Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, February 07, 2018

Yasiel Puig fired by his agent over a reported behavioral issue

This doesn’t bode well for Puig.

Jim Furtado Posted: February 07, 2018 at 07:45 PM | 67 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: dodgers, yasiel puig

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.

   1. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 07, 2018 at 08:11 PM (#5621583)
This smells like a felony. And a particularly nasty one at that.
   2. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 07, 2018 at 08:25 PM (#5621586)
Maybe we should wait for more info. It'd be unusual for first word of a criminal case to come from the victim, someone connected to the victim, or someone employed by the perpetrator. Not sure what's up here, but it seems a little early to assume the worst.
   3. ptodd Posted: February 07, 2018 at 08:48 PM (#5621592)
Maybe Puig is high maintenance. Agents see dark days ahead and cutting costs?
   4. SoSH U at work Posted: February 07, 2018 at 08:50 PM (#5621593)
I know the feeling. I fired my last two employers.
   5. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 07, 2018 at 08:51 PM (#5621594)
Puig not his friend?
   6. The Duke Posted: February 07, 2018 at 08:55 PM (#5621596)
Bat-flipping I assume. Play the game the right way Yasiel
   7. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: February 07, 2018 at 08:58 PM (#5621598)
My money is on some sort of #metoo thing that falls a little short of a physical assault (why the Dodgers are said to not be likely to take action).
   8. PreservedFish Posted: February 07, 2018 at 09:00 PM (#5621599)
Perhaps it was his bizarre reluctance to shower at the agent's office.
   9. eddieot Posted: February 07, 2018 at 09:13 PM (#5621603)
Wow. An agent voluntarily dropping a high-profile player with many years of earning potential? This can't end well for Puig.
   10. shoewizard Posted: February 07, 2018 at 09:16 PM (#5621604)
Maybe he was giving Yasmany Tomas driving lessons
   11. puck Posted: February 07, 2018 at 09:17 PM (#5621606)
He told the agency he wanted to do more volunteer work, for the benefit of "mankind."
   12. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: February 07, 2018 at 09:27 PM (#5621610)
I know the feeling. I fired my last two employers.


Laura Petrie: "I'm fired!"

Rob Petrie :"You can't fire, I quit you!"
   13. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 07, 2018 at 10:16 PM (#5621624)
Looking at the precedents, and reading between the lines a bit, it might have something to do with Puig going to work for the New England Patriots. Understandable.
   14. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: February 07, 2018 at 10:22 PM (#5621627)
Looking at the precedents, and reading between the lines a bit, it might have something to do with Puig going to work for the New England Patriots. Understandable.

That has to be McDaniels being given some assurances that the Patriots HC job is his when Belichick retires and him preferring that to the Colts. Nothing else makes sense.
   15. The Duke Posted: February 07, 2018 at 10:39 PM (#5621628)
Seems rather dickish of the agency. No matter what he did they don’t need to pile on. If I were another player represented by them I’d be having second thoughts. Sounds personal.
   16. PreservedFish Posted: February 07, 2018 at 11:36 PM (#5621641)
What if he raped the secretary?
   17. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: February 08, 2018 at 01:08 AM (#5621653)
An agent can’t fire a player. The agent is employed by the player, not the other way around. Title should be something like “Agent removes Puig from list of clients.”
   18. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 08, 2018 at 01:31 AM (#5621655)
At MLB Trade Rumors there are equally vague reports, including one indicating "that it’s unlikely the Dodgers will take any sort of action". That seems inconsistent with the speculation that Puig is some sort of criminal.
   19. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 08, 2018 at 07:09 AM (#5621666)
But consistent with the speculation that the Dodgers are, in fact, a criminal enterprise.
   20. Adam Starblind Posted: February 08, 2018 at 07:16 AM (#5621667)
An agent can’t fire a player. The agent is employed by the player, not the other way around. Title should be something like “Agent removes Puig from list of clients.”


"Firing the client" is used colloquially by law firms when, for some reason, they have to ditch someone. The firm (like the agent) isn't really "employed" by the client--they have an arm's-length contract.
   21. bfan Posted: February 08, 2018 at 07:59 AM (#5621673)
Seems rather dickish of the agency. No matter what he did they don’t need to pile on.


I think this is 100% wrong. The popular press constantly criticize personal service firms for whoring themselves out and representing anybody; selling out for the money that the contract brings, no matter how odious the client. This seems like a stand on the agency's principles, whether you agree with them or not.
   22. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 08, 2018 at 09:32 AM (#5621701)
This seems like a stand on the agency's principles, whether you agree with them or not.


Hard for us to know whether or not we agree with them if we don't know what they are.
   23. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: February 08, 2018 at 09:39 AM (#5621705)
This seems like a stand on the agency's principles, whether you agree with them or not.


I mean, to the extent that calculating whether ((Revenue generated by client) - (Future revenue lost by damage association with client does to our brand)) is a positive or negative number is a principle, sure.

It's a business decision.

(Note that a client can damage an agency's brand through misbehavior, or also through vehemently insisting on insane contract demands no one will meet.)
   24. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 08, 2018 at 09:45 AM (#5621710)
I mean, to the extent that calculating whether ((Revenue generated by client) - (Future revenue lost by damage association with client does to our brand)) is a positive or negative number is a principle, sure.


Oh sure, blame the Jews.
   25. bunyon Posted: February 08, 2018 at 10:06 AM (#5621717)
It's dickish if the offense is relatively minor or common place. Say DUI or drug use. Bad but he's probably not their only client engaged in such.

If he raped someone, it's not dickish at all.

Hard to say until we know what he did.
   26. Nasty Nate Posted: February 08, 2018 at 10:25 AM (#5621724)
Maybe he was sexually harassing one of their employees?
   27. Fernigal McGunnigle Posted: February 08, 2018 at 11:35 AM (#5621793)
I'd guess that Puig behaved badly vis a vis one or more of Wasserman's employees, and who knows what form that bad behavior took. Wasserman has every right (and responsibility) to take care of its employees, even if Puig's only offense was showing up in the office and yelling at the secretary a few too many times.
   28. Russ Posted: February 08, 2018 at 11:37 AM (#5621796)

I mean, to the extent that calculating whether ((Revenue generated by client) - (Future revenue lost by damage association with client does to our brand)) is a positive or negative number is a principle, sure.

It's a business decision.

(Note that a client can damage an agency's brand through misbehavior, or also through vehemently insisting on insane contract demands no one will meet.)


Agreed. Note that most agents (and all agencies) have several, if not many clients who would potentially be harmed by association if the agent/agency had knowledge of misdeeds. We are already seeing fallout like that in the film/television/music entertainment industry segments, it is completely unsurprising that the same issues would carry over to sports.
   29. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 08, 2018 at 11:39 AM (#5621799)
Wasserman has every right (and responsibility) to take care of its employees, even if Puig's only offense was showing up in the office and yelling at the secretary a few too many times.

How likely is it that an agency would prioritize its secretary over a client, short of egregious sexual harassment/assault?
   30. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 08, 2018 at 11:42 AM (#5621802)
(Note that a client can damage an agency's brand through ... vehemently insisting on insane contract demands no one will meet.)

As opposed to the agency itself doing that?
   31. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 08, 2018 at 11:43 AM (#5621803)

How likely is it that an agency would prioritize its secretary over a client, short of egregious sexual harassment/assault?


Depends on the character of the owners.
   32. Boxkutter Posted: February 08, 2018 at 11:45 AM (#5621806)
That has to be McDaniels being given some assurances that the Patriots HC job is his when Belichick retires and him preferring that to the Colts. Nothing else makes sense.

They're saying that no assurances have been given. McDaniels is only going to be let in more on the inner workings of the organization (BB usually keeps things close to the vest and micromanages) and how personnel and other decisions are made. Sounds like McDaniels knew he may not be ready for such a role. But the big thing is that he didn't want to move his family. He has four children and they've moved several times over the past 10 years, but none since 2012 I think when he re-joined the Patriots. He liked the idea of keeping them in the same school with the same friends, etc. He put his family before his ambition. It's a respectable thing to do.

As for Puig, everyone is assuming he committed some sort of crime. How likely is it that the first we'd hear about it is by his agents dumping him, and not from TMZ or ESPN or something? Maybe he is just a total douche and an a-hole and they grew tired of his crap and the way he treated those who worked closely with him. But instead people are speculating rape, drugs, DUI, sexual harassment, etc. Maybe he is just a sucky person without being a "bad" person.
   33. BrianBrianson Posted: February 08, 2018 at 11:51 AM (#5621813)
How likely is it that an agency would prioritize its secretary over a client, short of egregious sexual harassment/assault?


Or, behavior that isn't those, but puts you in a position where you could have a reasonable expectation such behavior might occur in the future, exposing you to possible liability.
   34. Itsdrainageeli Posted: February 08, 2018 at 11:54 AM (#5621816)
All speculation, but assuming the Dodgers aren't taking any action and aren't themselves a criminal enterprise, one would guess it wasn't sexual harassment/assault or anything illegal. Maybe it has something to do with a dispute over (or nonpayment of) agent fees. I could see where that could be a cause for the agent to let a client loose but wouldn't necessarily involve the Dodgers. I wouldn't expect this to be called a "behavioral issue" though, so who knows. Maybe he was being a meanie about it.
   35. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 08, 2018 at 11:57 AM (#5621820)
Depends on the character of the owners.

I think you and I would agree that the "character" of pretty much any corporation is coterminous with "what option makes us the most money?"
   36. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 08, 2018 at 12:00 PM (#5621824)
I think you and I would agree that the "character" of pretty much any corporation is coterminous with "what option makes us the most money?"

Large corporations, sure. But an agency run by a few partners might actually still have some integrity.
   37. bfan Posted: February 08, 2018 at 12:08 PM (#5621837)
I think you and I would agree that the "character" of pretty much any corporation is coterminous with "what option makes us the most money?"


To which their many shareholders, who are counting on that corporation to produce profits and thus dividends and share value, for those shareholders in their retirement years, would respond by saying "thank-you."
   38. Srul Itza Posted: February 08, 2018 at 12:56 PM (#5621915)
Bear in mind that the agency dropped him without any word of explanation. The "behavioral issues" report comes from unnamed "sources" talking to SB Nation, per Chris Cotillo.

Feel free to speculate away -- this is the internet, after all. As for me, before clutching my pearls and heading for the fainting couch, I would like to see just a modicum of corroboration.

   39. The Duke Posted: February 08, 2018 at 12:57 PM (#5621917)
My point was publicizing the fact that they are letting him go is unwarranted. They could have met him go and no one would know. Publicizing it is Dickish and we have tonassume it is unrelated to a legal issue as there is no news of a legal issue.
   40. SoSH U at work Posted: February 08, 2018 at 01:05 PM (#5621929)
They're saying that no assurances have been given. McDaniels is only going to be let in more on the inner workings of the organization (BB usually keeps things close to the vest and micromanages) and how personnel and other decisions are made. Sounds like McDaniels knew he may not be ready for such a role. But the big thing is that he didn't want to move his family. He has four children and they've moved several times over the past 10 years, but none since 2012 I think when he re-joined the Patriots. He liked the idea of keeping them in the same school with the same friends, etc. He put his family before his ambition. It's a respectable thing to do.


It would be a lot more respectable had he not already had assistant coaches uproot their families to relocate to Indianapolis to work for him there.
   41. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 08, 2018 at 01:07 PM (#5621935)
To which their many shareholders, who are counting on that corporation to produce profits and thus dividends and share value, for those shareholders in their retirement years, would respond by saying "thank-you."

Which is a major reason why our society sucks. The idea that corporations have no responsibility except to the bottom line is highly corrosive to civil society.
   42. Batman Posted: February 08, 2018 at 01:10 PM (#5621938)
Feel free to speculate away
My theory is that they just found out he was born in 2010. It's an extreme version of the young Adrian Beltre situation, but with more child labor law issues. Puig will be really good at baseball once he hits puberty.
   43. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 08, 2018 at 02:04 PM (#5622021)
My theory is that they just found out he was born in 2010.

That would explain a fair amount of his behavior.
   44. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: February 08, 2018 at 02:57 PM (#5622106)
Which is a major reason why our society sucks. The idea that corporations have no responsibility except to the bottom line is highly corrosive to civil society.

Society's values are increasingly reflected in shareholder value. The Steve Wynn reports have not only forced him to step down, but have tanked the stock price. Especially for a consumer-facing business like a casino, repugnant executive misconduct will have a big effect on the company's bottom line.
   45. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: February 08, 2018 at 03:00 PM (#5622112)
And here I thought that the toddler on Jimmy Fallon was pretty impressive.
   46. cardsfanboy Posted: February 08, 2018 at 03:59 PM (#5622173)
My point was publicizing the fact that they are letting him go is unwarranted. They could have met him go and no one would know. Publicizing it is Dickish and we have tonassume it is unrelated to a legal issue as there is no news of a legal issue.


Them publicizing it makes me feel that it is something related to how he acted to an employee or two or more at the agency, maybe not quite breaking the law, but something that upset someone and the agency wanted to do two things....1. remove him from their client lists 2. assure their employees that they have their back. Obviously we have no idea what is going on, but to me the publicizing thing, while also saying that it's unlikely the Dodgers will do anything, indicates it's a local(something he did to the agency) type of thing than it is a 'real' crime.
   47. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: February 08, 2018 at 04:50 PM (#5622216)
Puig's only offense was showing up in the office and yelling at the secretary a few too many times.


Or maybe he yelled at Wasserman too many times?

I run a small business and have flat out told customers we were no longer able to supply the items they needed. I made up some excuse about regularity of supply or some such but the reality was these clients are difficult in variety of ways. The sort of customer whose demands are over the top all the time then never actually rewards the supplier for the time and hard work put into the partnership.

I've no doubt that many of you have done the same thing. You rid yourself of a troublesome client/customer at a short term financial cost but for a long term gain of sanity, integrity and eventual profitability.

Now I've no idea what has happened here but speculating about sexual harassment or the possibility of other criminal activities is silly, but I sympathise with the agency for declining to represent him if he's just really difficult in any manner of circumstances. At some point in time, the money just isn't worth it.
   48. bfan Posted: February 08, 2018 at 04:54 PM (#5622220)
Which is a major reason why our society sucks. The idea that corporations have no responsibility except to the bottom line is highly corrosive to civil society.


The bottom line is their responsibility, and it is not out there guessing what their shareholders say is good and right, and what is not, or responding to whatever the pop culture says is a cool thing to do (unless it can increase their sales and profits and the return they pay to me).

Let's get to the easy stuff first; companies have to obey the law (and there are penalties if they do not). So they pay the required wage (or a market wage, if higher); they do not discriminate in their hiring practices on the basis of whatever list of protected classes the law then recognizes. They sell products that are safe (because the civil law system will find them, if they do not, and the FDA or like agency may have something to say about that too).

But this notion of companies giving away their time and shareholder money to pet causes is ridiculous. If I become CEO of a major company and I was fat-shamed as a child, and want to give gobs of money to camps for fat boys to get them in shape, that is okay? What if I was a sex addict as a young adult and suffered horribly from the impulses and desires which were baked into my DNA, and thus not my fault? Putting in money to the Harvey Weinstein defense fund is okay, because I understand the desires and pressures he felt? Is that okay?

"Companies" giving away their money is just another way of letting the CEO's have another perk-they can favor their favorite charity, and get love adulation and an award and a seat at the speaker's table, because they gave away some of my money. I would much rather they return that money to me, so that I can put the money in my own favorite cause, to better the earth and its inhabitants the way I see fit.
   49. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 08, 2018 at 05:05 PM (#5622231)
The bottom line is their responsibility, and it is not out there guessing what their shareholders say is good and right, and what is not, or responding to whatever the pop culture says is a cool thing to do (unless it can increase their sales and profits and the return they pay to me).

Let's get to the easy stuff first; companies have to obey the law (and there are penalties if they do not). So they pay the required wage (or a market wage, if higher); they do not discriminate in their hiring practices on the basis of whatever list of protected classes the law then recognizes. They sell products that are safe (because the civil law system will find them, if they do not, and the FDA or like agency may have something to say about that too).

But this notion of companies giving away their time and shareholder money to pet causes is ridiculous. If I become CEO of a major company and I was fat-shamed as a child, and want to give gobs of money to camps for fat boys to get them in shape, that is okay? What if I was a sex addict as a young adult and suffered horribly from the impulses and desires which were baked into my DNA, and thus not my fault? Putting in money to the Harvey Weinstein defense fund is okay, because I understand the desires and pressures he felt? Is that okay?

"Companies" giving away their money is just another way of letting the CEO's have another perk-they can favor their favorite charity, and get love adulation and an award and a seat at the speaker's table, because they gave away some of my money. I would much rather they return that money to me, so that I can put the money in my own favorite cause, to better the earth and its inhabitants the way I see fit.


I'm not talking about giving away money. I'm talking about treating employees, suppliers, customers, and the communities where you operate decently. Cutthroat capitalism is a societal choice, not a natural law.

I'm talking about having a fair partnership with your suppliers, not trying to use market power the erode all their profitability and transfer it to you. I'm talking about taking care of your employees, and not outsourcing or offshoring them, or slashing their benefits just to save a few pennies per share. I'm talking about giving your customers a quality product at a reasonable price, and not trying to cut corners, and exploit local monopolies to earn outsize profits.

Shareholders have no right to maximal returns if it makes the country as a whole worse off.

If it were up to me, I'd take an anti-trust meat axe to the situation. Any company with more than 20% market share in the country, or 30% market share in a major local market would be automatically deemed in violation of anti-trust, and be broken up, or regulated as a utility.
   50. AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther Posted: February 08, 2018 at 05:11 PM (#5622236)

Let's get to the easy stuff first; companies have to obey the law (and there are penalties if they do not). So they pay the required wage (or a market wage, if higher); they do not discriminate in their hiring practices on the basis of whatever list of protected classes the law then recognizes. They sell products that are safe (because the civil law system will find them, if they do not, and the FDA or like agency may have something to say about that too).
If maximizing returns is all that matters, wouldn't it be appropriate for companies to obey the law only to the extent that not doing so (probability of getting caught/fines/reputational damage) projects to be less profitable for their shareholders in the long run? Are we saying corporations are people, but have an ethical obligation to be psychopaths?
   51. bfan Posted: February 08, 2018 at 05:13 PM (#5622239)
I'm talking about having a fair partnership with your suppliers, not trying to use market power the erode all their profitability and transfer it to you. I'm talking about taking care of your employees, and not outsourcing or offshoring them, or slashing their benefits just to save a few pennies per share. I'm talking about giving your customers a quality product at a reasonable price, and not trying to cut corners, and exploit local monopolies to earn outsize profits.


This is a nice concept in a vacuum, but I am not sure how 2 parties in a transaction can determine what a fair price is, other than what the consumer is willing to pay and what the provider is willing to give up its product for. This is a baseball site and a pretty nice place to put this on display. Should the Red Sox tomorrow offer J.D. Martinez 20% more than they have previously offered, because (a) they can afford it, and (b) it is "fair". Or, should JD Martinez, seeing that the Reds have sucked for so long, take 10% less and play for them for the next 5 years, because by gosh, 5 years at $100 million is "fair", and it isn't fair that every year the Red Sox succeed on the field and the Reds do not?
   52. vortex of dissipation Posted: February 08, 2018 at 05:37 PM (#5622255)
Should the Red Sox tomorrow offer J.D. Martinez 20% more than they have previously offered, because (a) they can afford it, and (b) it is "fair". Or, should JD Martinez, seeing that the Reds have sucked for so long, take 10% less and play for them for the next 5 years, because by gosh, 5 years at $100 million is "fair", and it isn't fair that every year the Red Sox succeed on the field and the Reds do not?


Over the last eight seasons, the Red Sox have made the playoffs three times and finished last three times. The Reds have made the playoffs three times and finished last three times.
   53. Astroenteritis Posted: February 08, 2018 at 05:53 PM (#5622270)
Which is a major reason why our society sucks. The idea that corporations have no responsibility except to the bottom line is highly corrosive to civil society.


Snapper, you're not a monster at all, are you? Though I would just simplify this to, "corporations are highly corrosive to civil society."
   54. Joe Bivens Recognizes the Kenyan Precedent Posted: February 08, 2018 at 07:00 PM (#5622301)
If it were up to me, I'd take an anti-trust meat axe to the situation. Any company with more than 20% market share in the country, or 30% market share in a major local market would be automatically deemed in violation of anti-trust, and be broken up, or regulated as a utility.


Who ARE you?

You commie dog, you. No wonder you aren't in OTP any more. You changed teams!
   55. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: February 08, 2018 at 07:08 PM (#5622302)
If maximizing returns is all that matters, wouldn't it be appropriate for companies to obey the law only to the extent that not doing so (probability of getting caught/fines/reputational damage) projects to be less profitable for their shareholders in the long run?
Isn't this exactly what VW did wrt selling cars in America that were gamed to beat emissions testing? That the company weighed compliance against cheating plus the potential penalties for getting caught - and cheating was the winner?

In a related note, if I ever find myself running a university's athletic department, one of my first steps is to hire amoral quants to run the numbers on winning a title through cheating (factoring in any penalties levied long after the confetti's been swept up) vs. running a clean program.

Are we saying corporations are people, but have an ethical obligation to be psychopaths?
That theory has been on the table a long time.
   56. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 08, 2018 at 07:18 PM (#5622306)
Snapper, you're not a monster at all, are you? Though I would just simplify this to, "corporations are highly corrosive to civil society."

Large corporations. There's nothing wrong with corporations per say, but once they gain any market power, they should be broken up.

Who ARE you?

You commie dog, you. No wonder you aren't in OTP any more. You changed teams!


I'm a real conservative, not the neo-liberal imposters of the last 30 years. Economically, I'm a distributist. I'm against any large organization wielding economic power (corporate, union, or Gov't).
   57. Jeff Frances the Mute Posted: February 08, 2018 at 08:00 PM (#5622317)
People are definitely overthinking this situation. Puig's original agent, who represented him for his original $42 million contract, was Jaime Torres. He jumped to Wasserman a few years ago and they have spent a lot of time and effort to rehabilitate his image. Now he is getting close to signing another big contract (at least in theory) and is entertaining switching agencies again. Everybody knows that Puig is high maintenance and if you aren't going to get a cut of the big payday why would put up with him?
   58. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: February 08, 2018 at 08:11 PM (#5622320)
No wonder you aren't in OTP any more. You changed teams!


I'm a real conservative, not the neo-liberal imposters of the last 30 years.


Sounds like snapper doesn't have a team anymore.
   59. ReggieThomasLives Posted: February 08, 2018 at 09:00 PM (#5622328)
Most interesting part of the McDaniels situation was his agent threw a hissy fit because Josh backed out of an agreement with the Colts GM, who gapoens to also be a client of the SAME AGENT. Mr. Ethical was representing both sides in the negotiation! How likely do you think it was the agent was hugely invested in Josh taking the Colts gig so his GM client could look good, and be very grateful to said agent?
   60. Rennie's Tenet Posted: February 08, 2018 at 09:09 PM (#5622334)
I don't think it would be appropriate to send out a press release even over criminal behavior. As some have said above, there are official outlets that would release that sort of information. For this to make any sense, it would almost have to be something regarding the relationship between the parties, like that Puig had somehow muddied the waters over who represents him.
   61. manchestermets Posted: February 09, 2018 at 04:55 AM (#5622403)
You changed teams!


He didn't change teams. He's a single issue voter, and will cast his vote on that issue to the extent that he'll hold the Yankees shortstop to a higher standard of sexual conduct than he will the president.


But this notion of companies giving away their time and shareholder money to pet causes is ridiculous. If I become CEO of a major company and I was fat-shamed as a child, and want to give gobs of money to camps for fat boys to get them in shape, that is okay? What if I was a sex addict as a young adult and suffered horribly from the impulses and desires which were baked into my DNA, and thus not my fault? Putting in money to the Harvey Weinstein defense fund is okay, because I understand the desires and pressures he felt? Is that okay?


This is pure distraction. The nebulous concept of a CEO giving the company's money to his own favoured causes has no bearing on a company putting the safety of its employees above profitability.
   62. Zach Posted: February 09, 2018 at 12:34 PM (#5622565)
Most interesting part of the McDaniels situation was his agent threw a hissy fit because Josh backed out of an agreement with the Colts GM

I disagree. McDaniels backed out after an agreement had already been reached. That's very unprofessional behavior, and it puts the agent on the spot, too.
   63. Sunday silence Posted: February 09, 2018 at 06:59 PM (#5622818)
The speculation here is over the top. It is quite possible we may never find out what happened.

I have had to withdraw from representing clients on a number of occasions. One them completely insulted my secretary to the extent of getting sexual with it. Another one accused me of ripping them off and then wanted me to continue to represent them.

I have a friend that works for a very large legal firm and they had a client who's pretty well known in their industry he showed up for a meeting with a loaded revolver in his brief case.

"Yeah, um. We wont be representing you, sir. Have a nice day."

THe point is there could be anything like this and maybe something totally different. There are any number of ways to spoil a client relationship.
   64. The Duke Posted: February 09, 2018 at 09:39 PM (#5622862)
Have you issued a public statement saying you are withdrawing? That seems over the top
   65. Meatwad Posted: February 09, 2018 at 11:52 PM (#5622911)
Mlb players who represents tbem tracked by outlets like mlbtr so it makes sense to announce it before anything comes back,to,bite you for it.
   66. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: February 10, 2018 at 09:44 AM (#5622954)
Aren't agents required to inform MLB of which players they represent? This was going to come out one way or another.
   67. Rennie's Tenet Posted: February 10, 2018 at 10:21 AM (#5622962)
Is the text the agency sent reported anywhere?

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Darren
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 19 February 2018: Does Buster Posey Have a Post-playing Career in Politics?
(1776 - 2:36am, Feb 24)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 2-23-2018
(23 - 2:04am, Feb 24)
Last: Batman

NewsblogOT - 2017-18 NBA thread (All-Star Weekend to End of Time edition)
(201 - 1:12am, Feb 24)
Last: smileyy

NewsblogInside Baseball MLB Notes | Hanley Ramirez Ready For Comeback
(40 - 12:11am, Feb 24)
Last: Mudpout

NewsblogInside Mickey Callaway’s steps toward modernizing the Mets | New York Post
(15 - 10:45pm, Feb 23)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogMLB Should Embrace Rule That Lets Teams Bat Anyone They Want In 9th Inning
(137 - 8:34pm, Feb 23)
Last: RMc's Unenviable Situation

NewsblogWhat if the Rays actually have a good plan?
(44 - 6:55pm, Feb 23)
Last: Itsdrainageeli

NewsblogOT: Winter Soccer Thread
(779 - 5:33pm, Feb 23)
Last: The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott)

NewsblogRays trade Odorizzi to Twins, acquire Cron from Angels, DFA All-Star Dickerson
(70 - 4:52pm, Feb 23)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogInside Baseball | Picking Jake Arrieta's New Team
(8 - 4:20pm, Feb 23)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

Gonfalon CubsFinally
(68 - 2:55pm, Feb 23)
Last: Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington

NewsblogDanny Farquhar’s data-centric approach paying dividends for Lucas Giolito – The Athletic
(20 - 2:21pm, Feb 23)
Last: This is going to be state of the art wall

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1940 Ballot
(7 - 1:24pm, Feb 23)
Last: DL from MN

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1940 Discussion
(29 - 1:05pm, Feb 23)
Last: DL from MN

NewsblogTaking Back the Ballparks - Angels voting thread
(30 - 11:33am, Feb 23)
Last: Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB)

Page rendered in 0.4070 seconds
47 querie(s) executed