Gonzo to the Expos!

[bigdawg2003]

Link (http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2003/0624/1572399.html)

Wow, the Rangers must be paying most of his salary. There's no way the owners would let the Expos take on $12 million in salary. Either that or the Rangers assume several bad Expos contracts.

[Maple Leafs]

Strange they would do this after most of the Puerto Rico dates.

[tucker342]

wow, that's a pretty big trade for the Expos, I'm kind of surprised that the owners would allow though...

[Qwikshot]

Just grabbed him before the 7 pm deadline in our NL only league...of course I may not get him since he still isn't in the NL but I decided to risk it...we actually bid on all free agents...I am weak at OF so it could put me on top.

[daedalus]

It just means the Rangers are probably paying a large chunk of his salary to get a good prospect or two back. Given that it's the Rangers, it's probably an arm.

[ISiddiqui]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/news/2003/06/24/rangers_gonzalez_ap/

Gonzalez will probably reject the deal using his no trade clause.

[fantastic flying froggies]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui

Gonzalez will probably reject the deal using his no trade clause.

No trade clause according to USA Today as well.

[bryce]

yea, dallas radio is reporting no trade. moorad, his agent, confirmed that. 'spos have someone coming in town today to try and change his mind, though, but don't count on it. gonzo couldn't give two shits about competing for a potential playoff team. and if you think he was unhappy in detroit, you can bet your ass he won't be happy in canada. and he doesn't play well unless he's happy.

i love the idea that someone on dallas radio threw out today - ok, so if he rejects all our trades to get him out of here for prospects, as soon as the 'trade deadline' (that somehow really isn't a trade deadline b/c trades happen all the time after july 31) passes, then sit him on our bench for the rest of the year. let the young guys play anyway. 'sorry, juando, we told you we were looking to the future, and you didn't want out.' heh.

edited for typo.

[Maple Leafs]

Minor rant, here...

I'm getting a little sick of this scenario. Team signs a guy to a deal with a no-trade clause, decides a few years later that they made a mistake, then trade him anyways. They make the deal public (either by announcing it, or leaking it to the media), then sit back while the player gets hammered for being selfish if he invokes his clause.

I'm sorry, but if you want to trade guys, don't sign them to no-trade deals. If you did give them the clause, then don't waste everyone's time by making a deal anyways (unless the player has OK'ed it in advance). A deal is a deal. Honor it.

I think we all agree that baseball players are overpaid babies, maybe none moreso than Juan Gonzalez. I'll admit, I hate the guy. But he negotiated a contract in good faith, and he has every right to expect the Rangers to honor it. He probably took less money or other considerations in order to get his no-trade clause, so if he wants to be a dick about this and scrap the Rangers' trade, then I can't say I blame him.

[sachmo71]

Well, technically he could still go. It's possible he's looking for the Rangers to give him more "incentive" to move on. He still has two days.

[bryce]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
Minor rant, here...

I'm getting a little sick of this scenario. Team signs a guy to a deal with a no-trade clause, decides a few years later that they made a mistake, then trade him anyways. They make the deal public (either by announcing it, or leaking it to the media), then sit back while the player gets hammered for being selfish if he invokes his clause.

I'm sorry, but if you want to trade guys, don't sign them to no-trade deals. If you did give them the clause, then don't waste everyone's time by making a deal anyways (unless the player has OK'ed it in advance). A deal is a deal. Honor it.

I think we all agree that baseball players are overpaid babies, maybe none moreso than Juan Gonzalez. I'll admit, I hate the guy. But he negotiated a contract in good faith, and he has every right to expect the Rangers to honor it. He probably took less money or other considerations in order to get his no-trade clause, so if he wants to be a dick about this and scrap the Rangers' trade, then I can't say I blame him.

i agree with everything you said. juando has every right to negate the trade, per his contract. if i came across harsh on juando, i'm more annoyed with his work ethic and attitude than anything, and would like to see him go during our rebuilding efforts. but, yea, i blame hart and hicks for the last 2 years of completely idiotic moves that have set us back another 3 years probably.

[vtbub]

More often thean not, a player insists on a no trade clause. Chances are there are a few teams on a list that Gonzalez and Texas have that he would allow a trade too, and I'm sure Los Expos was not on the list.

A good example of a no trade player was McGwire, he had 10-5 rights and accepted a trade to St. Louis.

It was pretty dumb to announce he had been traded before seeing if he'd take the trade. It makes both sides look stupid.

[Alan T]

Aren't there other considerations too for Juan Gonzalez here? If I am correct, isn't he still bound to the same contract, but in Canada, he would get taxed more on the same contract? meaning less money for him than he originally agreed to?

Maybe I remember that wrong, but if so, I am sure his agent told him about this little issue. (also I remember a while back when the Rangers were trying to sign Randy Johnson, one of their selling points was lack of a state income tax like alot of other states have.. for someone making millions a year, thats a good chunk of change there too.)