Master Index of Archived Threads


Tamper Temper

Edgy DC Sep 23 2007 07:53 PM

Report: Prospective Cubs ownership set to offer A-Rod megadeal September 23, 2007 NEW YORK (TICKER) -- Alex Rodriguez is setting himself up for a huge offseason. New York Magazine reported on Sunday that Rodriguez could end up with the Chicago Cubs next season with a contract that could be worth as much as $30 million a year for 10 years and includes an ownership stake in the team. The All-Star third baseman can opt-out of the $252 million contract he signed with the Texas Rangers six years ago at the end of this season. Rodriguez is batting .312 and leads the major leagues with 52 home runs, 146 RBI and 138 runs scored, leading the surging Yankees (90-65) to a 5 1/2-game lead over the Detroit Tigers (85-71) in the American League wild card race. According to the magazine, Rodriguez's agent, Scott Boras, has already identified the leading candidate to buy the Cubs and has begun negotiations on a contract. If that is true, it could lead the Yankees to file tampering charges, since Rodriguez already is under contract. Citing sources, the magazine reported that the deal could reach the $30 million per year level over 10 years, with part of the contract deferred toward an eventual stake in the franchise. Yankees executive Randy Levine responded harshly to the magazine piece. "It's a silly story, and we don't believe it," Levine told ESPN.com. "However, if it was true, it would be grounds to disqualify the applicant even before he went through the process, because it would demonstrate a disregard for major league rules and procedures, and we're confident the commissioner would feel the same way." ESPN.com reported that Levine later said he spoke to Commissioner Bud Selig, who agreed with Levine's interpretation of the story, and its possible implications. A player can neither have part ownership of a team nor negotiate for future ownership.

Frayed Knot Sep 23 2007 08:16 PM

So basically the magazine claims the agent is talking to a guy who doesn't own the team, about a player he can't talk about, in respect to a contract that can't be offered or accepted. Either that or the agent is blustering away again for the purpose of inflating the market prior to it being open.

SteveJRogers Sep 23 2007 08:18 PM

Scott Boras, THE reason Alex Rodriguez is not in a Met uniform today. What a POS. Allegedly the reason guys like Barry Zito and Mike Pelfrey changed their mechanics and caused their ineffective seasons. If this report is true, Rodriguez really ought to fire the guy.

SteveJRogers Sep 23 2007 08:20 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: So basically the magazine claims the agent is talking to a guy who doesn't own the team, about a player he can't talk about, in respect to a contract that can't be offered or accepted. Either that or the agent is blustering away again for the purpose of inflating the market prior to it being open. Good point. Where are the tents out side Yankee Stadium, they weren't there in Arlington. Where is the private jet, office, and everything else that was in that dopey prospectus.

Edgy DC Sep 23 2007 08:28 PM

If Alex Rodriguez fired Scott Boras, he could die of stupidity. Why should he care that Barry Zito and Mike Pelfrey allegedly changed anything? I just posted it because it's going to be one more thing to get Yankee fans pointlessly up in arms about.

DocTee Sep 23 2007 08:38 PM

EDGY: ]I just posted it because it's going to be one more thing to get Yankee fans pointlessly up in arms about. SJR: ]Scott Boras, THE reason Alex Rodriguez is not in a Met uniform today. What a POS. Allegedly the reason guys like Barry Zito and Mike Pelfrey changed their mechanics and caused their ineffective seasons. If this report is true, Rodriguez really ought to fire the guy. Looks like it worked.

metsguyinmichigan Sep 23 2007 08:46 PM

People hire Scott Boras for one reason: They don't just want the money, they want ALL the money. You're not going to fire an agent for doing exactly what you hired him to do. Look how it's presented that ARod's going to get $30 million a year in his next deal. I have no doubt whatsoever that Boras is getting that out there now so by the time it comes for actual negotiations it will no longer seem preposterous, and if he actually signs for something like $26 million -- which is no less preposterous -- then it looks like he came down in price and the team got a bargain. If you want to blame the player for being greedy, go for it. But blaming Boras for doing what he does is like me blaming my cat for hurling hairballs on the carpet. I knew what I was getting when I signed on.

SteveJRogers Sep 23 2007 08:46 PM

Edgy DC wrote: If Alex Rodriguez fired Scott Boras, he could die of stupidity. There is a difference between getting the most for your client and doing some stupid dealings that includes making a prospectus that drives away most of the bidders, including the team many experts thought would win the sweepstakes because of demands that never materialize. Ditto with even talking causally with someone who may or may not be an owner of a team into doing something that actually is illegal at the current time in baseball. To say nothing about the ethics involved with future labor strife.

metirish Sep 23 2007 09:05 PM

Boras responds...... http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/yankees/ny-sparod0924,0,7314994.story

Edgy DC Sep 23 2007 09:09 PM

SteveJRogers wrote: ="Edgy DC"]If Alex Rodriguez fired Scott Boras, he could die of stupidity. There is a difference between getting the most for your client and doing some stupid dealings that includes making a prospectus that drives away most of the bidders, including the team many experts thought would win the sweepstakes because of demands that never materialize. First of all, this is an out-of-control run-on. Second of all, it doesn't make sense. He got the most for his client. Expert texpert choking smokers. Don't you think the joker laughs at you? SteveJRogers wrote: Ditto with even talking causally with someone who may or may not be an owner of a team into doing something that actually is illegal at the current time in baseball. To say nothing about the ethics involved with future labor strife. Ditto nothing. The first statement didn't make any sense. Whatever cards Boras has played, his clients tend to walk home with the pot. He'd be firing him for doing what he hired him to do.

Edgy DC Sep 23 2007 09:15 PM

metirish wrote: Boras responds...... http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/yankees/ny-sparod0924,0,7314994.story Win-win, if he can successfully distance himself from the report but allow it to put heat on the Yankees to sign a ridonculous extension.

metirish Sep 23 2007 09:18 PM

true...anyway back to Rodriguez and the Cubs,if he goes there for whatever money they'd have some sort of offense and he could play SS as well.

Elster88 Sep 23 2007 10:22 PM

SteveJRogers wrote: Scott Boras, THE reason Alex Rodriguez is not in a Met uniform today. What a POS. Allegedly the reason guys like Barry Zito and Mike Pelfrey changed their mechanics and caused their ineffective seasons. I can't really take this.

SteveJRogers Sep 24 2007 06:20 AM

Elster88 wrote: ="SteveJRogers"]Scott Boras, THE reason Alex Rodriguez is not in a Met uniform today. What a POS. Allegedly the reason guys like Barry Zito and Mike Pelfrey changed their mechanics and caused their ineffective seasons. I can't really take this. There are still fans bothered by Ryan for Fregosi, so why can't I still be bothered by the lack of an offer given to ARod back in 2000?

Edgy DC Sep 24 2007 07:11 AM

You can be anything (legal) you want. Understand that it makes you look silly.

metirish Sep 24 2007 07:21 AM

It seems such a waste of energy to still be thinking about why the Mets didn't make Rodriguez a FA offer.

soupcan Sep 24 2007 07:28 AM

SteveJRogers wrote: Scott Boras, THE reason Alex Rodriguez is not in a Met uniform today. Lemme tell ya - I've got no problem with this. As fans we always say "I'd never want that guy on MY team", even though its a great player - Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, etc. that would unquestionably help the team win. Sometimes we're forced to suck it up (Guillermo Mota) when all of a sudden a guy we never wanted (Robbie Alomar, Bobby Bonilla) shows up on the roster (Vince Coleman). For me, while I love ARod as a player, I don't really dig ARod the guy. I like the Mets SS and I like the Mets thirdbaseman. I love ARod's numbers but I'm pretty happy that he's playing elsewhere and has very little chance of coming to Shea anytime soon.

Edgy DC Sep 24 2007 07:48 AM

I think Rodriguez is great. I think cursing about him not signing seven years ago and trying to formulate conspiracy theories why it didn't happen is a a collosal waste. I think speaking as if he's a property we lost (like Ryan), rather than one we never had, is worthy of a psychological study. He didn't sign because Texas offered him $252 million over 10 years and the Mets didn't. It's easy to understand. It's kind of easy to live with also. Decrying where "experts" said he'd be, as if those are bankable promises? Come on.

Frayed Knot Sep 24 2007 07:55 AM

I never had a beef with ARod and still don't. Yeah he's a bit prissy at times but that's mostly tabloid stuff I couldn't give a crap about. But the fact remains that it was a BAD contract he signed (for the team of course, not him) as evidenced by the fact that the team who signed it almost immediately wanted out from under despite him being an MVP and that no one else would take him without a huge chunk of change to offset the remaining money owed. It's a good deal for the team who has him now only because they're getting him at approx 60 cents on the dollar and are claiming to anyone who'll listen that they'll no longer be interested unless some form of that discount continues. And the Met fans who are under the impression that he was ready back then to take a significantly smaller deal to come here on account of his (claimed) boyhood love for the team while growing up in his NYM footie-pajamas are just so deeply delusional that they're beyond reason at this point. So now - some 7 years later - we've got both SS & 3B covered for the foreseeable future meaning that this topic is closed as far as I'm concerned.

metirish Sep 24 2007 08:00 AM

Frayed Knot wrote: So now - some 7 years later - we've got both SS & 3B covered for the foreseeable future meaning that this topic is closed as far as I'm concerned. Well said soup,edgy and FK.......for some though this topic will never be closed it seems.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 24 2007 08:02 AM

I was flabbergasted when the Mets pulled out of the bidding so early in the process. And if Rodriguez had ended up signing for, say, $100 million over six years, I would have been pissed off the the Mets were going forward with Rey Ordonez instead of Alex Rodriguez. But when we learned about the $252 million, it was obvious that the Mets wouldn't have had Rodriguez even if they had stayed in the bidding. In other words, I got over it during the winter of 2000-01. It's nuts to still be carrying a grudge seven years later. Rodriguez to the Mets just wasn't going to happen.

Valadius Sep 24 2007 08:41 AM

The left side of our infield is comprised of All-Stars. I'm totally over the A-Rod thing. Besides, the play that defines A-Rod for me, that interference play against the Red Sox, would make me loathe having him on my team. He plays dirty. I prefer playing the game the way it's supposed to be played.

soupcan Sep 24 2007 08:52 AM

Valadius wrote: He plays dirty. I prefer playing the game the way it's supposed to be played. Let's not get crazy now.

Valadius Sep 24 2007 09:01 AM

Remember when he yelled on the basepaths and caused that guy to drop the ball? Another example.

TransMonk Sep 24 2007 09:02 AM

Attachment 19 of the MLB Labor Agreement is titled Uniform Regulations. Under Section B (Pants), rule #7 states: Pants pockets may not intentionally be untucked. Jose Reyes: Outlaw.

soupcan Sep 24 2007 09:20 AM

Vlad - you're giving two (lame) examples of what you call 'dirty play' in this future first ballot Hall of Famer's 14 year career. If it wasn't ARod who committed those offenses we never would have heard about them. He's a great player (maybe the greatest ever) and any team that has him is immediately improved by a large margin. Personally I don't like what I perceive to be a condescending, me & my money first attitude. But a dirty player? I don't buy it.

metsmarathon Sep 24 2007 09:22 AM

Valadius wrote: Remember when he yelled on the basepaths and caused that guy to drop the ball? Another example. that's (arguably) busch, not dirty. dirty is going in spikes-high, or taking out people's knees when breaking up dps. also, keep in mind that had derek jeter done either, it would likely have been looked upon by the masses and the mass media as a player willing to do anything to win, and not as a cheap trick.

Edgy DC Sep 24 2007 09:37 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Sep 24 2007 09:45 AM

metsmarathon wrote: ="Valadius"]Remember when he yelled on the basepaths and caused that guy to drop the ball? Another example. that's (arguably) busch, not dirty. dirty is going in spikes-high, or taking out people's knees when breaking up dps. also, keep in mind that had derek jeter done either, it would likely have been looked upon by the masses and the mass media as a player willing to do anything to win, and not as a cheap trick. I like the spelling of bush. When I was in the leftfield seats with Farmer Ted at the Bobby, we noted a player rounding third, during a two-out popup to the thirdbaseman, yell and throw his arms up in the air in an apparent attempt to distract the thirdbaseman. Don't remember who he was or even which team (think he was a Nat), but Ted and I both noted it.

metsmarathon Sep 24 2007 09:41 AM

that's what i get for doubting and changing my spelling of bush, and never verifying...

Rockin' Doc Sep 24 2007 11:29 AM

Without question, A-Rod is a great player. However, he isn't worth $25 mill/year now and he certainly won't be worth that amount (or more) in the future. That type of salary prohibits the majority of teams from retaining or acquiring the supporting cast needed to field a championship contending team. As good as A-Rod is, he can't win games on his own. It is not a coincidence that no team has won a title while saddled with his monstrous contract. The Yankees have come close, but they have had the benefit of a large subsidy from the Rangers to cover a substantial portion of A-Rod's salary. I'm quite happy to have both Reyes and Wright for far less than the cost of Rodriguez.

SteveJRogers Sep 24 2007 03:08 PM

I didn't mean it to sound I'm still not over the lack of an offer given to ARod. I just thought of the first thing that popped in my head of Boras doing something that is more beneficial to him (highest and craziest bidder) rather than something that would have made both business and baseball sense (Opening the bidding up to let Boston, both NY teams, LA, both Chicago teams, or even Atlanta, St Louis or SF ect). It obviously is a long since dead issue, especially in light of who we have playing SS (2nd half of the season aside) and 3B today. Very much akin to people still whinning about why Scott Kazmir was traded for Victor Zambrano.

smg58 Sep 24 2007 03:32 PM

The one thing I think A-Rod has proven in the seven years since the Texas signing is that he's not the difference maker he needed to be to justify that contract. And the next contract will likely be worse. Given what A-Rod ultimately signed for, I'm amazed that Phillips gets no benefit of the doubt for suggesting that Boras' demands weren't reasonable. As for Boras, his job is to get his clients the biggest contract possible, and he generally succeeds. Why does that make him the bad guy?

Rockin' Doc Sep 24 2007 05:15 PM

SJRogers - "...Very much akin to people still whinning about why Scott Kazmir was traded for Victor Zambrano." No it's not. Not signing ARod to a $252 mil. contract was a good baseball decision. Trading Kazmir for the wrong Zambrano was a bad baseball decision. The too situations are not at all alike.

metsmarathon Sep 24 2007 05:22 PM

why should boras care what makes baseball sense?

SteveJRogers Sep 24 2007 05:32 PM

Rockin' Doc wrote: SJRogers - "...Very much akin to people still whinning about why Scott Kazmir was traded for Victor Zambrano." No it's not. Not signing ARod to a $252 mil. contract was a good baseball decision. Trading Kazmir for the wrong Zambrano was a bad baseball decision. The too situations are not at all alike. Letting it be clear that ARod/Boras were the bad guys by giving a firm offer and letting them decline would have been a better PR decision.

Edgy DC Sep 24 2007 07:32 PM

Which (1) supports none of your prior contention, (2) what difference does it make?, and (3) doesn't make anybody bad. Work with that second or third thing to pop into your head.