- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 6/27/11 at 1:50 pm to Mitchell613
Since I'm going to learn something, maybe you can teach me how MLB cannot disallow a contract, except they disallowed a contract.
Thank you, seer of all that is logical.
Thank you, seer of all that is logical.
Posted on 6/27/11 at 1:53 pm to wahoocs
quote:
Since I'm going to learn something, maybe you can teach me how MLB cannot disallow a contract, except they disallowed a contract.
Thank you, seer of all that is logical.
Because, as I explained, the MLB was in financial control of the Rangers at the time they were negotiating with Purke (who according to you, was drafted by the Twins after TCU made the finals).
Tell me why you think MLB does not allow over slot contracts. Please. I'm anxious to hear your explanation. Please provide links.
This post was edited on 6/27/11 at 1:54 pm
Posted on 6/27/11 at 2:15 pm to Mitchell613
quote:
who went on to pitch
quote:
TCU into the finals
STFU
My argument was that MLB was very well aware of the situation and OK'd a deal that was above and beyond that which they would normally "discourage" (in your wiser, more logical use of the word).
Posted on 6/27/11 at 2:17 pm to the LSUSaint
Wrong, but thank you for playing.
The moment they can't make payroll MLB steps in and takes over the team, This would include making payroll.
The moment they can't make payroll MLB steps in and takes over the team, This would include making payroll.
Posted on 6/27/11 at 2:18 pm to wahoocs
quote:
My argument was that MLB was very well aware of the situation and OK'd a deal that was above and beyond that which they would normally "discourage" (in your wiser, more logical use of the word).
Well you attempted to make your point by saying something completely different.
How do you feel about Harper's contract? Should MLB disallow it after the "precedence" set with that TCU pitcher who took them to the finals after being drafted by the Twins?
This post was edited on 6/27/11 at 2:20 pm
Posted on 6/27/11 at 2:19 pm to wahoocs
quote:
wahoocs
Why are you telling yourself to STFU? Do you realize the idiocy of your argument, or are you a little schizo?
Posted on 6/27/11 at 2:31 pm to Mitchell613
So it was the Rangers, not the Twins. Both smaller market teams, with very little television appeal.
I feel like the Dodgers were given special treatment in regards to a kid drafted further back that was given similar money.
You telling me the Rangers don't have a leg to stand on in an argument against MLB on the handling of the Purke situation after what has transpired with the Dodgers and Lee?
There is a huge fricking difference between the first overall picks in the first round, and the last ones in that same round.
What did I say that was completely different? You're the KIA arguing that MLB doesn't have to approve a contract, dumbass. Oh, I forgot, EXCEPT........
I feel like the Dodgers were given special treatment in regards to a kid drafted further back that was given similar money.
You telling me the Rangers don't have a leg to stand on in an argument against MLB on the handling of the Purke situation after what has transpired with the Dodgers and Lee?
There is a huge fricking difference between the first overall picks in the first round, and the last ones in that same round.
What did I say that was completely different? You're the KIA arguing that MLB doesn't have to approve a contract, dumbass. Oh, I forgot, EXCEPT........
Posted on 6/27/11 at 2:35 pm to wahoocs
MLB was in control of the Rangers at the time, and they were not in control of the Dodgers last August...that is te difference in the Purke and Lee situations.
If they take control of the Dodgers this Summer and still allow them to go well over slot on someone, then you would have something.
If they take control of the Dodgers this Summer and still allow them to go well over slot on someone, then you would have something.
Posted on 6/27/11 at 2:47 pm to MOT
Yes, technically, you are correct.
And in US Govt. fashion, MLB did nothing wrong.
And in US Govt. fashion, MLB did nothing wrong.
Posted on 6/27/11 at 2:48 pm to wahoocs
quote:
I feel like the Dodgers were given special treatment in regards to a kid drafted further back that was given similar money.
You telling me the Rangers don't have a leg to stand on in an argument against MLB on the handling of the Purke situation after what has transpired with the Dodgers and Lee?
There is a huge fricking difference between the first overall picks in the first round, and the last ones in that same round.
What did I say that was completely different? You're the KIA arguing that MLB doesn't have to approve a contract, dumbass. Oh, I forgot, EXCEPT........
1. Please tell me where I said MLB doesn't have to approve contracts. I never said that. I said they cannot "disallow" over slot contracts. Every contract must be approved by MLB no matter if it's a draftee, international signee, or a major league free agent.
2. Perhaps you feel like the Dodgers were given special treatment because of your P&G glasses? Have you pondered that?
3. The Rangers would absolutely not have a leg to stand on in an argument against MLB. MLB was writing the checks at the time. There's nothing to discuss there.
4. There is a huge difference between the first and the 32nd pick; and that difference is accounted for in the pick's slot value. What about this do you not understand? Do you think MLB allows (or should allow) a team to go over slot only if it has the top pick? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
If it's not your P&G glasses, is your vagina still sore from when the Tigers signed Nick Castellanos for a $3.45 MM deal for a pick with a $777,000 slot?
Or, how about this one. It was the last pick in the first round in 2008! How similar to Lee! Andrew Brackman signed for $3.3 MM and the pick was valued at $945,000. Does that one make you sore still?
Again, take off the P&G Rantard glasses.
And I'm still waiting for your link showing MLB does not allow over slot contracts.
This post was edited on 6/27/11 at 2:50 pm
Posted on 6/27/11 at 2:52 pm to Mitchell613
Doods, it's just baseball...
Posted on 6/27/11 at 2:52 pm to LSU Rules07
quote:"Every problem has a gift for you in its hands"
I wonder if he can just asked to be traded to another team
Posted on 6/27/11 at 2:53 pm to superloser
Filing for bankruptcy doesn't mean the corporation stops operating or paying the bills, basically it means everything has to be approved by a judge. He'll probably still get paid although it's certainly possible the check will be delayed.
Posted on 6/27/11 at 2:59 pm to Mitchell613
quote:
Why are you telling yourself to STFU? Do you realize the idiocy of your argument, or are you a little schizo?
I quoted my original comments, which you misread. I mistakenly said Twins, it was Rangers.
I was told by the executive director of Minor League Baseball that it was likely that MLB would step in if Lee's contract negotiations got ridiculous. He used the Purke case as an example. He further went on about the Dodgers precarious financial situation. He said the only way it happens over 3 million is if the Dodgers are given "special" consideration.
Nothing purple and gold about it, except that this individual and myself happen to be Tiger fans and usually travel to away games together.
Of course I'm not here to argue slot payments in general, only as they apply to this particular situation. And, BTW, you got under my skin, prick. I'd definitely like to take out some frustrations non-related to this argument on you sometime.
Posted on 6/27/11 at 3:02 pm to wahoocs
Well he was wrong solely because of the easy and practical distinction to be made of who the operating owner of the team was at the time of the contract. Plenty of teams have been in precarious financial situations before. It's just usually not as public as the Dodgers and Rangers.
This post was edited on 6/27/11 at 3:03 pm
Posted on 6/27/11 at 3:04 pm to TenTex
It amazes me how many football players who pass on LSU or get kicked off the team end up with things not working out. I'm mainly talking about the athletes who want to play at LSU or who have played.
=================================================
it's the purple shield!!
=================================================
it's the purple shield!!
Posted on 6/27/11 at 4:53 pm to Geauxld Finger
quote:
Honestly if I were Lee's parents and I had a sound financial grasp of the shite heap of financial trouble the Dodgers were in, I'd have said to go to college. And that's being realistic. It's like someone with a 415 credit score trying to convince me to give them a loan. Sure Zach how does 5.4 mil sound? We'll just pay that in the next four years if you can wait. I swear our books are straight once Frank McCourt pays 3/4 of the clubs profits and operational money to his fuggin ex wife.
You are crazy if you think Lee won't get his money. MLB itself will take over the financial aspects of the team until they find a new owner.
Posted on 6/27/11 at 5:10 pm to longview2
so did Jamie Howard
This post was edited on 6/27/11 at 5:11 pm
Posted on 6/27/11 at 6:05 pm to moneyg
quote:
You are crazy if you think Lee won't get his money. MLB itself will take over the financial aspects of the team until they find a new owner.
Yeah, MLB guarantees the contracts, apparently.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News