Contracts for S.F. Free Agents

by Pants Man on Jan 8, 2007 4:52 PM PST

I was well aware that Bonds's contract wasn't completed yet, but was surprised to learn today that none of the Giants free agents contracts have been completed yet. That's right... the Giants have signed zero free agents so far this winter. The culprit seems to be new language that Bobby Evans has thrown into all contracts this season. Agents no likey.

The Barry Bloom article on the subject is at the Giants website:
http://sanfrancisco.giants.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070108&content_id=1775232&a mp;vkey=news_sf&fext=.jsp&c_id=sf

This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Re: Contracts for S.F. Free Agents

So...There is still hope that Petie "whiffle ball" Fleas could end up gone.......One can dream.

"In the Autumn of his Winter, comes man's last mad surge of youth".

by Ghost11 on Jan 8, 2007 5:11 PM PST reply actions

Re: Contracts for S.F. Free Agents

Sounds like the new guy is trying to drive the agents nuts. Probably not a good idea, I think.

by Skaldheim on Jan 8, 2007 5:54 PM PST reply actions

Sounds like...

the Giants are trying to build in language in Bonds's contract that would nullify the guarantee if he's indicted (or maybe has to take significant time away for his legal/tax problems even without indictment), and giving it to everyone else for "administrative efficiency" (or whatever the preferred euphemism is for "don't want to embarrass Barry so we're making up a list and sticking everyone with it").

Love Giants; get heart and mind fried by Giants; repeat.

by Mayor of 311 on Jan 8, 2007 7:28 PM PST reply actions

So..

Truely from the free agents not being signed our current team is this:

C: Alfonzo
1B: Niekro
2B: De La Rosa
SS: Vizquel
3B: Frandsen
LF: Ellison
CF: Winn
RF: Linden

Yummy.

Here's to a good 2007. Or 2008. Or 2009. Or 2010. Or...

by WalrusMan on Jan 8, 2007 10:26 PM PST reply actions

Re: Contracts for S.F. Free Agents

I figured something like this was holding up Bonds's' contract. The Mayor has it right, they're trying to make all the contracts the same so they can pretend it's not about Barry.

If an athlete breaks a law and misses playing time because of it I don't think they should get paid for that time. So I think having that in the contract is pretty reasonable. Though it should only apply if they're actually found guilty. I don't want the team to pay Barry to hang out in a jail cell.

by Snof on Jan 8, 2007 10:41 PM PST reply actions

Re: Contracts for S.F. Free Agents

You dumbshit!

It's either Bonds' or Bonds's, there's no such thing as Bonds's'! Learn your damn grammar or stfu!

by Snof on Jan 8, 2007 10:43 PM PST up reply actions

Re: Contracts for S.F. Free Agents

This is already the case in any and all traditional language contracts. MLB suspends players that are convicted of felonies and suspended players are not paid. What the Giants may be trying to do is to change this from convicted players to indicted players and this has never been the case before and I am sure no players, agents, or the MLBPA will stand for any language that makes this the case now.

by giantsrainman on Jan 8, 2007 10:47 PM PST up reply actions

Re: Contracts for S.F. Free Agents

I don't think this is generally true. Every so often, a player will get suspended for a drug infraction, and his team will bluster about not paying him, but in the end they all cave. That was what was so interesting about the Diamondbacks' reaction to that guy who was arrested for human growth hormone (journeyman pitcher; I can't even remember his name, that's how unimportant he was): they were saying they were going to risk a player's ass'n grievance by not paying that guy for the rest of the season after he was suspended. I don't know the ultimate outcome of that.

But it's very much a case-by-case thing, and the track record so far has been that the team ends up paying the player.

Love Giants; get heart and mind fried by Giants; repeat.

by Mayor of 311 on Jan 9, 2007 12:49 AM PST up reply actions

Re: Contracts for S.F. Free Agents

Grimsley was not convicted of anything and this is why he was entitled to his pay. Under today's rules this would be true for Barry too if indicted. Only a conviction is acceptable grounds fo suspension and loss of pay. If the Giants are trying to change this they are tilling at windmills and need to just back off. This kind of change can only really be done in the CBA between MLB and the MLBPA.

by giantsrainman on Jan 9, 2007 2:24 PM PST up reply actions

Re: Contracts for S.F. Free Agents

The Giants need to wake up. Obviously none of the players or agents are buying the BS they are trying to sell with their new contract language. Sabean or MaGowan need to step in before this new "contracts man" singlehandedly destroys the Giants. It very much sounds to me like the Giants are tring to do what should be done in the CBA when MLB negoiated with the MLBPA. Clearly, they are not going to be sucessful and they need to find a way to back off.

by giantsrainman on Jan 8, 2007 10:43 PM PST reply actions

Re: Contracts for S.F. Free Agents

Absolutely agree.

Or, y'know, and here's a radical thought: if the Giants are THAT concerned about Barry's legal problems, maybe they shouldn't have, y'know, offered him a contract.

I'm just sayin'.

by Skaldheim on Jan 9, 2007 7:47 AM PST up reply actions

Re: Contracts for S.F. Free Agents

My thought on this: definitely a reason for their tendency to overpay, and possibly a reason why certain high-profile athletes didn't want to sign here, if some kind of advance warning got out.

Another thing that has occured to me is that Barry Zito is probably among the lowest risk in the league as far as steroid use, so that could have played into things a bit.

I own my own business and I'm a giants fan; being a Giants fan is harder.

by hairball on Jan 9, 2007 8:03 AM PST up reply actions

Re: Contracts for S.F. Free Agents

Stupid move, whether fiscally prudent or not. Inserting material changes into contractual provisions in the actual contracts that were not disclosed previously, in the memorandums of agreement, is extremely sleazy. Only the lowest of the low stoop to this tactic. Its pretty uncommon at this level. More of this type of stuff shows up in consumer type contracts-like aluminum siding, timeshares in Arizona beachront condos, and Hairpiece Bud's Used Cars and not so much in the corporate world.

It really surprises me that this new guy the Giant hired wasn't vetted a little more closely. It just reflects poorly on management. Typically its what weak negotiators do when they are the document originators in contracts of adhesion such as these. They try to disguise concessions as clarifications, after the fact. Pretty lame.

There is enough mistrust between the MLPA, agents and ownership already. It turns out that the "confidential" piss tests from 2003 that the MLPA caved into to assure "the integrity" of the game aren't so confidential afterall. Regardless of who is responsible, it doesn't help the tense relationship between players and owners. Now the Giants are bait and switching contracts on several of their players. I just wonder what the hell they're teaching in business school these days.

Interesting how all of this happens AFTER the CBA is signed.

Save The Pitcher. Save The World

by E Ticket on Jan 9, 2007 8:14 AM PST reply actions