What are the odds?.......Sabean lied again.
Here is a completely different view of the Adam LaRoche negotiations. Turns out that the Sabean spin on the Giant's odder wasn't exactly true.
almost 2 years ago
oldrips
15 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
“It actually wasn’t a two-year deal,” he said. “It was two years with three or four year options.”
So it wasn’t two guaranteed years…it was two guaranteed years with options for two more?
Huh? I don’t get where Sabean lied. I also don’t get how LaRoche thinks this makes him look any better or smarter.
"The knowledge of the game is inversely proportional to the price of the seat." ---Bill Veeck. •Check out the new look of SFDugout.com•
Sabean never said he offered 2 yrs 17 million. That’s what was reported in the media. The media lies and pins it on our innocent GM!!
No Edgar, it's not your fault, it's the fault of the idiot that plays you
by rxmeister on Mar 2, 2010 12:52 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
or he didn’t say it on the record.
Neal before Zod!
Official Sponsor of the 1997 San Francisco Giants
by nostocksjustbonds on Mar 2, 2010 1:17 PM PST up reply actions
Agreed. Aside from the fact that LaRoche isn’t exactly a fully credible source either (as he certainly did try to spin the signing originally as a “I’d rather play here than cruddy ol’ AT&T” story initially, plus those 2/17 numbers quite probably could have come from or been confirmed by his agent), his notion that a two year deal is better than a 4 year deal because he’d have such a HUGE payday waiting for him in two years has me smirking a bit. He should really just stop talking about it because he’s never going to say anything that makes anybody think he wasn’t one of the biggest losers of the offseason.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
his notion that a two year deal is better than a 4 year deal because he’d have such a HUGE payday waiting for him in two years has me smirking a bit.
I dunno, it depends on what the terms are. If they’re two team options for $9M a year or something, I can see him not wanting to go that route and thinking that’s a worse contract than 2 years/$17M. I think we’re in the dark on this one.
by Missing Barry on Mar 2, 2010 4:05 PM PST up reply actions
Really? That would effectively add up to a 4/35 contract for a player entering his 30s. That’s a pretty good deal for a guy whose desire for 3/30 was met with universal laughter and disdain. If you were counseling LaRoche would you tell him to expect a $10+ mil contract at 32 and 33? The odds seem at least even that he’ll be looking at a series of 1 or 2 year offers over the next four years for half or two-thirds that much, just like he did this year.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
That would effectively add up to a 4/35 contract for a player entering his 30s. That’s a pretty good deal for a guy whose desire for 3/30 was met with universal laughter and disdain.
Well, no, it’s not effectively like a 4/35 contract at all. Basically, there are two possibilities here. First – he doesn’t perform well enough to justify the last two option years, so they don’t pick them up, and he’s stuck with the 2/17 part and looking for a new job that’s going to pay him less than 18 over the next 2 years. Second, he meets or exceeds performance to justify picking up those options. If he performs in the ballpark of a player that should get ~2/18 at that point, great, everything works out for both parties. If he performs higher, though, he would expect to get more than 2/18, but he’s stuck with 2/18 because the team picks up his options. There’s no upside for him, and very little guaranteee that he’s covered on the downside (I’m sure there would be some sort of buyout, but again, we don’t know the terms that were offered). That kind of deal isn’t going to work out great for the player all the time. I have no idea what’s going through LaRoche’s mind, he obviously got stuck with a crappy deal with AZ in the end, but I can see a rationale reason why 2/17 alone might be better than 2/17 with options (and again, it would depend on what the exact terms were).
by Missing Barry on Mar 3, 2010 7:00 AM PST up reply actions
Ya, I don’t think Sabean ever said what he offered LaRoche…
That said, all GMs, everywhere in any sport, lie through their teeth. They lie first thing in the morning and last thing at night. It’s all smokescreens and deceptions aimed at gaining an edge over the rest of the field. So if Sabean HAD lied, I fail to see why it would necessarily bother me.
Idolizing Robb Nen since 2002...
by Smoke on the Water on Mar 2, 2010 12:59 PM PST reply actions
I don’t see anything blame worth towards Sabean here. We also don’t get much information about the option years to really judge the deal. There was one great nugget of information in there, though:
LaRoche says he and his agent, Mike Milchin, didn’t hear back from the Giants after making a counter-offer.
I think this absolutely, positively, puts to rest LaRoche turning down a better offer from the Giants to play for the D’Backs. Thank you, LaRoche, for sharing that with us.
Show me a GM who has publicly stated every possible single move and every attempted negotiation and every contract talk that goes on
YOU EAT YOUR DAMN EGGROLL
There aren’t any. But some of them are definitely a lot more open than Sabean.
"Why not trade Bumgarner for some banger stud?" - sfgiants.com commenter or online porn ad? You be the judge!
Adopted Giant: the probably soon to be ditched but still awesome Fred Lewis
YOU LIE!!
Brian Sabean strongly encourages you to disregard the drudgery of your employment responsibilities and join him in the consumption of spirituous libations.
I think it's funny
that when Sabean says what he’s thinking we all blow up with rage about how he’s given away leverage etc., yet when he says nothing (or “lies”) we all blow up with rage about how he can’t communicate. Is funny.
Why get mad at the first part?
It’s not like Sabean has ever leveraged anything. IIRC< he’s stated several times that he doesn’t want to embarass veterans by underpaying them.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
