September 8: Nationals owner Mark Lerner released a statement on the situation this afternoon (via Ken Rosenthal of the Athletic). Lerner confirmed that the sides had discussed a potential retirement presser internally but added that “no such event was ever confirmed by the team.” Lerner said that reports had “mischaracterized” the situation.
At the same time, the owner’s statement implied that a formal retirement was not imminent. He concluded by saying the team “(looks) forward to seeing Stephen when (they) report to Spring Training.” It seems they plan to carry him on the 40-man roster throughout the winter.
September 7: Two weeks ago, the Washington Post reported that Stephen Strasburg was retiring. While the three-time All-Star didn’t make a public announcement, the Nationals scheduled a press conference for September 9 to honor his career and retire his #37.
That is unexpectedly off, reports Britt Ghiroli of the Athletic (Twitter links). Ghiroli suggests that’s because of a disagreement between Strasburg and the organization on the player’s contract. According to Ghiroli, the team initially proposed that Strasburg would be paid in full before backtracking and seeking to change the terms of his retirement.
Bob Nightengale of USA Today writes that the Nats informed Strasburg and his representatives at the Boras Corporation on Thursday afternoon that they didn’t want to honor the retirement agreement. According to Nightengale, the team didn’t provide Strasburg with an explanation for their change of heart.
The Nationals have not commented on the matter. On the surface, their about-face seems a baffling course of action. Strasburg’s planned retirement was driven by an ongoing battle with thoracic outlet syndrome, which has kept him to eight MLB appearances in the last four years (only one since the start of 2022). Reports have indicated that Strasburg’s TOS has interfered with basic tasks such as opening doors and holding his young children, so there’s no public indication he’s in any better position to pitch at the major league level than he would have been a few weeks ago.
That makes it a puzzling choice for the organization to attempt to renegotiate the retirement terms. Washington ownership surely isn’t thrilled with the notion of paying $35MM annual salaries from 2024-26 to a player who won’t appear for them at the MLB level. (Strasburg is also due $80MM in deferred salaries, which’ll be paid out from 2028-30.) Yet Strasburg would be guaranteed all of that money if he spends the next three seasons on the injured list as well. If the Nats felt he would never be in position to pitch again a few weeks ago, it’s unclear why they believe the situation has changed.
Strasburg isn’t counting against the Nats’ roster in-season, as he’s on the 60-day IL. If he doesn’t formally retire, however, Washington would need to carry him on their 40-man roster over the offseason. (The Nats could release him to remove him from the roster, though they’d still be on the hook for the contract, so that wouldn’t be any different to the team than if Strasburg simply retired.) Keeping him on the roster seems a suboptimal situation for everyone involved unless team brass is holding out hope that Strasburg will be able to pitch again someday.
As Nightengale points out, the Strasburg reversal comes at a time when the Nationals appear to be trying to cut costs in other areas. Assistant general manager Johnny DiPuglia resigned over the weekend, which Nightengale reports was in response to the organization seeking to reduce his salary.
The franchise has also made a swath of cuts to their scouting staff. Ken Rosenthal and Ghiroli reported yesterday (on Twitter) that the organization was letting go of a number of special assistants and a pro scout. Jesse Dougherty of the Washington Post reported (Twitter link) that four members of the international scouting department were not being renewed as well.
All this comes at a time of some overall uncertainty. The Lerner family looked into selling the franchise last year, but those talks reportedly hit a snag because of the club’s TV rights fees dispute. Meanwhile, general manager Mike Rizzo remains without a contract beyond this season. Rizzo and the club had been in extension negotiations for at least the past few weeks. As the Talk Nats blog first reported yesterday, those talks have been held up by Rizzo’s desire for a longer-term contract than the organization has thus far been willing to provide.
Unfortunate. He helped get the Nats a ring and now his retirement ceremony gets canceled over a money disagreement. Hopefully the 2 sides come to an agreement.
Leave it to beaver… I mean Bieber to screw up a run way event with stuffed toy dogs ment for 12 year olds… Wait… what…?
Money Ruins Everything… Everything, for example look at Madagascar, Nirvana, Courtney Love… Good Job Scoob, one down, 3 to go!
That’s more drugs being the problem than money in that circumstance
And need lots of money to buy said drugs.
Viscious circle
Lame comment
Hey. That comment is both offensive and incorrect. (Many many studies have shown that government assistance reduces poverty, improves food security, supports better educational outcomes. Increased government assistance does not lead to increased drug use.)
Let me guess… these studies were financed by the government? Things that Ma ya go hmmmmm…
Foxtrot
Please provide evidence that government programs do not reduce poverty, improve food security, support better educational outcomes.
Note: it is definitely possible for those programs to improve people’s lives and also be misued.
Foxtrot
So, not one actual study
Just a bunch of blah blah blah from you
Two things
1) people shouldn’t just believe things that random people post on the internet with no citations
2) people especially shouldn’t believe things that random people post on the internet with no citations when that person is specifically asked for citations and doesn’t provide them since it appears that person doesn’t understand the purpose of cited information meaning they probably aren’t getting their information from cited sources.
Re: Foxtrot
Also wanted to add that it’s really sad that so many people think the only value of a college education is a job.
One can infer that such people think the main value of a person is to be cog in the economic wheel
Likely, these are people who went to college, but didn’t actually learn anything. Examples of what those two prescient lads Dunning and Kruger studied. These poor souls, those who actually wasted their money on an “education” that was moslty a paper saying they’d been good worker bees (perhaps with a few specific skills relative to one line of work), don’t have the knowledge to see the actual use of an education, since they never received one.
Foxtrot
Then it shouldn’t be a problem for you to provide one to support your claim
Yet,,you’ve been asked three times and have failed to do so.
Foxtrot
Fourth time
Please provide a study that supports your stance
If there are so many, it shouldn’t be difficult.
Foxtrot
Pretty telling that gaining knowledge doesn’t seem to be something that yiu value.
It’s also obvious from this brief interaction that we’ve had.
As an aside to anyone more inclined to understand than Foxtrot is: if more people took an interest in acquiring knowledge and developing thinking skills, we wouldn’t have so many of these dumb conversations
I, personally, feel that having a more knowledgeable and more thoughtful society would be an improvement to my life, so I’m all for free education. I can see that some people, like foxtrot, would be threatened by having more such people around them.
Foxtrot
Ok?
You provided a citation, but it in no way supports your claim.
Again, sorry you wasted your education.
Foxtrot
The problem is that the link you provided does not support your claim
This is like high-school level skills that you are unable to display here.
I mean, even your basic math skills seem to be lacking
Per YOUR link
“20 cents of each dollar was spent on a broad category of junk foods that included “sweetened beverages, desserts, salty snacks, candy and sugar.”
Your (new) claim
“Less than half on actual groceries and wasteful spending on things that lead to obesity and diabetes.”
20% ain’t more than half.
Now, I suppose you’ll try and point to the 2nd 40% which includes ““cereal, prepared foods, dairy products, rice and beans.”
Are you going to try and argue that the government should not provide things like,rice, milk and beans for people?
Because, even if we grant you that cereal and prepared foods lead to diabetes and obesity, there’s not enough info in what you posted to conclude those things make up an additional 31% of purchases.
Foxtrot
You already posted this and it already doesn’t support your argument
Yes, people buying things like fruits, vegetables, eggs, bread, beans and rice reduces food insecurity.
Wut?
That some of it goes to things like soda and candy doesn’t mean it doesn’t reduce food insecurity
Foxtrot
What do you think you just debunked?
Where have I said anything about the US educational system
Other than that it appears to have failed you specifically.
Seriously, your ability to reason is very poor.
Wrong. Government assistance has less misuse by the poor than corporate handouts do. And it’s not close.
The majority of those COVID relief funds were misused by businesses, not the poor. PPP loan scams.
nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/biggest-fr…
When it comes to unemployment scams it was not the poor. It was organized crime. Fraudsters using stolen social security numbers and stolen or made up names scammed the state.
Nearly ALL of the $163 billion in federal losses in COVID relief funds were in the PPP loans for businesses. None of it was in programs for the poor.
Everything you are saying is wrong. Its businesses that are the scamming, not the poor.
Considering the average household spends just 27% on those core food items, the poor on SNAP are doing exceptionally well.
ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-…
Considering the average household spends just 27% on those core food items, the poor on SNAP are doing exceptionally well.
See link in my other post.
Considering the average household spends just 27% on those core food items, the poor on SNAP are doing exceptionally well.
Link in my previous post.
Considering the average household spends just 27% on those core food items, the poor on SNAP are doing exceptionally well.
Link in my other post.
Covid relief funds were almost completely abused by RICH people. And wtf does any of this have to do with Steven Strasburg.
It’s still food. So you want the government to dictate what people eat? Gee sounds kinda commie to me.
You can’t spend SNAP at McDonalds.
So you are saying businesses that recieve the majority of government funding should have to provide receipts of what its spent on? That I agree with.
Free college? I agree. Every degree has the possibility you can make a living utilizing it.
The facts are clear that it does all of those things. The only government assistance programs that are “routinely misused, ripe with fraud and abuse, and prime examples of wasteful spending” are corporate welfare.
The PPP loan program is a prime example of that. Medicare and Medicaid fraud by large medical corporations.
The COVID unemployment scams here in California that were perpetrated by organized crime rings.
The $4 billion in business relief programs.
The $163 billion you are talking about was ALL PPP loan scams. Again businesses and the wealthy.
NONE of that was by those living in poverty. It was businesses and organized crime. The wealthy stole the most.
SNAP cannot be spent in McDonalds with the exception of a few states.
If you have ever been poor, you know that most poor areas are food deserts with no grocery stores, often in entire zip codes. My gardener lived in an area of San Diego here the nearest grocery store was nearly 2 miles away, In a zip code with 51,461 people there is ONE large grocery store.
Because of that, 5 states have set up an RMP program that allows a percentage of SNAP EBT to be spent on prepared foods.
So you are an advocate for people not thinking for themselves and becoming a cog in the machine
You still have debt for going to trade schools.
The goal of college is to learn to think. The goal of trade schools is to learn a trade.
That article from 2017 doesn’t support your argument. It says 20% is spent on junk. 40% is spent on packaged foods. The staple of all households including yours and mine. Then add in the 40% that is spent on meats, fruits, vegetables, milk, eggs, eggs, and bread and you have 80% of EBT money being spent in core foods.
Are you trying to say that just because you are poor you shouldn’t have potato chips, dessert, or a soda? Or even an occasional candy bar?
Here is actual data. ers.usda.gov/data-products/#!topicid=14832&su…
BIL, you can in a few states. 5 total. That is because in many poor areas they live in a food desert devoid of grocery stores.
Kroger knows that rich and middle class spend more on food because they are not buying just low profit essentials so they simply don’t put grocery stores in the poorest neighborhoods.
Foxtrot
Here is your original post
“Over all, the report found, SNAP households spent about 40 cents of every dollar at the grocery store on “basic items” like meat, fruits, vegetables, milk, eggs and bread. Another 40 cents of every dollar was spent on “cereal, prepared foods, dairy products, rice and beans.” Lastly, 20 cents of each dollar was spent on a broad category of junk foods that included “sweetened beverages, desserts, salty snacks, candy and sugar.”
Let’s walk though this together
I’m going to ask some specific questions to attempt to understand your point better
1) Do we agree that the 20% spent on junk food, etc does not represent food security (I don’t actually believe this 100%, but I’ll conceed it for now)?
2) Do we agree that the 40% spent on “meat, fruits, vegetables, milk, eggs and bread” does represent food security?
3) Regarding the other 40%, am I correct in assuming that you do not believe items like rice, beans, dairy, cereal and prepared foods do not represent food security?
4) If I am correct about 3, why [on earth] not?
Muted
Absolute waste of time to attempt discussion with this individual
Refuses to answer simple and direct questions in order to see if anything they are saying is actually making sense
WSS
I already tried that
They said I was illiterate and I muted them
Its you that can’t read. Everyone, even the poor, deserve a treat once in a while. Potato chips, dessert, a soda, and even a candy bar fall into that category. That you don’t think so just says fascist to me.
The article you posted and the data that BIL posted both said that those on SNAP benefits spend 80% of their food budget on core foods including both fresh and packaged. That is MORE than 75%.
The normal American diet is far more than 20% junk food. The data says its closer to 40%. So, by your own data, the people on SNAP are eating BETTER than the general public.
Fox, YOU said it was more than 50%. Not filihok.
Packaged items like rice, beans, dairy, cereal do represent core foods and the article YOU referenced said they did.
40% spent on meat, fruits, vegetables, milk, eggs and bread and 40% spent on rice, beans, dairy, cereal and other packaged foods = 80%.
This is not all that hard. Why are you having such a hard time with it?
I may have to as well. Its not all that hard to understand and the math is from elementary school.
Say hello to my little friend…the mute button.
They are spending 80% on core foods according to the article you posted. That is considerably more than the average American household.
More fascist than commie.
@hippyripper
courtney love was already damaged goods before money was involved
Courtney Love was damaged goods before Billy Corgan was involved.
They could declare bankruptcy.
They are only guaranteed if the player is still active. He has to either be actively rehabbing with the team or playing. He stopped rehabbing a few months back because he cannot grip a baseball or even open a car door with his right hand. At this point Strasburg’s choice is to retire and not get any money or get his behind back to the teams facility and start rehabbing that injury.
The team can choose to pay him some or all of the money owed, but if he retires or refuses to rehab the injury they don’t owe him anything.
This is 100% false, just as a legal matter. MLB contracts are completely guaranteed, no matter how strange that seems to you. He is owed every dime, whether he retires or just stays on the IL. Retirement matters only to the team (and it’s a good thing for them).
Not true at all. By that logic, a player can sign a $300 million contract, retire the next day and get the whole thing. That’s not how it works.
You have to be either active or actively rehabbing to come back. The contract doesn’t just mean the player gets paid for existing, they actually have to actively be trying to play or getting back to playing to continue being paid.
Go read the UPC. It is 100% correct and Strasburg signed a contract that all players must sign to play that stipulates EXACTLY what I just said.
If he retires the Nationals owe him NOTHING.
If he doesn’t actively rehab they put him on the restricted list and pay him NOTHING.
Contracts are guaranteed ONLY if they are playing or actively rehabbing.
But that’s not the situation. The situation is he is on the 60 man IL, which is not the case in your hypothetical. So he’s not playing by virtue of that. His doctors are not making him rehab, for medical reasons. They don’t think he will pitch again. He’s perfectly fine staying on the IL. Makes no difference to him. In fact it’s probably to his benefit since he doesn’t have to pay the doctors that way.
Not the case. Strasburg said he CHOSE not to rehab since July because he was not making progress. He stopped because he could not grip a baseball or open a car door or hold his children with his right hand. Neither his medical staff nor the team doctors have said he is unable to rehab the injury.
The contract he signed says he MUST actively be rehabbing the injury or the team can place him on the restricted list with no obligation to pay him.
This is not debatable. it is what his and every other players contract says.
I hate the idea of a player making money. Espeically since he’s struggled so much with his health and had his career cut short. What a dink. I just wanna smooch all those billionaires who make baseball so great, THOSE are the real stars! Mmm, boot leather!
I guess a guy with a head filled with wood would say something like that. Blockhead was taken?
Yet another extremely clever burn. thanks for the well thought out retort.
@leftfield
I am unsure where you found the UPC (I couldn’t find it). And maybe you know something that I do not, but something is not adding up with your statements.
First, what does “actively” mean? Boras is no dummy. so he undoubtedly included some provisions to protect his player. So it stands to reason that if Stras can’t use his right arm (an important entity for an RHP, so I am told) for even the most basic activities, it seems more that he is incapable of doing much to get back to a mound right now than him just “choosing” not to. And I refuse to believe that, even though Stras is in a lot of pain, his doctors are just telling him to power through.
As far as retiring early, it is likely he consulted with Boras on how to proceed, and they spoke with the Nats, who obliged (until they didn’t). The alternative would be Stras being physically incapable of doing anything for the next three years (or maybe feeling a little better, only to reach another setback and cause agonizing frustrations in daily aspects of his life), which is a risk the Nats knew they signed up for signing a pitcher to a long-term contract.
Outinleftfirld, your assessment is incorrect.
It is technically not true that a player can just retire and still get paid. If a player retires he voids the rest of the money.
However often in such a case the team and the player/agent agree that the player can retire and still get the money because the team knows they have to pay him anyway and it doesn’t make sense to insist he is rehabbing for several years.
Also insurance is an issue. In some cases insurance pays for the rest of the contract and in that case the player can’t just retire but needs to be declared medically unable to continue to play, then he can retire and get their contract paid by the insurance.
So it isn’t all black or white, technically a player can’t just retire and get all the money but there are circumstances when something is worked out and they can.
No Prince Fielder didn’t retire right away. In fact I believe it was over a year after he announced he couldn’t play anymore. He only officially retired after they came to an agreement/buyout on his contract.
It’s only guaranteed if he himself is actively honoring the contract. If he retires, he’s not honoring his side of the contract. How difficult is this for y’all to understand. Use the internet to research this instead of just saying what you believe to be true and using your ego to defend your position.
This is an article from when Albert Belle stopped playing, but didn’t retire. As long as they don’t retire, they’re guaranteed their contract. If they retire before the end of the contract, they don’t. Learn to do research.
espn.com/mlb/news/2001/0303/1125412.html
@ outinleftfield. You would be correct if he just decided to stop. But that isn’t the case. As was reported back in July, He was shut down by the medical staff and team because he couldn’t hold a ball.
This more similar to Pedroia than other examples listed below. Being physically unable to rehab is quite different from refusing to rehab.
My take on the story is that negotiations need to be work on more to get him retired, probably to meet insurance needs more than anything else.
Yes, it is true they have to be actively rehabbing however, he could be granted his full contract if it is deemed that he is retiring due to medical and still be paid in full. This happened to Prince Fielder who had to retire due to his injury. The Texas Rangers had insurance on Prince’s deal and insurance covered 80% of the remaining contract. The Rangers were on the hook for the rest.
If he has a medical report that he will not be recover sufficiently and rehab won’t help he would not need to do what is medically pointless….which appears to be the case….Multiple surgeries and years of rehab and still cannot even do simple daily activities. This is a case where it appears to be medically impossible for him to return to MLB Form. At this point, the focus is just on regaining basic use of his arm to be able to turn a door knob.
The NATs will owe him the money, but where they can possibly get out from behind the 8-ball is if they agree to a settlement so he gets his money in retirement, they can likely do it in such a way that they still owe the money but it may not count against the salary cap….That is the best they can hope for.
Strasburg only signed what the NATs offered, not his fault.
Not sure that’s correct outinleftfield
Context matters. Yes he is going to retire….but for medical reasons that occurred at his place of work. This is the definition of workmen’s comp. I’m sure he has some sort of protection through the players union and will get some money from the nationals. Boras is no dummy but neither are the high paid lawyers from the nationals organization. So will he get 100% of the contract probably not. Will he get zero money from the nationals, probably not. They will meet somewhere in between.
I understand why the nationals wouldn’t want to pay him 100% of that contract. Its the ugly business side of things. Its really a lose lose here.
If he claims disability because he got hurt at work they have to pay him correct
In this scenario if he chooses to retire but if MLB / Nationals / Insurance Doctors (not his personal doctors) says there is an outside chance he could recover and still play through it then he would lose his salary and potentially a portion of the deferred depending on how the contract is structured.
I believe this is more insurance saying originally they would pay out a good portion of the rest of the salary and now saying based on xyz report he could pitch again.so they dont have to pay out on it and its all on the Nationals to pay remainder. Insurance always trying to find ways to weasel out of what they agree to pay in good faith.
Favorite argument for a non-payout was “I know you were dead stopped at the light but if you werent stopped so close to the car in front of you the car that was not paying attention that rammed you into the car in front of you would not have pushed you into that car. So you are responsible for hitting that car and we are not paying that out. “
Maybe you should come up with a solid comment before you call people out for commenting on the name you chose. Especially when you are making blockhead comments.
Prince Fielder came to an agreement with the Rangers and was paid part of the money he was owed.
Boras cannot add anything to the standard player contract. He can negotiate things like suites or even private planes, but he cannot change thing that are collectively bargained. The standard player contract is collectively bargained.
The team medical staff decides what is considered active rehab. That is also collectively bargained. Its in their to prevent a guy from signing a long term deal and then just saying I am hurt and can’t even try to come back to play.
Unless they negotiate something in writing, the contract that Strasburg signed that says that he doesn’t get paid if he retires or doesn’t want to rehab is still the superseding document,
If doesn’t really matter if Strasburg thinks he is incapable of continuing rehab or if it hurts too much do do more than a very small amount of rehab. If he wants to get paid, he has to do that to the team medical staff’s satisfaction.
BTW this is coming from someone who absolutely loves Strasburg. I have been watching him pitch in person since his senior year at West Hills high in Santee and all through his SDSU career. I truly wish him nothing but the best.
Unfortunately, LeftField is correct. The standard MLB contract stipulates that if a player retires the contract is voided and the team owes them no more money. If the player chooses not to continue to rehab the injury for whatever reason, the team retains the right to place them on the restricted list and the player does not get paid.
MOST of the time when a player is unable to perform and doesn’t want to even try to rehab anymore because its fruitless, the team and player negotiate a deal that pays the player part of their remaining salary and then the player retires.
That is not a requirement for the team, just a really good way to get goodwill of both the MLBPA and the fans. As someone said, good PR.
Not sure that Lerner cares about either as he wants to sell the team. Lerner is cutting costs throughout the organization firing or forcing out nearly all of the international scouting staff, letting multiple FO staff go, and other cost slashing measures. Other than Corbin there is not a single player on the team with a salary more than $7 million. I doubt they add one this offseason either.
Lerner is on his way out and fan sentiment seems to be taking a backseat to him padding the family coffers on the way.
Fielder was not paid his full contract. His agent negotiated a buyout of a partial amount,
No, Prince Fielder was an exception. His contract was fully guaranteed upon retirement ONLY BECAUSE he was deemed medically unsafe to continue playing. I don’t know if Strasburg’s injury qualifies in the same way, but that is something he could attempt as a means to break the usual retirement rules.
You are correct. If Strasburg retires, the Nationals would still owe him any deferred money that has already agreed to. Just not any salaries due from that point forward.
Chris Davis forfeited his 2021 salary when he retired, but he still gets the deferred money in his contract, Great article on that in the Baltimore Banner,
I think Bonilla is still getting paid his $1 million or so each year.
Its just the future salaries they give up
MLB and the players are not subject to workman’s compensation. They are subject to the collectively bargained stipulations in the employment contract.
That says that a contract is voided if a player retires and the team owes no future salaries.
It also says that the team medical staff is the final arbiter of whether a player is able or unable to continue to rehab from an injury. Its that way to keep some guy from retiring and saying he is unable to even rehab and walking away with that money. Owners are sometimes stupid, but the lawyers hired by the league are not. They protect the owners money
At some point the two sides will come to an agreement, Stras will retire and walk away with part of that salary he would have earned in deferred money and the Nationals will pay that over years in the future. Years when Lerner is no longer the owner.
Prince fielder his online one, something about him, getting his entire contract paid out
Pads fan. I am not saying workmen comp. If he can’grip a ball and throw it anymore. And it’s a disability because of the injury and that’s why I hes retiring can he say I don’t want to put any one in danger if I hit someone with a pitch to the eye and that olayers career is over there has to be a safety protocol and any business correct for everyone
mlbplayers.com/cba
Click on the link to download it. Then read it.
Its in the CBA.
mlbplayers.com/cba .
His assessment is on the money. Most teams are not total jerks and care about fan opinion so they don’t just say F U to the player. They negotiate a deal to have the player retire while receiving less than the full amount left on the contract. But what he said is 100% correct.
I can’t find anything where the team said they were shutting down his rehab. I did find this article in June where the Washington Post reported that Strasburg had severe nerve damage and had chosen to stop his rehab on the advice of his own doctors. washingtonpost.com/sports/2023/06/03/stephen-stras… According to the Post, the plan was for Strasburg to rest and see whether the nerve conditions improve.
The team did not say that he was shut down by their medical staff at the time, In fact, there was no change to their official medical report on Strasburg.
No one on this forum has actually read Strasburg’s contract. We don’t know the particulars.
Maybe there is a behind the scenes legal battle over how much should be paid out in order for this thing to end amicably. The leak about retirement was obviously a play by the Boras team and pissed off the Nats.
Strasburg has always seemed very down to earth. I wouldn’t be surprised if its his wife pushing him to insist on getting all “their money” and calling him a wuss/idiot for publicly admitting his desire to walk away from the game. Then there’s the awkward reality that TOS is usually caused by PMO, not pitching.
@pads fan … he has been shut down since february and confirmed by the manager with no time table to return. Here is the link in traderumors.
mlbtraderumors.com/2023/02/stephen-strasburg-suffe…
Actually, we do, because a player or his agent cannot add stipulations about injuries or anything like that to a contract. They can add incentives or items like suites on the road or a specific locker or even a limo to pick them up from games like Rickey had at the end of his career. But they cannot change the Uniform players contract. All that stuff is decided by collective bargaining and can be found in the CBA.
Stras is a great guy. One I have been watching pitch live since his senior year at West Hills High in Santee, all through his college playing days at SDSU and as often as I could in the majors.
From Lerner’s statement it seemed like he was pointing the finger at Boras, that is for sure.
While the Nationals are not legally bound to pay Strasburg unless he is rehabbing the injury according to the team medical staff’s treatment plan, I hope they come to some sort of agreement to pay him some of that money and let him walk away while he still might be able to pick up and hold his kids with that right arm. That would be the right thing to do.
He has been injured. The article title is “Stephen Strasburg Suffers Setback, Timetable For Return Unclear”
Also from the article.
It doesn’t seem there’s any consideration of Strasburg giving up his pursuit of making it back to the major leagues at this point. Martinez told reporters Strasburg “(knows) in his heart he wants to pitch.”
No one, especially not someone from the team, has said he is incapable of rehabbing the injury.
The owner said today they are expecting to see him in spring training. .
“I can’t find anything where the team said they were shutting down his rehab.”
it says they shut down his rehab for the time right in that article which was confirmed by three authors and the manager. They didnt say it permanently but it was set back with no timetable for return means they are in a holding pattern and it is shut down and would reevaluate. Since there is nothing showing it was actually resumed you would have to assume it is still in the non-rehab stage.
The owner obviously cant say hey i wish you well in your retirement for obvious legal reason so he has to say we will see him next season until he retires / settlement is done. This is basically going to play out with what happened with David Wright where he had multiple “rehab” stints but only came back for half a token game the last year of his contract. The only difference is the insurance company didnt want to settle because he “could” play so they wouldnt pay it out and in this case the Lerners dont want to pay it out if he “can” play later (ie something for nothing)
The article says this.
It doesn’t seem there’s any consideration of Strasburg giving up his pursuit of making it back to the major leagues at this point. Martinez told reporters Strasburg “(knows) in his heart he wants to pitch.”
No where does it say they were permanently shutting down his rehab. In fact, it says the opposite.
Lerner said in his statement that they expect to see Strasburg this next spring training, and guess what, the team’s docs are the ones that make the call if Strasburg can continue rehab or not. He has to follow what they say about treatment, not the other way around.
I think the thing you’re missing is that they agreed to pay him, and let him retire. The two sides can agree to that. And that’s what they should do. Strasburg has given his very health to that franchise. He’ll, more than likely, never have full use of his arm again. This article talks about the AGREEMENT the sides came to in order to facilitate him getting paid, and being able to retire. In other words, they altered the contract, had an agreement, and then Lerner backed out.
You mean when Cohen AGREED to sign Correa or how about when Anthony Barr AGREED to sign with the Jets but then backed out because he changed his mind to play back with his original team. Unless there is something pen and paper the handshake / vocal agreements really mean nothing.
Boras has and never will say reasons that could put his client in a bad light so he will never say full details. I wouldnt be surprised that one of the people that spoke was Boras himself to put pressure and bad pr on the nationals since Lerners are no longer his fallback team. Especially with them trying to sell the team.
do you know what the AGREEMENT was because they never released the details as far as im aware. Maybe after talking with team doctors there was potential for coming back which it was understood he couldnt play again or maybe they agreed to pay him the contract but they did not discuss the way the payments would be made. Strasburg expecting the 100M in hand at the retirement but the Nationals wanted to pay the salary the same or defer the rest. This payment schedule matters as the lerners would only pay 30 million or less and the rest would/could come from the new owners if and when they sell which probably is sooner rather later with all the cutting they did. Or maybe its the opposite where the team wanted to payout the whole thing at once which would probably be a huge tax bill for Strasburg so as to make the team more attractive for sale due to less committment but take a ton of money out what stras would actually receive in hand as i think somethiing lump sum like that gets taxed as bonus and not salary.
You can not assume the Lerners altered the deal because you dont know the retirement deal. Since there was nothing pen and paper the final details could be in the process of being hammered out and they didnt like what Stras and Boras wanted in the final deal. Do you really think Boras and Stras are going to say they are backing out because didnt like how they were being paid over 100M dollars for not playing?
The player has to be following the treatment plan set by the team’s medical staff.
That is not the case. In June there wa a report in the Washington Post but no quotes from the team.
They have never said anything publicly other then he would be back.
Fielder was paid $9 million by the Rangers and $6 million by the Tigers for 2018 to 2020.
He was medically unable to play and he still had to negotiate a lower payout of those final 3 seasons.
Sadly regardless of what his doctors say, according to the CBA the team’s medical staff makes the determination of what treatment plan the player has to follow.
If the player disagrees, he can file a grievance but that is heard by a committee within MLB and to date they have never overturned a team’s treatment plan.
As in the case of Fielders injury, being medically unable to play does not mean the player gets paid 100% of the remaining salaries on his contact. Fielder and the Rangers negotiated a deal that paid him $9 million of the $19 million per season the Rangers owed him. After he retired the Tigers continued to pay him the $6 million per season they agreed to.
$11 million and change per season was deferred. He would still get any salaries that had already been deferred before he retired.
Fielder was paid $9 million of the $19 million on the Rangers portion of the contract. The Illitch family decided to continue paying the $6 million portion they had in the trade. Classy move by them.
Mark Lerner is a BAD WORD that would get censored.
He wants to sell the team and has no interest in the team being liked or playing well or even the future of the team. He has fired or forced out more than half of the scouting staff. A huge number of other baseball operations staff are gone. He has made everyone that stayed take a pay cut. He still hasn’t extended the GM.
When it comes to Strasburg he said they expect him to be at spring training.
Its my opinion that Lerner will push this to the end to give Strasburg as little money as possible. Either Strasburg shows up and rehabs at 100% or Lerner is going to follow the CBA to letter to take every advantage he can.
That would be an interesting disability claim. Like Fielder, he would not be guaranteed any salary beyond his retirement.
This is where fans need to understand that a report from a writer is not the same as a statement from a team.
The team never said he was shut down. They made no official statement of his situation. Martinez said only that Strasburg knows in his heart that he wants to pitch. Nothing else.
They have made an official statement recently and that is that they expect Strasburg to be at spring training.
If he can’t play, he can retire. Then he doesn’t get paid. See Prince Fielder who settled for $9 million per season from the Rangers.
FrontRow, only if the TEAM’S medical staff says that. If there is a treatment plan set by the team, he must keep on doing that rehab or the team does not have to pay him.
“Martinez conceded there’s no current timetable for him to get back on a mound”
“Martinez told the media today the three-time All-Star recovered as hoped from his first throwing session but experienced nerve discomfort after his second workout”
“It doesn’t seem there’s any consideration of Strasburg giving up his pursuit of making it back to the major leagues at this point. Martinez told reporters Strasburg “(knows) in his heart he wants to pitch.””
No where in that article does it say they shut him down from rehab.
Quote where they said that because I cannot find it.
Maybe I am overlooking something, but I quoted most of the article in my last comment.
@websoulsurfer
“Stephen Strasburg’s stretch of brutal injury luck continues. Manager Dave Martinez informed reporters (including Jesse Dougherty of the Washington Post and Mark Zuckerman of MASNsports.com) today the former World Series MVP recently suffered a setback in his rehab from thoracic outlet syndrome. He’s not listed on the club’s Spring Training roster, and Martinez conceded there’s no current timetable for him to get back on a mound.”
Very first paragraph. Setback means they halted rehab in pretty much every instance and will regain (usually short) in this case doesnt look like they ever did as there are no indication anywhere they did. Unless Manager Dave Martinez is not someone you consider as part of the team.
It never says he was shut down from doing rehab. Not once. It says literally that there is no timetable for him to “get back on the mound”. That means PLAY IN A GAME or maybe even throw bullpens from a mound. But it’s a HUGE stretch to infer that they had halted rehab at that point.
Setback does NOT mean that they halted rehab. It means exactly what it says. He suffered a setback.
@websoulsurfer
SETBACK: in American English (ˈsɛtˌbæk) NOUN
1. a REVERSAL, CHECK, or INTERRUPTION in progress;
REVERSAL = a complete change of direction or action
CHECK – stop or slow down the progress of (something undesirable).
INTERRUPTION – an act, utterance, or period that interrupts someone or something.
hmmm these all seem to say stop/pause in in different ways. oh and just so no confusion
Pause – a temporary stop in action or speech.
“He suffered a setback.”
So you confirmed he had a setback which in its definition says is another word for interruption which is also a synonym for pause which also a synonym for halted. So sounds like we are saying the same thing. Glad we agree.
Prince Fielder was paid $9 million per season by the Rangers after he retired. I think he was paid $6 million in addition to that by the Tigers, but not sure. That is far less than the $24 million he would have earned if he continued to play or rehab.
mlbplayers.com/cba
Scroll down and download it. The UPC is part of that document. There are also 4 other sections of the CBA that deal with injuries and retirement.
Its an interesting read.
LordD, Nope. But thanks for chiming in with no other information.
Dom, that only matters if the owner of the team cares what people think. In this case the Nationals want to force Strasburg continue to rehab or to retire to save Lerner some money.
The Nationals had no insurance on Strasburg because of his prior injuries. Lots of articles about that including a couple on this website.
I believe that in most cases the player and team negotiate to avoid rancor. Judging from Lerner’s statement to the press, I don’t think that is the case here. He seemed pretty angry that private negotiations were leaked to the press, insinuated that Boras did it, and said in essence show up in training camp or you won’t get paid.
Fielder retired in 2017. As you said, he only retired after they came to an agreement with the Rangers to pay him $9 million of the $19 million that they would have paid if he continued playing. The Tigers were sending $6 million a year to the Rangers in the trade for Fielder and I believe that continued to be paid to Fielder. So he got $15 million of the $24 million a year that was on his deal.
There was nothing reported in July. In JUNE there was a report in the Washington Post.
You are correct Foxtrot. They would still owe him $11.3 million in deferred money through the season he retired in.
In the CBA MLB players agree to pay the team any workmen’s compensation they receive from the government as reimbursement for salaries they have been paid.
The day he retires, his contract is voided. The team can negotiate with him to pay him part or all of what is left on the contract, but that is the team’s choice. In the CBA it says they owe him nothing. And it doesn’t matter if it was medical in nature or he just decided to retire.
IMHO you are correct. The Nationals and Boras will come to some sort of agreement before spring training for him to retire. I don’t think STrasburg wants to spend the entire season rehabbing in Florida and I don’t think the Nationals want to have the headache during the process of selling the team. They want this settled too.
As angry as Lerner seemed in his statement, that may not be the case. But for everyone involved we can hope so.
Unfortunately?? To/for whom?
For Strasburg its unfortunate that he has to continue to rehab as long as the team asks him to. .
For the Nationals its unfortunate that they may have to continue to pay him to rehab for 3 more seasons and him still not play much if any.
For fans its unfortunate that Strasburg’s body gave out and we don’t get to watch him pitch.
I thought that the Tigers were still paying that but couldn’t find anything in writing. Just press conferences.
I know what the word means. The Nationals STILL never said that he stopped rehab. What part of that is so hard for you to understand?.
@websoul
I really dont think you do because you said yourself it was halted yes or no? I never seen anyone say halt and expect to keep going. So what by your definition is halted then?
Dave Martinez the manager of the Nationals confirmed the set back which you agreed is halted (which is another word for STOPPED) the program at that point to be reevaluated due to the rib cage pain. They have not said anywhere they have resumed (RESTARTED) and unless you have an article that has not been mentioned anywhere i have seen it is still in the stopped stage. Because i only know of 3 states of rehab Started, In Progress, Stopped.
Could they START a new batch of rehab? Yes but as of right now there is nothing going on. because they halted / stopped the rehab.
@Out
The Tigers definitely paid him money out of it. I could be wrong but the article below says he was technically released after they negotiated a deal with insurance to pay their portion and did not actually retire. So 9Million from Insurance 9 Million from the Rangers and 6Million from the Tigers as part of the trade deal for the rest of his payout. The last year of payout was in 2020 according to the article.
dallasnews.com/sports/rangers/2017/10/05/breaking-…
Left field, they would owe him $11.3 million per season in deferred money. Big difference.
No. It doesn’t say that. IT says he had a setback. Period. Not that he was permanently stopped from rehabbing the injury or that the team had not prescribed a different medical treatment plan. He stopped throwing off the mound is ALL it says.
It is pretty obvious from the statement from Lerner and the comments by Rizzo that the team believes he can still rehab the injury and come back to pitch. Martinez said so in that article. Strasburg said so at the time.
The Nationals never said they agreed to pay him. Both Lerner and Rizzo have said the opposite. Only that there were internal negotiations. Strasburg never said they agreed to pay him. Even Boras has never said they agreed to pay him. That was a rumor from writers.
Obviously, Lerner and the team medical staff believes he will not only have full use of his arm, but pitch again or Lerner would not have said they expect to see him in spring training.
So to recap the facts. There was no agreement, just internal conversations. Writers shared rumors that turned out to be false. The team believes Strasburg can at the minimum continue to rehab and expect him to show up at spring training.
Plot twist!
He gave them everything. He’s now crippled for life….cant hold his own kids…such a shame
I would hire an investigator to see just what he can and can’t do. Don’t trust either side without verification. I have nerve pain where I could not lift my son or a stroller for a couple months but I went to outpatient physical therapy for an hour a week for three months and did exercises in between and now I have no trouble lifting my son above my shoulders and he is close to 50 pounds. You have to put work into rehab before you know for sure the results. They tell some people they will never walk again and the patient proves them wrong. And unfortunately, sometimes the hard work does not pan out.
@MannyBeingMVP – generally, the investigator’s report would just be used as leverage in negotiations. A lot of time, it’d be inadmissible in court and it’s easily explained away as “I was actually feeling really good that day so I decided to push it… but boy did I pay for that later. I was in bed for 3 days.” etc.
The doctor’s testimony or reports are going to be what judges or juries will value far more heavily.
Sadly, Strasburg cannot sue and his personal doctors are not the ones that would make the decision as to whether or not he is unable to rehab any more I hope he gets every dollar on that contract, but the Nationals are not obligated to pay him if he retires or if he says he is unable to rehab but their doctors don’t agree. So I don’t think that is going to happen.
There will be no court. There would only be a grievance hearing in front of an MLB committee.
It’s hard to feel sorry for someone who had been paid many millions not to pitch. I mean, anyone going through such a debilitating injury makes me sad. However, he should negotiate a settlement
m.youtube.com/watch?v=ik6HY1lN30w
Normally pro-management, but this is clearly a case of buyer beware. Mats decided to roll the dice on Strasburg continuing to be a Cy Young caliber pitcher for years to come. Didn’t happen. You bought a lemon. If you wanted to mitigate the risk, you should’ve bought insurance against injury on the contract.
A formal retirement breaks the contract I believe.
I mean, what’s in it for them to fully pay him, exactly?
the contractual obligation that both sides agreed to 4 years ago
“The contractual obligation that both sides”…They didn’t agree to pay him for sitting at home on the couch four years ago.
Every time I see an article about an NFL player holding out for a new deal, the comments are always saying that the player should honor the contract because he agreed to it.
But now when the Nationals are trying to change the deal that they also agreed to, people look at it differently. Why’s that? Clearly Strasburg didn’t plan on missing all this time either.
Yes they did. His contract is guaranteed.
Kinda like workman’s comp. He was hurt on the job doing what was his part of the agreement. It’s a gamble cause every body’s different.
And of course, if a player performs well above expectations ownership usually amends the contract to pay them their appropriate market value…
They kneejerk react for ownership because they’re brainwashed into believing a fictional society where people are paid based on their contribution to a company.
“His contract is guaranteed”…Only as long as he shows up for work, ready & willing. It’s not “guaranteed” if you decide you no longer want to play.
Dude, he can’t play. As the article says, makes no diff to him whether they keep him on the roster or he retires. He gets exactly the same either way.
@Seamaholi lc although he currently can not pitch due to his injury, to honor the contract he must put forth an effort to rehab and return. Even if it seems unlikely he will ever do so, to live up to his contractual obligation he must keep attempting. It sucks for him yes as it sounds he is unlikely to return. But it also sucks for the team as they expected to pitch the duration of the contract.
What it boils down to is if the Nats want him to he’d have to play the putting forth an effort to rehab for next 3 years or negotiate a settlement. And yes as long as he’s fulfilling his end of the contract the Nats will have to pay. But a guaranteed contract does not allow a player to say I’m hurt I’m done I’m retiring, pay me. He’s has to honor his end of the contract or come to an agreement to free him of his contractual obligations.
The “guaranteed” part is only guaranteed while both parties are honoring their contractual obligations.
He’s been putting in the effort, rehabbing etc. The Nats need to come to terms with the fact that he is never going to pitch again, no matter how much he rehabs. Forcing him to do so is a bad look for the organization and will effect their efforts to sign free agents in the future, not to mention it costs them a roster spot. Do the right thing and move on.
I would argue having a rib and Two neck muscles removed constitutes a good faith effort to return. It just didn’t work out.
100
“Reports have indicated that Strasburg’s TOS has interfered with basic tasks such as opening doors and holding his young children”
No doctors, including the team doctors, have said he is unable to continue to rehab from the injury.
I blew out my shoulder surfing at Todos Santos a decade back and was unable to lift a fork or toothbrush with my right arm for 6 months, but I kept doing rehab for more than a year and now I am surfing daily and able to lift pretty much anything I was able to before.
Not saying Stras is able to continue. Just saying you don’t know and I don’t know what he can do. The Nationals doctors get the final say on whether or not rehab would be fruitful and if he should continue.
I get it if he doesn’t want to do it anymore. Its been 4 years and while he has thrown a few games, its mostly been just rehab and that sucks. If I was in his situation I would want to call it quits too and just spend time with my family
If Stras decides to not continue, then they don’t have to pay him. That is the bottom line.
If the team doctors decide he is physically incapable of rehabbing the injury and will never get better, will never be able to grip and throw a baseball, then that is a different story. As of right now, that is not the case.
Protected health info is still protected health info.
Teams can and will say only so much
For injuries, they can say anything they want. Its not protected by HIPAA because the players sign away those rights in order to play in MLB. Its in the CBA. Illnesses are still covered by HIPAA.
The issue I see is that a player retiring ends the playing contract.
Strasburg needs to follow the treatment plan set out by the team. If they think there is a chance he can rehab the injury, then he has to continue doing so if he wants to get paid according to what the union agreed to in the CBA.
Lerner is an A1 BLEEEEEP so he is going to push that to the limits.
Toads can be a vicious place to surf when its big. Gave it up a couple decade ago when triple overhead surf there almost drowned me.
Props if you still surf there.
For those of you that are wondering how big the waves get, here is a great video from 2014.
youtu.be/GMQwropNtkc?si=XED0AaVuurB7G2d5
Here is another one from 2016
youtu.be/4XQAOd60368?si=qenPRhnGT0I4EmY7
HUGE waves
Oh no. That was my last time at Todos Santos. Too big for this old man when it gets rolling. I stick to Terra Mar, Lower Trestles, and Cardiff Reef nowadays with an occasional trip to Swamis when I pull out the longboards.
I dont see Strasburg fulfilling said requirements by retiring.
Then he just won’t retire and the Nats will lose a roster spot or release him, in which case he stills gets paid, helping absolutely nobody and changing nothing. Seriously how are so many people just now finding out what ‘fully guaranteed’ means…
Yes. Strasburg probably only decided to retire after the Nats said they would pay his contract in full. If the Nats didn’t say that, Strasburg probably just sits on the IL and gets paid in full. The Nats will pay the full contract, just a question of how. The Nats can help themselves a little bit by paying Strasburg to retire while they gain a 40 man roster spot.
Him retiring is advantageous to the team, since there is no IL in the off-season. Makes no difference to him.
I don’t see retiring the number of a guy who barely won 100 games, nor ever won more than 15 games in a season either. extremely low bar for Washington if their intentions for future players. Several teams only retire numbers of players elected to HOF and have guys who dwarf that of Strasburg’s numbers not retired.
Think it’s rediculous myself Nat’s would even consider retiring his number.
Wrong. If he does not actively rehab the injury the team can place him on the restricted list and owe him nothing. Bad PR move, but great financial move.
He can’t just SIT on the IL. He has to be actively rehabbing the injury to continue to get paid. He hasn’t been doing that for a couple months now.
He does not have to rehab the injury against medical advice. His doctors have told him he’ll never pitch again. That’s been reported many times.
Yes, he does. READ THE UPC. If he refuses to rehab, then his only choice is to retire. If he retires, the team is under no obligation to pay him a dime.
Otherwise he is placed on the restricted list and the team has no obligation to pay him
Depends on the teams needs as far as the roster space on their 40 man. Let’s be real here, Nats have not exactly been overflowing with talent in recent years. Fo at least the next season or 2 it seems they can easily carry him in the offseason without being forced to make difficult choices.
Fully guaranteed means each party honoring their end of the contract. The Nats would b foolish to just let him stop without a negotiated settlement.
They are not overflowing with talent st the moment so losing a 40 man roster spot just for the off season is not going to hinder their current state of not being contenders. And since they re not contending and barring a settlement have to pay the full amount, why would they not make him continue to attempt to rehab??
Seriously do people not understand that contracts cone with obligations that need to be met to honor said contract?
Yep, one player holding the entire organization ransom.
The is Strasberg does something to void his contract entirely…
Does the MLB not fall under labor laws; An employer can not force an employee to do something that is contrary to the opinion of the employees medical professional?
Right, call OSHA.
outinleftfield: Please post the UPC verbiage you keep referring to with a link so we can see exactly what it says.
MLB does fall under labor laws, those covering collectively bargained agreements.
Both the Nationals and Stras are subject to the conditions of employment spelled out in the CBA and in the standard contract that was collectively bargained by the MLBPA and MLB.
Its in the CBA. mlbplayers.com/_files/ugd/4d23dc_d6dfc2344d2042de9…
2. The Player, when requested by the Club, must submit to a complete
physical examination at the expense of the Club, and if necessary to
treatment by a physician, dentist, certified athletic trainer or other med-
ical professional in good standing. Upon refusal of the Player to submit
to a complete medical or dental examination, the Club may consider
such refusal a violation of this regulation and may take such action as it
deems advisable under Regulation 5 of this contract.
(b) the Club shall have the right to designate the health care facilities, physicians, dentists, certified athletic trainers or other medical professionals furnishing such medical and hospital services.
Any other disability may be ground for sus-
pending or terminating this contract.
There is more. MLB has a Joint Policy Board that would make the final determination if the players medical advisor and the team’s medical staff disagree.
a. A Player who refuses to submit to a Full Evaluation,
including any follow-up meetings or tests requested
by the Expert Representative, will be deemed to
have violated his Treatment Plan.
b. A Player who consistently fails to participate in
mandatory sessions with his assigned health care
professional will be deemed to have failed to com-
ply with his Treatment Plan.
c. Absent a compelling justification, a Player will be
presumed to have failed to comply with his Treat-
ment Plan if his assigned health care professional
informs the Treatment Board in a status report that
the Player is not cooperating with the requirements
of his Treatment Plan.
I can go on and on. There are tens of pages of legalese that just says basically that the player must adhere to the teams treatment plan if he wants to get paid. If he doesn’t, they can terminate the contract.
They’d have their professional consult his. The team may even hire an IME. End of the day the player submits to the team’s doctor or walks empty handed.
Thanks PadsFan. That CBA verbiage sounds like it addresses situations where the player is refusing to participate and cooperate with his team. I don’t see any evidence so far that Strasburg is refusing anything.
Since so many have been asking, here is where to find it. mlbplayers.com/_files/ugd/4d23dc_d6dfc2344d2042de9…
YW. If he refuses to submit to the treatment plan the team doctors prescribe, that is when it would come into play.
I don’t think Stras would do that and I think Lerner is being a jerk. Negotiate a deal and let him walk away from the game and maybe someday be able to pick up and hold his kids.
That being said, the Nationals hold the leverage in this case. Retire and no more money is owed legally. Refuse to rehab and no more money is owed and the team can place him on the restricted list and MLB can void the contract.
Bam. The receipts
By actively rehab you mean fully follow the team medical staff’s treatment plan?
Sometimes that treatment plan is rest as it was for a month for Strasburg.
For the past 4 seasons the Nationals have carried him all offseason and then placed him on the IL anyway. It won’t matter one bit to them competitively if they have to do it for a few more years. They won’t be contenders anyway.
Yes. That is what is meant by actively rehab an injury. Rest for a period of time is often part of rehab for a player. Not permanent rest or an entire season of rest.
@mickey
well, there’s that. but it’s not like both parties agreed and signed anything legally binding.
Mr Learner, welcome to your special “39 player off season roster” for the next several years. wonder if it’ll cost you in add’l talent having to be non tendered.
unfortunate for both sides, take your lumps and pay the man. flags fly forever. move on.
I also do not agree with retiring his number for these reasons. But what makes my blood kinda boil with the number 37 retirement, is they put all numbers back in circulation from the Expos. I get it. New team. But to retire 37 and not re-retire 8, 10, and 30- is kinda insulting. Also, they retired 11 for Zimmerman. Do they plan to retire every number of every good player? Not a knock on Zimmerman. He was a good player but not hall of fame level. Look, I am not a Nats fan and I do not care if they retire any and all numbers. I just see it as part of the larger issue that stupid decisions (or no decisions) are being made.
Based on him playing. If he retires, why should they pay him the full contract? In that event, HE’S not honoring his side of the contractual agreement. You pay players to play going forward, not the past.
Do you think for a moment that Boras, in the course of negotiating a 9 figure contract, didn’t include eventualities for a career ending injury? Both sides signed and agreed to it. It doesn’t matter what you or I think is fair, both sides agreed to the contract, and I promise you a contract of this nature would be very clear here.
@makaio6 it isn’t based on him playing. His contract is guaranteed even if he can’t play due to injury. How is that difficult to understand?
They can either leave him on the roster and pay him on the IL, release him and pay him, or let him retire (which he won’t do unless they pay him).
There’s no financial benefit to him retiring. Makes no difference to him. It’s a benefit only to the team.
He signed the UPC, uniform player contract. He can’t sign anything else without both MLB and the MLBPA agreeing.
In the UPC if you retire, the team owes you nothing. If you are not actively rehabbing an injury then you can be placed on the restricted list and be paid nothing.
The difference is if he retires he doesn’t have to be contractually obligated to rehab for the next 3 years. The Nats do have a little leverage here as I assume Stras realizes he’s done and would prefer to be home full time with his family.
@outinLF
let me tell the Orioles that Chris Davis retired so they don’t have to pay him any longer. Angelos will name a crab cake sandwich after me.
look, I personally believe that there’s something in his contract that pays him if he had to retire due to being injured in a baseball related work. however, I am also man enough to admit that I could be wrong too. I don’t believe that any of our opinions will change the outcome of what happens.
let’s sit back and see. there appear to be 2 camps both with their own rationale.
if the reports are true that there was no insurance policy taken should this occur, *that* actually is more interesting to me. betcha the next big contract the Nats sign will have binding coverage should this occur again.
Davis retired and did not get paid salary for his final season but did get the $42 million in deferred money that was part of his contract.
It’s a bad optic for Washington to renege on whatever they worked out. I get the whole perception of getting paid for doing nothing but Washington agreed to the contract. If anyone was familiar with his medicals it would be them, so in my mind as much as I don’t like to see it you have to pay him. I also wonder is Starsburg going to be the poster child of the new age max velocity max effort deliveries that are so prevalent. Thor is another example. Matt Harvey the same. Now Othani and Buelher. Pitcher’s have always gotten hurt and overused but the shelf life on your average starter has definitely decreased in the last 20 years. But back to the point Washington needs to pay him. He is a icon for that team.
You are right, to a degree. To remain on the IL and continue to collect checks, even if physically unable to play, he must still follow the treatment plan prescribed by the teams doctor, or get the teams doctor to agree to an alternate plan, or take the matter to arbitration and submit to the arbiters ruling. Can’t just say “I’m done, can’t do it” and expect payment.
Some guys agree to negotiated retirement buyouts because they simply are tired of jumping through the hoops.
@sbtoby Boras can’t add clauses that go against the CBA. This is pretty easy, not sure why there is so much discussion about it.
Strass can’t pitch, doctors say it’s extremely unlikely he’ll pitch again.
The Nats have 2 options, keep him in the IL for the rest of his contract and pay him, or agree to allow him to retire and still honor the contract.
With option 1 they are responsible for his medical rehab for the length of the contract.
With option 2 they can market his retirement, sell some tickets, souvenirs, merch, etc and also the rehab expenses would be shifted to the MLBPA insurance/pension fund.
His contact is fully guaranteed if he is playing or following the team medical staff’s treatment plan.
If he retires, according to the CBA, his contract is voided and he is not owed any more of the salary remaining on his contract.
Davis was not paid anything for 2021 after he retired. He was only paid the deferred money on his contact.
As someone said, the contracts the players and teams sign is in the CBA and it’s the only one they can use.
They can add incentives but not clauses like that.
Davis was not paid any salary for his final season. He gave that $23 million up and the Orioles did not offer to pay it or even to negotiate with him regarding it. He did get paid his deferred salary earned in previous seasons.
2022. He retired in August 2021.
But he’s retiring so he’s not holding his end either.
So then he doesn’t retire. Again, makes no diff to him. Him retiring at full pay was just a convenience and a small favor TO the Nats. Not by the Nats.
Paying him his full salary after retirement would be a Huge favor by the Nationals. They are not required to pay him any further salaries once he retires, so paying 3 years at $35 million each year is more than a small favor.
All they are required to pay him is any deferred money already accrued, $80M ($11,428,571.43 annually) is deferred with 1 percent interest, payable in equal installments of $26,666,667 on July 1 in 2027, 2028 and 2029, plus interest payment of $3,999,974 on 12/31/29. So about $34.4 million of that deferred money would also not be payable if he retires.
Taking a slightly different approach to your question…what’s in it for them to change their mind now to not pay him fully if they already said they would?
Perhaps their insurance policy on his contract has some language that requires that he be on the IL/40-man for them to get their payout? If so, maybe they figure that eating the 40-man spot while they’re in a rebuild is worth it?
They don’t have an insurance policy on him. They are stuck paying every penny.
@boblowlaw2
Ah, I just checked and see that sources are saying it’s not insured given his previous injury history. Ouch.
Wonder what it is then? Perhaps they’re angling to get him to take some differed? I remember that being the situation for Chris Davis a few years back when he was negotiating his retirement with the O’s.
This feels like that moment in Lilo and Stitch where she holds out the adoption contract where she purchased him for 2 dollars and tells the aliens that Stitch is part of her family….
Meanwhile a Montreal Expo fan is laughing there behind off saying “that’s what you get for stealing my team”
@Hippy
that entire post was worth wading through this whole angry thread.
hysterical
People really need to stop with the “insurance policy”. Given Strasburgs injury history before signing his extension with the Nationals I’m fairly certain there is a slim to no chance he was insurable.
Keep in mind its Nightengale that said this. The National Enquirer is correct more often than he is.
I’m in no way an apologist for the Billionaire owners. But why with the 3 years and $100M at stake, would the Nats let him just give up any attempt to return? As for Stras he’s in his mid 30’s and being paid quiet handsomely even if he has to present a front that he’s putting forth an effort to rehab.
The man is owed 5% of the value of the franchise. I’d say it’s not unreasonable for Nats to either expecting to put a good faith effort into rehabbing or come to the table to negotiate a settlement.
The team is for sale. They can’t sell the team with this money being owed to him after the team is sold. It’s another Boras scheme to get more money from stupid owners.
Evidently, they did insure his contract. It could be the insurance company doesn’t want to pay their full amount if he retires. Normally, if a player retires, any unfulfilled portion of the contract doesn’t get paid. If Strasburg wants to retire, that’s his choice. The Nationals should be applauded for offering to cover any of his remaining contract. If he’s not happy with what they are offering, then I guess he keeps showing up for rehab work, and if he refuses, put him on the restricted list, and stop paying the ungrateful player.
@Stymeed just like with deGrom, insurances companies would not give a policy. Both were deemed to risky due to injury history.
Staying out of court, which could add punitive charges to what they owe him, as well as whatever his lawyers cost.
Strasburg cannot sue. The union can file a grievance, but there is not much wiggle room according to the CBA.
If he retires the team does not have to pay him anything. If he wants to be paid he has to continue to follow the team medical staff’s treatment plan.
If he refuses to follow that treatment plan the team can place him on the restricted list and is not required to pay him while he is on the restricted list.
He can appeal that to a MLB committee that can either say stick to the treatment plan and get paid or lose your salary, or they can void his contract if his conduct is egregious.
Both teams and players are required to abide by the terms the MLBPA and MLB agreed to in the CBA.
Absolutely nothing. Unless he is rehabbing the injury they don’t have to. If he refuses to return to rehab, they can put him on the restricted list until he does and pay him nothing. If he retires they owe him nothing. His contract is voided the day he retires.
Completely false. You think he has stopped rehabbing to spite the team? That he is deliberately refusing to do what his doctors say so he can continue not being able to hold his children and open doors? He is not required to ignore medical advice and rehab in order to collect his guaranteed money. Lol. You’re twisting yourself into a knot in order to resent a dude who made a lot of money.
He SAID he stopped rehabbing in July when they originally announced his retirement ceremony. PAY ATTENTION.
If he wants to not rehab, then he doesn’t get paid. Or at least the team has zero obligation to pay him. They can stick him on the restricted list and not pay him a dime.
I thought Strasburg was a fantastic pitcher and loved watching him pitch. The contract he signed is STILL the contract he signed. The stipulations are to get paid, he has to rehab. If the doctors say he cannot rehab then his choice is to retire and not get paid.
If he retires because he is medically unable to perform then the team is under no legal obligation to pay him anything.
The TEAM can choose to pay him some or all, but Strasburg’s choices are limited by the contract he signed.
@OinLF- Take a look at Prince Fielder’s retirement situation. Doctors wouldn’t clear him to play. He was gonna retire but then didn’t retire and got paid. Doctors didn’t clear him to play! Do you really believe in Stras’ situation that he’ll ever be cleared to play? So Stras will get paid regardless, especially considering who his agent is! This is a situation where I’m rooting for Boras to drop that hammer on the Nats with this whole situation. The Nats are gonna look terrible and many players will think twice about going there in the future especially as they are cheaping out right now across their organization. Not a good look for them, and they will fold.
Also here’s a fun analogy for you. You have made so many posts on this thread like a madman adamant that you know better than everyone else here. Yet, no one is listening. You can spend more of your obviously unlimited time showing more of your crazy. How much more time does Stephen have to rehab his unimproving injury while doctors are telling him he’s never gonna play baseball again? He’s been doing that for over a year now. Are you gonna be as motivated as Strasburg to continue your “rehab” from your soapbox. Strasburg and the doctors know it’s pointless, when are you gonna figure out the pointlessness of each of your posts in this thread?
Fielder was a completely different situation, the insurance company required that Prince was declared legally disabled before they would pay out the terms, 75% of the contract. I don’t think that’s the case here. Stras is not disabled, and we don’t know what the original terms were. Me thinks that someone has to take a $100M hit here and now Stras & the Nats are in a staring contest refusing to blink on the other. I’m usually pro-union but in Strasburg’s case, with his injury-history, the honorable think to do would be to retire and forfeit the money. Other than 2019 and all the Strasburg #37 merch the Nats got to sell, Stras was quite the bust. Other than getting a ring, he was the Kerry Wood of D.C.
Left field, I can only up vote so many of your comments. Keep up the good info. Maybe the others will come around
So then he doesn’t retire. The retirement thing is just a convenience. Apparently the Nats agreed, and so he was gonna do a ceremony of some sort. Let the fans say goodbye. Now that they don’t anymore, he just doesn’t retire. Your whole argument is based on assuming it matters to him one way or the other.
Fielder was paid a portion of the money he was owed and he had a neck injury that could threaten his life if he continued to play. He got paid $9 million per season for the final 3 seasons on his contract. His contract was for $24 million per season.
I have found out that the RANGERS paid Fielder $9 million per season and the Tigers paid him $6 million or the 3 seasons after he retired. He got a total of $15 million out of the $24 million per season he would have received if he continued playing.
That is what most teams with class do when a player retires with a medical situation. They negotiate a deal. Lerner is being a BLEEP in this case.
Fielder settled with the Rangers for $9 million per year. He didn’t get the entire $24 million per year for the 3 years after he retired and he actually was forced to retire because of a neck injury that could have left him paralyzed or even killed him if he continued to play.
Prince Fielder negotiated a deal with the Rangers that paid him a little less than 50% of his salary for the 3 seasons that were left on his contract. $9 million of the $19 million the Rangers were to pay after the trade from the Tigers.
The Ilitch family decided to continue to pay him the $6 million per season they were paying after the trade.
The Rangers portion of his deal was $19 million per season.
I should have scrolled down another post because you covered it.
@Nico there is a big difference with Fielder’s contract. His was insured and he also stayed on 40 man roster for duration of his contract.
syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/2656726-prince-…
It’s a little more complicated than that. They need a medical specialist to say he is capable of rehabbing. Then they can say he’s refusing to. They may have that in hand, idk. Otherwise he would stay on the IL. While on the IL the team can make him go to any specialist and take any test they want. He can’t refuse testing and treatment if he wants the money. But they can’t make him rehab (literally physical activity) if no medical specialist is willing to say he’s able to do it.
@roguesaw2, I suspect it is a little more complicated than that. I suspect that not only must he be cleared medically to rehab but also a rehab program has to be identified that would restore him to some form of playing condition. If such a program cannot be identified then rehab, by definition, is not possible. In such a case, he is not refusing to rehab, he is just waiting for a rehab program to be identified.
Not a legal expert, especially relating to labor law and contracts, but trying to look at this logically. As my late mother used to say, “it’s above my pay grade.”
Skeptical:
More people should admit when something is above their pay grade and be less sure of their takes or taeks on those topics
Unfortunately, the team medical staff decides if he is able or unable to continue to rehab. They may defer to a medical professional outside the organization, but that is the team’s choice.
Im pretty confident that, if he could get a conflicting medical opinion from a reputable specialist, he could use the CBA’s grievance process to try and get a different outcome. Ultimately he’d still have to yield to the arbiter’s ruling. And any union rep worth their salt would have their guy following the process to a T while fighting it to avoid negative repercussions if they lost in the end. In this case, if the arbiter (it might be a three man panel. i dont remember) .ruled for the team.
If I’m the Nats, I’m paying doctors to order as many tests as possible. See if I cant just wear Steven out.
If he files a grievance, it goes to a committee in MLB itself and they make the final determination. If they say there is a possibility rehab will work and he refuses, MLB will terminate his contract.
Actually, the team’s medical staff IS the medical specialist. If they say he can still rehab then he has to follow their treatment plan. If that treatment plan includes physical rehab or even baseball activities, he is required to do so if he wants to be paid.
He can file a grievance, but that I can find no player has been granted a waiver from following a team’s treatment plan that allows them to retire with full pay or even been given an alternate treatment plan.
These 6-8-10-12 year contracts have to go.
With all the injuries in MLB no insurance company is going to underwrite policies for that long a period.
And even if the player stays relatively healthy, the problem with
the Stanton’s of the world is that you have to pay them, because
no one is taking on those contracts.
3 years with a team option for the 4th should be the max.
…..the problem with the Stanton’s of the world is that you have to PLAY them.
Samuel
A bunch of blahdy-blah
Where were you (where are you) on the early parts of players’ careers?
Per Fangraphs =, Stanton has produced $323 million dollars of value in his carrer. He’s been paid about $205 million in his carrer – per Baseball-Reference
He’s been underpaid over $100,000,000 as a baseball player.
Why are you so vocal about players being “overpaid” but not about them being underpaid?
The best reason I can come up with is that you are a brain-washed shill for captal.
filihok;
You’re full of blahdy-blah.
Let’s talk about the accuracy of Fangraphs projections for both players and teams each year. I could do better throwing darts at numbers on a wall. That’s your frame of reference? Stop being so lazy and look at how what they write stands up.
Why not read the NYC papers and see how happy Yankee fans are about Stanton.
The Rays field 4 position players and 2 relief pitchers each game for what Stanton is getting paid. And they’ve been contending for the last 5 years.
Samuel
“Let’s talk about the accuracy of Fangraphs projections for both players and teams each year.”
Ok, lets
“the MAE of 8.3 wins is above the ZiPS historical average of 7.5”
blogs.fangraphs.com/looking-back-at-the-2022-zips-…
Now, where’s the data for your dart throws?
We both know you don’t have any and are just blahdy-blahing.
You have NO IDEA how accurate FanGraphs’ projections are. And you have NO IDEA how accurate your own projections are.
Most importantly you have NO IDEA about the relative differences between your dart throws and FG’s projections.
You are 100% making [stuff] up
Blah blah blah
(insert Brad Pitt Moneyball gif)
Yankee fans can be unhappy with Stanton. He hasn’t performed well since the trade.
That has nothing to do with my comment
Why don’t we look at how Marlins fans felt about Stanton while he was there. I’d imagine that they were thrilled
Fact remains, Stanton was MASSIVELY underpaid during his time in Miami. That you appear to only be concerned when players are overpaid and not that they are underpaid says a lot about you.
filihok;
You’re one of the fumiest posters I’ve read on here over the past 10 years.
You’re so wrapped up in this analytic measurement of things that you have no clue what goes on on a baseball field.
You also think that economies are static not dynamic….or the way players perform on a field against other players as well.
sigh
Samuel
You got me. I’m less interested in just making [stuff] up than I am in actually looking at information.
You on the other hand…
YOU claimed that FanGraph’s projections were no better than a dart through.
I presented the data on how accurate those projections are
Present you evidence that you were correct. That FanGraphs; projections are not as accurate as a dart through.
Or just admit, as we both already know, that you do not know what you are talking about.
Which will it be?
(I already know that it will be neither).
I clicked the link you posted and I added up the ZIP Wins Per Team. It came to a total of 3,233 wins predicted for all 30 teams.
Problem is there are 30 teams that play 162 games per year. That means there are 15 winners per games played & 15 losers per games played.
15×162=2,430 wins possible split between all 30 teams & 2,430 Losses per season.
ZIP’s made their predictions by predicting 803 more wins per season than can be won.
How the hell can anyone use that data & be that far off?
Even the difference between the predictions & Actual numbers are off too. Their Chart says the Actual total wins of all 30 teams equaled 2,638 wins which is 208 more than possible.
Hmmmm
Dogs
What’s more likely, that you made an error adding, or a well-known and widely used system made an error?
I know which I think it is
And I just added up the numbers from the 2022 team wins ZiPS projections (the first chart) and didn’t get anywhere near your number
Try again.
You don’t have to offer the contract is the thing. Don’t big brother.
Correct.
Now watch…..
Why? So owners can save money by restricting the free market? Who cares if a billionaire needs to eat a tiny fraction of their profits every now and then, if they don’t want to take those risks no one’s forcing them to hand out those contracts
roiste;
I don’t think that paying a player $35m a year for not playing is an owner “eat[ing] a tiny fraction of their profits every now and then”.
The Nationals have been up for sale for over a year. They can’t find a buyer – in spite of the fact that kids like you believe all the teams are making money hand over fist. Why can’t they? Think maybe it has something to do with paying out $35m a year for a guy that is retiring? Think that might have give prospective owner 2nd thoughts about owning a team unless they were getting that many back somehow?
Ever take a basic business class? Start here – Investors, Insurance companies, and other entities are not in business to lose money…or to make a profit at such a cost, aggravation and risk that they’d be better off putting their money into government insured bonds. Because see, they’re not the US federal government, where if they spend money foolishly they just print more money.
Again – why is any of that anyone else’s problem but Lerner? He’s the one who handed it out. Nobody else should bear the burden of him being a crappy businessman. Capping contracts in the ridiculous way your proposed would tank player earnings, drive talented athletes away from the game, worsen the quality of play, and cheapen the efforts of competent team owners. The only people who’d benefit are the cheap and incompetent teams who don’t want to invest in their product or don’t know how to. Why anybody thinks we should socialize the game of baseball to help those clowns is beyond me
@SamuElllll- lololololol
$35m is indeed a very small fraction of a billionaire owner’s portfolio. Like they are only making money from the game that’s making them millions upon millions of profit each year. They have so much more money coming in from other sources than you have any clue about. You really have been brainwashed by the rich into feeling sorry for them! I’ll tell ya what, put a billion dollars in my bank account and I’ll happily pay Strasburg’s remaining contract and I won’t be crying about it or expect anyone else to feel sorry for me.
Once again the billionaire owners manipulate the conversation into being about alleged profits and losses during a specific year.
MLB is a monopoly there are more billionaires who want to own teams than teams available. The selling price for the team is where the massive equity appreciation is easily measured even with most books shrouded in secrecy.
It is easy to sell the Nationals it is all about what price and the dispute over cable tv rights is also a factor.
MLB is like the Duke Brothers in the movie Trading Places when Eddie Murphy accidentally breaks a piece of art and the brothers chortle because the art was insured for more than they paid. No MLB owners are losing money, repeat after me, no MLB owners are losing money. The pandemic may have create cash flow issues and some owners may need equity partners to avoid cashing in through a sale, but any small unverifiable short term losses are vastly exceeded by owners’ equity gains.
NicoHoerndawg;
LOL
You have no clue.
What in heavens name does an owners portfolio have to do with how one of his businesses is running?
Are you older than a teenager?
As for being “brainwashed” – check out the mirror.
Bwahahahaha… I guess you’re too far gone.
Kind of you to be so concerned about how billionaires spend their money. No one had a gun to Lerner’s head. Strasburg opted out out the final three years of his previous deal. A gift to the Nats. But idiot Lerner was all high on a World Championship. Any idiot could see that 7/245 million was a bad bet. Yet there it is. I hope Strasburg enjoys every last cent.
.
A gift to the Nats?
LOL
He got far more money!
Him opting out was the gift.
We should be concerned with how billionaires spend their money, seeing as we have to pay all the taxes they don’t feel like paying.
True. 750 billionaires have more then fifty percent of the wealth in this country (4.5 trillion vs. 4.1) compared to everyone else. That is 339 million vs 753. Also, they have averaged a 8 percent tax rate. Our average tax rate is 24. percent. But we get to be ripped off by them for our meds, our hospitals and everything else. God Bless Murica.
Willing employer, willing employee. Teams don’t have to offer a contract, but they choose to. Legislating a rule to stop them will only serve to further restrict an already restricted market. Let what’s left of a free market decide what these guys are worth.
How do you think it is so restricted, exactly?
Other sports don’t have guaranteed contracts.
So you have to play for the team that drafted you. Every sport has that. They got extra money the last CBA the first three years before arbitration. Arbitration then free agency to make more.
Nobody has a better market than baseball players.
TobttR
How is it restricted?
The draft
The draft bonus pool
International free agent caps
Team control years
Arbitration years
That’s how.
An unrestricted market would have every player be a free agent. Since that’s not the case, it’s restricted.
Every sport has guaranteed contracts except football, and give that a few years as more and more NFL players are demanding it now.
No sport would have an unrestricted market. That is just nuts.
I still stand by the statement that baseball players have it better than the other sports.
Seamaholic
Regardless of what other sports do, baseball is restricted.
TobttR
It may be that baseball is less restricted.
Nuts is people being so complacent about labor’s earnings being restricted.
@belongstothereds every league except the NFL has guaranteed contracts. Which I do find mind boggling. As the highest paid NFL players do most often get a large portion guaranteed. But the lower half of each NFL roster have no such security and are far more likely to suffer a season or career ending injury on any given play.
I agree these long term guaranteed contracts need to go or at least be revised. Players sign these monster deals and get opt outs added to them too in case they over-perform and can earn even more money. The owners, however, have no recourse. I’d like to see the owners get an opt out clause where they can buy the remainder of the contract value out at 50% of the remaining obligation or something to that effect. The MLBPA worked extremely hard to get guaranteed contracts and they’ll never give that up fully, but I don’t think the MLBPA foresaw 10-13 year deals when fighting for this provision. Any deal over 6 years should have some sort of opt out clause for the owners. It will still hurt them having to pay 50% of the remaining contract but it gives them some recourse in case the player fails miserably and does not deliver the expected value.
The Owners know Business Risks, they make those decisions Daily. You don’t become & stay a Billionaire by making Dumb Business Deals. These 6,8 & even longer Contracts are plain Stupid Moves, even if insured. Insurance costs on Huge Long Term Contracts are lost costs even if the player becomes injured.
What it has to come down to is Owners need to just say no to these contracts & let the players just sit at home with no money coming in. If I owned a team, I would never go over a 5 year deal, & that is long.
Just my thoughts on how I would opperate a Team.
Dogs
First you say that Owners aren’t dumb
Then you say that long term contracts are stupid
Unless “dumb” and “stupid” are not synonyms, then you contradict yourself
Owners agree to these long term deals
So either owners are dumb or long term deals are not stupid.
Also, the length of deals is largely immaterial. Present value of the deals is what matters more
For example, take a 5 year $100,000,000 deal. Given a 10% discount rate that deal has a present value of $83.4 million. A 10 year $123,000,000 also has an $83.4 million present value. There’s just not much difference between the two deals.
Honestly, in most instances players would rather have the same present value over a shorter period and teams would rather have the deals over a longer period.
You, as is often the case with unknowledgeable people, have it exactly backwards.
Reread my post.
As for the math, just B.S.
$35M today is $35M in 5 years. The value of the dollar may go up or may go down. The value of goods, the same. Each set of goods is different & increase or decrease at different % all the time.
So to say the dollar in Baseball today is worth a certain amount and in 1 year will be $=x & another year $=x and so on, is nothing more than a guess. Accountants can make a deal look better by using your data, or if they wish, they can turn it around & use other calculations to make it look not as appealing.
I for one do not agree with a lot of the Accounting STAT’s out there.
As for me having this Strasburg deal backwards (Years + $) No I don’t.
As for me having an understanding of long-term contracts backwards, no I don’t.
Dogs
I re-read your post and stand by my post
“You don’t become & stay a Billionaire by making Dumb Business Deals. These 6,8 & even longer Contracts are plain Stupid Moves,”
If this isn’t self-contradictory, I don’t know what is. Who do you think are signing those long-term contracts? Is it not people who became and are remaining billionaires?
Feel free to explain to me how those two statements are not incongruent.
“So to say the dollar in Baseball today is worth a certain amount and in 1 year will be $=x & another year $=x and so on, is nothing more than a guess. Accountants can make a deal look better by using your data, or if they wish, they can turn it around & use other calculations to make it look not as appealing.”
You’re technically correct, but empicially incorrect. The general direction of the value of the dollar has been to become less valuable. Is it possible that it could remain flat or decrease in value, sure.
So, hey, if you have anything to sell, and are willing to let me pay you for it for the same amount either now or in ten years, lets make some deals. What you got?
I mean, are you unaware of the concept of inflation? Why, specifically, do you disagree with the idea that inflation will not continue over the foreseeable future? I’ve just come into some money and I’d love to hear your investment tips.
Everything that you’ve posted suggests that you do not have an understanding of investments or contract valuation. That’s fine. It’s not everyday stuff. People study it to understand it better.
insisting that you know something that you don’t know, isn’t really fine. You should ditch that habit. It won’t hurt you much in baseball discussions, it might hurt you in other more important things.
How do you expect your imaginary baseball team to sign free agents if you don’t offer long-term deals?
I see these options
1) do not sign free agents or sign players to extensions
2) Offer higher annual dollar deals
The Rays pretty well avoid #1, but not always. I have doubts that you would be as successful as the Rays.
Paying short-term high dollar deals means your teams will be more expensive. Good luck with that.
Spending will not buy you/me a World Series. I’m a Detroit Tiger Fan & Mike Illich tried his best to do that.
A Team full of Supper-Stars will not guarantee anyone a World Series Pennant.
But, I do own 7 acres of wooded property. As an example, If you pay me $5,000 today, I will give you the rights to log it off in 5 years, everything 20 inches across at the stump. Clause is, if I die between now and the 5 years, the contract is voided & you do not get refunded. Also, you have 2 months to get the job done, anything not cut is your loss. These clauses would be written into the contract we sign.
Would you accept that deal?
I’m 66 years old & had my first Heart Attack at age 50.
As for the rest, we will have to agree to disagree.
dog
“Spending will not buy you/me a World Series. I’m a Detroit Tiger Fan & Mike Illich tried his best to do that”
It doesn’t guarantee it, no. And no knowledgeable, honest and rational person is saying so. So, no reason to bring that up.
Thus, I can easily counter than anecdote with “not spending doesn’t buy a WS either. Look at the Oakland A’s”.
Teams that spend more, win more. This is a fact
“As you can see in the chart of every team’s win-pay curves, spending usually helps, but incompetent spending gets a team nowhere. It’s a waste.”
fivethirtyeight.com/features/dont-be-fooled-by-bas…
I would not accept that deal. Because I don’t want to do any logging – and really don’t know anything about logging.
I also don’t see how it’s analogous to the topic at hand
Let’s try this one. Would you have rather paid whatever amount you paid for that land when you bought it, or that same amount today. Assume you had full use of the land (and the money) either way.
How long do you think it would take a team like the Nationals or the White Sox or Royals to build an organization like the Rays? The Royals did make it to the World Series 2 years in a row & did win a Pennant once.
It is about Facilities, Drafting both locally & internationally, Developing/Coaching, Competent Medical Trainers, and so much more. Its more than just one person to make a team. But the consequences do fall onto the GM or President of Operations to build the infrastructure from his assistants all the way down to the bottom.
It is more than just Free Agent Signings.
Dogs
You didn’t answer my question. I’ll ask it again
Would you have rather paid whatever amount you paid for that land when you bought it, or that same amount today. Assume you had full use of the land (and the money) either way.
Of course there is more to baseball than free agent signings. I have certainly never said otherwise.
The fact remains, teams that spend more, win more.
And none of this negates the fact that long contracts benefit the teams and players would, in most instances, prefer shorter deals.
Who is forcing the owners to sign these ridiculous contracts? Why should we rescue owners from making bad economic decisions?
Fans, who clamor for their teams’ owners to bid on expensive free agents, and winning those bidding wars requires very long, very expensive contracts.
Skeptical
These poor billionaire businesspeople who came by their money honestly and through nothing but smarts and hard work, and being bullied and tricked by these evil players and agents to go against the best interests of the team and their wallets and the poor, poor fans about which they care so deeply, into signing these terrible contracts.
I guess that’s what some of the malinformed here believe.
filihok;
“I guess that’s what some of the malinformed here believe.”
Getting sick of you, kid.
So everyone that disagrees with you is to be belittled and called a name? You’re so right. Sure. Most Americans are fed up with people like you.
An adult makes their case and stands by it.
Samuel,
Heal thyself
“Getting sick of you, kid.”
“So everyone that disagrees with you is to be belittled and called a name? “
Sounds like you are the only truly informed fan in this blog on Business Law.
🙂 🙂 🙂 .
That’s called collusion. If you want a star, you have to outbid 29 other teams, which means whatever the market says it means. If the teams agree something amongst themselves, that’s illegal and all heck breaks loose.
@Mantooth- you fail to recognize that these billionaire owners aren’t losing any sleep over having to eat $100-200m every once in a while because all the other contracts are making them so much money hand over fist. Did the players start demanding these 13 year contracts out of nowhere or was it GM’s and owners falling over each other offering more and more years and money to sign all these guys they need to have so badly? Are they doing it just to win? Or is it because the return on investment (of the contracts of all 26 players on a team) is just so damn big that they actually offer these outlandish contracts without a gun pointed at their heads? Hmmmmmm…
Team opt-outs are not happening. The free agent will just sign with another team who offers a fully-guaranteed contract. Catfish Hunter signed the first free agent contract for 5-years in 1974. The first 10-year contract was signed by Wayne Garland in 1977. MLB and MLBPA have been negotiating since 1966.
Not necessarily
People don’t understand finance or negotiating
As I just commented above, opt-outs for the player have value. To get them, they have to give up something of value. It’s not a 10-year $30 million per year contract vs a 10-year $30 million per year contact with a player opt-out. It’s a 10-year $30 million per year contract vs a 10-year $28 million per year contract.
So, a team can ask for an opt-out (and they already do – they are called team options). But to get them, they have to give something up (just like the players do). So, it’s not a 5 year $20 million deal with 2 team option years at the end vs a 5 year $20 million deal. It’s a 5 year $20 million dollar deal vs a 5 year $18 million deal with 2 team option years at the end.
Dorothy
Why?
Also how do you feel about the beginnings of player careers when their draft bonuses are restricted? International free agent contracts are restricted? Minor league salaries are restricted? And players’ first six MLB season salaries are restricted?
Dorothy
This is a non-understanding on your part about how these contracts work
You see that the opt-outs have value to the player. To get those opt-outs they have to give something of value in return to the team
So, the decision isn’t’ between a 10-year/$30 million contract and a 10-year/$30 million contract with a player opt-out after year 3.
It’s between a 10-year/$30 million contract and a 10-year/$28 million contract with a player opt-out after year 3. For example.
Amazing how many people simultaneously think that billionaire owners have earned their money through merit and smart business deals and are also getting outsmarted at the negotiating table by players and their agents.
Lerner chose not to sell the Nats until the MASN dispute is resolved. He had multiple offers. $2B offers….
MLB teams sell just fine. The Nats future payroll obligations aren’t horrendous either.
Samuel
You don’t make a very convincing argument
filihok;
Come back when you have a house, family, and run a business.
Samuel
FIrst, is that comment from a point of knowledge or ignorance about y current situation? We both know it’s from a point of ignorance. You have no idea if I have all or none of those things.
Second, that’s completely irrelevant. You’re being mal-informed is not predicated on anything about my life situation.
Thrid, are you aware of sociologists Dunning and Kruger? They did some research and discovered that incompetent people are unaware that they are incompetent because the skills needed for competence are the same skills needed to realize incompetence. This is a perfect example. having a house and family and running a business are completely unrelated to understanding baseball contracts
If you were competent, you would know that.
filihok;
Sure, you know everything – .
Why adult people do what they do, what they’re thinking and doing even though you aren’t in the room.
When you get out in public, do people tell you you’re full of it?
Samuel
The [heck]
YOU.
YOU are the one claiming to know facts about my life that you are quite obviously ignorant of.
“Come back when you have a house, family, and run a business.”
YOU
I make no such claim about omniscience.
Heal thyself,
If you’re gonna limit contracts to 3 years at a time, then your team will never be able to sign good free agents.
JKBC
Of course they can
Just they will have to pay MASSIVE amounts over those three years.
Suppose a player has a 10 year $30 million per year offer from one team. This contract has a $203,000,000 present value (assuming a 10% discount rate).
Source: bankrate.com/investing/annuity-calculator/
To lure a player away from that deal, over 3 years you’d need to pay them something with an similar present value (you could offer less, since a player would have another chance to sign another contract to have further life=time earnings). But a 3-year $74 million per year contract would have a similar present value.
The thing that most people don’t get is that it BENEFITS the TEAMS to have these longer contracts. There cash flow reasons. It’s easier to pay $30 million a year than $74 million. It’s also easier to put together a solid roster when you have an extra $44 million to spend.
Teams would rather pay out contracts over 20 or 30 years than 6 or 7.
Take a 7 year deal that pays $30 million per year. That has a $160.7 million present value. So does a 20-year $17 million per year contract. In almost all situations the team would rather pay the second contract. And, yes, of course, they know the player won’t be performing in the last decade of the contract.
It’s really not gonna work like that due to the luxury tax. Teams would prefer longer deals with less annual salary because it gives them more wiggle room from year-to-year. Sure, the back half of those deals are gonna look like garbage most of the time, but if you’re paying someone 30M/year for the next 10 years, that’s easier to work around your annual budget than paying the same guy 45M/year for 3 years. Not every team has a Steve Cohen type of owner who can and will be able to blow past the luxury tax and still absorb the penalties a thousand times over.
JKBC
Right
That was the point that I was making
Teams can sign players to shorter contracts. But they will be much more per season.
That’s why they sign these long deals, to spread out the cost.
TEAMS want the longer deals
PLAYERS should actually want shorter deals.
The non-informed commenters here have it exactly backwards.
filihok;
How many weeks have you been following MLB?
The dodgers and other teams have been offering shorter contracts for a higher average salary for years. The only players that took them are guys like Verlander and Schurzer that are in their late 30’s-early 40s’. EVERY play and his agent wants more guaranteed years and will take a much lower average salary. The only veteran FA’s that take a shorter term contract are those coming off of poor season and can’t get a pricy multi-year contract in order to rebuild their value.
You’re the “non-informed commenter” that has it “exactly backwards”….more so than anyone pousting under this article.
Samuel
Your attempted insult is noted
First, since you still have not demonstrated that you understand baseball contracts at even a rudimentary level let me explain that not every short term contract is better than a long term contract.
Teams, of course, are trying to pay less money both in total and in AAV.
Teams and players not agreeing to short-term contracts doesn’t mean that players don’t prefer those.
Use some logic
The most likely reason that players aren’t signing short-term contracts is that the teams aren’t offering a high-enough average annual value.
As I’ve pointed out, a 10 year $300 million contract is the same in present value as a 5 year $243.2 million contract.
Teams would rather pay $30 million per year than $48 per year.
So, that’s the kind of contracts that get offered.
No, the reason Players prefer Long-Term Contracts over Short-Term Contracts is the Grand Total Of Money Plus the security over the risk of Injury or age catching up before that second chance of Free Agency, which would equal a huge loss of money next time around. Most Players get only One Huge Payday, very few get a second chance.
“As I’ve pointed out, a 10 year $300 million contract is the same in present value as a 5 year $243.2 million contract.”
Ha, Ha, no way that is even close to being correct numbers. A 10 year at $300M would be much closer to around $175M range at 5 years.
And as I told you in another post, Accountants can doctor the numbers in projections to fit anyway they want the sum to equal.
Filihok
Sorry for Samuel’s personal attacks.
However even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Most players do prefer long term contracts even with a slightly lower average annual value.
MLBTR needs a primer on contract insurance. If a guy tears his ACL (Rhys Hoskins for instance) before the regular season, he is rehabbing but obviously not playing, does the contract get paid by the insurer?
MLBTR needs a primer on contract valuation
People don’t have a damn clue
There is no such thing as a standard player insurance contract. There may be a couple common threads to each, such as pay your premium or coverage lapses, but each one is custom underwritten.
Some are so hard to collect on certain teams have gone on record as not even seeking them.
Also, retiring his number? What? Now?
Some teams retire numbers immediately. It’s not unheard of. What I don’t like is they’re gonna retire this bust’s number, but they pretend like Gary Carter, Andre Dawson, Tim Raines & Vladimir Guerrero, Sr. don’t exist, all of which are Hall of Famer with that organization. Just not in D.C.
Wow. Not a smart move if the article is correct. The only thing to be gained was a 40 man spot, and they are blowing it
This situation makes me laugh at hindsight at the comments from the original MLBTR post about Strasburg’s retirement, there were actual human beings who were naïve enough to believe that Strasburg was going to give up a single penny owed to him.
there were also people naive enough to believe that the Nats would just pay him for the heck of it.
Why would he retire then if he had to give up money? He’d just Chris Davis it and rehab and struggle endlessly. No one is giving up that much money.
Davis gave up his salary for 2021 when he retired,
You are the 2nd one that has said 2021. He retired in August of 2021 and was not paid for 2022, the final season on his contract
They have no choice but to pay him.
They absolutely don’t. There are terms to contracts, such as you must play or be undergoing rehab when able to. Does Strasburg have a case that he will never be able to get back into game shape again. Perhaps, but the Natshave every right to litigate that.
That’s the point of him not retiring now. He will have to go to rehab but reality is he will never pitch again and get paid. If the Nats want to make sure he goes to dr appointments it’s on them. They are still paying every cent of the contract and looking bad for backing out of the agreement that was best for everyone.
Typically when you retire, you do not receive the rest of your contract. There’s good reason for people to think that.
That is not typical at all. There have been a couple instances of injured players on big contracts retiring in recent years (Pedroia, Fielder) and in all those cases they got all their money.
The Nats are very out of line in this situation, especially considering that they reneged on a previous agreement
Fielder didn’t officially retire until after he was released by the Rangers. And yes, BOS paid Pedroia for a year, but I see no reason why it simply wouldn’t have been their choice yo do so.
While it wasn’t official, Fielder announced his retirement prior to his release. Texas releasing him was effectively them giving them his full contract.
The insurance company paid the majority of Prince’s. Not Texas.
Fielder did not get all the money. Fielder received $9 million per season from the Rangers of the $24 million on his contract for the 3 seasons after his retirement. I am not sure, but the Tigers may still have had to pay the $6 million they were paying once he was traded to the Rangers. Still less than $24 million.
Pedroia retired in February 2021, the final season of his 8 year deal. He was paid $12 million of the $13.75 million for that season.
MOST teams and players negotiate a settlement.
Neither Petey nor Fielder were paid all the money on their contract after the retired.
Petey got $12 million of the $13.75 million.
Fielder got $9 million from the Rangers and $6 million from the Tigers of the $24 million per season.
You sure as heck do. MLB contracts are all guaranteed. Period. Retiring is just a convenience that lets the team clear the roster spot. There’s nothing at all in it for him and it makes no difference. He can just continue as he is instead.
Its sad that you keep saying that even though it was shown to be wrong each time. Even situations like Fielder, Wright, Davis and others how you are wrong and you keep on repeating it. Why?
No, it’s Boras. He won’t let a precedent be set.
Watch carefully, this is the tipping point.
Boras tried to sell Correa to Cohen after the Giants rejected him.
Go back and look at the Nationals. Ted Lerner paid whatever Boras demanded for his players. Worked out great with Max. But his son Mark took over. In turn Mark offered Boras a kings ransom for Juan Soto. Boras and Soto rejected it. Mark Lerner had GM Mike Rizzo take the best offer – he got a group of youngsters from San Diego to kick start the Nationals rebuild for Soto (and Padres fans are wondering what’s so great about him). Meanwhile the Padres are now fighting to stay out of last place in the NL West, and that’s with gobs of high-priced players that aren’t even injured.
Publications like this one find write “We’ve never had a player like this available” every single year. It was Machado and Harper one year. Soto. Get ready for the click explosion with Ohtani.
Sorry, one or two even great players don’t guarantee championships. Baseball is not that sort of game. The Angels couldn’t even get to the playoffs with Ohtani AND Trout. Fans blame it on the FO. No! Hitters only bat once every 9 hitters, starting pitchers only start once every 5-6 games. Cardinals have Goldschmidt and Arenado. Healthy. The team sucks this year.
The smart teams are the Braves, Astros, Orioles, Rays – they have a playing roster of unselfish players. because it’ll take at least 20 to win….and if they’re playing for their stats to get a good contract then that team is doomed.
Teams are wising up to these long-term outrageous contracts. Even the Yankees, Mets, and soon to be Angels….and that’s something!
Best comment I have read in a long time. Baseball is a TEAM sport.
Notagain
You should see more comments, then
Nothing precludes a TEAM from signing players to market value deals
Samuel’s comment isn’t good, it’s just a bunch of drivel
We will see. I bet they keep making these stupid long expensive deals.
Some of the Owners Ego’s are at stake here. They can’t accept the answer NO!
They cannot accept losing out to another Owner, so they outbid & sometimes are bidding against themselves. So Funny!
@Dogs- spot on. The owners will keep spending more and more money because they are making a ridiculous return on their investment, no matter how out of control it gets they will always be able to afford to spend even more. The rich billionaires think they can have everything and there are 30 owners completing to be praised as the best. They will spend more and more every year because of the toxic egos amongst themselves.
It’s got nothing to do with Boras. This is just a simple contractual dispute, with the team probably hoping he’ll help them out by deferring more money.
LOL
It has everything to do with Boras…..
He’s Strasburg’s agent.
It literally does not matter to his agent. Boras was paid years ago and there’s no chance for another contract. It matters to Strasburg’s lawyer, not his agent.
Dogs, NicoHoerndawg & Seamaholic;
Totally misreading my position.
I’m not on the side of the owners or players – I’m on the side of THE FANS!
What’s this BS with “Opt Outs”? A guy has a great year, the team has to pay him more to stay…and not just for the remainder of the contract he originally signed. On the other hand, if the guys sucks or gets injured – he’s due every cent of the contract he signed.
Is this legal? Of course.
But everyone here’s missing my point – this is a line in the sand for the owners. Even that baseball illiterate Stephen Cohen – that’s the latest to drive up costs for fans to watch games – has appeared to learn his lesson. The players and their agents want it every way – they want guarantees and even more money if they do good. They take NO RISK. It’s all on the owners to do that. Think Mark Lerner is losing money? How dumb are you?!?!?!?!?
The owner cuts the rest of the payroll because they’re not in business to lose money. Then THE FANS of the team are stuck with sub-standard players….the team loses games….even more reason for less and less fans to spend money on the team….so it loses more and more.
The Nationals aren’t trying to get out of paying Strasburg anything – they’re trying to negotiate the amount they’re paying him down. You kids think life is absolutes. Good / Bad. Black / White. Right / Wrong. Bits are ON / OFF. Strasburg is Boras’ client. He won’t allow that – it sets a dangerous precedent. So we’re at a tipping point.
Will Boras compromise? Of course not. Will the Nats take it to court? Very possibly. DC is full of lawyers that find loopholes in things. Think Mark Lerner would be doing this if he hasn’t met with attorneys?
But the point of all this is the one-sided contracts owners keep handing out. Are the Yankees and Mets (the 2 biggest payrolls in MLB) going to the WS this year? How about the Padres with the #3 payroll? Are the Rangers (#4) buying a WS appearance?
Stephen Cohen is the one to watch. He learned that spending money does nothing. He’s looking to bring in David Stearns as PoBO that works by bringing in undervalued players and coaching them up.
I’ve been amazed at so many desperate owners driving up costs for everyone for so many years…and watching the teams that win do it by spending some money, but don’t tend to overexpose themselves financially. Going “All In” as people want (writers and posters) thinking that MLB is rotisserie league so you just keep spending and spending – is nice, but the problem is that the next year you still have to field a team….and bad contracts limit what you can do. At that point the local FANS are the real losers.
Sameul
Sigh
This is not at all AT ALL how this works.
First, supply and demand drives costs, not expenses. If expenses drove cost, businesses wouldn’t exist. Since baseball exists, we know expenses aren’t driving the cost.
People don’t pay a lot to go to games because players get paid a lot, players get paid a lot because people pay a lot to go to games.
Do you think billionaire owners would charge $10 to go to a game if people were willing to pay $20? Is that your understanding of the world?
Do you think players should be happy to take $1 million a year instead of $2 million a year so that the owners can keep that extra $1 million for themselves? Is that your understanding of the world?
PLAYER SALARIES DO NOT DRIVE UP COSTS FOR THE FANS
FANS SPENDING MORE MONEY ON BASEBALL DRIVES UP PLAYER SALARIES.
PERIOD
You also have a non-understanding of opt-outs.
You correctly see that opt-outs have value to the players.
What you don’t appear to see is that since the players get that value included in their contracts, they have to give up value.
It’s not $30 million or $30 million with an opt-out.
It’s $30 million or $28 million (or whatever) with the opt-out.
Owners save money by including the opt-out.
You also seem to ignore that Team opt-outs exist. Though, they are called Team Options.
If a player does well, the team gets to keep the player. If the player doesn’t perform, the team doesn’t have to pay him.
It LITERALLY works both ways.
To your final point. Spending money does not equate to winning. Spending money wisely definitely helps winning. Their is definitely a positive correlation between spending and winning.
blogs.fangraphs.com/in-2019-team-payroll-and-wins-…
“the teams that spend more win more, and that’s been more true this season than in nearly every year this decade despite the rise of more young and inexpensive talent.”
fivethirtyeight.com/features/dont-be-fooled-by-bas…
“As you can see in the chart of every team’s win-pay curves, spending usually helps, but incompetent spending gets a team nowhere. It’s a waste.”
filihok;
1. What business have you ever run, worked at as an accountant, or did any sort of budget or audit work?
2. Tell me about prosperous Marxist countries.
Sigh
filihok;
PLAYER SALARIES DO NOT DRIVE UP COSTS FOR THE FANS
My goodness, what planet are you on?
Ever take a costing class in 7th grade?
So when the minimum wage goes up the price of products a company employing minimum wage people doesn’t? Or does it go up because the “Greedy” capitalist pigs use it to increase their profits….as inflation also goes up.
The teams with the top 4 salaries in MLB this year have no chance of getting to the World Series. It’s not the money a team spends – it’s HOW they spend it.
Samuel
LOL
ANY agent should be doing the same. That it happens to be Boras in this case is irrelevant
Samuel
Your brain worms are showing
“2. Tell me about prosperous Marxist countries.”
What are you talking about?
Samuel, samuel, samuel
It’s been fun toying with you today, but it’s getting a little tedious.
Especially since you never answer any direct questions – the only wise appearing thing about you.
I’ll still keep asking a few more
A team does research and discovers that it will get the most profit by charging $20 a ticket.
Which do you think is more likely
1) The team will charge $20 a ticket
2) The team will charge $10 a ticket
Which do you think is better for the game
A) That the players get a higher percentage of the revenue
B) That the players get a smaller percentage of the revenue
“The teams with the top 4 salaries in MLB this year have no chance of getting to the World Series.”
Now do the lowest 4
“It’s not the money a team spends – it’s HOW they spend it.”
Partially agreed.
How about this? Rank these in the order that you think would lead to the most success
1) Spending a little money dumbly
2) Spending a little money smartly
3) Spending a lot of money dumbly
4) Spending a lot of money smartly
I await your answers to these direct questions.
I shouldn’t answer any more of Samuel’s questions since they don’t respond to any direct questions, but I want to point this out for anyone who may be following along
And, doubtful, but, maybe, Samuel will even learn something.
“So when the minimum wage goes up the price of products a company employing minimum wage people doesn’t? Or does it go up because the “Greedy” capitalist pigs use it to increase their profits….as inflation also goes up.”
That will depend on the type of business that it is and price elasticity of demand for their product.
If the product is something like, say, heating oil in the winter that people have to buy regardless of the price, then, yes, the price will go up to cover the extra cost. The thing keeping companies providing this product from raising the price is competition. if one company decides to raise their price, people will buy from another at the lower price. If the cost to produce the produce rises for all companies, the price will increase.
If the product is something like, say, baseball, an entertainment product that people do not have to buy, then the economics is different. The product is already sold at a price that will maximize profits (though not necessarily revenue). The thing keeping companies providing this product from raising the price is demand for the product. Increases in expenses don’t transition directly to increases in price. If the product gets too expensive, customers will not buy it.
Safe to say that baseball works more like our example of baseball than our example of heating oil
It seems to me if you retire then you are forfeiting the remainder of your contract.
Otherwise anyone could sign a contract and immediately retire and still get paid.
Doesn’t matter what it seems to you, that’s not how MLB contracts work. The players union made sure of it. It isn’t as if Strasburg wanted to get a life altering injury.
Actually YOU’RE the one wrong here. Retiring legally means forfeiting the contract. It seems there’s alot of union sycophants in here that are taking Stras potentially not getting his money, personally. Sincerely… a Union man
Seems to me…..that used to be’s dont count anymore….they just lay on the floor till we sweep them away.
Under normal circumstances, I believe you’d be correct. If you retire, you are forfeiting your contract.
What the article suggests is that both the Nats and Stras recognized that he will never pitch again. He can simply remain with the team for the next 3 years and collect his full contract. Inevitably he would be DFA’d to clear the roster spot. Instead of going that route, the two sides reportedly had a deal in place (apparently verbal) that would allow Strasburg to retire and still collect on his contract.. essentially just expediting the process and clearing a deadweight roster spot.
No need to DFA. He’d just be released.
Nightengale is the only one that was saying the Nationals agreed to pay his full contract. I would take that with a grain of salt.
To continue to get paid, a player must be rehabbing their injury. That is not to say that a team cannot agree to pay them some or all of what they are owed if they retire. They can and a few have. It’s just not required.
Yeah Bob “the Sports Writer from Cincinnati” has always been a muckraker like Passan who wear their politics on their sleeve.
Websoul – doesn’t that seem like the most-likely scenario though?
What are the alternatives? Strasburg didn’t know that by retiring without a deal he would have to forfeit his pay? Or that Strasburg initially intended to walk away from a big pile of money but simply had a change of heart?
It seems to me that yhe most likely scenario is that both sides are convinced that Strasburg’s injuries are so severe that he will never throw a baseball again and they were just trying to cut to the chase. The alternative being that Strasburg can continue a futile rehab effort, collect his full salary and continue to occupy a roster spot.
Muckraker! coming to a theatre near you!
Unfortunately for Strasburg, the team medical staff are the final arbiters of whether he is capable of continuing to rehab that shoulder. In some cases, like Fielder, the teams deferred to a medical professional with expertise outside of what the team doctors have, but that is not a requirement under the CBA
The team should and probably will end up paying Strasburg some of the money on that contract, but if he retires or refuses to continue rehab they are not legally required to do so.
At this point I don’t think Lerner cares about public opinion. he is trying to sell the Nationals.
If there is no deal in place, Strasburg will continue to rehab and collect his check for the next three years. Based on the reports, his rehab is aimed at reestablishing normal functioning of his arm for routine daily tasks. If he does not have normal arm function, presumably, he is not going to be cleared to pick up a baseball (well, at least with his right hand – haha).
If the stance from the Nats is that he is going to need to show up and continue rehab efforts – I am certain Strasburg will continue to do so and the Nats are within their rights to ask/expect that.
However, if both sides are convinced he will never throw again.. both sides would be better off with a compromise. The Nats don’t hold much leverage though. All Stras has to do is show up and collect every cent of that deal.
I agree. The Nationals should come to some type of a compromise. Pay him part of what he is owed in salary and let him walk away and maybe someday be able to pick up his kids.
Unfortunately, they don’t have to by the rules in place. Lerner has been cutting costs everywhere he can recently. He just let go one of the most respected international scouting people in the business because he refused to take a cut in pay. They gutted the team’s scouting department, cutting loose more than a dozen pro and international scouts and a handful of special assistants.
The only official word has been Rizzo saying on Wednesday that Strasburg would “get paid for his deal until he makes a decision on what his future’s going to be.”
Lerner has only said “Stephen Strasburg is and always will be an important part of the Washington Nationals franchise. We support him in any decision he makes and will ensure that he receives what is due to him. It is regrettable that private discussions have been made public through anonymous sources attempting to negotiate through the media, “While we have been following the process required by the Collective Bargaining Agreement, behind-the-scenes preparations for a press conference had begun internally. However, no such event was ever confirmed by the team or promoted publicly. It is unfortunate that external leaks in the press have mischaracterized these events.”
“It is our hope that ongoing conversations remain private out of respect for the individuals involved,” Lerner said. “Until then, we look forward to seeing Stephen when we report to Spring Training.”
That sounded like a slam on Boras to me. He also said they look forward to seeing Strasburg in spring training which sounds like they believe that he will continue rehab in the offseason and be available at that time.
He starts it out by saying “what is due to him”. By the CBA, which Lerner also references in his statement, nothing is due to him if he retires other than deferred money already accrued.
Here is a link to the full statement. twitter.com/MarkZuckerman/status/17002640013372212…
This is all a mess.
He *can’t* sell the Nationals, He’s tried and failed.. All of the individuals/groups reportedly interested have walked away. Ted Leonsis is no longer interested because the Orioles turned down his offer to buy their majority stake in MASN.
The only way a new Nats owner will ever control more than 33% of the Nats TV broadcast revenue is if they purchase some or all of the Orioles stake in MASN. Absent that, purchasing the Nats only gets a new owner into the same problems the Lerners have in generating enough revenue to be competitive in the NL East.
Of course he can sell the Nationals. Mark Lerner turned down an offer for the team because they asked him to be responsible for any deferred money in contracts and legal costs for lawsuits he brought against MASN. They didn’t walk away. Lerner did.
The MASN deal gives the Nationals a growing percentage of the TV deal over time.
Maybe get the facts next time before spouting off.
Why can’t he sell the team? Lerner was the one that turned down a $2 billion offer. The reports were that he didn’t want to assume responsibility for deferred money on contracts he signed.
Ted Leonsis is still a minority owner of the Nationals. He has made no indication that he would not be interested in being part of a group bidding on the Nationals should Lerner put the team back on the market. He has made no public statements about it at all.
The most likely scenario is that long before they had some to any agreement Boras leaked a story to one of his media mouthpieces in order to gain leverage over the Nationals in the ongoing negotiations. In this case, Boras seems to have f’d up because Lerner is a stubborn and cheap SOB and now he seems ticked off. He may decide he is going to hold Strasburg to each and every letter of the CBA now.
Retire, you get nothing. Refuse to do what team doctors lay out for a rehab plan and you get nothing other than deferred money you have already earned.
Mark Lerner is a minority owner of Monumental Sports, the group that Leonsis is the majority owner of. They own the Capitals, Wizards, and Mystics.
I have not read anything that says Leonsis is a minority partner in the Nationals, but that would make sense.
There were 5 groups that were vetted by MLB and requested financials from the Nationals before Lerner pulled them from the market, so I have little doubt that they would sell and sell quickly if Lerner agreed to take on the $200 million in deferred money that is tied up in these long term deals.
Rehab would be focused on getting Strasburg back pitching. Its unfortunate, but the team has no vested interest in making sure he has normal functioning of his arm as long a he can pitch.
I think you got that backwards, BIL. Lerner is a partner in Monumental Sports with Leonsis and it owns the Capitals, Wizards, Mystics, and NBC Sports Washington/Monumental Sports & Entertainment.
I don’t believe that Leonsis is a minority partner in the Nationals. .
Again, retirement is advantageous to the TEAM. For him, it makes no difference and he’s fine just continuing on the IL for three more years, taking up a roster spot.
Taking up a roster spot in the offseason for a team that is not going to contend is not something that hurts the Nationals. They simply keep someone that is ready in the minors until they can put Stras back on the 60 day IL, No harm. No foul. They have been doing it for most of the last 4 seasons.
Not paying $105 million in salary is something that would really benefit Lerner’s wallet.
Strasburg basically sacrificed his body to win the 2019 chip
I agree. And they paid him for 2020-23 and bought him a ring to boot. Him thinking he’s owed anything past 2023 is selfish. Not saying he is thinking that, but ultimately if u don’t play… should you really be paid?
Absolutely he should be paid. The CBA negitiated between the players and owners says MLB contracts like Strasburg’s are guaranteed. If the owners don’t like it, deal with that issue during the negotiations on the next CBA. Owners don’t suddenly get to decide which contracts they want to pay and which ones they don’t.
Secondly, Nats ownership did this to themselves, GM Mike Rizzo didn’t want to sign Strasburg to this long term deal because of his previous injury history. Boras went around Rizzo and negitiated directly with ownership.
The CBA says that contracts are guaranteed when the player is playing or is adhering to the treatment plan laid out by the team.
Strasburg can continue to get paid by continuing with rehab and treatment for the next 3 years without playing a game.
If he chooses to retire his contract is voided. From that point forward the team is not legally required by the CBA to pay him any money other than deferred salaries earned in previous seasons.
Someone posted the link to the CBA above or you can find it on the union website.
What a weird and unfortunate situation. You’d figure that before any announcement was made, both parties would have a signed agreement in place. Especially with super agent Scott Boras representing you.
There is far more going on here than you and most others think….
Neat.
They probably did and now the Nats are reneging for unknown reasons. The Nats had months to work this out so the whole situation is just bizarre and a total PR fail.
No announcement was made by either the team or Strasburg. Or by Boras publicly, although I think he is the one that leaked the info about it to try to gain leverage.
Why even have a press conference?
to butter Strasburgs ass, as they knew the circumstances
He was a team icon. Good press.
Lawsuits Coming. Tons of money left on his contract. I wonder how much is covered under insurance ? Also the way the payouts are structured, of insurance covers those extended years as well.
The fact that the team said no problem they will cover whatever portion is left is mighty nice of them. Considering he declared retirement, to possibly walk away from his contract.
The about face maybe has to do with reality. Money on the books that will handcuff them.
Yeah, I understand the contract being guaranteed and all that, but if the player decides on his own that he’s gonna retire before the end of the deal, maybe there is something the team can do to get out of paying a portion. The Nats could find some doctor that would say ‘he could pitch again if….’. Wouldn’t there be some wording in the contract that the player has to put forward best efforts to be on the field?
There is no iinsurance on his contract… geez… research before you post.
None insured. No lawsuits coming. He signed a contract that stipulates that he can’t sue. The union can file a grievance, but Strasburg cannot sue.
thx for being the only one here who made any common sense in this entire thread.
None of it is covered by insurance. The Washington Post has reported that multiple times. The Nats couldn’t get insurance on it because of Strasburg’s previous injury history.
What a bunch of snakes. Pay him, or at least work out some kind of deal
for the guy before something like this goes public . He is literally the most important player in the history of the Nationals. It serves nobody (besides ownership) to jerk him around like this. Yuck.
And please spare me your economics dissertations and “gee I wish I could get paid to not work” comments, you only embarrass yourself.
Bryce Harper on Line 1. Ryan Zimmerman on Line 2. Juan Soto on Line 3, and the guy in the waiting room with an Angels hat on is a Mr. Rendon, he’s a walk-in sir.
People actually thought he was leaving money on the table.
Yeah, I knew Stephen wasn’t a real man with any real honor or dignity. Called it.
I genuinely don’t understand the beef of some of the commenters here. Strasburg signed a contract–and so did ownership. They both understood the terms, including what would happen if he was injured. If he was insured,,,,that’s an if since I don’t see anyone authoritative on the subject, perhaps the old Mets/David Wright situation applies, where insurance requires both player and team to go through some motions. But whatever, Strasburg has a contract that guarantees he’s paid when injured. And, folks, while we look for ways to take that away from him, using such bromides like “well, he shouldn’t be paid if he can’t show up” let’s not forget this round of injuries came after his incredible 2019 season, where he ate high leverage, critical innings. What do we want from these guys? Refuse the big money? Leave it all out of the field, even at the risk of career altering or ending injury? Walk away from the guaranteed dollars after leaving it on the field? That’s not on the player if he makes a legitimate attempt to rehab and can’t. It’s on the FO, representing billionaires who did not get that way without knowing how to place values on things. Let’s hope these two sides find some face-saving way out of it. Weaseling and welching isn’t it.
Not sure why asking questions is considered a beef. If the contract is crystal clear that if he gets injured and retires he gets all of the money, no questions asked, then great. Seeing as how so many commenters here suggested they gave read the entire contract, I’ll defer to them.
That said, it does seem strange to me that a front office would not have any wording that would protect them from these types of issues.
Strasburg gets paid when injured, but only if he is actively rehabbing the injury. Otherwise the team can place him on the restricted list and is under no obligation to pay him.
everyone needs to stop taking OinLF’s comments so personally. All he’s stated are facts.
“On the surface, their about-face seems a baffling course of action… Washington ownership surely isn’t thrilled with the notion of paying $35MM annual salaries from 2024-26 to a player who won’t appear for them at the MLB level.”
I mean… of course not. I bet Washington is looking to split the cost difference. Otherwise, they are going to want Strasburg to keep on rehabbing.
Agree. If Washington really wants him to keep rehabbing; all they need to do is tell him that. “Rehab or we don’t pay”. Seems like there’s more here we don’t know.
They cannot require him to rehab if the doctors say no. The only possibility that makes sense here is if there is a medical disagreement between the Nats doctor and his doctor. But even so, it’s idiotic for the Nats to push the issue. They’ll never sign another player.
Do you think the players they currently employ will be walking out on strike?
How about all MLB players? Think they’ll boycott the playoffs?
Seam, the only doctors that matter are the team’s doctors. If they say he is capable of rehabbing the injury, then he has to do so if he wants to get paid. That is what the union collectively bargained as part of the players standard contract
As you have said many, many times, players go where they are paid the most. If the new owner offers the most money, most players will come play for the Nationals.
Lerner could give a rats patootie He is older than dirt and trying to sell the team. He is cutting costs to the bone in every department of the organization and player payroll is not an exception. If he can save all $105 million or even part of that $105 million that Stras has left on his contract, that is more money in his pocket.
Mark Lerner is only 70 years old. His father, Ted, died a few years back. Mark is the one trying to sell the team.
You are correct in saying that Mark Lerner is cutting costs and doesn’t seem to care about the optics of his actions because he intends to sell.
My understanding is that what stood in the way of selling before was nearly $200 million in deferred contracts that he wanted to pass on to whoever purchased the team. That did not include the $105 million they will have to pay Strasburg if he chooses to rehab instead of retiring.
You are right. I was thinking about his dad.
Lerner just did. He said that they expect to see him in spring training.
The timing of this Strasburg issue alongside all their organizational moves almost makes it look like Nationals ownership gave a mandate to their GM, Mike Rizzo. If he could negoatiate some sort of buyout agreement with Strasburg, they’d re-up for a new contract with Rizzo under all the terms he proposed and with whomever else he wants on-board. But if ownership is stuck eating every penny of the Strasburg contract, they’re prepared to cut costs everywhere else they can, starting with Rizzo’s entire development team.
But that’s not what happened. The Nats didn’t try to get a negotiated settlement in the first place. They agreed to pay out the rest of the contract. They didn’t “change their mind” until yesterday.
Rizzo’s also not a stupid man. Baseball contracts are guaranteed, and Strasburg’s agent is Scott Boras. Rizzo’s been around the game and negotiated with Boras far too long to believe a negotiated settlement would be possible in the first place. (He argued against the Strasburg contract. Boras had to do an end run around him and negotiate directly with ownership to get that deal.)
This is ownership cutting costs because MASN is a financial disaster. Ironically, even though the Orioles own the majority of the Nats broadcast rights (forever), MASN isn’t working out well for them either. O’s owner John Angelos recently said the team would have to significantly raise ticket prices in order to afford to get free agents this offseason and increase payroll for next year.
Both Rizzo and Lerner have said that is not the case. That there was never a deal in the first place.
Lerner blamed the leaks on an outside source. It seemed like he was pointing the finger at Boras for jumping the gun.
Love to see this much passion when politicians hand out hundreds of millions dollars of free taxpayer money to billionaires…..money that could have gone to schools, to cops, to parks, to firemen, to infrastructure, but instead subsidize billion-dollar entities. I’m not getting all stressed out over a contract that didn’t work out. Anyone seriously think the player, on a HOF arc, likes having his career ended?
Finally some common sense. Don’t care if Strasburg can’t even crack 80 MPH anymore……learn how to throw a knuckle ball. You’re being paid an insane amount of money at least put the freaking effort in. One of the first of the new breed of soft MLB players.
This guy should be in Cooperstown with the talent he had.
“Put the effort in” like he didn’t?? Maybe you should google the surgeries he’s already had and the way his REAL LIFE has been hurt by these baseball injuries. You think he likes this? Soft is commenting about someone like this not putting in effort while you type nonsense anonymously on your phone. Yankee fans, worst part of being from NY.
WH1986
““Put the effort in” like he didn’t??”
Right, I’d be surprised if the [people] saying this dumb [stuff] have ever worked one tenth has hard as these “soft” athletes.
Terrible taeks.
He can’t even grip the ball without extreme pain. The only thing Stras could do is learn to throw left-handed, or become a potential slugger.
Yes I think he does like it. He’s walking away with hundreds of millions of dollars for producing NOTHINg.
There have been questions about his work ethic and maturity from day one. Numerous reports (even from a former MLB pitcher, can’t think of his name right now) that he was a spoiled entitled kid growing up and hoped he had changed.
Now he’s just a spoiled entitled adult.
… who signed an ironclad contract. Sucks for you all, but the man was smart to do so and now he has the Lerner brat by the balls. Good for him. (See, I can turn this into a stupid morality play just as well as you can.)
You keep repeating that and its still wrong. He has to keep playing or at the least rehabbing under the team’s treatment plan in order to continue to be paid.
mlbplayers.com/_files/ugd/4d23dc_d6dfc2344d2042de9…
The team also needs to have a reasonable rehab plan… for example, don’t break your leg and the next day assign a guy to run 100m sprints.
There’s limits on the specifics of what the team can get into, because, you know, health information.
Likewise, if the treatment plan is unreasonable or doesn’t fit with conventional medical science, theres piles of cans of worms that get opened alongside grievances.
Only takeaway ought to be this: player is hurt, and unlikely to return. Player is getting paid.
Whatever is going on behind the curtains doesn’t matter, as, the team hasn’t moved the player into an unpaid status. That tells us all we need to know.
If that was the case, the Nationals would have just agreed to pay him.
Instead they said we are looking forward to seeing him in spring training next season. Apparently the team doctors believe he can rehab the issue.
Until he refuses to do their treatment plan, the team cannot move him to the restricted list.
So you are wrong about pretty much everything.
Mvp of the world series and millions upon millions of uptick in revenue is nothing? Find another sport
CLEAN AS COUNTRY WATER NASHVILLE CATS. Move them to Nashville, then they are off the Angelos T.V. zone, and everyone is happy. Crying poor in the major leagues is a disgusting look for everyone. Sell and move the team to Nashville.
They need to be moved to Montreal and renamed “Expos”.
Sudden and unexpected?
The Nats not honoring an agreement? That’s unheard of. Oh wait, the MASN deal…jokers.
Ted Lerner didn’t give an F when it came to winnings a World Series and probably set his son back 10-15 years if not eventually forcing him to sell the franchise. Poor billionaire son.
If Strasberg wants to earn his money, he needs to show up and rehab. Strasberg can always offer to coach or scout if the team thinks that is a better use of his time. If he had honor he would say you are paying me 200 million more, I am ok selling programs or popcorn or doing PR for the team. Now if I were Strasberg and I did not want to do rehab where there is no hope, yeah I would offer the team a small incentive, maybe the league minimum salary time three to release me, that would just be about one percent of what they owe him. But otherwise if I am Strasberg, I would say pay me all my money, and let me know if you want me to do play by play for a minor league team, or do PR for the team. For a change in policy, for long term contracts, I like the idea that if the team cuts a player with guaranteed years left, the team can reduce maybe the minimum salary amount from their luxury tax calculations. Other than that, the system isn’t broken let teams and players negotiate as they see fit. Owners have a luxurious monopoly and they ain’t hurting’ for spare change.
Agreed. That’s the honorable thing to do.
Dumb and dumber
What do the Nationals and Stephen Strasburg have to discuss about retirement?
When an MLB player decides to retire while still under contract with a team, he gives up the rest of the money owed to him on that contract unless he and the team agree on a settlement, usually for a little less than what was owed to the player.
This is what happened when David Wright retired. Wright and the Mets negotiated a settlement for him to retire. He gets something and the Mets no longer had to keep him on the roster over the off-season
He has three years left and is permanently disabled. Will never pitch again. There is no negotiation as the team has no leverage (retirement only benefits them, and as such if there’s any negotiation it would be to ADD money into the deal). He’s quite happy to remain on the IL.
It doesn’t matter how disabled he is. The contract is null and void if Strasburg actually retires through the normal process. There are a few things which can happen.
1. Officially retires through normal process. Nationals owe nothing.
2. Actively continues to follow rehab schedule, placed on 60 day IL/40 man roster over the winter. This was Prince Fielder. His rehab was just healing up from a fusion. He was not cleared for any baseball activities or special rehab.
3. Retires after renegotiating his contract.*
In regard to Prince Fielder, doctors declared he was permanently unable to play in 2016. The Rangers technically released him at the end of 2017 after carrying him on the 60 day IL, the offseason 40 man roster, and the 2017 season on the 60 day IL. Since the Rangers “released” Fielder, they were still on the hook for his salary.
The Nationals are clearly looking for Strasburg to renegotiate his contract. It’s much less likely a doctor will go on record and say Strasburg will never recover because nerve injuries are fickle. If medical staff think Strasburg might improve, they’ll create a treatment plan and Strasburg is duty bound to follow the rehab schedule or forfeit his contract.
You are right about the options. Add one to that. Stras decides he is not willing to rehab even though team doctors say he is capable of rehabbing but refuses to officially retire. The Nationals place him on the restricted list and he doesn’t get paid.
The Rangers only paid Fielder $9 million per season for the final 3 seasons of that contract.
The Rangers negotiated a deal with Fielder and paid him just $9 million for 2018-2020. The Tigers paid him $6 million. His contract was for $24 million per year.
Not correct. Fielder made the full amount. The Rangers released Fielder after reaching a settlement with the insurance company covering Fielder’s contract. The Rangers covered $9MM, Detroit covered $6MM which means the Rangers’ insurance company covered the rest.
Fielder did not re-negotiate to make less.
The insurance company covered the full $9 million. That’s it and that is all Fielder recieved from the Rangers.
Can’t tell you exactly how I know because of client confidentiality, but I’ve posted many times what the company I was a partner in did before I retired.
No one has said Stras is permanently disabled. No one. Not even Boras.
Unless he continues to rehab, the team is not required to pay him and stras said he stopped rehabbing a few months ago.
If he retires the team is not required to pay him. His contract is just voided.
Most teams do negotiate a settlement with a player for less than they would have made. Fielder got $9 million each season of the $24 million salary he would have gotten for the 3 seasons after his retirement. Pedroia got $12 million of the $13.75. Wright got a portion. Davis gave up his entire 2021 salary when he retired.
Whoa. Wait a minute. What doctor has said he is permanently disabled? The Nationals don’t think so. Their owner just said we will see you at training camp, so that leads me to believe the medical advice they are getting is that he can rehab the injury.
Judging from statements Strasburg has made publicly, I think he is tired of rehabbing the injury and would like to call it quits, but his agent is pushing for a settlement and may have made that impossible by leaking news of the negotiations.
Wow. I’m continuously flummoxed how the “managers/owners” of these billion dollar teams shoot themselves in the foot.
The only way this could possibly make sense is if we’re getting half the story due to wording in the contract he signed.
Otherwise Strasburg can simply not retire and you’ve completely destroyed any legacy he had
This is also based on an assumption that strasburg would keep “trying” to get paid tens of millions instead of getting away from the game. I don’t believe a doctor can make that decision for him given the money involved but i may be wrong. Additionally if there’s stuff in the original contract about this kind of thing fine, but there never seems to be unless you get in a motorcycle accident
The Nationals are a national embarrassment. Pathetic.
I bet the team has an insurance policy on him which only covers him being on the injury list and doesn’t cover his contract if he retires.
A UPC is the starrting point for most contracts. That said, there are numerous additions, from both sides, that make his contract different from most. I would be willing to bet that he is insured to a small degree. His strongest point is his injury occurred while performing his job. I highly doubt he is flat out refusing to rehab. I’m sure team medical personnel has reviewed his injury and have come up with a diagnosis and Strasburg’s side has done the same. Worse comes to worse, an arbitrator could be appointed to settle the matter though I’d tend to think the players union would not be to open to that. I wonder if this is something Washington just wants off the books prior to any sale of the team…
This comment section is a disgrace. outinleftfield should be banned! A complete troll.
He is correct. Why is that being a troll? In that case, everyone that gets the facts correct is a troll. Is that really what you are trying to say?
Yup. They should ban him for being right. It makes people like you look so darn stupid and we can’t have that now can we.
I am right about all this so I should be banned? What are you talking about. Say goodbye.
For those saying he should do whatever he can rehab wise – it states he cant pick up his kids or open a door…..Now he is a young man and trying to throw a baseball at even 80+ MPH is obviously going to impact him for the rest of his life. Think about that when decrying him having his millions.
Farm workers roofers movers and day laborers face job related pain but don’t have the team of attorneys agents and doctors that both sides have in this disagreement of richly-riches. This is not intended to show one side is right just saying better victims to earn your tears.
It’s the Washington Nationals—just print more money if you need it!
Pretty simple here. The nats want him to retire, they approached him about retiring. He only agreed to retire because they agreed to pay him his full contract. Now they don’t want to do he just won’t retire. That simple he is getting laid either way. He clearly isn’t just retiring and walking away from all that money.
Nats at best may get him to defer some more of his money but they will be paying him one way or another. This on the nats all sta has to do is not not retire and not get suspended and he will get all of his money.
Not true. If Strasburg retires, the Nationals owe him nothing. His contract is voided. If he continues to rehab under the team’s prescribed treatment plan then he can continue to be paid. If he refuses to do so, then the team can put him on the restricted list and they don’t have to pay him anything. If he files a grievance, an MLB committee makes the decision and can void his contract if he refuses to follow the treatment plan.
mlbplayers.com/_files/ugd/4d23dc_d6dfc2344d2042de9…
Just give the guy his money. Either he collects it while sitting around in your team doctor’s office or he gets it at his home.
Easy to say when its not your $105 million.
Sure, it’s guaranteed money, but the Nats can choose to not retire his number and could try to save a few million in negotiations. Kind if like,”You made all this money and may not make it into the MLB hall of shame. For a few million, you can buy a spot on ours, just like advertisers.” I doubt Boras would allow it, though he isn’t in control here.
That is completely nonsensical.
I think whats lost in all this is how sad it is that such a great talent really could not pitch after 30. Shame we never got to see him reach bis true potential.
We did see him reach his potential. That was it. Every scout that saw him even in high school said he was an historic talent but would likely decline early for physical reasons. He had classically bad form, the exact throwing motion all coaches try to coach young guys out of.
What scouts were those?
The ones in his head.
I always say “play your deal” but in this case the Nationals need to PAY your deal.
I know people are stuck on the contract issue but people are forgetting that at the beginning of the article it said “ According to Ghiroli, the team initially proposed that Strasburg would be paid in full before backtracking and seeking to change the terms of his retirement.”
That’s right. A writer said there was an agreement but neither the team nor Strasburg announced anything.
Even Boras said nothing about an agreement publicly. You KNOW he would have been crowing about it if there was an agreement.
Way too much money on a bad team. Nats initially did right by him. Keep him on the roster, maybe he breaks a rule in the future,
This is why you leave your emotions out when it comes to signing players to large contracts. Too many players get paid and then end up disappearing. I think it’s funny how players want guaranteed money, but don’t guarantee how much they’ll play. Start making guys play for their pay or prorate based on injury and when it occurred.
Kyak
Are you also in favor of doing away with the draft, team control, and arbitration, restrictions on international free agent bonuses, etc?
Also, why happened in your life that made you hate baseball players?
Then you won’t sign any free agents. It’s a competitive free market and someone else won’t require those terms. Or you could try negotiating those terms into the CBA. Good luck.
> Start making guys play for their pay or
> prorate based on injury and
> when it occurred.
So if a player is injured and he has to go out and play when he’s injured to earn his pay, what sort of team or sport do you think you’re gonna end up with? That would turn baseball into T-ball. Nobody would run or hustle. Running pulls hamstrings! Don’t throw too hard, the Ghost of Tommy John is watching! Curve ball? Nope. Underhanded eephus? You betcha.
The Nationals never announced a press conference. It was reported in the media and MLB.com that they were tentatively scheduling one for 9/9 but the Nationals did not confirm that report and NEVER announced anything at all.
Jesse Dougherty of the WaPo has an article discussing just this and given his proximity to the team, I would suspect his reporting to be more accurate than guys like Bob Nightengale who get things wrong on a regular basis and are just looking for clicks.
It is a shame this is how it is playing out in the media with no public comments from the Nationals, Boras or Strasburg.
Yeah just realized this whole 260 comment flame fest is based on a report by the least reliable national reporter in the business. Carry on.
None of this makes any sense at all, just let the man retire and pay him his damn money.
hope he comes out of retirement soon – first he has to retire, then he can make his comeback
200+ comments and no one even suggested he try using his other hand?
It’s a dumb suggestion. Congratulations on coming up with it.
> no one even suggested he try
> using his other hand?
He is going to need more than his hand. An arm too, maybe? Or was your suggestion to use telepathy to make the ball go from his hand into the catcher’s mitt?
Say, you might be onto something. You must have an IQ of 160!
The Gnats are a lame poverty franchise.
There are people here who know all about the communiqués between claims adjusters, lawyers and other parties for MLB, the Nationals, MLB’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier, and for this player. There are a dozen or more people who have been actively working on this separation.
A small legal militia of staff counsel for the Boras Corp fans out to address things like this every day. With most separating players there is little to nothing to work out.
Someone in this matter is trying to shove things down the wrong hole.
Holy this argument is wild…..it’s quite simple and not a new thing in pro sports at all. He can’t open doors or pickup his kids lol no one is going to say he needs to rehab. The retirement part is a mutual agreement for both sides….. if the team doesn’t square up close to full value or they can’t reach an agreement mutually he just stays on I.R ……people saying the team can make him rehab or report lol good luck with the union and what a great way to appeal to future free agents lol
Most likely hit a couple snags in wording and or insurer etc etc….
Risk of signing pitchers long term….they got a ring and flags fly forever.
Both the union and the teams have to abide by the CBA. That says Strasburg has to adhere to the team’s treatment plan in order to get paid. Its pretty obvious the Nationals plan to hold him to that after Lerner’s statement that they expect to see him in spring training.
If he retires they don’t owe him anything and Lerner is enough of an A1 BLEEEEP that he could say I’m not paying him a cent and be within his rights laid out in the CBA.
He can’t grip a ball but is required to be at camp. What a great message to send to future players
It looks like the leverage is almost all on Strasburg’s side. He could attempt to go through the motions of physical rehab, and the Nats would have to pay him no matter what. The only snag is that if he ever does recover enough to pitch again, his contract will probably force him to make a legitimate attempt to return.
It would be simplest if Strasburg could get his physician to declare that it’s not medically safe for him to attempt to play again, which would allow him to retire with the full value of his contract, Prince Fielder style.
According to the CBA, its not up to Strasburg’s doctors, its up to the team doctors. If the player refuses to abide by the team’s treatment plan then MLB makes the final decision and terminates his contract.
So he shows up at the team’s facilities and goes through the motions of the rehab a couple times a week, while he probably never gets well enough to advance beyond that. What’s so hard about that? It’s still good for his overall physical health, and It seems well worth getting paid tens of millions of additional dollars to me.
Meanwhile, there’s still the possibility of a Fielder-like exception, which the Nats can’t do anything about if he can get it.
He can’t go through the motions. He has to follow the team medical staff’s treatment plan.
If you think that you just show up a couple times a week for an injury like he has, you are sorely mistaken.
When I tore up my shoulder surfing I spent more than an hour at PT 5 days per week for over a year. I am not young and not an athlete that has to be in exceptional shape to do his job at a high level. It will take even more for him to get rehabbed.
Fielder didn’t get an exception. He was medically unable to play because of a life threatening neck injury. He still only got paid $9 million by the Rangers and $6 million by the Tigers for the 3 seasons after he retired out of the $24 million he would have been paid if he was able to play.
Once a player retires, the contract is voided and the team doesn’t owe them anything. Most of the time they choose to negotiate a deal with the player. Its good for PR and that player will likely retire sooner than later. But they are not required to.
There is a reason that the Nationals have said publicly that they doing the process the CBA requires and will pay Strasburg what is DUE TO HIM and not his entire contract. .
Yes, following the team’s medical staff’s treatment plan is exactly what I mean by going through the motions. Even if it’s 5 times a week or even every day, he can easily do that and likely never improve enough to ever need to do anything else. Putting up with that for 3 years is easily worth all the extra money. It’s probably worth doing anyway just to improve his everyday life.
WRONG! Fielder received EVERY DOLLAR of the $214M of his original contract, either by the teams he played for or by the insurance company! There were no negotiations whatsoever in his case. He was allowed the money despite retiring early BECAUSE he was deemed medically unfit to play. As such, he was an exception to the usual retirement rules, and Strasburg may be able to qualify in the same way.
Yes, the Nationals are trying to save some of the money due to Strasburg, but they aren’t likely to get it. Strasburg has most of the leverage and little reason to cut the Nats a deal.
He can’t “go through the motions”. Rehab for any major injury is intense, painful, and time consuming. ESPECIALLY for a pro athlete. No one can EASILY go through that. Its hard work. As hundreds, possibly thousands, of ballplayers have said over the years, its harder than what they do to prepare to play normally. More time. More energy. More pain.
It just goes to show that you have neither been through rehab for a major surgery nor understand W.T.F. you are talking about.
Fielder got $9 million per season from the Rangers of the $19 million per season for the 3 years that were remaining on his contract. The insurance covered 100% of that $9 million. The Tigers took on $6 million per season in the trade and it is my understanding that they continued to pay that.
Fielder did not retire for a year after he could not continue to play in order to negotiate a settlement with the Rangers. He could have retired a year earlier if they were just going to pay him 100%.
In the current CBA, it does not matter the reason a player retires. He is not owed any further money after retirement. Its in the CBA. The links have been posted. Go read it.
As I have said multiple times, I think Strasburg is a fantastic and have been watching him play live and in person for most of his career since he was playing high school ball in Santee, CA. Regardless of my personal opinion of him, he still has no leverage. He has 3 choices. Retire and get nothing unless the Nationals choose to negotiate a deal. That ship may have sailed with the leak of negotiations. Continue to do the rehab the team requires him to do for the next 3 years and get paid. Or stop doing the rehab, be placed on the restricted list and not get paid.
I’m saying even a doctor on the team’s payroll may be forced to concede that Strasburg is not medically capable of making a comeback if the prognosis is clear enough, or he/she’d be breaking the Hippocratic Oath, just as it was for Prince Fielder.
If the team doctor had said that he was not medically capable of rehabbing the injury, the team would not have said we expect to see him in spring training.
The Nats haven’t said they expect to see him in Spring Training.
Meanwhile, Strasburg still has months to try and get that exemption.
Go read Lerner’s statement on all this. Its right in there.
Here is a link that is in this thread to that statement
twitter.com/MarkZuckerman/status/17002640013372212…
It’s the Nats own damn fault for not buying insurance. Cheaping out will bite you every time.
They were refused insurance because of his injury history.
im just here for the comments by people who dont know contract law.
Gnats excercised their opt out clause.
The Lerners gonna do Lerners things.
The Lerners have proven that they will break the bank to sign players. However, in every other part of the organization-from the broadcasters to the managers to the front office, they will nickel and dime to the bitter end.
Once a dog, always a dog. Got paid 245 mil to sit on his couch and eat potato chips. If you don’t want to play, retire and stop taking checks. He should be in jail. Not surprised by his behavior. Look at his contract year, he didn’t miss a start. He is an even bigger dog than Chris Davis. He can have all the money in the world but he’ll never be a real man. No integrity whatsoever. He should be banned from baseball for life, sued till he doesn’t own a single penny, and then have to work a 9-5 at McDonalds. Strastburg said he cant even “pick up his kids”, sure yeah only a moron would believe that. His hand was fine when he signed that fat contract. If he was a foot shorter, the only words this dog would be barking are “may I take your order”
A little salty.
And a whole lot stupid.
Muted
This [individual] seems unlikely to ever post anything I’d ever want to read.
then every other major leaguer would be banned – Chris Davis, Jason Hayward -suddenly can hit now, 1/2 mets players. the pitcher the yankees signed. maybe strausburg really meant he can’t pick up his kids since he’s too busy drunk at 3 at a bar.
“34 comments are hidden because you muted the comment authors”
#winning
Looks like there’s some new data out there….everything that was previous said,,,,is now inoperable. Somebody talked to somebody, who talked to a lawyer or two, who then talked to more people. That’s likely what happened here, and until they all get their stories straight…
This is how to not treat stars. Who is going to want to sign a long term big contract with them again?
I just read the Urias article and now this…these players personify the seven deadly sins…
I never saw anything where the Nationals announced they were holding a retirement ceremony for Strasburg.
Saw a Nightengale tweet and article saying they were going to, but nothing from the team.
Could this all be clickbait from Nightengale?
One of the sides looked at the financials related to the “retirement” and decided there was no benefit.
Ok what happens if he is found to be disabled by the state doctors then he can got get his whole contract correct iam skipping over his doctor’s and team doctors
Are you implying he’s being treated by unlicensed or uncertified doctors? Sports teams contract with local service providers. i.e. Washington DC Sports Orthopaedic Institute. They become team physicians.