Yanks make CC an offer; can he refuse?
ESPN reports that the Yanks have made CC an offer slightly larger than the deal Santana got from the Mets. So... how badly does he want to play in the National League? We're about to find out.
over 3 years ago
peter m
79 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Brace for it. I don’t think any other team can match the Yankees money.
by PatBordersHelmet on Nov 14, 2008 7:17 PM EST up reply actions
Isn’t this the obvious course? It’s not as if it wasn’t apparent when he said in March he wouldn’t negotiate until after the season. Cherchez la gelt.
Depends. I think some other club will also offer $140 or more, and possibly a more attractive club from his perspective. I don’t think the Yankees will go to $200 million.
Just because he wouldn’t take $95 million or so from us doesn’t mean he won’t leave money on the table at all. To go to an NL team and/or a club close to home, he might well take “only” $140 million and leave another $50 million on the table.
This morning’s NY Times (perhaps engaging in wishful thinking) thinks there aren’t many competitors at this level — they think Anaheim is focused on Teixera, LAD on Ramirez, etc. There’s always the Red Sox! I still wonder if a team like the Braves, who’ve always valued pitching, will stick their toe in the water. The Times thinks CC isn’t going to drag things out and will make a decision relatively early. We’ll see. If a bidding war starts…
Also, the Times argues that the players’ union will put pressure on CC and his agent to take a very high offer, if one is put on the table, because it will set a new standard for other pitchers on the market and push salaries up. That part of what they say sounds right to me, although it doesn’t mean CC will do this if he gets a good (but not comparable) offer from a team he prefers.
The union (along with the agent) hold the reins. The player doesn’t seem to have much autonomy in these situations. It’s almost as if C.C. is just doing what he’s told (I’m sure his family is also urging him to take the most money he can get). Remember the negotiations with Manny? There were reports he didn’t want to go, he didn’t want to leave the Cle clubhouse, but the agents and the Players Association insisted he do it for the good of all players. Who could say no to that?
As Indians fans, we’ve too many free agents turn away more money from the Tribe to play elsewhere for less. I’m sure the player’s union would collectively prefer CC to take the most money, but the the union is there to make sure the players are happy. It makes no sense to say that they’d prefer CC to do something that he feels isn’t in his best interest. It would defeat the purpose of the player’s union. CC will command record money this off-season without any action from the union.
by PatBordersHelmet on Nov 15, 2008 1:59 PM EST up reply actions
I disagree. The top echelon free agents—we’re not talking the last Trevor Hoffman offer—are pressured to sign to the highest advantage. Do you think MLB wants to see Sabathia pitching in Miami or Minnesota? They want him to pitch in a big market. I believe it’s naive to think the union guys have big hearts, and if C.C. wants to play for the Royals because he thinks it’s the best place to raise his kids, aw shucks, it’s only money. They could care less if a player is happy.
The purpose of the players’ union, ostensibly, is to protect the interests of players. Actually, it’s to protect the interests of “union” officials and agents.
This is complete BS, and no matter how many times it’s written, it remains complete BS.
The union does not hold any reins. The agent only holds the reins to the extent the player lets him.
The player has completely autonomy and complete authority.
Manny was and is a child. What applies to him does not necessarily apply to adults.
Sabathia may not have gone to college, but he seems like an intelligent and self-possessed individual to me. Self-aware enough to know that if he came to Spring Training and negotiated with the Indians, he’d fall in love with his team all over again, and end up taking far less money to play for a team far from Oakland and where he doesn’t even get to bat. As a man, you have to respect that kind of self-awareness.
Stop dreaming up powerful forces and making excuses for players. A free agent controls his own destiny, period.
In the absolute you are correct. The player makes the final decision and is the ultimate decider of his contractual future. But pressure (and influence) has been reportedly placed on players by the union to take the highest offers before. Here’s an article from newsday talking about CC’s situation this year and talks about Thome’s free agent year as well. So is the MLPA looking out for the individual player’s best interest or the collective of the union (i.e. higher individual salaries equals higher salaries as a group). So pressure, however it is applied by the union is influential in the decision of the player. The union creates an environment that encourages reaching for and taking the highest offer.
Pressure is not the samething as forcing someone to do something.
Of course the Union prefers for a player to sign with the highest bidder. That should go without saying. But I think the amount of force involved is being overstated. If what you’re saying is true then every free agent would test the open market, Roy Oswalt nor Jake Peavy would have resigned with the Astros and Padres at all, and Mark Ellis would be a free agent right now.
Sorry, I’m not buying it.
by world dictator on Nov 15, 2008 3:48 PM EST up reply actions
Exactly. The Times simply speculated that the union would support going for the highest bid. I’m sure that’s true, but they have no way to force a player to accept that and no interest in making a player miserable by doing that either. So, the real question is whether CC gets a different offer from a team he prefers (and/or whether he actually WANTS to play for the Yankees).
Ellis is not a top-echelon free agent. The market leaders: Manny, A Rod, C.C., establish precedents. Not Mark Ellis.
Oswalt wasn’t in his free agent year when he signed his deal, there was a benefit to him to sign an extension to his current deal because there is inherent risk that he may not be in position to make as much money when he reached FA due to injury, poor performance, etc. So you point doesn’t make sense. Peavy situation is the same as well. There is a difference between a player entering his free agent offseason and a player with another year or more left on a contract and opting for an extension.
And I also don’t want what I’m saying to be construed as “forcing someone to do something”. Jay is correct that there is no one forcing these players to make there financial decisions in the absolute sense. But to ignore the environment created by the MLBPA and how it influences the decisions made by players at the high end of the salary scale is being overly simplistic. CC’s coworkers benefit from him taking the highest bidder’s offer.
I think that a compelling reason given to players by the union is that they wouldn’t be getting the offers they are now if players that had gone before them had not “sacrificed” and accepted the highest bidder’s offer. Accepting the highest bid is a way to “give something back” to all current free agents and players that will follow in future years. Plus, accepting a little more money is rarely that hard to swallow. So, the union can try to make CC think he’s a little self centered if he doesn’t take the highest bid.
Those poor, underpaid MLB players… CC should really think of them, and be grateful he doesn’t have to scrape by with a mere 8 figure contract instead of 9. I’m sure glad contracts continue to go up as much as they do every year, what with inflation… not to mention the particularly high prices for gas and food these days.
by Logodaedalus on Nov 15, 2008 6:16 PM EST up reply actions
Whatever monies the players don’t get, the owners keep. The money will be available as long as families of 4 think it’s normal to spend several hundred dollars to attend a ball game. I get preachy about this sort of thing…entertainers in all fields earning megabucks and societal values that make that possible. We, as consumers of entertainment, make all this possible, so, no, I don’t blame the players for taking as much as they can.
Yeah, I know. The whole enterprise takes way too much money from the average fan. I’d rather have that money go to the players than to corporate business guys, but I think using terms like “give something back” in reference to some of the highest paid people in the country is sort of unfair to actual, y’know, labor unions.
by Logodaedalus on Nov 16, 2008 12:41 AM EST up reply actions
Stop dreaming up powerful forces and making excuses for players.
I’m not doing either. We’re not permitted to use Manny as an example, for some reason, so let us proceed to a more generic example: A supremely gifted 28-year-old player who has spent his entire life playing baseball, professionally since the age of 17. It was apparent when he was still a boy that he would be a pro athlete. He has no business experience, and little life experience to prepare him to control a multimillion-dollar estate.
He’s a great ball player, but in many ways he’s still a kid. He’s not Moe Berg or Ty Cobb. He’s just a decent guy trying to do right for his family. And you’re suggesting this professional athlete will stand up to a posse of $1000-an-hour attorneys and financial advisors and tell them that while he appreciates their counsel, he’s going to do it his way?
Are you saying that young athletes—because they can throw a ball hard or have a competitive rage—are alpha dogs who tell the money guys to back off?
Because if you are, that is a naive position. We have seen time and time again examples of where athletes and entertainers are dominated by their advisors. This isn’t dreaming up anything.
Your hypothetical makes no sense. Probably because its not a hypothetical. Every 28 year old is different. And I think you’re very much stretching the concept of “the 28 year old kid” who is ignorant of the way the world works.
But even taking your point into consideration, there’s countless examples of major free agents restricting their preferences to a few teams or eliminating entire geographic regions from consideration.
If the unions were so powerful then we wouldn’t have teams saying “I want to stay on the West coast” or similar things.
I have no doubt that the Unions encourage or even pressure players to do all sorts of things. But at the end of the day its a matter of dealing with people pressuring which is something every adult and/or professional athelete has to deal with everday.
by world dictator on Nov 15, 2008 10:10 PM EST up reply actions
But at the end of the day its a matter of dealing with people pressuring which is something every adult and/or professional athelete has to deal with everday.
I agree with the first part of your statement, Dictator, but not the part after and/or. Many athletes don’t have to deal with this sort of pressure. This is why they hire agents, managers, advisors, etc. Many athletes lead quite sheltered and limiting lives.
Hiring an agent manager, lawyer, accountant,etc doesn’t mean you’re naieve and sheltered. It means you chose to develop your fastball instead of taking the LSAT.
The problem with your argument is simple. It relies on the assumption that you need to be a lawyer in order to say “hmm, I don’t think I want to play in Boston.” It doesn’t take Andrew Carnigie to say no. Hell it doesn’t even take an “intelligent” person to say no. Just a stubborn player, a player with family commitments, a player who wants to win, or any other spectrum of the human psyche.
Your argument is based on a stereotype, plain and simple.
by world dictator on Nov 16, 2008 12:17 PM EST up reply actions
My argument is based on observation, not stereotype. You’re right: you don’t have to be a Wharton School grad to say you don’t want to play in Boston. But you hire your agents to give you good advice. You learn to listen to their advice, to recognize that there’s a reason you’re paying them so much money. It takes a lot of balls to go against their advice. You’re right: stubborn works too.
Influence is not authority. It’s a given that Manny is not like other players — what you do you think “Manny being Manny” means? You think it means Manny being the same as everyone else? Relying on Manny as an example is arbitrary and misleading, and excluding him is common sense.
The other main nonsense in your comment is that you pretend like C.C. hasn’t had any life experience since he was 17 — in other words, that being a pro ball player somehow precludes other life experience entirely. Nonsense.
C.C. signed his first pro contract days after turning 18 — $1.3 million. He was choosing between sure money right now and a college program that might improve his long-term prospects, while increasing his risk.
C.C. signed his second pro contract at age 21 — $9.5 million guaranteed. Again, he was choosing between guaranteed money and a higher-risk/higher-reward approach.
C.C. signed his third pro contract just before turning 25 — $17.75 guaranteed. Here, the financial incentive was small, barely more than a break-even, but he chose to stay in a team situation he personally liked and avoid the distractions of impending free agency.
C.C. declined to sign a fourth pro contract at age 26 and 27 — one which would have ended up tripling his career earnings to date. He chose in this case to accept a small but significant risk in favor of giving himself a full slate of team and geographic options, plus the best chance to maximize his financial return.
My point? Only that C.C. has had more significant experience dealing with major life-work-and-contract decisions than most of us so-called “educated people.” He may or may not be “still a kid” in “many ways.” I have no reason to think he’s any less mature or sophisticated than you are. After all, you’re the one who is blatantly confused about the union’s authority, not C.C.
And you’re suggesting this professional athlete will stand up to a posse of $1000-an-hour attorneys and financial advisors and tell them that while he appreciates their counsel, he’s going to do it his way?
Yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting. I believe C.C. knows that C.C. is in charge. I don’t know if it takes an alpha dog, but it doesn’t take an alpha dog. He’s experienced, and he knows he’s the one who signs the contract.
A lot of these union stories are antiquated. Players were less sophisticated, the business was less mature, and players were more suggestible. They also were more likely to actually be doing something stupid without realizing it. As player salaries climb higher and higher, the idea that top tier players need to help lower-tier players become … uh … more multi-millionnaires … carries less and less weight.
Jesus, Jay, you act like Carsten is Andrew Carnegie. He’s a baseball player. All this apotheosis of athletes: look at most of them. They’re not titans of finance, giants who walk the face of the earth. Ballplayers are not superhumans.
Being a ballplayer does preclude a lot of other life experience. For every exception like Jim Bunning or Bill Bradley there are ten Mickey Mantles or Joe Nuxhalls, great guys who love to tell stories, play golf, have a few cocktails. They’re not going to Davos to talk about economic issues. They’re going to Bellagio to have snow crab.
Players have been exploited since the days of Albert Spalding. This idea of the heroic young athlete, taking a stand for what he or she believes in, is so ludicrous, so much the stuff of melodrama. You know who did that? One guy I can remember: Curt Flood.
I will overlook your unnecessary and unfounded statement regarding my maturity and sophistication, but it appears to me you are the one with the unsophisticated view of athletes as heroes.
I also must take exception to your suggestion I am blatantly confused about the union’s authority. Nowhere did I say they will keep Sabathia duct-taped to his chair in the Four Seasons until they get enough sodium pentathol into him to sign a Yankees contract. Of course, he has the right to sign a contract for $100 with the Bridgeport Bluefish if he so desires. He can walk away from the game, too. But he has a lot of people leaning on him, making sure he does the right thing. Do you think C.C. handled all the contracts you mention himself? He had an agent. And advisors,
Regarding your last paragraph, when was it that players got smarter? What year? And what occasioned their enlightenment?
Not Andrew Carnegie at all, but he is a man working on his fourth multimillion-dollar deal.
Unlike Jim Bunning, Bill Bradley, Mickey Mantle, Joe Nuxhall and Albert Spradling.
He doesn’t have to make a great heroic stand like Curt Flood. All he has to do is … what he wants to do.
You don’t have to be Andrew Carnegie to make an intelligent decision about your own career, and you don’t have to be a hero to make the decision that you, personally and in your own judgment, want to make.
Now, about your blatantly confusion about the union’s authority:
- “The union (along with the agent) hold the reins.”
- “The player doesn’t seem to have much autonomy in these situations.”
- “It’s almost as if C.C. is just doing what he’s told”
- “the agents and the Players Association insisted he do it for the good of all players.”
- “Who could say no to that?”
You have spun a fairy tale about the union’s control over these matters. Either you are blatantly confused or you’re just full of crap. Take your pick.
You act like it takes enormous sophistication or erudition or courage for a player simply to recognize that he is in charge and can make whatever decision he wants to make. I think that position is not only elitist, it’s also profoundly dumb. Lots of people can make a reasonable decision without a degree in economics.
Okay, you can enjoy your Natty Bumppo version. The story of the honest steely-eyed young yeoman standing up to the paragons of civic order. An old John Wayne movie or Ayn Rand novel. Sure, old C.C. can get on his horse and ride back out to the ranch and tell the big fellows he ain’t interested in selling.
I prefer to stick to my own narrative, in which the white shoes guys take Sabathia out to a swell lunch, and over coffee one gentleman says, “Listen, C. you’re one of my favorites. I know you well enough to realize I can’t tell you what to do. We work for you, not the other way around. But we’ve always done well for you. Isn’t that the truth? Haven’t we always given you good advice? Well, this is another time when you have to think about the big picture. This isn’t just about you pitching. This is about your family, the solid upbringing your mother and father gave you. This is about your children, your cousins, your aunts and uncles. And it’s about your fellow players, etc.”
I don’t believe it’s elitist to think it would be awfully hard for any adult, let alone a somewhat sequestered young man, to shrug off such pressure. Players hire agents to represent them because they recognize this is the best way to handle it. Actually they probably do it because everyone else does.
You don’t believe there is inordinate pressure placed on top-tier free agents (except for Manny, who is exempted because he is Manny) to sign in major markets, to take top offers.
I believe there is a lot of backslapping and persuading. Read the article about Johan that Hans linked above: Johan conceded to MLBPA “requests.”
I read this small item today from reviewjournal.com, a Vegas blog:
“San Francisco Giants pitcher Tim Lincecum, named the National League Cy Young Award winner last week, was among a group of big leaguers at the Palms this weekend for a poker tournament. Others included: CC Sabathia, who is weighing a record contract offer from the New York Yankees; Philadelphia Phillies slugger Ryan Howard, Bobby Bonilla and Mike Piazza.”
Shouldn’t C.C. be back studying his New York State tax code?
And, Jay, you neglected to answer my questions: When was it that players got smarter? What year? And what occasioned their enlightenment?
You continue to post up the straw man that we’re talking about an act of unusual nobility here.
We’re not. We’re talking about a guy simply doing what he wants.
What is your special experience in contractual dealings — in out-foxing the white suit guys — that makes you think you understand C.C.’s situation better than he does?
I don’t know how much players got smarter in what specific years, but clearly the modern star player tends to be a lot more sophisticated than, say, Shoeless Joe accepting a payoff to throw the World Series, or for that mater, Pete Rose.
Beyond that, the more significant point that “the other players are depending on you to accept the highest offer” loses credibility every year, simply because salaries keep going up. How much can a superstar worry about his lessers when the minimum salary is approaching half a million, when the average salary is approaching $3 million, and when the average free agent salary is approaching $5 million?
It just doesn’t hold water anymore. You want to assume a certain naivete of a player who, again, presumably has more significant experience with contracts than you do. (Feel free to state your experience, if you have any.) I reject the presumption of naivete for a person with C.C.’s history, and preferring a presumption of entitlement.
As in: “I’ve waited a long time to have full control over my own destiny, and this is the best chance I’ll ever have to decide on where I’m playing, with whom, and for how much cash. I am a Cy Young winner commanding one of the biggest paydays in sports history, and I will go where I want to go.”
I personally find that galaxies of magnitude more credible than, “Oh, no, the guys in white suits are putting me under a lot of pressure! Guess I’d better cave!”
I have no special experience in conducting negotiations. On the rare occasions I’ve had to negotiate for my own interest I hired someone to do it for me. Just like baseball players do.
I’ve spent time around baseball players. Not a lot, but a bit. They’re like anyone else: some are smart, some dumb. Some gregarious, some not. Some shrewd and some not.
Most of them wouldn’t spend any more time with their lawyers or accountants than is necessary. They prefer hanging out on the golf course or talking about women or drinking cocktails. When it comes to contracts they might say, I want six roundtrip tickets to Japan for my mother-in-law, or I want to make sure I stay only in suites while on the road, but for the most part they leave the details to the agents and advisors.
Players may be more sophisticated now than they were in the days of Shoeless Joe or Pete Rose, but I wouldn’t call most of the players I’ve met sophisticates.
The straw man is your construct of The Quiet Man, who leafs through the 320-page contract, points out a small mistake, and tosses the contract on the desk before he turns to his agent and says, “All that is well and nice, Snuffy, but I intend to play in California. Throw the money in the furnace.”
Okay, we’ve taken this round and round a couple of times. I would just say, it doesn’t take any sophistication and not much fortitude for a player to look at Team A, $150 million, and Team B, $120 million, and decide if he really prefers to play for Team B so much more than Team A — for whatever reasons — that he’ll forgo the extra 30. If he really feels that way — willing to dump that much extra cash — then it’s unlikely his mind is going to be changed by the union or anyone else. On the other hand, in the absence of a very strong preference for Team B, it makes no difference whether the union is involved at all — he’s going to take Team A for any number of reasons, real or imagined, rational or contrived.
Here’s another big needle in your bubble, though. Most players never reach free agency at a point where they’re in significant demand. Many more players re-up and extend well beyond their peak seasons than make it to free agency without doing so. Cue the long list of guys we used to comp with C.C., including Halladay, Oswalt, Zambrano, Peavy, etc.
Thing is, odrarek, all the “powerful forces” you cite are equally in play when those extensions are signed. The agent is telling the player, you can get a TON more money if you wait, and the risk is not that great. The union leaders catch wind of these discussions — the agent would happily tell them himself — and are as free to apply their pressure as they would be in free agency. The only difference is that you don’t have teams openly bidding.
If the union’s influence were really that pervasive, then extensions would be the exception and top free agents the rule — but the reality is opposite of that. If you believe the union’s theories, Zambrano and Oswalt did massive damage to less premium player salaries when they extended their deals.
Were all those guys The Quiet Men? Or were they, simply, guys who were doing what they wanted to do, with the guidance of professionals, often acting against their own financial interest. The union hates those deals, but they can’t stop them — just like they can’t stop a player from walking away from the highest dollar offer.
The re-upping is the most convincing argument you’ve put forth. You’re right—most everybody is whispering in Oswalt’s ear not to sign an extension. And he does it anyway, sometimes not even in his own best interest.
Such events are also an example, I presume, of an extremely persuasive GM who can sweet talk a player into signing such a deal.
I wonder how many times a top-tier player wants to sign an extension and his agent talks him out of it?
But good point—those extensions suggest autonomy.
actually I think the re-upping argument holds nothing. There is a completely different set of circumstances between facing the decision to re-up and the decision to sign with bidders on an open market. There is a real risk (injury, regression, etc.)to a player waiting until his free agent year to secure himself financially when he can already sign a binding contract that will pay him well. Nobody is going to blame Oswalt for not taking the risk that his stock may plummet the year before hitting free agency.
They’re similar circumstances, but not exact. There’s less pressure if you’re signing an extension in Houston than if you’re the lead free agent and Great White Hope of baseball’s future, but I bet the agent and union urged Oswalt to take it to the market. Regarding risk, short of a torn labrum, what risk is there for a free-agent pitcher? He can pitch like Carlos Silva and still make a killing.
I’m not sure I understand your last point about risk to a free-agent pitcher.
At one year before free agency a player has a certain stock level. But he cannot fully leverage this value on an open market for another year. He can leverage it against his current team, but it its a weaker leverage. In that one year, any number of injuries can occur. Look at a guy like Andrew Jones. He regresses tremendously in his FA year. Sure he signed a nice monetary amount but for only two years. He may never get a shot at a long-term (thus security) contract again and certainly not at the money he would have recieved if he had hit the market one year earlier.
Okay, but Andruw Jones is a worst-case-scenario utter and complete trainwreck. You can’t just say, “He could lose everything!” You have to put a value on it.
Looking at Oswalt’s situation, he left $50 million on the table. If he has a comparable season, he makes an extra $50 million. If he has a slightly down year, he makes an extra $30 million. If he has a significantly down season, he probably breaks even (or signs a make-good contract like Jones). The demand for these guys is great enough that somebody is going to bet on a total bounce-back.
Even if he has a significant injury, odds are that he gets an Andruw-type contract, is fairly healthy and effective, signs a three-year deal after that … and probably ends up making $50-60 million, rather than the $70 million contract he signed. There is just no way to do the math and come up with a valuation of $50 million on that risk.
In other words … he signed the deal because ultimately, he wanted to stay, and he didn’t care about the other $50 million (minus the risk valuation).
Yes, Andruw is an extreme example. I say the free-agent market is generally forgiving of subpar performances—if a free agent underperforms 10% below his career standards, he generally doesn’t suffer a 10% reduction in salary when he signs a contract.
Also, with that concession, I’d like to point out something: I imagine that, in this economy, C.C. is under a tremendous amount of pressure from various quarters to sign a huge contract. And I don’t expect him to be heroic. I expect him to succumb to the pressure and sign with the Yankees for a ton of money.
The idea that as average salaries get higher, the logic of taking more money to benefit other players, weakens, seems rational. One’s experience with unions, however, suggests different motives in play. Union leadership must prove its worth every year and pointing to increases is a primary way to sell itself to its members. Also, the nature of union implies a subtle class war struggle between capitalist and worker, so union leadership relishes victories over these capitalists. The push to extract monies from capitalists never weakens.
I agree that there is some of that class-war thing in play, but this is hardly a “real union,” but rather just a negotiating consortium of high-value entertainers. In a real union, the negotiations are going to affect real “kitchen table” issues, as the pols have been fond of saying. This is more like country club issues. The doesn’t eliminate the dynamic, but it has to soften it up quite a bit.
Also, I wasn’t arguing that the union leadership is applying less pressure now that there’s more money on the table, I was only arguing that it sounds more ridiculous to the player to whom pressure is being applied.
By the way, the story about the union exerting pressure is just another one of those brainless media narratives that gets written over and over again. It’s to the union’s benefit to put that story out there, the writer can write in its sleep, and it’s impossible to confirm and not terribly credible.
I can’t see how the union played a significant role in either deal. If union pressure was one way for Santana to insist that the offer go up to X dollars, fine, but that’s all it was — one way to drive up the price. Santana could either take that contract or go back to the Twins for another year, and those were the only options. Union pressure did nothing to change his options, all it potentially did was provide an excuse for his agents to demand more money — an excuse they didn’t need.
Same thing with Thome. Thome takes the higher offer, and he says it was the Phillies’ competitiveness that attracted him more than the money. You say it was the union. You know what I say? I say it was the higher offer — not because Thome is all about money, but simply because it’s always easier to find a reason to take the higher offer.
Anyone with any real negotiating experience will tell you this is a load of crap. Real negotiations are impacted by the market, by leverage, by the relationships among the parties and (occasionally) by the creativity of the negotiators. The union wants something, but the union has no leverage and no standing. That’s the real world.
Sure, it’s always easy to take the top offer and say it wasn’t the money. I concur that that is what happens most of the time. The lure of money is stronger than most of these other ideals.
But you still haven’t acknowledged human behavior: maybe Thome didn’t want to go to Philadelphia, but everybody—everybody: his wife, his family, his agent, his lawyer, his accountant, his doctor—was telling him he’d be better off signing with the Phils. So he took the money.
I think I’ve acknowledged human behavior repeatedly and faithfully. I will further acknowledge that the scenario you propose is one plausible way it could have unfolded.
Another plausible scenario is that he found Philadelphia a fairly attractive option in its own right, even aside from the money, even if it wasn’t his “home” team. Thome sought out and got a meeting to pitch himself to the Cubs, even though they weren’t really interested in signing him, so one thing we know is that he was never that committed to the Indians. Once you’ve crossed that line, why wouldn’t you choose the higher offer from the more competitive team?
Ultimately, we don’t know how he felt. We know what he chose, and we know that there were lots of reasons to choose it absent pressure from the union, and we know that the union had no standing and no real leverage, and we know that it’s in the union’s best interest to take credit for it, regardless of whether they played any significant role.
I agree with that. If I’ve overemphasized the strength of the union in these matters, it’s because I see them in cahoots with agents, team owners and media companies who all profit from having big names in big markets.
It isn’t just the union—it’s the unity of the powerful voices who urge players to take the big money.
And you’re suggesting this professional athlete will stand up to a posse of $1000-an-hour attorneys and financial advisors and tell them that while he appreciates their counsel, he’s going to do it his way?
While C.C.‘s legal team probably only makes 6 or 7 bills an hour. They’ll be chewing their nails off, I’m sure.
by fleerdon on Nov 16, 2008 12:07 AM EST up reply actions
odarek, that comment of mine … cheap, snotty, unproductive. Been drinking, didn’t have the filter on. Dumb. I’m sorry.
by fleerdon on Nov 16, 2008 12:19 AM EST up reply actions
He didn’t allow any talks at the start of last season. Early last offseason, the club reported made him an offer in the neighborhood of four years, $70 million. (Keep in mind, this was an extension on top the then-future 2008 season, so that final year was five seasons away.)
It was also reported that the Indians made a last-ditch attempt to jump-start negotiations in late June, raising their offer substantially to see if an extension was possible before getting serious about a trade. I think it’s safe to assume they added a fifth year to the deal (with one-half of the current year already in the past) and raised the AAV slightly — my guess would be somewhere between $95 million and $105 million for five years.
The Yankees retracted 5 year $80M offers to Carmona and Lee when they realized they can’t buy whateve player without them filing for free agency first. Selig reminded them that it’s only a formality, but an important one.
The Yankees don’t know who Carmona is. They still think they lost game 2 of the ALDS to insects.
by PatBordersHelmet on Nov 14, 2008 9:33 PM EST up reply actions 6 recs
Do you think CC wants to play in NY? Is the money worth the higher expectations and more intense scrutiny? This thread has been mostly about the forces pressuring FAs to sign the fattest contract, but the flipside of that is the increased pressure to perform from the fans and media. If you go for the most money, you’re expected to be worth it. Large-market teams can absorb a bad contract relatively easily, but that doesn’t mean the fans are okay with it.
If CC truly has a fragile psyche and inability to perform well in high-pressure situations, as some of us have wondered, he’s got to have that on his mind as he decides where to sign.
by cleveland teamer on Nov 17, 2008 10:20 AM EST reply actions
In Cleveland, when CC missed a month due to an abdominal strain, we collectively groaned and moved on. The guy at the end of the bar complained about the crook of his hat a little louder, maybe.
In New York, if CC misses a few starts due to a minor injury, they will call his signing the crime of the century and the headlines will scream for the duration and expect him to make up for lost time with perfect games upon his return.
Does he really want to deal with that? Could the extra attention have an impact his focus? I guess that’s where all the extra millions come in.
by PatBordersHelmet on Nov 17, 2008 10:49 AM EST up reply actions
I hesitate to bring this up, but let’s be honest, when certain people complained about C.C.‘s hat or weight, there was at times a whiff of a racial component to it. That part, at least, you’re not going to get in New York, or for that matter, L.A. Boston maybe, even Philadelphia, but not New York.
I think the “heightened pressure” thing is overplayed. He’s pitched in big games and in particular has a sterling track record of pitching well in the heat of pennant races. As I’ve said before with regard to Oakland, whatever the new setting is, C.C. will acclimate to it within a few months, to the point where it ceases to be an issue. I think that’s true even if it’s New York.
I’m saying that for the money, he can handle the extra pressure. I’m also pretty sure that part of him wants that pressure. I doubt that there are many athletes who avoid the spotlight because they know they’ll crack under all the added attention—although some should. But the competitive and aggressive nature of what I imagine it takes to be a high-performing athlete would seem to drive the individual to seek out those situations to prove to themselves and everyone else just how good they are or may be.
by PatBordersHelmet on Nov 17, 2008 12:42 PM EST up reply actions
We wish CC well, but there are limits. He pitches for the competition. Whatever psychological issues he may or may not have are someone else’s problem now. Frankly, if it’s us facing him, I hope that he suffers severe ambivalence and crumbles. He IS fat and he DOES wear his hat in an unconventional manner. I’ll make sure I make fun of those things in the future just like I made fun of David Wells and anyone else on the opposition’s mound. This is Tribe town and I’’m a Tribe only fan. I want to light up CC every time we face him. Stop me if you think I’m wrong about this.
For all we know, the whole “west coast, wants to hit” thing may be some good spin to drive up the Yankees’ bid.
by fleerdon on Nov 17, 2008 4:10 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah. I saw that. The story omits the most interesting point: CC’s plans to wear a Cavs jersey when he attends Nets games.
That sort of symbolic gesture generates more headlines if you do it at an event where there are actual fans. Maybe once the Nets move to Brooklyn.
Like most projects these days, there’s a problem with the funding. It looks like any groundbreaking will be pushed back for at least a year. Additionally there is controversy in the neighborhood where the arena is supposed to be built. Residents are opposed it on the grounds that the arena was green-lighted without their approval and would change the neighborhood atmosphere for the worse (it’s one of the better-off neighborhoods of Brooklyn.) This delay may open a new window for public opposition.
by PatBordersHelmet on Nov 18, 2008 9:29 AM EST up reply actions
I think they’ll get this one through eventually. It’s an awesome project, and I’m not often thrilled about mega-developments . Ratner’s gotta pretty good grip on the site, and the modest public opposition will have relented by then. IIRC the number to be displaced is in the hundreds, and most of them are probably already gone.
Though there’s ample precedent, it’s still a little unusual for imminent domain to be used for private (this is semi-private, arguably public) purposes, but they’ll be adding many housing units and mixing up the income spectra, so it’ll be much hard for the opposition to appeal to public outrage.
I declined to go to a protest against this in 2004 because, well, I’ve always been very much in favor of it. It was only a very minor news event in the city that week. Most passively interested folks are either unapposed to it or eager for it. I know a number of people who’re targeting this thing as a future residence.
Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF
Is there any attempt by New Jersey to keep the Nets? I would think the delay would have that camp trying to take advantage of the situation.
by PatBordersHelmet on Nov 19, 2008 9:10 AM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- MLB Fan Cave candidate explains the stories behind his 30 MLB mascot tattoos
- Kate Upton’s new MLB 2K12 ad is really something
- Five tips for Showtime’s second season of ‘The Franchise,’ featuring the Miami Marlins
- The 10 best things about being a Detroit Tigers fan
- Surprise! A’s finally end the Yoenis Cespedes derby with $36 million deal for Cuban star
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
