ChiefsPlanet - Royals *** Official 2016 Royals Offseason Repository ***

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)

- Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)

- -

*** Official 2016 Royals Offseason Repository *** (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=295826)

Quote:

Originally Posted by okcchief (Post 11980852)

My gut feeling is Gordon will wait to try to suck out as much as he can, but in the end stays in KC. I don't think the money difference will be enough to make him want to leave.

I hope you're right, and I think it's possible.

If the Royals really did offer him 4/50, I can't see how he'd want to stay. That's an almost insulting offer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lex Luthor (Post 11977594)

You really don't understand the difference in local television contracts, do you?

They Royals local TV deal with Fox Sports pays them $20 million per year, and it's an ironclad contract that lasts through the 2019 season. The Los Angeles Dodgers get $250 million per year from their TV contract. That's why the Royals have to be very careful about how they spend their money. It's not a matter of being ****ing cheap. When one team has an extra $230 million every ****ing year, they are the ones who will sign the expensive free agents. Alex Gordon is an expensive free agent who is 35 years old.

After 2019 it will be a much more level playing field, because the Royals will get a better local TV deal. It won't come close to what the Dodgers get, but it will hopefully be close to the deal the Cardinals just signed: $1 Billion over 15 years, with $50 million the first year and escalations every year. But Moustakas, Hosmer, Cain, Escobar and Davis aren't going to wait until 2019 to get paid. They all become free agents after the 2017 season.

And even if the Royals get a sweetheart deal that exactly matches the Cardinals' deal, that's still $180 million LESS than what Dodgers get. Every year.

That's why it makes perfect sense for the Royals to refuse to break the bank for a 35 year old Alex Gordon. If they do, they have $100 million LESS to try to retain their younger free agents after 2017. They'll be competing with teams like the Dodgers to sign Hosmer and Moustakas. The Royals will never outbid the Dodgers, but I'd like to see them have enough free money to at least offer them enough money to make them consider staying at a hometown discount.

If Alex Gordon were to give the team a hometown discount and come back for 4 years at $60 million, and the Royals were to manage to make it to a 3rd World Series, THAT would set a helluva precedent.

This. For small market teams it is all about outperforming payroll. The reason they are competitive is they are getting huge production out of low payroll with guys like Hosmer, Moose, Cain and Eskie on their early deals, Madson, Young, Morales on redemption contracts. The probability of Gordon outplaying a $100M contract is very low.

The Royals messed up signing the Fox contract deal, I've listened to local sports radio DJ's say that Fox should re-negotiate the contract because it is to low and the Royals should be receiving more money.

I laugh at people who think like that, Fox would be fools to do that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fairplay (Post 11981109)

Unless they are worried about the Royals going somewhere else after the deal is up. They may add additional years at a higher price now vs. an even higher price later when the Royals can negotiate with everyone else.

Same thing with Salvy wanting a new deal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superturtle (Post 11981090)

If the Royals really did offer him 4/50, I can't see how he'd want to stay. That's an almost insulting offer.

I've always found it difficult to have any sympathy for professional athletes who get insulted by contract offers that would give them more money than they could possibly spend in their lifetimes.

If a player wants to say "I'm going to take the other team's offer for $100 million because I'd be a fool to turn down $100 million", that's fine. If a player says "I find that offer insulting", then he can go **** himself.

The Cardinals initial offer to Albert Pujols in 2011 was a 5 year contract for $130 million. Pujols wife told the press that Albert was insulted by that offer. I certainly don't blame Pujols for taking the $254 million contract from the Angels. But for him to say a $130 million contract offer is INSULTING shows how out of touch with reality most of these overpaid athletes are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lex Luthor (Post 11981225)

Nonsense. You can insult an employee no matter how large the offer if it's not close to market-based.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superturtle (Post 11981090)

If the Royals really did offer him 4/50, I can't see how he'd want to stay. That's an almost insulting offer.

I don't think the Royals are that stupid though.

I think I'm enjoying the World Series win more now than when it happened. Over the past few days, I've been watching the various specials on the Series and the fan-made tributes. It's just incredible. To share this with my kids has been even better. There aren't too many days that we aren't rocking our WS gear.

Thank you so much to this team. It's been a great season that will likely get better with age.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coach (Post 11981426)

I don't think the Royals are that stupid though.

it's concerning to me that it's been reported from a couple of places, but Royals haven't done anything to refute it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats. (Post 11981499)

it's concerning to me that it's been reported from a couple of places, but Royals haven't done anything to refute it.

If it's a starting point in the negotiation and Gordon chooses not to take offense, then it's not a bad strategy.

Trust the process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lex Luthor (Post 11981510)

If it's a starting point in the negotiation and Gordon chooses not to take offense, then it's not a bad strategy.

Trust the process.

that means it's true though in that scenario. And to me, that IS an insulting offer. I'd have started at 4/$70

If a baseball player is so out of touch and immature that they are "insulted" by an offer worth more than 10 million a year, then I don't want that player on my team. If its too low, fine, but I'd expect both sides to be rational adults about a salary negotiation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lex Luthor (Post 11981225)

Meh. I've been insulted by job offers that weren't even that good that I'm sure I could have found someone who would think I was lucky to get such an opportunity.

Just because they are in a different universe of earnings doesn't mean they can't be insulted by job offers.

Insulted is a really strong word. It could be reported that he's insulted, when in fact he's disappointed how far apart they are. If he's being a petulant child, that's one thing. Or if it is a case like King Carl of the management being a petulant child, that's another. You can still be technically insulted, but still willing to work with the other party without harboring ill will. The word insulted carries a lot of negative connotation that isn't necessarily always the case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alnorth (Post 11981931)

Exactly.

I remember many years ago when Rickey Henderson signed a contract that made him the highest paid player in baseball. He was all happy and smiling. Then a couple of months later (still in the same offseason), somebody else signed a bigger contract. Henderson got pissed off and said he wanted to renegotiate.

That's about the time I stopped giving a damn if a player gets insulted by a contract offer that pays him more for one season than most people make in their lifetimes.