You Made Me Sign You
I know Manny Ramirez wants millions of dollars for millions of years. That said, I'm not surprised the Dodgers were pissed he turned down a two-year deal that meant $25 mil for year one and a player option for year two at $20 mil that would have meant Ramirez could be crippled, not play, and make $20 mil.
So there's emotion on both sides, but that's a big part of any contract negotiation.
I'm not sure why that has to invade news stories about the situation, though. All the LA Times columnists have spilled plenty of ink on the topic, of course, but in today's paper reporter (i.e. he's the guy who's supposed to be striving for objectivity) Dylan Hernandez wrote the following, trying to show a history of bad blood between the Dodgers and mega-agent Scott Boras:
The Dodgers included a similar provision in the contract of another Boras client, J.D. Drew, who unexpectedly opted out of a five-year, $55-million deal at the end of the 2006 season, forcing the Dodgers to overpay Juan Pierre to fill his position. [emphasis mine]
Huh? Did Boras hold Ned Colletti's hand while he signed the 5 year, $44 million boondoggle with Pierre? The Dodgers also signed Luis Gonzalez that off-season, for a mere one year, $7 mil contract. That added him to what should have been an outfield of Andre Either and Matt Kemp. Except neither of those players were sprinkled with veteran leadership dust, so Colletti had to turn elsewhere. Kemp got only 292 ABs that season, despite hitting .342/.373/.521 as a 22-year-old. And now Colletti's saddled with Pierre, one of those embodiments of the old adage "you can't steal first base." But please, Hernandez, don't blame the Dodgers' over-reacting to losing Drew on Boras. Yes, everyone hates Boras as he's extremely talented at getting his clients incredible contracts even when owners are bidding against only themselves. But as much as he's supposed to be a bad guy, we can tell the truth, can't we?
So there's emotion on both sides, but that's a big part of any contract negotiation.
I'm not sure why that has to invade news stories about the situation, though. All the LA Times columnists have spilled plenty of ink on the topic, of course, but in today's paper reporter (i.e. he's the guy who's supposed to be striving for objectivity) Dylan Hernandez wrote the following, trying to show a history of bad blood between the Dodgers and mega-agent Scott Boras:
The Dodgers included a similar provision in the contract of another Boras client, J.D. Drew, who unexpectedly opted out of a five-year, $55-million deal at the end of the 2006 season, forcing the Dodgers to overpay Juan Pierre to fill his position. [emphasis mine]
Huh? Did Boras hold Ned Colletti's hand while he signed the 5 year, $44 million boondoggle with Pierre? The Dodgers also signed Luis Gonzalez that off-season, for a mere one year, $7 mil contract. That added him to what should have been an outfield of Andre Either and Matt Kemp. Except neither of those players were sprinkled with veteran leadership dust, so Colletti had to turn elsewhere. Kemp got only 292 ABs that season, despite hitting .342/.373/.521 as a 22-year-old. And now Colletti's saddled with Pierre, one of those embodiments of the old adage "you can't steal first base." But please, Hernandez, don't blame the Dodgers' over-reacting to losing Drew on Boras. Yes, everyone hates Boras as he's extremely talented at getting his clients incredible contracts even when owners are bidding against only themselves. But as much as he's supposed to be a bad guy, we can tell the truth, can't we?
Labels: baseball, los angeles times
posted by George at 10:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home