torontoaces04 wrote:JMH wrote:Tyrone Slothrop wrote:
You lost respect for him because he wants to be paid according to his value?
More that he signed a contract and won't come back to us because he doesn't like it anymore; and will only come back if we give him more than he agreed to last year.
You can look at it this way. You tell someone in a year that you'll give them x to do y and they agree i.e a contract, then when your ready to give x they say they'll do z instead, unless you give them x+more. Not exactly a classy move.
Pick up his club option and see if he retires.
Precisely. It's like when players (mainly football players) outplay their contracts, and ask for them to be renegotiated.
Would you lose respect for Joey Bats if he sat out, demanding the Jays re-up him for 25 mill/per?
Not sure if something got lost in translation by me here but I was agreeing with you and I think you may be agreeing with me but if not, to answer the question about JB.
I would be extremely disappointed in Bautista if did that. He can ask for 25mil/year extension to his current contract like Dickey (Although a far more reasonable 10mil/year) did but to refuse to play because he doesn't like what he agreed too is wrong.
Now go ahead Oliver, retire, but the most we should pay him is close to that 3mil mark. Texas isn't going to give us anything for him, so its either get paid what you agreed to be paid, or retire and lose one of the best chances you have of winning your only WS. (What happened to love of the game... kidding he loves his family its understandable.)
Here's another example albeit in the future and possibly made up
. We have Dickey guaranteed 2013/14/15. We have a team option in 2016/17. Lets say he plays well in the next 3 seasons and comes to 2016 and his market value puts him at 15mil instead of the 12mil team option we have. How would you all respond to him than if he said I refuse to play for you unless you pay me more. I hope you would all be disappointed.
He agreed to the club options and he damn well better play or retire. If he wanted an opt out clause or more of a guarantee, he would have said no to the CO or demanded a PO.
Its a contract, thats how things work. Now from Olivers view: I get wanting to be paid according to your EV/MV, but to try and undermine a contract you signed with a threat (retirement) is not classy and potentially unlawful, and to say he made it clear from day 1 that he wasn't coming back in 2013 is not true. He may have been saying things, but actions speak louder than words and that CO is saying a lot.
