PDA

View Full Version : Why?


soxwon
12-19-2004, 03:29 PM
WHY WONT PLAYERS SIGN WITH US?
NAMELY MARQUEE ONES?
and dont say JR, he has something to do with it, but he doesnt run the day to day!!!
dont players see that by adding them, the sox could be in the big money at the end!!!

Tragg
12-19-2004, 03:32 PM
WHY WONT PLAYERS SIGN WITH US?
NAMELY MARQUEE ONES?
and dont say JR, he has something to do with it, but he doesnt run the day to day!!!
dont players see that by adding them, the sox could be in the big money at the end!!!
How many top offers have we submitted that were rejected? I can't think of any

But I can think of Fisk, Bannister and Belle - about the only 3 I can remember really that we offered market money to.

For Clement, we chose to lowball by a mill a year

PaleHoseGeorge
12-19-2004, 03:33 PM
Umm... because we're not a first-class organization?
:cool:

S-O-U-R G-R-A-P-E-S.

:veeck
"Winfield? We don't need no .250 hitting rum drum!"

:KW
"Clement? HA!"

TheBull19
12-19-2004, 03:41 PM
WHY WONT PLAYERS SIGN WITH US?
NAMELY MARQUEE ONES?

Was that a rhetorical question?

fquaye149
12-19-2004, 03:43 PM
Was that a rhetorical question?
are rhetorical questions usually asked that abrasively?

pearso66
12-19-2004, 04:13 PM
How many top offers have we submitted that were rejected? I can't think of any

But I can think of Fisk, Bannister and Belle - about the only 3 I can remember really that we offered market money to.

For Clement, we chose to lowball by a mill a year

from what I understand, teams can't discuss what they offer to any certain player. So by you saying they lowballed, technically, they weren't supposed to know what was offered by any other team. I'm not making excuses, that's just supposed to be the rule this offseason, to prevent collusion

HomeFish
12-19-2004, 04:25 PM
Its rather simple.

The White Sox are not a popular team, nor are they a team that pays well, nor are they a particularly contending team.

They simply have nothing to offer that can't be beat by somebody like Boston, Anaheim, San Franscisco, etc.

cornball
12-19-2004, 04:45 PM
WHY WONT PLAYERS SIGN WITH US?
NAMELY MARQUEE ONES?
and dont say JR, he has something to do with it, but he doesnt run the day to day!!!
dont players see that by adding them, the sox could be in the big money at the end!!!
At first, I thought you were joking. But to answer your question, players want a chance to win, want to see ownership commited to winning and want to a contract without leaving money on the table.

We fail in most cases at all of these things both in preception and reality. Ownership is not committed to win with a budget at 75MM this year (below average). Even after the trade of CLee, 1/3 of the budget goes to Frank, PK and Garcia. We are never the high bidder for anyone. There is no margin of error for a mistake signing. The club has the "white flag" hangiong over its head.

On top of that, even if we offered the same money as AA, LAD, StL, BoSox, NYY, Cubs, Mets, Phil,....the preception of many top players is they have a better chance to win with these clubs. Until something changes I dont blame them. Like actually winning a playoff game or two.

Jerome
12-19-2004, 04:45 PM
Because usually FAs go to the team that offers the most money.

duke of dorwood
12-19-2004, 04:46 PM
Beacause blue chip players do not need to sign contracts full of incentives and with deferred money.

OG4LIFE
12-19-2004, 06:00 PM
WHY WONT PLAYERS SIGN WITH US?
NAMELY MARQUEE ONES?
and dont say JR, he has something to do with it, but he doesnt run the day to day!!!
dont players see that by adding them, the sox could be in the big money at the end!!!
actually, JR has a lot to do with it- he decides the budget and how much KW has to spend. his policies dictate what KW can offer to free agents, and apparently it looks like the sox haven't been to competitive on signing FA's... in fact, most the big names we've landed the last few years (colon, garcia) were acquired thru trades...

JR forces KW to put these 'slap in the face' 20 year deferred compensation contracts in front of FA's....

you're a FA pitcher, what would you take? 24 Mil, relatively evenly over 4 years? or 21 mil, 4 year deal, but with compensation deferred over 8 years?


think about it.
c

Palehose13
12-19-2004, 06:05 PM
Ownership is not committed to win with a budget at 75MM this year (below average).
75 mil is below average? Really???

Palehose13
12-19-2004, 06:06 PM
actually, JR has a lot to do with it- he decides the budget and how much KW has to spend. his policies dictate what KW can offer to free agents, and apparently it looks like the sox haven't been to competitive on signing FA's... in fact, most the big names we've landed the last few years (colon, garcia) were acquired thru trades...

JR forces KW to put these 'slap in the face' 20 year deferred compensation contracts in front of FA's....

you're a FA pitcher, what would you take? 24 Mil, relatively evenly over 4 years? or 21 mil, 4 year deal, but with compensation deferred over 8 years?


think about it.
c
Actually, I would take the deferred money. I can't save a dime. :(:

jabrch
12-19-2004, 06:17 PM
JR forces KW to put these 'slap in the face' 20 year deferred compensation contracts in front of FA's....

And who did he make these 20 year deferred offers to?

eastchicagosoxfan
12-19-2004, 06:35 PM
Why spend big$$ on a free agent when we have Herm Schnieder. Re-hab projects are cheaper, which fits the budget. Roger Clemens, he's washed up. A philosophy to live by.

OG4LIFE
12-19-2004, 06:47 PM
And who did he make these 20 year deferred offers to?
i believe i read somewhere on this board that the sox are still paying a player or two from the 80's...

and if you believe maggs, his contract offer was said to have compensation up to 20 years.

it may be true, it may be an exaggeration, but either way, the fact is FA's would rather take money straight up than deferred money, which is something the white sox enjoy working into their contracts... that is not an exagerration.

jabrch
12-19-2004, 06:59 PM
i believe i read somewhere on this board that the sox are still paying a player or two from the 80's...

and if you believe maggs, his contract offer was said to have compensation up to 20 years.

it may be true, it may be an exaggeration, but either way, the fact is FA's would rather take money straight up than deferred money, which is something the white sox enjoy working into their contracts... that is not an exagerration.

There is not one shred of evidence to prove either of those statements are true. And I have no reason to believe it. That's just flat out nonsense in my eyes, unless you can find me some evidence to back it up.

And anyhow, we have been over it a million times, if a player doesn't like the deferred payments, there are a million financial institutions that would be thrilled to take that payment in exchange for a lump sum payment at a very fair rate - not costing the player much at all. That's just a bull**** excuse - sorry.

Players don't come here cuz the raw $ aren't enough - that I'll buy. They don't come here cuz it doesn't give them a good chance of winning a ring - that I'll buy. But this 20 years deferred money excuse is complete horsesheets.

soxtalker
12-19-2004, 07:14 PM
There is not one shred of evidence to prove either of those statements are true. And I have no reason to believe it. That's just flat out nonsense in my eyes, unless you can find me some evidence to back it up.

And anyhow, we have been over it a million times, if a player doesn't like the deferred payments, there are a million financial institutions that would be thrilled to take that payment in exchange for a lump sum payment at a very fair rate - not costing the player much at all. That's just a bull**** excuse - sorry.

Players don't come here cuz the raw $ aren't enough - that I'll buy. They don't come here cuz it doesn't give them a good chance of winning a ring - that I'll buy. But this 20 years deferred money excuse is complete horsesheets.
I agree. When players/agents state that they don't like deferred dollars, they mean that the real total value of the contract is too low. These people make too much money for them not to be able to figure out the conversion (and have plenty of banks, etc. offering to do so) to real present value.

I think that the problem with deferred money arguments is that it is to the advantage of both players/agents and owners to not state the actual values of the contracts in terms of present value dollars. It sounds much better for both sides to state the total dollars, even though both sides know that the value of the dollars paid 2, 3, 4, 5, ... years down the road is significantly less than those same dollars paid today.

Daver
12-19-2004, 07:33 PM
There is not one shred of evidence to prove either of those statements are true. And I have no reason to believe it. That's just flat out nonsense in my eyes, unless you can find me some evidence to back it up.

The Sox are still paying deferred money to a player from the 80's, whose name escapes me at the moment.

Contract deferrments are more of a moot point now anyway, teams can only defer the money for two years under the current CBA.

OG4LIFE
12-19-2004, 07:50 PM
The Sox are still paying deferred money to a player from the 80's, whose name escapes me at the moment.

Contract deferrments are more of a moot point now anyway, teams can only defer the money for two years under the current CBA.
ty

Palehose13
12-19-2004, 07:51 PM
LOL

You obviously don't know what other teams' payrolls look like, because if you did, you'd know that's top half.
That's what I was thinking.

Daver
12-19-2004, 09:30 PM
Julio Cruz????
I think that is it.

I don't remember the details, but IIRC the money was deferred at the players request.

TornLabrum
12-19-2004, 10:19 PM
The Sox are still paying deferred money to a player from the 80's, whose name escapes me at the moment.

Contract deferrments are more of a moot point now anyway, teams can only defer the money for two years under the current CBA.
Julio Cruz's 10-year contract was up about 10 years ago. No, they're not still paying him.

StockdaleForVeep
12-19-2004, 11:27 PM
Why would anyone established come here if they can make more money and have a better view in the press elsewhere.

Marquee players come to the cubs cuz cubs will pay them and the media wont bad mouth them.

ChiSoxRowand
12-20-2004, 01:25 AM
I thought we offered Colon a lot last year? I think he turned it down before he got the Angels offer.

jabrch
12-20-2004, 01:57 AM
The Sox are still paying deferred money to a player from the 80's, whose name escapes me at the moment.

Contract deferrments are more of a moot point now anyway, teams can only defer the money for two years under the current CBA.

Who Daver? Julio Cruz's contract was up LONG ago... I can't think of anyone else. And the Cruz situation, if I recall, was Cruz asking for more money, but being willing to defer it. It was a win/win deal then.

If I am wrong - cool - show me. But Cruz is not it. He's been done getting paid for a long time. The joke still continues here - but the reality is different.

Baines2Raines
12-20-2004, 02:33 AM
The Sox are still paying deferred money to a player from the 80's, whose name escapes me at the moment.

Contract deferrments are more of a moot point now anyway, teams can only defer the money for two years under the current CBA.
Are you sure? The DBacks have a lot of money deferred and they won't get out from under the deferred money until 08 or 2010. But most of those contracts were signed before the 2002 CBA.

jordan23ventura
12-20-2004, 02:40 AM
WHY WONT PLAYERS SIGN WITH US?
NAMELY MARQUEE ONES?
and dont say JR, he has something to do with it, but he doesnt run the day to day!!!
dont players see that by adding them, the sox could be in the big money at the end!!!
You HAVE to say JR. Why did Pudge sign with the worst team in baseball in 2003? Because they gave him 4 years/40mil and no one else wanted to go that high. If the Sox decided to pay out, they could have just about anyone they wanted. See: New York Yankees.

jeremydavid
12-20-2004, 02:53 AM
I thought we offered Colon a lot last year? I think he turned it down before he got the Angels offer.I think the Colon offer was 100% PR. I also remember some source saying that even it was same $ as Angels it was loaded with incentive.

DumpJerry
12-20-2004, 09:15 AM
Agents hate JR. They refuse to deal with him as owner of the Sox and Bulls. There was an article here which discussed why agents hate JR. JR has a history of going behind the agents' backs to talk directly with the players. Remember in the summer of 2003, KW approached R. Alomar in the locker room and basically said forget your agent, why don't we pay you X amount of money? Remember after Michael left the Bulls and all the top FA's in the NBA came to Chicago to be wined and dined by the Bulls only to sign with other teams the next day?

One more time: AGENTS HATE JR. THEY FEEL HE HAS NO ETHICS. For someone in the same profession as Scott Borassss to question your ethics is pretty bad.

samram
12-20-2004, 10:00 AM
Agents hate JR. They refuse to deal with him as owner of the Sox and Bulls. There was an article here which discussed why agents hate JR. JR has a history of going behind the agents' backs to talk directly with the players. Remember in the summer of 2003, KW approached R. Alomar in the locker room and basically said forget your agent, why don't we pay you X amount of money? Remember after Michael left the Bulls and all the top FA's in the NBA came to Chicago to be wined and dined by the Bulls only to sign with other teams the next day?

One more time: AGENTS HATE JR. THEY FEEL HE HAS NO ETHICS. For someone in the same profession as Scott Borassss to question your ethics is pretty bad.
Agents may not like JR, but they won't refuse to deal with him if their clients want to play for the Sox- Hermanson and Dye both signed as free agents. Agents solicit offers from interested teams and give advice and let the client make a final decision, they don't.

As for your argument that agents' saying JR has no ethics means something, that assumes that agents concede that their profession is full of unethical people, but they feel JR is worse, but I would think most agents feel they are ethical. Therefore, the situation is that there's two groups of perhaps unethical people (who believe they are ethical) saying the other is unethical, which means nothing. (I have no clue if this makes any sense, but in my warped mind, it does.):D: