Jose Abreu defects

[TheLeviathan]

So, somebody posts something that seems to give you exactly what you said you were looking for...evidence that money is not always the deciding factor...and you find a reason to discount it? Kind of makes it hard to take your posts seriously in the future.

 

And for the record, I happen to know corporate execs who have turned down a promotion or transfer or have retired early for those very reasons (family/love/home). Additionally, I myself resigned a position and took a lower paying one for family reasons.

 

Lets be clear again - I want actual examples of it happening. This is just evidence of sentiments. I want actual players and the actual deals they signed. this isn't that.

 

Even if we count Pujols.....is that the only one? one guy out of thousands examples establishes this? Again....exceptions prove the rule. Please, just provide actual examples. If your position is well founded this shouldn't be hard. (NOte: I'm not even asking you to show a climate one! Which you will never find)

[snepp]

One having a full no-trade while the other doesn't is a pretty dramatic difference. Would Pujols have turned down the additional money if the contracts were really comparable?

[IdahoPilgrim]

Again....exceptions prove the rule. Please, just provide actual examples.

 

"Exceptions prove the rule"? Kind of makes it hard to dialogue with you. If I can't provide an example, you will say you are right and I am wrong. If I do provide an example, you will say it is the exception that proves you are right and I am wrong. Kind of a rigged game, isn't it?

 

I think I'll follow the advice of the computer on WarGames: "The only winning move is not to play."

[jokin]

"Exceptions prove the rule"? Kind of makes it hard to dialogue with you. If I can't provide an example, you will say you are right and I am wrong. If I do provide an example, you will say it is the exception that proves you are right and I am wrong. Kind of a rigged game, isn't it?

 

I think I'll follow the advice of the computer on WarGames: "The only winning move is not to play."

 

The game isn't rigged at all. There is solid legal and scientific foundation dating from Medieval times and the Renaissance for the etymology of the phrase, "exception that proves the rule". The term "male nurse" applies perfectly in this particular case. The fact that you have to further clarify and identify a person in this particular job proves the "rule" that nursing is uber-inordinately a"female profession".

 

And discussing baseball FA isn't anything like playing "Global Thermo-Nuclear War".

[big dog]

Interesting side note, the next question was about what team you would never play for, and over 30% of the responses were "none, would play for any team" hinting that more likely that 30% of the players would take the most money offered. This is still much less then I anticipated.

 

This is very interesting- especially the poll that AJ wins! In the previous question, players must want a shot at some Jeter memorabilia...

 

Surveys always have flaws, but they provide at least some insight. I'm surprised about the trivial number of players who answered that they wouldn't take less money from any team, as you mention. Even in the case where over 30% said they would be willing to play for any team, I wouldn't think that meant they would always take the highest offer- you could easily imagine someone filling this out thinking "sure, if only one team wanted me, I'd play for them". That's taking the most money, but in a pretty limited universe.

 

I certainly believe money matters, and matters a lot; to some players, it might be the only thing (see Morris, Jack), but playing time and perceived playoff chances seem to matter too. Hunter went to Detroit without shopping himself too much, IIRC, in part because he wanted a shot at a ring and his son is in college relatively nearby. Hamilton took the offer from the Angels without even checking to see if the Rangers wanted to meet or beat it. He didn't turn down less money directly, but he ignored an obvious opportunity to find a better deal, and Texas was hacked off they didn't get a chance.

 

This is ancient history, but Hrbek and Puckett both turned down better offers elsewhere, and I remember Chili Davis offering to take a below-market deal, saying he just wanted to play on the same team as Kirby, but the Twins' best offer to him was no offer.

[TheLeviathan]

"Exceptions prove the rule"? Kind of makes it hard to dialogue with you. If I can't provide an example, you will say you are right and I am wrong. If I do provide an example, you will say it is the exception that proves you are right and I am wrong. Kind of a rigged game, isn't it?

 

I think I'll follow the advice of the computer on WarGames: "The only winning move is not to play."

 

I've been trying to keep this simple so you had the most opportunity to back up your position. Here's the rub: you don't prove a behavior/trend/pattern with one example.

 

If I say, hitters should look to hit Nick Blackburn's fastball because that's the pitch hitters always hit homeruns off of him. Then we look at the evidence and out of 1000 homeruns allowed (trying to stay realistic here as well!), 999 came off the fastball - do you in any way, shape, or form prove my position wrong because on that one curveball a homerun was hit?

 

Of course not. And you DEFINITELY don't tell the next hitter - "hey, look for the curveball for a homerun". That's what is going on here - climate/racial diversity is the curveball. Dollar signs are the fastball.

 

I'm asking you to show me the curveball isn't 1 in 1000. Make it statistically significant.

[howieramone1406390264]

I've been trying to keep this simple so you had the most opportunity to back up your position. Here's the rub: you don't prove a behavior/trend/pattern with one example.

 

If I say, hitters should look to hit Nick Blackburn's fastball because that's the pitch hitters always hit homeruns off of him. Then we look at the evidence and out of 1000 homeruns allowed (trying to stay realistic here as well!), 999 came off the fastball - do you in any way, shape, or form prove my position wrong because on that one curveball a homerun was hit?

 

Of course not. And you DEFINITELY don't tell the next hitter - "hey, look for the curveball for a homerun". That's what is going on here - climate/racial diversity is the curveball. Dollar signs are the fastball.

 

I'm asking you to show me the curveball isn't 1 in 1000. Make it statistically significant.

 

Please don't paraphrase a multi-paragraph post into a byline... kthxbye

 

-Brock

[Thegrin]

Besides climate/racial diversity/playoff potential/teammates/manager , reasons for signing for less money are diverse.

-Where you lived while growing up.

-Where you went to college.

-Where your wife and/or girlfriend grew up.

-Where you want to raise your kids

-Big City vs smaller city (This is important to both country boys and city slickers)

-Endorsement opportunities.

-State taxes/City taxes

-Stadium (pitchers ballpark/hitters ballpark)

-Past experience

-Some other reason

 

To support this idea, many have suggested that Phil Hughes might want to leave the Yankees and play in Minnesota because Target Field suits his style of pitching, better than the new Yankee Stadium. We could also promote the idea that our defense is excellent and our bullpen is outstanding. How much of a dollar difference would the offers have to be for a player to play in a less than friendly environment?

 

The Twins could say,"We'll pay you x million dollars. The Yankees ,If they want him, can always say, "We'll pay you a million dollars more." If the Yankees were not willing to pay the extra million, would we be getting a bargain ? I think not.

[TheLeviathan]

The Twins could say,"We'll pay you x million dollars. The Yankees ,If they want him, can always say, "We'll pay you a million dollars more." If the Yankees were not willing to pay the extra million, would we be getting a bargain ? I think not.

 

I think you have a good post here and what you say is very reasonable, but I think some of that is us projecting how we think as people that don't make millions to play a childhood game.

 

These guys can afford to do all the things you listed above no matter where they sign because they make enough to have as many residencies as they want. Once you're talking millions of dollars, those other things go away. You get to have both, so now it's just about how much you can pull down.

 

I think this is pretty clearly an MLB phenomenon. I think football and hockey players, for example, are more willing to make decisions based on your list above. With baseball, not so much.

[ThePuck]

Please don't paraphrase a multi-paragraph post into a byline... kthxbye

 

-Brock

 

So you have no response to what he's asking, so you make a personal attack? There's nothing about baseball in this, nothing about the Twins. His post is asking for you to back up your side of a baseball debate.

[Major League Ready]

The real question is how good of an idea is it for a team that is the middle of the pack in terms or revenue to spend big to get the biggest name FAs. The Yankees, Angels, and Redsox have a combined payroll of rougly $530M for an average of approximately $177M. Their combined records are 187-173, 14 games over 500. The best record in baseball belongs to the Pirates with a payroll of $66M. The Pirates, As, & Ray's have a combined payroll of $192M for an average of $64M. Their combined record is 205-151, 54 games over 500.

[old nurse]

The Pujols example for taking less money doesn't really hold water. Miami doesn't offer no trade clauses in their contracts (for reasons obvious from last season's fire sale) and "the machine" made it known he wanted a full no trade clause with whomever he was signing with. So if Miami offers him that same contract with a no trade clause we might not be bringing him up as an outlier from the most money FA hypothesis.

 

Point was players sign elsewhere for less money because of other factors and desires. How does Pujols not hold water on that one?

[old nurse]

I wonder what a full trade clause would be worth to a player in dollar form?

 

 

(90% rhetorical, 10% serious)

 

35 million for Albert

[old nurse]

The game isn't rigged at all. There is solid legal and scientific foundation dating from Medieval times and the Renaissance for the etymology of the phrase, "exception that proves the rule". The term "male nurse" applies perfectly in this particular case. The fact that you have to further clarify and identify a person in this particular job proves the "rule" that nursing is uber-inordinately a"female profession".

 

And discussing baseball FA isn't anything like playing "Global Thermo-Nuclear War".

 

Combative statement.

 

-Brock

[drjim]

Combative statement.

 

-Brock

 

Can we still say female driver?

[ThePuck]

In February 2011, just under 10% of registered nurses were male, up from 3% in 1970 and 8 % in 2000.

[old nurse]

Lets be clear again - I want actual examples of it happening. This is just evidence of sentiments. I want actual players and the actual deals they signed. this isn't that.

 

Even if we count Pujols.....is that the only one? one guy out of thousands examples establishes this? Again....exceptions prove the rule. Please, just provide actual examples. If your position is well founded this shouldn't be hard. (NOte: I'm not even asking you to show a climate one! Which you will never find)

 

Details emerge on Edwin Jackson?s contract - Nationals Journal - The Washington Post

Jackson turned down better offers.

 

Also any player that signs an extension without testing the free agent market.

When Schwartz over at fangraphs computes dollar values for WAR he does not include contract extentions while able to be a free agent after the original was done. because he believes that they are under market value. Ergo, somebody signed for less than they would get elsewhere. King Felix would surely do better than 7/175 given what Greinke was paid.

[AROG]

Lets be clear again - I want actual examples of it happening. This is just evidence of sentiments. I want actual players and the actual deals they signed. this isn't that.

 

Even if we count Pujols.....is that the only one? one guy out of thousands examples establishes this? Again....exceptions prove the rule. Please, just provide actual examples. If your position is well founded this shouldn't be hard. (NOte: I'm not even asking you to show a climate one! Which you will never find)

 

I understand your desire for exact circumstances and that is why I didn't directly reference you in my post. Those negotiations are not public. There are rumors from time to time about a player being offered more elsewhere and turning it down and rumors about players only going with that team because they were offered the most money. Nothing concrete. My point is that if there was fact to either side of the argument we wouldn't get to discuss it, takes the fun right out.

 

Also, and in reference to the post earlier about it not being accurate. It may not be, only about 20% responded. But can you give me a clear example of an executive that on a survey said that he/she would take the most money period? Actual examples?... JK JK JK

 

Those examples don't exist either. But Like I hinted to in my post segment, money may not be the complete determinate factor, but it is probably the largest, ie, if I am making a decision there are most likely 20 to 30 factors that come into play, and money is weighted towards the top, but it isn't the only thing I make a decision on. But if it is 30% of the total and the other factors are all close, then money wins. So, I completely see your side of it, yet arguing the other, kinda.

[AROG]

Details emerge on Edwin Jackson?s contract - Nationals Journal - The Washington Post

Jackson turned down better offers.

 

Also any player that signs an extension without testing the free agent market.

When Schwartz over at fangraphs computes dollar values for WAR he does not include contract extentions while able to be a free agent after the original was done. because he believes that they are under market value. Ergo, somebody signed for less than they would get elsewhere. King Felix would surely do better than 7/175 given what Greinke was paid.

 

This is great stuff, although there are more then one reason to sign an extension, most notably I get locked into a pay raise before I get hurt, and my agent suggests I do it because he wants the payday this month. I think that is why it is left out in this instance, but again, great stuff.

[TheLeviathan]

So, I completely see your side of it, yet arguing the other, kinda.

 

Which is cool, I don't deny that players probably think about those factors, I just don't think they make the final determination. Ultimately, more money has a way of making those go away.

[jokin]

Combative statement.

 

-Brock

 

I'm sure this is lighthearted. Right?

[jokin]

In February 2011, just under 10% of registered nurses were male, up from 3% in 1970 and 8 % in 2000.

 

No question the number has grown, yet no one ever says "female nurse", do they?

[TheLeviathan]

Details emerge on Edwin Jackson?s contract - Nationals Journal - The Washington Post

Jackson turned down better offers.

 

Also any player that signs an extension without testing the free agent market.

When Schwartz over at fangraphs computes dollar values for WAR he does not include contract extentions while able to be a free agent after the original was done. because he believes that they are under market value. Ergo, somebody signed for less than they would get elsewhere. King Felix would surely do better than 7/175 given what Greinke was paid.

 

Jackson turned down more money so he could make even more money later. Money never stopped being the motivation.

 

and you are right we largely think of extensions as discounts, but the deals they could sign that are larger are hypothetical. Sometimes players chance that and get burned on the open market so players have to weigh the financial risks.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Lets be clear again - I want actual examples of it happening. This is just evidence of sentiments. I want actual players and the actual deals they signed. this isn't that.

 

Even if we count Pujols.....is that the only one? one guy out of thousands examples establishes this? Again....exceptions prove the rule. Please, just provide actual examples. If your position is well founded this shouldn't be hard. (NOte: I'm not even asking you to show a climate one! Which you will never find)

 

I seem to remember Cliff Lee taking less from Philly, though I do think there was an extenuating circumstance with a special needs child... I could be wrong on that, this is just from memory.

 

I should note people turn down opportunities all the time. I just turned a good one for family reasons. It happens. I'm sure ball players do it. Though I do agree that it doesn't happen often.

[AROG]

Which is cool, I don't deny that players probably think about those factors, I just don't think they make the final determination. Ultimately, more money has a way of making those go away.

 

Ultimately, it comes down to what is important to them, Joe Mauer wanted to play in MN and didn't want to play elsewhere, so he took a relatively cheap contract that allowed him to stay here. I say that because reports were out there that the Red Sox and Yankees were considering $300 million agreements. Most people don't really care where they live so it comes down to who give me the best chance to Win, have the best career I can have, and pays me the most. Also, ESPN's money issue the last couple of years has talked about money earned away from the contracts and how that varies per market and prominence. But in the case of a Cuban player the one this year points out that if you don't speak english, you don't get the endorsements, just ask Miggy.

[AROG]

I seem to remember Cliff Lee taking less from Philly, though I do think there was an extenuating circumstance with a special needs child... I could be wrong on that, this is just from memory.

 

I should note people turn down opportunities all the time. I just turned a good one for family reasons. It happens. I'm sure ball players do it. Though I do agree that it doesn't happen often.

 

The article I read on that had a lot more to do with his wife wanting to live there, but articles aren't always the truth.

[AROG]

Jackson turned down more money so he could make even more money later. Money never stopped being the motivation.

 

and you are right we largely think of extensions as discounts, but the deals they could sign that are larger are hypothetical. Sometimes players chance that and get burned on the open market so players have to weigh the financial risks.

 

I was going to mention that but I thought I would leave that up to you. It was quite glaring. Interesting to note that Boris was his agent. Boris has a reputation his clients only wanting money and considering nothing else. If money was the only factor would there have to be a reputation like that? I'm sorry, I know you just agreed that there are other factors but I was waiting for this opportunity earlier but it didn't arise.

[TheLeviathan]

I was going to mention that but I thought I would leave that up to you. It was quite glaring. Interesting to note that Boris was his agent. Boris has a reputation his clients only wanting money and considering nothing else. If money was the only factor would there have to be a reputation like that? I'm sorry, I know you just agreed that there are other factors but I was waiting for this opportunity earlier but it didn't arise.

 

On the open market, Boras is the same as anyone else. Most of his rep comes from the former amateur signing process, which is very different from normal FA.

[AROG]

On the open market, Boras is the same as anyone else. Most of his rep comes from the former amateur signing process, which is very different from normal FA.

 

Completely agree, his rep was built on selling people who weren't old enough to understand any other factors. Money was their only factor and Boras (thank you for the spelling, I didn't feel like looking it up) was great at exploiting/getting that. Did you read his article today for Buster Olney? Maybe that should be it's own forum but I haven't taken the time to figure out how to start one. But his article was pretty good, but I disagreed with him on some major points.

[TheLeviathan]

Did you read his article today for Buster Olney? Maybe that should be it's own forum but I haven't taken the time to figure out how to start one. But his article was pretty good, but I disagreed with him on some major points.

 

I try and avoid ESPN but that sounds very interesting....thanks for the heads up!