![]() |
|
|
| |
« White Sox Interested In Figgins? | Main | Rays Leaning Toward Posey Or Alvarez? »
Not every good young player is salivating at the thought of inking a team-friendly multiyear contract. Prince Fielder, Russell Martin, and Casey Kotchman are three who seem fine going year-to-year and maximizing earnings. According to Rob Bradford of the Boston Herald, Dustin Pedroia and Jonathan Papelbon are two more players "intent on bucking what has become a disturbing trend."
It's mainly the idea of tossing in multiple team options that bristles the players and their agents. Bradford reports that more experienced agents have voiced their concern about the trend to the Players Association.
Papelbon, for one, knows he's an elite closer and is prepared to set the bar for stoppers with his service time. You may recall that the Red Sox gave him $775K this year to top Mariano Rivera's two-year closer service time record. Though they play different positions, Papelbon's agent will probably at least reference Ryan Howard's landmark $10MM first-year arbitration reward when Papelbon's time comes before the '09 season.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b9a69e200e55268d03d8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Young Red Sox Strike Back:
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


|
|
This really comes down to an insurance question. If the players' union wants to stop this trend, they need to arrange for insurance for the young players based on their market value - that way the rising stars can be sure they'll be set for life if they don't make it injury-free to the big payday of free agency.
Right now, every individual player has to make the calculation for himself, and the insurance rates are likely to be higher than if the risk is distributed over a larger pool, just like health insurance. It's time for some serious leadership in the players' union; bullying younger players into turning down eight-figure deals that will secure their families' financial future is irresponsible and flat-out morally wrong if they don't provide a viable alternative.
Posted by: ColonelTom | May 22, 2008 at 08:59 AM
Never quote the Boston Herald as they are unreliable, unconnected, and -inlight of their Patriots sham- ethically challenged. I wouldn't rely on them for something as simple as starting lineups.
The Boston Globe had a contrasting story about Pedroia wanting a long term deal.
Papelbon, on the other hand, comes off as wanting to break the bank with every given opportunity so I would buy what the Herald is selling there.
Posted by: Dirty Water | May 22, 2008 at 09:09 AM
Talk about collusion...
I mean when the owners go around and "suggest" to their collegues not to pay too much for free agents, the players Union goes nuts, talking abotu how it restricts the free market, etc.
And yet, when some agents and players decide to an action that doesn't conform to the Boras model, they get all upset and "suggest" to their collegues that they stop the behavior.
I understand that a union's strength is in its ability to act as a collective, but that can only go so far. At some point, when the Union tries to control it's member's freedom of choice, it is no better than the "evil" owners.
I wonder if Andruw Jones is going to wish he was able to sign some long term - less money deal in two years when he can't get signed for more than 2 mil a year after having destroyed the Dodgers.
Posted by: skkrman7482 | May 22, 2008 at 09:10 AM
It's called a 'players union', skkrman. That's their job.
One further note about Papelbon: Given concerns about his shoulder, and his assumption that Boston's FO would not offer him a long term deal anyway because of it, he's really just playing the only card he has. Who knows if he would accept a long term deal if offered or not.
Posted by: Dirty Water | May 22, 2008 at 09:20 AM
Screw the players. And all the more power to the ones who are willing to go against the union and sign a 8-figure contract that sets them up for life.
Some people would rather have a guaranteed $30M than a potential $60M. Can you blame them?
If some of the contracts have been too team-friendly, then the players should ask for more money. If they don't like the option years, then they should get the option years at higher salaries, or tell the team they won't sign. It's called a market.
It's a "disturbing trend" for the players? Then stop signing the damn contracts. I have no problem with players who want the security and sign the contract, and no problem with players who want to take the risk and go year to year. The problem is with the implication that somehow the players are not making the decision here. They can sign whatever they want.
Posted by: bobo | May 22, 2008 at 09:25 AM
"It's called a 'players union', skkrman. That's their job."
There comes a point, though, when acting in what the union perceives as "doing its job" comes into direct conflict with an individual player's best interest. Take the A-Rod situation, for example. A-Rod was willing to take a paycut to go to Boston. The union balked at the idea. I would argue that the duty of representation the union owes to its members extends beyond simply securing the highest dollar amount fathomable -- it includes securing the best working conditions possible, as well.
The union's perspective on player salaries is simply too cut-and-dry to allow it to fulfill that obligation. To A-Rod, once he crossed the $250M threshold, the opportunity to play for a contender in a larger market was worth a few million dollars off his bloated contract. But the union was concerned that the salary cut would set a disturbing precedent (even though A-Rod was in a league of his own, and his contract set the bar for no one but himself). The MLBPA refuses to place real value on a player's preference to play in a particular location or for a particular team, frowning heavily upon hometown discounts.
This would be "their job" if the members of their bargaining unit were all like-minded mercenaries, but that it is not the case. Some of them value quality of worklife over squeezing every cent from the coffers, and I think the union loses sight of that.
Posted by: DunkinDonuts | May 22, 2008 at 09:38 AM
Papelbon is an idiot. Whenever he talks about his contract, he always comes off sounding like a dick. I completely understand the point of going year to year and he has every right to maximize his earnings, but he doesn't need to sound like a dbag and be so cocky about it.
Posted by: dorfmac | May 22, 2008 at 09:44 AM
If I was the Sox F.O I'd reference Billy Koch for Papelbon. Koch was pretty dominate in his first few seasons then fell into oblivion. Closers are vital, but they are also subject to the "yips" like no other spot on the field. Until a guy does it as long and as successfully as a guy like Mariano, he shouldn't be paid like Mariano.
Posted by: baxter4218 | May 22, 2008 at 09:50 AM
I can understand Papelbons pov. If he had come up as a starter and been as dominant as he has been as a closer (relatively speaking), they would be driving dump trucks of money up to his house. The highest paid closer makes, what, 12 million, whereas the highest paid starter makes 21 million or so. Papelbon has been the perfect closer since day 1, which is worth a lot of money.
Posted by: Guitar Hero | May 22, 2008 at 10:14 AM
Oh come on Dirty Water. Rob Bradford is an unreliable source for Red Sox info? Years of following his info says otherwise.
Posted by: Tim Dierkes | May 22, 2008 at 10:25 AM
Prince needs to get as much as he can. If he is is as much like his dad, as he has been so far, he will have forgotten how to hit by 32 and out of baseball by 35.
Posted by: XD23 | May 22, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Oh and does anyone else see the Humor in a guy named Fielder who is anything but a good fielder?
Posted by: XD23 | May 22, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Maybe Papelbon shouldn't have volunteered to be the closer then.
Besides, this isn't about closer vs. starter (and amazing closers automatically being great starts is NOT a foregone conclusion), it's about signing a long-term deal or not.
I agree with dunkin donuts and skkrman - the Union is mainly concerned about salaries. Worse yet, they're generally concerned about them on the aggregate level. If they really wanted the best for the players, they'd work towards changing baseball's ridiculous salary structure (players only start to make a ton of money once they're on the downside of their careers in most cases). It's both confusing and unfair.
I kind of hope this opposition for early long-term contracts from the union continues, because there WILL always be players who want the security and they'll sign the deals, and it could potentially lead to a weakening of the union - which can only be a good thing for baseball.
Posted by: bobo | May 22, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Papelbon has said before that one of the reasons he wants to set a new bar for elite closers salary is that others who came before him allowed him to earn what he gets now. Without guys like Rivera setting a bar he wouldnt have the chance of a big pay day and he wants to do the same for players that follow him. What a jerk, thinking of others. Man that cocky d'bag.
Posted by: ArodSucksAtLife | May 22, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Jacoby is also a Boras client.
Posted by: ArodSucksAtLife | May 22, 2008 at 12:59 PM
ArodSucksAtLife,
Just curious, but do you also think that our preference of dealing with Iraq over going into Afghanistan, when we were initially in the hunt for terrorists, had anything to do with gasoline/oil or is that merely a coincidence that they are sitting on the border of two of our biggest providers of oil in the middle east and pissing both of them off?!
Israel and Kuwait both hate Iraq and it keeps Iran from going to Saudi Arabia/Israel to get weapons. However it was all because Saddam was a douchebag that we tried and convicted and then hung him... I mean nobody ever spins it in a good way to make their cause look better, right?!
Ever think that Papelbon is just a greedy prick trying to pawn his desires off on the only possible good natured deed you can tie to the wealth of money he is undeserving of?! I mean get paid and get paid well, but there need not be a new benchmark set when a guy works for 20 hours a week times 40 weeks (= 800 hours) and makes 10-15MM to actually play in less than 100 innings!
Sorry if your career is over soon and you can't roll around in $100 bills, but you get paid for the amount of entertainment you provide, not the amount of talent you have in your body... If you are Ted Williams with the stick but your career ends after a season, you aren't worth more than 400K, but if you play for 20 years, you've given a lot to the game and you should be rewarded.
My point is that going into Afghanistan to basically assassinate/murder/kill some terrorists, well damn it, that doesn't look so heroic or patriotic does it?! So we do something we've needed an excuse to do and it in turn becomes an excuse for what was originally the excuse... Should we be in the middle east, now?? ABSOLUTELY, we've opened a can of worms in Iraq and we have to finish what we begin. Are we doing some good, sure. Could we have done things differently?! You bet, but we are doing the right thing being there.
Is Papelbon getting a bad shake?! Maybe, but you're going to get it bad anytime you start talking about what you make with the media! If you're out there Papelbon, listen up. Don't be stupid Jonathon, you big dummy. Get used to this, if you open your mouth and you'll probably be shoving your foot in there, well atleast until you learn the proper topics to have or to ignore.
I hate to say it, but I've been waiting for the GMs to wise up and bust out the checkbook with the young guns and now with the advent of the under team control long-term contracts being signed, you'll see baseball return to normal... Look at the deals this offseason and with teams locking in their young guys, it means less high end FAs are hitting the market.
Name the last ace that was available in his prime as a FA! Zito right? Schmidt was too old. So what everyone got to taste the Sabean stupidity. I mean that contract was so bad that the rest of the baseball executives wakes up with indigestion over it. Who was the last position player worth a crap?! I believe this year didn't have one, Carlos Lee and Alfonso Soriano was the last FA acquisition in baseball. You can tell when salaries have plateaued because the only way to get a good player is through trade. Get used to this, everytime something changes the landscape of the union contract there is a settling in period. Well start liking your team now, FA is pretty much for spare parts at this point!
Posted by: BaseballGuru | May 23, 2008 at 06:05 AM
That is to say Soriano and Lee are the last perennial all-stars to be found on the FA market in their prime years... I can't think of any other name that switched teams since the winter of 2006/spring of 2007... Andruw Jones, Jim Edmonds, etc. don't count and Hunter can hardly be considered a major acquisition, he's played well so far, but 1/4 of a season does not make 5! He's 5% of the way through a 90MM contract, tell me whether he earned it in two, three, or four years... Then after the 5th season, see how many times you changed your mind...
If a player makes enough that you question whether it was good deal half the time, then it's too much... It should be a good deal 90% of the time, the other 10% they SHOULD be playing below market value, they are human! Hunter is a good player, but I don't think anyone believes he's raking in Anaheim all of a sudden because he was suffering in Minnesota playing in a dome with Morneau and blah, blah, blah hitting around him, with KC and Detroit in 2005 and before to beat up on over his career.
The numbers aren't there and last year should've been his time to have his career year with it being a walk season. I just can't see Hunter maintaining his start and he's already up there in age, so premier player?! Nope, doesn't pass the sniff test. He's a good player, but not a perennial all-star and not a major difference maker. They bought Hunter and traded for a pitcher rather than trying to find a decent pitcher on the FA market and keeping Cabrera.
It was a shrewd move, but his signing was about getting a pitcher and him being the best player on the market. I bet they had already determined that they were going to trade Cabrera in the offseason and that Hunter was their anticipated target and I mean back in August or September, because everything came together very quickly! I can spin it 100 times, but Hunter still wasn't an All-Star pick and won't become a difference maker. As Darkstar would say it while chewing his gum, Free Agency is so 1990s. Sorry, I can't help but think of a ditzy blonde when he starts talking, anywho good luck with the thread...
Posted by: BaseballGuru | May 23, 2008 at 06:24 AM
OK well Lugo makes 11 million a year. He is a complete idiot who messes up every chance he gets. Papelbon works his ass off to do his job and does it well. He should be making like 16 million a year. 12 million for a closer is wrong when screwup position players make 11 million. I hope the sox give papelbon a good deal like 16 million a year for 5. they have the money, spend it on good players like Papelbon, Pedroia, and Elsbury. Not screwups like Lugo.
Posted by: papelbonbabe88 | June 02, 2008 at 12:45 PM