Ken Griffey Jr. Case

Ken Griffey Case Jr. The first mistake that should be mentioned was made by Gillick, who chose to talk to other teams than the initial four teams that Griffey had mentioned on his list (Braves, Reds, Astros and New York Mets). Of course, this tactic would expand the market, however, as the events showed, "the tactic blew up on Gillick" because precious time was spent with clubs that would not have been able to contract Griffey, who could use his veto against the deals.

A second mistake worth mentioning was made by Griffey himself. First of all, he mentioned that he wanted to play for one team, which meant that his salary negotiation could only take place between certain margins. Second of all, Goldberg, who would second him in the negotiation, had no real experience in representing ball players and was not thoroughly familiar with the rules in such negotiations.

The effect of the first mistake I have mentioned was that precious time was wasted in negotiations that couldn't end with a deal and this had two obvious effects. First of all, Griffey expressed his will not to return to Seattle. Second of all, Gillick began running a race against time, because he would be placed in a position where he would have less power in trading the desired players.

Less time meant a greater advantage for Cincinnati, as Gillick would be placed with his back to a wall and forced to trade Griffey in lesser conditions. The second mistake I have mentioned had reverberations for Griffey and his future financial situation. He was known not to be a tough player at the negotiation table and, as such, he could be convinced to sign a less advantageous contract.

No form of income escalation was mentioned in the contract and Griffey agreed to defer $57.5 million in payments over the 2010- 2025 period, at only 4% interest. 3. In my opinion, we should be considering three different parties: Cincinnati, Seattle and Griffey himself. Cincinnati has a clear and obvious goal: signing Griffey. However, they are not actually conditioned by this.

As it is clearly understood from the text, they have the simple alternative of not signing Griffey, because the team is quite strong and it is most probable that Griffey is a mere reinforcement than an essential piece of the puzzle for the next season. Another alternative, which may also be considered the best alternative to a negotiated deal, is to negotiate directly with Griffey his coming to the Reds in the future season. Seattle, on the other hand, has the interest of selling Griffey.

Indeed, he is already in his last year of contract and he may be lost for no money at the end of the next season. This means that the club will have no chance of recuperating its investment in the player and any money spent. Their secondary interest is getting the best player exchange in this case.

Their alternatives are either to keep Griffey for the next season, which seems less and less likely, given the fact that Griffey has clearly expressed his intention of leaving the club, or to try trading him elsewhere. In my opinion, Seattle's best alternative to a negotiated agreement is to keep Griffey for the next season, because, as we have seen from the case study, it seems that the other clubs on Griffey's list have not expressed further interested in the player.

As for Griffey, he can choose either to continue with Seattle, to play for Cincinnati or to choose a third club, in the case negotiations between the two fail. The latter is also the best alternative to a negotiated deal. 4. The first point worth mentioning was the first offer laid on the table by Seattle: Griffey for four frontline players (Reese, Casey, Neagle and Williamson) and one player from a list of five best prospects in the Cincinnati system. This was obviously not a choice for Cincinnati.

As such, Seattle asked for Perez, Reyes, Tomko and catcher Jason LaRue. However, Bowden could not give up on LaRue and the deal was not made. Tomko seemed clear on the list and Mike Cameron appeared on it as well. The discussion revolved now around Perez and Reyes. In the end, Cincinnati gave up on Perez, but kept Reyes. Jake Meyers was the fourth choice on the list. 5.

As in most sport- related deals, this is clearly a distributive negotiation, because both Seattle and Cincinnati are trying to get the best from it at the expense of the other party. The deal relates to an exchange of players: several players from Cincinnati in exchange for Griffey. Seattle is obviously trying to get the best players in exchange for him, as we can see from the first offer laid on the table.

Cincinnati, on the other hand, is trying to pay as little as possible for the player and, as such, it will be in a win situation if it succeeds to have a more profitable exchange. 6. The final point of the negotiation was, in my opinion, the critical point in the negotiation. The fact that Bowden strongly held on to Reyes without giving in to the conditions laid forth by Seattle meant that he adopted a strong position in the negotiation.

His message was strong: "we are in a better position and we are calling the shots.