Another potential Manny deal
Go to the 4th bullet point; one year with 3 options? Very intriguing.
10 months ago
monta101
16 comments
0 recs |
Comments
Kills a few birds with one stone?
If the Giants win with Manny, then great. If Manny shreds, but the Giants are mediocre, then Manny/Boras would have the chance to write their own ticket to a team the Giants could make a deadline deal with. Boras could force the new team to pick up the next two option years or no deal.
The Giants get a guy who puts butts in the seats (at least for a while), and Manny/Boras get to create mid-season leverage that they have lost at this point. Seems to work for both sides, but it does have Boras written all over it.
by LAGiantsFan on Jan 11, 2009 10:11 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Were willing?
So they’re not anymore?
by sharpness609 on Jan 11, 2009 11:08 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I like this idea
I doubt it will happen. Boras wants guaranteed money. He doesn’t want his clients to actually have to perform to get it.
In a way, this reminds me of an idea I once had. Get rid of agents entirely. Designate a percentage of profits to go to the players. Then give the players points depending on what they actually do on the field and at the end of the year, send out paychecks based on performance.
Of course it would never happen. There are tons of things wrong with it…stats being padded for one. Anyway, screw Boras. He’s so bad for the game.
by positiveuphemism on Jan 11, 2009 11:44 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
With all do respect
That sounds like a really really bad idea, on a whole lot of levels.
..so allow me to present Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as two sweet, sweet bottles of warming hooch.
by Cookyman on Jan 11, 2009 12:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well duh….I mentioned that in the thread.
Due respect, btw. ;)
by positiveuphemism on Jan 11, 2009 12:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Holly crap
That’s probably the worst typo I’ve ever made.
..so allow me to present Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as two sweet, sweet bottles of warming hooch.
by Cookyman on Jan 11, 2009 1:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
that would completely destroy small market teams that do well.
proud father of the newly acquired Brandon Crawford..
by Azmanz on Jan 11, 2009 2:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This is true
and also shows where it breaks down. With team profits, the small market teams lose. If you combine the league profits then there is again no real incentive for the small market teams because who wants to live in Missouri?
by positiveuphemism on Jan 11, 2009 3:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I have a feeling you work in sales...
So, essentially commission based baseball. Well, it would definitely weed out those not motivated by money…
by Fresburg on Jan 11, 2009 7:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Paying for production rather than potential
now that is a novel idea – almost 1960ish and single year deals. Me likey.
by wilriv21 on Jan 11, 2009 9:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Paying for production
Like how we paid Zito for all that production he had with the A’s?
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
by Bhaakon on Jan 12, 2009 1:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah let's bring back the reserve clause!
because if the owners had 100% of the leverage in negotiations, payrolls would plummet. And if that happened you just know they’d slash ticket prices instead of pocketing the difference.
As much as we complain about ridiculous salaries and players constantly switching teams it’s actually an unquestionably better situation than the 1960s.
"he walked 18; new league record! Struck out 18, another new league record! He also hit the sportswriter, the PA announcer, the bull mascot twice..."
by i did my job on Jan 12, 2009 11:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Imagine the Giants' lineup if we still had the reserve clause.
The horror, the horror!!!
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
by Bhaakon on Jan 13, 2009 1:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs


















