elrockinMT Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 (edited) I have seen lots of instances where a player - in any sport mind you but let's talk baseball - wants to tear up a contract and ask for more money after they have a good season, but don't like their "low" salary. How many have offered to tear up a contract when they are making a ton of money, but don't produce, and then offer to give money back? I don't want to attack anyone here but we always hear of the $12 plus million dollars being earned by Rios and Dunn and how ashamed they are they aren't producing, but they still get paid the money owing on that contract. Maybe team ownership should sue for breach of contract when a player doesn't perform? Get some of that money back. I think it's an interesting approach and obviously would have to have some language written into a contract, but this has been a gargantuan waste of financial resources with the Sox paying non perormance and a high rate. Other teams have experienced this too we all know. Again I am not singling anyone out for criticism I just think it would be good business sense. The team pays for production period not sucking. Edited August 3, 2011 by elrockinMT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Aug 3, 2011 -> 10:18 AM) I have seen lots of instances where a player - in any sport mind you but let's talk baseball - wants to tear up a contract and ask for more money after they have a good season, but don't like their "low" salary. How many have offered to tear up a contract when they are making a ton of money, but don't produce, and then offer to give money back? I don't want to attack anyone here but we always hear of the $12 plus million dollars being earned by Rios and Dunn and how ashamed they are they aren't producing, but they still get paid the money owing on that contract. Maybe team ownership should sue for breach of contract when a player doesn't perform? Get some of that money back. I think it's an interesting approach and obviously would have to have some language written into a contract, but this has been a gargantuan waste of financial resources with the Sox paying non perormance and a high rate. Other teams have experienced this too we all know. Again I am not singling anyone out for criticism I just think it would be good business sense. The team pays for production period not sucking. I think the MLBPA would have something to say about that. Not saying you are wrong, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elrockinMT Posted August 3, 2011 Author Share Posted August 3, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Aug 3, 2011 -> 03:27 PM) I think the MLBPA would have something to say about that. Not saying you are wrong, though. I am sure they would too And that's not saying anything bad about unions, but maybe a different contract approach is something teams should consider. Edited August 3, 2011 by elrockinMT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigruss Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 It just wouldn't be smart business for any team to do this. A) The MLBPA would take this to court fast then you could say "breach" B) The morale of your team, hell you're entire organization of players would drop dramatically, thinking that the organization doesn't care about you as a player, only about money. THere would be no trust on either side from then on. C) No new free agents would ever sign here with B being the reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigruss Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Aug 3, 2011 -> 10:29 AM) I am sure they would too And that's not saying anything bad about unions, but maybe a different contract approach is something teams should consider. Why would player XYZ sign with team A who offers a team friendly contract while team B offers a player friendly contract? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Would you do that at your present job? Sorry boss, I haven't been performing as well as I should have, why don't you give me a 30% pay cut, I deserve it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Andre Dawson offering to play for a blank contract comes to mind. Or Gil Meche offering to retire a year early (instead of a prolonged DL stint) and saving the Royals something like $11 million. Last I checked, we didn't retroactively pay Alexei Ramirez the multi-millions he was worth the first 3 years of his contract or Chris Sale/Phil Humber/Sergio Santos this year. Does anyone think Konerko would have given back any of the salary from the times when he's struggled the last decade? Buehrle? C'mon. Although Mark was willing to give at least $1 million of his salary back to keep Juan Uribe. Does that count? Or deferring money so other players can be brought in... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Critic Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Maybe they should take a page from their own book and implement "dynamic payment". If you're a player performing so horribly that no one wants to see them (Adam Dunn comes to mind), you get the lowest tier of payment. If you're performing at an All-Star level (see Paul Konerko), you get the highest tier. Then you can assign payment to the rest of the players at pre-determined payment levels in between. Hey, if it works to extort fans who want to see "prime" or "premier" teams, it must be good enough for the players, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 It's an open market. If an owner is willing to pay...a player is willing to sign. The interesting thing that el brought up though, is the contrast. Of course, I personally wouldn't give money back, but I also wouldn't necessarily DEMAND my contract torn up and re-written with a higher salary either. That's the issue. Owners do it, though. So, the question is, if players and their agents can demand or even just ask to rip up a current contract, why CAN'T an owner do the same? Players should expect it, shouldn't they? (DISCLAIMER: This will never happen, but I totally understand the argument made by el) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 QUOTE (The Critic @ Aug 3, 2011 -> 10:50 AM) Maybe they should take a page from their own book and implement "dynamic payment". If you're a player performing so horribly that no one wants to see them (Adam Dunn comes to mind), you get the lowest tier of payment. If you're performing at an All-Star level (see Paul Konerko), you get the highest tier. Then you can assign payment to the rest of the players at pre-determined payment levels in between. Hey, if it works to extort fans who want to see "prime" or "premier" teams, it must be good enough for the players, too. Aaaaaaaand close thread! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LVSoxFan Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 This would never happen. Period. Sure a player could voluntarily give it back, but outside of that, never. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Treat it like the stock market with players each being different stocks and the contracts they negotiate is how many shares of their own stock they get. This way if they blow their shares will be worthless and if they perform well they are driving up their own value. Clearly Im joking but as I type this its sounding pretty cool so someone make a phone call and lets get this done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elrockinMT Posted August 3, 2011 Author Share Posted August 3, 2011 (edited) Fan revolt here maybe. Maybe we are getting tired of payying $70 plus dollars for a good seat at the ball park to watch poor performers making more for one game than a fan would ever dream of making in their entire year or life for that matter; Tired of paying four or more times the cost of a whole package of hot dogs and only get one tired dog; tired of paying $9 plus dollars for a luke warm beer; tired of paying $20 for parking at the game, etc etc and not seeing a winner. Edited August 3, 2011 by elrockinMT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 How quickly have we all forgotten the infamous "diminished skills" clause? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 The owners are the ones who sign these guys. Let the buyer beware. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Aug 3, 2011 -> 04:27 PM) Fan revolt here maybe. Maybe we are getting tired of payying $70 plus dollars for a good seat at the ball park to watch poor performers making more for one game than a fan would ever dream of making in their entire year or life for that matter; Tired of paying four or more times the cost of a whole package of hot dogs and only get one tired dog; tired of paying $9 plus dollars for a luke warm beer; tired of paying $20 for parking at the game, etc etc and not seeing a winner. Fan revolt is just don't go. If the product gets bad enough, like KC and Cleveland (before this year) believe me it'll show up in attendance figures. Cleveland used to sell out every single game for years until the Tribe became horses*** and the fans knew the team was horses***. Then it stopped. KC fans know better than to buy season tickets as well. If the Sox get off to this same start next year, forget it. Nobody will go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elrockinMT Posted August 3, 2011 Author Share Posted August 3, 2011 QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 3, 2011 -> 06:35 PM) Fan revolt is just don't go. If the product gets bad enough, like KC and Cleveland (before this year) believe me it'll show up in attendance figures. Cleveland used to sell out every single game for years until the Tribe became horses*** and the fans knew the team was horses***. Then it stopped. KC fans know better than to buy season tickets as well. If the Sox get off to this same start next year, forget it. Nobody will go. That is a sign of "fan revolt" for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitekrazy Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Aug 3, 2011 -> 10:29 AM) I am sure they would too And that's not saying anything bad about unions, but maybe a different contract approach is something teams should consider. MLBPA is the prefect reason that make unions bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Didn't Andruw Jones do something like this for the Dodgers? Like he decided to forfeit the final years of the contract or something since he was doing soo bad? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Aug 3, 2011 -> 03:00 PM) Didn't Andruw Jones do something like this for the Dodgers? Like he decided to forfeit the final years of the contract or something since he was doing soo bad? IIRC he chose to defer the money to future years. Instead of paying him like $20 million in one season, they were allowed to pay him most of it in future years, making him much more tradeable to other teams. They are probably defaulting on those payments now with their bankruptcy issues. Either way, I think he still was set to receive the entire contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitekrazy Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Aug 3, 2011 -> 02:14 PM) IIRC he chose to defer the money to future years. Instead of paying him like $20 million in one season, they were allowed to pay him most of it in future years, making him much more tradeable to other teams. They are probably defaulting on those payments now with their bankruptcy issues. Either way, I think he still was set to receive the entire contract. That just allows the owners to spend more foolishly and toss that mistake on to the consumer. It also inflates the value of free agency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 QUOTE (The Critic @ Aug 3, 2011 -> 10:50 AM) Maybe they should take a page from their own book and implement "dynamic payment". If you're a player performing so horribly that no one wants to see them (Adam Dunn comes to mind), you get the lowest tier of payment. If you're performing at an All-Star level (see Paul Konerko), you get the highest tier. Then you can assign payment to the rest of the players at pre-determined payment levels in between. Hey, if it works to extort fans who want to see "prime" or "premier" teams, it must be good enough for the players, too. JR tried this with the "play for pay" contracts in the late 80's. It didn't go over to well. A few signed them. Dave Gallagher was one if my memory is correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bighurt574 Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 MLB (or perhaps more accurately, the MLBPA) doesn't allow performance-based contracts, apart from some limited incentives for awards and what not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elrockinMT Posted August 4, 2011 Author Share Posted August 4, 2011 QUOTE (bighurt574 @ Aug 4, 2011 -> 02:24 PM) MLB (or perhaps more accurately, the MLBPA) doesn't allow performance-based contracts, apart from some limited incentives for awards and what not. If so then I guess we know why Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.