The recent contract given Roy Halladay is a good example of how an inexperienced Agent can hurt you. Despite back loading the deal for the teams' benefit Greg Landry, who did most of the work on Halladay's deal & hadn't done a large deal like this before, failed to negotiate even a deferred signing bonus into the deal.

Why is that important?

#1) In Halladay's tax bracket he will pay the highest tax rate(approx. 40%) on all income both in Canada & the US. Taking only $2 million in a Signing Bonus(in a back loaded $42 million deal he should have gotten $5mill.-$6 mill. if he took a deferred bonus)would have saved him at least in excess of $500,000 a lot of money even when you sign for $42 million.

How would that save him anything? In Canada Signing Bonuses are taxed @ only 15% & in the US there is no Social Security witholding on a Signing Bonus.

#2) Signing Bonuses are paid in a lump sum salaries are paid in incremental payments. If Halladay took a Signing Bonus & invested it in almost anything, in addition to saving the tax money he would have earned money on his money.

For this he also had to pay Landry's commission. A bad deal anyway you slice it.
Original Post
quote:
Originally posted by TRhit:
VC

"You certainly do not know all the details of that specific deal."

What other details would you like to know?
Roy Halladay III Toronto Blue Jays 1/22/04. $42,000,000/4+A. 2004-2007. $6,000,000-2004; $10,500,000-2005; $12,750,000-2006; $12,750,000-2007. Plus: $75,000 for 1st and 2nd time All Star; $100,000 for 3rd and 4th time All Star; $250,000 for Cy Young; $250,000 for MVP; $50,000 for LCS/MVP; $100,000 for WS/MVP; $50,000 for Gold Glove. Player will donate 1/4 of 1% of annual salary to Jays Care Foundation. NTP. SGP.

"Why do you need to cut down another mans situation in public? I just wonder!!!!!!"

Trying to give info. to the readers of the board to beware of the ultimate cost of working with an inexperienced Agent.

TRhit
PCX, There were 5 that I asked about. I have no experience with any of them other than checking some of their signings.

I don't feel that any agent who is good needs to bad mouth another agent. He just needs to show what he can do for the prospective client. I have listened to a few bad mouth others and it makes me think that they are insecure in their own ability.
I for one, am fascinated by the information being given here. I want to know about agents making 1/2 million dollar mistakes. I see people missing the point and attacking the messenger instead of appreciating the information. We don't hesitate to knock a second rate showcase company on this site. Why not knock a second rate agent? I want to know.

"I love the HSBBW"
BIGHIT


Me amd me only speaking here but I find it a bit uncool for a self proclaimed "agent" who does not tell who what or where is he is to sit and bash another individual in his profession--he is a supposed professional--- those on here are critique showcases are parents not showcase people.

Yeah it is interesting to read what he posts but when one gets to thrashing his competition I take exception.

Again as I say it is just my thoughts.

TRhit
I feel that there is a big difference between discussing a contract that is public knowledge and giving an experienced opinion based on that information, and just bashing someone by namecalling and innuendo.

I find it fascinating as to how deals are stuctured, how they can be structured, etc. One may not like the messenger, but I would prefer the information as to not having it.

I also believe that VC being new to the board is going through some of the same things that other new people go through. Though his style is rough and tumble, he is doing nothing more than I do when challenged. I feel that his style has mellowed and that he is trying to give information here. I have learned much.

TR, you have made it clear that you wonder about his motives and I respect that. I just do not happen to see it the same way that you do. My son is going through the process now and I like to read the information. My son probably won't be drafted, but I like the information.

It just appears to me that people are really opposed to the style rather than the accuracy of the information. Based on VC's knowledge of the deal and the fact that he is an agent would leave me to believe that he is qualified to point out what a bad deal is in his opinion. I also happen to believe that he made some good points about the deal. Fascinating stuff.

Though you may find it uncool, which is your opinion and I respect that, I would rather have the information than not.

Thanks

JMO

"I love the HSBBW"
quote:
Originally posted by voodoochile:

#1) In Halladay's tax bracket he will pay the highest tax rate(approx. 40%) on all income both in Canada & the US. Taking only $2 million in a Signing Bonus(in a back loaded $42 million deal he should have gotten $5mill.-$6 mill. if he took a deferred bonus)would have saved him at least in excess of $500,000 a lot of money even when you sign for $42 million.

How would that save him anything? In Canada Signing Bonuses are taxed @ only 15% & in the US there is no Social Security witholding on a Signing Bonus.

#2) Signing Bonuses are paid in a lump sum salaries are paid in incremental payments. If Halladay took a Signing Bonus & invested it in almost anything, in addition to saving the tax money he would have earned money on his money.

For this he also had to pay Landry's commission. A bad deal anyway you slice it.


Voodoo,

1) You cannot make that statement with any validity without knowing what would be taken away in the "out years" in return for the upfront bonus. You can only speculate.

2) I dont see how you could make that statement without knowing what Mr. Hallady's personal reinvestment rate assumption is.

3) I dont consider dodging US income taxes as the right thing to do.

4) Social Security taxes are not even a rounding error for Mr. Halladay.

These are just some observations on the financial aspect of the deal.
I am sure there are other aspects that havent been cited here.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TRhit:
First you said "It makes me wonder why you criticize what another agent and player have done. You certainly do not know all the details of that specific deal.Why do you need to cut down another mans situation in public?"

Well, I proved that you were wrong again regarding what I do or do not know.

Then you said "Me amd me only speaking here but I find it a bit uncool for a self proclaimed "agent" who does not tell who what or where is he is to sit and bash another individual ...Again as I say it is just my thoughts."

Just your thoughts? You can't dispute my facts or opinions so you have to attack me personally. It is obvious to anyone who has read the previous posts that anything I say pisses you off because I won't identify myself. Sorry you can't get past that but I really think you need to grow up.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by itsinthegame:
Voodoo,

"1) You cannot make that statement with any validity without knowing what would be taken away in the "out years" in return for the upfront bonus. You can only speculate."

Taken away in the "out years"? First of all he signed for at least $2 million/year less than he could have gotten either through arbitration or Free Agency so to think he would have had to make even more concessions to get even a modest Signing Bonus is wrong.

"2) I dont see how you could make that statement without knowing what Mr. Hallady's personal reinvestment rate assumption is."

I'm assuming it's greater than zero therefore it's indiputable that he would have made something on the investment of his money had he gotten anything in a Signing Bonus to invest.

"3) I dont consider dodging US income taxes as the right thing to do."

Are you serious? It's not only the reason for the entire accounting industry but it's practically a national obsession to pay as little tax as possible.

"4) Social Security taxes are not even a rounding error for Mr. Halladay."

Soc. Sec. is 3.3% so if he would have gotten only half the Bonus he should have gotten i.e. $2 million he would save a mere $66,000. Might not be much money to you, but I'd rather see it in my clients' pocket if possible.

If you look at similar deals it's obvious that he should have gotten $4-5 million to sign. So when you add the savings on the Soc. Sec to what he could have gotten if he would have only put the Bonus into a Savings Account he obviously cost himself some significant money AND had to pay Landry for costing him the money on top of it. Like I said, a bad deal any way you slice it.
Voodoo,

No offense intended - I think it is just pure speculation on your part.

If he wanted to structure the deal differently - it is very possible that the alternatives offered by the club may have been detrimental to him financially.

On the other hand - based on the numbers - it would appear that Mr. Hallyday wont be eating at the hot dog stand anymore. LOL
It will be interesting to watch the deals that are made between now and spring training. Will the players get the same type of deals as they have in the past few years? If Halladay's deal is as Voodoochile says "a bad deal", will the remainder of the new deals be for less?

With over 200 free agents out there, the quality agent will sure earn his commission this year. It will be a battle to get some good players anything more than an invite to spring training, let alone top dollars.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by itsinthegame:
Voodoo,

"No offense intended - I think it is just pure speculation on your part."

Basing my opinion on the other deals done this offseason for similar quality players. Technically yes it's speculation with research.

"If he wanted to structure the deal differently - it is very possible that the alternatives offered by the club may have been detrimental to him financially."

Halladay is the undisputed Ace of the Toronto staff as well as Arbitration eligible & a year from Free Agency. He was in a commanding position in this negotiation & should have been able to get pretty much whatever he wanted so I can't see him beingforced to accept bad terms...unless his representation wasn't as effective as it should have been.

"On the other hand - based on the numbers - it would appear that Mr. Hallyday wont be eating at the hot dog stand anymore. LOL"

Roy should be able to eat wherever he wants for the rest of his life & his children & grandchildren as well.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bbscout:
"With over 200 free agents out there, the quality agent will sure earn his commission this year. It will be a battle to get some good players anything more than an invite to spring training, let alone top dollars."

I think you're comparing apples to oranges here. Halladay is in the prime of his career & was offered Arbitration so he could have gone to a hearing. Can't compare him to someone like Maddux who despite having a great past is viewed as having a questionable present & limited future. The lesser FA's like John Burkett, Dave Veres etc. are more likely to be at the mercy of the teams at this point.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by pops:

You ask "How about Moorad, IMG (close-VanWaganen), Tellum or Sloane? Are they any good?" So you're asking for opinions right?

Then in another post you bash me for giving opinions by saying "I don't feel that any agent who is good needs to bad mouth another agent. He just needs to show what he can do for the prospective client. I have listened to a few bad mouth others and it makes me think that they are insecure in their own ability."

Is everyone who offers an opinion on this site " insecure in their own ability."? Or is it only me?

Re:the names you asked about:

Moorad brought TV cameras into the negotiation of Manny Ramirez's contract to get himself free publicity. Is that the kind of Agent you'd want for your kid?

IMG(close-VanWaganen) & Tellum/SFX represent a zillion players so it's not even a "small fish in a big pond" situation it's more like an amoeba in the ocean.

Sloane only takes a few clients so there are limitations there as well.

Just my opinion for what it's worth... usually 5%(LOL).
Chill,

It is an interesting point.
Again - I say this with no disrespect intended - but the phenomenon of agent's squeezing every last penny out of the professional clubs (in the name of "taking care of the client) seems to be changing a bit.

Perhaps the difference between 75 million and an "unhappy" marriage versus 72 million and a happy marriage is worth something after all.
Especially for a young talented player with his whole career ahead of him.

This very new trend must be quite disturbing to agents. Your point is IMO - a very very good one.
quote:
Originally posted by voodoochile:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bbscout:
"With over 200 free agents out there, the quality agent will sure earn his commission this year. It will be a battle to get some good players anything more than an invite to spring training, let alone top dollars."

I think you're comparing apples to oranges here. Halladay is in the prime of his career & was offered Arbitration so he could have gone to a hearing. Can't compare him to someone like Maddux who despite having a great past is viewed as having a questionable present & limited future. The lesser FA's like John Burkett, Dave Veres etc. are more likely to be at the mercy of the teams at this point.


Don't get me wrong, I am really just trying to compare Halladay to what he may have recieved in the same position about two years ago. The $42 mill he recieved now may have been $65 mill a couple of years ago. He, after all is a much better pitcher than Park or Driefort. Smile

My thinking is that baseball right now is like the real estate market. It goes up over the long haul, but at the present time there are too many houses for sale and not enough buyers. Next year it could change again and reverse (probably when Park and Driefort become free agents again) Smile That was my meaning when I said that the quality agent will sure earn his commission this year.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TRhit:
VC

"I guess the % is rising--early on it was 4% now you get 5%--is this an increase due to the new year"

I answered the follwing question: " posted January 09, 2004 12:05 PM "Would you agree that 4% of the entire bonus is standard?"

My reply was: "If you were to survey the field that would probably be the most common number. Is it standard? No,many charge more some charge less." Where in there did I say I charge 4%?

"BIG HIT

I agree on gathering information but I always like to know the source and how solid the source is."

TRhit You're just an unredeemable "hater" & you'll never give me credit for anything I say because I won't tell you who I am. Like a spoiled little child who just keeps calling another child names until you get your way.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by itsinthegame:
Chill,

"It is an interesting point.
Again - I say this with no disrespect intended - but the phenomenon of agent's squeezing every last penny out of the professional clubs (in the name of "taking care of the client) seems to be changing a bit."

I wasn't trying to advocate "squeezing every last penny out of the professional clubs". All I was trying to point out was that an Agent who had more experience/ability would have done a better job of structuring the deal and netted more money for his client without increasing the amount paid by the team by a single penny.

"Perhaps the difference between 75 million and an "unhappy" marriage versus 72 million and a happy marriage is worth something after all."

Not to nit pick but the number was $42 million. However, I agree about keeping the "happy marriage" part of a players career. I have ALWAYS emphasized that since day 1 of my career. The reality is no matter how great the player, the name is only stitched on the back of jersey & the team can stich a different name there whenever they want.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bbscout:

"Don't get me wrong, I am really just trying to compare Halladay to what he may have recieved in the same position about two years ago. The $42 mill he recieved now may have been $65 mill a couple of years ago. He, after all is a much better pitcher than Park or Driefort. Smile"

Agreed 100%. Still wondering what's in the pictures Boras has of Tom Hicks to get the money he did for Chan Hopeless.

"My thinking is that baseball right now is like the real estate market. It goes up over the long haul, but at the present time there are too many houses for sale and not enough buyers."

Like the Real Estate market, the demand is always high for premium properties. A "correction" has been going on for many years in Baseball & you don't see as many mediocre Jose Offerman type players getting 5 year guaranteed deals. But as was the case from the beginning of the game, the great players, ARod, Clemens, Delgado, Martinez, Jeter, Prior etc. will ALWAYS get big money.
VC

the 4% was bandied about in the discussions--now the number used is 5%

I never said you used it because in essences we know nothing about you

My second paragraph was to BIGHIT not you

Take umbrage all you want but off of what I see here it will be some other agent I recommend if asked. You may be helping others but you have not shown me a thing

I am not a hater but more of "show me " guy--you have shown me nothing yet except for a lot of cut and paste , "quotes" and then your opinion which follows. How can I give one credit if I do not know who he is--you have shown ME nothing original or outstanding

JMO

TRhit
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TRhit:
VC

"the 4% was bandied about in the discussions--now the number used is 5%"

I cited the exact quote in my post but apparently that isn't good enough for you.

"I never said you used it because in essences we know nothing about you"

Telling you about me isn't why I came here. I came here to exchange opinions & information.

"My second paragraph was to BIGHIT not you"

Ooohh sorry I didn't realize you were speaking in secret.

"Take umbrage all you want but off of what I see here it will be some other agent I recommend if asked."

I've done pretty well so far without your coveted recommendation. Don't want or need your help.

"You may be helping others but you have not shown me a thing"

As I said above, don't care, not here to "show" you anything.

"you have shown me nothing yet except for a lot of cut and paste , "quotes""

Yeah, I've tried to establish my opinions by furnishing quotes from objective sources rather than saying it's true because I say so. Sorry if the thinking makes your head hurt. I'll try not to confuse you with the facts or use too many big words.

And my Daddy can beat up your Daddy. Nyah, nyah, nyah.
Voodoo and bbscout,

The real estate analogy is an interesting one.

There are some significant differences however IMO. With "true" premium properties - the supply is actually quite limited. (i.e. You wont see many new premium properties built in mid-town Manhattan in the next 50 years).

In baseball - there is always a new supply - every year as you both well know.

There will always be a demand for premium players - and rightfully they will get the most money. The real question IMO - is what the inflation adjusted levels of salaries will be - lets say over the next 10 years - as compared to the prior ten. That will be very interesting to watch.

Note: The real estate market for premium properties has still not recovered to similar price levels from the late 1980's bubble. My guess is that baseball will see a similar - albeit less dramatic and severe - adjustment.

Just my opinion. Interesting analogy IMO.
VC,
I'm enjoying your info, but have to interject that I find your posting style VERY difficult to read. Is it possible for you to just post a sentence or two rather than the whole passage to which your're responding. I never know where your response begins or ends and have a total headache by the time I'm done w/ the thread 14

And, I feel the need to stand up for TRhit. He's a longstanding member of this site and is very helpful and respected. He's asked you to identify yourself, and you've declined. Certainly within your rights, however as you're telling him to "grow up"....you might want to turn that finger around to point at yourself.

_______________________
"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring." Rogers Hornsby, Hall of Famer
Paul, I don't know much about east coast real estate, but the prices in California are sky high. The premium properties on the beach in Santa Monica and Malibu range from about 3 mill to 20 mill and are going for about 4-5 times what they sold for in the 80's. Our home has gone from about 100 K in 1988 to over 500 K today.

As for players, there is always a demand for premium players, but the question is "how much money"? Will it be $20 mill for the top guys, or might it be around 10-12 mill. Vlad was the top guy available this year and he did not get Manny or A-Rod money.
Doug,

The Malibu stuff equates to about a 6.5% increase per year over the last 25 years - not exactly earth shattering - but I wish I owned some LOL.

The properties (and market) I spoke of in the analogy were interesting to me because of the parallels you can see developing in MLB IMO.

Not residential premium properties - there are a ton of those all over the US.
I was referring to premium buildings (buildings that sold for huge sums of money - $1 billion plus) in the late 1980's. (The Japanese bought alot of this stuff - and got hammered.)

Cutting to the chase - I think you will see - on an inflation adjusted basis - a very significant decline in MLB salaries in the coming years - relative to where they were just 5 or so years ago. I see this as just about inevitable at this point.

Sorry for the boring business angle - but I find it very interesting - and I think many agents are well aware of this as well. Either way - it is fun to watch the market evolve IMO.

Example: A guy that got $20M (lump sum for this example) 5 years ago - would need to get approx. $25M - just to stay even with inflation (call it 4% per year). I just dont see that happening - and that is for the "premium" guys. The rest of the "non-premium" players have no chance at keeping up with 1990's prior levels IMO.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bbscout:
"Vlad was the top guy available this year and he did not get Manny or A-Rod money."

He shouldn't have gotten Manny or ARod $$$ because:

1) His back is uninsureable.

2) Isn't the presence in the community that ARod is i.e. can't use Vlad in TV ads to sell tickets, send him to banquets etc.

3)Hasn't had the career they've had. Check the numbers.

In a couple of years Arte Moreno(Angels new owner) will either look like a genius for signing Guerrero & Colon or he'll have the new version of Mo Vaughan & Wilson Alvarez to the tune of $25 million/year.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by itsinthegame:
"Cutting to the chase - I think you will see - on an inflation adjusted basis - a very significant decline in MLB salaries in the coming years - relative to where they were just 5 or so years ago. I see this as just about inevitable at this point."

Salaries are a function of revenue. If the teams make less money, the players will be paid less if they make more, the players will be paid more. The dramatic escalation in '00 was fueled primarily by the increase in the National TV rights deal MLB signed. If those numbers continue to rise so will salaries.
Whether it meets or beats inflation, who knows.


There are some pretty good players who'll be Free Agents next year Carlos Delgado, Eric Chavez, Carlos Beltran etc.. Let's see what they end up getting.

Voodoo,

I'm talking about average salaries - not specific individuals.

Interesting info: last 5 years

2003 - 15 teams reduced average salary. Most in last 6 years.

Salary increases for all MLB since 1998

1999 - 15%
2000 - 17.4%
2001 - 13.4%
2002 - 7.4%
2003 - 3.3%

The money just isnt there - and the competition from non-US players is heating up.

Will be interesting to watch.
Voodoochile, Actually, Ramirez and Guerrero have had very similar numbers.

Through age 27 Guerrero has a .323 BA, 234 HR's, 226 2B's, 702 RBI, 123 SB's,.390 OBP, and a .588 Slug. Pct.

Ramierez at the same age had a .307 BA, 198 HR's, 213 2B's, 682 RBI, 27 SB's, .390 OBP, and a .577 Slug pct.

Similar in offensive talent, with the edge to Guerrero in speed and arm. The edge goes to Ramirez by about $90 Million in cash. Smile
[QUOTE]Originally posted by itsinthegame:
"I'm talking about average salaries - not specific individuals."

Don't know where you're getting your info but according to the numbers used by both MLB & MLBPA Average salary for the last 5 years has been:
03 - $2,372,189
02 - $2,295,649
01 - $2,138,896
00 - $1,895,630
99 - $1,611,166

"The money just isnt there"

Sure it is. What isn't there is the competition between teams for each others players. I'm sure that's a total coincidence though.

"and the competition from non-US players is heating up."

Don't understand your point. No matter where a player comes from, his salary counts toward MLB averages.

"Will be interesting to watch."

Agreed. At the very least interesting... & hopefully lucrative.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bbscout:
"Voodoochile, Actually, Ramirez and Guerrero have had very similar numbers."

Their career numbers are similar. However in their "platform" years Ramirez led in HR's 38/25, RBI's 122/79, BA .351/.330, OBP .457/.426, SLG .697/.586 but most important of all days on the DL 0/46 with a disc problem in his back making him uninsureable.
Voodoo,

Those are almost exactly the numbers I have from the MLBPA - and the %'s decreases I cited are correct. I'm confused by your post.

Year to year increases have declined from an approx. 15% annual rate (1998-1999) to about 3% this last year. They have declined for 4 years in a row now.

That is no coincidence IMO.

As for the foreign player impact - With the influx of quality foreign players - in addition to the steady supply of homegrown quality players - there is simply more to choose from. That is most likely why the "demand" competition has lessened.

Either way - it sure is lucrative for all who make it to that level.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by itsinthegame:
Voodoo,

"Those are almost exactly the numbers I have from the MLBPA - and the %'s decreases I cited are correct. I'm confused by your post."


Guess I'm getting old quicker than I thought. I misunderstood what you were referring to. You're right the % of increase has decreased. However, the numbers still ain't bad. the real problem is with median salary. that had declined steadily with the bigger $$$ the star players are getting but that's who sells the tickets.
Voodoo;

Interesting topic. Just a couple of questions for you - I believe Halladay had 2 years left before he was a free agent. He was asking approx. $9 mill in arbitration, Jays offering 6. They backloaded it because the Jays are under a self-imposed salary cap, and with Delgado's salary gone next year these numbers fit for the team - I assume that's why there is no signing bonus here either. I thought Halladay was represented by the Hendricks', I assume Landry works for them? Wouldn't they have looked over the numbers?

"Give 'im the stinky cheese"
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CANADIANLEFTY:
Voodoo;

"I believe Halladay had 2 years left before he was a free agent."

True he would have been a Free Agent after the '05 season.

"They backloaded it because the Jays are under a self-imposed salary cap"

Right I understand the backloading aspect. However my point was that he should have gotten $$$ in a Signing Bonus even if he spread it out or backloaded the Signing Bonus.

"with Delgado's salary gone next year"

Wouldn't bet the farm on that. First of all he likes it in Toronto & would rather stay there if they show any commitment to fielding a championship caliber team, Second they are saying they'd like to keep him, Third how do they push out the door their All-Time leader in EVERY meaningful offensive category for nothing in return? They might increase their payroll $4 - $6 million & pay Delgado what he's worth or dump Hinske's contract so they can keep Carlos & stay under their budget.

"I thought Halladay was represented by the Hendricks'"

He was with Randy & Alan until they left SFX & went back on their own. For whatever reason, he chose Landry & SFX over the Hendricks'. He'll be paying for that mistake for the next 4 years.
Voodoo

It depends on who you listen to.
The sentiment appears to be 50/50 with regard to
whether he will stay or go...

The committment to fielding a championship team was apparent with this season's splits with Boston and New York, wasn't it?

I have personally heard both scenario's suggested.

______________________________
By the time you learn how to play the game...
You can't play it anymore ~ Frank Howard
Voodoo;

Thanks for the info. I think his contract isn't too bad if you look at the fact he doesn't have to go through arbitration this year or next, and he's being paid what he's worth for '06 and '07. However, I understand your point about the signing bonus, especially tax-wise - just makes no sense not to have it.

As far as Delgado, I was referring to his current deal being off the books, which is way out of whack for these times-so maybe they can re-sign him for $10 million or so next year, and stay in their "budget". Or maybe Ted Rogers will spend some of his $, instead of crying poor. Delgado isn't as well-respected by fans here as some former Jays, despite his numbers, most likely because they have been a poor to average team the last 10 years.

"Give 'im the stinky cheese"
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chill:
Voodoo

"The committment to fielding a championship team was apparent with this season's splits with Boston and New York, wasn't it?"

Commitment from ownership? Check the standings from last June. At that point the J's had a better record than the Marlins & their owner spent NADA to improve that team, in fact they dumped Shannon Stewart's salary for next to nothing just to field a cheaper team, not a better team.

The Marlins on the other hand picked up Helling, Conine & Urbina. That's the commitment I'm talking about.
"Delgado isn't as well-respected by fans here as some former Jays, despite his numbers, most likely because they have been a poor to average team the last 10 years."

Poor choice by J's fans. He's a much better player than anyone they've had befor. The numbers don't lie. If anything he should be credited for doing so well on poor teams as well as taking less money to stay in Toronto in 2000 than he would have gotten as a Free Agent.

The chances of him staying for $10 million are as good as you being elected Miss Ontario.
quote:
Originally posted by itsinthegame:
Voodoo,

Re: Your point about median decrease.

Do you see a realistic potential for a widening of the "haves and have-nots" mentality in the compensation game for individual players over the next few years?


I think it's almost unavoidable.
VooDoo

Please bear with me:
I am trying to understand the difference in club philosophy...
Two teams with limited payroll.
The Marlins went out and got who you mentioned and now they are without:
Pudge
Lee
Redman

The Jays need pitching to go along with their 2nd highest team BA.....They picked up Lilly, Hentgen and Batista.

Delgado is 31 and has trouble with his knees
<darn astroturf>
If he can perform at his current production rate throughout a new contract term - great.
If not...doesn't the team suffer a competitive disadvantage...reducing the long-term flexibility of acquiring "right-now" needs?
How long do you extend him?
Are the Jays trying to get away from spending a huge % of total payroll on a few players?
He has a no-trade clause...Does that mean he would be wiling to take a hit to stay?
Do you pay him top dollar to DH?
Are the suggestions of Hinske being introduced to 1st troubling for Delgado?
Since the Jays evaluate players based on the 27 yr age being a measuring tool...how does that help/hurt him?

If you can shed some light.....

______________________________
By the time you learn how to play the game...
You can't play it anymore ~ Frank Howard
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chill:
VooDoo

"Two teams with limited payroll.
The Marlins went out and got who you mentioned and now they are without:
Pudge
Lee
Redman"

Agreed. However there was that whole World Series thing.

"Delgado is 31 and has trouble with his knees
<darn astroturf>
If he can perform at his current production rate throughout a new contract term - great."

Based on his recent production & most important, his character & work ethic, I see no reason to expect a precipitous decline in performance.

"How long do you extend him?"

3-5 years IMO.

"Are the Jays trying to get away from spending a huge % of total payroll on a few players?"

Honestly, I think they're just trying to field the cheapest 3rd place team they can until their prospects develop... IF they develop.

"He has a no-trade clause...Does that mean he would be wiling to take a hit to stay?"

I doubt it. Why should he? He's produced at the top level of MLB, shouldn't he deserve to be paid the same way?

"Do you pay him top dollar to DH?"

Don't agree that he'll just DH. He'll continue to be adequate @ 1B. Would you rather have JT Snow's defense & his 51 RBI's?

"Are the suggestions of Hinske being introduced to 1st troubling for Delgado?"

Can't compare the two players. Hinske has only had 1 good year. J's are better off with Delgado & dumping Hinske if they're too cheap to increase the budget.

"Since the Jays evaluate players based on the 27 yr age being a measuring tool...how does that help/hurt him?"

Rules are made to be broken. If 27 was the end, how do you account for Bonds? Clemens? etc.
quote:
Originally posted by voodoochile:


The chances of him staying for $10 million are as good as you being elected Miss Ontario.


lol... thanks alot! Frown

What do you think he would get for 3-4 years in today's market? Right now he's being paid approx 1/3 of the payroll.

"Give 'im the stinky cheese"
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CANADIANLEFTY:

"What do you think he would get for 3-4 years in today's market? Right now he's being paid approx 1/3 of the payroll."

Considering Guerrero got 5 years @ $14 million/year & Delgado has better numbers, doesn't have an uninsureable bad back, is a better presence in the community etc. my guess is he'll be able to get 3-4 years @ what he's currently making $18.5 million.
I would be floored if he gets
that kind of money, especially
from the Jays. He has said before
he has the money and now it's time to win.
We will have to wait and see.

______________________________
By the time you learn how to play the game...
You can't play it anymore ~ Frank Howard

VooDoo

I am light on my feet
or as my husband says: "light in the loafers"
Who was the GM who made that last deal with
Carlos?

______________________________
By the time you learn how to play the game...
You can't play it anymore ~ Frank Howard
quote:
Originally posted by Chill:
VooDoo

"Who was the GM who made that last deal with
Carlos?"

Gord Ash(currently Asst. G.M. in Milwaukee) was the GM @ the time.

______________________________
By the time you learn how to play the game...
You can't play it anymore ~ Frank Howard
quote:
Originally posted by MrOctober:
voOdoo,

Do you know where I can find the signing bonuses for rounds 10-20 from years past? I've found 1-10, but am missing those. Any help would be appreciated.


Only source I can think of is Baseball America. I believe they've published a draft almanac which may have the info you're looking for.
quote:
Originally posted by baseonballs50:
VC,
I am curious as to why/how you know so much about Delgado.


I have to confess. I am his secret love child from an ilicit relationship with Barbara Bush during Spring Training many years ago.

My half Brother in the White House refuses to acknowledge me so I take out my frustration posting on different internet sites.

Only you know this so please keep it between us.
voodoo,

How many years of experience do you have in the agent business as it relates to the draft?

Also, based on your experience, are some clubs better/worse as far as negotiations go for a draft pick?

Lastly, what type of work do you do prior to the draft as far as trying to improve a player of your's standing? Just curious.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MrOctober:
voodoo,

"How many years of experience do you have in the agent business as it relates to the draft?"

>20

"Also, based on your experience, are some clubs better/worse as far as negotiations go for a draft pick?"

Yes some teams will make more of an effort to get players signed reasonably quick for "market value" & into rookie league. Other teams will wait to see the direction of the market & react to it not wanting to "set the bar". Still others will flat out say that another team would give a player "x" dollars to sign but our organization doesn't have those kind of dollars to work with.

"Lastly, what type of work do you do prior to the draft as far as trying to improve a player of your's standing? Just curious."

Taking for granted you're talking about a premium player, my goal is to try to get him to the team with the best player development program. For a player who is a mid-level pick, there isn't much I can do other than inform their family what their options are & what not to say to scouts, cross checkers etc.

Bear in mind, as I've stated in previous posts, it is my firm belief that the most important aspect of the draft is to end up with a team that has a good player development program. Same as if you're kid is a potential Dr., you'd want him to go to a college with a good track record of producing graduates that go to good Med. Schools.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bee:
vodoo - what's your take on the Royals & how they handled their picks last yr after the first few rounds, the effect it had last yr, this yr and in the future??

It showed that the Royals priorities had changed from building the best Minor League system to building the best that fit their budget which was slashed by ownership right before the draft.
What will the commissioners office present for this years slotted amounts? Will they have an increase over last year, stay the same, or decrease? If adjusted upward what % increase will it be and if moved down what justification could be presented?
quote:
Originally posted by PCX:
What will the commissioners office present for this years slotted amounts? Will they have an increase over last year, stay the same, or decrease? If adjusted upward what % increase will it be and if moved down what justification could be presented?


They will try to continue the trend of Bonuses decreasing. If it were up to Kenesaw "Molehill" Selig, you would have to pay for the privilege of playing professional baseball.
quote:
Originally posted by itsinthegame:
voodoo,

Would love to hear your take on the Mets wonderful winter adventure.


Short answer...Think their Major League team has improved(that's not setting the bar high). Still won't contend though.

Their Minor League/Player Development system is still a black hole.

Bottom line, if it were my kid, I'd rather see him drafted by another organization.
Voodoochile
While we are asking, could you comment on the most publicized trade that never happened? Is the Manny for Arod trade dead and buried, or merely in a deep sleep? It appeared that Gene Orza/Tom Hicks/Larry L. killed the deal. I can't tell who is mostly responsible. Inquiring Red Sox fans wanna know.
quote:
Originally posted by Dad04:
Voodoochile
While we are asking, could you comment on the most publicized trade that never happened? Is the Manny for Arod trade dead and buried, or merely in a deep sleep? It appeared that Gene Orza/Tom Hicks/Larry L. killed the deal. I can't tell who is mostly responsible. Inquiring Red Sox fans wanna know.


Strictly my 2 centavos:
1)Think Manny & ARod got the contracts they & their Agents asked for... nobody forced them to sign so they should shut up & honor their deals. If the "shoe was on the other foot" & the team had tried to change the terms & conditions, they would have howled like a scalded dog.

2) Think/hope the deal is dead as it is a distraction to all players on both teams. Eventually, they have to play Baseball so the less said the better.

3)The MLBPA opposed the deal out of concern that it would result in NFL type deals where players are signed to deals & then coerced into lowering their salaries so they don't get cut. Granted MLB deals are guaranteed but the MLB according to what their reps told me considers this a "slippery slope" situation.
Thanks Chill, Forwarded it to someone with interest. Wink



"There is among us a far closer relationship than the purely social one of a fraternal organization because we are bound together not only by a single interest but by a common goal. To win. Nothing else matters, and nothing else will do." Sandy Koufax


Chill
The Hamms, uh I mean the Garciapopups, I mean Nomar and Maria are a cute couple. Phat ride! I guess he was unloading his latest Ebay winners.

I hope he can come all the way back and use the attemped trade as motivation for a MVP year. Manny is Manny. He's lucky keep tracks of the outs. But he mashed in the playoffs.

With Schill backing up Pedro and Lowe, if Foulke can keep it going they will be very tough against the Stankys, home & away, who are slowly fading back to the Chili Davis era.

I wake each day and ask that they return to the Bobby Mercer years, but know that the Red Sox only judge their success by whether they finish ahead of the NYers. So if they go back to the late 60's, the Sox will naturally retreat too.

The rivalry lives and is good for the game. Its our turn at the buffet table.

Jeff Nelson and Karim Garcia go on trial soon. I hope they get life.



http://www.ragincajuns.com/Baseball/baseball.htm
Dad

I agree...
Very cute couple and I have always
cheered for Nomah (well...almost always)
Being a Schilling lover, I would argue
with your statement that he would ever "back-up" Lowe.
But I am willing to share the buffet table.
Todays Herald has a great article about Trot and the Globe has a great article called
He's Just Schillin'......
If the Sox continue to do good things, Who knows? Maybe I'm a year away from seeing the light?

BTW...The classy bullpen attendant is still in a neckbrace... duel
Help me out with that one....Brother!

______________________________
By the time you learn how to play the game...
You can't play it anymore ~ Frank Howard

Dad

I am sure you have heard about the book coming out in May:
Chasing Steinbrenner: Pursuing the Pennant in Boston and Toronto.

The most storied rivalry in baseball is the Yankees and the Red Sox, despite what often seems like an annual exercise in disappointment in New England. Despite having a comparatively brief and less operatic history of losing to the Bronx Bombers than do the Sox, the Blue Jays were once the team to beat in the American League East. Now Boston and Toronto are again gunning for the top, led by a pair of young general managers. Theo Epstein of the Red Sox and J. P. Ricciardi of the Blue Jays represent a new generation of general managers, weaned on two decades of baseball analysis that started with the groundbreaking work of Bill James and Pete Palmer.

You will have to allow me to buy 2 copies...One for you and one for me...To prove that the
"enemy" isn't so bad afterall 08

______________________________
By the time you learn how to play the game...
You can't play it anymore ~ Frank Howard
I just cant help it - whenever I see stuff about the Red Sox and the Yankees I think:

"MOOKIE and Buckner".
I'm sorry - it is now an involuntary reponse.
LOL

P.S. I hope the Red Sox and the Yankees both lose about 120 each - and "Marvelous" Marv Throneberry gets into the Hall of Fame some day. Wink

Chill
I was not aware of the book. I look forward to it, but I still can't tell who Your team is. The way you like it. I thought you were from NH and if so, I am guessing the local Yankee fan club is very exclusive.

I started going to Fenway at 11 and will never forget making our way through big city as a kid walking up the first base side runway on a crisp June day and seeing the perfect green grass framed by the Kelly green stadium, the varnished wood box seats, the shiny brass seat numbers, the perfect blue sky, Yaz throwing the ball oh, about 600 feet in warm-ups and my dad getting two foul balls in the 1st row behind first base.

One for me and the second for another boy...we met that day.

Paul,
The only way the Sox will lose 120 anytime soon is if Bud "Lite" mandates a swap for the Brewers and he drops the payroll to $30M in Beantown.

Best of luck to your son and his team this spring. May they exceed others lofty expectations. Enjoy! Smile

http://www.ragincajuns.com/Baseball/baseball.htm
quote:
Originally posted by Dad04:
Voodoo

quote:
laissez le bon temps roulez


Tres Bien! I'm sure he will when he gets there and that's what I'm worried about. Wink

We're going, me for the first time, next weekend for opening day. Cool

http://www.ragincajuns.com/Baseball/baseball.htm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You've got to be on him like ugly on an ape re: classes. A player making progress to a degree has more leverage than one on the verge of being ineligible AND there's more to life than Baseball.

Even if he plays in the Majors, he'll live 40 years after he's done. It's a long empty time if you have no other interests, skills or abilities.

BON CHANCE!

Voodoo
Well said. He has always made sure his academics came first. In that we're blessed. That's how he earned an out-of-state tuition waver, freeing up scholly cash for the team.

Will it hold up? He has as good a chance as any. He knows better and treasures the opportunity at hand.

quote:
It's a long empty time if you have no other intersts, skills or abilities.


Man cannot live by baseball alone.

http://www.ragincajuns.com/Baseball/baseball.htm
quote:
Originally posted by TRhit:
Sign with an agent during HS or College prior to the draft and you lose your eligibility

TRhit


Can you name ANY I repeat ANY players the NCAA has denied eligibility to? NO because it hasn't happened.

The players deemed to be in violation of the NCAA rules have been suspended for approximately 10% of their games in only the first season after they were caught.

Most recent example, Jeremy Sowers had to sit out 6 games his Freshman year out of the 60 Vandebilt played that year.
VC

It would appear that you are condoning signing with an agent before the draft and then go fight the NCAA if you decide not to sign

As I said before YOU will never sit down with one of my players--I do not appreciate your "ethics"

TRhit
quote:
Originally posted by MrOctober:
vc,

By when do high school and college players begin signing with agents? Do they sign right before the draft, or months earlier?


To play the "NCAA game" you have to call them "Advisors". It's ridiculous but it's easier than going to court to fight them on it.

Anyway, it depends on the Player. I've known cases of Players committing to an "Advisor" as early as the July before their Senior year of HS. Most have decided before the start of their Sr. season.

As far as college Players, most of them who were drafted had "Advisors" out of HS & many stay with them for the draft after their Jr. year.

The Players who either weren't drafted at all or weren't drafted high enough to warrant using an "Advisor" go through the whole process like the HS kids & many agree with an "Advisor" the summer before their Jr. year.
quote:
Originally posted by TRhit:
VC

It would appear that you are condoning signing with an agent before the draft and then go fight the NCAA if you decide not to sign

As I said before YOU will never sit down with one of my players--I do not appreciate your "ethics"

TRhit


I'm devastated beyond description.
VC

I am sure you are

I live by my ethics you live by yours

What troubles me is that agents have enough trouble getting respect and you come on here and post that players should break the rules--- doesnt that tell me something about you as a person?

TRhit
quote:
Originally posted by TRhit:
VC

I am sure you are

I live by my ethics you live by yours

What troubles me is that agents have enough trouble getting respect and you come on here and post that players should break the rules--- doesnt that tell me something about you as a person?

TRhit


The rule is ridiculous, wouldn't stand up in court as it is "restraint of trade".

Quite frankly, don't care what troubles you...I'm not a Shrink. I didn't post here for your approval. Would probably be more disappointed if I got it.
VC

I am not here to give approval or disapproval on your thoughts. I am more concerned with people making a mistake that can cost them dearly

You still are advocating that kids break a rule-- it is not a matter of whether the rule is right or wrong--that is a debate for another time and place--the fact is that it exists and you are telling people to break that rule because you say it is "ridiculous"--the NCAA does not see it that way and they happen to have the "HAMMER"

We have guys around here who are calling themselves "agents" and asking 15 and 16 year old kids in HS to sign "contracts" and telling them they can get drafted by this or that MLB team .

There are people out there being taken advantage of without knowing the ramifications of their actions.

You may be the best darned agent in the world but you are off base, at least in my mind, directing kids to break the rules that are in existence.

TRhit
quote:
Originally posted by TRhit:
VC

I am not here to give approval or disapproval on your thoughts. I am more concerned with people making a mistake that can cost them dearly

You still are advocating that kids break a rule-- it is not a matter of whether the rule is right or wrong--that is a debate for another time and place--the fact is that it exists and you are telling people to break that rule because you say it is "ridiculous"--the NCAA does not see it that way and they happen to have the "HAMMER"

We have guys around here who are calling themselves "agents" and asking 15 and 16 year old kids in HS to sign "contracts" and telling them they can get drafted by this or that MLB team .

There are people out there being taken advantage of without knowing the ramifications of their actions.

You may be the best darned agent in the world but you are off base, at least in my mind, directing kids to break the rules that are in existence.

TRhit


OK TR let's play it your way because you may be the best darned TRhitter in the world. All you Parents & Players, don't even talk to an Agent until you/your Son have signed his/your first professional contract. That way you will violate NONE of the sacred NCAA rules.

Be prepared however, to sign for about 50% of what you're really worth because that's what would happen if teams knew they wouldn't have to deal with Agents on draft choice contracts.

Just like the "good old days" TR before drafted players used Agents. Remember when Jeff Burroughs was the #1 pick in the draft? He signed for a whopping $80,000. He was MVP of the American League where he was finally paid what he was worth BECAUSE of the work of #1 Marvin Miller & #2 Jeff's Agent.

How much do you think he worried about the NCAA when his Son Sean was drafted #1 by the Padres?

There TR, now I hope you can sleep better tonight knowing that the uncorruptable NCAA can maintain it's hallowed, place in our society guarding the morals of our children while the NCAA makes BILLIONS of dollars exploiting them.
Welcome to the 21st century.
As much as ethics should play a role - the fact is ethics mean nothing to those "at the table".

If there is one marginal dollar to be made by challenging MLB and/or the NCAA - then you can bet your life that agents and lawyers will be all over this like flys on you know what.

Has nothing to do with ethics - or with what is best for the player. Has all to do with the opportunity to make incremental dollars for the decision makers IMO.
VC

I sleep well every night

What the NCAA is or is not in your eyes or my eyes matters not--it is the fact that they have the hammer and they have the rules

I never said I agree with it but I still say any agent instructing kids to break one rule is wrong ---it makes one wonder how many other rules they will have the player break.

TRhit
quote:
Originally posted by itsinthegame:
As much as ethics should play a role - the fact is ethics mean nothing to those "at the table".

If there is one marginal dollar to be made by challenging MLB and/or the NCAA - then you can bet your life that agents and lawyers will be all over this like flys on you know what.

Has nothing to do with ethics - or with what is best for the player. Has all to do with the opportunity to make incremental dollars for the decision makers IMO.


I take offense at you implying I would sacrifice the interests of my clients to make money for myself. My ethics are as sound as anyone that posts on this site & I ALWAYS inform my clients as to what is going on with ANY & EVERY aspect of their affairs in which I play a part.

In addition, I've been called many things in my life, but not stupid. Even if all I cared about was money, it would be world class stupid for me to sacrifice the interests of a client who potentially may pay me millions of dollars on a career worth of contracts for the small amount I get paid from their Signing Bonus when they're drafted.
Voodoo,

If that is the case - you should be commended and I applaud you. The opinion was not directed at you personally.

Unfortunately - my opinion about what is occurring on the business side of the sport remains unchanged.

I think - given your knowledge of the game and involvement in the game - you would be hard pressed to prove otherwise.

And you will be even more hard pressed to prove otherwise a year or two from now.

It's gonna be a "Lawsuits R Us" type of environment once the money gets flowing.

Tick tock.
Voodoo,

Sorry for the "cryptic" one-liners.

I think that once a "crack" appears in the stance taken by the NCAA (and MLB) - there will be a flood of situations - like Clarett.

If any of these anticpated situations result in a positive financial outcome for the athlete (and his agents/lawyers) - the flood will become a tidal wave.

I think it is just a matter of time before this occurs.

Additionally - and let me reiterate - I enjoy your posts - and the perspective they give. I also appreciate your responses. I find them all very interesting and hope you continue to offer your view.

The one thing I would say, however, is that the preface "in the best interest of my client" gets a bit old sometimes.
In many cases - that convenient preface doesnt really get to the heart of the issue IMO.

Like running over grandma because she was blocking your clients limo and he was gonna be late for a meeting. You know - "in the best interest of my client" we just had to run her over because my client would have been late.

I am curious - do you think that anyone on the business side of the table cares at all about the game anymore - or is it now purely 100% about the dollars?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by itsinthegame:
Voodoo,

"Sorry for the "cryptic" one-liners.

I think that once a "crack" appears in the stance taken by the NCAA (and MLB) - there will be a flood of situations - like Clarett.

If any of these anticpated situations result in a positive financial outcome for the athlete (and his agents/lawyers) - the flood will become a tidal wave.

I think it is just a matter of time before this occurs."

Can't speak to that issue. I wouldn't touch you touching Pro Football with you holding a 10 foot pole.

"Additionally - and let me reiterate - I enjoy your posts - and the perspective they give. I also appreciate your responses. I find them all very interesting and hope you continue to offer your view."

Well, if you insist.(LOL)

"Like running over grandma"

Never ran over any Grannies that I'm aware of.

"I am curious - do you think that anyone on the business side of the table cares at all about the game anymore - or is it now purely 100% about the dollars?"

Can only speak for myself on this issue. My clients don't hire me to worry about "the game" any more than you hire a lawyer to worry about "the legal system". I'm an advocate for my clients first & last.

I think you need to talk to masquerading Commisioner Kennesaw "Molehill" Selig about looking out for the game.
quote:
Originally posted by itsinthegame:
You answered all of my questions. On my behalf - and on behalf of all the grannies that dont have really good footspeed - I thank you. LOL

And thanks for the 10 foot thing too - I thought you were going to say at least 1,000 feet.
Wink


1)Check my post in the general section re:Speed training.
2)1,000 ft. poles tend to be difficult at best.
Its,

quote:
I am curious - do you think that anyone on the business side of the table cares at all about the game anymore - or is it now purely 100% about the dollars?



I just think that the reality of the situation is that managment is hired to wear 2 hats. One being to build a winning team(in some programs) and 2 to manage the money like a greedy mogul. The guys who wear both hats well do pretty well. Steinbrenner has the Luxury of buying what he needs to win and being baseball first. Most teams do not have that luxury. I have always admired George's "I need to win attitude".

If you don't have an agent at the table with the same motivation, then you are at a disadvantage. I find it disgusting when management comes out and makes comments about players during negotiations about not caring about the game, the fans, etc. e all know that guys like Boras go overboard. I also know that players need an advocate. JMO

the Florida Bombers
"I love the HSBBW"
Bighit,

I agree with you in most cases - but at the same time I also think it is refreshing to see some high profile players starting to put a value on things other than squeezing the last possible penny out of each organization. After all - we pay for it.

I hope that guys, like Schilling, multiply and prosper - although I am sure they will be attacked and villified by those in the agent community.
Bighit is correct. If you tell a team you love the game and you'll play for (almost) free, the team will not object. Loving and respecting the game, and earning a living at the game are not mutually exclusive. To the contrary they go hand in hand.

I don't think Schilling loves the game anymore than he used to just because he did not squeeze the Red Sox for a couple extra million per year. He's getting his cake and eating it too, as he should being one of the best in a profession, as is Pettitte. I think they are both getting around $10M per year.

Plenty of people are criticizing IRod for (maybe) signing with Detroit for $40M. Maybe they are competitive in 3 years. They have good young pitching. Maybe they turn it around.

The D-Rays will win more game this year, in spite of terrible ownership. Maybe Detroit can turn it with a few more bucks spent.

http://www.ragincajuns.com/Baseball/baseball.htm
Schilling said "Hey, we're talking about my childrens childrens childrens money now. I'm not going to fight over a few bucks", but is easier to say that if you have to do the squabling yourself with out an agent. JMO

Don't begrudge guys like Hampton his Rockies contract, I guess unless they stuck somewhere lame like ARod. Then again, I know of about a thousand shortstops that would swap spots with him though. There I go shootin' off at the key board again.

http://www.ragincajuns.com/Baseball/baseball.htm
quote:
I agree with you in most cases - but at the same time I also think it is refreshing to see some high profile players starting to put a value on things other than squeezing the last possible penny out of each organization. After all - we pay for it.



It would also be refreshing for a club to say "ya know, we know that you can command 14,000,000 dollars on the opend market. We are so grateful that you have been a good trooper, that we are gonna give you 16 mill".

The organization tries to squeeze every penny out of the players, fans, cable, advertisers, etc. Why would you apply one standard to the player and want him to be warm and fuzzy. Yet not apply that standard to the boss who is a business man and hording every dollar. I think that an agent is a needed entity for the protection of the player. Let us face it. There is little loyalty on either side. The agents did not do that. The players and owners did.

the Florida Bombers
"I love the HSBBW"
If players across the board agreed to a unilateral 25% reduction in their salaries, on average a roughly $15 million decrease, how much of that $15 million would go to lower ticket prices, media contracts, parking fees, popcorn, beer etc.? NOT ONE DIME.

Do you think the owners would match their 25% reduction by taking 25% less in their salaries or selling their teams for 25% less? HELL NO!

Bottom line the plyers are taking what they can get during their brief career. The owners are keeping what they can. HOORAY FOR CAPITALISM!
Big and VC,

I am sure that you can do "what ifs" from now until kingdom come to support your view - and rail against the owners as well. Owners would certainly be a tough bunch to defend. LOL

But I still admire what Schilling did. It was a refreshing change - as I stated before - and one that I am sure will not be appreciated by alot of folks in the rep. business.

A slightly different angle - The flip side of Capitalism: I can recall - 3 years in a row - one of the NBA teams I worked for - lost money - every year.
Every year - the salaries went up dramatically - and every year the ticket prices went up. And every year the cost of concessions went up. And they were locked into a long term television agreement - so virtually no added revenue there.
And every year - they lost money. Were the owners greedy in that case? Stupid maybe - but greedy? Shoot - they were holed up like rats in a corner. Pay the salaries - or watch your franchise fall apart. End of story.

Are we now to believe that salary levels do not affect the cost of viewership?

I do think players deserve whatever someone is willing to pay them - and I also think owners deserve to make a return on their investment. Pretty basic stuff.
But someone has to be paying for that stuff right? The money doesnt just materialize.

MY MAIN POINT:
If both owner and player can be satisfied (ala Schilling) without the middleman getting a piece - I'm all for it. That, also, is an example of Capitalism. Some would argue - at its most efficient.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by itsinthegame:
Big and VC,

"Owners would certainly be a tough bunch to defend."

But it's lucrative to do so. Just ask their Lawyers.

"But I still admire what Schilling did. It was a refreshing change - as I stated before - and one that I am sure will not be appreciated by alot of folks in the rep. business."

As previously stated my gripe with Schilling was the fact that he said he can do as good a job as an Agent...in a very public way so he could tell the world how great he was. Then he didn't do it. But knowing what I know about the guy, just getting to flex his ego on a national stage was worth millions to him so maybe in a weird way he broke even. Plus he did save that all important 5% he didn't pay an Agent.

"A slightly different angle - The flip side of Capitalism: I can recall - 3 years in a row - one of the NBA teams I worked for - lost money -every year.
Every year - the salaries went up dramatically -and every year the ticket prices went up. And every year the cost of concessions went up. And they were locked into a long term television agreement - so virtually no added revenue there.
And every year - they lost money. Were the owners greedy in that case? Stupid maybe - but greedy? Shoot - they were holed up like rats in a corner. Pay the salaries - or watch your franchise fall apart. End of story."

It's great when Pro franchises generate positive cash flow. However, the REAL money is in:
1) return on investment when the team is sold
2) the tax benefits of depreciation of equipment & contracts.
I don't think the owners of the NBA team you mentioned had to apply for welfare. AT WORST, they could always sell the team for what they paid for it, write the losses off against gains in their other businesses & cry all the way to the bank.

"Are we now to believe that salary levels do not affect the cost of viewership?"

Of course they do. The salaries of EVERYONE... including what they pay their children/wives/in-laws/ outlaws etc. who work for the teams they own, how much they pay themselves etc.

"MY MAIN POINT:
If both owner and player can be satisfied (ala Schilling) without the middleman getting a piece - I'm all for it. That, also, is an example of Capitalism. Some would argue - at its most efficient."

Yes, ownership has always been so fair to players. Certainly no reason to think that Players need the MLBPA & Agents any more.
Well there are not many "what ifs" to defend the owners, that is my point. The bone yard is littered with players who were duped into a feeling of loyalty to the teams.

If owners want a return on their investment, then they ought to be good business men.

quote:
Every year - the salaries went up dramatically - and every year the ticket prices went up. And every year the cost of concessions went up. And they were locked into a long term television agreement - so virtually no added revenue there.
And every year - they lost money. Were the owners greedy in that case? Stupid maybe - but greedy? Shoot - they were holed up like rats in a corner. Pay the salaries - or watch your franchise fall apart. End of story.



Well, can't blame the players because the owners are poor businessmen or bought a bad franchise. Most of these guys take their tax loses to their billion dollar companies anyway.

I appreciate what Shilling did also, I guess! If undermining an up and coming players abilitlity to baragain in the future is noble. Then he is noble. It is easy for him to be noble. He has all he could want. What about the next guy.

Let us not stick our head in the sand here. It is a tough business and it is about capitalism as well as sport. Maybe once upon a time it was great to be a total loyalist to a team. It sure was easier considering the players had no rights. Now it is just business. Sad but true. I wouldn't demonize either group, just TCB.

the Florida Bombers
"I love the HSBBW"
Guys,

Interesting perspectives IMO.

VC - The interesting part for me - was that I was part of the whole life cycle (purchase, operation and ultimate sale). You are absolutely right IMO - about where the money really is for owners.

Big - if I put my head in the sand for even one second - I would have been fired - immediately. LOL
VC,

As you know, and like Tom Hanks said, "there is no crying in the business world." LOL

Some win - some break even - and some get crushed.

And if their legs look anything (even remotely) like mine - I strongly suggest they stay away from shorts too. LOL

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×