Truth & Rumors > MLB

Lincecum turns down $100M from Giants

Views
96862
Comments
228

08:13 AM ET 01.23 | The Giants are reportedly talking to both Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain about multiyear deals, though Cain's future may be more clear. [San Francisco] seems to be focusing on deals of two years or one with Lincecum after he rebuffed an offer of at least $100 million for five years. Giants people are saying only that talks are "ongoing" with Cain, but there is said to be a fair amount of optimism they can keep Cain on a longterm deal for under $20 million a year. ... Meanwhile, the Giants appear to be tens of millions apart on a long deal with Lincecum after he rebuffed their offer for five years and nine figures and he countered much higher than that. It is thought Lincecum seeks a deal for seven or eight years.

CBSSports.com

Tim Lincecum, Icon Sports Tim Lincecum, Icon Sports
Comment #1 has been removed
January 23, 2012  08:42 AM ET

Giants forgot to include zig-zags in the deal...dude likes his weed...

January 23, 2012  08:43 AM ET

Sounds fishy to me. I don't know too many pitchers that are going to turn down $20 million a year. Pitching elbows are fragile.

January 23, 2012  08:47 AM ET

His hair styling products must be very expensive.

January 23, 2012  08:53 AM ET

Greed ...

January 23, 2012  09:14 AM ET

-sigh-
I remeber when getting all you were worth from your employer was an American ideal. One to be admired.
Now? In this screwed up day an age "he's greedy".
Instead we celebrate the Mitt Romney's of the world. The people who buy companies and tear them apart, cutting costs at every corner and screwing the workers.
I miss the good old USA.

January 23, 2012  09:27 AM ET

he will get what he wants as long as he keeps producing and stays healthy, put that kid on a team with some consistent offense and he could be nearly unbeatable

January 23, 2012  09:35 AM ET
QUOTE(#6):

-sigh-I remeber when getting all you were worth from your employer was an American ideal. One to be admired.Now? In this screwed up day an age "he's greedy".Instead we celebrate the Mitt Romney's of the world. The people who buy companies and tear them apart, cutting costs at every corner and screwing the workers.I miss the good old USA.

Companies don't exist solely for the benefit of their employees and the pervasive belief that they do will be our downfall. A failed company employs no one. A company that exists because of government support is a precedent we can't afford. That is socialism and if we head down that path, the power of the government will overwhelm us all. As a society, we don't survive that. Enough political, it doesn't belong here, sorry. I'm sure Lincecum wants 7 or 8 years at $25mm per. He'll get it from someone, sometime. What I miss is the loyalty players showed to their teams. Shouldn't players be as loyal to their teams as we fans are? HAHAHAHAHA

January 23, 2012  09:41 AM ET

He won't take the deal because he knows the Giants won't have much offense in the next few years, especially if they're spending a lot of money on him and M. Cain. He wants to win! I'm sure he would have taken it if the team offense was otherwise.

January 23, 2012  09:41 AM ET

Neeeds to geet Hiiiisssss Freak on.

January 23, 2012  09:43 AM ET
QUOTE(#8):

Companies don't exist solely for the benefit of their employees and the pervasive belief that they do will be our downfall. A failed company employs no one. A company that exists because of government support is a precedent we can't afford. That is socialism and if we head down that path, the power of the government will overwhelm us all. As a society, we don't survive that. Enough political, it doesn't belong here, sorry. I'm sure Lincecum wants 7 or 8 years at $25mm per. He'll get it from someone, sometime. What I miss is the loyalty players showed to their teams. Shouldn't players be as loyal to their teams as we fans are? HAHAHAHAHA

Loyalty? The "Good ole" days" when players spent thier entire career with one team was due soley to the reserve clause. That "loyalty" was DOA as soon as the reserve clause got ruled illegal. And as since, by your logic, corporations owe nothing to thier employees, then employees owe nothing to the corp. To obligate the employee to the company would be (adopting Bachman/Palin mid-west nasal whine) socialism.

January 23, 2012  09:45 AM ET
QUOTE(#9):

He won't take the deal because he knows the Giants won't have much offense in the next few years, especially if they're spending a lot of money on him and M. Cain. He wants to win! I'm sure he would have taken it if the team offense was otherwise.

He wants money first and foremost. He's been pretty clear that he's determined to go free agent and sell to the highest bidder.

January 23, 2012  09:48 AM ET
QUOTE(#12):

He wants money first and foremost. He's been pretty clear that he's determined to go free agent and sell to the highest bidder.

The guy is a hippie! I'm sure he would love to stay in SF at somewhat of a discount and still get boatloads of cash. But it ain'y happenin' cause they won't have offense for years!!!

Comment #14 has been removed
January 23, 2012  10:00 AM ET
QUOTE(#13):

The guy is a hippie! I'm sure he would love to stay in SF at somewhat of a discount and still get boatloads of cash. But it ain'y happenin' cause they won't have offense for years!!!

Take your stereotypes and shove 'em. Just because the dude has long hair and smokes dope doesn't mean he's wants to live in SF or is willing to sell himself cheap. In fact, if you pay attention to what he's been saying, he's been clear that he's not signing an extention and there will be no discount for anyone. He wants every penny he can get.

January 23, 2012  10:02 AM ET
QUOTE(#14):

He's looking for Sabathia money but he'll fall short of it. Maybe 21 or 22 million a year, but Sabthia's monstrous durability is what puts him on a salary level just north of Lincecum, if for no better reason than Lincecum's durability is questioned in most circles, for whatever reason.

His durability is questioned because he is as skinny as a rail and has a funky throwing motion. Everyone's afraid his arm will fall off. I'm in that camp. I think he'll be done in his early 30's.

January 23, 2012  10:07 AM ET
QUOTE(#11):

Loyalty? The "Good ole" days" when players spent thier entire career with one team was due soley to the reserve clause. That "loyalty" was DOA as soon as the reserve clause got ruled illegal. And as since, by your logic, corporations owe nothing to thier employees, then employees owe nothing to the corp. To obligate the employee to the company would be (adopting Bachman/Palin mid-west nasal whine) socialism.

Certainly agree on the reserve clause. I'm commenting on the unrealistic expectations of fans. The players deserve to get what they can, especially pitchers with their history of injury. On the other issue, business and labor have to be in some form of partnership. Neither exists without the other. Employees have no obligation to stay, the employer needs to have a situation where the employee wants to stay. Employers must be profitable to stay in business. Government support can't be utilized to prop up unprofitable businesses. Our system is not perfect, but it certainly is the best one around.

Comment #18 has been removed
Comment #19 has been removed
 
Comment #20 has been removed

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Kerr 'absolutely expects' Knicks offer
    Views
    2756
    Comments
    1435
  2. 2
    No return timetable for Lightning MVP
    Views
    1625
    Comments
    219
  3. 3
    Yankees, Mets, Red Sox among Hanrahan hopefuls
    Views
    6258
    Comments
    172
  4. 4
    Smush Parker allegedly punches high schooler
    Views
    1132
    Comments
    132
  5. 5
    Tuukka Rask takes blame for Bruins' Game 1 loss
    Views
    1187
    Comments
    101

SI.com

SI Photos