Markakis extension on hold

[Sports Guy]

This is all part of the same negotiation even if the talks are weeks apart. Or are either of you going to tell me that the talks they are going to have six weeks ago are not part of this negotiation either? We're talking about negotiations for a new contract starting next year. The "low ball" may be "water under the bridge" now, but it sets an unfortunate tone.

Maybe if the Orioles had started with their latest offer in July, they could have finished the deal by now, two months into the offseason. In that way, it's one less thing on MacPhail's plate in January when he should be finalizing the roster.

Right...What is the point of a low ball offer in July?

Did they think Nick would sign for less money?

[Lucky Jim]

This is all part of the same negotiation even if the talks are weeks apart. Or are either of you going to tell me that the talks they are going to have six weeks ago are not part of this negotiation either? We're talking about negotiations for a new contract starting next year. The "low ball" may be "water under the bridge" now, but it sets an unfortunate tone.

Maybe if the Orioles had started with their latest offer in July, they could have finished the deal by now, two months into the offseason. In that way, it's one less thing on MacPhail's plate in January when he should be finalizing the roster.

Obviously, I mistook the context for the first offer. I was talking about the offer during the season. I wasn't privy to the other thread where some mention of some subsequent, lesser offer was made. If it was. This is all unclear. Regardless, if you're referring to a lowball offer from months ago, then: no, I don't really consider it all that relevant to these negotiations.

That said, much like the rational posters before me (see, for instance, Mackus and Frobby to name two of the more prominent), I don't see any great faux pas in the O's negotiating tactics so far. I wouldn't have low-balled to start, but then again, I don't really have any numbers or evidence of an opening low-ball offer that's been made within the context of renewed negotiations.

Is this prior offer based on Belkast's info? Because you sure discount it whenever its positive. If it is, then it's mildly funny that you'd use it now...when it paints the O's poorly.

It's okay that you're in the other camp, that prefers to see ineptitude and blown chances in each move the O's make or don't make - you've got 11 years of evidence supporting your position.

Certainly, however, this "unfortunate tone" hasn't seemed to have any real negative impact on the negotiations - whether they're on hold or not. They seem to be going according to expectations.

[Lucky Jim]

This is all part of the same negotiation even if the talks are weeks apart. Or are either of you going to tell me that the talks they are going to have six weeks ago are not part of this negotiation either? We're talking about ongoing negotiations for a new contract starting next year. The players in this show are the same then and now. While the "low ball" may be "water under the bridge" now, but it sets an unfortunate tone.

Maybe if the Orioles had started with their latest offer in July, they could have finished the deal by now, two months into the offseason. In that way, it's one less thing on MacPhail's plate in January when he should be finalizing the roster.

I mentioned this in the very post you quote. Did you read it? The cost of this, however, is so low as to make it a pretty petty complaint.

[TonySoprano]

That said, much like the rational posters before me (see, for instance, Mackus and Frobby to name two of the more prominent), I don't see any great faux pas in the O's negotiating tactics so far. I wouldn't have low-balled to start, but then again, I don't really have any numbers or evidence of an opening low-ball offer that's been made within the context of renewed negotiations.

Is this prior offer based on Belkast's info? Because you sure discount it whenever its positive. If it is, then it's mildly funny that you'd use it now...when it paints the O's poorly.

you know what happens when you make an assumption, don't you?

It's the second time since July the two sides have temporarily walked away from the negotiating table - the first coming at the All-Star break, when the Orioles made an offer that one industry source called "low ball."

Source - The Sun

I never implied this was a great faux pas, but did say it's not the way, IMO, you start negotiations with a loyal employee. I did call it "water under the bridge" (or did you not read that?) But that's just me being rational.

[Lucky Jim]

you know what happens when you make an assumption, don't you?

Source - The Sun

I never implied this was a great faux pas, but didn't say it's not the way, IMO, you start negotiations with a loyal employee. But that's just me being rational.

I didn't assume anything. I said: "if". You're familiar with the "conditional", right? It's sort-of the opposite of assuming something. And, I might add, it's a conditional response that was feasible given your use of SG and Belkast on this point yesterday.

I stand by my post. The Orioles made a mistake with their initial offer. They corrected and are moving forward. The taint of that initial offer should (and I predict will) have little impact on these negotiations.

[TonySoprano]

I didn't assume anything. I said: "if". You're familiar with the "conditional", right? It's sort-of the opposite of assuming something. And, I might add, it's a conditional response that was feasible given your use of SG and Belkast on this point yesterday.

I stand by my post. The Orioles made a mistake with their initial offer. They corrected and are moving forward. The taint of that initial offer should (and I predict will) have little impact on these negotiations.

Which negotiations are you now referring to now since your opinion is the ones in July weren't part of the negotiations this month?

The Orioles made a mistake with their initial offer. They corrected and are moving forward. The taint of that initial offer should (and I predict will) have little impact on these negotiations.

I said the same thing earlier, Nostradamus.

[Lucky Jim]

Which negotiations are you now referring to now since your opinion is the ones in July weren't part of the negotiations this month?

I'm talking about July. I don't think it's particularly relevant to these negotiations. I haven't changed my position on this.

We made an initial offer in July. We were rebuffed. We came back months - not weeks, unless you mean 16-20 weeks - later with an entirely new perspective.

It's a semantic argument.

Do you think that a 6yr/55m offer (hypothetically) is a "joke"? Because that's what I was responding to in my post. If so, fine.

The initial offer in a negotiation works as an anchor - the negotiations generally will be geared toward that opening number. Stray too low, however, and you risk the anchor not setting - as in July. Come close, and you've established bargaining position.

This is why I consider the earlier talks irrelevant: the anchor never set. And now it's been established. In the strategy of negotiating, we've essentially re-started the process. A wise move, I think.

[TonySoprano]

Do you think that a 6yr/55m offer (hypothetically) is a "joke"? Because that's what I was responding to in my post. If so, fine.

I never made any inference, nice strawman you're trying to construct. All I've said is

They didn't come in with their best offer right away, but one that was described as "lowball." If Schmuck is correct, the Orioles have improved since then.

Once again, being, you know, rational.

[Lucky Jim]

I never made any inference, nice strawman you're trying to construct. All I've said is

Once again, being, you know, rational.

Hah. I'm not constructing a strawman - I'm trying to get your take on the subject of the dialog in which my use of "initial offer" occurred. As the very sentence explains. That's it.

Frankly, I was just curious. Now I'm curious how asking you a question directly relevant to the thread is the construction of a strawman?

Finally, if we haven't disagreed, why are you sniping at me? Strange. I mean, I explained why I considered the two discussions to be discrete above - you ignored that to try to kick-start some pissing match.

[TonySoprano]

Frankly, I was just curious. Now I'm curious how asking you a question directly relevant to the thread is the construction of a strawman?

Finally, if we haven't disagreed, why are you sniping at me? Strange. I mean, I explained why I considered the two discussions to be discrete above - you ignored that to try to kick-start some pissing match.

We don't disagree except for who started the sniping

That said, much like the rational posters before me (see, for instance, Mackus and Frobby to name two of the more prominent), I don't see any great faux pas in the O's negotiating tactics so far.

What's the implication there? That I wasn't being rational?

Is this prior offer based on Belkast's info? Because you sure discount it whenever its positive. If it is, then it's mildly funny that you'd use it now...when it paints the O's poorly.

It's okay that you're in the other camp, that prefers to see ineptitude and blown chances in each move the O's make or don't make - you've got 11 years of evidence supporting your position.

No snides in any of the above, right? Did Belkast hire you as his lawyer? Why bring him into the discussion, we, rational folks, are having, except to attempt to deride what I was saying? I'm done with you here, as it pertains to this discussion. Catch me offline.

[Lucky Jim]

We don't disagree except for who started the sniping

What's the implication there? That I wasn't being rational?

No snides in any of the above, right? Did Belkast hire you as his lawyer? Why bring him into the discussion, we, rational folks, are having, except to attempt to deride what I was saying? I'm done with you here. Catch me offline.

No sweat, Don Quixote.

Though I've little comprehension of what the big deal is here. Heck, I'm not even upset. You seem awfully testy, though. I've got no need - or reason - to "catch you offline." Whatever that means.

I brought up the argument of "rationality" in the context of a thread in which the O's actions were being called a "joke." That's it. I was trying to explain - and support - my position. I.e., by lumping myself in with folks who others think are rational, that I might - by association - be grounded in my opinion. See, and maybe this is news to some folks, but sides can disagree and both be rational. In fact, sides can disagree and both sides still manage to avoid being "naive" or "blind." In hard cases, or close calls, this is often the case.

I truly didn't know whether you were using Belkast as the source or not - that's why I asked. You used him yesterday. I thought you might be again. I was wrong. Apologies - but that's not much of an insult that you're responding to. I mean, the very next paragraph expresses the fact that I understand why you'd be skeptical. I understand why SG is skeptical. I'm wired differently. Big deal.

[Sports Guy]

BTW, why is this yet another thing that so many teams seem to do so easily and yet we struggle to get things done?

[Belkast]

Just wanting to make sure that I don't owe anyone legal fees????

[Moose Milligan]

BTW, why is this yet another thing that so many teams seem to do so easily and yet we struggle to get things done?

Cause it's the Orioles. Nothing is ever, ever easy...unless you include blowing games into the equation.

[TonySoprano]

I don't think that a firm offer for 6 years/50-60 million is a bad starting offer for the negotiations. However, I don't see why we would have to walk away prior to finishing the deal. Clearly, we are going to finish at between 6/60 and 6/65. Why not just finish the process?

The only reason the Orioles would choose to do postpone this inevitable price IMO is in the hope that the down market this offseason will bring Nick's price toward the 6/60 level. This could save a few million dollars total over a six year deal.

According to the Sun, it was Nick's side who walked away from the table

Stopping short of calling it an impasse, Murphy said he and Markakis have decided to observe what happens with baseball's free-agent class before negotiating again.