PDA

View Full Version : Guaranteed Contracts in MLB



EddieMilner
04-27-2007, 11:47 AM
Yesterday, at lunch, I was speaking with a few co-workers about Mark Prior and his latest year ending report. Someone made the comment that these baseball players would be healthy a lot more often if their contract were not guaranteed (much like the NFL). What are your guys opinions? Do you think that a player is more likely to go on the DL if he knows his job isn't in jeporady? I think its a fair, valid, and interesting argument.

mroby85
04-27-2007, 11:53 AM
probably depends on the player, i think most guys at the major league level want to play though. if it was a fake injury it would probably show up in the tests. that being said i do think baseball players are softer than football players.

11BarryLarkin11
04-27-2007, 11:54 AM
Yesterday, at lunch, I was speaking with a few co-workers about Mark Prior and his latest year ending report. Someone made the comment that these baseball players would be healthy a lot more often if their contract were not guaranteed (much like the NFL). What are your guys opinions? Do you think that a player is more likely to go on the DL if he knows his job isn't in jeporady? I think its a fair, valid, and interesting argument.

Personally, I think having non-guaranteed contracts in football is a joke. Contracts are supposed to bind both sides equally, so there is an inherent lack of fairness in NFL contracts. The player is bound to team and must perform his contractual obligations, but the team is not bound to the player and has the ability to void the contract. Something about that just doesn't sit right with me.

As for the injury issue, I don't think it has much to do with guaranteed money. If a player is injured, then he shouldn't be playing. If he's trying to play through an injury because he's worried about his job security, then he could end up getting hurt worse and do substantial damage to his career.

I don't think money is much of a factor in missed games. Professional athletes are ultra-competitive and they want to play, not sit out.

George Anderson
04-27-2007, 11:57 AM
Yesterday, at lunch, I was speaking with a few co-workers about Mark Prior and his latest year ending report. Someone made the comment that these baseball players would be healthy a lot more often if their contract were not guaranteed (much like the NFL). What are your guys opinions? Do you think that a player is more likely to go on the DL if he knows his job isn't in jeporady? I think its a fair, valid, and interesting argument.


Unfortunately the ONLY opinion that matters is Donald Fehr and I am quite sure he isnt going to let MLB scrap guaranteed contracts.

To answer your question no doubt fewer players would go on the DL if they werent signed to a guaranteed contract. But in the long term a pitcher for example would jeopardize his future if he refused to go on the DL because of a certain twinge in his shoulder. He may try to pitch thru the pain because he doesnt want anything to jeopardize his contract for the next year but he may be sacrificing his long term future because he has to pitch thru the pain and ultimately damage his arm beyond repair.

Chip R
04-27-2007, 12:05 PM
that being said i do think baseball players are softer than football players.


And basketball players are taller than baseball players.

IslandRed
04-27-2007, 12:14 PM
There's no rule that says teams have to give guaranteed multi-year contracts to anyone. That's just how the market for free agents has played out.

mroby85
04-27-2007, 12:54 PM
the thing is in baseball, there is no salary cap, so they can still go buy someone else if one doesn't work out. if you kept the players contract on the salary cap after a career ending injury in football, you may have trouble fielding a team.

11BarryLarkin11
04-27-2007, 01:01 PM
the thing is in baseball, there is no salary cap, so they can still go buy someone else if one doesn't work out. if you kept the players contract on the salary cap after a career ending injury in football, you may have trouble fielding a team.

True, but then the team should still have to perform the contract. The organization should still have to pay the player in some manner, just don't make it count against the salary cap.

The player has forfeited his right to sell his services to the highest bidder each year, but what has the team forfeited if they can void the contract and sever ties with the player?

It just seems like it's a bit of an inequity, which is likely the result of a weaker Players' Union in the NFL.

rotnoid
04-27-2007, 01:06 PM
As for the injury issue, I don't think it has much to do with guaranteed money. If a player is injured, then he shouldn't be playing. If he's trying to play through an injury because he's worried about his job security, then he could end up getting hurt worse and do substantial damage to his career.

And the team he plays for as well. See Milton, Eric. In that meltdown game against the Cubs last year, there's little doubt he wasn't ready, but he trotted out there anyway. In that regard, it's in the clubs' best interest to offer the players some sort of stability. There are always going to be dunderheads that think they can play through the pain, but it would happen a lot more if guys were working for their next contract every year. While I can see the merits, I'm not sure I want baseball to turn into Congressional elections where the campaigning for next year starts as soon as the last votes are counted.

dfs
04-27-2007, 01:12 PM
Boy Howdy ....How many times in the last .....five years have the reds been hurt by a player playing when he should have been on the DL?

Dunn's is probably doing this right now.
Claussen last year.
The Lizard last year.
Guardado didn't hurt the team, but he could have really screwed his arm up. Same with Merker.
Austin Kearns may well have destroyed his chance at being a superstar by coming back too soon years back.

Exactly who is it that is making up injuries and hiding on the DL? I mean, sure there are cases like Burton at the margin of the roster, but most of the times those shenanigans are from the front office, not the player.

I mean...the notion that baseball players don't play injured is pretty comical here in Southeastern Ohio.

PuffyPig
04-27-2007, 01:23 PM
Yesterday, at lunch, I was speaking with a few co-workers about Mark Prior and his latest year ending report. Someone made the comment that these baseball players would be healthy a lot more often if their contract were not guaranteed (much like the NFL). What are your guys opinions? Do you think that a player is more likely to go on the DL if he knows his job isn't in jeporady? I think its a fair, valid, and interesting argument.


Players might not on the DL as often, but that doesn't mean they would be healthier.

Do you really want a player with a physical problem hiding it because he thinks his job may be in jeopardy?

Always Red
04-27-2007, 01:25 PM
This will never happen, of course, but I would have really enjoyed a remuneration system in baseball similar to golf, tennis, and auto racing. Making the playoffs pays big dollars, winning a championship even more, and winning the World Series is like hitting the jackpot. You'd see an entirely different style of play, more team play, more guys willing TPTGTRW, etc. The players would have a salary cap of sorts for the regular season, with rewards for season-long production, that were set in place by MLB prior to the season. For instance players with large VORP's and RC's from the previous year would be paid at a higher value during the next regular season

I know it's all a pipedream, and would/could never happen (and I certainly haven't thought it all the way through!), but it would be great to see production and winning directly rewarded. You certainly would see the end of the salary disparity of young players not being paid what they're worth, and old has-been's making too much money for too little production at the end of their careers. And pitchers signed to 4 year contracts, and being hurt for the last 3 years of that contract, would be a thing of the past.

Just an idea that's come to my mind now and again...

Always Red
04-27-2007, 01:30 PM
Do you really want a player with a physical problem hiding it because he thinks his job may be in jeopardy?

Used to happen all of the time in baseball. If you can't play, your job should be in jeopardy, that's just the way of the world. The next guy might be better than you.

Steroids became a big problem in baseball exactly because they helped an athlete rebound from injury and pain more quickly, not because of huge strength gains.

Redsland
04-27-2007, 01:37 PM
Someone made the comment that these baseball players would be healthy a lot more often if their contract were not guaranteed (much like the NFL). What are your guys opinions?
I doubt it. A torn labrum is a torn labrum.

I mean, if we're talking about paying players by the hour or something, then yeah, fewer of them will sit out with "flu-like symptoms" or go on the DL with "shoulder fatigue." But it would take a serious, real injury to get a contract terminated, and there's no way to play through those.

Personally, I think if baseball contracts weren't guaranteed, more guys would bench themselves with day-to-day type injuries, unwilling to play through pain for fear of exacerbating some small malady.

REDREAD
04-27-2007, 01:52 PM
There's no rule that says teams have to give guaranteed multi-year contracts to anyone. That's just how the market for free agents has played out.

Exactly.

Also, it might make more sense for a team to offer a player a 4 year/ $40 million guaranteed contract instead of a contract which pays him $20 million/year, nonguaranteed.

Look how much Clemens makes going year to year.

The players are willing to trade some cash for the longterm guarantee. That helps the owners as well.

EddieMilner
04-27-2007, 01:53 PM
I doubt it. A torn labrum is a torn labrum.

I mean, if we're talking about paying players by the hour or something, then yeah, fewer of them will sit out with "flu-like symptoms" or go on the DL with "shoulder fatigue." But it would take a serious, real injury to get a contract terminated, and there's no way to play through those.

Personally, I think if baseball contracts weren't guaranteed, more guys would bench themselves with day-to-day type injuries, unwilling to play through pain for fear of exacerbating some small malady.

I disagree with your last statement. If contact were not guaranteed, I think players would only sit out when their managers/doctors would make them. I think getting a wrap about being soft would mean a lot more since your paycheck could vanish at any moment.

George Anderson
04-27-2007, 01:55 PM
This will never happen, of course, but I would have really enjoyed a remuneration system in baseball similar to golf, tennis, and auto racing. Making the playoffs pays big dollars, winning a championship even more, and winning the World Series is like hitting the jackpot.

I really like this idea.

I wonder why it isnt in place now?? Why would anyone in particular the players or management oppose it??

REDREAD
04-27-2007, 01:56 PM
Boy Howdy ....How many times in the last .....five years have the reds been hurt by a player playing when he should have been on the DL?

.

Don't forget the big one.. Jr.

Jr was hurt in 2001, but the Reds insisted on making him available to pinch hit, so it wouldn't hurt ticket sales.. then he got hurt worse. They've probably cleared Jr to play many times too early.

What about Majewski last year? I still think they should've just shut him down for the year when they diagnosed him as being overworked. Instead, they let him rest for 2 weeks, and then pitch him in minor league games as rehab? Idiotic, considering Maj wasn't going to contribute and the Reds weren't going to win the division with or without Maj.

They also sent Mercker out last year when he clearly shouldn't have been pitching.

I think a lot of baseball players are pressured to play hurt (at least on the Reds), when they shouldn't be. I wish the team was more concerned about the long term health of the player, but I guess to the owners, these players are just disposable property.

bucksfan2
04-27-2007, 02:05 PM
I think you also have to look at roster limitations when dealing with injuries. Do you want to add a man to the 40 man roster for a short period of time becasue of an injury? Sure you can place a man on the 60 day DL but when he comes off you have to make a roster move.

IMO nagging injuries in baseball take more of a toll than that of football. In football you basically give it your all and then rest for 5 days. In baseball you can because you have to do it day after day after day which only makes that injury linger. A nagging injury like a hamstring or quad or ankle might not seem like it is effecting your performance but in reality it is significantly.

IslandRed
04-27-2007, 03:32 PM
I disagree with your last statement. If contact were not guaranteed, I think players would only sit out when their managers/doctors would make them. I think getting a wrap about being soft would mean a lot more since your paycheck could vanish at any moment.

In the old days, guys hid their injuries because they didn't want to lose their jobs, and because teams still had the attitude that an injury was some sort of character flaw. Instead of getting fixed, they'd keep playing until the injury was beyond repair or the club got tired of watching the diminished performance, and then they were out of baseball. I guess people can argue whether this was better or worse for the game; it sure wasn't better for the player. But I'll just say this -- if you're going to be that Darwinistic about players, particularly pitchers, you'd better have a lot more where they came from.

Always Red
04-27-2007, 03:39 PM
I really like this idea.

I wonder why it isnt in place now?? Why would anyone in particular the players or management oppose it??

Management would love it- players would be paid according to how they did on the field of play. It would be totally fair to everyone, especially if the pot were totalled (ie- the players making the exact same percentage of the gross that they do right now) and divvyed up based totally on production and winning baseball games.

The Players Association would never go for it, since it would set back every gain they have made since the reserve clause was struck down. And no union anywhere would certainly ever again be in solidarity with the players union.

Like I said, it will never happen, but it's fun to daydream about it from time to time. :D

UC_Ken
04-27-2007, 03:41 PM
Non-guaranteed contracts are stupid. Thanks to having guaranteed contracts Baseball doesn't have to deal with the annual holdouts like football players who are unhappy with their contracts. And I'm not blaming the football players, it's the only leverage they have so they should use it. If a team can cut a player at any time for no reason then a player should be able to renegotiate also.

Players are definately less likely to play hurt if they have non-guaranteed contracts. If you knew your team could cut you if you got hurt you don't battle injuries, you take your time to heal them so you don't jeopardize your next contract.

EddieMilner
04-27-2007, 03:48 PM
Non-guaranteed contracts are stupid. Thanks to having guaranteed contracts Baseball doesn't have to deal with the annual holdouts like football players who are unhappy with their contracts. And I'm not blaming the football players, it's the only leverage they have so they should use it. If a team can cut a player at any time for no reason then a player should be able to renegotiate also.

Players are definately less likely to play hurt if they have non-guaranteed contracts. If you knew your team could cut you if you got hurt you don't battle injuries, you take your time to heal them so you don't jeopardize your next contract.

I guess thats my hockey player mentality, doing everything you can to play hurt (as long as your are still helping your team).

WTR to your statement about guaranteed contract being stupid, I would venture to say that Baseball players are more likely to have big pre-contract years. Meaning that baseball players are more likely to tail off after signing a big contract than football players. I think that shows the benefits of non-guaranteed contracts. It would be nice to know that at any time Ross or Milton could get cut. And hopefully they would react in a competitive manner and live up to their contracts.

bucksfan2
04-27-2007, 03:49 PM
UC Ken I disagree. Non guaranteed contracts make the NFL better. True you have holdouts in the pre season but they rarely make it into the regular season. It helps teams get rid of bad contracts. They are still punished by these contracts but they are able to get out from them and it doesn't effect the team for the forseeable future. For example what do you think the reds could have done had Griffey and Milton been disposable or been able to rework their contracts? The reds probably wouldn't have been in this mess. I will take preseason holdouts as long as I know that a team can win 2 games one year and go to the super bowl the next.

UC_Ken
04-27-2007, 03:59 PM
I think it makes baseball better. It emphasizes the need to develop your own players so you don't need to go out and compete on the free agent market. It rewards the teams that spend wisely. What your saying is you want to bail out the owners who spend stupidly. Why? Why not reward well run franchises?

Yachtzee
04-27-2007, 04:02 PM
I think the NFL has non-guaranteed contracts just because of the nature of the sport. Football careers are shorter than those for baseball players. The first contract you sign may be your last. If NFL contracts were guaranteed, no team would offer a contract longer than a year or two. Thus, in lieu of mult-year guaranteed contracts, NFL players have opted for non-guaranteed contracts, but they still get guaranteed money in the form of an up-front signing bonus. The player and team then have a multi-year non-guaranteed contract with the understanding that the player and the team may seek to renegotiate it at a later time, but that doesn't mean that players are getting the shaft.

EddieMilner
04-27-2007, 04:03 PM
I think it makes baseball better.

No conditioner is better, it makes the hair healthy and smooth.:D

UC_Ken
04-27-2007, 04:05 PM
Shampoo is better. :)

Chip R
04-27-2007, 04:08 PM
This will never happen, of course, but I would have really enjoyed a remuneration system in baseball similar to golf, tennis, and auto racing. Making the playoffs pays big dollars, winning a championship even more, and winning the World Series is like hitting the jackpot. You'd see an entirely different style of play, more team play, more guys willing TPTGTRW, etc. The players would have a salary cap of sorts for the regular season, with rewards for season-long production, that were set in place by MLB prior to the season. For instance players with large VORP's and RC's from the previous year would be paid at a higher value during the next regular season



The difference between these sports and baseball is that baseball is a team sport. I know NASCAR has teams but you are competing against your own teammate. In baseball, you have to depend on your teammates to succeed. No matter how good of a pitcher you are, there needs to be someone to catch your pitches.

Redlegs
04-27-2007, 04:49 PM
Bottom line is this, players aren't as willing to play hurt as they used to be. Perhaps is just a sign of the times, but it's a fact.

As far as the topic of the thread, I really think it depends on the injury as to whether or not the absence of the guaranteed contract would cause players to be out there more. In Prior's case, I don't think it would matter. Shoulder injury and pitcher don't go together very well.

Always Red
04-27-2007, 04:50 PM
The difference between these sports and baseball is that baseball is a team sport. I know NASCAR has teams but you are competing against your own teammate. In baseball, you have to depend on your teammates to succeed. No matter how good of a pitcher you are, there needs to be someone to catch your pitches.

That's just the point, Chip, if it's really a team game, then the team that plays the best together and takes the World Series wins the jackpot. It would be in your total best interest to develope teamwork, synergy and camaraderie in order to win it all.

In other words, there would be much more incentive to play together than there is right now.

Not sure what you mean by your last sentence? It's a moot point, anyway. It's just something I've thought about from time to time. Team play would only get better if you actually rewarded team play, rather than individual play. I know, baseball is 9 individuals playing together (or 10, in the heathen league ;) ).

Chip R
04-27-2007, 04:54 PM
Bottom line is this, players aren't as willing to play hurt as they used to be. Perhaps is just a sign of the times, but it's a fact.


Prove it. There have been several players - mainly pitchers - on the Reds who have gone out there and said they were OK time and again and then when they repeatedly were shelled they got an MRI and all of a sudden they had a torn labrum or rotator cuff or elbow ligament. I wish those guys wouldn't have tried to play hurt - they only hurt the team.

Redlegs
04-27-2007, 05:01 PM
Prove it. There have been several players - mainly pitchers - on the Reds who have gone out there and said they were OK time and again and then when they repeatedly were shelled they got an MRI and all of a sudden they had a torn labrum or rotator cuff or elbow ligament. I wish those guys wouldn't have tried to play hurt - they only hurt the team.

I think I pointed that out in my entire post.


Bottom line is this, players aren't as willing to play hurt as they used to be. Perhaps is just a sign of the times, but it's a fact.

As far as the topic of the thread, I really think it depends on the injury as to whether or not the absence of the guaranteed contract would cause players to be out there more. In Prior's case, I don't think it would matter. Shoulder injury and pitcher don't go together very well.