How Bad Do Some Want To Try And Win?

[Wolf Hopper]

See: http://www.netshrine.com/20031228.html

Discussion welcome and appreciated.

[Craig S.]

You talk about the players and the teams, but what about the union? How would they feel about it, and would they have any grounds to challenge such a situation?

But your hypothetical Reds' staff sounds much better than what we'll be watching in a few months!

[Wolf Hopper]

Well, the last time players had such a hard time finding jobs, Andre Dawson gave the Cubs a blank contract and told them to fill in the dollar amount, and he would sign - and he did, at the Cubs price, and the MLBPA allowed that deal, at that time.

This season, reportedly, David Wells signed for a deal that was hardly any money - but loaded with incentives. If the MLBPA would allow that type of "player incentive" deal, if the owners wanted to fight it, they could have a case that would allow a "team incentive" deal.

To your point, the MLBPA could challenge such a deal - as far as having a case, that's not a lock..........

[sweaver]

It's an interesting idea, but I really don't think you can get a group of three or four or five players to all agree to it in reality.

And I would NOT include Shawn Estes in any such deal by the Reds!

[KCBOOMER]

The players aren't having a hard time finding a job, but finding jobs at the salary commensurate with their agent's opinion of their worth has been tough.

I think the tenor of the question has merit. I don't think some teams want to win as badly as others. But, this is hard to proove. This group frequently loses sight of the fact that every season roughly half the teams are going to lose more games than they win which makes them "losers". Does that mean that none of those teams don't want to win? Of course not.

You have to have good players to win and there are only so many of them. Not everybody can have them. Even if you are committed to your farm system it may not produce for various reasons. Or even if it does you may get players who simply want the most money and leave for the pot of gold.

[tyruschen]

I don't think some teams want to win as badly as others. But, this is hard to proove.

I agree with that. Maybe they want to win, too. But they want to win in their style like 3 year plan or any kind of rebuilding. One year contract to many stars may give you some kind of success or even champion, but the fans of these teams will always think: how about next year? And this makes the profit (especially team merchandise) very unstable. Profit prevails.

[Wolf Hopper]

I just received an e-mail from a reader affiliated with a law firm who had an excellent point regarding the suggestion in the article. It read:

Look at the Schilling contract problem. I don't think collective bargaining allows you to tie compensation to individual players to the overall performance of the team, i.e. winning the World Series.

Again - an excellent and very astute point! :thumb:

Thinking it over 'tho, I think that the "plan" could still work - actually, thanks to the Schilling contract. It isn't certain yet whether Major League Baseball will challenge the Schilling contract. (Has anyone heard anything on it? I have not. After all this time, you would think if it was an issue, it would have been addressed.) And, if MLB does not challenge the Schilling contract, it certainly sets a precedence for allowing deals like those I suggested.

For more on the Schilling clause in question, see: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=1683054