El Tucan Speaks..... (NO POLITICS)

[Krt22]

Turning down 15k for not being enough, holy entitled batman. Likely after that swine Gillis filled his ear with what he "should get". I hope Gillis feels good about himself, he essentially manipulated poor ol Toucan for personal gain and ol Toucan has now shot himself in the foot. That additional 45k dollar check he was hoping for simply won't be arrive. I do hope Kuch sends him a few pairs of Sketchers though, he's going to be need haul to quite a few bags to make up for the 15k he just pissed away out of "principle"

[jacobEDGE]

What if you were to order a solid gold pizza with diamonds instead of pepperonis. Do you tip the delivery driver for delivering a pizza or do you tip based on the price of gold? Questions without answers. Riddles of the universe my friends.

 

This is so stupid and illogical.

 

You tip based on a percentage of cost of the pizza, regardless of toppings. Or in Kuchar's case, a percentage of money won.

[jaymayor]

What if you were to order a solid gold pizza with diamonds instead of pepperonis. Do you tip the delivery driver for delivering a pizza or do you tip based on the price of gold? Questions without answers. Riddles of the universe my friends.

 

To me ordering a pizza to your house is the same as going to a restaurant, you base your tip on the total order amount. Most likely the bills would equal the same in either situation unless your ordering drinks (pop, beer etc). Plus if you can afford to order a gold pizza with diamonds, you can afford the accompanying tip when it's delivered to you. I'm biased with this opinion though, I delivered pizzas for two years in high school.

[Obee]

Some of you on this thread on Team Kuchar need to read up on the a fallacy known (among other names) as the "continuum fallacy," or "fallacy of the beard."

 

Being cheap is a thing. Being generous is a thing. Just because some of you can't put an exact number on what is cheap doesn't mean that there isn't a thing called "being cheap."

 

So just stop with this "I don't know how much he should have given him, so therefore it can't have been cheap." None of you are actually saying those words, but that is, nevertheless, your argument. That's flat-out fallacious reasoning.

 

No tip on top of the $3,000 would have been cheap. $1.00 would have been cheap. (Virtually) everyone would agree with that. And so on, up to a certain point that varies from individual to individual. At some point we all have a point at which the tip becomes "reasonable," and then flows over into "generous." That is a given.

 

This is really the only argument here from those of us on Team Toucan. That's it. We're literally arguing about the definition of cheap in this instance, which is why I posted my question earlier in the thread. I really wish some of you guys on Team Kuchar would answer it, because I think it would help minimize the snark.

I could care less whether people think he is cheap or not cheap - he obviously could have given the local caddie much much more. As could Cjeka the year before, but neither of them did.

You are missing (willfully or otherwise) a bunch of posts where people are making larger character and career missives about Kuchar based on this episode and inserting themselves into the episode and how they'd be so fantastic, not simply whether he was cheap and should have given more.

 

That is what a fair few people are countering here, not a definition of cheap.

 

Forgive me, but I don't get the distinction you are trying to make at all. Some people think this is beyond the pale cheapness on Kuchar's part. If pressed, they give an example of what they would consider reasonable as a counter-example. This whole thing (for those of us on Team Toucan) is about what is and is not cheap. What you have the "right" to do is completely beside the point and not at all in play with those of us on Team Toucan. We grant everyone that a priori, as they say. ;-)

[DFS PFD]

Those of you that genuinely feel El Toucan was robbed, despite himself negotiating this pay, should pay him out of your pocket to make it "fair". Or start a Gofundme.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

Some of you on this thread on Team Kuchar need to read up on the a fallacy known (among other names) as the "continuum fallacy," or "fallacy of the beard."

 

Being cheap is a thing. Being generous is a thing. Just because some of you can't put an exact number on what is cheap doesn't mean that there isn't a thing called "being cheap."

 

So just stop with this "I don't know how much he should have given him, so therefore it can't have been cheap." None of you are actually saying those words, but that is, nevertheless, your argument. That's flat-out fallacious reasoning.

 

No tip on top of the $3,000 would have been cheap. $1.00 would have been cheap. (Virtually) everyone would agree with that. And so on, up to a certain point that varies from individual to individual. At some point we all have a point at which the tip becomes "reasonable," and then flows over into "generous." That is a given.

 

This is really the only argument here from those of us on Team Toucan. That's it. We're literally arguing about the definition of cheap in this instance, which is why I posted my question earlier in the thread. I really wish some of you guys on Team Kuchar would answer it, because I think it would help minimize the snark.

 

I could see myself paying an agreed rate for services whether that’s 3k or 5k or whatever. Winning with a resort caddie I could realistically see myself paying maybe another 35k. Not sure how cheap that would make me in this situation.

 

In the other thread I never defended Kuchar and his cheapness. I was only pointing out that at that point in time we didn’t have the facts and there was a whole lot of speculation going on.

 

As I said before, I am not and have never been a fan of Kuchar.

 

Thanks. Now we're getting somewhere. :-)

 

And I use "Team Kuchar" loosely. ;-)

 

Yeah, my advice to Kuchar would have been: "Golly, Kuch, depending on the deal worked out with the player, Tour caddies get ~10% of a win, right? He's a resort caddie, so maybe half that? $40k to $60k?"

 

If I was a tour player and my colleagues and or agent said “dude a 35k bonus is way too cheap” then I could see myself bumping it up. Personally I have a hard time thinking that I’d give a “traditional” bonus.

Thinking more like 15% of what your regular would make would be right. After all given the language differential little to no advice is being provided. He doesn't have travel or hotel expenses, no lost time for traveling, he's not working long hours on the range with him, he's not managing the long list of pre and post tournament logistics either. He's just showing up and carrying a bag and he thinks that's deserving of what the regular caddie earns? Delusional.

[dropkicked]

Karma is real..

 

I wonder... If the caddie was an American, would Kuch have paid him appropriately?

[Long Shot]

Declining 15k is called the principal. Kuchar is a cheap man, good for the caddie. And all of you saying you would caddie for 5k and don't know what he's mad about are probably the some of the same people who are always low balling people on BST who would likely cry about it too after the fact.

 

No. Those of us saying we would carry for $5,000 would know that entered into a agreement. And then we would stand by it and not start whining for more.

 

Hell I'll take it a step further... I would pay Kuch to spend the week inside the ropes looping for him!

Novelty wears off quickly

[gmangolf]

Speculation on my part...

 

- Kuch hires local caddy, agrees on a fee for the week.

- Kuch wins, offers caddy more money, caddy declines in the heat of the moment for whatever reason.

- Caddy has second thoughts, tries to extort more money out of Kuch through bad press.

- Kuch doesn't want to cave to threats won't throw in more money on principle (I wouldn't either).

 

Or Kuch is cheap. But I could easily see how the situation goes south and when someone starts trying you to force you to do something via threat... most people would dig their heels in even more.

[MilkyButterCuts]

I agree with the consensus of this thread, both sides are in the wrong. Feel bad for both as really no one 'wins' here.

 

Going to be honest though, pretty bummed to hear this about Kuch.

[MtlJeff]

Some of you on this thread on Team Kuchar need to read up on the a fallacy known (among other names) as the "continuum fallacy," or "fallacy of the beard."

 

Being cheap is a thing. Being generous is a thing. Just because some of you can't put an exact number on what is cheap doesn't mean that there isn't a thing called "being cheap."

 

So just stop with this "I don't know how much he should have given him, so therefore it can't have been cheap." None of you are actually saying those words, but that is, nevertheless, your argument. That's flat-out fallacious reasoning.

 

No tip on top of the $3,000 would have been cheap. $1.00 would have been cheap. (Virtually) everyone would agree with that. And so on, up to a certain point that varies from individual to individual. At some point we all have a point at which the tip becomes "reasonable," and then flows over into "generous." That is a given.

 

This is really the only argument here from those of us on Team Toucan. That's it. We're literally arguing about the definition of cheap in this instance, which is why I posted my question earlier in the thread. I really wish some of you guys on Team Kuchar would answer it, because I think it would help minimize the snark.

 

Hi Obee, I plan on mostly staying out of this but will respond to you because I respect you and feel we can have a good dialog.

 

I just don't see this much differently than most employer/employee relationships. Many of us work in large businesses, and chances are good that if you make 50-60k or whatever, your CEO might make 10M. People who work for Google, GoPro, apple, Microsoft whoever...there are employees there that make 50k, 150k, and there are people that have net worths in the multi millions.

 

When Microsoft posts a job opening for a junior developer or something, they list a salary of X. If you want that job you can take it, if you don't you don't. People don't usually argue "well Steve Ballmer is worth 20B so they can afford more". There is a general understanding of how the economy works.

 

I argued in the other thread about markets, that Kuchar has a right to post a job every weekend if he wants and say "caddy for hire, 3000$". And if he can fill it, great! That's his right. He just won a PGA tournament with a 5000$ caddy. Maybe that's the correct market value. Or maybe not. If he posted that and no one took the gig, or did a poor job that hurt kuchar's chances, than it's not good and he should pay more

 

I don't care if people call him cheap that's their prerogative too. But I just don't succumb to "we need to do X because that's always what has been done"

[JaNelson38]

Apples and oranges completely, not even in the same realm of thinking. Kuchar essentially won the lottery, and what do you do after you win the lottery? You go tip the person/store who sold you that ticket. This caddy helped him win that tournament. My opinion is that he took advantage of the caddy. $5000 isn't enough for what he helped him do in the bigger picture.

 

 

Its not apples and oranges. My point is that its a business transaction, and each side is looking to get the best deal they can for their end of the transaction.

 

Kuchar didnt "win the lottery"....he won a golf tournament. Something he works his a** off trying to do. Its his living...he didnt scratch off a ticket or pick 6 numbers correct. Give me a break.

 

A caddie has no idea what his golfer is going to shoot on a given week. Kuchar could have finished in the bottom third of the field, and all of a sudden $5K doesnt sound so bad. And then this 'discussion' is an afterthought.

 

The caddie did what was asked of him, which was carry Kuchar's bag for 4 rounds and feed him some local knowledge of the track. And for that service he was paid an amount agreed upon before the tournament began. That's not "taking advantage" of anybody. That's called a private business transaction between two adults. The fact that Kuchar won is irrelevant. No different than a regular looper on the PGA Tour....you think they're all paid the same no matter if your name is Mickelson or someone in the 150's on the money list or some Tour rookie just trying to make cuts? Of course not. LPGA players go though caddies like water. So do some regular Tour guys. Being a caddie is a job, and like any other job, you agree to the wage your employer wants to pay you....and if you dont like it, you are free to go elsewhere. You don't cry and whine about it later because your employer makes some money that, after the fact, you wish you had gotten your hands on.

[Long Shot]

And I’ll tell you how this whole pathetic thing got started.....

 

How much cash did Kuchar actually have on him or have access to in Mexico?? I’d be willing to bet that he gave Tucan everything he had at the moment. I’m also betting Tucan didn’t want a personal check.

 

No one is cruising around Mexico with a giant wad of cash other than the Drug lords.....and maybe Phil....LOL!!

 

There’s a reason he got paid in a lot of small bills in a thick envelope. Kuch certainly cleaned out the ATM machine at the resort and the front desk.

 

The resorts deliberately keep very limited cash on hand to avoid getting jacked. Most things are on credit card. What do you think the odds are that Tucan was SUPPOSED to get more money later via a wire transfer and things somehow went terribly sideways?

Couldn't mail the guy a check? Really?..lol

[TheInfidel]

This makes A LOT of guys on here look real stupid. Stupid as rocks.

 

$5k is embarrassing.

 

Really? Stupid? Because they have a different opinion?

 

Chalk one up for your side of the debate. (That was sarcasm for the rest of my stupid side).

 

But I’m guessing you would know about rocks, now go crawl back under yours.

 

Dude, take it easy. Have you got money invested in Kuch or something? It's only a low level tour story.

 

When the story broke, sourced information was presented and instead of considering the information people painted Kuch as a PGA Tour Angel. Turns out he stiffed the guy, cuz he could, simple as that. He's drawing criticism for that and rightfully so. The court of popular opinion is a tough school.

 

I'm not crawling under any rocks I'm staring down keyboard warriors and trolls lol. Have a good one.

[BottleCap]

Some of you on this thread on Team Kuchar need to read up on the a fallacy known (among other names) as the "continuum fallacy," or "fallacy of the beard."

 

Being cheap is a thing. Being generous is a thing. Just because some of you can't put an exact number on what is cheap doesn't mean that there isn't a thing called "being cheap."

 

So just stop with this "I don't know how much he should have given him, so therefore it can't have been cheap." None of you are actually saying those words, but that is, nevertheless, your argument. That's flat-out fallacious reasoning.

 

No tip on top of the $3,000 would have been cheap. $1.00 would have been cheap. (Virtually) everyone would agree with that. And so on, up to a certain point that varies from individual to individual. At some point we all have a point at which the tip becomes "reasonable," and then flows over into "generous." That is a given.

 

This is really the only argument here from those of us on Team Toucan. That's it. We're literally arguing about the definition of cheap in this instance, which is why I posted my question earlier in the thread. I really wish some of you guys on Team Kuchar would answer it, because I think it would help minimize the snark.

 

When Microsoft posts a job opening for a junior developer or something, they list a salary of X. If you want that job you can take it, if you don't you don't. People don't usually argue "well Steve Ballmer is worth 20B so they can afford more". There is a general understanding of how the economy works.

 

 

 

That's not how it works, big employers don't post a salary all that is negotiated and generally, successful companies do pay more because they have more.

[ksuWildcat]

Kuchar is cheap. Steinberg a p***k. This money ( standard practice in tour I m led to believe) would be absolutely life changing. Kuchar said this guy helped him a lot. If a tour caddy had stepped in for the tournament there would be no question that he would pay that money.

 

Posts like this make me lose hope for all.

[JRJ70]

There's alot of information that we don't have. If Kuchar got together the 5k in cash with a promise to get him another 15k at the time of the tournament and the caddie refused at that time would it change things? From the article there hasnt been any real communication since the tournament so when was the 15k offered? 20k is probably still light but it would change things somewhat for me if he turned it down at that point. If they offered 15k more last week that changes things the other way. So whats the point in speculating?

[Under2hours]

Again missing the point..... Regular week Kuchar wins $1,300,000 and his caddie gets $130,000 & Kuch $ 1,170,000. This particular week Kuchar pocketed an extra $125,000.......

 

So to reiterate there is not a single "Team Tucan" saying to pay him $130,000.

 

That sir says it all....

[radiman]

Some of you on this thread on Team Kuchar need to read up on the a fallacy known (among other names) as the "continuum fallacy," or "fallacy of the beard."

 

Being cheap is a thing. Being generous is a thing. Just because some of you can't put an exact number on what is cheap doesn't mean that there isn't a thing called "being cheap."

 

So just stop with this "I don't know how much he should have given him, so therefore it can't have been cheap." None of you are actually saying those words, but that is, nevertheless, your argument. That's flat-out fallacious reasoning.

 

No tip on top of the $3,000 would have been cheap. $1.00 would have been cheap. (Virtually) everyone would agree with that. And so on, up to a certain point that varies from individual to individual. At some point we all have a point at which the tip becomes "reasonable," and then flows over into "generous." That is a given.

 

This is really the only argument here from those of us on Team Toucan. That's it. We're literally arguing about the definition of cheap in this instance, which is why I posted my question earlier in the thread. I really wish some of you guys on Team Kuchar would answer it, because I think it would help minimize the snark.

 

Hi Obee, I plan on mostly staying out of this but will respond to you because I respect you and feel we can have a good dialog.

 

I just don't see this much differently than most employer/employee relationships. Many of us work in large businesses, and chances are good that if you make 50-60k or whatever, your CEO might make 10M. People who work for Google, GoPro, apple, Microsoft whoever...there are employees there that make 50k, 150k, and there are people that have net worths in the multi millions.

 

When Microsoft posts a job opening for a junior developer or something, they list a salary of X. If you want that job you can take it, if you don't you don't. People don't usually argue "well Steve Ballmer is worth 20B so they can afford more". There is a general understanding of how the economy works.

 

I argued in the other thread about markets, that Kuchar has a right to post a job every weekend if he wants and say "caddy for hire, 3000$". And if he can fill it, great! That's his right. He just won a PGA tournament with a 5000$ caddy. Maybe that's the correct market value. Or maybe not. If he posted that and no one took the gig, or did a poor job that hurt kuchar's chances, than it's not good and he should pay more

 

I don't care if people call him cheap that's their prerogative too. But I just don't succumb to "we need to do X because that's always what has been done"

 

I think the issue here is the generally accepted assumption that the winning pro is giving their caddy 10% of the winnings. I get that there is an agreement being made at X dollar amount. Kuchar did nothing illegal. But, to give him 4% of what is generally accepted is pretty cheap. At least in my opinion. Should he get the full 10%? I don't know. It was a one time arrangement. He doesn't work with Kuchar day in day out. So, probably not. But, .4% of his winnings is ridiculous. Again, call it what you will. It's not illegal and he isn't legally responsible to give him more. But, there has to be a middle ground that could have been met. Kuchar could have changed this guys life and chose not to. That's fine. It is within his rights to do so.

 

In the end, there is no right or wrong definitive answer. We all have our opinions on the matter. Some will feel this tarnishes how they feel about Kuchar and I can appreciate that. Others can not care less, and that's fine too.

[MtlJeff]

Some of you on this thread on Team Kuchar need to read up on the a fallacy known (among other names) as the "continuum fallacy," or "fallacy of the beard."

 

Being cheap is a thing. Being generous is a thing. Just because some of you can't put an exact number on what is cheap doesn't mean that there isn't a thing called "being cheap."

 

So just stop with this "I don't know how much he should have given him, so therefore it can't have been cheap." None of you are actually saying those words, but that is, nevertheless, your argument. That's flat-out fallacious reasoning.

 

No tip on top of the $3,000 would have been cheap. $1.00 would have been cheap. (Virtually) everyone would agree with that. And so on, up to a certain point that varies from individual to individual. At some point we all have a point at which the tip becomes "reasonable," and then flows over into "generous." That is a given.

 

This is really the only argument here from those of us on Team Toucan. That's it. We're literally arguing about the definition of cheap in this instance, which is why I posted my question earlier in the thread. I really wish some of you guys on Team Kuchar would answer it, because I think it would help minimize the snark.

 

When Microsoft posts a job opening for a junior developer or something, they list a salary of X. If you want that job you can take it, if you don't you don't. People don't usually argue "well Steve Ballmer is worth 20B so they can afford more". There is a general understanding of how the economy works.

 

 

 

That's not how it works, big employers don't post a salary all that is negotiated and generally, successful companies do pay more because they have more.

 

Yes I know, I just posted that to be more succinct. There will typically be a salary range they can work with but that won't be on the listing but the argument is the same

 

I'm not sure there is data to support that more successful companies pay more. I have not always found that to be the case but I could be wrong

[JaNelson38]

I will say, situations like these are I think a big reason you're seeing more and more golfers going with relatives/family members as their caddies, even if that person has no experience in looping whatsoever. Stupid stuff like this doesnt come up when you have your brother, child, or wife on the bag. Just another headache a pro golfer doesnt have to deal with.

[jaymayor]

Karma is real..

 

I wonder... If the caddie was an American, would Kuch have paid him appropriately?

 

The karma thing is interesting. Golfers thrive on confidence, and Kuch didn't win in 4 years. He goes to this tournament and wins, than goes on a stretch where he finishes top 20, top 20, another win and a top 5. The guy is now first in the Fed-Ex and has nearly won $3,000,000 already this year. If there is such a thing as karma, it's hasn't happened yet. You could make an argument that $50,000 like the caddy wanted might not even be enough now for what that weekend did for Kuch so far this year.

[jacobEDGE]

Thinking more like 15% of what your regular would make would be right. After all given the language differential little to no advice is being provided. He doesn't have travel or hotel expenses, no lost time for traveling, he's not working long hours on the range with him, he's not managing the long list of pre and post tournament logistics either. He's just showing up and carrying a bag and he thinks that's deserving of what the regular caddie earns? Delusional.

 

Really though?

 

Dude lives and works at a golf resort. Do you just assume he points and grunts at things like a caveman? Sure, dude probably has broken English and a strong accent. But when 90% of your clientele are American/English speaking tourists on vacation...you best believe he knows enough English to successfully caddy for a group of golfers and offer them his professional advice, gained through years of employment there.

[PALS-SSA]

Contract = Offer and Acceptance of Offer

 

Kuch offers him 25 days pay at peak rates for what could've been only 2 days if he missed the cut. He Accepted the deal. This guy needs to go away.

Don't complain about the deal you agreed to. Good Luck getting a bag for next year's event.

 

If only our BST worked this way.

[Circaflex]

ElTucan sounds like a self-entitled jerk. He and some others are pretty much clueless as to the additional duties of the tour caddie. Guy does a fraction of the job for a week and wants full pay... Total BS. I'm also going to bet the El Tucan pretty much cost himself future earnings with the pros.

 

I'll make this offer, If Kuch or any other pro want to pay me $5k to caddie for them for the week I'll gladly take the week off and sling their bag around.

 

Did you even read the article? He even points out, that he wasn't expecting full tour caddie money.

[Under2hours]

There's alot of information that we don't have. If Kuchar got together the 5k in cash with a promise to get him another 15k at the time of the tournament and the caddie refused at that time would it change things? From the article there hasnt been any real communication since the tournament so when was the 15k offered? 20k is probably still light but it would change things somewhat for me if he turned it down at that point. If they offered 15k more last week that changes things the other way. So whats the point in speculating?

 

Talk about trying to twist something..... Any reasonable person can deduce this never happened. This is like someone else claiming Kuch collected every penny he could scrounge to get the $2,000 tip.

 

How laughable. Kuch paid him $5,000, thought he got away with it. When called out January 12th, still played coy and now it is 100% confirmed he is cheap.

[Obee]

Those of you that genuinely feel El Toucan was robbed, despite himself negotiating this pay, should pay him out of your pocket to make it "fair". Or start a Gofundme.

 

No one thinks he was robbed.

 

We think Kuchar is cheap. Just like I think a friend is cheap it we go out to a $100-a-man nice dinner and he leaves a $5.00 tip when there were no issues with the service whatsoever.

 

Some stigmas contribute to societal well-being, some are not so beneficial. For instance, I want there to be a stigma for people who loudly talk on their phone next to you on the subway. Or who play their music through a loudspeaker in a public place forcing you to listen to it.

 

And I want there to be a stigma to being a bad tipper. And you know what? There already is one, and it's alive and well as evidenced by this thread. It's just that some people don't seem to appreciate that stigma.... ;-)

[bscinstnct]

Heres a question.

 

Lets say you, for whatever reason, are carrying a shopping bag with $1.3MM in cash.

 

And you forget it under your table at McDonalds.

 

Somebody finds it and returns it to you.

 

How much would you give them as a reward?

 

 

[JaNelson38]

 

 

 

That's not how it works, big employers don't post a salary all that is negotiated and generally, successful companies do pay more because they have more.

 

No prospective employee, especially in the professional world, ever takes a job without knowing what their wages are, no matter if the salary is posted in an ad or negotiated during an interview. Lets stop being silly here.

[jacobEDGE]

 

 

We think Kuchar is cheap. Just like I think a friend is cheap it we go out to a $100-a-man nice dinner and he leaves a $5.00 tip when there were no issues with the service whatsoever.

 

But even that would be a 5% tip. Which is greater than 500% more than what Kuchar left.