If a baseball player who's negotiating a contract is asking for some huge sum of money, you might be inclined to think that he's greedy.

However, what if he's not necessarily asking for some outrageous sum of money, but he wants a long-term deal with most or all of the years guaranteed (which would mean he'd get paid in full even if he got hurt every year or totally stunk out the ballpark), would you still hold that same view or is there a difference in the two situations?

Sometimes the negotiations leave a bad taste in your mouth when a player says, "I'm willing to work for less because I want to play near my home and close to my family" and then you hear the guy signing a $100 million deal with a team on the opposite coast as his home (ie. Kevin Brown) or for a team that's an obvious champion but is no where near his home (ie. Roger Clemens). I mean, you can support your family whether you're making $50 mil or $100 mil. But you're not going to be able to spend as much time with them if you're playing half a country away.

C'mon, no one else has any viewpoints? I'm really curious as to what you all think.

Ok Joe, I'll weigh in here a little.

I think most professional ball players work very hard to get to where they are. And they all know they are going to get big bucks if they make it. I think for many, though, it has more to do with ego and self-gratification than money. They work hard, play hard, and at the end of the day, they want people to recognize that. So, a HUGE paycheck is just another way to have it done.

So yes, I think some people will give and take based on location and family needs, but I think some also want the big bucks as sort of a flag raised to mark them as one of the best in the game.

I've never understood why so many people feel athletes should make their career decisions differently than everybody else. Some might want to go to the highest bidder, just as some top executives, movie stars, or rock stars do. Hell, those people have MORE reason to be loyal to their employers--many baseball players had no choice about who they worked for. Sure, the money gets so huge that it shouldn't make any real difference, but people are conditioned by our society to desire more money.

On the other hand, though he did eventually wind up in Chicago, I thought the disbelief that McGriff might prefer to stay in Tampa was strange to me, too. Lots of people choose to stay put, rather than uproot their families, even when given much better career opportunities. Why is it that athletes are expected to put the opportunity to play for a winner ahead of their personal life. Especially given that McGriff already had a world series ring.

[quote]Originally posted by Joe in Philly:
what if he's not necessarily asking for some outrageous sum of money, but he wants a long-term deal with most or all of the years guaranteed

---

Most of the big boys get both long term guarantees and huge money. Albert Belle is still getting paid this year, and how long's he been out of baseball? Anyone who is good enough to be considered for a long-term deal, it's going to be outrageous money (compared to say, me).

Each player has to do what's best for himself, as much as he can. But most guys are more at the will of teams' needs/payroll restrictions, and don't have the status to make demands. Are you thinking of a specific situation?

[quote]Originally posted by canmark:
Sometimes the negotiations leave a bad taste in your mouth when a player says, "I'm willing to work for less because I want to play near my home and close to my family" and then you hear the guy signing a $100 million deal with a team on the opposite coast as his home (ie. Kevin Brown) or for a team that's an obvious champion but is no where near his home (ie. Roger Clemens). I mean, you can support your family whether you're making $50 mil or $100 mil. But you're not going to be able to spend as much time with them if you're playing half a country away.

---

From what I've heard, Roger Clemens has a little more freedom to travel back and forth from home on off days. So, he's got the best of both worlds.

Brown may as well, as I think there was some clauses in his contract regarding tickets for his family, or for him to go back home (not sure which). Unfortunately, looks like he's spending a lot more time at home than playing, as the Dodgers wish he were doing.

I rarely look at athletes as greedy--I say "let 'em get what the market will allow"--but have a special place in my heart for those who chooses to stay with a team and lock themselves in a long-term deal. It is important to build loyalty between players and fans. Think of Robin Yount, Joe Sakic, Cal Ripken, Steve Yzerman and the love affairs thay have with their cities and none of them have hurt financially. With all his skill, marketability, and reputation as an all-around good guy, A. Rod doesn't inspire that level of loyalty. For whatever it's worth, I know Dodger fans who STILL think of Piazza as one of "ours" and I still consider Rob Blake and Luc Robitaille as Kings-on-loan-to-other-teams. And i look at the Kings organization with a bit of disgust for the way they handled Robitaille.

~Adam

Chipper Jones is an example of that loyalty. Tom Glavine is to this point in his career, and hopefully the Braves and he will do the right thing to make sure he spends the rest of his career in Atlanta (no-brainer at this point if you ask me). Tony Gwynn. Bernie Williams. Hopefully for a handful of players, this will continue. But just like the working class folk, of which I am one of millions, there is no company loyalty to the employee anymore. So if the company won't take care of you, look out for yourself and your family.

That's not to say I admire A-Rod. But shame on owners for letting a hometown favorite go even if his career might be starting downward (I-Rod after this year, maybe even June/July) to bring in the "best" for a ridiculous compensation.

Signed,
Braves fan stuck in Rangers country

[quote]Originally posted by MSUBulldog:
Chipper Jones is an example of that loyalty. Tom Glavine is to this point in his career, and hopefully the Braves and he will do the right thing to make sure he spends the rest of his career in Atlanta (no-brainer at this point if you ask me).

---

It'll be interesting if Tommy ends up signing with the Braves. He probably will, but I know that the Red Sox ownership is very interested in him. Tommy hasn't exactly kept it a secret that he'd love to end his career "at home" (he grew up here, his whole family still lives here, and he still refers to the Red Sox as "my hometown team"). He's a great pitcher with plenty of good years left (he's a control pitcher as opposed to a fireballer, he's got a tremendous work ethic, no big injuries looming, and he's very motivated to get 300 wins, or as close to it as possible, to get a lock on the HoF). But can the Sox ownership group, who are rather strapped nowadays, really afford to take on a fourth 8-digit player salary? Sure, it'd make for a great story, and Red Sox fans would just go apesh*t if our hometown boy came back to Boston. But Atlanta's got a lot more $$$ than the Sox ownership group, and my guess is he'll stay in Atlanta.

I've never bought into the "player who goes elsewhere for more money is a disloyal jerk" school. The fact is they have a unique, marketable skill, and have for a relatively short period of time. They, like anyone of us, are usually going to work wherever they make the most dollars in the shortest period of time. It's essentially just capitalism at work: it's a free market, the salaries are set by what the market will bear. I don't blame the players at all.

[quote]Originally posted by BballDC:
Are you thinking of a specific situation?

---

As a matter of fact....

link to full article

[quote] It really is not about the money...

That has been Rolen's contention throughout the process.

It is, however, about commitment. And the demand by Rolen and agent Seth Levinson that Phils president Dave Montgomery and GM Ed Wade commit to an annual payroll that would keep the Phillies competitive during the life of a long-term contract was little more than a ploy.

"We knew there was no way they would agree to something like that in writing," Rolen told me during a long, early-season, air-clearing. "What I had to have more than a huge amount of money was a career commitment. I didn't want to have a commitment for a certain number of years and come to the option years with no control of my destiny."

What Rolen wanted Wade to do was guarantee he would play the bulk of his career here. The actual money amount was never much more than an abstraction.

"They told us what they were willing to do and we balked at that and told them it had to be a certain number of years guaranteed or nothing," Rolen said. "We got a sense that it was doable. And, suddenly, this fabulous offer was on the table. More money than I ever dreamed of making. I don't think I'm a $14-million-a-year ballplayer by any stretch. But that was what was there. But there were too many option years. I was clear the entire length had to be guaranteed. The money would have been very negotiable."

Rolen was shooting for 10 guaranteed years, but it's pretty clear he would have settled for 7. At 33, he could have moved on with some quality years ahead of him.

Rolen said he is acutely aware that even with free agency and all the freedom of movement available to ballplayers, he could still wind up in a situation that leaves him no better off than he is now. "I could wind up with a team in the Midwest, and I'm a Midwesterner at heart and like that lifestyle, and that team could stink the entire time I'm there," he said. "That's why I wanted the Phillies to make a career commitment to me. I would have been willing to stay here and take my chances..."

It is an idealistic goal in a perfect world. But this is the dysfunctional world of major league baseball. There are sound medical reasons why Wade had to balk at such a long, guaranteed deal. Despite his superb condition and brutally demanding offseason workouts, Rolen has had a bad back and missed 50 games in 1999. Critics of Wade's negotiating stance seem to have forgotten the medical fiasco that crippled the Phillies when Lenny Dykstra and Darren Daulton's long-term contracts became giant bandages around a wounded team.

---

So by his own admission, it's not about making a commitment to winning. It's about making a commitment to HIM.

Thanks for pasting that article Joe in Whatever the Hell City on the East Coast.

I've long thought that long-term contracts were bad for baseball. I understand the reasons why players want them (security and, if negotiated that way, a lot of money at the end of the contract) and why owners want them (easier to keep a team together). But I think we've all seen over and over how players get fat and content after signing a big contract (or press to justify the money) or the owners end up having to pay money long after a player is gone, which is a drain on a team's budget.

Not that I have any better ideas!