47 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

I can't think of a line of work where people feel bad for how much they make and give it back though.

Yes, and I imagine that you can't think of many kinds of jobs, where you get a guaranteed contract, for 10 years, regardless of how well you perform. However, in the final analysis, no one is coercing anyone. The owners agreed to this  kind of a Labor Agreement, and they have only themselves to blame, if they don't like it.

Edited December 14, 20187 yr by Lillian

8 minutes ago, Lillian said:

Yes, and I imagine that you can't think of many kinds of jobs, where you get a guaranteed contract, for 10 years, regardless of how well you perform. However, in the final analysis, no one is coercing anyone. The owners agreed to this  kind of a Labor Agreement, and they have only themselves to blame, if they don't like it.

Ok but do owners add a couple million to a contract at the end of a season when someone overperforms?  No, they make the player play to their contract for the most part, with the rare exception that player and team mutually decide to extend a contract.

there is nobody to blame here.   Both parties are invested

 

55 minutes ago, Lillian said:

One more point; Although I also understand the the Players' Union does not allow such a thing, wouldn't it be refreshing to occasionally see a player make some kind of gesture, to demonstrate that he felt bad about taking a huge amount of money, for what turned out to be very disappointing performance? Who was that pitcher who left a bunch of money on his contract, for such a conscientious sentiment?

In most lines of work, you don't get guaranteed money for 10 years, into the future, regardless of how you end up performing. Nevertheless, it is what it is. Perhaps if these guys at least made a pretense of being a little less about themselves and the money, it would be easier to swallow. But again, that's just me.

The counter-point to this argument is that these guys only get to do their job for 20 years at best. Many for a lot less than that. And a majority of them aren't getting 100 or 200 or 300 million dollar contracts. The average salary for an MLB player is "only" 4 million. But the average career span is only 5.6 years...  So these guys have to take what they can get, when they can get it.

1 hour ago, Lillian said:

One more point; Although I also understand the the Players' Union does not allow such a thing, wouldn't it be refreshing to occasionally see a player make some kind of gesture, to demonstrate that he felt bad about taking a huge amount of money, for what turned out to be very disappointing performance? Who was that pitcher who left a bunch of money on his contract, for such a conscientious sentiment?

In most lines of work, you don't get guaranteed money for 10 years, into the future, regardless of how you end up performing. Nevertheless, it is what it is. Perhaps if these guys at least made a pretense of being a little less about themselves and the money, it would be easier to swallow. But again, that's just me.

..and give that money back to the billionaire owner?  These arguments sound like the choices are make 300m or fund public schools.  The players should get as much money as possible that the owners print every year.

Sports: where people get mad at millionaires for taking money away from billionaires. 

40 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

Ok but do owners add a couple million to a contract at the end of a season when someone overperforms?  No, they make the player play to their contract for the most part, with the rare exception that player and team mutually decide to extend a contract.

there is nobody to blame here.   Both parties are invested

 

Royals did this with Sal Perez...had a 5 year/$7 million deal and they ripped it up and rewarded him handsomely.

2 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Royals did this with Sal Perez...had a 5 year/$7 million deal and they ripped it up and rewarded him handsomely.

Yea that's not the same thing, that was an extension.   Which I mentioned 

Well, wasn't that fun? I hope none of that makes me a "troll". LOL. Now, sign Harper already and get on with the rest of business.

1 minute ago, Tony said:

So I'm supposed to believe the Cubs are in on Harper?

Yeah but, Kris Bryant! They be bro's!

 

8 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

Yea that's not the same thing, that was an extension.   Which I mentioned 

Name another time when a long-term extension was ripped up years early by a team because the GM felt it was patently unfair to the player....that he only signed it to guarantee his poverty-stricken family’s future at the time, but it didn’t reflect his status as one of the 3-4 best catchers in baseball, and the acknowledged team leader as well.  

Edited December 14, 20187 yr by caulfield12

5 minutes ago, Tony said:

So I'm supposed to believe the Cubs are in on Harper?

Only if they unload Heyward and Chatwood

1 minute ago, caulfield12 said:

Name another time when a long-term extension was ripped up years early by a team because the GM felt it was patently unfair to the player....that he only signed it to guarantee his poverty-stricken family’s future at the time, but it didn’t reflect his status as one of the 3-4 best catchers in baseball, and the acknowledged team leader as well.  

Geez caulfield I can't think of any situation with all of those qualifications let me look around and get back to you

3 minutes ago, reiks12 said:

 

The Giants want Heyward because......?

2 minutes ago, Tony said:

Good luck with that 

Charles the Cat is on it.

A team like the Giants, who for some reasoned signed Longoria and McCutchen last year, would definitely be up to trade for Heyward, a portion of his contract and a couple of mlb ready talent with higher upside. 

 

I dont understand why this is out of the question to you all.. its not like a creative 'win/win' trade couldnt be worked out.

5 minutes ago, reiks12 said:

 

Not giving this source any sort of credit, but I was going to list the Giants as a team possible for Heyward since they would value that OF defense in a spacious ballpark, pretty much where Heyward's value lies. Cubs would probably have to eat at least half. Half the deal would be the Giants paying 5 years, $53m for great corner OF defense.

Edited December 14, 20187 yr by soxfan2014

5 minutes ago, BFirebird said:

The Giants want Heyward because......?

This guy talks shit out of his ass.

1 minute ago, reiks12 said:

A team like the Giants, who for some reasoned signed Longoria and McCutchen last year, would definitely be up to trade for Heyward, a portion of his contract and a couple of mlb ready talent with higher upside. 

 

I dont understand why this is out of the question to you all.. its not like a creative 'win/win' trade couldnt be worked out.

They just hired a new GM from the Dodgers. I don't see him aligned to last years strategy.

1 minute ago, reiks12 said:

A team like the Giants, who for some reasoned signed Longoria and McCutchen last year, would definitely be up to trade for Heyward, a portion of his contract and a couple of mlb ready talent with higher upside. 

 

I dont understand why this is out of the question to you all.. its not like a creative 'win/win' trade couldnt be worked out.

They have a new GM and seem to know they’re going to lose MadBum. It would be a ridiculously dumb idea to bring in Heyward.

2 minutes ago, BFirebird said:

The Giants want Heyward because......?

Last year there were rumors of Heyward for Smarz/Melancon...

But that isnt really a salary dump. 

8 minutes ago, soxfan2014 said:

Not giving this source any sort of credit, but I was going to list the Giants as a team possible for Heyward since they would value that OF defense, pretty much where Heyward's value lies. Cubs would probably have to eat at least half.

Giants wanna him last year too but cubs have no prospects give them.

Edited December 14, 20187 yr by peavy44

The only way I could see them trading Heyward to the Giants, but if Cueto or Samardizja go back the other way.  

5 minutes ago, reiks12 said:

A team like the Giants, who for some reasoned signed Longoria and McCutchen last year, would definitely be up to trade for Heyward, a portion of his contract and a couple of mlb ready talent with higher upside. 

 

I dont understand why this is out of the question to you all.. its not like a creative 'win/win' trade couldnt be worked out.

Longoria and mccutchen were traded for not signed

6 minutes ago, peavy44 said:

This guy talks shit out of his ass.

Good talk

Just now, aeichhor said:

Longoria and mccutchen were traded for not signed

Thanks for the correction, and good points by others that this is a different gm.