Fox Sports: Ramirez SIGNS WITH CUBS!

[goonys evil twin]

I don't think its comparable at all. I don't think Ramirez jumps on 4/48 knowing he will get at least that much and likely more with one more good season. What's his incentive? Even if he has a bad year, he will still be only 30 when he is a free agent and is very likely to get at least $12 million a year for two years at that point. If he was 35 years old your argument might make more sense but not for a 28 year old. Signing that extension is far more likely to cost him money than make him money so why would he do it? As it is now, he is in the driver's seat - chances are his agents are savvy enough to see that coming and with a guaranteed fallback 2 year deal, there is no reason he would have negotiated. Giving him the out clause created this situation.

 

It is clearly comparable. He was a free agent to be. Lee was a free agent to be. Ramirez had less incentive, but he still had incentive.

 

Somebody made the claim that free agents with confidence in themselves don't sign before going through with free agency. Obviously Lee did. And Ramirez did last time. There is a comparison, saying otherwise is a just an outright lie.

[CubinNY]

I don't think its comparable at all. I don't think Ramirez jumps on 4/48 knowing he will get at least that much and likely more with one more good season. What's his incentive? Even if he has a bad year, he will still be only 30 when he is a free agent and is very likely to get at least $12 million a year for two years at that point. If he was 35 years old your argument might make more sense but not for a 28 year old. Signing that extension is far more likely to cost him money than make him money so why would he do it? As it is now, he is in the driver's seat - chances are his agents are savvy enough to see that coming and with a guaranteed fallback 2 year deal, there is no reason he would have negotiated. Giving him the out clause created this situation.

 

It is clearly comparable. He was a free agent to be. Lee was a free agent to be. Ramirez had less incentive, but he still had incentive.

 

Somebody made the claim that free agents with confidence in themselves don't sign before going through with free agency. Obviously Lee did. And Ramirez did last time. There is a comparison, saying otherwise is a just an outright lie.

 

I also don't think this is just about the money. If the Cubs go to Aramis and tell him they want him around and would like to work out an extension before the opt-out clause kicks in, I think he talks. The Cubs might not have liked to hear what he said, but at least they are talking. Now Hendry is holding none of the cards.

[Guest]

I don't think its comparable at all. I don't think Ramirez jumps on 4/48 knowing he will get at least that much and likely more with one more good season. What's his incentive? Even if he has a bad year, he will still be only 30 when he is a free agent and is very likely to get at least $12 million a year for two years at that point. If he was 35 years old your argument might make more sense but not for a 28 year old. Signing that extension is far more likely to cost him money than make him money so why would he do it? As it is now, he is in the driver's seat - chances are his agents are savvy enough to see that coming and with a guaranteed fallback 2 year deal, there is no reason he would have negotiated. Giving him the out clause created this situation.

 

It is clearly comparable. He was a free agent to be. Lee was a free agent to be. Ramirez had less incentive, but he still had incentive.

 

Somebody made the claim that free agents with confidence in themselves don't sign before going through with free agency. Obviously Lee did. And Ramirez did last time. There is a comparison, saying otherwise is a just an outright lie.

 

 

no, the lie is that the situations are comparable. Ramirez had a guaranteed contract for two more years. Lee didn't. not the same thing. pretty obvious.

[RyCubsFan]

I don't think its comparable at all. I don't think Ramirez jumps on 4/48 knowing he will get at least that much and likely more with one more good season. What's his incentive? Even if he has a bad year, he will still be only 30 when he is a free agent and is very likely to get at least $12 million a year for two years at that point. If he was 35 years old your argument might make more sense but not for a 28 year old. Signing that extension is far more likely to cost him money than make him money so why would he do it? As it is now, he is in the driver's seat - chances are his agents are savvy enough to see that coming and with a guaranteed fallback 2 year deal, there is no reason he would have negotiated. Giving him the out clause created this situation.

 

It is clearly comparable. He was a free agent to be. Lee was a free agent to be. Ramirez had less incentive, but he still had incentive.

 

Somebody made the claim that free agents with confidence in themselves don't sign before going through with free agency. Obviously Lee did. And Ramirez did last time. There is a comparison, saying otherwise is a just an outright lie.

 

 

no, the lie is that the situations are comparable. Ramirez had a guaranteed contract for two more years. Lee didn't. not the same thing. pretty obvious.

 

In Ramirez' eyes, yes there was a guaranteed contract. But it should not have been a guaranteed contract in the Cubs eyes. They should not have treated it as guaranteed since Ramirez obviously had the option to leave at the end of the year. What Gooney suggests would have been wise on the Cubs part. If they had treated him as a free agent to be, Hendry might not be in this position today.

 

Hindsight, however, is 20/20. What if Hendry had upped the contract last spring--both in terms of annual salary and number of years--and Ramirez had an awful year? Suddenly, it would have made Hendry look bad for being impatient.

 

With Ramirez health issues in the past, and the fact he had only one season that approached the level of production that he ended up having this past season, I do think it was reasonable of Hendry to wait to offer a new contract.

[goonys evil twin]

I don't think its comparable at all. I don't think Ramirez jumps on 4/48 knowing he will get at least that much and likely more with one more good season. What's his incentive? Even if he has a bad year, he will still be only 30 when he is a free agent and is very likely to get at least $12 million a year for two years at that point. If he was 35 years old your argument might make more sense but not for a 28 year old. Signing that extension is far more likely to cost him money than make him money so why would he do it? As it is now, he is in the driver's seat - chances are his agents are savvy enough to see that coming and with a guaranteed fallback 2 year deal, there is no reason he would have negotiated. Giving him the out clause created this situation.

 

It is clearly comparable. He was a free agent to be. Lee was a free agent to be. Ramirez had less incentive, but he still had incentive.

 

Somebody made the claim that free agents with confidence in themselves don't sign before going through with free agency. Obviously Lee did. And Ramirez did last time. There is a comparison, saying otherwise is a just an outright lie.

 

 

no, the lie is that the situations are comparable. Ramirez had a guaranteed contract for two more years. Lee didn't. not the same thing. pretty obvious.

 

These are two different questions.

 

Somebody insinuated that pending free agents don't sign before going to free agency. I pointed out that Lee signed. And you said it's not comparable. You made a point, an inaccurate one, that was about a different topic. Pending free agents do not always wait for free agency before signing.

 

Secondly, there is a difference between saying something is comparable, and saying something is exactly the same. It's ignorant to claim these situations are not comparable. Ramirez was a pending free agent. Lee was a pending free agent. Ramirez had less motivation to sign, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a pending free agent. You might have had to offer more than you offered Lee, but you still have to do that now, regardless.

 

I never said Lee and Ramirez's situations were exactly the same. But they indeed were comparable. The comparison is the Cubs risked losing both at the end of 2006. They chose to resign Lee, they chose to wait on Ramirez, and by all indications, assumed he wouldn't use his option, or hold out for big money. Yes, Ramirez had a better fallback option that made it easier not to sign, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have signed him less then than what they will have to sign him for now.

[Guest]

from the Cubs standpoint they are comparable. from the players' standpoint they are not at all comparable. to say Ramirez might have signed an extension earlier because Lee did is a non-sequitir. Lee and Ramirez were not in comparable situations. Your statement is incorrect. I'm not saying Ramirez wouldn't have signed an extension, but using Lee's extension as an example of a similar situation is not at all accurate because you are looking from the player's standpoint.

[goonys evil twin]

Hindsight, however, is 20/20. What if Hendry had upped the contract last spring--both in terms of annual salary and number of years--and Ramirez had an awful year? Suddenly, it would have made Hendry look bad for being impatient.

 

With Ramirez health issues in the past, and the fact he had only one season that approached the level of production that he ended up having this past season, I do think it was reasonable of Hendry to wait to offer a new contract.

 

Ramirez was as productive in 2004 and 2005 as he was in 2006. He was nearly as productive in 2001. He had a setback in 2002 and 2003, but he's 28. 28 year olds who have had good careers so far and are coming off 2 straight very good years, aren't good candidates to fall off the face of the earth, production wise. Say what you will about health, but Aramis has had over 500 PA every year since becoming a regular, and has only been below 600 twice in that time. It's not just 20/20 hindsight. Ramirez has been the Cubs best hitter over the past 3 years. He was signed a pretty cheap contract, but had free agency rights. Hendry kept reassuring the public that he knew Ramirez wanted to stay a Cub, but he didn't do much to insure that happened.

[goonys evil twin]

from the Cubs standpoint they are comparable. from the players' standpoint they are not at all comparable. to say Ramirez might have signed an extension earlier because Lee did is a non-sequitir. Lee and Ramirez were not in comparable situations. Your statement is incorrect. I'm not saying Ramirez wouldn't have signed an extension, but using Lee's extension as an example of a similar situation is not at all accurate because you are looking from the player's standpoint.

 

You clearly don't understand what comparable means. It does not mean exactly the same.

 

I brought up Lee because of the statement that free agents never sign early.

[RichHillIsABeast]

from the Cubs standpoint they are comparable. from the players' standpoint they are not at all comparable. to say Ramirez might have signed an extension earlier because Lee did is a non-sequitir. Lee and Ramirez were not in comparable situations. Your statement is incorrect. I'm not saying Ramirez wouldn't have signed an extension, but using Lee's extension as an example of a similar situation is not at all accurate because you are looking from the player's standpoint.

 

You clearly don't understand what comparable means. It does not mean exactly the same.

 

I brought up Lee because of the statement that free agents never sign early.

 

Comparable? Yes. A good comparison? No.

[CubinNY]

from the Cubs standpoint they are comparable. from the players' standpoint they are not at all comparable. to say Ramirez might have signed an extension earlier because Lee did is a non-sequitir. Lee and Ramirez were not in comparable situations. Your statement is incorrect. I'm not saying Ramirez wouldn't have signed an extension, but using Lee's extension as an example of a similar situation is not at all accurate because you are looking from the player's standpoint.

 

You clearly don't understand what comparable means. It does not mean exactly the same.

 

I brought up Lee because of the statement that free agents never sign early.

 

Comparable? Yes. A good comparison? No.

 

Instead of signing when he did Lee could have waited until the end of the season and test free agency.

 

Instead of waiting to see if Aramis would test free agency at the end of the season the Cubs could have made an offer to him.

 

Both would have been free agents at the end of the season.

 

A good compaision, I think so.

[Geech]

Instead of signing when he did Lee could have waited until the end of the season and test free agency.

 

Instead of waiting to see if Aramis would test free agency at the end of the season the Cubs could have made an offer to him.

 

Both would have been free agents at the end of the season.

 

A good compaision, I think so.

 

I agree. People are being way too anal about that comparison and missing goony's very valid point because of it.

[RichHillIsABeast]

Instead of signing when he did Lee could have waited until the end of the season and test free agency.

 

Instead of waiting to see if Aramis would test free agency at the end of the season the Cubs could have made an offer to him.

 

Both would have been free agents at the end of the season.

 

A good compaision, I think so.

 

I agree. People are being way too anal about that comparison and missing goony's very valid point because of it.

 

There's nothing anal about it.

 

There's a huge difference. The insurance that Aramis had makes him unlikely to sign another contract unless Hendry just felt like giving money away. You only sign another deal if it's better than what you have (more money and years). Ramirez had over 30MM coming his way and DLee had nothing guaranteed. You think Hendry was going to offer him more than 3/33M he had left at that point (not to mention the option tacked on at the end)? Get real.

 

BTW, I don't remember having heard or read of anyone saying we should get Ramirez to sign another contract pre-empting the use of that opt out clause (talking before ST, not after his hot streak). NO ONE.

 

20/20 hindsight is great.

 

I do remember loads of people complaining about that opt out clause. People saw what was coming. Aramis would play his 2 years, opt for FA if he played well, and get more money. The only way he stays with us for the life of that contract is if he underperforms. Crappy contract for the Cubs. Great for Ramirez.

[CubinNY]

Instead of signing when he did Lee could have waited until the end of the season and test free agency.

 

Instead of waiting to see if Aramis would test free agency at the end of the season the Cubs could have made an offer to him.

 

Both would have been free agents at the end of the season.

 

A good compaision, I think so.

 

I agree. People are being way too anal about that comparison and missing goony's very valid point because of it.

 

There's nothing anal about it.

 

There's a huge difference. The insurance that Aramis had makes him unlikely to sign another contract unless Hendry just felt like giving money away. You only sign another deal if it's better than what you have (more money and years). Ramirez had over 30MM coming his way and DLee had nothing guaranteed. You think Hendry was going to offer him more than 3/33M he had left at that point (not to mention the option tacked on at the end)? Get real.

 

BTW, I don't remember having heard or read of anyone saying we should get Ramirez to sign another contract pre-empting the use of that opt out clause. NO ONE.

 

20/20 hindsight is great.

 

I do remember loads of people complaining about that opt out clause. People saw what was coming. Aramis would play his 2 years, opt for FA if he played well, and get more money. The only way he stays with us for the life of that contract is if he underperforms. Crappy contract for the Cubs. Great for Ramirez.

 

you've only been on this site since Aug 21st. People were talking about it at this time last year.

[RichHillIsABeast]

you've only been on this site since Aug 6th. People were talking about it at this time last year.

 

Not true - on both counts.

[CubinNY]

you've only been on this site since Aug 6th. People were talking about it at this time last year.

 

Not true - on both counts.

 

I'm just going by what on your avatar.

 

And it is true.

[RichHillIsABeast]

you've only been on this site since Aug 6th. People were talking about it at this time last year.

 

Not true - on both counts.

 

I'm just going by what on your avatar.

 

And it is true.

 

Any proof?

[Yeti]

you've only been on this site since Aug 6th. People were talking about it at this time last year.

 

Not true - on both counts.

 

I'm just going by what on your avatar.

 

And it is true.

 

Any proof?

possibly ive lost my ability to read numbers, but it clearly says "joined: 21 aug 2006" right under your avatar pic

[Mizzou]

you've only been on this site since Aug 6th. People were talking about it at this time last year.

 

Not true - on both counts.

 

I'm just going by what on your avatar.

 

And it is true.

 

Any proof?

possibly ive lost my ability to read numbers, but it clearly says "joined: 21 aug 2006" right under your avatar pic

Prove it.

[RichHillIsABeast]

you've only been on this site since Aug 6th. People were talking about it at this time last year.

 

Not true - on both counts.

 

I'm just going by what on your avatar.

 

And it is true.

 

Any proof?

possibly ive lost my ability to read numbers, but it clearly says "joined: 21 aug 2006" right under your avatar pic

 

It's not my first account. :wink:

 

Also, he said "Aug 6th," so at least you can read numbers. He can't. :lol:

[Ding Dong Johnson]

B&

[Mizzou]

B&

I would hope not. I haven't seen any posts from him that warrant that.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

B&

I would hope not. I haven't seen any posts from him that warrant that.

 

What about this one?

 

It's not my first account. :wink:

[Yeti]

Instead of signing when he did Lee could have waited until the end of the season and test free agency.

 

Instead of waiting to see if Aramis would test free agency at the end of the season the Cubs could have made an offer to him.

 

Both would have been free agents at the end of the season.

 

A good compaision, I think so.

 

I agree. People are being way too anal about that comparison and missing goony's very valid point because of it.

 

There's nothing anal about it.

 

There's a huge difference. The insurance that Aramis had makes him unlikely to sign another contract unless Hendry just felt like giving money away. You only sign another deal if it's better than what you have (more money and years). Ramirez had over 30MM coming his way and DLee had nothing guaranteed. You think Hendry was going to offer him more than 3/33M he had left at that point (not to mention the option tacked on at the end)? Get real.

 

BTW, I don't remember having heard or read of anyone saying we should get Ramirez to sign another contract pre-empting the use of that opt out clause. NO ONE.

 

20/20 hindsight is great.

 

I do remember loads of people complaining about that opt out clause. People saw what was coming. Aramis would play his 2 years, opt for FA if he played well, and get more money. The only way he stays with us for the life of that contract is if he underperforms. Crappy contract for the Cubs. Great for Ramirez.

 

you've only been on this site since Aug 21st. People were talking about it at this time last year.

seeing how this was his origional post on your joining date, and that it doesnt seem to have been edited, i'd have to assume that you did a little editing on your own while quoteing him

[RichHillIsABeast]

B&

I would hope not. I haven't seen any posts from him that warrant that.

 

What about this one?

 

It's not my first account. :wink:

 

What's with ppl and their assumptions today?

 

I could have been lurking a long time before joining. So maybe I actually have a clue what was said here long before I signed up.

 

And no, I wasn't banned.

[RichHillIsABeast]

seeing how this was his origional post on your joining date, and that it doesnt seem to have been edited, i'd have to assume that you did a little editing on your own while quoteing him

 

I didn't do that. Another poor assumption.