White Sox Interactive Forums
Talking Baseball

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Talking Baseball
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #106  
Old 11-19-2012, 02:56 PM
Frontman Frontman is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Orland Park, IL
Posts: 6,667
Default

This gets even better,

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/11/...buehrle-reyes/

I feel for Mark and his family, but next time get it in writing. He got hosed on a verbal promise, which is worthless.
__________________
The Frontman Family, including a growing Future Manager of the Chicago White Sox, circa 2045.

Breast Cancer Awareness doesn't end on Oct. 31st. Folks, get educated on it and get involved. Ladies, please get tested. For more info, visit www.komen.org.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 11-19-2012, 03:16 PM
doublem23's Avatar
doublem23 doublem23 is offline
MMXXIII
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Roscoe Village
Posts: 54,244
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frontman View Post
I feel for Mark and his family, but next time get it in writing. He got hosed on a verbal promise, which is worthless.
Perhaps dealing with a loyal-to-a-fault owner in JR for so long left him unprepared for dealing with a snake like Loria.

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 11-19-2012, 03:48 PM
palehosepub palehosepub is offline
WSI Regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Palos Park & South Loop
Posts: 490
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frontman View Post
This gets even better,

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/11/...buehrle-reyes/

I feel for Mark and his family, but next time get it in writing. He got hosed on a verbal promise, which is worthless.
Agreed, thats tough on his family but if you dont have it in writing you are at risk, especially dealing with a scoundel like Loria.

MB should get a good lawyer and void the contract and come back to Chicago.....
__________________
"Call your sons! Call your daughters! Call your friends! Call your neighbors! Mark Buehrle has a perfect game going into the ninth!"
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 11-19-2012, 04:38 PM
Domeshot17 Domeshot17 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Minooka
Posts: 9,589
Default

Buehrle is getting paid, he took the money over the team, he will still get his money. He seems like a nice guy but its hard to feel bad for him in this situation.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 11-19-2012, 04:48 PM
RF/DH#3 RF/DH#3 is offline
WSI Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: South Side Chicago
Posts: 89
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domeshot17 View Post
Buehrle is getting paid, he took the money over the team, he will still get his money. He seems like a nice guy but its hard to feel bad for him in this situation.
Is there something in the Ten and Five Rule that could let Mark block the trade? Or would he have to be on the team that is trading him more then 5 Years?
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 11-19-2012, 04:55 PM
DSpivack DSpivack is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Evanston
Posts: 29,005
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RF/DH#3 View Post
Is there something in the Ten and Five Rule that could let Mark block the trade? Or would he have to be on the team that is trading him more then 5 Years?
That's the 5 part of the rule, so no.

FWIW, Pujols wanted a no-trade clause when the Marlins were pursuing him; they refused.
__________________
Attendance records:
09 : 3-2.
10 : 2-3.
11: 0-1.
12: 2-1.
14: 2-3.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 11-19-2012, 04:57 PM
Nellie_Fox's Avatar
Nellie_Fox Nellie_Fox is offline
Official Professor
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: North Mankato, MN
Posts: 16,285
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frontman View Post
He got hosed on a verbal promise, which is worthless.
Not entirely. I'm not a trained attorney, nor do I play one on TV, but a contract is made when there is an offer and an acceptance for a consideration (did I get that right counselors?) He can try to argue that there was a verbal contract. He might not prevail, but there is precedence for the enforcement of verbal contracts.

From the web site of the Florida Bar Association:
Quote:
A binding, legally enforceable contract can be in writing or oral (verbal). Depending on the nature of the transaction involved, certain types of contracts in Florida are required by law to be in writing in order to be enforceable. Generally other than those required by law to be in writing, verbal contracts are enforceable in Florida, especially in situations where one party has performed his or her obligations.


It may be that Mark's contract would be one required to be in writing, but verbal promises are not, in general, worthless.
__________________

"Nellie Fox, that little son of a gun, was always on base and was a great hit-and-run man. He sprayed hits all over."
Yogi Berra in the New York Sunday News (July 12, 1970)
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 11-19-2012, 05:06 PM
DSpivack DSpivack is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Evanston
Posts: 29,005
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nellie_Fox View Post
Not entirely. I'm not a trained attorney, nor do I play one on TV, but a contract is made when there is an offer and an acceptance for a consideration (did I get that right counselors?) He can try to argue that there was a verbal contract. He might not prevail, but there is precedence for the enforcement of verbal contracts.

From the web site of the Florida Bar Association:
[/SIZE][/FONT]

It may be that Mark's contract would be one required to be in writing, but verbal promises are not, in general, worthless.
Wouldn't that depend on what's in the collective bargaining agreement?
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 11-19-2012, 05:29 PM
Nellie_Fox's Avatar
Nellie_Fox Nellie_Fox is offline
Official Professor
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: North Mankato, MN
Posts: 16,285
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSpivack View Post
Wouldn't that depend on what's in the collective bargaining agreement?
Perhaps; I don't know. My point was simply that it's not correct to say that promises are worthless. They can be, and are, enforced in some circumstances.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 11-19-2012, 05:55 PM
DumpJerry's Avatar
DumpJerry DumpJerry is offline
Tom Feargal Hagen
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The hearts and minds of Sox fans on 10-26-05
Posts: 26,050
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frontman View Post
I feel for Mark and his family, but next time get it in writing. He got hosed on a verbal promise, which is worthless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nellie_Fox View Post
Not entirely. I'm not a trained attorney, nor do I play one on TV, but a contract is made when there is an offer and an acceptance for a consideration (did I get that right counselors?) He can try to argue that there was a verbal contract. He might not prevail, but there is precedence for the enforcement of verbal contracts.

It may be that Mark's contract would be one required to be in writing, but verbal promises are not, in general, worthless.
Verbal promises are not "worthless." There are some types of contracts which must be in writing per the Statute of Frauds, but playing baseball is not one of those. The type of contracts that have to be written can be summed up using the acronym MYLEGS.
M=Marriage. This is when you marry someone for the exchange of something of value like a dowery or a pre-nup agreement.
Y= Year. This is for services that cannot be performed within one year of the agreement (today I agree to drive you to New York City for your son's graduation in 2015 in exchange for you paying me $20,000 upon arrival in NYC).
L=Land. Any transfer in an interest in land must be in writing.
E=Executor. This is the agreement for an Executor of a will or estate to be compensated.
G=Goods. A contract for the sale of goods over a certain price must be in writing.
S=Surety. You become a surety if you are to act as the guarantor for a third party's debts or other obligations.

The Parol Evidence Rule dictates whether or not evidence can be admitted of an alleged breach of a verbal agreement which does not appear in the written instrument. If there is a Scope Clause in the contract, then any verbal promises made which are not reduced to writing in the contract are out the window. A Scope Clause states that the written contract constituted the entirety of the agreement the parties reached and any promises made outside what is written is not enforceable.

If Buehrle's contract does not have a Scope Clause, then he could conceivably sue, but it would be very difficult for him to get in evidence of a verbal agreement to not trade him. Also, I seriously doubt there isn't a Scope Clause in the contract.
__________________

All hail The Rick
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 11-19-2012, 08:11 PM
Noneck Noneck is offline
The Blind Squirrel that finally found an acorn.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Nw Side
Posts: 7,267
Default

What happens if Miami denies they ever said that?

Buerhle seems to be screwed but thats the price you pay for taking long green over a no trade clause.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 11-19-2012, 08:14 PM
DumpJerry's Avatar
DumpJerry DumpJerry is offline
Tom Feargal Hagen
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The hearts and minds of Sox fans on 10-26-05
Posts: 26,050
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noneck View Post
What happens if Miami denies they ever said that?

Buerhle seems to be screwed but thats the price you pay for taking long green over a no trade clause.
Miami always says publicly that they don't do NTCs, so I think this is just a rumor about Burl's agreement.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 11-19-2012, 08:15 PM
Frontman Frontman is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Orland Park, IL
Posts: 6,667
Default

Worthless might be the wrong word, but Loria and the Marlins can claim they never promised such a thing, and it becomes a he said/she said situation.

The Marlins can even say, "If we wanted to offer Mark a no-trade clause, wouldn't of made more sense for us to put it in writing?"
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 11-19-2012, 08:16 PM
Frontman Frontman is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Orland Park, IL
Posts: 6,667
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domeshot17 View Post
Buehrle is getting paid, he took the money over the team, he will still get his money. He seems like a nice guy but its hard to feel bad for him in this situation.
How much a person gets paid versus that person having an understanding that gets ignored isn't the same thing at all. No, I don't feel horrid over Mark and his millions, but I can feel for him and his family getting displaced.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 11-19-2012, 08:42 PM
Domeshot17 Domeshot17 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Minooka
Posts: 9,589
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frontman View Post
How much a person gets paid versus that person having an understanding that gets ignored isn't the same thing at all. No, I don't feel horrid over Mark and his millions, but I can feel for him and his family getting displaced.
But its just willful ignorance if he really thought they surely would not trade him.

Basically Buehrle came to a crossroad where he had 2 choices.

Choice A - Stay with the team you know will never trade you for less money

Choice B - Make far more money for a team that is incredibly volatile and has always blown it up after doing either really good or really bad

I do feel for him and his family that they had an expectation to stay there, but he works in an industry with incredible relocation and turnover rates. Choice A and Choice B each had a consequence.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:07 AM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.