2015 Playoff Thread

[calsnowskier]

Yeah, he' an opportunistic cocksucker. Fuck him and the syphalitic agent he rode in on.

 

[LHG]

That's my point.

Vogey is a Giant, through and through. But he will leave if another team comes calling. If the Giants would give him a comparable deal, absolutely. He stays. But he will go for an MLB contract over an invite from the Giants.

Does that mean he is a selfish player just out for a buck, with no regard for the Giants?

I feel like you are comparing apples to oranges. Wasn't Vogelsong pretty much told "thank you but we are moving on" by the front office last year? Wasn't there a last minute change of heart in the front office that brought Vogelsong back?
Its a whole different scenario playing out. Player A has the option to get out of his extremely huge yearly salary to see how much more he can get on the market. Player B's contract has expired and the team he'd like to play with is not interested in re-signing him.
Regardless of what Greinke says, there will be fans who will label him an opportunistic mercenary, even if he re-signs with the Dodgers, simply because he decided to exercise his option. He already makes more than (just guessing here) 96% of the U.S. population. That makes it awfully hard for many people to relate to him stating he'd liked to stay with the team and then opt out of his contract to get more money.

 

[MarcoPolo]

That's my point.

Vogey is a Giant, through and through. But he will leave if another team comes calling. If the Giants would give him a comparable deal, absolutely. He stays. But he will go for an MLB contract over an invite from the Giants.

Does that mean he is a selfish player just out for a buck, with no regard for the Giants?

Nope, it means he want to play at the major league level. He's also a free agent (well ,will be, but ...). That's completely different from walking away from an existing contract to simply put even more millions in your pocket.

 

[tzill]

I feel like you are comparing apples to oranges. Wasn't Vogelsong pretty much told "thank you but we are moving on" by the front office last year? Wasn't there a last minute change of heart in the front office that brought Vogelsong back?
Its a whole different scenario playing out. Player A has the option to get out of his extremely huge yearly salary to see how much more he can get on the market. Player B's contract has expired and the team he'd like to play with is not interested in re-signing him.
Regardless of what Greinke says, there will be fans who will label him an opportunistic mercenary, even if he re-signs with the Dodgers, simply because he decided to exercise his option. He already makes more than (just guessing here) 96% of the U.S. population. That makes it awfully hard for many people to relate to him stating he'd liked to stay with the team and then opt out of his contract to get more money.

I feel like this is a bit disingenuous. Greinke is opting out of 3/71. A lot of money to be sure. However, he's worth more than that. A lot more. And he wants to get his full market's worth. He took a little less money to get the opt-out clause. In a very real way, he was betting on himself. He bet correctly, and now he intends to collect on that bet. BTW, he makes more than 99.5% of the population. He makes more in one year than most people will ever see in their lives. I actually find his honesty refreshing.

 

[Stokes1931]

I feel like this is a bit disingenuous. Greinke is opting out of 3/71. A lot of money to be sure. However, he's worth more than that. A lot more. And he wants to get his full market's worth. He took a little less money to get the opt-out clause. In a very real way, he was betting on himself. He bet correctly, and now he intends to collect on that bet. BTW, he makes more than 99.5% of the population. He makes more in one year than most people will ever see in their lives. I actually find his honesty refreshing.

 

[calsnowskier]

View attachment 42472

Stupid comment to be sure. But why in the world should pro players leave anything on the table? They have a limited commodity that is in demand. They should get maximum value for that commodity.

And it is up to them, not us, to decide what that value is. If a player values $$ over all else, period, end of sentence, that is his prerogative. If another player values winning over all else, that is HIS prerogative. This is a free country and his choices are not hurting anyone else. If you consider the fact that your team is hurt by his ability to move freely, that is YOUR issue. Not his.

I am sure there were lots of people about 150 years ago who would have preferred a bunch of people not have the ability to leave their current "jobs" either.

 

[LHG]

I feel like this is a bit disingenuous. Greinke is opting out of 3/71. A lot of money to be sure. However, he's worth more than that. A lot more. And he wants to get his full market's worth. He took a little less money to get the opt-out clause. In a very real way, he was betting on himself. He bet correctly, and now he intends to collect on that bet. BTW, he makes more than 99.5% of the population. He makes more in one year than most people will ever see in their lives. I actually find his honesty refreshing.

How so?

I haven't heard him say what you say you've heard him say. cal mentioned he thought those quotes come from the time he left the Angels. If he is, like you said, being straight forward about all this and is saying that its about the money, then I've got no gripe about it because it is what the Dodgers agreed to. But if he is making it like he wants to be with the Dodgers and he is trying to put that all on the team, then that is bogus.

 

[LHG]

Stupid comment to be sure. But why in the world should pro players leave anything on the table? They have a limited commodity that is in demand. They should get maximum value for that commodity.

And it is up to them, not us, to decide what that value is. If a player values $$ over all else, period, end of sentence, that is his prerogative. If another player values winning over all else, that is HIS prerogative. This is a free country and his choices are not hurting anyone else. If you consider the fact that your team is hurt by his ability to move freely, that is YOUR issue. Not his.

I am sure there were lots of people about 150 years ago who would have preferred a bunch of people not have the ability to leave their current "jobs" either.

A bit of a stretch in comparisons, don't you think, cal?

 

[calsnowskier]

A bit of a stretch in comparisons, don't you think, cal?

In scale, yes. But the root idea is the same. Greinke has the right to explore his options. If the Dodgers (or Yankees, or Giants, or Cubs) dont like that, tough shit.

But Greinke has every right to exorcise the clause in his contract. It was an agreement between him and the dogs when he signed. It is really pretty cut-n-dry. There is absolutely zero reason for anyone to be upset that he exorcised it or for anyone to infer that he is evil for doing so. It was a business agreement.

 

[LHG]

In scale, yes. But the root idea is the same. Greinke has the right to explore his options. If the Dodgers (or Yankees, or Giants, or Cubs) dont like that, tough shit.

But Greinke has every right to exorcise the clause in his contract. It was an agreement between him and the dogs when he signed. It is really pretty cut-n-dry. There is absolutely zero reason for anyone to be upset that he exorcised it or for anyone to infer that he is evil for doing so. It was a business agreement.

I don't disagree with you on that point. He does have every right. If the Dodgers didn't like it, they should have just offered him more money without the opt out clause. The fun part of baseball is that both the players and owners are going to exploit every opportunity they have for more money.

 

[msgkings322]

Mets continue to look very 2010 or perhaps 2012 Giants-like so far this post season. I think they beat the Royals in the WS, making the NL the champ 5 of the last 6 years

 

[Robotech]

Mets continue to look very 2010 or perhaps 2012 Giants-like so far this post season. I think they beat the Royals in the WS, making the NL the champ 5 of the last 6 years

It would be great for an NL team to win again. I would like to see both LCS's become more interesting, especially Mets-Cubs. To watch the Cubs get swept doesn't add much to baseball lore. The Cubs losing in typical heartbreaker fashion or making an epic comeback would.

 

[msgkings322]

It would be great for an NL team to win again. I would like to see both LCS's become more interesting, especially Mets-Cubs. To watch the Cubs get swept doesn't add much to baseball lore. The Cubs losing in typical heartbreaker fashion or making an epic comeback would.

As a one time White Sox fan (still my #2 team) I cannot abide the Cubs winning the WS or even getting there. If they win it the city of Chicago will literally stop reporting on the Sox. They will have to leave town as they will no longer exist there.

 

[Robotech]

As a one time White Sox fan (still my #2 team) I cannot abide the Cubs winning the WS or even getting there. If they win it the city of Chicago will literally stop reporting on the Sox. They will have to leave town as they will no longer exist there.

Will you settle for Cubs losing a heartbreaker to the Mets? I just want something interesting. LOL.

 

[msgkings322]

Will you settle for Cubs losing a heartbreaker to the Mets? I just want something interesting. LOL.

That would be acceptable.

 

[calsnowskier]

It would be great for an NL team to win again. I would like to see both LCS's become more interesting, especially Mets-Cubs. To watch the Cubs get swept doesn't add much to baseball lore. The Cubs losing in typical heartbreaker fashion or making an epic comeback would.

I would love for them to win the next 3 games and then taking a 3 run lead into the ninth, just to have the Mets win on a walk-off grand slam.

Or better yet, have them lose game 6 at home on some kind of 9th inning error or bad umpire call.

 

[Robotech]

I would love for them to win the next 3 games and then taking a 3 run lead into the ninth, just to have the Mets win on a walk-off grand slam.

Or better yet, have them lose game 6 at home on some kind of 9th inning error or bad umpire call.

Walk-off grand slam where the ball bounces off the head of the Cubs outfielder à la Jose Canseco.

 

[Stokes1931]

I would love for them to win the next 3 games and then taking a 3 run lead into the ninth, just to have the Mets win on a walk-off grand slam.

Or better yet, have them lose game 6 at home on some kind of 9th inning error or bad umpire call.

Or all is forgiven Bartman, until he screws up by going for another foul ball, and the Chubs lose. Would that interest you, Cal?

 

[calsnowskier]

Or all is forgiven Bartman, until he screws up by going for another foul ball, and the Chubs lose. Would that interest you, Cal?

I would love the story, but I would hate to subject someone else to the hell that that kid had to experience.

 

[SFGRTB]

After how crazy the WC/DS were, the CS has been a snoozer so far. It has been entertaining watching Daniel Murphy hit though, it's like sorRy doC on steroids.

The Royals look unstoppable, especially if Cueto has figured it out. Their bats are on fire.