MLB 2011!!

[Imran Siddiqui]

So why does the player have to "honor" his deal when his team doesn't?

The contract is for that player to play for that team for x years for y money. When a team trades the player, they are breaking the contract.

[-Jrabbit]

Bull****. Trade rights, if any, are spelled out and agreed to, either as part of the contract, or as defaults defined by the CBA.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Bull****. Trade rights, if any, are spelled out and agreed to, either as part of the contract, or as defaults defined by the CBA.

So therefore the posting system and having the player negotiate with the new team for a new contract is also "spelled out and agreed to".

I don't think rah was talking letter of the law. Especially by the use of the term "should".

[rah]

So why does the player have to "honor" his deal when his team doesn't?

The contract is for that player to play for that team for x years for y money. When a team trades the player, they are breaking the contract.

I don't think a team is breaking a contract when they trade a player. As JR said.

My use of the word should was more in reference for things like "holding out". I've never respected players that hold out.

I keep thinking back to Scottie Pippen. He signed a long term contract that was a lot of money at the time, but everyone told him that he would regret it down the road. He spent the later years whining about it whenever he could, and tried to get more money. Every time he tried to get more, my respect for him went down a bit.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In leagues without guarenteed contracts I have no issues with holding out. If a team can just cut a player at any time and owe them nothing, then I'm all for players trying to get the best deals they possibly can.

You'll note in leagues with the MLB, with guarenteed contracts, there are rarely any hold outs. That's because there is a knowledge that the entire contract will be honored by the team, so while the player may be getting underpaid now, if they get injured, they'll still be paid - both sides take the risk.

[rah]

Again, we can agree to disagree. Even when there is no guaranteed contract, the player usually gets guaranteed money up front for signing the contract. So I still have an issue if the player holds out. It is really hard for my to have a lot of sympathies for players making millions of dollars. Regular employers (unless an employment contract is involved) have more flexibility in this area and the employees aren't pampered millionaires. If players volunteered to give up money when they sucked, I might be more sympathetic.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I have far less sympathy for the billionaire owners who are making far more off those players than what they are being paid. I am a huge supporter for players unions in most cases.

[Ming]

I have far less sympathy for the billionaire owners who are making far more off those players than what they are being paid.

Hmmmm... Worst case scenario, based on MLB documents leaked... in 2008 the Mariners lost 4.5 million, and had a payroll of about 117 million.

Yeah... real numbers on MLB are hard to find, but when players are making 100 million dollars, I have no sympathy for them, and consider the owners that agreed to those kind of salaries as complete morons

[rah]

I have far less sympathy for the billionaire owners who are making far more off those players than what they are being paid. I am a huge supporter for players unions in most cases.

If I made 10 million a year, I would give a rat's ass about how much money my company was making. It's their investment. If the players don't like the deal, create your own league. I would like to see that. I have this sneaking suspicion that if they did they'd figure out a way to screw themselves in an attempt to make more money.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The owners don't have a lucrative investment without the players. That's who people are coming to see. I'm sure y'all have both heard how the owners of some of these teams with low payroll like the Pirates, Twins, etc. have made out like utter bandits, and that's before luxury tax windfalls. In addition, they tend to get the cities to pay for a good portion of their stadiums.

And FWIW, a contract in the regular working world which stated you, as an employee, could be traded to another company would never fly. It'd be struck down as unconscionable. Sports leagues have some limited anti-trust exclusions as well this dichotomy that the players, legally, play for the league, instead of for individual franchises. So it isn't mere contract law here - sports leagues get added benefits that other companies don't.

[Ming]

I'm sure nobody is "paying" to see some backup player who will be lucky to see 50 at bats... and who also makes a minimum of $480,000. I guess the owners are simply raping players like them That's more than many people will make in a lifetime.

[rah]

Actually a buddy of mine, that is employed under a talent contract, had conditions in his contract that dealt with his contract being transferred to other entities. Under certain conditions it was possible. Again that's the price he paid for making the money that he was making. Anyone making millions of dollars a year should wake up and give praise for the system that makes it possible for them.

And the players wouldn't have the stage to perform on if it wasn't for the investment of the owners. How much do professional sports teams go for? If I put up hundreds of millions of dollars, I'd expect a good return.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The best players will always be able to find someone to fund leagues (that is, after all, how the AFL/AFC came about). It's why owners need to anti-trust protection as well (well, for that and the draft).

And I'm sure that people will be paying to see that backup, Ming, if the starter gets injured and the backup suddenly starts playing good (ie, Kurt Warner).

They may be making more than others will make in a lifetime, but, of course, the owners are making even more than that. I see no reason why they shouldn't share the wealth with the players.

[Ming]

The best players will always be able to find someone to fund leagues (that is, after all, how the AFL/AFC came about). It's why owners need to anti-trust protection as well (well, for that and the draft).

And those leagues needed "somebody" to put up the money... somebody to "INVEST" in them, so that the players could make money. Sports has always needed promoters... people with money. And people aren't going to do that unless they make money doing so. I have no problems with owners (people who have invested money) making money so that the players can make tons of money.

And I'm sure that people will be paying to see that backup, Ming, if the starter gets injured and the backup suddenly starts playing good (ie, Kurt Warner).

Kurt Warners are rare... many of the players currently making the minimum will never become stars... or players that anybody would be willing to pay to see unless they were related to them or married to them

They may be making more than others will make in a lifetime, but, of course, the owners are making even more than that. I see no reason why they shouldn't share the wealth with the players.

They already are sharing the wealth. The players are already making TONS OF MONEY. You keep saying that the owners need the players... but the players need the owners. Somebody has to put up the big bucks in the first place so that those players can make the money. Sure, a bunch of stud NFL players could break away and form their own league... but that takes money and people willing to invest it... people who would want a good return on their investment. And even if they did, it would take a long time before they could be making NFL kind of money.

The current athletes are making TONS of money... I don't feel sorry for them in the least. Without the leagues they play for, they wouldn't have the opportunity to do what they are doing.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, they are sharing the wealth because the players MADE them. What, you think they wanted to strike just for fun? It took a lot of work and effort to get to this point. I mean baseball had the reserve clause up until the 1970s. And people STILL ***** about free agency.