August 3, 200521 yr It was reported on Detroit Sports radio today, WXYT 1270 am that Pudge was unhappy with the situation in Detroit. Apparently the team wasn't putting a contender on the field fast enough or something along those lines. This was from a "close source" so I don't know how true this is. If true, well, this offseason will look mighty nice when a team in need of a catcher gives up good relief pitching prospects for him. I enjoy him as a player, he plays hard every game and brings a lot to the team. However, it may be in the best interest of the Tigers to trade him if this turns out true. btw, the Tigers signed Placido Polanco long term today. Good news!
August 3, 200521 yr Author You had a chance to stay here Pudge, you've got no one to blame but yourself. 886564[/snapback] If these rumors are true, then I agree. That or he could have not had such a high asking price and signed with an automatic contender. Yes, Illitch and Dombrowski more than likely promised a push towards a winning product, but it's gonna take a while to recover from a 43 win season.
August 3, 200521 yr The Tigers are heading in the right direction, but Pudge is an aging player that wants to win and really should have known better to sign with a team that is really still a couple years away.
August 3, 200521 yr Author The Tigers are heading in the right direction, but Pudge is an aging player that wants to win and really should have known better to sign with a team that is really still a couple years away. 886570[/snapback] yes. Pudge isn't seeing the whole picture here if this is true.
August 3, 200521 yr You had a chance to stay here Pudge, you've got no one to blame but yourself. 886564[/snapback] If these rumors are true, then I agree. That or he could have not had such a high asking price and signed with an automatic contender. Yes, Illitch and Dombrowski more than likely promised a push towards a winning product, but it's gonna take a while to recover from a 43 win season. 886569[/snapback] :thumbup
August 3, 200521 yr Author The big thing was the Farnsworth trade. The Polanco signing may have changed things though. Gaining Polanco for 4 years >>> Having Farnsworth until the end of the season and losing him to free agency.
August 3, 200521 yr The big thing was the Farnsworth trade. The Polanco signing may have changed things though. Gaining Polanco for 4 years >>> Having Farnsworth until the end of the season and losing him to free agency. 886587[/snapback] Regardless of the move, the fact that the Tigers are hovering around .500 at this point is an astounding feat. No matter how delusional Pudge may be, there was no way in hell that he could have felt that he'd even smell the post-season during his tenure in Detroit, it would have been a major miracle given the state of the team. Pudge needs to understand that he chose money over success, and not just in Miami. He could have been with the Cubs, Marlins, Orioles or Dodgers and had a much better chance of seeing October baseball, even if it meant $8 million a season instead of $10 mil. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The Tigers aren't committed to putting a winner on the field for Pudge, they're committed to their fans, and the Farnsworth and Urbina trades will be better for the 2006 Tigers than holding them would have been for the 2005 version.
August 3, 200521 yr No offense to Mark and the Tiger fans, but I'm rather glad Pudge hasn't sniffed the postseason since he left. Serves him right for assuming the role of mercenary instead of a city's hero.
August 3, 200521 yr They won like 40 games in '03.. It seems to me with their record improvements and free agent acquisitions that they're committed to putting a contender on the field. They're not going to go from 40 wins to the playoffs just like that.. I think Pudge would have realized this when running to the money.
August 3, 200521 yr We've known Pudge leaving was a mistake for over a year now. I guess he's starting to come to that conclusion as well.
August 3, 200521 yr Author One negative comment Mark and you want him dealt? 886718[/snapback] No. but if the negative comments continue into the offseason and it becomes a problem I wouldn't mind it. That's all I'm saying.
August 3, 200521 yr You had a chance to stay here Pudge, you've got no one to blame but yourself. 886564[/snapback] If these rumors are true, then I agree. That or he could have not had such a high asking price and signed with an automatic contender. Yes, Illitch and Dombrowski more than likely promised a push towards a winning product, but it's gonna take a while to recover from a 43 win season. 886569[/snapback] He didn't have a high asking price, he merely wanted the same money he was already making with us, just over a 4 year deal, we wanted him to take a pay cut after he led this franchise to a WS and that's just asinine. We signed him 1 year, $10 million and he wanted to resign with us for 4 years, $40 million which is the same money he was already making. After leading us to a WS that's more than reasonable. I blame Loria for wanting him to take a pay cut, though the pay cut would have been I believe $8 million a year instead of $10 million, so he still could have had a huge pay day and stayed with us but I guess he'd rather have an extra $2 million to play for a team like the Tigers. If we didn't win a WS in 2003, I have no doubt he would have resigned with us for the 4 years / $8 million. If he stayed here, he probably wouldn't be getting divorced either.
August 3, 200521 yr You had a chance to stay here Pudge, you've got no one to blame but yourself. 886564[/snapback] If these rumors are true, then I agree. That or he could have not had such a high asking price and signed with an automatic contender. Yes, Illitch and Dombrowski more than likely promised a push towards a winning product, but it's gonna take a while to recover from a 43 win season. 886569[/snapback] He didn't have a high asking price, he merely wanted the same money he was already making with us, just over a 4 year deal, we wanted him to take a pay cut after he led this franchise to a WS. We signed him 1 year, $10 million and he wanted to resign with us for 4 years, $40 million which is the same money he was already making. After leading us to a WS that's more than reasonable. I blame Loria for wanting him to take a pay cut, though the pay cut would have been I believe $8 million a year instead of $10 million, so he still could have had a huge pay day and stayed with us but I guess he'd rather have an extra $2 million to play for a team like the Tigers. If we didn't win a WS in 2003, I have no doubt he would have resigned with us for the 4 years / $8 million. If he stayed here, he probably wouldn't be getting divorced either. 887086[/snapback] lol how true that is!!!! :thumbup
August 3, 200521 yr He didn't have a high asking price, he merely wanted the same money he was already making with us, just over a 4 year deal, we wanted him to take a pay cut after he led this franchise to a WS and that's just asinine. We signed him 1 year, $10 million and he wanted to resign with us for 4 years, $40 million which is the same money he was already making. After leading us to a WS that's more than reasonable. I blame Loria for wanting him to take a pay cut, though the pay cut would have been I believe $8 million a year instead of $10 million, so he still could have had a huge pay day and stayed with us but I guess he'd rather have an extra $2 million to play for a team like the Tigers. If we didn't win a WS in 2003, I have no doubt he would have resigned with us for the 4 years / $8 million. If he stayed here, he probably wouldn't be getting divorced either. Yeah, that's what he wanted. But how many contracts or business deals have you ever seen that add time while keeping the going rate the same? It's almost exclusively a sliding scale - less years with more money, or more money with less years. You can't get a rate of 10 million for a small amount of time and then expect the same rate of 10 million to be guaranteed over the course of a much longer period, because baseball (and the entire capitalist system) does not work that way. Those who try to pin this on the front office are only partially right, and the reason they are right is because they wanted to add on the deferred salary to the deal we were offering him. Meaning, in essence, he would have received either 3 or 4 (can't remember which) million to play for us in 2003 while the rest of the money was added to whatever monster deal he would have signed herel. However, if you sit and say that it's the fault of the front office for losing Pudge with the reasoning that they should have completely abandoned the way the entire world does business to massage their catcher's ego, then you quite frankly don't understand basic economic principles.
August 3, 200521 yr Wasn't the reason why Pudge left the amount of years on the contract? Weren't the Marlins not willing to give Pudge that 4th year?
August 3, 200521 yr He didn't have a high asking price, he merely wanted the same money he was already making with us, just over a 4 year deal, we wanted him to take a pay cut after he led this franchise to a WS and that's just asinine. We signed him 1 year, $10 million and he wanted to resign with us for 4 years, $40 million which is the same money he was already making. After leading us to a WS that's more than reasonable. I blame Loria for wanting him to take a pay cut, though the pay cut would have been I believe $8 million a year instead of $10 million, so he still could have had a huge pay day and stayed with us but I guess he'd rather have an extra $2 million to play for a team like the Tigers. If we didn't win a WS in 2003, I have no doubt he would have resigned with us for the 4 years / $8 million. If he stayed here, he probably wouldn't be getting divorced either. Yeah, that's what he wanted. But how many contracts or business deals have you ever seen that add time while keeping the going rate the same? It's almost exclusively a sliding scale - less years with more money, or more money with less years. You can't get a rate of 10 million for a small amount of time and then expect the same rate of 10 million to be guaranteed over the course of a much longer period, because baseball (and the entire capitalist system) does not work that way. Those who try to pin this on the front office are only partially right, and the reason they are right is because they wanted to add on the deferred salary to the deal we were offering him. Meaning, in essence, he would have received either 3 or 4 (can't remember which) million to play for us in 2003 while the rest of the money was added to whatever monster deal he would have signed herel. However, if you sit and say that it's the fault of the front office for losing Pudge with the reasoning that they should have completely abandoned the way the entire world does business to massage their catcher's ego, then you quite frankly don't understand basic economic principles. 887098[/snapback] Tell that to Dombrowski. You can go on and on about how baseball doesn't work that way, but you know what? It does. It's one thing to sit there and make that post if it were actually true, but it's not and a number of teams - including the Tigers - completely went against everything you've just stated.
August 3, 200521 yr Really? What team has taken a salary they've already given a player and then either kept it the same or increased over a longer period of time in the contract unless that player was coming out of his initial contract? How many? The Tigers didn't pay Pudge 10 million dollars, the Marlins did. The Tigers had a clean slate to start with and they paid him 10 million dollars. For all we know, if the deal was for 2 years, he could have gotten 15. But the Marlins offering less money in return for more years on a contract is about as sound an economic compromise as possible, and it is not their fault that the player would not take it. He got 4/40 from a completely new agent which made that contract entirely a new one and not for comparison with the previous one. Comparing 4/40 from the Tigers with 4/40 from us is apples and oranges.
August 3, 200521 yr He didn't have a high asking price, he merely wanted the same money he was already making with us, just over a 4 year deal, we wanted him to take a pay cut after he led this franchise to a WS and that's just asinine. We signed him 1 year, $10 million and he wanted to resign with us for 4 years, $40 million which is the same money he was already making.? After leading us to a WS that's more than reasonable.? I blame Loria for wanting him to take a pay cut, though the pay cut would have been I believe $8 million a year instead of $10 million, so he still could have had a huge pay day and stayed with us but I guess he'd rather have an extra $2 million to play for a team like the Tigers. If we didn't win a WS in 2003, I have no doubt he would have resigned with us for the 4 years / $8 million. If he stayed here, he probably wouldn't be getting divorced either. Yeah, that's what he wanted. But how many contracts or business deals have you ever seen that add time while keeping the going rate the same? It's almost exclusively a sliding scale - less years with more money, or more money with less years. You can't get a rate of 10 million for a small amount of time and then expect the same rate of 10 million to be guaranteed over the course of a much longer period, because baseball (and the entire capitalist system) does not work that way. Those who try to pin this on the front office are only partially right, and the reason they are right is because they wanted to add on the deferred salary to the deal we were offering him. Meaning, in essence, he would have received either 3 or 4 (can't remember which) million to play for us in 2003 while the rest of the money was added to whatever monster deal he would have signed herel. However, if you sit and say that it's the fault of the front office for losing Pudge with the reasoning that they should have completely abandoned the way the entire world does business to massage their catcher's ego, then you quite frankly don't understand basic economic principles. 887098[/snapback] Tell that to Dombrowski. You can go on and on about how baseball doesn't work that way, but you know what? It does. It's one thing to sit there and make that post if it were actually true, but it's not and a number of teams - including the Tigers - completely went against everything you've just stated. 887217[/snapback] Accord, the Tigers admitted they were overpaying when the signed Pudge, but they felt that drastic circumstance (43 wins) forced them to overpay for a front-line free agent to hopefully make Detroit an attractive place to play. Just because they paid that much, doesn't make it the prevailing reasoning in most GM's offices. The fact that his ordeal went past Super-Bowl weekend suggests that it wasn't "a number of teams," it was just one.
August 4, 200521 yr Do you think the trade of his buddy Urbina earlier have anything to do with this?
August 4, 200521 yr Do you think the trade of his buddy Urbina earlier have anything to do with this? 888795[/snapback] Undoubtedly. And Urbina is a free-agent. This could get interesting in the offseason.
August 4, 200521 yr Do you think the trade of his buddy Urbina earlier have anything to do with this? 888795[/snapback] Undoubtedly. And Urbina is a free-agent. This could get interesting in the offseason. 888798[/snapback] Ugie may have played a part in his divorce, too. :mischief
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.