While one of Jose Reyes’ representatives expressed disappointment this week with the Marlins for going back on their word, Buehrle and agent Jeff Barry issued a joint statement Wednesday expressing their view on the matter.
“I’m upset with how things turned out in Miami,” Buehrle said. “Just like the fans in South Florida, I was lied to on multiple occasions. But I’m putting it behind me and looking forward to moving on with my career.”
Marlins baseball czar Larry Beinfest, asked directly on a Monday conference call about reports of “verbal assurances” given to Reyes and Buehrle, said those didn’t come from him and were nothing he was privvy to.
If any such assurances had been made by him, Beinfest said, he would have put them in writing.
“In an off-season of change and uncertainty, the overriding factor in Mark’s signing with Miami was Ozzie Guillen and the level of comfort his presence provided Mark and his family,” Barry said in his statement. “While the Marlins were the highest bidder, baseball had already made Mark a wealthy man, so money was far from the most important factor in his decision.
“Throughout the recruiting process, the Marlins made repeated assurances about their long-term commitment to Mark and his family and their long-term commitment to building a winning tradition of Marlins baseball in the new stadium. This was demonstrated by their already completed signings of Ozzie, Heath Bell and Jose Reyes.
“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.”
Repoz
Posted: November 21, 2012 at 02:57 PM |
209 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags:
marlins
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.
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?
Just that, basically. I don't think there's any point in trying to discuss anything with the people who've taken the position that since Buehrle's contract didn't include a no-trade clause he has no standing to be upset that he was misled about why that is. As far as I can see, taking the position that people only owe each other whatever their contracts specify, and should otherwise lie, cheat, and so on from each other and be free from criticism for doing so have no moral reasoning at all, having substituted only legal judgment. I'd just as soon try to explain morality to them as I'd read a poem about daffodils to a blind watersnake; either is a waste of both our time.
Buehrle is far and away the more likely liar in this contretemps. "I was lied to on several occasions" has about a 3% chance of being true.
So in other words the "overriding factor" in Buehrle choosing Miami didn't have the least thing to do with "assurances," verbal or otherwise.
These are the words of a wise man.
Buehrle's lies are immoral, even though legal. Technically, they aren't legal if they're libelous, which they may be, but they're immoral even if not actionable as libel. Few things are more immoral than bearing false witness against others, particularly through the means of mass communications. (Indeed, the law of contracts is there in part to discourage people from coming into court and bearing false witness.)
Buehrle can't know that they were lying to him at the time they promised him he was in their long term plans. He may suspect it. It may be plausible. But unless he has Watergate style tapes or an admission from one of them, all he has is his suspicions. They could have changed their mind. And actually, the fact that they didn't grant his request to offer him a no-trade means that they reserved their right to trade him.
And that last fact is what people are glossing over. They specifically denied his request for a no-trade. So how the eff is it reasonable for Buehrle to conclude that they had promised him he wouldn't be traded?
Even Buehrle's story is that they made noise about wanting him in their long term plans. Even Buehrle is not saying that they told him "We will never trade you."
Because he doesn't proffer any facts about what the lies are; the things he's crowing about are the type of thing that people say and completely mean in one set of circumstances but not in others; and the fact that he said the overriding factor in his decision was Ozzie Guillen's presence in the managers' chair, which has can't be part of a "lie," properly defined.
So do we have agreement that bearing false witness is far worse morally than puffery/exaggeration in employee recruiting? I'd sure hope so, though you never know around here.
What basis does Buehrle have to conclude that "We won't give you a no-trade, but we want you here long term" was a lie? It is immoral for Buehrle to complain that a party who did not breach a contract lied to him, that if they changed their mind it had to be a lie, that they should never have changed their mind, that they should have been held to pre-contract fluff that could have been the truth at the time that never made it in to the deal.
Ray I have to say that's a truly odd invocation of morality. That Dan sees it the same way really surprises me. That SBB does, well I'd expected that going in.
Contract law defines morality? New one on me.
2) The Marlins are ########, if not legally obligated ########.
_____________
The lawyers on this forum conflating "morality" with "contractual obligations" are hilarious. No, the world of moral judgement is not limited to American contract law, who fugging knew?
So puffery in recruiting an employee is a bigger moral wrong than bearing public false witness against someone?
Nothing's really surprising around here, but ... WOW.
Generally speaking, I think keeping your promises is important, without any contracts or anything.
In this case, all parties having a contract in advance agreeing explicitly not to make any such promises, changes the calculus considerably. People keep bringing up making promises in regular life as if they're comparable, but they're not for the reason in the last sentence. I think the promise itself, both any possible acceptance on either side, is far more fraught with dangers on a general level of morality. I think on a moral level, one can make the case that keeping faith with the CBA, a hard-fought agreement in which *everyone's* careers are tied up, the fighting for which has resulted in multiple partial baseball seasons, is far more important than Mark Buehrle's being upset about being traded. Assuming such a promise is made and faced with the choice of breaking a promise to Mark Buehrle and breaking a promise made to everyone who is a party to the CBA, breaking the former seems to be the superior ethical choice to me.
In addition, while I won't go so far as SBB, who seems strongly convinced Buehrle is lying, I tend to believe that this could very well be more of the understanding variety. That's why we want big contractual things in writing, not promises. Anyone who has ever had interaction with another person knows, for example, that agreeing to try to do something or seeing how it goes will frequently become a promise or an ironclad guarantee by the other party. Loria's entire alleged promise was essentially an important part of an eight-figure contract, so the contractual obligation aspect is very important - Loria and Buehrle's relationship is primarily *defined* by contractual agreement, after all. This isn't like Loria agreeing to babysit Buehrle's kids or help him clean out his garage.
And I still have heard no evidence -- including in anything Buehrle and his agents said -- that at the time of the "assurances," the Marlins did not in fact have a good faith reason to proffer them and a good faith and indefinite intent to keep them. The absence of one of those things is an indispensible element to the Marlins having "lied."
NOTE: The "assurances" Buehrle alleges aren't that he wouldn't be traded -- he doesn't say there was a verbal no-trade promise -- they were: (1) that they had a long-term commitment to Buehrle and his family; and (2) that they had a long-term commitment to building a winner in the new stadium. Each of those was entirely true at the time.
Right. Even Buehrle is not saying "The Marlins told me I would not be traded." Rather, he says they told him he had a long term commitment. And WTF do people think a four year contract for $60 million is, if not a long term commitment? WTF do people think a four year contract for $60 million without a no-trade clause, with the lack of said no-trade clause having been specifically been bargained for and paid for, is? That covers (1) above, and (2) is even more true now with the trade.
In my view, both Buehrle and the people on this thread carrying his water are being completely unfair and immoral, and I frankly would be very careful about doing business with them in real life. Who needs such unreasonable, irrational headaches in their business relationships if such can be avoided?
It's one thing to not get a no-trade clause and thinking "well, they might trade me".
It's another to think "well, they might trade me in 11 months".
Maybe he understood that the no-trade clause wasn't included because the Marlins wanted to protect themselves if Buehrle flopped and they wanted to cover their butts 3-4 years down the line.
I don't think he honestly expected them to dump him that quickly, and that's the problem he probably has with this trade.
This is not, on balance, a bad baseball trade from the Marlin's perspective. And I say that as someone really excited to see the Jays ready to be competitive this year. The Jays sent a ton of young and cheap talent to Miami. It's a gamble they have to take, but still a gamble, and one that could work out very well for Miami in 3 years.
So he thought he had a no-trade even though it was specifically denied and he didn't pay for it. That is unreasonable.
And #172 An awful lot has to go pretty much best case for the Marlins, but sure it could work out in an absolute baseball sense (ie no money considerations)
I didn't say that.
I said he realized that he could be traded, but honestly didn't think he'd be dealt after only 11 months.
That's like a coach signing a 4-year deal, and getting canned after 6 months. Sure, the coach knows he could be fired at any time, but there is some reasonable expectation that the team would give him a chance to prove himself.
In this case, Buehrle didn't think the team would give up on the big name signings after only 11 months, especially since Buehrle himself was good (and Reyes wasn't bad either).
"We're trying to build a winner here." doesn't exactly jive with "We're blowing things up 11 months into the attempt."
i think there are about 10 of us who post here are not lawyers. maybe 20.
- i think we ALL understand about the CBA and contracts and no under the table/off the record guarantees/promises.
that does not mean that although buehrle asked for a no trade, he wasn't told something that SOUNDED good but wasn't strictly a promise.
sort of like if you wanted to marry me, but i told you i didn't believe in marriage, but you are the kind of guy a grrrl wants to keep for the rest of her life. then you find out i got something on the side. i tell you - well, i didn't say there wouldn't be OTHER men, did I?
now you didn't get no specific CONTRACT, so you got no reason to complain, right?
He's calling them liars because they told him they wouldn't trade him, and then they traded him. When they told him they wouldn't trade him, they were apparently lying. Just because they had the contractual right to trade him doesn't make them not liars.
On most natural readings of that last sentence, it is inconsistent with there being no morality issue here. If Buehrle is allowed to complain about someone else's actions, implying that they should've acted otherwise, then he is saying that they acted wrongly, and it seems likely that he means 'wrongly' in a moral sense.
I don't follow. I can complain that you served something I was allergic to at a dinner party, but that doesn't make it immoral for you to serve it.
Sometimes people just need to vent about something that didn't go their way.
Yeah I kind of read this, not as a complaint about the contract, but the Marlins' behaviour before the contract was signed. He's not saying the Marlins shouldn't have traded him because they promised not to, he's saying, they shouldn't have promised they wouldn't if they were going to.
"I suspected they were lying to me, and I entered into the contract knowing that they were under no contractual obligation to fulfil their promise* and that promise had no bearing on the contract. But it's annoying being lied to."
*for lack of a better word since we don't know what it is the Marlins said exactly..."statement"? "implied promise"?
The stove in my flat is old and busted, and when the gas dude was over the other day looking at the place he told my landlord that it was no good and he ought to replace it. So my landlord made a show of saying he'd set aside a day next week to bring in a new one. Now, he has no intention of actually replacing it, and I'm fully aware that he has no intention of replacing it. Luckily I don't really care because I do all of my cooking either on the burners up top (which work fine) or in an electric halogen cooker thingie. So if I were to complain a few months from now about it, it wouldn't be about the fact that he didn't fulfil his promise (which I don't really care about), but that he said he'd do it when he had no intention of doing so. Luckily I also don't mind being lied to (I tend to be fairly laid back that way), so I won't be complaining. But if I was one of those high-strung individuals who got all hot and bothered about being lied to I can see that dynamic coming into play.
This is officially far more thought that I intended to put into this topic...must be a REALLY slow Saturday on my end.
Sometimes people complain about others' actions in a way that is not intending to attach moral blame, but I don't think people who do that are really saying that those actions were wrong.
There is certainly a morality issue, because Buehrle has accused them of lying. Lying is immoral. And thus so is accusing others of lying without cause. If Buehrle has no cause to accuse them of lying, he is acting immorally.
People here have not covered themselves in glory by carrying his water.
Wait a minute ... Ray is taking umbrage at someone accusing another person of "lying"? Did I log onto bizarro BBTF by mistake?
Ex<i>actly. And it would also be different if Buehrle had been terrible and they'd traded him for a box of rocks. But in the event, Buehrle has every right to suspect that his signing was camouflage to get money flowing toward the team and then pull the rug out. To mix metaphors.
What is the evidence for this fact? I ask seriously.
Buerhle's statement, "Just like the fans in South Florida, I was lied to on multiple occasions."
Contract law has absolutely nothing to do with morality. They are completely unconnected. A contract is simply the phrasing of an economic relationship.
If you sign a contract, and it would cost you X to breach it, but X+1 to maintain it, you should breach it, because that is the economically rational thing to do.
Example: You have signed a contract to buy 100 widgets at $100 per. The profit of the person you buy it from is $10 per widget, and if you breach, you will owe him his lost profit. You now have a chance buy them at $80 per. You should breach the contract, and pay the first contracting party the $10 per widget, pocketing the $10 in savings. That is the economically efficient thing to do. The law has no problem with this, even if it is a deliberate decision. There are no punitive damages for breaching a contract in almost every jurisdiction, it is a purely economic thing.
Now, is it "immoral" not to keep your "promises"? That depends on what you call a promise, and what is merely an economic arrangement. It may be far more immoral to breach an oral promise, because there are no consequences, than to breach a written contract. That depends on your view of morality.
But what if they simply changed their mind? It is fraud to make a promise which you never had any intention of keeping at the time you made it. If you intended to keep it, but circumstances changed, and your intentions changed with them, it is not fraud, nor even a lie.
If the Marlins said "we are attempting to build a winner here" then they may have been lying, but given that they are coming off a 95-loss season, the fact that they traded their older expensive players is NOT very strong evidence that they were lying. Maybe they would have traded them anyway, even if they'd won 90 games. We don't know. We will never know. Never, ever, ever. So unless Buehrle wants to make a specific accusation and has a recorded conversation where Loria promised not to trade him, we have nothing to go on.
Is is PLAUSIBLE that they were trying to build a winner, and they still are. Part of building a winner is trading away your older, expensive players the season after a disaster. Do you guys think they signed Ozzie Guillen to a 3 year contract with the intention of firing him after one year and eating the rest of the costs? People can change their minds, they can change course when things don't go as planned. Everybody just needs to calm the #### down.
That is all I'm saying.
And the evidence for Buehrle's belief?
He has no idea that they didn't simply change their mind. "We expected you guys would be here. But then we ####### lost 93 games even though you guys held up your end. So our plan sucked, and we are going in a new direction."
The idea that a 93-loss team should shackle itself and continue in the same direction with veterans because they didn't think at the outset that they would lose 93 games is absurd.
Loria.
With Loria, the default option is EVIL. In the absence of evidence, the assumption is that Loria is screwing somebody over, whether it is the fans in Montreal, the taxpayers in Florida, or random strangers he passes on the street.
He was an eyewitness to the events. So we have two choices:
1) Believe Buehrle's story, because he was there, or
2) Assume that you, a random guy on the Internet, knows more about what Buehrle was told than he does.
I am inclined to the belief that they told him they definitely wouldn't trade him while at the same time, planning to trade him after they got their stadium money. I certainly don't think there's strong enough evidence the other way for you to go bloviating about how immoral Buehrle is.
None of that has anything to do with whether they lied to him.
Srul/196, fair point
No. A lie is not strictly about what someone was told; it's also about what the person's state of mind was when they told it to you. They could have been 100% honest when they told him that they expected him to be in their long term plans -- and then a year later after a lost season changed their minds. That is not "lying," to any rational person who understands the concept of what a lie is.
If I plan to stay in tonight and watch a movie and you ask me to play tennis and I say "Nah, I plan to stay in tonight and watch a movie," and then later I change my mind and decide to go out to dinner, I have not "lied" to you.
If so, then you, a random dude on the internet, know more about what Buehrle was told than what he does. Because he has not said that they told him they "definitely" wouldn't trade him. And, again, the fact that they denied him a no-trade says exactly the opposite.
Well, please go educate yourself as to what a "lie" is. After that, perhaps you can bloviate about whether the Marlins lied, but not before.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main