Rosenthal: Murton for Byrd dead & trade status update

[ConstableRabbit]

As jersey said all along - that's essentially negotiating 101.

In what business school would such a useless strategy be taught? Only someone trying to sell something that is hot or who is desperate does such a thing.

I wouldn't go so far to call it Negotiating 101, as there are several different tactics one can use in bargaining, but think there is some validity to such a strategy. Making a "take it or leave it" offer can oftentimes be insulting to the person who is considering selling.

 

Of course, when making that kind of offer does work, you look like a genius. I just think that we need to keep in mind the fact that the Orioles front office isn't exactly an old lady looking to sell her house before she dies.

[brinoch]

Look, I seriously doubt that Hendry left an offer on the table for three months. But, so what if he did? Leaving a trade offer on the table is, for all intents and purposes, exactly the same as walking away and telling them to call if they are interested in resurrecting the deal. You are going to start from the same spot in negotiations regardless.

 

I mean, think about it... if you say "That's my final offer, take it or leave it," and they say no and you break off negotiations, only to resurrect them two months later, is: "That's my final offer. Let me know if this will work. Take as much time as you need," so very different?

Yes, actually.

 

There's a significant school of thought in negotiation theory that says the ONLY power in a negotiation comes from the willingness to walk away from the deal. When the original offer is not accepted and you demonstrate your willingness to walk away, you increase your power. By leaving it on the table, you are demonstrating your lack of desire to walk away and weaken your position.

 

Actually, neither of those statements are a true take it or leave it approach. And the take it or leave it school of negotiation is but one approach, and one that probably doesn't work all that well in a very small community where people can have extremely different valuations of players and you are dealing with a physical commodity on both sides rather than money. I completely agree, however, that at some point you have to be willing to walk away from a deal -- and Hendry's probably done that. (I can't believe I'm actually defending him.) If you aren't willing to walk away and the other side knows it, you get fleeced.

[Tracer Bullet]

As jersey said all along - that's essentially negotiating 101.

In what business school would such a useless strategy be taught? Only someone trying to sell something that is hot or who is desperate does such a thing.

 

Useless strategy? Are you suggesting that giving someone an offer and, in the face of a rejection, walking away (usually with a "if you change your mind" or "if you figure out what you're after" or something similar) is useless? Works surprisingly well for a useless strategy.

[Tyrant]

http://i.cnn.net/money/popups/2006/biz2/howtosucceed/img/scott.jpg

 

Negotiation tactic number six: Change the location of the meeting at the last second. Totally throws ‘em off.

 

Tactic number 14: Declining to speak first. Makes them feel uncomfortable, puts you in control.

[RynoRules]

Some of you guys need to read "Getting to Yes". If you leave the table and say, "take it or leave it", you had better mean it. If they come back and ask you for more and you give in, your credibility and integrity are shot for all-time.

 

When I do union negotiations, that is the tact I take. If I tell you I cannot do something then I mean I cannot do it. If I tell you I won't do something at this point, that doesn't mean I can't change my mind and attempt to find a middle ground. If I tell you that I will think about it, then I will ponder the proposal and see whether a compromise is possible. And when I tell you this is our "final offer" I mean it. That's it.

[Tracer Bullet]

Some of you guys need to read "Getting to Yes". If you leave the table and say, "take it or leave it", you had better mean it. If they come back and ask you for more and you give in, your credibility and integrity are shot for all-time.

 

When I do union negotiations, that is the tact I take. If I tell you I cannot do something then I mean I cannot do it. If I tell you I won't do something at this point, that doesn't mean I can't change my mind and attempt to find a middle ground. If I tell you that I will think about it, then I will ponder the proposal and see whether a compromise is possible. And when I tell you this is our "final offer" I mean it. That's it.

 

I'm not sure who this is aimed at, but that's my policy as well. If someone tells me something is "take it or leave it" or a deal-breaker and I find out later it's not, their credibility is gone. I don't know if anyone has suggested Jim should have used a "take it or leave it" strategy. But someone suggested that the offer was made 3 months ago and has been sitting out there open this whole time and others (including me) think Jim's insane if that's what he did.

[CubinNY]

Some of you guys need to read "Getting to Yes". If you leave the table and say, "take it or leave it", you had better mean it. If they come back and ask you for more and you give in, your credibility and integrity are shot for all-time.

 

When I do union negotiations, that is the tact I take. If I tell you I cannot do something then I mean I cannot do it. If I tell you I won't do something at this point, that doesn't mean I can't change my mind and attempt to find a middle ground. If I tell you that I will think about it, then I will ponder the proposal and see whether a compromise is possible. And when I tell you this is our "final offer" I mean it. That's it.

 

I'm not sure who this is aimed at, but that's my policy as well. If someone tells me something is "take it or leave it" or a deal-breaker and I find out later it's not, their credibility is gone. I don't know if anyone has suggested Jim should have used a "take it or leave it" strategy. But someone suggested that the offer was made 3 months ago and has been sitting out there open this whole time and others (including me) think Jim's insane if that's what he did.

You obviously haven't been reading the Roberts thread then. No one has answered why this is an "insane" strategy. And there are only two options

 

Option 1: This is my offer it will be good for such and such a date. (the take it or leave it, man up option)

Option 2: This is my offer, see if you can beat it and get back to me. (the "insane" option)

[Outshined_One]

I never was a fan of "exploding offers" in these kinds of situations. The problem with a "take it or leave it by X date" approach in Hendry's case is that the Orioles likely have not devoted much time to scouting and researching the players he is offering in the deal. That sort of a process takes a lot of time and effort on the Orioles' behalf, since they need to now re-focus resources that have likely already been allocated elsewhere so that they can do their homework. If a guy gives me an exploding offer on something, I'm automatically suspicious of it. It's like the guy is trying to pull a fast one on me by trying to catch me off-guard.

 

I need some time to make sure the offer doesn't blow up in my face when I take it, you know?

[jersey cubs fan]

I never was a fan of "exploding offers" in these kinds of situations. The problem with a "take it or leave it by X date" approach in Hendry's case is that the Orioles likely have not devoted much time to scouting and researching the players he is offering in the deal. That sort of a process takes a lot of time and effort on the Orioles' behalf, since they need to now re-focus resources that have likely already been allocated elsewhere so that they can do their homework. If a guy gives me an exploding offer on something, I'm automatically suspicious of it. It's like the guy is trying to pull a fast one on me by trying to catch me off-guard.

 

I need some time to make sure the offer doesn't blow up in my face when I take it, you know?

 

Yeah, some time. But "some time" does not equate to 3 freaking months.

[davearm2]

This thread is bizarre.

 

My strong suspicion is that Hendry has outlined in clear terms the different packages of players he'd be willing to give up for Roberts, and so far none of those packages have been to MacPhail's liking.

 

Meanwhile MacPhail has probably pitched some trade offers that Hendry has declined.

 

Are Hendry's packages still "on the table"? I suppose you could say that, since what Hendry was willing to pay yesterday (or last December), he'd probably pay today too, if MacPhail were to reconsider.

 

Of course the same could be said about MacPhail's counteroffers too. A deal's just a phonecall away whenever Hendry feels like meeting MacPhail's price.

 

Now if what Hendry is willing to pay is about to drop, then (and only then) does it make sense for Hendry to put a drop-dead date out there. Putting a deadline out there to try and gain leverage implies, "the deal I'd take today, I won't take tomorrow." As has been mentioned, Hendry better darn well not take that tact unless he means it. If his bluff is called, then he's either tanked a deal that he wants and could possibly still get, or he's put himself in a position of having to go back on his word.

 

The bottom line is that by now both guys ought to know where the other stands, regardless of what's officially "on the table" or whatnot.