"BREAKING NEWS: Carlos Delgado's Agent is Insane"
by nms on May 12, 2008 2:00 PM EDT
Email
PrintI saw this on Primer and just had to send it around for more exposure. It is a reporter (Dan Graziano) blog entry. This is the weirdest thing...
http://www.nj.com/mets/index.ssf/2008/05/breaking_news_delgados_agent_i.html
I don't want to give away the juicy hilarity but I will say that it is classic enough that it features an MLB agent saying "So is your mom" to a reporter because of (essentially) an accounting question.
It is a must read
21 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
WOW! He is an agent?
Optimist Outlook: Gamers rhymes with winners
Pessimist Outlook: Gamers rhymes with losers
My Outlook: Augusta Greenjackets FTW!!
Breaking news
the journalist is petty. He’s the one who started the goading; and he had his reporting wrong. The agent had a right to mock him for being so inept at his job.
Yes, the “mets” are paying him only $12 million, but that’s not what he conveyed in the article. The agent shouldn’t have to correct the author’s problems with math, he should have checked Cot’s Contracts himself.
I’d rather be a greedy arrogant agent than an incompetent petty reporter.
so's your mom
The reporter was right and saying otherwise is just because you are looking for an excuse to slam a reporter.
The reporter was writing about the Mets and his audience was NY/NJ area baseball fans.
For the purposes of the Mets and their fans it doesn’t matter what Delgado’s salary is.. only what the Mets are on the hook for and the reporter CLEARLY said THE METS ARE PAYING DELGADO 12.
Furthermore… even if the reporter had erred he isn’t on the petty end of things. You and the agent are for making an inquisition based on 12 mil v 16 mil
And what did the reporter do tat was incompetant?
not understand economics
the $4 from the Marlins isn’t tied to Delgado’s contract which means that for all intents and purposes, Delgado makes $16MM to any team who may acquire him.
The Marlins pay THE METS, not DELGADO.
So what?
He was explaining the motivations for a possible trade and describing the money as a wash. To that end, he was right. Its a very minor error. It was not a substantial error w/ regards to what he was talking about. Plus, as he said, if the agent told him of the mistake in a decent way he would have corrected it the next column.
OTOH, there is no excuse for a professional agent responding that way. Way out of line. This man is an attorney? That’s crazy. Its amazing he hasnt been disbarred. What he did borders on an ethics violation. Imagine if he negotiates with teams like this… unbelievable.
I dont see how you can blame the reporter at all here… how was he “incompetent?” Are you related to Sloane or something…? I mean, I can understand if you want to make the point that Graziano egged him on a little and could/should have dropped it… but “incompetent/petty” – What are you talking about? There is a very clear case of incompetence here, but its not Graziano.
petty / incompetant
First, of course Sloane was also a jerk. But this was caused by the reporter initially. Sloane could have absolutely mocked him (rightfully) without coming off as an infant.
Petty:- Calling the agent “insane”? Petty
- The reporter was the one who started the nastiness, “real classy….” and referring to his reputation. Childish. Petty.
- Writing an article exposing the whole thing like a 3rd grader. Petty
- The money isn’t a “wash”. Delgado makes $16MM this year; not $12. If Delgado is traded to Seattle, he is owed the remainder of $16MM, not $12MM. It does not matter at all to the Mariners that the Mets got $4MM from the Marlins, unless the Mariners were to negotiate that $4MM as well. That’s a HUGE HUGE oversight for the reporter. The fact that he STILL says “well, yeah I was right about what the Mets pay Delgado” shows that he still doesn’t understand this fact, or he’s just too stubborn to admit his major mistake.
- Delgado does not have a no-trade clause. Never did.
- This mistake would not have occurred if he spent 30 seconds fact checking
- Even after the agent explained to him that he was wrong, the reporter STILL didn’t understand that he was wrong or why it mattered. He’s an idiot. Doesn’t excuse the agent for the “your momma” line, but this reporter certainly made himself (inadvertently) look worse after this exchange than he likely intended upon publishing this Pulitzer-winning article.
You say these things are done all the time and corrected without getting snarky. Well maybe that’s the point. The agent shouldn’t have to do the research for a report (and be nice about it) when its’ the damn reporters job to get facts correct. Especially when those facts are so readily available.
Disagree
-The no trade clause isnt really relevant to the story.
-The reporter was only talking about the cost TO THE METS. So what Delgado gets in his checks isnt relevant or a major issue. This was about how the Mets and Mariners match up on a trade. That’s all he was talking about in the original article if anyone bothered to read it. Arguing about this is just semantics. The cost to the Mets is the same. Same thing with the option versus the buyout. What difference does it make in relation to the trade possibilities? NONE.
-The agent didnt really explain anything in the first emails. All he did was be a dick about it.
-The agent was the one who started the nastiness with the comment about “unreliable sources.” Prior to that the only email Graziano sent asked “How so?” in reference to how was he wrong. Then that jacka** agent impugned his “unreliable sources” and consequently knocked his professionalism. That is what was pretty. The response was appropriate, IMHO.
-Sloane IS insane. I applaud the reporter for calling out this dangerous lunatic. Needed to be done. Im sure everyone else who ever worked with Sloane is happy to see it, too.
Delgado does not have a no-trade clause. Never did.
(emphasis mine)
-Minor point, but Delgado DID have a no trade clause in a previous contract – according to Cot’s. I guess this mistake would not have occurred if someone spent 30 seconds fact checking…
Carlos Delgado 1b
4 years/$52M (2005-08), plus 2009 option * acquired 11/05 in trade from Florida (as part of deal, Marlins paid Mets $7M – $1M in 2006, $2M in 2007, $4M in 2008) * 05:$4M, 06:$13.5M, 07:$14.5M, 08:$16M, 09:$16M option ($4M buyout) * 2009 option may vest based on MVP voting rank * if 2009 option does not vest, club has $12M mutual option ($4M buyout) * MVP award bonus ($50,000 for finishing 2nd to Bonds in MVP vote) * signed as a free agent 1/05 * 4 years/$68M (2001-04)
o $4.8M signing bonus
o 01:$10M, 02:$17.2M, 03:$17.5M, 04:$18.5M
o complete no-trade clause
o $50,000 All Star award bonus * 3 years/$36M (2000-02) * agent: David Sloane * ML service: 13.002
(emphasis mine)
http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2004/12/new-york-mets.html
Oh, I realize it wasnt material to the discussion at hand or the point you were trying to make that Delgado DID once have a no trade clause… There was really no reason for me to be a jerk about this, I suppose… I think this illustrates my point about Sloane perfectly…
huh?
the cost to the Mets was NOT the point. The point was it was “a wash”. Meaning the money isn’t an issue to EITHER side. I’m not sure how you can see this differently.
The comment about unreliable source is NOT insulting. It is 100% accurate. The money was wrong the terms were wrong. The source WAS unreliable.
After that? The writer completely slagged him.
BTW: sometimes you have arguments with friends or others. How many times do you be a complete asshole and clip the one statement the other guy makes and make him look dumb? If you want to keep friends the answer is none.
Graziano was lazy in his reporting, and was very petty.
Agree
If you’re asking someone else to do your work for you, you should at least be polite about it.
The Mets are paying Delgado $16M, and the Marlins are paying the Mets $4million. That’s not exactly the same thing as the Mets paying $12M. The Mets pay an additional approx. $350K to make up the difference in state/local taxes.
And, he has no no-trade trade clause. He didn’t have one when he was traded from the Marlins either.
Dan said
QUOTE -
“The Mets are paying Delgado 12M in salary this season…” (emphasis mine)
NOT “Carlos Delgado is making 12M in salary this season.”
What he said is 100% factually true. Except for the no trade clause, but that’s a pretty common, innocent mistake that could have been corrected very easily without all the b/s from Sloane. That stuff happens every day and gets corrected. No biggie. He DID have a complete no trade clause in his last contract, fwiw.
Either way he’s not asking anyone to do his work for him. I get the feeling people are reading just the blurb and not the entire article here. There is no way this is on Graziano.
The agent told him it was inaccurate.
“You’re wrong on both the money and the terms”
OK, so he emails back “How so?”
And the agent responds “Ask your unreliable sources to look it up again”
Now, if you’re a reporter, and you just published something in the paper, and someone who really should know (in this case the agent who negotiated the contract) tells you it’s wrong, then it probably is. Would you not take the trouble at that point to look it up? Would you not then apologize for getting it wrong? Sloan’s reply is a bit snippy, he could have told him exactly what was wrong, but it’s pretty ridiculous that the guy had to ask.
Instead, the reporter just gets rude:
“Real classy and helpful. Thanks. If you can’t tell me what I got wrong, I will assume I got it right and you’re just living down to your reputation.”
The guy is a dimwit. Now, sure, Sloan’s out of line too. Assuming his mom isn’t a funny guy, I suppose Sloan should publish a retraction. But this clown acts like he’s doing Sloan a favor by giving his readers accurate information to correct his mistakes, when he could have gotten it right in the first place in 5 minutes had he Googled it.
If you are asking someone else to look up information for you, or even asking someone who probably knows it without having to look it up, it’s generally a good idea to include a “please” in there somewhere. This guy acts like he’s entitled to have Sloan hold his hand and walk him through it. It wasn’t that complicated.
correct, but pointless
Either the guy made a made a completely inconsequential point in his initial argument (that the Mets are paying him $12MM doesn’t matter to the Mariners since the Mariners would owe him $16MM because the Mets would keep the $4MM from the Marlins).
Or he doesn’t understand that the Mets aren’t obligated to send $4MM over to the Mariners.
Either way, he screwed up basic knowledge that any layperson understands. The agent had every right to mock him.
Galt, you're completely backwards on this...
The POINT of the article was about how much the Mets are on the hook for, NOT how much Delgado is gettting paid, or his yearly salary, or the total salary upon which his agent’s cut is based.
The money is almost a wash—the Mets are paying Delgado $12 million in salary this year plus a $4 million buyout on his 2009 option for a total of $16 million, and the Mariners are paying Sexson $14 million. Delgado has a no-trade clause, and could veto any deal, but maybe he’s sick of the New York circus.
What he wrote is completely accurate from the Mets standpoint of monetarily evaluating this deal. If you want sit here and argue over the fine points of trans-organizational fiduciary allowances, well, that’s a different argument…
there are two teams in the trade
The point of his initial article was that they should trade Sexson for Delgado because the money would be almost a wash (i.e. a total of $16MM for Delgado vs. a total of $14MM for Sexson) but but it’s not true. The fact that the money washes for the Mets is ONE ASPECT of the trade. That it would cost the Mariners an extra $6MM for Delgado (prorated) is a pretty major oversight and makes it so his hypothetical trade is foolish. If he was just ignoring what the impact would be to the Mariners, it makes it even worse.
“the money washes out for the mets, so it works!”
“yeah, but the Mariners would have to pay an extra $6MM for Delgado over Sexson, so it wouldn’t work for them”
“So what, it would work for the Mets. That was my point”
“But, it wouldn’t work for the Mariners, so there couldn’t be a deal – why talk about it”
“BECAUSE IT WOULD WORK FOR THE METS!!!!”
“your momma!”
No. No. No. No.
You’re adding in these complications which completely obfuscate the negotiating points of the deal. The Mets owe Delgado a net of $12 mil. They have every right to argue with the Mariners that they should keep the $4 mil from the Marlins, BUT IN THE REAL WORLD, The Mariners will point out that the $4 mil should be included with Delgado or other considerations will need to be included, such as a prospect or something.
TECHNICALLY, you are right, and so is the agent. But you are right about a point that has absolutely nothing to do with the point at hand. The agent was trying to be a contrarian here, arguing a technical point that had no effect on the actual story, and you’re carrying his water here with the exact same argument.
yes yes yes
It would very likely be negotiated by the Mariners to get the $4mm. However, it’s not automatic, and it was negligent for the writer to not mention the Marlins or the $4MM in his Sunday article.
Obviously, the agent is going to think the guy has no idea what he’s writing about because he made an assumption (we’ll give him credit and say he made the assumption rather than had no idea about it) without stating that he was making an assumption.
The way he wrote it made it appear that what the Mets were paying Delgado ($12MM + the buyout) is what Delgado was owed. That’s not true. Delgado is getting paid $16MM. The Mets owe Delgado $16MM. They happen to get $4MM from the Marlins, but that point was never mentioned or even hinted at by the author.
It was a major error. What the mets happen to be paying Delgado is one thing, but when he tries to present a trade option where “the salaries are basically a wash” when one player is owed $14MM and the other is owed $20MM, and never makes any mention of a $4MM payment from the Marlins that he ASSUMES will go to the Mariners, he’s 100% wrong.
You are making this way more complicated than ever was intended...
If the deal was agreed to in principle without these details being factored in….THAT would be a major error. For a writer floating the idea of the Mets weighing “Hypothetical Cost A” vs. “Hypothetical Cost B” there is absolutely no reason to fully explain “(Hypothetical Cost A + $4 million) – $4million”.
The writer was merely mentioning that from the Mets perspective, this deal could be a wash, if they CHOOSE to pursue it….meaning if they want to include the $ 4 mil in their calculations, it is completely their prerogative, not the Mariners, and not the Marlins….you’re right….but…
Again, you are arguing minutiae that is completely inconsequential to the subject the original article…your argument right now is that the assumptions upon which this whole hypothetical is based, would have to be agreed to first by the Mets….well DUH!!! Of COURSE they’d have to agree to include the $4 mil otherwise the money wouldn’t be “a wash” and the deal would have to be structured dramatically different.
You realize
this wasnt a legal transaction, right?
It was just a newspaper sunday baseball notes column with some quick speculation about a potential trade matchup that isnt even a legit rumor or anything.
Maybe you and David Sloan should go down to Graziano’s office, drag him out to the street and beat him to death over it. I honestly think youre overreacting to the initial “mistake” almost as much as Sloane did… I dont get it, man.
Why
Would you assume the Mets would keep the $4MM? I dont think that is a given at all. Of course, theyre not obligated to do so, but it could certainly make sense, and it wouldnt be a shock to see them do it, or even throw in more money.
IMHO agents shouldnt be mocking reporters ever. Thats bad for business.
Buzz Bassinger
Is Graziano the type of journalist Will Lietch should aspire to or did Leitch make Graziano write this?
Graziano is the one insane
1) People keep mentioning “a wash”. But this doesn’t mean there is not a monetary hit on the Mets side. A wash means it’s pretty even from both sides. And that is wrong unless negotiations take care of that. The whole point of saying it’s a wash is to say there are no issues. But there will be issues. That can of course be negotiated over, but they are there nonetheless.
2)On top of that the no-trade was completely wrong.
3) The initial comment from Sloane was to inform him politely that he was wrong on both the money and the terms. It was quite lazy of Graziano to not research. He made a mistake in his entry and he should be checking the details since it is readily available information. Then just replies “how so”.
4) The comment to check your unreliable source -> how is that a terrible comment. The source was unreliable. The comment might be abrupt but Graziano should have gotten off his ass and done some research.
5) His reply:
“Real classy and helpful. Thanks. If you can’t tell me what I got wrong, I will assume I got it right and you’re just living down to your reputation. As I understand it, he makes $16 mil this year and the Marlins pay $4 mil of it.”
This is very rude. He’s trashing him with the first comment and being an ass. Then also starts mentioning reputation and all. What a jerk.
6) After more baiting by the journalist there was finally a “your mom” comment. Quite tame in fact. It’s quite funny how people are backing up the jerk that is calling names and intentionally baiting someone and trashing the guy that finally replied to the baiting. The agent could have handled it much better. But Graziano was the jerk here.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
