10-13-2011, 11:41 PM
(10-13-2011, 11:18 PM)hokeyrules Wrote:(10-13-2011, 10:15 PM)rockybull Wrote: Come on hokey, you know that stipulation was a sweetheart deal man. You know I like you hokey, but come on man, you know that the stipulation is stupid and unrealistic. Like I said the deal itself isn't vetoable or anything. But, with that stipulation, that contract is a great sweetheart deal. I know this agent isn't as tough as Boras, but come on now? This is the first time since being here that I have had a problem with an agent signing, mainly cause stipulation is crazy.
well lets see, consistently people say Turner is similar to pace (overall), yet when someone was an agent, I had to pay 25 mil+ incentives to keep him, yet later turner got 17.5, so if people want to say I got a good offer I think that makes up for the others previously. The only reason the stipulation is there is due to me being a low budget team.
Other then free agency, there has been no player that has come close to being resigned at pace's price, so now lets see who can complain?
Look man, we aren't talking about what Pace and Turner got. And wtf man, the stipulation SHOULDN'T make up for the others previously. That is crap man. So you pretty much admit that you did infact get a sweetheart deal and prolly pressured the agent into giving you this deal after you showed the Pace and Turner thing. I don't mind that the guy got a pay decrease, but it's bullshit when he got a pay decrease AND that stupid ass stipulation. That stipulation is the thing that is stupid and isn't right and only part of this trade that looks awful in my part. The trade itself is fine, even the contract he got. But the stipulation cannot happen. DJ def needs to say no to that stipulation. Just cause you have a low budget doesn't mean you deserve to get him at a pay decrease and a great stipulation on your part. This shouldn't be allowed at all with the stipulation.