A Quick Question
If Moneybags is the victim of a character assassination, doesn't that imply that he had character to begin with?
I don't know that there is a lot more that can be said about this, but it just keeps sticking to the headline. Trade rumors that Moneybags claims not to know anything about, and Risebrough gets irritated about hearing. The team being pulled off the practice ice so the PR guys could no doubt tell them what they are supposed to say. Gee guys, did you really think the media wasn't going to cover the story? I think in July when Russo first mentioned that the two sides were going to start talking, everyone knew it would be a circus if it wasn't done by the time the season started, and yet here we are.
Back to today's business. Gaborik has never shown the kind of loyalty Salcer is claiming. He held out in 2004, he has disappeared in the playoffs, when he is "hurt" he doesn't play and doesn't practice. He has never made comments about how much he loves it in Minnesota (at least none that are jumping to mind). I remember a few times after big games him saying that the fans in Minnesota are great, but all sports players say that about their fans.
Character assassinations generally involve smear tactics against someone whom had (or has) the respect of a large number of people in order to make them seem less appealing. Mr. Salcer, I believe that ship sailed a long time ago. Say around October 2004 (the holdout), and the respect was certainly almost gone by April 20th, 2008 (latest playoff disappearance), slipped almost all the way with the "If they would just give me what I want" crack, and now has gone negative after finding out that your client injured his $6.33 million groin while playing hackey sack, not hockey.
You have a client that cannot win the PR contest. your best bet is to stay quiet, make him stay quiet, let the trade happen, and make your money somewhere else.
Opening your mouth only hurts you at this point.
Salcer also said today, "The important part of this process is recognizing the various dynamics of sensitive negotiations for both the player and team that transpire. Making some effort to maintain integrity for the principles involved should be considered."
If anyone can tell me what that means in English, you get two bonus points.
I will simply counter with this. If the party of the third part does not receive legal recourse for the antidisestablishmentarianism being portryed by the party of the second part and the party of the first part, then the party of the first part, here by referred to as "The Team," shall not get the epistemological benefit of being obsequious.
And no, I have no idea what this has to do with there being no official state church, but the word just fit.
I have to work again tonight, so I will miss yet another game. I will be TiVOing (is that a word yet?) it, so don't tell me what happens, OK?
Go Wild!
-Buddha
PS- For those of you who told me that cameras cannot capture images of pure evil, I give you this:
This of course, is Ron Salcer, Gaborik's agent.
Read Related
Comments
Marian Gaborik’s agent came to his client’s defense Wednesday night after being criticized for reportedly turning down contract extensions ranging from $8.5 million to even as much as $10 million annually.
Ron Salcer said Gaborik is being hammered in the public airways, blogs and message boards based on the premise of misinformation being reported by the media.
Salcer disputed what he considered some of the more outrageous claims being tossed around, such as the seven-year, $70 million and eight-year, $80 million rejections reported in Tuesday’s Pioneer Press.
The press have to be getting their info from somewhere. If it’s the team, and he’s really not turning down that kind of money, then they are indeed assassinating any goodwill Gaborik has in town. And if that’s the case, they should be ashamed. This is starting to border on a Twins-like level of inability to pay the big name guy.
by neide on Oct 23, 2008 2:52 PM CDT 0 recs
Agreed...
I agree with the Twins analogy to a point. Russo says Salcer does not dispute the 7 -10 years at 8.5 per. If that is the case, they are offering to pay him. I don’t believe for a second they aren’t offering at least 8, but maybe they aren’t.
If it comes out that they are being cheap, I will be the first to jump their case. Right now, though, it all seems like Gaborik’s side turning down deals to see if they can get something better.
I just can’t buy into the team being cheap when they are spending close to the cap right now. It really doesn’t seem like they are unwilling to pay, but that they are unwilling to pay an outrageous amount, and I applaud that. Yes, he is a big name, but he is not a huge name.
The only way to avoid failure, is to learn from it.
by buddhafisch on
Oct 23, 2008 3:45 PM CDT
up
0 recs
However, Gaborik is (according the KFAN on my drive home) making $7.5M this year. If they really only think he’s $500k more valuable to the team now than when he signed in 2005, they’ve lost their collective minds.
He’s the face of the franchise, and I would be willing to go to 8 years for $70M to keep him around. They are something along the lines of 160-40 with him in the roster (might be 140-60, but it’s in that ballpark) according to what Lou Nanne said on the radio, and he thinks the Wild would be foolish to let him go. Call me crazy, but I’m siding with Louie.
That being said, if he’s being sold a bag of goods that he should pass on that kind of money, then he needs to fire his agent, because he’s not going to get a bigger offer elsewhere.
by neide on Oct 23, 2008 4:28 PM CDT 0 recs














