Jump to content

Machado signs with Padres 10/300


yesterday333
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Soxman72 said:

For the attorneys out there, can you lie during negotiations about a mystery offer?  I know in my line of business, you can not.  I mean, ethics still exists, right?  Credibility?

You can do whatever you want as long as its favorable to your client. Youd be doing your client a disservice by saying "My client only has 1 offer."

So ethically its fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Frank_Thomas said:

 

The Chicago #Whitesox, who made their 7-year offer to Manny Machado nearly two weeks ago, have not revised their offer as of this morning. So far, still have not budged in their stance.

Pay attention to the wording.  This standoff over what "offer" is on the table could well be a lot of lawyer speak from both sides.  We know the Sox put a formal 7 year offer on the table.  If the 8/250 was a verbal offer, or something that was floated in discussions it is 100% true to say that they have not revised the original offer, as that took a different, and more formal, form.

In a situation like this, technically both sides would be right.  The original offer would not have been revised, but another less formal offer could be out there. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Soxman72 said:

For the attorneys out there, can you lie during negotiations about a mystery offer?  I know in my line of business, you can not.  I mean, ethics still exists, right?  Credibility?

Lawyers can't. But these people aren't lawyers, so no ethics apply. There are issues of credibility going forward, but that's not an ethics issue.

For the record, a lawyer can engage in "puffery" which requires some level truth. So if the Cardinals call Lozano and ask about Machado, Lozano can say that another team is interested, even if the Cardinals have no meaningful interest. That's a pretty low bar in these types of negotiations where every team is going to make some inquiry regardless of how serious they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

Pay attention to the wording.  This standoff over what "offer" is on the table could well be a lot of lawyer speak from both sides.  We know the Sox put a formal 7 year offer on the table.  If the 8/250 was a verbal offer, or something that was floated in discussions it is 100% true to say that they have not revised the original offer, as that took a different, and more formal, form.

In a situation like this, technically both sides would be right.  The original offer would not have been revised, but another less formal offer could be out there. 

This is what I'm thinking as well.  Everyone here could claim to be "right" if the formal offer hasn't changed, but Hahn has expressed a willingness over the phone to go to 8/250.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Princess Dye said:

Nightengale has what's on the table, Passan has what's verbally floated. Just my speculation.

Anything verbal has got to basically be official right? Like you're not going to say 'Yeah we could go 8/250, but only if we have to', right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

QFT. Kaplan belongs on the Score now BTW. He'd fit right in with all of the verbal fellatio the hosts at that station give the Cubs. 

Garbage take they can keep kap on 1000 with the Over produced espn crap

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, G&T said:

Lawyers can't. But these people aren't lawyers, so no ethics apply. There are issues of credibility going forward, but that's not an ethics issue.

For the record, a lawyer can engage in "puffery" which requires some level truth. So if the Cardinals call Lozano and ask about Machado, Lozano can say that another team is interested, even if the Cardinals have no meaningful interest. That's a pretty low bar in these types of negotiations where every team is going to make some inquiry regardless of how serious they are.

Boras is a lawyer, not sure about Lozano. But I disagree that a lawyer has to be truthful to the opposing party when its a contract negotiation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, G&T said:

Lawyers can't. But these people aren't lawyers, so no ethics apply. There are issues of credibility going forward, but that's not an ethics issue.

For the record, a lawyer can engage in "puffery" which requires some level truth. So if the Cardinals call Lozano and ask about Machado, Lozano can say that another team is interested, even if the Cardinals have no meaningful interest. That's a pretty low bar in these types of negotiations where every team is going to make some inquiry regardless of how serious they are.

Sure and I agree.  Thank you.

I would never show my hand during negotiations to hurt my client, but I believe you can not say I HAVE THIS FROM SOMEONE ELSE, if it is untrue.  You can drop hints, threats, or use certain phrases as leverage to gain the high ground, but I would believe you lose future credibility if you flat out lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Soxman72 said:

Sure and I agree.  Thank you.

I would never show my hand during negotiations to hurt my client, but I believe you can not say I HAVE THIS FROM SOMEONE ELSE, if it is untrue.  You can drop hints, threats, or use certain phrases as leverage to gain the high ground, but I would believe you lose future credibility if you flat out lie.

I disagree. Youre only risking credibility.

The problem is that credibility doesnt really matter if your at the Boras level of agent. We already know that Boras did something similar to the Rangers when they signed A-Rod. 

These posts are too literal. The agents arent going to say "Oh we have an offer of XYZ". They are going to say "We have other offers, if you want to sign our client you need to offer X."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Princess Dye said:

Nightengale has what's on the table, Passan has what's verbally floated. Just my speculation.

I actually think this is pretty simple.

The two reports from Passan & the other guy with years & numbers are from Machado's side to boost offers, hence the "mystery team".

Nightengale's info is from the Sox, trying to keep the price down.

All in all, it's a battle between the two sides, while the Phillies have put out that they are more interested in Harper. Seems to me like Machado's side is realizing that their suitors are small and they are trying to push the teams involved to the middle of the table to get something done soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SoCalSox said:

I actually think this is pretty simple.

The two reports from Passan & the other guy with years & numbers are from Machado's side to boost offers, hence the "mystery team".

Nightengale's info is from the Sox, trying to keep the price down.

All in all, it's a battle between the two sides, while the Phillies have put out that they are more interested in Harper. Seems to me like Machado's side is realizing that their suitors are small and they are trying to push the teams involved to the middle of the table to get something done soon.

I feel like, if anything Nightengale's tweets would get more teams involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Harry Chappas said:

Someone explain how the Passan/Gomez/Stadium thing hurts the Sox.  If that offer is not on the table and much larger than the Sox actual offer isn't in the Sox favor?   If a team beats that offer they will certainly beat a 7/$230 offer.

I think they view it as bad because teams are seeing that the Sox are already at 8 years. That would give a team like the Phillies, etc that ability to say "Ok, we need to top that offer".

That's my guess, at least. One thing we do know, though. Hahn doesn't like info like that getting out. They want to be the ones to control the message. In this case with this high profile of a player, that simply isn't realistic, IMO.

I'll say this, though. This feels like it's coming to an end. Both sides are negotiating through the media and now the Phillies are putting stuff out about turning their attention to Harper. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, EvilJester99 said:

 

Decision to prevent Kap from ever getting my time officially justified. Really hope the Cubs take him with to their channel, then I wouldn't even accidentally see his face or hear his voice.

Edited by mqr
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Saufley said:

It will be interesting this week when the Phillies make their formal offer to Harper. Hope we don't have to wait for that regarding a Machado signing, but we probably will.

Here's my shot at the cadence:  we sign manny, then of course we get the rumor we're ALSO going to do a harper offer. it will get our hopes up but it'll likely mean nothing and harper will still go to the phillies. it will pain us here though b/c it'll be so tempting to think we wouldnt work with boras to help him with that (but we will)

Then, though, we do one more signing like pollock or keuchel and that becomes the balm and we head into the season with a shot at the Central

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Kalapse changed the title to Yeah, they actually screwed this up: Machado reportedly signs with Padres

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.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...