JUGGERNAUT

I never said Maggs was wrong in negotiating the best deal he can get for himself from the SOX. But see again here's where you don't understand the concept of good-faith. Is it good-faith to ask your partner to fork over 20-25% of the operating budget for your services? You probably think it is but I think most would say it isn't. In all of Thomas years of negotiating with JR he's never set the bar beyond that limit. Now many criticize Thomas for even signing a dim skills clause contract in the first place but he did that how of "good-faith" to JR & the SOX. JR likewise honored that in 2001 by not invoking the clause then. Now as to what the limit is it's not hard to figure out. The NYY have 3 times the payroll of the White Sox & their limit is about 22 mil. Relatively speaking that would put the SOX limit betw 7-8 million.

There was no poll assoc with that thread. A poll is needed for this debate.

It's obvious you have NO CLUE as to what my original argument was. Educating you: I never spoke for Maggs. I simply indicated what I read he said. Then I applied logic to other facts I had read in regards to his contract situation, rumors, etc. & made the decision that he cares more about $ then the White Sox. I likewise have come to the conclusion that his need to be the highest paid player in White Sox history hurts the team more than it helps it. With that being the case I saluted him with the big Fu in this thread & wished him good riddance. The article which is no longer available on-line as it was from April 14-17 was simply one basis for my argument. Since it was unavailable I formed 7 more: What we do know about the greedy player is the following: 1) His 2004 year is proving to be his worst. 2) In early Feb he stated as saying he was not interested in an extension & wanted to test FA. 3) In late Feb he believed he stated he was worth somewhere between 72/6 & 70/5 using the Tejada & Guerrero comparisons. 4) There have been suggestions that Beltran & Maggs can get 140/8 offers in NY. 5) Pujols signed a 100/7 deal with STL after rejecting a 55/5 deal. 6) Maggs has stated he believes the market for player salaries is on an upswing. 7) Heyman who broke the story on Ordonez-A-Rod-Nomar trade has reported that Maggs rejected a 70/5 offer. 8) Maggs only denied that part of the article which implies he wants to be a Met. The prosecution believes that the evidence strongly suggests there is no reasonable offer the SOX can make that will secure his services & that this is all a PR battle by the SOX to try & corner Maggs into signing an extension. New poll on this subject: http://www.soxtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=20579 Thank you & Good Night! I am the greatest to ever play this game!

BS aside, how much do you think Magglio Ordonez is worth to the SOX? I believe based on his being the #3 best producer overall over the past 4 yrs, that Maggs is not worth any more than 15% of the payroll. Frank is certainly worth that next year. Assume a 70 mill payroll. If you choose more than 15% please tell us what team you would put together in 2005. If you suggest a higher payroll please tell us how you are going to increase revenue to pay for it.

I never spoke for Maggs. I simply indicated what I read he said. Then I applied logic to other facts I had read in regards to his contract situation, rumors, etc. & made the decision that he cares more about $ then the White Sox. I likewise have come to the conclusion that his need to be the highest paid player in White Sox history hurts the team more than it helps it. With that being the case I saluted him with the big Fu in this thread & wished him good riddance.

Do you often speak for other people or is this your God given right? Do you know how stupid it makes you sound? Who said I would use hindsight stats in that debate? I can make that debate based on the talent level in 2001 when the extension was signed. There's no hindsight in that. I thought it was a stupid contract then as I do now. I think Konerko's was just as stupid. There was no basis for thinking these players were going to perform better than they had to that point. So it's stupid to pay them on that assumption. Now Lee's 15/2 is a different matter. That's a reasonable contract that asks for a little bit more performance to make it a good price. Since that's being asked of a younger player it's a resonable risk.

This is a tough record to go after. Quite a bit of it is dependant on the team. I think I read that there were about 6 times during the streak that Lee extended the streak in his last ab & 4 of those times he was not likely to get the ab. A late SOX rally gave him the opp to extend the streak. It's a remarkable acheivement for both Lee & the SOX considering how long it's been since someone challenged it. He's 2 away from tying the all-time Chicago record. He needs 31 to beat it. I'm praying he can do it!

I've got a question for all you Maggs butt-kissers: Would the SOX have won more games in the past 2 yrs if they would have said Sayonara to him then? Here's his contract history: In 2001, SOX made a 26/4 extension offer which he turned down. He eventually signed a 29.5/3 deal or roughly 10 million. What level of talent could the SOX have bought that 10 million that would have helped the team perform better than it did with Maggs? If you need help in answering that feel free to ask for it

Your implication that somehow someone who seeks to use leverage to get out of a bad contract is dishonorable is pure bulls***. It's no less honorable to stay in such a contract then it is for the other party to hold you to it. Honor is tied to a good-faith agreement. Perhaps you don't know what that is. I've never had to terminate a contract through court. I was able to make my case based on the terms of the contract & the law. The party just agreed to the termination & I was able to seek a better contract. There is nothing dishonorable about that. Around the same time the SOX made Maggs the offer, Thomas mentioned he would like a new deal for 4 yrs. Having been ranked in the top 4 in RPG in 2003 he not only had the right to do so but he was justified in that right. Whether JR agrees to do that or not will be up to him & Thomas. It's pretty clear Williams didn't have much impact on the last contract & he probably wouldn't have any impact on the next. That's something Kenny respects between the relationship Reinsdorf & Thomas have forged over the years. But to suggest Thomas is dishonorable to mention he would like to extend his current contract with the SOX another year is dumb.

Grow the F up. The newspapers don't allow Google to cache crap that old any more. I never said it WAS the Cubune I simply said it "PROBABLY" was the Cubune. Based on the Cubune circulation to other papers that's called an "EDUCATED" guess. The best source for the 58/4 references appear here at SOXTALK.com. http://www.soxtalk.com/index.php?showtopic...5&hl=58+million http://www.soxtalk.com/index.php?showtopic...9&hl=58+million http://www.soxtalk.com/index.php?showtopic...9&hl=58+million For those who are weak at math: 14*4=56 so a 58/4 amounts to the SOX giving him 14.5 over 4 yrs. Maggs comments when the story broke around April 14-18th were not favorable to the SOX. It's not important enough to me to go look through the achives at the public library. I stopped being a Maggs fan when his salary jumped from 9 million to 14 million. Maybe you don't look at it the way I do, but the extra 5 million could have been used to sign Gordon, a solid 5th starter, or maybe with JR willing sign Hawkins to a 4 yr deal. Maggs is simply not worth 20-25% of the SOX payroll & wishing, hoping, or fantasizing that the SOX revenue will grow & shrink those numbers is not rational. So if that's what it means to retain his services then sayonara & good riddance.

Grow the F up. I expect the less intelligent like yourself to not understand the point he's making. What he's saying is that the level of production between a 4 million player & a 15 million player is not 400%. In otherwords, the production doesn't justify the cost. If you had a brain you might be able to figure that out. I didn't say I agree with me. I simply quoted his reference. The whole like makes reference to the 14 million / 4 yr offer. Personally I feel that when you have to make this kind of decision it's best to look at inn 1-4 & close & late because those are the times that will usally have the greatest impact on winning. I've already looked at that & on avg Maggs is the 3rd best on the SOX over the past 4 yrs. This year he's about 5th. Now since you have no capacity for real debate & don't understand the word "probably" there is no reason for me to continue with this. I'm outta here.

Interesting link on the whole "is Maggs really worth it" question? http://beerandwhiskey.blogspot.com/2004_04...ey_archive.html So, Magglio is asking for $14 million. For $4 million you could probably get a very decent player ... someone about the same age who can produce, let's say, 90% of the numbers Mags is capable of producing for 75% less money someone like ... oh, perhaps Randy Winn. (AVG/OBP/SLG: .283/.343.406). In 500 at bats, Winn's numbers translate to 142 hits (via AVG) and 203 bases (via SLG). Magglio, in those same 500 at bats would have 156 hits (with his career .308 AVG) and 264 bases (with his career .528 slugging). Simply put, Mags will produce approximately fourteen extra hits and sixty-one extra bases over the course of a typical season. Are those fourteen extra hits worth the $10 million difference between Winn and Ordonez? Well, again, the answer depends on whether or not the White Sox can afford the extra $10 million for those hits.

One thing I will say in Maggs defense of which I have no information whatsoever on: If he is not seeking a no-trade clause in his contract & the SOX were not hampered in the least when it comes to trading him then provided reasonable insurance can be purchased against the contract I believe the SOX can afford to pay him 75/5. As long as he does not insist on things that would hamper the SOX ability to move the contract I don't believe a contract of that size would weaken the team overall.

I listed 7 in-disputable facts in the thread to prove my case. Let's hear yours.

You have to understand circumstantial evidence and logic to recognize where

I've have the reference date now. It's around April 17th when the 58/4 offer was reported & Ordonez turned it down. At least I'm finding 58/4 references. I'm willing to concede that even though I have proven that it is more probable that he did say "no" or "never" in response to the possibilty of the SOX signing him as a FA at the time this offer was made I have not proven it to be an indisputable fact & therefore designate it at best as a probable rumor. That being said the best article to date on the subject is this one: http://www.soxtalk.com/index.php?showtopic...9&hl=58+million Ordonez, who is seeking a five-year deal at about $75 million, wants the White Sox to add a year to their four-year offer and to drop their talk of deferrals, vesting options and other gimmicks. But the reality is the Sox are only being prudent, trying to protect themselves. If Ordonez wants to stay where he's comfortable, they are giving him a chance. If he'll stay only at maximum value—and how does he find out what that is without testing the free-agent market?—then general manager Ken Williams must consider his options.

I do not remember which paper it was & I never said it was the Cubune. Steff, you could help with this you know. I would have to think that SOXTALK.COM has some posts in reference to the 58/4 offer. I would have to think that offer generated some discussion. You could search SOXTALK while I search all press releases.

I NEVER SAID I READ IT ON ESPN! I SAID I READ IN THE PAPERS! And it was months ago when the 58/4 offer was made. That being said, a new search strategy is proving useful: "Ordonez said"

SS called me a communist because I advocate stronger laws for greater collective bargaining power? Is it wrong for the American people to have a right to use their power as consumers & citizens to influence the economics of the country? Is it wrong for American citizens to vote on such issues? Is that your definition of communism? Advocating use of a collective power in economics to bring about greater distribution of wealth is not communism.

Some people simply don't read all the words What part of "his quote appeared in the same article that discussed the 58/4 offer" did you not understand? If you find a reference to the 58/4 article & his being asked the question you will find the quote.

Actually I kind of like where this has turned. It's gone from a debate on whether Maggs really wants to be with the SOX (assuming that's what the title is getting) to a debate on who is greedier? Frank or Maggs. Which is why I elected back into it. And for those who question my use of the quote function, when it's a gang vs 1 you use it to spread as many bullets around as possible. That might be a difficult one for you to figure out so give it some thought I do have to applaud the mods here at SOXTALK. These kind of threads are not allowed to carry on for long at other sites. I don't need to mention them

Tex, I'm interested to know your background because you seem to view a contract in a medieval sense. It's nothing more than the guidelines for parties to do business together. You are bound to a contract by law. Nothing more. If the party seeks to pursue legal means to force you to honor the contract than they have that right. In most cases when the terms of a contract spoil the good-faith spirit of the contract the two parties cease doing business together. It is only when there are large sums of money involved such as royalties & profit-sharing that they go to court.

Brandofan, it is true I was a very pro-market (economic conservative) in the past. I am not any more. I am now leaning more & more to using every means necc to bring about greater distribution of wealth. The gap is simply too great & the global economy threatens to destroy America's values & principles with respect economics. Collective bargaining was given birth here. Tex, I consider a contract for what it is: the terms by which two parties agree to conduct business at that time. I'm anal when it comes to contracts. I never sign it the first time. I always make revisions so that the party is signing my version.

moreCowbell, do you really believe you can use the defendant's testimony to support your case given that I am not allowed to cross-examine him? Well you can't. His testimony, sworn statements, or anything else he has to say is not admisable unless he subjects himself to cross-examination. Since he is pleading the 5th on the basis of a confidentiality agreement between him & the SOX what he says now after the fact is nothing more than heresay. So far I win & you lose but I do applaud your efforts

Nice try but once again it's completely illogical. What I have done is that in the absence of being able to find any reference to the 58/4 offer which I have stated is when Maggs made the quote I have provided considerable evidence suggesting that it is MORE PROBABLE that he made the quote than he didn't. On the defense side of the equation you have neither provided any evidence that he did not make the quote NOR have you provided any evidence that would suggest it is MORE PROBABLE that he didn't make it. So the judge would likely rule in my favor. Further more I have provided evidence that Maggs tune has changed as a result of 3 primary factors: His being on the DL, the 140/8 rumors, & Pujols signing a 100/7. Tex, I have signed many contracts in my past & I have even used leverage against certain parties to break contracts. I am well-versed & experienced in contracts & contract laws. I don't know your background but I will say this they are worth no more than the paper they are written on. Behind every contract is a spirit of good-faith on two parties to agree on something in a fair manner. When the contract no longer appears fair either party has the right to use any leverage they can to get out of it. If there is no spirit of good-faith between the two parties to begin then there is little reason for them to enter a contract.