• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
FLA-CHC
#11
(10-12-2011, 11:33 PM)hokeyrules Wrote: and the last stipulation is if an injury causes him to lose his spot in a contenders rotation than he will be released without the Marlins owing anything to him.

I can see the re-structure as overall he makes more money, but this stipulation doesn't make sense. Realistically the player would fire his agent the moment this stipulation was allowed in the contract, much less an agent actually agreeing to this stipulation
Cle

Cleveland Record5631-4946 (.532) [2054-2071, 2083-2104, 2110-2135]
AL Post: 16 (ALC), 11 (WC) - ALDS Win: 12 - ALCS Champ: 7 - WS Champ: 4

ALW: Mariners + Angels Record: 1072-864 (.554) [2042-2048, 2105-2110]
AL Post: 3 (ALW), 4 (WC) - ALDS Win: 3 - ALCS Champ: 1 - WS Champ: 1

NLW: Rockies + Padres Record: 3230-2753 (.540) [2017-2042, 2072-2082]
NL Post: 18 (NLW), 4 (WC) - NLDS Win: 7 - NLCS Champ: 4 - WS Champ: 0
#12
After seeing what Pat Wright got in FA, I can imagine that a team would give 2-4 years at a high high price for Seidel in FA. I don't like how the agent negotiated such a paycut AND allowed that ridiculous stipulation. The stipulation was the worst part in this entire trade. I don't mind seeing the trade go through, even though Cubs prolly could have gotten more, but either way trade isn't a rape. I do have a prob with the stipulation, it doesn't even make any freaking sense!!!

#13
well the potentiality was I could just have paid 15 mil to buy out his NTC, then end of the year if I really didn't want him, I could release him, and then at 35 no one would sign him to more than a year in this league, because everyone is scared to have old players it seems.
#14
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.
#15
So maybe 15 years is a stretch but He is only 23 yo and yes I fielded other offers and I felt that getting a guy who will be an ace for a long time was better than getting 4 spects that if I am lucky 2 of them will pan out. Also Fowler is someone who I can keep for a couple more years and he can be effective. Andy I thought long and hard at your offer I almost accepted it until Hokey told me he would trade me Attaway. BTW I only got 3 offers for Romero.


Jason
Chc

GM 2023-8/2063, 2086-
7 x division champ
1 pennant
TBR

8/2070-11/2070

NYM


2071-2079
2 x wild card game appearance

SFG

2080-2085
#16
yeaaaahhh...sorry, but not a fan of this
#17
(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?
#18
sorry, but Stars dont give discounts for low budget teams... its not a terrible deal, but not a huge fan of this
#19
(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.
#20
To give a clear answer from me, i would approve the actual trade, the swapping of players...if that stipulation is still in play, i veto...
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »

Users browsing this thread: 9 Guest(s)



Forum Jump: