NBA Union vs MLB Union
I was reading how the big three in Miami all agreed to take less money and not max out so they could play together and try to win a ring.(personally I don't think it will work)
I was wondering if this could happen in baseball? I do not see it happening in baseball. In the past the Union has frowned on players who were willing to not max out. Remember the Union position when we thought we had a shot at CC. I think the Union would wail like a mashed cat if a couple of huge Free Agents tried to pull a deal like this.
Second question I am guessing Scott Boras does not do NBA guys? The mind set seems different in the NBA you see guys willing to take less for a chance at a ring. Can you ever see a Major Free Agent MLB player taking less for the chance at a ring? I just do not see the Union letting them get away with it.
The MLB mindset seems to be get the Max at all costs(not saying that is wrong capitalism is what it is) I guess in the end I am just marveling at the fact the NBA guys walked away from a fair amount of money and their Union never said a word.
18 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Why would any baseball player take less for a chance to win a ring
when you could take more from the Yankees and have a better chance to get a ring?
If there were a salary cap in place, I think MLBers might take less for their shot at a ring, but when there’s one team with a clear edge at winning titles, and that team is willing to pay more than anyone else, it would just be silly to take less.
by placidity on Jul 16, 2010 10:51 AM CDT reply actions 4 recs
Good point
The teams that have the best chance to win usually have the most money to spend.
Get a ife broseph
that is two things I had not considered no salary cap and the Yankees in baseball
"It's a joke. It's all a joke.
yeah, a lot of this stuff in the NBA is due to cap issues
i understand fan frustrations with player salaries but imo the cap in the NBA just leads to even less player continuity with teams. You’ll have your “Yankees” type teams that win rings and where guys will take less than max to play there (um, I think that’s called the “Lakers”) and the rest of the teams constantly have to play with the cap, dump players, etc. so you really only have one star player and a supporting cast that switches every 10 seconds.
I was going to write everything that you just did.
Instead, I’ll just rec it.
http://www.mlbsoup.com
This happens
For example, iirc Adrian Beltre turned down a larger offer this season (Athletics?) in order to play for the Red Sox.
Ryan Braun: He loves it.
I was looking for more of 3 or 4 FA's getting together like the guys in Miami did
I know you get the individual guy who for whatever reason takes less money. But you never see the combined effort by the players to build a “Super Team” like Lebron and company did. Well not by players the Yankees and Boston try to Build a Super Team every year lol
"It's a joke. It's all a joke.
What's the difference between one guy doing it and three guys doing it?
Besides, basketball is a much different sport in that you can build a super-team with only three guys coming together.
Ryan Braun: He loves it.
Not a good example...
Beltre turned down a multi-year deal from the A’s, but is still getting more in his one year deal from the Red Sox. Beltre wants a big contract, but because of his down year last season, he (and his agent) knew he wouldn’t get it. Instead, he signed a 1 year deal with the expectation that he’d have a bouce-back season to set himself up for a much bigger contract that what the A’s offered him.
Pujols is the Barack Obama of baseball.
Contracts compared...
The A’s offered Beltre a 2 yr/$16M deal.
The Sox deal is 1 yr/$9M with a $5M player option for 2011 (which increases to $10M with 640 PAs in 2010).
Pujols is the Barack Obama of baseball.
My mistake, bad example
Players do turn down more money to play for contenders occasionally though.
Ryan Braun: He loves it.
I agree
However, in baseball it’s less common (than the NBA) since contenders usually have the money to also offer the most money and there’s no salary cap.
Players also turn down more money for other reasons. Yount comes to mind, as well as Braun.
Pujols is the Barack Obama of baseball.
individual caps
Even with team salary caps, these guys would have fetched more money per year without the individual “max” cap. When it’s stated that they are “playing for less”, it’s not like they are relinquishing the $30mil that MJ got. This boosts the salaries for the mid-level players, so the Union is happy, but distorts the game, since the elite players are making less than they are worth. In baseball, the elite players get what the market decides they are worth, more-or-less.
That depends on what you mean by "distort"
Yeah, it means that the really elite players don’t make as much as they could, but why is that automatically a bad thing? In in all sports (baseball excluded because of the insane salaries) max type players’ salary are overshadowed their endorsement deals. In the end, the really good players get paid anyway, while mid-level players are pretty much just earning their salaries.

by 



























