Despite all the rumors surrounding him and Roy Oswalt, Lance Berkman told Yahoo's Jeff Passan that he doesn't expect to be traded. Berkman has at least $10.6MM remaining on his contract when you include his 2011 buyout, and he realizes that figure scares teams off, especially in this market.
"Teams value their prospects more than they ever have," Berkman said. "I’m 34. I’m not having a great year."
Berkman, who is hitting .238/.340/.392 with six homers, has a no-trade clause, so like Oswalt, he controls his future to an extent. The Angels have a clear need for a first baseman, but Berkman says the Angels "wouldn't be an automatic yes." Berkman would rather go east than west, though that's not his number one consideration.
"There is absolutely no way I would consent to going somewhere that didn’t have a good chance not just to get to the playoffs, but to win the whole thing," he said.
Berkman realizes the Astros are probably not going to pick up his $15MM option for 2011 at this point. Earlier in the month, Jon Heyman of SI.com reported that Berkman would approve a trade if the acquiring team picked up his option.
I don’t get why Berkman at his age is so picky about where he goes. Yes, he’s not having a great year but with that 10.6MM attached to him, it looks like no one will be willing to take on such a big contract with a 34 yr old 1B. Besides, this years FA is full of elite 1st Baseman.
I’m thinking you meant next year’s FA class is full of first basemen, because this year isn’t that great for 1B, there’s Dunn, Pena, Cantu, Konerko and that’s about it, maybe Lee can bounce back, but I don’t see one of these guys getting huge contracts.
Also the guy has a right to be picky about where he goes, maybe he likes living where he does and doesn’t want to go anywhere else unless there is something in it for him, he earned his NTC and is utilizing it, nothing wrong with that.
Lance Doucheman
Dislike, very, very much
He’s going to have to move anyway and being traded costs him next to nothing. Like he’s going to be traded to a non-contender? He’s full of it.
He knows very well that he is blocking an entire organization from improving itself just so he can stay home — even while he continues to play like a one-tool washup.
Yeah, neato, the MLB afforded him an ability to be selfish at the expense of everyone else in Houston; he “earned it” (10-4 players have earned so much less? 9-5? Completely arbitrary). Doesn’t make him much less of a douche.
I think that being one of Houston’s all-time best, I don’t agree. I think with the brass in the front office, Berkman is treating others as he has been treated and furthermore, not accepting a trade to a certain team is within his contract and his right. Berkman is not the one “blocking” a re-building process….
Ohhh, so he IS being a douche. But it’s retaliatory douchiness. Then we agree.
Do you really think anybody here disagrees that he has a contractual right? I don’t think you do. And the failures of the organization to rebuild have no bearing on the question of whether or not he by his actions here is impeding any such process in that direction.
Only if you think that the front office is being a douche. I agree with below. Doesn’t really matter at this point
I highly doubt that if Houston could trade Berkman wherever they wanted the team would suddenly have a bright future. I understand that without trading him they get nothing, but c’mon, that organization is a mess and no one player/bad contract will fix it.
The degree to which they’d improve is not really relevant at all afaict. How many prospects would change your mind? What’s the threshold? 2 good prospects? What if one has an injury history? Okay how about 3 decent prospects. Okay how about just 1 really good prospect, and two backups.
Do you see why that isn’t relevant to the principle here
But your principle is that he’s being a “douche” and I disagree, one argument that you brought up was that he was impeding them from improving the franchise, so in my disagreement I pointed out that the team really wouldn’t be any better due to them just being poorly run over the last few years, thus making that part of your argument irrelevant. As for the rest of it, crunchy1 said it as well as I could, so yeah.
Edit: To expand on one aspect of this debate, let me ask you if you’ve put yourself in Berkman’s shoes. Think about where this guy is coming from, he has a NTC, he seems realistic enough to know that he’ll be on the FA market after this season and that he won’t sniff 15MM, he enjoys where he lives, wouldn’t you try to get that option picked up if you were going to approve a trade to another team/city that you had no way of knowing whether or not you’d even like? What if the Astros came to Lance and said “hey, look, we need to rebuild, the Pirates have offered us the best prospect package/most salary relief, we’d really like you to waive your no trade clause and go there, oh and btw they are probably just going to buy out your club option and you’ll have to find another new team in 7 months” would you really say yes? I know the Pirates would never trade for Berkman, but like crunchy1 said where is the line? Does he have to say yes if it’s someone within 7 games in order not to be a “douche”?
But your principle is that he’s being a “douche” and I disagreeThat’s not the principle. The principle here is that individuals acting selfishly at the direct expense of everyone else (particularly when everyone else is asking one not to) are acting like douches. It’s not evil, it’s not indefensible. It’s just douchey. And in other contexts, I’m confident you totally agree. (See the examples I commented on below.) But maybe you don’t. If you don’t, you’re consistent – but we disagree on what douchiness is.one argument that you brought up was that he was impeding them from improving the franchise, so in my disagreement I pointed out that the team really wouldn’t be any better due to them just being poorly run over the last few years, thus making that part of your argument irrelevant.It doesn’t make it irrelevant tho. Maybe you want me to rephrase: he is impeding their very ability to even try to improve the organization. Doubt about their ability to succeed are do not bear on whether or not it’s selfish to do this.if you’ve put yourself in Berkman’s shoes. Think about where this guy is coming from, he has a NTC, he seems realistic enough to know that he’ll be on the FA market after this season and that he won’t sniff 15MM, he enjoys where he lives, wouldn’t you try to get that option picked up if you were going to approve a trade to another team/city that you had no way of knowing whether or not you’d even like? My first reaction is to say that I’d act like a douche. But I wouldn’t deny that I was acting like a douche. I’d be being completely selfish. Hey, I know I’m making 15M to hit .230 and stand in the field, and I know it would help between 50 and 50,000 people in some way if I cooperated here and would cost me virtually nothing, but, ehh. F off.I’m not sure I wouldn’t do that. I might. I can be a douche. But if I even liked a few of the people involved, I’d probably cooperate. Why? I don’t need to sell my home in Houston. I’m already on the road for half of the season, which is half the year. So 1/4 of the year. It’s not going to change to 1/2 the year, because the season’s half over. I’m talking about an extra 2 months away from home at most. With the same 17m in my pocket, in addition to all the millions I’ve already earned. Not to mention I now get a chance to play for a ring, which I claim is very important to me. I’m a FA next year anyway, so I’ll have to retire to Houston or relocate anyway! So unless I retire, I’m not doing any extra relocating or traveling I wasn’t already going to have to do next year anyway. It’s pretty hassle-free for me, and would help a lot of people a lot.So I dunno if I’d do it, but I’d be a total douche if I didn’t. Not sure how you can disagree.As for the Pirates stuff, nah. That’d be one more inconvenience to me and it would probably tip the balance. Not sure. But ultimately it doesnt matter because that’s not his gripe. He’s specifically saying EVEN if you agree to deal me to a contender, I’ll probably say no. Dooouuuuche.
I’m just going to agree to disagree with you, because I know that if we continue this conversation we’ll just start arguing semantics, (we might already be doing that) and I don’t feel like doing that. You think he’s acting like a douche, I think he’s looking out for his best interests, maybe when boiled down it’s really the same thing, idk, either way I bid you good day.
Berkman’s just looking out for his best interest while he can, as most people do. Just as the Mariners didn’t owe Ken Griffey, Jr. anything, Berkman doesn’t owe the Astros a favor either. Calling him selfish because he won’t help the team by offering to uproot himself to a place he doesn’t want to go is extreme. Where do you draw the line? Would you call Aramis Ramirez selfish if he picks up his 15M option next year even though it would help the Cubs immensely if he didn’t? Is it different because Ramirez and the Cubs negotiated that contract and that Berkman is employing his contractual rights negotiated by MLB? If ownership pays a guy well below market value should they make good by breaking the contract and giving him a raise just to be nice guys? Everybody takes what they can when they can while they still have leverage. Berkman has leverage on his side and he intends to use it. If the Astros had the leverage they wouldn’t hesitate to use it either. It’s just business.
You also say, “It’s not like he’s going to a non-contender…”. So does this imply that he wouldn’t be selfish if he turns down a trade to, say, the Kansas City Royals, even though that could help the team too? Again, where do you draw the line here?
Calling him selfish because he won’t help the team by offering to uproot himself to a place he doesn’t want to go is extreme.
Ha-ha, clever reframe job. He isn’t simply “not offering to uproot himself”, he is actively declining to cooperate.
Would you call Aramis Ramirez selfish if he picks up his 15M option next year even though it would help the Cubs immensely if he didn’t?
Of course! Who wouldn’t? That’s precisely what it is.
Is it different because Ramirez and the Cubs negotiated that contract and that Berkman is employing his contractual rights negotiated by MLB?
No.
If ownership pays a guy well below market value should they make good by breaking the contract and giving him a raise
No, but you should stop pretending not to know the differences between this and Berkman’s situation. Do you really not see them? I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here.
Everybody takes what they can when they can while they still have leverage. Berkman has leverage on his side and he intends to use it. If the Astros had the leverage they wouldn’t hesitate to use it either. It’s just business.
Do you really think you’re adding new information here? No one disagrees with any of this. Let me c/p my comment from later in the thread for you: You’re also a-okay with owners pocketing cash instead of increasing payroll, high ticket prices, Manny Ramirez type approaches to the game, and various other instances of individuals acting selfishly at the direct expense of everyone else, right?
Finally, I don’t hate Berkman for this or even think he’s a bad dude. It’s just an unabashedly douchey move. Sure, I could help everyone in the Astros organization AND another organization while getting paid exactly the same amount of money to be on the road for only a marginally greater amount of time over the next 5 months, after which I was going to have to retire or live somewhere else anyway … but … nnnnaaaaahhhh. I want to spend my millions hangin’ in Houston, while hitting .230 and generally sucking.
Douche. Indefensible? Complete immoral? No. That’s why I didn’t say that. I said douche, which is what it is. Just like Ramirez (Aramis and Manny), ownership, and whatever else. I’m not the one with the double standard here; y’all are.
Are you sure it’s everyone else with the double standard? It seems to me that you hold MLB ballplayers to a different standard than the normal population. Let me give you a hypothetical here…
You have an agreement with your company but the boss decides that you are no longer needed. He asks you if you wouldn’t mind moving to a location you don’t like to work for a different company. This is only a temporary assignment after which you are not going to be asked back to your old company nor is it likely that your new company will ask you to come back either. You would be doing this strictly as a favor to your old company. You do not get any extra compensation for doing this. Afterwards you are on your own to look for employment. Furthermore, would it matter if you had a family and/or other interests in your current town that you would either have to leave or disrupt by re-locating? If you had a say in the matter, would you agree to those kind of terms?
If you say absolutely yes…then it sounds like sanctimonius b.s.
If you say no or even “it depends”, well, then you’re Lance Berkman.
That is such a shamefully off-target hypothetical. Here are the critically and obviously important details you left out on purpose in order to make it seem convincing:- I am a millionaire already, making 15 million dollars this year, and will be making millions after this year with whatever new company I choose.- My job requires me to travel constantly anyway, so “relocation” just means another hotel somewhere else (instead of home in Houston) for a couple of months spread out over the next 5.- There is something I claim to want (analogous to world series) that my present company flat-out doesn’t have, that the company you are sending me to DOES DEFINITELY HAVE. I have said over and over I want this thing, this thing is important to me.- This other company wants me there and would benefit considerably from my cooperation. So would tens of thousands of fans of that company. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of fans of my current company will be inconvenienced if I stay.There are other relevant details omitted too, but those stick out.Add those in, and I’d probably say yes. Importantly, though- even if I said no I’d know very well I was being a selfish douche, just by the math. It’s an extremely small inconvenience to me and in fact would be giving me something I claim to want. Not sure why you didn’t answer my question:You’re also a-okay with (don’t think it’s douchey) owners pocketing cash instead of increasing payroll, high ticket prices, Manny Ramirez type approaches to the game, and various other instances of individuals acting selfishly at the direct expense of everyone else, right?If not, double standard.
In essence, the hypothetical is not different at all. It seems the douchebag factor is relative to job description and salary. It’s okay for an engineer or a cashier to turn an unwanted re-location down, but not if you’re a baseball player with a multi-million dollar salary. I could buy the argument that it’s easier financially for Berkman to make this move but I don’t see any difference in the basic principle.Your selfish owner example is different, in my opinion, because expectations are different. We in Chicago have experienced this type of ownership with the Cubs and the Blackhawks (and not so coincidentally until this year, the two teams who have gone the longest without a title in this city). So I speak with some experience when I say that as a fan, you make a direct financial investment in the team and expect that you will get a return on that investment. If ownership makes an honest attempt and fails, we can forgive that. If the owner pockets the money for himself, you feel cheated. There is a direct relationship between a fan’s investment and ownership’s actions, or in this case, non-action.In the case of Berkman, we’re talking about fans who have made an investment with the Houston Astros to do whatever they can to put a good product on the field. It isn’t made directly with Berkman. Ownership enters an agreement with Berkman to provide x amount of dollars for x amount of years in exchange for Berkman’s services as a ballplayer. All that should be asked of Berkman from fans is that he gives them a 100% return in the team’s investment by virtue of his work ethic and production on the field. It’s overstepping our bounds to dictate his career choices or where he should live. If he doesn’t want to make those changes, he hasn’t cheated anyone at all. He just chose not to do the fans a favor. It’s not the same thing.I think if you are going to make a comparison relevant it should be on parallel terms: employee to organization/organization to employee. The Mariners/Griffey and the employee/company situation are both better parallels to the Berkman/Astros situation than an ownership/fan situaton. Because of that different dynamic, I can’t answer your question directly. What I can say is this: If someone knowingly and willingly cheats me out of my investment, then I’d say that would be a douchey thing to do. If someone chooses to not to do me a favor when he has no obligation to do so, then I don’t see it as douchey at all. That’s just my opinion. Yours may be different.
Big Leno will get his cash from Uncle Drayton and then be cut loose to retire or catch on with another team…unless McLane is idiotic enough to sign him to a huge extension because his brain continues to misfire…
I kinda gotta agree with Berkman here. Why should he move unless the team has a WS shot? There’s only one thing left to play for in his career. He’s got money, he’s playing near home, he’s been to a WS, he’s put up great career numbers. All he needs at this stage is the ring. I can’t blame Berkman for not wanting to uproot everything so he can latch on with a team that is 1) no guarantee to make the playoffs and 2) would be a significant underdog to win the WS even if they do.
Not sure he hasn’t been around Ed Wade a bit too long Crunchy and just been brainwashed into just thinking Houston is just the place to be, or he just loves the Houston area. if he does love the Houston area and wants to play for them forever? More power to him and hope he stays. If he thinks Houston is going to reclaim any kind of decency anytime soon and that’s the reason he wants to stick around.. Then i feel sorry for him.
I don’t think Berkman should (or wants) to stay for the long term. He’s going to want to move on if he wants that ring anytime soon. But if he isn’t going to a WS contender then he might as well wait and choose his spot in the offseason. Going for a few months to somewhere he doesn’t want to be where he has little chance to win, only to pick up and move again in the offseason doesn’t seem like that it would be too appealing to most people. I just think that, with everything he’s accomplished, he has the right to choose how he wants to move on.
Which team with little chance to win are you suggesting is trying to trade for Berkman? Just bad rhetoric here man. It’s a known that only contenders are buyers here.
So the calculus changes:
1.He says he wants to win.
2.They say they want to trade him to a winner.
3.He might have to relocate (sell his home and buy a new one), but that’s unlikely and he already has to do do it at the end of the season anyway.
4.He already spends literally half of the next 5 months on the road as it is.
5.His salary will not decrease a penny.
6.He will help at least two organizations, meaning everyone in them. (The Astros and the team to which he’s traded.) And presumably two fan bases.
Again, he goes from having no chance to win a world series to having a chance to win a world series. Which he says he wants.
What is the cost exactly? He wants to put his feet up at home in Houston a few times over the next few months? If he wants that more than he wants a ring, lol wrong line of work imo, but whatever.
It’s not that he isn’t entitled to his preferences. It’s that man, he’s a pretty selfish dude. My word for that is douche. It applies to most of us at one time or another. Why resist it here?
man I have a new like of Berkman that is a interview with a real baseball guy. He clearly has a good idea of whats going on in todays game and really Berkman has earned the right to decide if he wants to be traded or not he’s been there a long time. Also why if you have the option as a vet would you accept a trade to another losing team not that another losing team would trade for him anyway.
To me, Berkman’s comments make perfect sense. He has a no trade clause, so he doesn’t want to get traded unless:
A. They are crazy enough to pick up his $15m option.
B. They might go to the world series.
So…. Berkman would like SOME compensation if he’s traded, either in terms of chances of winning a WS or extra cash. Why shouldn’t he? Should he say instead: “I don’t really like hanging around my family, and would welcome a trade that places me far away from them until fall- on a team where I have no chance of winning anything.” And he also doesn’t expect the Astros to get much back except salary relief, which is pretty rational.
You’re also a-okay with owners pocketing cash instead of increasing payroll, high ticket prices, Manny Ramirez type approaches to the game, and various other instances of individuals acting selfishly at the direct expense of everyone else, right?