Just to add:
I’m not questioning the accuracy of ESPN (although they’re not always right). Nor am i saying that the person in question shouldn’t have believed ESPN. If anything, i’m simply questioning his memory of what he says he heard, and would like to see the story for myself to determine whether his recollection coincides with the facts.
Pretty simple, really.
Exactly. The Player’s Association only gets involved if the player gives up money under an existing contract. A new contract is a new contract and if a player is willing to play for less than a previous contract, that’s the player’s business.
For instance, the Mets signed Mike Jacobs this year for $900K; the previous year he had earned $3.275 million with Kansas City. The Players Association didn’t care, because they were separate contracts.
Sometimes, they will allow a contract to be restructured, as long as the player doesn’t give up any money. Bobby Bonilla contract with the Mets, for instance: they had him agree to defer payment for ten years. Since he was getting the same amount of money (plus interest), the Players Association let it happen.
The other reason (i.e. more likely) is htat hte average fan couldn’t pick Mike Jacobs out of a line-up.
I was stating my observations, not reporting them as gospel fact. That’s why I stated that it was my observation as a long term baseball follower, and what I believed, rather than just saying “This has never happened.” As has been pointed out, I cannot prove a negative in a case like this.
If someone wants to make the claim that union pressure happens, it’s up to him to bring the evidence, not make a vague claim that he heard it once on a radio show at some unspecified time. I wasn’t taking a shot at ESPN; since I’ve not been provided with any evidence of what their commentators said, it’s impossible for me to comment on ESPN’s accuracy.
Well, the main reason is Jacobs’s market value was also legitimately a hell of a lot lower. When he signed with Kansas City for over $3 million a year he was coming off a 32-homer season. When he signed with the Mets he was coming off a 19-homer season and his future potential was clearly not what the Royals had thought.
I trust an anonymous guy on a message board far more than I trust sports talk radio idiots.
I clearly remember them talking at length about union pressure in regards to a free agent contract. However, it could very well have been a hypothetical debate that got sparked by the A-Rod trade thing. I don’t remember any specifics largely because I’m not a baseball fan.
I think we could prove a negative in this case. Is there any example from the last decade or two of a market-setting (highest paid at his position) free agent taking less money than was offered somewhere else? All we need is one example to disprove my hazy memory…
To put a cherry on this thread, looks like Cliff Lee gave us a definitive answer: The union puts zero pressure on players to take the most money.
From what I’ve read, the Phillies offered more money per year than any other team. So while Lee isn’t helping other players argue for more years, he is helping them argue for a higher salary per year.
Perhaps Lee plans to get another contract or an extension when this one ends, which could give him both the highest amount of total money and the most money per year.
If the 6th year of the contract vests, I believe Lee will actually make more money per-season with the Phillies than he would have with the Yankees.
Plus, he doesn’t have to play for the Yankees.
Assuming Lee accepted less money, this proves nothing either way. Lee’s decision doesn’t prove or disprove that he received pressure from the MLBPA. Perhaps he received just a little bit of pressure but told them to go to hell. Without primary evidence we do not really know.
Lee is 32, so that’s unlikely; he is exceedingly unlikely to be nearly as good a pitcher when this contract is up. Of course that doesn’t mean he might not have a lot of self-confidence and whatnot.
Unless Lee publicly explains his thought process in detail, and I don’t believe he has, we can’t really know why he signed with the Phillies. Maybe he thinks they’re the best of the teams that made him an offer. Maybe he wanted the most money from any city where the fans did not spit on his wife. Maybe he wanted to play somewhere he had played before, which includes Philadelphia but not New York. Maybe he really does think he’ll still be great six years from now.
The Yankees were supposedly offering $132 million over six years, with an option that could have taken their deal to $148 million over seven. The Rangers offered six years for $138 million, with a seventh year that could have taken it to $161 million, but some of that money was deferred.
Here’s a relevant quote from the MLBPA chief that makes it pretty clear that the union’s job is not to put pressure on players, but to make sure they have all the information they need to make an informed choice.
Ordonez signed with the Tigers., 1 year 10 mill. He was reportedly offered more money and longer contract by others.
Kerry Wood evidently took significant less money to return to the Cubs. Like absurdly less money according to reports.
If the MLBPA was gonna make a stink about a player taking less money, I assume it would be in this situation.
Thanks Pricciar! Lee definitely was making a “quality of life” decision (i.e. his son’s illness)
Mike & Mike revisited the issue this morning, refreshing my memory about the time they devoted practically an entire show to the topic. It was indeed the A-Rod deal to Boston.
This morning they were talking about Antonio Cromartie’s comments regarding the NFL’s labor negotiation, and Greeny was saying how the union should impose a gag order on the players. A lawyer emailed in to explain that unions aren’t allowed to do that by law, and Greeny was confused because, as he said today, the MLBPA forced A-Rod to not take a lesser deal.
After the break they read from an article I can’t specifically find, but it gave me plenty of search terms to find other articles about the same thing. Some disregard anything by ESPN as all hype, so here’s a relevant article from Sports Illustrated:
Specifically, A-Rod had agreed with the Red Sox to restructure his contract downward so that he’d be making less money. That’s what the union balked at.
That is distinctly different from pressuring a player to take a better monetary deal. They didn’t force Arod to take a lesser deal. They objected to him changing a deal that he already had agreed to. They didn’t want to start a precedent where teams would be able to renegotiate contracts with players who were say underperforming
That’s picking the nittiest of nits. He agreed with another team to be traded to them with a restructuring of his deal. That’s quite a different thing than what you’re talking about, as it is functionally equivalent to a free agent deal.
You wrote that they didn’t force him to take a lesser deal, but I think you meant better deal. But that’s exactly what they did by rejecting the trade to Boston. A-Rod never went to the Red Sox, but instead took better money with the Yankees. That seems to be exactly what the OP is asking about even though the “hometown discount” aspect wasn’t in play.
It’s not picking nits in the eyes of the union, though. In baseball contracts are guaranteed. Usually, this helps out the player. If the union said yes to the A Rod deal it would have set a precedent that contracts can be negotiable. That’s not good for the players in general, even if it would have been good for one player.
As said previously, the union does not care what a player does on the open market. The only time they would say anything is when a contract is already in force. They didn’t say anything to Cliff Lee for taking slightly less, they didn’t say anything to Kerry Wood for taking a lot less. But, they did say something to A Rod for trying to change an already agreed upon contract.