Suppose you’re a pro player, and your most-favorite and most-hated teams come and offer you contracts to play for them as a starter. (They’re your only 2 suitors.) How much better terms would the hated team have to offer you for you to select them over your favorite team?
I think it would depend on why I have those opinions. Is my favorite team a dynasty that has been winning forever? Is my least favorite a team with a toxic culture who turns over their coaches/administrators constantly?
It might be worth it to take a pay cut to play for an organization where I can excel, make a name for myself, and then earn a superstar contract there or somewhere else later.
It also depends on the sport, and also my potential. Am I unlikely to be more than a journeyman or role-player who goes in, does his job, and doesn’t screw up? I better get as much as I can then, wherever. Is this a sport that you can expect to play for decades, or is this a sport where you are a veteran after a couple of years? If you are expecting a short career, again, get what you can while you can.
I’ll take less pay to play for my Washington Nationals over the hated New York Yankees.
I’ll take less pay to play for my Indianapolis Colts over the hated New England Patriots.
I’ll take less pay to play for my Indiana Pacers over the hated New York Knicks or Los Angeles Lakers. Hell, the Knicks suck anyway; there’s no good reason to go there.
As long as the Dodgers gave me a 10 million dollar guaranteed contract thats where I’m heading I can retire on that money. To go play for the Giants I’d need 50 million guaranteed and the Dodgers to be under 10.
If this isn’t a multi-year contract and they are both looking to get me for league minimum plus then the Giants would have to double the Dodgers to get me.
I want a no-trade clause or else I might wind up traded to my least favorite team.