Saturday, May 25, 2013
SI: Alex Sanabia : I didn’t know spitter was against rules
(sportsillustrated.cnn.com)
We have an early leader for “least plausible excuse of 2013.”
Miami Marlins pitcher Alex Sanabia says he didn’t know it was illegal to spit on the ball, the way he did Monday against the Philadelphia Phillies.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 1 of 5 pages
1 2 3 4 5 >Those last 2 thoughts seem odd juxtaposed together.
If you are aware that the Marlins specifically retained their ability to trade you/your client, than having them exercise that right cannot be described as not keeping up their end of the bargain.
Lying to get what you want, even if you are lying to get money, is generally wrong.
This is true but at the same time there's a "fool me once..." thing at work here. I mean this wasn't exactly a surprising result here.
Beyond that I imagine I can think of any number of ways where Buehrle would have heard "we won't trade you" while the Marlins never said it. "Mark, we aren't giving you this contract to trade you", "Mark, you're a key part of the Marlins' plan." "Mark, we look forward to you ending your career in Miami." People hear what they want to hear.
But the moral world is also not zero-sum. The fact that he should have known better doesn't absolve the Marlins of dishonorable behavior. It just means he should have known better. The two issues are mostly independent.
The thing about scorpions is, they're invertebrates. Humans are generally held to higher standards.if I'm following, your semi-defense of the Marlins is that they might have only sought to imply false things to Buehrle without ever technically lying. (1) I doubt it, David Samson isn't close to that smart, and (2) that's still wrong!
This is the most obvious point. The Marlins have a grand tradition (both under Loria and before) of dumping players they just signed/traded for. I'm sure Carlos Delgado wasn't expecting to spend the bulk of his contract with the Mets, rather than the Marlins, given that he turned down the Mets as a FA, and yet that's what happened.
I agree - if they were lied to their faces (seems likely), it is fine to call out the lying liars. The fact that the Marlins can legally and contractually do this doesn't make it right or acceptable.
But I still don't like the complaining of the breaking of the supposed verbal no-trade clauses. Agents would never agree to some deal where part of the actual salary was only verbally committed to and not explicitly part of the contract, so why are they seemingly putting stock in other compensation which was only verbally committed to? If your negotiation doesn't result in an actual NTC or at least a poison pill or an escalator, you shouldn't pretend that it did.
I don't think anyone is absolving the Marlins of dishonorable behavior. Everyone is instead saying "yeah, if that's what they told him, it's dishonorable. But it's the Marlins. Why wouldn't you expect them to do something like this?"
"They acted dishonorably. He should have known better." The fact that he should have known better doesn't affect the judgment as to whether they acted dishonorably, but even you are writing as if it did.
That's actually not true. The law requires that Buehrle's contract be in writing (an employment contract of over a year) to be enforceable by either party. Number two, the contract almost certainly contains an "integration clause," wherein both parties agree that the only enforceable promises are those contained in the contract.
If there was fraud in the inducement to enter the contract, that's can be actionable, even in the face of an integration clause, but of course that didn't happen here.
Moreover, the alleged oral promise is quite often reduced to writing when it actually exists -- the standard no-trade clause.
So the reality is that the applicable "moral code" has been entirely encapsulated in the law of contracts.
I don't think it's that cut and dried, everyone spins things to put themselves in the best light. Go to match.com or other places if you need to see examples of that in action.
Obviously if they flat out lied to him that's a different issue but I have no expectation that the Marlins are going to lay out a 100% accurate description of things anymore than I would expect Buehrle's agent to note that pitchers in their 30s often decline dramatically.
No, only as to contracts the law requires to be in writing to be enforceable. Adults get "promises" in writing -- particularly when they're standard parts of negotiations, like no-trade contracts -- and if they aren't in writing they don't consider them enforceable. That's what children do.
In lieu of being an adult and getting the no-trade in writing, Buehrle took the extra money.(*) His complaints at this point are juvenile, and quite likely false.
(*) Albert Pujols liked the Marlins' money, too, but wanted a no-trade. When they said no, he said no.
No. This is stupid lawyer thinking.
You're not answering Matt's question. Matt is talking about the "moral world". You're answering with reference to the "legal world". These are two different things. Something can be moral but illegal. Something can be legal but immoral.
I don't feel all that sorry for Mark Buehrle. As he admits here, he knew this was a possibility. But Florida has no state income tax, while I believe Canada has higher taxes than the U.S. So he actually probably does come out of this a little bit poorer (with poorer, of course, being a relative term; Mark Buerhle is still going to be a very, very rich man).
as for buehrle, ya he got treated kinda crummy, but it's not like he's getting cut and not getting a dime, like what can happen to other athletes.
Taxes are in fact higher in Canada, but (as Paul Beeston was always at pains to point out to any free agent the Jays were negotiating with) there's a reciprocal agreement between the US and Canada. He won't pay Canadian rates, he'll pay based on his US residency.
The bad news is, he no longer has any say in where he works.
Luckily, Canada is awesome.
Agent: Great, let's put it in writing.
Marlins: Done. Also, I assure you that we will not trade your client.
Agent: Great, let's also put that in writing.
Marlins: No
Agent: Good enough for me!
----
He no longer had that say when he signed the contract.
And if they still have the rule that a player traded during the middle of a multi-year contract can force a trade after one year, he actually has more of a say in where he works than he did before the Fish traded him.
I know that's just a figure of speech but the dry, desiccated husk of Bud Selig is indeed evil to his blackened core.
They no longer have that rule.
Isn't it a province-wide ban on pit bulls?
Yes.
Maybe the Premier should give Buehrle verbal assurances that the ban won't be enforced...
I think its interesting that this has become a very grey area. I think there are still many people who think that spinning, as ubiquitous as it is, is wrong. It is essential to do this when running a business, a country, a political party, or a baseball team, but no one likes it when its done to them. However, when done to someone else, most people's first reaction is "they should have known better". Its as if misleading is so common that trusting anyone is considered at best naive, yet trust is essential for a properly functioning society. there seems to be some serious issues here.
What Premier?
Just think, if McGuinty hadn't resigned and prorogued Queen's Park, the ban may have been lifted by now (and not because of the trade)
Can't happen. Our premier quit and moved back in with his Mommy. We are currently sans premier
While this did happen in the 1997-1998 and 2005-2006 offseasons both times the Marlins had the excuse of a poor stadium lease. Now they have a shiny new one just built and kaboom they destroy the team right away. I can understand how the players thought that this time could be different. In truth, anyone traded away from Miami now should be happy as it would not be a fun place to play in 2013 unless a miracle happens and the team gets off to a strong start.
Yeah, looking to Ozzie as the bastion of calm continuity....what could go wrong ?
Horse sheet.
He already made 90 million in your career, Florida signed him to a deal that is going to pay him another 48 million while he will most likely be far less productive than he has been in the past.
I understand he is a human being, and change, moving, etc, is stressful no matter who you are or how much you make. But how much you make is VERY MUCH the point here. He is paid sufficiently that he should be suppressing his whining over being "lied" to....especially in lieu of a contractual commitment.
He should have demanded the no trade clause in the negotiations, and if it was really that important to him, he should have moved onward to another team. But he chose to take the most money without the guarantee he wouldn't be moved. HIS CHOICE.
I am seldom one of those guys to criticize the whining ballplayer. I really am sensitive to the fact that they have the same feelings and emotions we do. But he is paid enough to overcome those things. In this economy and environment with so many people suffering, it really shows a disconnect with the reality for the vast majority of people on this planet.
Come on. Buerhle is not exactly a simpleton. And was represented by an agent. He was free to negotiate at any time a no-trade clause. He didn't, most likely because it would have cost him money.
The Marlins did nothing wrong, either morally or otherwise, and even if one thinks that they did, one would have to have been a fool to look at their history and the ballpark situation and not have seen it coming.
No, the dishonorable thing is to try to claim that someone did something wrong because they didn't hold to "promises" that weren't part of the contract. The Marlins did not breach the contract, so Buerhle's whining is out of bounds. And these contracts are such that every little thing actually promised is written down, such as luxury boxes and the like; no-trade clauses are obviously quite standard, and side deals are specifically disallowed.
Also, he doesn't have to be all sad and crap to feel like he was lied to. It's generally irritating to be lied to.
Also, it seems from this that Buehrle and his agent specifically considered this issue in advance - as they must have - and made a calculated risk to accept the deal:
“At the same time, given the Marlins’ history, we were all certainly aware of and voiced concern about the lack of no-trade protection. This is unquestionably a business, and signing with the Marlins was a calculated risk. Mark held up his end of the bargain; unfortunately, the same can’t be said of the Marlins.”
No. The Marlins did hold up their end. And what kind of morons - there is no other word for it - come away from this conversation thinking that there is a commitment to the player such that he won't be traded:
"We want Mark to sign with us long term."
"Okay, and Mark wants no-trade protection."
"Well, we do want Mark long term, but we're not willing to give no-trade protection."
"Cool, that means Mark can never be traded! We accept!"
Also this is completely one sided. If Buehrle had gotten injured or sucked, no one would be saying that he wronged the Marlins. It's a little different because the Marlins have choice here, but they also didn't choose to win 69 games last year. I don't think that if they had own 90 games they would have made this trade.
Finally, IMIO, for morality to be invoked someone actually needs to have gotten hurt. Buehrle getting paid 30 million the next two years and going to a team that has a better shot of contending does not qualify as getting hurt to me.
Just so we're clear, this conversation only happened in your head, right? For all we know, it was, "Yeah, we can't give you a no trade, that's a company policy thing because of such and such. But don't worry, we're not trading you, you have my word on that."
Yeah, and if you cut off one of his fingers, he'd still have 9 left and $30 million, so no harm done!
Trading Reyes is slightly different because he will have a lot of surplus value the next couple of years (although the back end of his contract is pretty bad). And trading Johnson is the real kick to the balls as he's a near ace level pitcher making less than Beuhrel money.
However, I think Yunel is a terrific value (he projects about 1.5 WAR worse than Reyes for 1/3rd of the cost) and they probably couldn't have gotten him without sending Johnson (or eating a bunch of the Reyes/Buehrle contract). Furthermore the prospects they got back have a lot of value as well.
How is this any different from what I wrote? I wrote "We're not willing to give you no-trade protection." Which is the same as what you posit above. Adding the magic words "because we have a company policy" doesn't actually accomplish any wizardry. Company policies are not handed down by God; they're another way of saying that the company is not willing to give what is being asked for.
This is really dumb. If you offer a no trade clause, that means you're legally obligated not the trade the player. If there is no no trade clause, you reserve the right to trade the player. The "company policy" is that they want to be able to trade the player if they feels it's in the best interests of the club (or Loria's wallet).
"We do want Mark long term."
But it's kind of funny that my speculated phrasing was rejected... fine, but in favor of the speculated phrasing you came up with? How is yours any truer than mine?
Page 1 of 5 pages
1 2 3 4 5 >You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.