Saturday, June 15, 2013
AWOL catcher Miguel Olivo begs Marlins: “Let me go”
(miamiherald.typepad.com)
To waste my baseball life
Would be a sin
Release me
And let me play again #humpdink
Read More...The Marlins placed Miguel Olivo on the restricted list after the team refused his request to be released and he walked out on the club during Friday’s game.
“I told them I wanted to be released and they wouldn’t give it to me,” said Olivo, who has been unhappy with his lack of playing time, in a phone interview with the Miami Herald. “I don’t understand why they don’t release me. I told them I wanted to be ...
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 3 of 5 pages
< 1 2 3 4 5 >Yes, this was a common theory last year when the deals were signed, and might have been explicitly mentioned by one or more of the players/agents involved.
Edit -- Also: Me!
I'm not a lawyer, but in this context I think the lawyers have seized on the essential element.
In a complicated negotiation, with many offers and counteroffers, it seems very dangerous to rely on oral promises. What if the GM thinks that his oral promise only applied to his initial offer? If you have two or three rounds of horse trading, it's possible that everybody at the table could have a different idea of what was promised. In that case, insisting that the only enforceable promises are the ones agreed to in writing is a distinct improvement over a system that allows side deals and extra-contractual promises.
At some level, you have to blame the agent. If Buehrle really walked away from the table thinking he had a no-trade promise, his agent needs to tell him the facts of life before he allows Buehrle to sign.
Here I think it makes a big difference whether the person making the promise actually has the power to carry it out, and also the specific form of the promise.
If your boss says he'll recommend you for a promotion, that's distinctly different from promising a promotion. His recommendation may not be followed, or the company might prefer someone else's candidate. Or the promise could be preempted by force majeure -- the company decides there aren't going to be any promotions this year, and the boss is powerless to affect the decision.
Ray, seriously? OK, your new boss tells you you'll get a corner office, but when you show up for your first day you're in a broom closet instead. You have absolutely no right to be upset?
If the boss offers a corner office and simply doesn't come through on the promise -- the office was available, but he gave it to someone else instead -- you do have a legitimate complaint. From your perspective, you reached an agreement which the boss unilaterally changed.
One final point -- the fact that things like this can happen, and that people can get into massive snits about broken promises, would be a really good reason for a large organization to insist that no one is allowed to make any binding promises that aren't set out in writing.
I doubt anyone - even Buehrle, relied on anything. He's simply sounds pissed because someone told him something and he had an idea they weren't talking out of their ass when they actually were.
The idea that one person isn't even allowed to be pissed off when lied to - even if I completely agree there is no legal grounds at all for action - strikes me as a particularly weird position.
Some of the things Buehrle is complaining about are less reducible to contract language. The Marlins convinced him, he says, that they had "long-term commitment to building a winning tradition of Marlins baseball in the new stadium." That's a philosophy, not a contractual promise. It turned out to be utter BS. So, he's annoyed.
He's not going to pay taxes at the Canadian rate.
Here is a copy of the treaty for those who want the gory details.
He's not really emoting, he's saying that promises were made to him that weren't made. Why do you think integration clauses and the laws requiring written promises are in place? So dishonorable people don't run to court and try to contradict a clear written contract with alleged oral promises that can't be disproven.
All of society lives by these rules with ease, and all of baseball lives by these rules with ease. It isn't surprising that a gaggle of fanboys want to give the major leaguer special privileges and exemptions from simple rules society lives by with ease.
The "promises" do not exist under the laws of society, and therefore the "lies" Buehrle accuses the other side of do not exist, other than through a juvenile interpretation of adult rules. He is being disreputable and dishonorable (if not lying) in claiming that they did. Buehrle is little different here from the guy who gave up six figures for the Jeter 3K hit ball, in exchange for a few trinkets and a few nice words from Randy Levine and Jeter. He also wasn't able to fend for himself in the world of adults. Grow up, Buehrle.
No, they can't. But the promises made and agreed to in a $50M negotiation can be.
As I stated upthread, I'm a lawyer, and from what I've read, legally, the Marlins are perfectly in the right. I think, though, that it's a good idea to keep one's word even when not contractually obliged to do so, in part because people tend to feel hard done by if one doesn't. That's not a legal or even moral issue per se, it's a basic human interactions thing.
As a purely empirical matter, the Marlins may have meant the "promise" when they made it, but circumstances changed and they changed their minds. As they were perfectly entitled to do, morally and legally.
The "basic human interactions" thing is irrelevant, because what's different in this case is that Loria, Buehrle, and Reyes were all under contractual obligations to not make or accept any such promises unless written into the contract. In most situations concerning basic human behavior, you're not also faced with having previously signed a contract that forbids that behavior. When I promise to save you the last slice of pizza and I don't, it's highly unlikely that we are governed by a contract that states that neither of us are allowed to make pizza promises with each other. But that's the situation these guys are in. Any verbal agreement on contract assignment was, in baseball context, an illegal agreement. This isn't the baseball equivalent of the everyday promises people make to each other, this is the baseball equivalent of robbers squabbling over the proceeds of a bank job, which I submit puts it in a different moral category.
What the hell is the point of a comment like this, except as an attempt to marginalize an opinion you disagree with rather than responding to it substantively?
(And Dan is not a lawyer, as far as I know.)
If you don't see a problem with that, I suppose it amounts to an "agree to disagree" thing, because you're not going to convince me and I suspect I'm not going to convince you.
I am not. I was just raised by an argumentative, lawyer-heavy family. When I was a little kid and I wanted something, I'd actually have to come up with a coherent argument to get what I wanted. I got a Sega Genesis when I had chickenpox because I had a verbal contract to not complain about the itching and to provide evidence of my make-up assignments within 72 hours of returning to school and if I did not fulfill my end of the contract, 25% of my allowance would be garnished, with a 12% interest rate (2 percentage-points above prime at the time), until the Genesis was paid off. That's not a joke, that actually happened.
But again, if he accepted the promise, it was a dick move on his part as well, because it was an illegal agreement.
I suppose it amounts to an "agree to disagree" thing, because you're not going to convince me and I suspect I'm not going to convince you.
Probably, but I like to argue.
There isn't a single stitch of evidence that he was lied to even once, much less on several occasions.(*) He is, far and away, the more likely liar in this scenario.
(*) "Mark, we intend to build around you and Jose" isn't a lie unless the Marlins didn't intend to build around Mark and Jose. What evidence is there that they didn't? None.
The idea that one person would think that the heads of an organization don't have the moral right to change their minds, go in a different direction, or do what they believe is in the organization's best interests strikes me as a particularly weird position.
Look, this was a negotiation. To the tune of $50 million. With an experienced player represented by an experienced agent. A contract set out all the terms of the agreement. No other terms were allowed. All other items discussed and not set out in the contract were meaningless fluff. The player asked for a no-trade. And was denied.
If the no-trade was so important to Buehrle, he could have reduced his salary demands until he got one - I'm sure the Marlins would have happily gone against "company policy" to grant him a no-trade in exchange for working for the league minimum - or he could have signed elsewhere. He chose instead to accept a side promise that was specifically prohibited by the CBA. He has no moral grounds to complain.
Then he has no reason to be upset that something that wasn't set out in the contract - when it damned well could have been - wasn't honored.
They did not tell him one thing and then do another. They told him one thing - "We won't give you a no-trade" - and then did something that was entirely consistent with that. Their statement that they wouldn't trade him - presuming they stated that, and all we have is Buehrle's word - was meaningless fluff that could have and should have been in the contract if it was to be given any weight, and if Buehrle gave it any weight then he was violating the CBA in doing so.
Were you raised by Sam Peckinpah? The bolded part is very strange to me.
It's plausible that they had no intent - presuming in the first place that they made the statements - but if there is any evidence of intent it has to be pattern evidence from earlier.
And I haven't looked, but this statement from the article seems to suggest that they have given partial no-trades in the past, unless the writer is talking about the Delgado situation.
This Marlins ownership, since its arrival in 2002, has never given a full no-trade clause.
Would you (knowing that what you say is in no way legally binding) say something like, "Things have changed around here now that we've got the new stadium. We're committed to winning. We want you for the long haul?" (or something similar. This appears to be the substance of the comments Buehre is attributing to Marlin execs)
If you would, then I'd think a great deal less of you as a person. And if you wouldn't, then I don't get your (or Dan's) objections.
I got a Sega Genesis when I had chickenpox because I had a verbal contract to not complain about the itching and to provide evidence of my make-up assignments within 72 hours of returning to school
I'm reminded of when, years ago, I was playing Hi, Ho, Cherry-O! with my three-year-old son, his three-year-old friend, and the friend's mother, an attorney. My son scored a walkoff cherry haul and started exulting. The attorney reflected for a moment, and then suggested that because my son had not uttered the regulation phrase "Hi, Ho, Cherry-O!" before tipping the cherries into his bucket, he had forfeited his victory.
The real issue isn't federal tax, but that Florida has no state income tax and Ontario does (as do most other US states). Even having skimmed the agreement, I'm still not really sure how it deals with state/provincial income tax.
It cost Clemens some money when he moved from Toronto to New York because while he was with the Jays he was taxed as if he was a resident of Texas (no state tax).
If I believed it at the time? Sure. That in no way is a statement that I can't later change my mind.
If I didn't believe it at the time? No. But you haven't presented the entirety of the conversation. Your above exchange leaves out that Buehrle's agent said "Great, can Mark have a no-trade?" And was told no. That can only mean that the Marlins reserved their right to trade him in the future. So for Buehrle to later claim that the Marlins did something wrong by trading him is, to use Bob Brenly's parlance, chicken ####.
At best, we have a situation where, if the Marlins did something wrong by giving the side promise, then Buehrle did something wrong as well, by accepting it. I don't see Buehrle having a higher ground argument, in that case. Again, he wanted it both ways: the extra money from not having a no-trade and a de facto no-trade.
Well, when you find someone who holds this position, let me know. Because that isn't anything close to what I said.
They told him one thing - "We won't give you a no-trade" - and then did something that was entirely consistent with that.
And you know this how?
Because (a) the no-trade in fact was not given despite the "concern" Buehrle's agent says that he expressed, and (b) the player in fact was traded.
Cite from the full article:
“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 really is not in dispute, Lassus.
I was being really whiny about the itching.
Fascinating, Ray.
However, I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing that they told him one thing, one thing only, and nothing else. It may come as a shock to you, Ray, but people actually speak outside of contracts. Even people involved in millions of dollars changing hands.
Oh whatever. Again, my position solely is that I imagine Buehrle was told one thing and another happened, and he is pissed as a result, which I don't think is uncalled for. People actually speak, even interact, outside of contracts.
And who are you having this dispute with? Certainly not me, as I never said that. I said they told him one thing, not only one thing.
In response to this:you said this:
As you completely invented yourself the "one thing" Dudefella was referring to as opposed to something he actually said, it was probably a mistake to respond.
How a Libertarian was forged on the anvil of usury...
:-)
We don't even know it was BS. Despite what people keep squawking, this isn't 1998. The Marlins did not win the world series last year, they lost 95 games. They spent gobs of money on free agents and it failed miserably; they decided it was time to admit failure and start over with the kids. There is literally nothing wrong with what the Marlins did. In fact, it may well have been the right thing to do. Other teams could probably learn a lesson about admitting defeat early rather than to keep on trying with an aging, expensive roster. They were always going to build around Stanton, not around Buehrle.
Despite what people keep saying, Adeiny Hecchavaria and even Hednerson Alvarez are decent players with potential, and the prospects they got were pretty good as well. The Jays could well end up regretting this deal, and I say that as a Jays fan who is more excited than I have ever been.
I think it's lousy that the Marlins deal players that they just signed as free agents, but with the season they had there is zero evidence they negotiated in bad faith.
Here is an argument made in this thread:
"Buehrle is upset because he was told (something like he would not be traded, or he would be a part of the team for a long time). He has no legal right to be upset, but he nonetheless might have a moral right to be upset, because legal considerations do not exhaust moral considerations."
Here is an (awful) argument made in response, in this thread. (This is not to say that its conclusion is false, but merely to say that this argument cannot possibly establish it.)
"But Buehrle is bound by the CBA not to take seriously any promises outside of the formal ones in the contract, so he has thereby given up any right to be upset, moral or legal."
This is an awful argument, because the 'bound' and 'take seriously' in the first clause need to be read as both invoking purely legal concepts in order to be obviously true, but need to be read as invoking moral concepts in order to get the claims in the second clause.
No one has even seriously tried to establish that Buehrle is morally bound by the CBA. They are mostly, I take it, assuming that because Buehrle is legally bound by the CBA that he is morally bound by the CBA, but this does not follow precisely because the first argument has already denied that legal considerations exhaust the moral considerations. So the argument already must beg the question against its opponent in order to be valid.
As a matter of fact, I think the situation is significantly worse for that argument, because there are at least some reasons (though not necessarily decisive) to believe that Buehrle is not morally bound by the CBA: agreeing to the CBA is the only way that Buehrle can be paid extremely large sums of money to pursue his craft. It's obviously not coercion in the legal sense, but it might be sufficient coercion to undermine Buehrle's moral commitment to the CBA.
Moral commitment to the CBA? Maybe people just think Buehrle and his agent were gullible for believing Loria or his underlings and that they should console themselves with $45M and $5M (10% of $50M), respectively.
I see no contradiction here. Whether my "prediction" in 2011 would have come true if the Marlins had had a good 2012 is something not any of us will ever know. Period.
This is a logical fallacy that too many people are making. Just because A can cause B and B happens, does not mean that A caused B.
It is always silly when people post two quotes like this from the same person, without comment, as if the two quotes speak for themselves as some sort of smoking gun.
What exactly is the point you are making, Fish?
It seems some of the posters here are making more out of this than Buerhle himself...
Right its' something like that. Or even that the reporter writing the article is making even more out of it than Buehrle or his agent is..
There are a sad number of anecdotes in this same vein. I'm definitely a product of how I was raised, in both good ways and bad ways. My family never really treated me like a kid, but more like a very inexperienced adult, which is sometimes nice, but sometimes horrifying for a little kid. For example, when a 5-year-old is curious why the doctor is going to need to perform minor surgery to remove a small lump from his calf as a precaution, you probably can reassure the kid without describing what malignant tumors are and how they metastasize.
Unpossible! Why, then we'd be a Ship of Argumentative Fools!
Vulfgank Untsicker. WTF??? Never heard of him. Took me a while to realize it was "Wolfgang Unzicker" (German Grandmaster -- OK, that makes sense)
I realize you're somewhat playing devil's advocate, but this scenario only turns the Marlins from outright liars into weaselly idiots. They spent a lot of money to sign, for several years, one of the most consistent good starting pitchers in the game. Said pitcher went out and threw 200 innings with an ERA in the threes, as he does every year, and went .500 for a .426 team. I know there is a sense in which they could have finished last without him, but to show him the door (not to mention Reyes, who stayed healthy and had a season almost exactly at his career norms) just speaks of bizarre shortsightedness. You either show some patience and hang onto the good players you've carefully collected, or … or, you're the Marlins.
Buehrle isn't accusing the Marlins of Marlinness, he's accusing them of lying on several occasions. His accusations are likely lies, since there's no evidence the Marlins actually lied to him.
People get divorced; does that mean they were lying when they took the typical wedding vow to stay together 'til death do them part?
Page 3 of 5 pages
< 1 2 3 4 5 >You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.