deal would be done unless the Pirates come up with more money.

No it doesn't: it can be THE price. The Pirates do not have to engage in haggling with Sanchez. They can offer Sanchez what would be a fair price, taking into account the sunk cost of his $8M option, and if Sanchez does not like it, then the Pirates can move on. The Pirates want to trade him anyway.

And by the way, offering an amount that's less than 2/3 of what Hudson received last year is still too low. First, Freddy is outperforming Hudson right now. If Hudson got $3.3M, a fair offer to Freddy should be around $3M for that extra year. Second, it's worth noting that Hudson was a Type A free agent last year, and any team that signed him also had to relinquish draft picks to Arizona. So, the cost of picking up Hudson was more than just the $3.3M salary. The Pirates do not have to relinquish such draft picks to sign Sanchez, so the fair market value of Sanchez sans draft picks is likely higher than Hudson's salary.

No. 9 wrote:
IMO, you are trying to read way too much into this. How can you seriously conclude that Huntington is "pretending" that the Pirates don't owe $8M next year?

Because offering Freddy $10M for 2 years and calling it a fair offer based on some internal value horsesh** does not take that $8M into account. If the Pirates think that $5M per year is fair to Freddy, then it should be $5M + the $8M that they are contractually bound to pay him if his option vests (which is very likely). A $10M, 2-year offer says that either the Pirates are acting like the option does not exist, or the Pirates don't actually think that $5M per year is a fair value.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Last edited by Willton on Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack Wilson and Freddy Sanchez
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:10 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5361
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
Willton wrote:
No it doesn't: it can be THE price. The Pirates do not have to engage in haggling with Sanchez. They can offer Sanchez what would be a fair price, taking into account the sunk cost of his $8M option, and if Sanchez does not like it, then the Pirates can move on. The Pirates want to trade him anyway.

And by the way, offering an amount that's less than 2/3 of what Hudson received last year is still too low. Freddy is outperforming Hudson right now. If Hudson got $3.3M, a fair offer to Freddy should be around $3M for that extra year.


You keep going with "fair." That is a loaded term. No different than "low ball" or "good faith." Its a negotiation. You never start at your best figure. You always leave room for further discussions. If you are so concerned about credibility, I submit that if NH earns the reputation with agents that he is unwilling to negotiate (take it or hit the road), that would be far more detrimental than starting off low. Its a game. The agents know it, the owners know it, GMs knows it. And, in this case, Sanchez's agent decided to go public in an effort to manipulate the game to his client's advantage. And I'm betting that he got the reaction that he hoped for.

If Hudson got $3.3M last year, do you think that is what the Dodgers originally offered? No . . . that is where they ended up. "Fair" is defined as where you end up and what the market bears.

I simply don't see how you can conclude that NH has now lost credibility in all of baseball and with players because he made an offer which is subject to negotiation . . . for a player that you characterize as an "aging middle infielder." So . . . . if it is a bad play (your opinion) to offer big bucks to an aging middle infielder, then why was it stupid for NH to try to lock in Sanchez for an extra year for only $2M extra? If he was able to do this . . . I would think that you'd applaud the move for being cost efficient.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack Wilson and Freddy Sanchez
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:32 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
No. 9 wrote:
Willton wrote:
No it doesn't: it can be THE price. The Pirates do not have to engage in haggling with Sanchez. They can offer Sanchez what would be a fair price, taking into account the sunk cost of his $8M option, and if Sanchez does not like it, then the Pirates can move on. The Pirates want to trade him anyway.

And by the way, offering an amount that's less than 2/3 of what Hudson received last year is still too low. Freddy is outperforming Hudson right now. If Hudson got $3.3M, a fair offer to Freddy should be around $3M for that extra year.


You keep going with "fair." That is a loaded term. No different than "low ball" or "good faith." Its a negotiation. You never start at your best figure. You always leave room for further discussions. If you are so concerned about credibility, I submit that if NH earns the reputation with agents that he is unwilling to negotiate (take it or hit the road), that would be far more detrimental than starting off low. Its a game. The agents know it, the owners know it, GMs knows it. And, in this case, Sanchez's agent decided to go public in an effort to manipulate the game to his client's advantage. And I'm betting that he got the reaction that he hoped for.

Which is why the offer was a bad idea. Unless there is some confidentiality agreement between the two parties, NH should have no expectation that he will not be exposed for making a bad offer. NH was not dealing from a position of strength: he had been trying to trade Freddy and got no bites, so now he feels obligated to offer Sanchez a contract. The exposure of his bad offer hurts his ability to negotiate with future players.

You may have a point with the hard-line stance as hurtful to one's reputation, but I think that acting cheap can be just as damaging. It can make people think that dealing with you is a waste of time.

No. 9 wrote:
If Hudson got $3.3M last year, do you think that is what the Dodgers originally offered? No . . . that is where they ended up. "Fair" is defined as where you end up and what the market bears.

I'm willing to bet that the Dodgers actually did start at $3.3M, largely because Hudson was not getting any offers from anyone else. He was a free agent, which means that there ostensibly was competition for his services. When you're in competition, you don't try to haggle with the person selling his services; you give him an offer that you think he will take. It's not a negotiation; it's an auction. I imagine that the Dodgers knew how bad the market was for Hudson, so they offered him a one-shot deal at $3.3M, and Hudson reluctantly took it.

No. 9 wrote:
I simply don't see how you can conclude that NH has now lost credibility in all of baseball and with players because he made an offer which is subject to negotiation . . . for a player that you characterize as an "aging middle infielder." So . . . . if it is a bad play (your opinion) to offer big bucks to an aging middle infielder, then why was it stupid for NH to try to lock in Sanchez for an extra year for only $2M extra? If he was able to do this . . . I would think that you'd applaud the move for being cost efficient.

I would, but I also know that he'd never be able to do that, and trying to do so would be insulting to the player's intelligence and value.

My characterization of Sanchez as an "aging middle infielder" basically says that a long-term deal is a bad idea. That does not mean I think that being cheap with players is a good idea either, especially when the idea is to get a short-term deal.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Jack Wilson and Freddy Sanchez
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 1:38 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:30 pm
Posts: 6169
On the Neil Young portion of this thread. Neil was in a knock down drag out with his record label at the time and owed them one more album. He recorded the Neil and the Shocking Pinks just to pi$$ them off. I quite like it and the title was "Wondering" and it is a cool tune. Totally off the Neil Young path. I like his attitude. Many consider him the grandfather of "grunge". Listen to his electric guitar tone throughout his career dating back to the 60's. It's all grunge. My favorite album of his is Ragged Glory which really rocks throughout.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], RTJR and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits