Ceetar

sharpie wrote: Todd Frazier is/was one of BVW's clients. Would be interesting to see if he would jettison Todd in the interest of signing Manny. Machado seems like a total jerk but I'd love it if he were my jerk. He seems well regarded by teammates, which is probably more important than how we feel about him.

They spent what, like 30 million last season? Anyway, It's not really tough to talk about him. You just do. Last offseason we multi-page threads discussion guys that were only connected to the Mets by some random writer musing that it'd be a good fit. This is more realistic than most of the names that will surface.

Machado is about as perfect a fit as you can get. the Mets need an infielder. He's awesome. He's young. Plus if he's on the Mets there's no risk he becomes a Philly and steps on Alonso's foot. Does he get Stanton money? Or is comparing anything the the absurd way the Marlins operate worthless? Cano money? somewhere inbetween? 9/270? multiple opt outs?

You know catcher's have huge impact on ball and strike calls anyway, that's pretty normal.

I don't need your stamp of approval on my thoughts. I can't/won't dumb it down for you any further.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I cant respond to any of this because I truly have no idea what you're talking about.. yes, this is pretty obvious.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: He didn't divest, because he has confidential information and knowledge which can't be un-remembered. (which is a word I like better than forgotten in this context) He just should not have this job. which may or may not even matter. He's going to _act_ as if he divested. He's NOT going to act on his fiduciary obligation to do what's best for deGrom. (or you know, Drew Pomeranz) Hence, no conflict. it's a technicality because it clearly doesn't matter does it? He IS the GM. He's got the job. It's done. We're past that. You can debate how serious a breach it is, but in the end, he's going to do what's best for the Mets with a singular purpose. You're going on and on about damn semantics. I shouldn't have bothered. I don't see any realistic scenario where this hurts the Mets, it can only help, as sleezy as it is (and it's still light years better than employing Jose Reyes). I guess he could piss off deGrom or someone and totally erode all players confidence in him but as long as he pays guys more/as much as other teams are offering, none of that'll come to pass. Is he gonna low-ball Drew Pomeranz because he secretly knows he wants to be a Met, have that get out, and then no one will ever sign here? seems unlikely. Syndergaard is so far from free agency that this will likely be old news. Even deGrom has two years. But yes, do some smoothing for those guys to make sure they're not pissy about it, which they seem not to be. As it stands, the Mets hired someone they like.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: And the conflicted investor has to divest. Which, you know, "he did". I mean, yes, it's silly and he still technically/legally has the fiduciary duty. But like, it's pretty clear he's just going to violate that. He got all the sign-offs in order to do so. He's not going into negotiations "unofficially behind the scenes" thinking about that duty in any way. All the clauses and statements are about making sure it's not obvious that he's violating that duty. He is not conflicted. It's that lack of confliction that makes this sketchy, but again, everyone (including the players association, despite what public spin they want to put on it) signed off on it. Now, you tell me when that ends. deGrom's contract technically ends now, and he'll arbitrate a new one and then presumably someone at CAA takes over that duty?. Same with Thor, etc. Vargas and Cespedes aren't really going to be negotiating new contracts period, they're just status quo. There's nothing really to enforce/negotiate/conflict there right? because they _agreed_ that this is the mutual interests of both parties?

fwiw, here's all the free agent starters, including option guys (this is 2017-2018) https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit≶=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2018&month=0&season1=2017&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=9323,8223,3543,6249,375,1118,9132,9425,8173,8137,7448,7024,4972,4538,7410,11713,4371,4141,10732,1841,12638,2036,9434,3201,7593,2520,8779,7608,1890,4676,6902,11426,9784,7872,14444,404,3284,3200,4026,7059,5279,9388 I don't really like Keuchel's trend line. His low K%. His best year was 2015, and that was his best K% year too, and it's only plummeted since. I'd be okay with him for a few years, for a few bucks, but I think he's going to a lot more useful to another team that will pay him more because they need him more.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: https://nypost.com/2018/11/01/mlb-should-be-ashamed-of-this-brodie-van-wagenen-mess/amp/ More BVW fallout, this time from the Post's Phil Mushnick, who calls the arrangement "preposterous "and relies on those so stupid that they would believe the nonsense line that BVW'S gonna recuse himself and won't participate in negotiations with his ex clients. Which is even more preposterous if, by some miracle, turns out to be true instead of horseshit nonsense. Only the Mets, kids. Only the Mets. The other thing I was thinking about, going back to yesterday's ridiculous discussions, is that critical thinking isn't even needed here. This is such a basic and obvious straightforward example of a conflict of Interest that almost any reasonably informed adult, no matter their background, should see. Your posting Mushnick of all people? He's the literal embodiment of "back in my day we played the game right!" nonsense. And yet, you still haven't managed to articulate what Brodie is conflicted about. What are his two competing interests?

Do arbitration! we need a few new teams too, who's in?!

Benjamin Grimm wrote: So if I'm on trial for robbing a bank, and I tell my attorney, in confidence, that I did in fact rob the bank, and I was helped by a guy named Kenny from the gym. My attorney now joins the prosecution team. He is no longer my attorney. So he goes and finds Kenny and gets him to flip on me, using the information I gave him in confidence. There's nothing wrong with this? there's a lot wrong with it. It's a conflict of interest to take that job. But once you have it, once you're acting in your new role and your new job, your only interest is prosecution. You have information that wasn't obtained in a super okay way, but you're not really conflicted. You're just prosecuting him. also that's ridiculous and would never happen. It's illegal.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: You really have no fucking clue or idea as to what you're talking about and it's comically obvious.. Which is no shame. But you should take CFs advice and do some basic brushing up on conflicts of interest before you claim that you're the only one here who can think critically. The official, and legal and signed off on divesting of Van Wagenen from CAA resolved all the conflict of interest issues. It's almost time to leave and you're not listening anyway, so I'm not going to quote passages from Wikipedia at you and show you how they don't apply, as I've basically already done that. It's mind-boggling to me that you still insist it's a conflict of interest when you can't even articulate the secondary interest. Everybody is literally acting towards a singular purpose, and we're all aware of exactly what those goals are, as you've articulated multiple times. No one in currently conflicted in what the course of action they are going to take is. Benjamin Grimm wrote: Ceetar just informed us that CF is not, in fact, an attorney. So I guess he doesn't know anything about conflicts of interest after all. apologizes, i thought you meant Wagenen.

There's a conflict, if last week, Brodie told deGrom (or like, Frazier, or someone NOT on the Mets) "Look, I'll over-over pay you. I can't technically take a cut but you slip me a bit on the side." There's a conflict if you think Brodie still has some vested stake in CAA in some capacity. If he's secretly plotting to favor those clients over other clients and then double back in another decade or so to his old job and reap the rewards. I don't think either of those things are true. Benjamin Grimm wrote: Ceetar wrote: I have no idea what you do for a living. and you've still only defined a singular interest for Brodie. What's the other interest that it's conflicting against? He's an attorney. AND THE CONFLICT IS WITH DEGROM'S INTEREST! He's not an attorney. Also, last week Sandy Alderson's interest conflicted with deGrom's interest. Every fucking contract discussion fits that description.

I have no idea what you do for a living. and you've still only defined a singular interest for Brodie. What's the other interest that it's conflicting against?

Benjamin Grimm wrote: It's not about "benefit" to Van Wagenen. It's about harm to deGrom and the others. It's about information given in confidence potentially being used against them. Yes, that's exactly what I said. And that's not conflict of interest. conflict of interest implies benefit to Van Wagenen.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: It seems pretty clear that if someone has confidential information about a client, and then switches to the other side, that would be a conflict of interest. What if you're on trial, and your defense attorney joins the prosecution? Is that not a conflict of interest? The stakes here are less dramatic, but I think they're similar in concept. No, it's not. What benefit does the attorney gain from you walking?? What personal gain does Van Wagenen gain if deGrom 'wins' (subjective!) a contract negotiation? None. They've divested themselves of that previous _interest_ there is no conflict. Wagenen makes no additional commission by now giving deGrom even more money. It's the wrong term.

I figure there's little chance Van Wagenen left all the money on the table to not be 'the man'. Is Minaya going to get shot down by Brodie and then run whining to Jeff and try to sway him? That seems extremely dysfunctional and out of character as well. Centerfield wrote: Ceetar wrote: Van Wagenen doesn't have any conflict of interest. The risk is one of spoiled confidences, trusted personal information that may have now be in the teams hand that otherwise wouldn't have, but we don't even know if there's much of that or what possible consequences it could have. Maybe he knows deGrom really really loves NY and has told him he'll take a hometown discount, and that'll cost him $30 million or something. Would a lawyer who's helped a person sue his employer later be allowed to become an executive at that same company? Are there legal grounds that prevent that? That's probably the parallel. Trust me when I say this. You could not be any more wrong. "I'm not going to tell you why, you're just wrong." can we please try critical thinking and facts? it'd be nice.

because you haven't even attempted to engage in critical thinking on the topic.

Van Wagenen doesn't have any conflict of interest. The risk is one of spoiled confidences, trusted personal information that may have now be in the teams hand that otherwise wouldn't have, but we don't even know if there's much of that or what possible consequences it could have. Maybe he knows deGrom really really loves NY and has told him he'll take a hometown discount, and that'll cost him $30 million or something. Would a lawyer who's helped a person sue his employer later be allowed to become an executive at that same company? Are there legal grounds that prevent that? That's probably the parallel.

Centerfield wrote: I believe he is saying, for the first time, that there is a hierarchy among the three. And Minaya is at the top of it. If he is, he's an idiot and cites no reasoning/sources. Where's the info for the title change? Besides, all three are kinda focusing in different places, so to say one is 'on top' is semantics at best. And I mean, of the three Minaya IS the one that's been the most successful, so you'd kinda think that anyway.

All Puma is saying here is that Omar is staying. That's fine and expected. Does anyone really think there is a functional difference between 'special assistant' and 'top advisor'?

The Mets, and really anyone, should stop giving Francesa the time of day. He's not a 'must stop' on any interview tour. I get Brodie's probably just doing everything at this point, but let's not make that a routine. does WFAN still do weekly spots with both managers? If they do, this certainly proves my point of it being a worthless stop, I don't think I've heard a single "Collins/Callaway said on WFAN today that.." in years.

Yes, but none of those people interviewed for ANY job. They decided they were happy where they were. It's not like they're out there interviewing for the Giants or Orioles.

A Boy Named Seo wrote: I really wanna know more about the contractual provisions Jeff was talking about with regards to player negotiations. If his skill dealing with player contract negotiations is one of his best assets, then what are those provisions and how to they work? My best guess is that Van Wagenen and the Mets arb clients have discussed the numbers they might submit.