Fox Sports: Ramirez SIGNS WITH CUBS!

[nilodnayr]

I'm going to sum this up in bulletpoint style.

 

Ways this contract got screwed up:

 

-Including opt out clause to begin with (so you let him walk at the end of the year instead of giving him the sweetener?)

-not looking at the 2006 FA class and renegotiating after 2005

-not negotiating or trading figures during the season (what incentive does Ramirez have when he's healthy, producing and FA is coming close?)

-believing that Ramirez wouldn't opt out (the only thing Hendry can be legitimately faulted for, IMO)

-not dealing him at the deadline if they weren't going to take resigning him seriously. (No Trade Clause)

 

-not making this the #1 priority (before even Lou) (how do you know it wasn't? - the agent/Ramirez have no incentive not to take this to the wire or FA)

-nonchalantly going about the initial negotiations (any proof besides Sullivan?)

-playing chicken with the exclusivity deadline

(again, no incentive for the other side to make a deal)

 

 

This stuff doesn't happen in a vaccuum. Ramirez and his agents have an agenda that's quite different from Hendry's.

 

In response to the bolded points

 

First point...Kinzer said recently that the out clause pretty much came after the negotiations were basically complete (someone help me with the article)

 

Second point...The ASB great time to sit down and talk with your players. Plus he started off the season slow (which he usually does) so you have more leveraging power.

 

Third point...he could have waived it in exchange for an extension. Players don't ask for NTC because they know they dont want to move, they get them so they are in a position of power to demand more money in order to waive them.

 

Fourth point...if ARAM feels that the cubs offer is similar to what the Angels and Dodgers will offer and he wants to stay here, then whats his incentive to take it to the wire.

 

Fifth point...nonchalantness can be inferred by Hendry's comments in the press.

[RichHillIsABeast]

I'm going to sum this up in bulletpoint style.

 

Ways this contract got screwed up:

 

-Including opt out clause to begin with (so you let him walk at the end of the year instead of giving him the sweetener?)

-not looking at the 2006 FA class and renegotiating after 2005

-not negotiating or trading figures during the season (what incentive does Ramirez have when he's healthy, producing and FA is coming close?)

-believing that Ramirez wouldn't opt out (the only thing Hendry can be legitimately faulted for, IMO)

-not dealing him at the deadline if they weren't going to take resigning him seriously. (No Trade Clause)

 

-not making this the #1 priority (before even Lou) (how do you know it wasn't? - the agent/Ramirez have no incentive not to take this to the wire or FA)

-nonchalantly going about the initial negotiations (any proof besides Sullivan?)

-playing chicken with the exclusivity deadline

(again, no incentive for the other side to make a deal)

 

 

This stuff doesn't happen in a vaccuum. Ramirez and his agents have an agenda that's quite different from Hendry's.

 

In response to the bolded points

 

First point...Kinzer said recently that the out clause pretty much came after the negotiations were basically complete (someone help me with the article)

 

Second point...The ASB great time to sit down and talk with your players. Plus he started off the season slow (which he usually does) so you have more leveraging power.

 

Third point...he could have waived it in exchange for an extension. Players don't ask for NTC because they know they dont want to move, they get them so they are in a position of power to demand more money in order to waive them.

 

Fourth point...if ARAM feels that the cubs offer is similar to what the Angels and Dodgers will offer and he wants to stay here, then whats his incentive to take it to the wire.

 

Fifth point...nonchalantness can be inferred by Hendry's comments in the press.

 

1) Miles recently said that was Katz swooping in at the last minute with sweeteners to get the deal done...or (I assume) Ramirez is willing to walk

 

2) Ramirez signs a locked in longer term deal while his value has plummeted?...when he has the opt out clause and 2 more guaranteed years? No way.

 

3) Yeah, he wants an extension on a crappy team. I'll trade my NTC for that. Sure.

 

4) That's nice and hypothetical. He can always come crawling back to the Cubs after he opts for FA.

 

Ramirez has all the options and power here, not the Cubs. They don't have the power to force him to sign a new contract.

 

 

You guys need to think from Ramirez's/agent's POV, not a fans'.

[nilodnayr]

I'm going to sum this up in bulletpoint style.

 

Ways this contract got screwed up:

 

-Including opt out clause to begin with (so you let him walk at the end of the year instead of giving him the sweetener?)

-not looking at the 2006 FA class and renegotiating after 2005

-not negotiating or trading figures during the season (what incentive does Ramirez have when he's healthy, producing and FA is coming close?)

-believing that Ramirez wouldn't opt out (the only thing Hendry can be legitimately faulted for, IMO)

-not dealing him at the deadline if they weren't going to take resigning him seriously. (No Trade Clause)

 

-not making this the #1 priority (before even Lou) (how do you know it wasn't? - the agent/Ramirez have no incentive not to take this to the wire or FA)

-nonchalantly going about the initial negotiations (any proof besides Sullivan?)

-playing chicken with the exclusivity deadline

(again, no incentive for the other side to make a deal)

 

 

This stuff doesn't happen in a vaccuum. Ramirez and his agents have an agenda that's quite different from Hendry's.

 

In response to the bolded points

 

First point...Kinzer said recently that the out clause pretty much came after the negotiations were basically complete (someone help me with the article)

 

Second point...The ASB great time to sit down and talk with your players. Plus he started off the season slow (which he usually does) so you have more leveraging power.

 

Third point...he could have waived it in exchange for an extension. Players don't ask for NTC because they know they dont want to move, they get them so they are in a position of power to demand more money in order to waive them.

 

Fourth point...if ARAM feels that the cubs offer is similar to what the Angels and Dodgers will offer and he wants to stay here, then whats his incentive to take it to the wire.

 

Fifth point...nonchalantness can be inferred by Hendry's comments in the press.

 

1) Miles recently said that was Katz swooping in at the last minute with sweeteners to get the deal done...or (I assume) Ramirez is willing to walk

.

 

Ahh, yes, thats right. Thanks for remembering that. Although the "or Ramirez is willing to walk" was definitely an assumption considering ARAM signed 4/05 when he had another year left on his contract, so it wasn't exactly like he was about to walk...and the fact that ARAM signed an extension a year before hitting the market puts a damper on a lot of your assumptions of he and his agents taking advantage of their leveraging position.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

I'm sick and tired of 20/20 hindsight. Show me where anyone advocated signing Ramirez to a new contract this past winter. Until that happens, your POV is all 20/20 hindsight.

 

I thought you visited this board a lot before you registed? If you did, you'd have noted a lot of people wanted Aramis re-signed before it got to this, and everyone hated the opt-out clause.

 

Thanks for handling that via PM, Raisin. Anything else I say on the subject will be conducted off these boards, thank you.

 

Where did I say that no one complained about the opt out clause? I was against that at the time too.

 

I don't remember one person, much less all those up in arms about the present situation calling for a new contract this past winter (which is ridiculously implausible anyway).

 

Either way, there were posters who wanted to have Aramis re-signed (or an effort made) last offseason itself and posted as much.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

You're wrong. I did. I'm sure others thought it might be smart, too. And even if MacPhail put the clause in (which I still doubt, BTW), how exactly does that absolve Hendry for allowing it to come to this?

 

Bruce Miles himself said that MacPhail added the opt-out clause (after Katz came in at the last moment with the opt-out clause request, as RHIAB pointed out).

[RichHillIsABeast]

I'm sick and tired of 20/20 hindsight. Show me where anyone advocated signing Ramirez to a new contract this past winter. Until that happens, your POV is all 20/20 hindsight.

 

I thought you visited this board a lot before you registed? If you did, you'd have noted a lot of people wanted Aramis re-signed before it got to this, and everyone hated the opt-out clause.

 

Thanks for handling that via PM, Raisin. Anything else I say on the subject will be conducted off these boards, thank you.

 

Where did I say that no one complained about the opt out clause? I was against that at the time too.

 

I don't remember one person, much less all those up in arms about the present situation calling for a new contract this past winter (which is ridiculously implausible anyway).

 

Either way, there were posters who wanted to have Aramis re-signed (or an effort made) last offseason itself and posted as much.

 

That's fine. Ramirez still wouldn't have signed an extension (unless it was a ridiculous offer). He had 3 guaranteed years (at near market value at the time) and the potential to hit FA in a year.

 

FA is how you make money. We aren't talking about poor/middle class citizen's here. Ramirez was already set for life. When you are set like that, you can take risks. You play out your contract and opt for FA where the big dollars are. Extensions should be called hometown discounts. That's what they really are.

 

Agents are out to make the most money possible. What do you think they would have advised Ramirez to do 1 year ago? Sign another extension with the Cubs? Heck no. Free agency, baby!!

[CubColtPacer]

I would agree that it would have been very hard to sign Ramirez to a new deal last offseason. Here's the problem. Ramirez knows that if he has a good year, he likely will get 15+ on the open market, and if he has a bad year, he can take the 11+ for the next 2 seasons. Also, he knows that his next contract will be one of his last huge ones-if he signs a 5 year extension after last year, he won't come out of the extension until he's 33. He's not going to take 5/60 under that scenario because he knows with 1 good year he can get more, and even if he doesn't get more then, he has 2 more years at 11 per that he can prove himself again to get more. It would have taken probably 5/70 or more to get him to sign last offseason, and now it probably has gone up to 5/75 or 5/80.

[USSoccer]

So basically, Hendry has no power, ever? All deals and negotiations are solely in the hands of the player and the agent?

 

Please. Hendry could have gotten this done. I refuse to believe the weak rationalization that Hendry is a victim of circumstance and a greedy player/agent combo. This could have been avoided. Nothing you can say will make me change my mind about any of my points. If Hendry truly is unable to find a way to get deals done before a player hits FA he should be fired...but wait, he signed Lee a full season before FA and after a mega-career year!! How was it in Lee's interest not to test the open market, like you claim Aramis was always going to do? Could it be because Hendry offered more years and more money up fron without having to deal with FA?

[CubColtPacer]

So basically, Hendry has no power, ever? All deals and negotiations are solely in the hands of the player and the agent?

 

Please. Hendry could have gotten this done. I refuse to believe the weak rationalization that Hendry is a victim of circumstance and a greedy player/agent combo. This could have been avoided. Nothing you can say will make me change my mind about any of my points. If Hendry truly is unable to find a way to get deals done before a player hits FA he should be fired...but wait, he signed Lee a full season before FA and after a mega-career year!! How was it in Lee's interest not to test the open market, like you claim Aramis was always going to do? Could it be because Hendry offered more years and more money up fron without having to deal with FA?

 

I still think the big difference between Aramis and Lee is that Lee would only have 1 year to prove himself. Lee knew if he got hurt in 2006, then his money might go way down-so he took a deal that would be below his market value (can you imagine if Lee had a good year this year how much his market value would be also?)

 

Aramis knew if he had a bad year, he still had 2 more years at great money to prove himself before FA, and if he had a good year, then he could hit FA now and cash in. It's much, much less of a gamble for Aramis because he makes over 10 million either way-which makes the amount of money needed to get him to agree to an extension much, much more last year.

[goonys evil twin]

So basically, Hendry has no power, ever? All deals and negotiations are solely in the hands of the player and the agent?

 

Please. Hendry could have gotten this done. I refuse to believe the weak rationalization that Hendry is a victim of circumstance and a greedy player/agent combo. This could have been avoided. Nothing you can say will make me change my mind about any of my points. If Hendry truly is unable to find a way to get deals done before a player hits FA he should be fired...but wait, he signed Lee a full season before FA and after a mega-career year!! How was it in Lee's interest not to test the open market, like you claim Aramis was always going to do? Could it be because Hendry offered more years and more money up fron without having to deal with FA?

 

I still think the big difference between Aramis and Lee is that Lee would only have 1 year to prove himself. Lee knew if he got hurt in 2006, then his money might go way down-so he took a deal that would be below his market value (can you imagine if Lee had a good year this year how much his market value would be also?)

 

Aramis knew if he had a bad year, he still had 2 more years at great money to prove himself before FA, and if he had a good year, then he could hit FA now and cash in. It's much, much less of a gamble for Aramis because he makes over 10 million either way-which makes the amount of money needed to get him to agree to an extension much, much more last year.

 

Obviously there was a significant difference in the situations. It's not exactly the same. Lee had more incentive to sign than Ramirez. But that doesn't mean he couldn't sign Ramirez.

[UBlink]

Here's a hypothetical. Suppose Hendry thinks ARam and his agents have seriously over-estimated his value in the FA market, both now and last year. If ARam thinks he can get 5/90 but Hendry thinks the market will go no higher than 4/60, no deal will ever get done until he actually gets to test the market. In that situation it's probably not in Hendry's best interests to really try and knock his value in negotiations, but rather to make what he considers a fair and generous offer but leave the door open for further negotiations after other offers have been received.

[TheDude]

So basically, Hendry has no power, ever? All deals and negotiations are solely in the hands of the player and the agent?

 

Flip-flopping from one extreme to the other without consideration of a middle isn't going to resolve the argument.

 

You have repeatedly trashed Hendry, and Hendry alone, for the Ramirez situation. All people have been trying to accomplish is to show that Ramirez and his agent hold more more sway on this process than Hendry. Two parties, one has has more leverage. That's it.

[USSoccer]

So basically, Hendry has no power, ever? All deals and negotiations are solely in the hands of the player and the agent?

 

Flip-flopping from one extreme to the other without consideration of a middle isn't going to resolve the argument.

 

You have repeatedly trashed Hendry, and Hendry alone, for the Ramirez situation. All people have been trying to accomplish is to show that Ramirez and his agent hold more more sway on this process than Hendry. Two parties, one has has more leverage. That's it.

 

You're wrong. People have been trying to absolve Hendry of any culpability throughout this process. Just because a player has more leverage doesn't mean you can't do something to get him signed.

 

Hendry has shown no urgency to this situation, as if he's negotiating with a 5th starter or a utility IF. He could have begun talks last year. He could have felt Aramis out at the ASB to see if he was going to opt out. He could have tried to trade him, NTC or not, if he felt that Aramis was going to test the open market.

 

What we know is that Hendry didn't think Aramis was going to opt out. He badly misread the situation, and assumed he could negotiate at a snails pace, without any urgency, and Ramirez would sign. He was wrong. There is now info (Sullivan or not) that Hendry has no plans to meet with Paul Kinzer. In 48 hours, Aramis won't be a Cub, we won't have exclusivity, and we'll have to outbid other teams for a prime FA, which is something this club has never done.

 

At what point do you stop apologizing for our "nice guy" GM and admit that over the past 12 months there were steps he could have taken, poor leverage or not, to get Ramirez signed, or at least get value for him?

[tgk]

So basically, Hendry has no power, ever? All deals and negotiations are solely in the hands of the player and the agent?

 

Please. Hendry could have gotten this done. I refuse to believe the weak rationalization that Hendry is a victim of circumstance and a greedy player/agent combo. This could have been avoided. Nothing you can say will make me change my mind about any of my points. If Hendry truly is unable to find a way to get deals done before a player hits FA he should be fired...but wait, he signed Lee a full season before FA and after a mega-career year!! How was it in Lee's interest not to test the open market, like you claim Aramis was always going to do? Could it be because Hendry offered more years and more money up fron without having to deal with FA?

 

Not to jump into that middle of an argument, because both sides seem pretty entrenched here, but I thought I answer your question about Lee. I remember right after Lee broke his wrist Peter Gammons was on Mike and Mike and they were talking about what a blow it was to the Cubs and Lee and Gammons said that right after Lee had signed he was asked why he did it when he could have had a huge payday in the offseason. His answer, which I remember because it was incredibly ironic, was something like "Hey, I might break my wrist this year too."

 

Round 'bout point is this. If Lee had an off year or injury it would negatively affect his potential earnings as a free agent. If Ramirez did, all he had to was keep his contract. Sosa had the same deal a few years ago, but when it came time for him to exercise his opt out clause he didn't. Why? Because he knew he would have made less money. Ramirez was in a no lose situation. If he has a great year and his value goes up, he opts out. If not, he's guaranteed $22 million dollars over two years.

And his agent is just as capable of forecasting the strength of the free agent class as Hendry is. The incentive for Hendry to redo the contract is just as strong for Ramirez not to.

 

It's not that a GM is powerless, but the way baseball is set up the organization has all the power at the start of the player's career and it gradually slides the other way. First-third year players have no power, they play for what the organization tells them to, or they don't play. The player gets a little bit of power with arbitration, which some leverage to get more money up front in exchange for delaying free agency. Once the play hits free agency, the power has shifted. The slide is completed when the player gets his no-trade protection (either through a clause in the contract or 10/5 rights.) At this point the only real leverage a team has over a player is the fear of the unknown. Ramirez didn't have any unknowns.

 

Hendry has made some good moves and some bad ones. I'll give him credit where it's due and hold his feet to the fire when warrented. But if it is true that Ramirez had No-Trade protection, there was probably nothing he could do save get Ramirez stinking drunk and ask for his autograph.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Further added to this if Ramirez signs after tomorrow, he will count toward the total of Type A/B FA the Cubs can sign, further limiting the moves the Cubs could conceivably make this offseason.

 

If Ramirez isn't signed by the end of the exclusive deadline, Hendry will have badly mangled this one. He isn't totally at fault, but it's happening on his watch.

[don_kessinger_was_good]

Since the Cubs apparently didn't bid much for Matsuzaka, there is really no excuse not to give Ramirez what he wants with all the money the Cubs have to spend.

[daske17]

Not so good news in today's Tribune:

 

Paul Sullivan[/url]"]Hendry said he has no plans to meet with Aramis Ramirez's agent, Paul Kinzer, at next week's general manager's meetings in Florida. He declined to discuss negotiations or speculation that he has offered Ramirez five years for between $70 million and $75 million.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Not so good news in today's Tribune:

 

Paul Sullivan[/url]"]Hendry said he has no plans to meet with Aramis Ramirez's agent, Paul Kinzer, at next week's general manager's meetings in Florida. He declined to discuss negotiations or speculation that he has offered Ramirez five years for between $70 million and $75 million.

 

That's the same thing from last night, and it's still Sullivan.

[CubinNY]

I'm sick and tired of 20/20 hindsight. Show me where anyone advocated signing Ramirez to a new contract this past winter. Until that happens, your POV is all 20/20 hindsight.

 

I thought you visited this board a lot before you registed? If you did, you'd have noted a lot of people wanted Aramis re-signed before it got to this, and everyone hated the opt-out clause.

 

Thanks for handling that via PM, Raisin. Anything else I say on the subject will be conducted off these boards, thank you.

 

Where did I say that no one complained about the opt out clause? I was against that at the time too.

 

I don't remember one person, much less all those up in arms about the present situation calling for a new contract this past winter (which is ridiculously implausible anyway).

 

You weren't around last winter.

[daske17]

Not so good news in today's Tribune:

 

Paul Sullivan[/url]"]Hendry said he has no plans to meet with Aramis Ramirez's agent, Paul Kinzer, at next week's general manager's meetings in Florida. He declined to discuss negotiations or speculation that he has offered Ramirez five years for between $70 million and $75 million.

 

That's the same thing from last night, and it's still Sullivan.

 

My bad, didn't see it.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Not so good news in today's Tribune:

 

Paul Sullivan[/url]"]Hendry said he has no plans to meet with Aramis Ramirez's agent, Paul Kinzer, at next week's general manager's meetings in Florida. He declined to discuss negotiations or speculation that he has offered Ramirez five years for between $70 million and $75 million.

 

That's the same thing from last night, and it's still Sullivan.

 

My bad, didn't see it.

 

No sweat, it wasn't released until late last night. Re-reading the post, my tone was too harsh. Stupid Sullivan.

[daske17]

Not so good news in today's Tribune:

 

Paul Sullivan[/url]"]Hendry said he has no plans to meet with Aramis Ramirez's agent, Paul Kinzer, at next week's general manager's meetings in Florida. He declined to discuss negotiations or speculation that he has offered Ramirez five years for between $70 million and $75 million.

 

That's the same thing from last night, and it's still Sullivan.

 

My bad, didn't see it.

 

No sweat, it wasn't released until late last night. Re-reading the post, my tone was too harsh. Stupid Sullivan.

 

When in doubt, blame Sullivan. He's usually at fault any way. :)

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

What's most worrisome is that from the time he filed until a few days ago, the word from almost every source was that a deal would get done. The beat writers to the collumnists all seemed to believe that it would go to the deadline, but that a deal was imminent.

 

Now, as we have approached the deadline, everyone is silent on the subject. We're not getting optimistic proclamations from Hendry. No one is reporting the sides close to an agreement. In fact, just the opposite. It seems they have stopped talking.

 

I'm having a bad feeling about this offseason. We should blow it up and get ready to rebuild with a bumper FA group after the 07 season.

 

However, Hendry doesn't have that luxury.

[soapy]

I wasn't panicked when he opted out, but I'm getting there now.

[RichHillIsABeast]

What's most worrisome is that from the time he filed until a few days ago, the word from almost every source was that a deal would get done. The beat writers to the collumnists all seemed to believe that it would go to the deadline, but that a deal was imminent.

 

Now, as we have approached the deadline, everyone is silent on the subject. We're not getting optimistic proclamations from Hendry. No one is reporting the sides close to an agreement. In fact, just the opposite. It seems they have stopped talking.

 

I'm having a bad feeling about this offseason. We should blow it up and get ready to rebuild with a bumper FA group after the 07 season.

 

However, Hendry doesn't have that luxury.

 

Maybe that lack of info is b/c Hendry (and most of the Cubs ppl in the know) are in Arizona for org meetings.

 

Is Bruce Miles on vacation or what? I haven't seen an article by him in awhile.