Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Friday, January 07, 2005 |
Pre-Engagement, Schme-Engagement
Not too many years ago, I heard about the notion of pre-engagement. It struck me then, as it still does, as essentially silly, and more, the product of a juvenile pairing; either make the move and be done with it, or don't, but don't straddle the fence for an extended time. Commit, in other words, and hold off on the announcements until you're sure your beloved is actual spouse material.
So with yesterday's collapse of the Green trade. DePodesta, we're told, has once again counted chickens prior to Green unhatching them, Steve Henson said in the Times:
"In Paul's mind it was a fait accompli," a baseball source said. "It's a shock to a lot of people. That being said, there shouldn't have been so much optimism. They shouldn't have announced the trade pending Shawn waiving the no-trade clause unless it's perfectly understood by all parties what the parameters of an extension are."Perhaps not; but everyone knew what the terms of the deal were, and that it could collapse at any moment should Green fail to cooperate. Surprise was not an option, at least, not one that sober adults could testify to. Nonetheless, it provides more fuel for the argument that DePodesta concocts deals where the t's aren't crossed and the i's stubbornly stay undotted. As Dzzrt Rat mentioned in yesterday's Dodger Thoughts comments on the deadline,
In essence, it means Shawn Green is a 1/25 GM for the Dodgers. Do we have a surplus of 1B/RF players with power potential? DePo says yes; Green says no. Do we need a new catching prospect, and some money to pay for another starting pitcher? Again, 1/25 GM Green says no.Well, who knows. The same Times article says the Snakes and Dodgers continue talks today on the matter, possibly sending Green to Arizona without an extension, though it's doubtful Green would void his no-trade contract without one.
If a pre-engagement is silly, how much sillier -- and pathetic -- is a pre-divorce?
Comments:
No report in papers here re: continuing talks on the Green trade. Seems like the Burnitz talks are heating up again.
General consensus of D-Back fans(which matches my thoughts) -- trade without extension would be tolerable for the D-Backs. Not great, but worth, perhaps the risk. Trade with extension is bad, bad news.
Sorry, Rob, you're probably stuck with Shawn Green again.
General consensus of D-Back fans(which matches my thoughts) -- trade without extension would be tolerable for the D-Backs. Not great, but worth, perhaps the risk. Trade with extension is bad, bad news.
Sorry, Rob, you're probably stuck with Shawn Green again.
Stuck? Maybe DePodesta feels that way, maybe Tom feels that way, but I still think he's got value. He won't be back in a Dodger uniform after 2005, that's for sure.
You're right, "stuck" was a poor verb choice on my part for a player I was OK with the D-Backs taking a one-year flyer on. But at $8 M a year, not $16 M a year...
I might be missing something, but ... DePo committed to trading Green this week, plain and simple. He didn't create Green's no-trade clause. He can't negotiate Green's contract extension on Green's behalf. He can't keep the press from finding out this stuff is going on - if for no other reason then apparently, these trades require paperwork that is publically accessible.
What T did DePo not cross that he could have crossed?
You say that "everyone knew what the terms of the deal were, and that it could collapse at any moment should Green fail to cooperate" - yet somehow you think DePo didn't realize this? Because an unnamed source, whose position and agenda are a complete mystery, said so? It doesn't track.
What T did DePo not cross that he could have crossed?
You say that "everyone knew what the terms of the deal were, and that it could collapse at any moment should Green fail to cooperate" - yet somehow you think DePo didn't realize this? Because an unnamed source, whose position and agenda are a complete mystery, said so? It doesn't track.
In that light, sure, you're dealing with the vagaries of the modern contract seas. And to be fair, it's not DePo who's canceling the trades. The best you can do is to try, I suppose. But... they still keep falling apart. It bugs me, anonymous source or no.
Technical question (or questions):
1. Green's no-trade clause is in his contract, right? Does he have a separate 10-5 no-trade provision?
2. Presumably this could be negotiated with any team, but does a contract-based no-trade clause "carry over" to the new team, or once it's waived, is it waived forever?
1. Green's no-trade clause is in his contract, right? Does he have a separate 10-5 no-trade provision?
2. Presumably this could be negotiated with any team, but does a contract-based no-trade clause "carry over" to the new team, or once it's waived, is it waived forever?
Stefan -- yes, I believe Green also owns 10/5 rights, and that they transfer even after a trade so long as he remains under the original contract. As to the original no-trade clause, I don't know; certainly MLBPA would forbid him eating any guaranteed money, but as to other terms in his contract, they might not care (think of it as a pre-waiving of his no-trade clause).
Newer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.