It's not OK for A-Rod to take a pay cut, but it is OK for Sammy to?

KurtBevacqua · 11-16-2004, 03:07 PM

Assuming this is correct, I smell just a tad bit of hypocrisy in the MLPA air. They nix a deal where A-Rod gives up cash to change teams, but make no fuss when Sammy Sosa does virtually the same thing. Hmmm.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...ove/index.html

Quote:

A high-ranking official within the Players Association confirmed yesterday that it is "little more than a formality" that the union would not fight a request by Sammy Sosa's agents to have an $18 million triggered option in his contract dropped to clear the way for a trade.
-- New York Daily News

canadiancreed · 11-16-2004, 03:12 PM

he's not the union's bitch?

serisouyl though i'd agree that's full of it, but it is a union so that explains everything right there

Skipaway · 11-16-2004, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KurtBevacqua

Assuming this is correct, I smell just a tad bit of hypocrisy in the MLPA air. They nix a deal where A-Rod gives up cash to change teams, but make no fuss when Sammy Sosa does virtually the same thing. Hmmm.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...ove/index.html

Actually you misunderstood the contracts.

What Rodriguez wanted to give up was the guaranteed part, but not Sosa.

Sosa is waiving the part of money he'd only recieve if he got traded, which he would not have earned if the Cubs kept him.

Rodriguez was trying to give up money that he'd earn regardless of the conditions.

SoxWin · 11-16-2004, 03:18 PM

But Skip. If Sammy gets traded that money becomes guaranteed per the terms of the contract, to say otherwise is wrong. It's no surprise the union isn't consistent. Who cares.

ARod wants to give up cash for benefits (can't remember what he was going to get, but it wasn't a matter of giving it up for nothing) union says no way. Sammy wants to give up cash for bennies, union says A-ok.

I'm glad the Yanks got slappy. Sometimes the best deal is the one you don't make.

KurtBevacqua · 11-16-2004, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoxWin

I'm glad the Yanks got slappy. Sometimes the best deal is the one you don't make.

True dat!

eswan9 · 11-16-2004, 03:22 PM

From what I understand this is not a pay cut, just a reworking of the contract so a team does not assume the entirety of Sosa's contract. I would imagine this is a little different than Arod's deal which he wanted to take a pay cut.

Skipaway · 11-16-2004, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoxWin

But Skip. If Sammy gets traded that money becomes guaranteed per the terms of the contract, to say otherwise is wrong. It's no surprise the union isn't consistent. Who cares.

ARod wants to give up cash for benefits (can't remember what he was going to get, but it wasn't a matter of giving it up for nothing) union says no way. Sammy wants to give up cash for bennies, union says A-ok.

I'm glad the Yanks got slappy. Sometimes the best deal is the one you don't make.

It's surprising why people would consider the union inconsistent. There are tons of lawyers from the league, from the union, and from the agents got interest in how unions intepret the rules, and to think the union would change their rulings case by case is insane.

What Sosa gave up was the chance to make more money, not money itself. And what Rodriguez tried to do was basically giving up money for a chance to make less money.

SoxWin · 11-16-2004, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipaway

It's surprising why people would consider the union inconsistent. There are tons of lawyers from the league, from the union, and from the agents got interest in how unions intepret the rules, and to think the union would change their rulings case by case is insane.

What Sosa gave up was the chance to make more money, not money itself. And what Rodriguez tried to do was basically giving up money for a chance to make less money.

You're wrong. It wasn't a chance to make more. It was stipulated in the contract, thus it's guaranteed.

Skipaway · 11-16-2004, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoxWin

You're wrong. It wasn't a chance to make more. It was stipulated in the contract, thus it's guaranteed.

If Sosa is not traded, then it's not. So they don't trade Sosa, he wouldn't get the money.

Actually this kind of "more money if traded" contract is quite common, and it's not the first time to be waived.

dsvitak · 11-16-2004, 10:48 PM

I looked carefully at the MVP voting in the National League for 2004.

Sosa did not receive a vote.

Not a first place vote, not a tenth place vote.

Not a vote.

So, tell me again how he is worth 35 million dollars?

I predict .238, 22-72 next year, then retirement.

Dagrims · 11-16-2004, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoxWin

I'm glad the Yanks got slappy. Sometimes the best deal is the one you don't make.

Indeed. Why would you want A-Rod over Reese/Mueller/Cabrera/errrr, who else?

You wouldn't want a top 10 infielder in the AL despite having his worst year since 1997? Absolutely ****ing absurd.

Crapshoot · 11-16-2004, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipaway

If Sosa is not traded, then it's not. So they don't trade Sosa, he wouldn't get the money.

Actually this kind of "more money if traded" contract is quite common, and it's not the first time to be waived.

what skippy said- a significant difference from the A-rod deal.

Crapshoot · 11-16-2004, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dagrims

Indeed. Why would you want A-Rod over Reese/Mueller/Cabrera/errrr, who else?

You wouldn't want a top 10 infielder in the AL despite having his worst year since 1997? Absolutely ****ing absurd.

po\/\/ned!

Vris · 11-17-2004, 12:50 AM

Umm...who won the World Series?

Slappy McBluelips or the infield you just mentioned?

I'd rather take a happy, idiotic clubhouse than one that is tearing each other apart.

Dagrims · 11-17-2004, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vris

Umm...who won the World Series?

Slappy McBluelips or the infield you just mentioned?

Um, it was awhile ago. I forget. Kindly help me out.

Read his comment to me in the Pedro thread, then read mine again. That's all it was, which was the reason for the

.

SoxWin · 11-17-2004, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dagrims

Indeed. Why would you want A-Rod over Reese/Mueller/Cabrera/errrr, who else?

You wouldn't want a top 10 infielder in the AL despite having his worst year since 1997? Absolutely ****ing absurd.

ROFL. Well, part of getting ARod was allegedly trading Manny to Tex and Nomar to the White Sox for Ordonez. So yes, I'd rather have the infield you mentioned and the WS MVP then Slappy.

sebastian0622 · 11-17-2004, 04:47 PM

There's definitely a twinge of inconsistency here. Sosa wants to give up some money to be traded. He wasn't set to get it if he wasn't traded, but that's irrelevant, since the purpose of him giving up this money is to get traded.

No matter how you look at it, the PA is letting one player give up money he was set to receive, in reality, from a trade, while not letting another player do the same thing.

A-Rod was to get a certain amount of money after the trade, he said he'd take less, union said "No." Sosa was to get a certain amount of money after the trade, he said he'd take less/none, union said, "Yes."

eriqjaffe · 11-17-2004, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoxWin

Sometimes the best deal is the one you don't make.

That's why I'm the best GM in the business!

Signed,

Kenny Williams

Skipaway · 11-17-2004, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian0622

Sosa wants to give up some money to be traded.

That's the difference right there. Sosa does not give up any money in this case. He's basically waiving a complicated no trade clause.

sebastian0622 · 11-17-2004, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipaway

That's the difference right there. Sosa does not give up any money in this case. He's basically waiving a complicated no trade clause.

The purpose of Sosa waiving this clause is to get traded. If he were to get traded with the clause, he'd have more money than if he were to get traded without the clause. Hence, when he gets traded, he will have sacrificed money to do so. And the PA will have allowed it. It's the same basic concept of the A-Rod deal. He tried unsuccessfully to accept less money to get traded, but Sosa was successful at the same thing.

edit: You can categorize the money as you see fit, but a dollar is a dollar is a dollar. No matter how you look at it, Sosa is giving up money to be traded. They wouldn't let A-Rod do the same.

11-16-2004, 03:12 PM	#2
canadiancreed Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 11,660	he's not the union's bitch? serisouyl though i'd agree that's full of it, but it is a union so that explains everything right there __________________ PT21 PT22

11-16-2004, 03:18 PM	#4
SoxWin Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Blissful ignorance Posts: 3,315	But Skip. If Sammy gets traded that money becomes guaranteed per the terms of the contract, to say otherwise is wrong. It's no surprise the union isn't consistent. Who cares. ARod wants to give up cash for benefits (can't remember what he was going to get, but it wasn't a matter of giving it up for nothing) union says no way. Sammy wants to give up cash for bennies, union says A-ok. I'm glad the Yanks got slappy. Sometimes the best deal is the one you don't make. __________________ It's called partying. When you do a lot of it, you're bound to be places where the police show up. I smoke a lot of pot and drink a lot of beer. I also graduated Suma Cum Laude. ****ing sue me. - Luis Rivera

11-16-2004, 03:22 PM	#6
eswan9 Minors (Double A) Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: San Diego Posts: 195	From what I understand this is not a pay cut, just a reworking of the contract so a team does not assume the entirety of Sosa's contract. I would imagine this is a little different than Arod's deal which he wanted to take a pay cut. __________________ The Cubs Curse lives!! Long Live the Curse "Chicago baseball fans, who are composites of scar tissue and mortifying memories..." - George F. Will Last World Series Championship: White Sox - 2005 Cubs - 1908 ... And then there was one EVERLASTING curse...

11-16-2004, 10:48 PM	#10
dsvitak Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 5,452	I looked carefully at the MVP voting in the National League for 2004. Sosa did not receive a vote. Not a first place vote, not a tenth place vote. Not a vote. So, tell me again how he is worth 35 million dollars? I predict .238, 22-72 next year, then retirement.

11-17-2004, 12:50 AM	#14
Vris Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: somewhere where I don't know where I am Posts: 3,251	Umm...who won the World Series? Slappy McBluelips or the infield you just mentioned? I'd rather take a happy, idiotic clubhouse than one that is tearing each other apart.

11-17-2004, 04:47 PM	#17
sebastian0622 Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,465	There's definitely a twinge of inconsistency here. Sosa wants to give up some money to be traded. He wasn't set to get it if he wasn't traded, but that's irrelevant, since the purpose of him giving up this money is to get traded. No matter how you look at it, the PA is letting one player give up money he was set to receive, in reality, from a trade, while not letting another player do the same thing. A-Rod was to get a certain amount of money after the trade, he said he'd take less, union said "No." Sosa was to get a certain amount of money after the trade, he said he'd take less/none, union said, "Yes."