JUGGERNAUT

The only thing about that is that Kenny has not shown confidence in bringing up position players he drafts so soon. It usually takes an injury on the SOX for him to bring them up. Ozzie doesn't seem to be big on greening kids in a pennant drive either. The problem is that year after year the team is always in a pennant drive. So when does this greening take place?

http://www.prosportsdaily.com/mlb/mlbrumors.html Navarro's Likely Bait For Garcia (NYY & SEA) Santana FA in 2006. (MIN) Kip Wells arbit for 2005 .. ineffective & injured (PITT) A's vying for Beltran? (OAK & KCR) Two A's officials on Wednesday said no deal is imminent but acknowledged the teams keep in semi-regular contact. KC looking for 3B & C. A's fit the bill with the Teahen & (John Baker/Casey Myers).

http://www.soxtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=20600 http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/sports_s...?intID=38155160 Is a package of Class AAA Charlotte outfielder Jeremy Reed and disappointing starter Jon Rauch enough to land Garcia or Hernandez? Sox fans should be getting an answer soon. Swap Reed with Borchard & I'll say yes. The SOX have other holes besides 5th starter: Kock, Politte, Jackson

Gammons was off on the money though. Pro-rated there was about 7 million left this yr to pay. The Mets are picking up 3 million. Nice job by Houston. Now if they could only find a CF who can play in the amusement park outfield they might have a chance

10 people voted for 20% yet not one of them explained how the team can afford that. That sort of reminds me of the classic democrat's ideology. Perhaps they'll resort to raising ticket or concession prices.

Are you stupid? Did I not say that I could not prove conclusively that Maggs said "no" or "never" in response to the question "Would you sign with the SOX as a free agent?". Look through the thread. The answer is yes. I'm well aware that if you can't prove it conclusively in this kangaroo court then it's the same as saying it never happened. While I think it's short-sighted & ignorant of other data available it is simple & well you know what they say about simpletons.

This thread serves as an example of someone who routinely engages in libel. In contrast when I was unable to find the quote on line I admitted that basis of my characterization of Maggs was no longer valid. That's called a "retraction". Thus I have demonstrated honesty in my endeavor to prove the basis point conclusively & when unable to do so I retracted the statement. Perhaps the whole "admitting one's mistake" was not a part of your education. I guess expertise in libel was more important

Definitely the dumbest thing you've said on the subject. Good day sir.

Company A is not going to tell you that. They would be stupid to do so. You will sign the contract with Company A because of their past success, a reference you have on Company A, or some other personal knowledge. In most cases there are confidentiality agreements that bar any company for which company A has worked for from disclosing prior contract details. So as to whether company A used the terms of a contract to seek respectful dissolution of the contract you won't know about. Therefore in deciding whether company A & company B get the contract I would rely on their past success rate & personal references. What you foolishly are assuming in this is that company C (the company A ended a contract with) has greater credibility that company A. Again bad assumption. Likewise you are foolishly assuming that company A ended it's contract with company C because it deserved more money. Again bad assumption. What was explained to you earlier is that not all contracts are between ONLY two companies. Sometimes company C & company E &/or company F no longer wish to do business together. That leaves company A caught in the middle & must choose sides. I do not have any experience with respect to CBA's professionally so I can not think of how hold-outs, or seeking more money in the midst of contract would apply in a non-sports world. I can say that is not uncommon in contracts for hire for re-negotiation & extensions to occur where the company providing services offers more months or years in exchange for greater compensation. That's about the only relevance I can see in terms of comparing sports to the non-sports world. In my industry of work it's un-professional to end a contract before completition. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but I & others see it that way. Grant it from what you've posted your experience seems limited to two party contracts so I should be more kind in my words to you. I will use an example that might help explain this. The US Govt gave a contract to Haliburton for over-seeing the re-building of Iraq. Haliburton then turned around and offered contracts for hire with other firms & that dominoe effect continues until it gets down to company J. which performs the work. The higher you go up the food chain the greater the power of the company in the relationship. Company H hired by company G ends their contract with company I or refuses to sign the terms of an extension. Company H then pursues company J directly. Since company J's contract is specific for the work ultimately provided by company H company J has to seek termination of it's contract with company I so that it can continue the work provided by company H. Basically company J has two options: continue working for I & hope that I can secure a new contract & similar pay soon or terminate it's contract with I & work for H directly. This is not as rare a situation as you would think & I would suspect it's already happened in the Haliburton situation more than once.

I could engineer a Texsox he's so F'g pathetically predictable. As are some others If you bother to ask a question that has yet to be asked in this thread & can train your short term memory to avoid being dishonest in your paraphrasing I'll give you the time of time.

Bf challenges whether KW should have signed Maggs to a 29.5/3 yr extension in 2001. That was the David Wells year & the SOX payroll was at 66 mil. The first SOX offer was 26/4. Maggs rejected it. The SOX were paying Maggs about 4 mil at the time. Maggs in 2000 was ranked 23rd in the AL h in RPG (7.10). Thomas was ranked 4th in RPG (9.41). Maggs finished in 2001 with an RPG ranking of 11th in the AL (7.20). Net improvement was: 1%. In 2002 Maggs finished 6th in RPG (7.88). Net improvement: 2% Maggs was eligible for UFA in 2003. In 2003 Maggs finished 11th in RPG (7.34). Net decline: 7% ====================== Maggs played for 6.5 mil in 2002, 9 mil in 2003, & 14 mil in 2004. Based on other arbitration awards in 2002 KW saved about 2 mil on that yr. Now, consider that 2002 was the Todd-Ritchie year. It was obvious before the break that the SOX were going no where in that yr. So it was perfect time for a salary purge. Thomas had rebounded from his surgery by then & was looking like the Thomas of old. A perfect time for a salary purge & influx of new talent. A perfect time to trade Maggs. What might KW have gotten for Maggs in 2002? Just look back to the transactions of 2002 & there were several good players that could have been had. Maggs trade value was probably his highest. Now this isn't hindsight because we are talking about events that did happen & timing that KW could have applied. The bottomline is that KW could have gotten the highest trade value out of Maggs in his best year (2002) & saved about 21 mil over 2003 & 2004. The market depressed greatly over the 2002-2003 off-season, so 10 mil went along way. To suggest that KW did not know the market would depress that off-season is ridiculous. Beane knew & so did several other managers. Needless to say with an extra 10 MIL in spending money after 2002 the White Sox could have fielded a better team in 2003. What's more is that they still would have had a chance to make a play for Maggs in FA after 2002.

It's pretty pointless for me to respond. Because any one with a brain reading this thread can see the obvious pattern & with that pattern it will never end: Tex makes dumb-arse assumptions (annual contracts) & dishonestly paraphrases what Juggs writes. Juggs then has to point out the stupidity in Tex's assumptions. Repeat loop .. over and over again. I'm not here to educate Tex. I didn't sign up for that job. Bf, I'll debate the last Maggs contract extension in the other thread.

I think Moneyball is predicated on balancing two things: A player's fair market value in a league vs A player's production on the team. That's really not that far from common jobs: A workers fair market value in an industry vs that worker's production to the company. That's why Beane pays Dye 11.6 mil & why there is talk of a 2-3 yr contract extension. On a team like the SOX where offensive production is much higher than the A's Maggs production on the team is less valuable to the SOX than Dye's production to the A's.

I would like to leave this thread because the level of intelligence is dropping among some of the participants. Please do not respond to my posts in this thread. Tex, are you really that stupid to where you think I would tell you which company? For all I know you could be a terrorist.

You need therapy. I never said it was last year or even over 1 year. But that's the way your mind works: create assumptions out of your own personal experience The rest of your first paragraph highlights your ability to string along irrelevancies. Now adding your two greatest weaknesses together we get your typical response: putting in your own words what you think people say. Of course that's pretty dangerous given that there's a great assumption you have any understanding of what someone else says in the first place. Only an idiot would translate using the terms of a contract as leverage to "broken promises". You love the word holding out, so let me explain this to you again: The terms associated with holding out in MLB are defined in the CBA. This applies more to draft picks than to established players. Most establish players use ST for their hold out leverage. It is not a broken promise as you suggest. The fines & penalties for skipping ST or refusing to sign with the team that drafts you are defined in the CBA. It is not a breach of contract. A player has the right to use every leverage he can in accordance with the agreement he signs. Period. This is not a retail business. It's an entertainment business driven by a collective bargaining agreement with one of the most powerful unions in existence. There is nothing dishonorable in that. I think Kenny Williams should have let Maggs go in 2001 after he rejected 26/4. So I hope Maggs walks so we can free up that money for solid pitching & someone who might perform as well as Carlos. Your brain must be shutting down because you're doing a real s***ty job & telling me what I claim so this is the last time: 1) A player is greedy if asks for more than he is being paid at a time when his production is the lowest in his current contract. See Maggs 2004. 2) A player is not greedy if he uses the terms in the CBA knowing the consequences to seek more at a time when his production is at it's highest in his current contract. 3) A player is not greedy when he asks for more than 20% of the payroll if he's currently producing better than 20% over any other player. Now I realize that's a lot for you to remember, but you just look like a stupid arse when you try to paraphrase into your generalized-think & miss important details. Perhaps that's why the signature means so much to you on a contract. Maybe you just ignore the details Here's a thought. Try making revisions to a contract once in a while. You might find the details to be of use to you

The reality of Moneyball: Magglio Ordonez $14,000,000 Paul Konerko $8,000,000 Carlos Lee $6,500,000 Billy Koch $6,375,000 Frank Thomas $6,000,000 Jose Valentin $5,000,000 Esteban Loaiza $4,000,000 Mark Buehrle $3,500,000 Jon Garland $2,300,000 Scott Schoeneweis $1,725,000 Timo Perez $850,000 Cliff Politte $800,000 Kelly Wunsch $800,000 Shingo Takatsu $750,000 Sandy Alomar Jr. $700,000 Mike Jackson $500,000 Damaso Marte $500,000 Juan Uribe $350,000 Joe Crede $340,000 Aaron Rowand $340,000 Dan Wright $340,000 Miguel Olivo $320,000 Willie Harris $318,500 Ross Gload $302,000 Jon Adkins $301,000 Neal Cotts $301,000 Total Team Salary : 68,262,500 For those who b**** & moan about JR, the payroll is at 68 MIL & you've all read the reports that KW has a green light to take on salary for the stretch drive. That's pretty good for a team that has had little to no growth in attendance over the last 4 yrs. With respect to Anderson, he's currently making 6.2 (6%) mil out of a 101 mil payroll for ANA. Vlad is making 11 mil (10%). A better comparison for Moneyball is Jermaine Dye of the A's. He's making 11.7 mil (20%). Why does Beane think he's worth that much? #1 in TB in RON #3 in TB in 7+ #1 in TB in 1-6 , 33% more than the #2 #1 in TB v Finesse, 33% more than the #2 #1 in TB v Power Given the separation between Dye & the #2 on the A's for the majority of AB's you can make the argument that he's worth 20% of the payroll. I think that's the key to Moneyball. How much of a separation is there between players on your team in terms of their production? Using 2003 as a base for Maggs: #2 in TB RON (151), Frank (157), Carlos (148) #1 in TB in 7+ (102), Carlos (96), Frank (95) #1 in TB in 1-6 (229), Carlos (215), Frank (212) #2 in TB v Finesse (64), Frank(68), Crede(42) #3 in TB v Power (155), Frank(158), Carlos(166) Where as Dye separated himself from #2 by 33%, Maggs separation is only 5%. For a player to rank #2 & #3 in the splits for Finesse & Power there is a strong suggestion that his #1 rankings are padded by blowouts where the SOX pile it on. Those have no greater impact on winning % then the close games.

If you had bother to look at the May Evaluation thread you might have realized that.. Starter Bats: FT(921) > JV(873) > PK(843) > JU(819) > CL(806) > MO(723) > JC(444) Jose Valentin was second to Frank Thomas in total production for the month of May. I've not done Jun yet, but he had a strong April before going on the DL. The problem as you can see is the w/out Maggs the drop-off is substantial from Lee to Crede. Frank needs to play every game in the NL park when Maggs isn't in there.

I eluded to this earlier but I will emphasize it here. With respect to MLB no contract is signed between a player & an owner with out MLBPA approval. The reason why is that every contract must be governed under the collective bargaining agreement. When a player skips camp or holds out those terms are defined in the CBA. That includes courses of action for the team including fines. In otherwords it's already an action contemplated in the CBA & that's why players use it as leverage. The player is NOT violating the terms of the agreement or even taking actions to break it. He is acting in accordance with the terms defined in the agreement. He's well aware of the consequences defined in the CBA of his actions. That's what is meant by leverage. It doesn't mean violating the terms of acting in such a way as to suggest breach of contract. It means acting in relation to the terms. I've had some experience in contracts with more than two parties & sometimes disagreements between two parties can affect the relationship between other parties in that contract. In otherwords it's a dominoe effect. That's the situation I have found myself in at times & you have to use leverage to end your relationship with one party to continue it with another.

TEXSOX, when you resort to insults to make your points you act like a F'g child. Grow the F up. Using insurance quotes as an example for a contract for hire or services is just plain stupid. Give it up already. Obviously when the world grows too big for you your little world experience isn't going to fit. I've negotiated contracts for hire & services with Fortune 100 companies so I'm pretty good at it. I've never burned a bridge either so they tend to respect people who know their worth more than those who don't. Using leverage is something they respect. They do the same thing on the reverse side so it's like a chess match. Both parites want the relationship but they play against one another to gain their own advantage. The play is careful & cautious & never ridiculous. People don't respect the absurd & ridiculous in the play. A player on the DL having his worst year in 4 asking for more than he's currently being paid borders on the absurd & ridiculous Since your mind is incapable of anything but a generalization I'll make this simple for you. In general what a player should be paid on any one team should be in relation to the revenue that player brings in. On the SOX, revenue & winning are synonymous. So what a player makes should be balanced against the winning % of the team & how much that player impacts it.

Here's an example for you to consider. Work I did for a Fortune 100 company netted them a 3 billion gain in revenue. I was under contract & based on the fair market price of the area at the time it was a reasonable one. In otherwords the amount of revenue my work generated for the company had nothing to do with the good-faith negotiation of the contract. I got a bonus on top of the contract money in acknowledgement of the work. That's what is meant by good-faith. That's what fosters better business relations. In otherwords people with a good business relationship don't hide behind contract law to enforce the terms of the relationship. They discuss the relationship & when things are no longer fair or equitable to both parties they re-discuss it. That's what I have done in the past & it's not as rare as you think. It happens so often that it resembles the norm case. I've never heard of a hold-out case in MLB, so I assume you're referring to the other big 3. If you have a specific case then you should mention it, but from what I've read most of the cases of hold-outs have been in the NFL where a player is coming off a career year & playing under a contract that severely undermines his worth. The owner has 3 choices: talk to the player & find out what would make him happy, trade the player, or let him hold-out. Court is not an option because of the collective bargaining agreement. In exchange for published contract terms that put players against each other the leagues forfeit their rights to sue. In otherwords any attempt to sue an individual player for breach of contract would have to include the union. No owner is going to sue the union. If you don't think the union is involved in every hold-out situation then you simply don't understand collective bargaining.

As usual you always leave things out such as a player's performance when you generalize. It's pointless to debate whether the SOX can support a payroll of greater than 70 million. But you always liberalize things into owners vs players so I'm not surprised. The bottom line is that the SOX are spending about 20 million more this year than the teams that draw about the same as their attendance. So using a 70 million payroll as their limit is certainly reasonable. Now you might think it's a vast conspiracy by owners around the league but that doesn't change what it is. Likewise you completely neglect the fact that Maggs is having his worst yr in the last 4. His May was weak even before the DL. When you act like your worth more than your performance & you're performing below your average it makes you look even more greedy. Every time you write a post with regard to contracts you always leave out what good-faith means so I'm not surprised if you don't get. Telling everyone you deserve 75/5 when your performance is it's lowest in 4 yrs is not good-faith. Telling everyone you would like to extend your contract with the SOX another year when your performance is it's best in 4 yrs is good-faith. It's not something you can generalize because it's specific to the two parties involved. Do you honestly think that Maggs agent does not have enough data on the SOX to where they know what the projected revenue is? You'd have to be crazy to think that. You sound like an arse when you keep comparing MLB to other businesses. Other businesses are not dependant upon MLB players in a lineup, or MLB players in the bullpen, or MLB players in the rotation, or bench players. Sure employees might make 25% or better of the payroll in other businesses. But guess what? They might account for better than 25% of the revenue as well. Maggs doesn't.

Josh Beckett VS. LEFT: .260 / .794 VS. RIGHT: .214 / .585 HOME: .203 / .574 AWAY: .287 / .858 (Stats listed are batting average and OPS against) Those home numbers are intimidating even when he's not at his best Our SOX are in 2nd place. Stupid Twinkies won.

Beckett is coming off the DL since 5/31 for a finger blister. He tried to throw with it & wrecked his era. He's still dominating. OPS vs 686, OPS vs for RH: 586. Frank better be back in the lineup.

I'm getting worried. With Maggs on the DL & Crede stinking the SOX are at a great loss in NL parks. When Thomas sits it puts a great burden on Konerko to perform. I believe we should bite the bullet D & start Thomas at 1st & Koney at 3rd. If we have the lead after 6 we can put Crede in at 3rd & move Koney to 1st. If Thomas doesn't hit the 3 run homer in the 8th on Thurs we don't win that game. His presence in the lineup is crucial to the success of this team. Can we afford to play these next 4 games with a weaker lineup?

Inning 1-6, Close & Late stats: 2000 http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlbhist/teams/...Type=2&type=reg http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlbhist/teams/...Type=2&type=reg 2001 http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlbhist/teams/...Type=2&type=reg http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlbhist/teams/...Type=2&type=reg 2002 http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlbhist/teams/...Type=2&type=reg http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlbhist/teams/...Type=2&type=reg 2003 http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlbhist/teams/...Type=2&type=reg http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlbhist/teams/...Type=2&type=reg 2004 http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlbhist/teams/...Type=2&type=reg http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlbhist/teams/...Type=2&type=reg