Hudson to the Braves

[Opperman]

Got Proof?

825532551[/snapback]

Sorry, I lied...I've been saying 1895.

 

Let's try 1881 instead:

"Professional baseball is on the wane. Salaries must come down or the interest of the public must be increased in some way. If one or the other does not happen, bankruptcy stares every team in the face." --Albert Spalding

 

That's one example. I don't have any of Spalding's books handy, so I'm not digging for other quotes tonight.

[wneely]

Hudson going to Braves means Braves win one more game in the postseason perhaps, but still probably don't even make it out of the NLDS. They don't even come close to making it to the World Series, especially with that so-called "outfield" they have now.

[gotmilk?]

Sorry, I lied...I've been saying 1895.

 

Let's try 1881 instead:

"Professional baseball is on the wane. Salaries must come down or the interest of the public must be increased in some way. If one or the other does not happen, bankruptcy stares every team in the face." --Albert Spalding

 

That's one example.  I don't have any of Spalding's books handy, so I'm not digging for other quotes tonight.

825533906[/snapback]

 

Please show me somewhere in that statement where it mentions loyalty? Athletes in general have always been over-paid we knew that, but players at least used to be loyal to their team!

[Opperman]

Please show me somewhere in that statement where it mentions loyalty? Athletes in general have always been over-paid we knew that, but players at least used to be loyal to their team!

825535674[/snapback]

 

If players were loyal, wouldn't they sign for less money? Spalding talked about loyalty too -- he was elected president of the NL right after the AL raided about four teams' worth of stars from the NL.

 

No, players haven't always been overpaid. They aren't overpaid now. At least not with record-setting attendance and revenues. Owners aren't going to turn money away, and I'd prefer to see my money go to Albert Pujols and Jim Edmonds, not Bill DeWitt.

 

I'm also guessing you don't know why players showed so much "loyalty" in years past. It's from, as a matter of fact, one of Al Spalding's rules: the reserve clause.

 

I can be more detailed if you want, but here's the gist of the reserve clause. The player signs a contract with the team as an amateur. The player then has no rights whatsoever except the right to go home. So if he wants to play organized baseball for a living, he will do it at whatever the owner is willing to pay him, or he can go home. No other choices. The reserve clause lasted into the early 80's before the famous Messersmith and McNally case where those two tried a technicality of the reserve clause in a court of law to try to become free agents.

 

The end result is what we have now, a limited reserve clause. The first three years of MLB service (there's one minor technicality), the players receive however much money the owner wants to give them. The fourth, fifth, and sixth seasons, the player and owner go to arbitration, where the arbitrator decides between two numbers based on what previous players at the same experience level made -- and contrary to what some people believe, the players are still paid less than they would get on the open market. After six full years of MLB service, a player can finally gain free agency and, therefore, make what he'd get on the open market. Some teams, Cleveland in the mid-90's and Oakland in the late-90's and early-whateverthisdecadeis's, decided to buy out the first couple of years of free agency in exchange for more cost certainty (i.e. sign an extension before the arbitration years hit), but even that is still below market value normally.

 

Anyway, all this to say three things. 1) Oakland warned you. 2) You've been brainwashed on "loyalty" in the past. If I locked my cats in a room with me, it isn't loyalty when the cats don't leave my room. 3) It's really easy to say other people are overpaid...would you turn down 8 figures to be "loyal" to a company that underpaid you for 6 years?

[gotmilk?]

If players were loyal, wouldn't they sign for less money?  Spalding talked about loyalty too -- he was elected president of the NL right after the AL raided about four teams' worth of stars from the NL.

 

No, players haven't always been overpaid.  They aren't overpaid now.  At least not with record-setting attendance and revenues.  Owners aren't going to turn money away, and I'd prefer to see my money go to Albert Pujols and Jim Edmonds, not Bill DeWitt.

 

I'm also guessing you don't know why players showed so much "loyalty" in years past.  It's from, as a matter of fact, one of Al Spalding's rules: the reserve clause.

 

I can be more detailed if you want, but here's the gist of the reserve clause.  The player signs a contract with the team as an amateur.  The player then has no rights whatsoever except the right to go home.  So if he wants to play organized baseball for a living, he will do it at whatever the owner is willing to pay him, or he can go home.  No other choices.  The reserve clause lasted into the early 80's before the famous Messersmith and McNally case where those two tried a technicality of the reserve clause in a court of law to try to become free agents.

 

The end result is what we have now, a limited reserve clause.  The first three years of MLB service (there's one minor technicality), the players receive however much money the owner wants to give them.  The fourth, fifth, and sixth seasons, the player and owner go to arbitration, where the arbitrator decides between two numbers based on what previous players at the same experience level made -- and contrary to what some people believe, the players are still paid less than they would get on the open market.  After six full years of MLB service, a player can finally gain free agency and, therefore, make what he'd get on the open market.  Some teams, Cleveland in the mid-90's and Oakland in the late-90's and early-whateverthisdecadeis's, decided to buy out the first couple of years of free agency in exchange for more cost certainty (i.e. sign an extension before the arbitration years hit), but even that is still below market value normally.

 

Anyway, all this to say three things.  1) Oakland warned you.  2) You've been brainwashed on "loyalty" in the past.  If I locked my cats in a room with me, it isn't loyalty when the cats don't leave my room.  3) It's really easy to say other people are overpaid...would you turn down 8 figures to be "loyal" to a company that underpaid you for 6 years?

825535943[/snapback]

 

Guess you are a big Latrell Sprewell fan huh? Can you not feed your family on $14 million dollars a year?

[Opperman]

Guess you are a big Latrell Sprewell fan huh? Can you not feed your family on $14 million dollars a year?

825537267[/snapback]

 

1) What does this have to do with Spree? 2) No, quite frankly I can't stand the punk. 3) Am I correct in believing that you don't have any argument with what I said and, therefore, am right? 4) Are you saying you would turn down an opportunity to make 7 or 8 figures more money?

[Guest Oakland]

Guess you are a big Latrell Sprewell fan huh? Can you not feed your family on $14 million dollars a year?

825537267[/snapback]

 

 

1) What does this have to do with Spree?  2) No, quite frankly I can't stand the punk.  3) Am I correct in believing that you don't have any argument with what I said and, therefore, am right?  4) Are you saying you would turn down an opportunity to make 7 or 8 figures more money?

825537348[/snapback]

 

hmmm i guess gotmilk? couldnt come up with anything better to say, told ya not doubt the opp man thumb

[gotmilk?]

3) It's really easy to say other people are overpaid...would you turn down 8 figures to be "loyal" to a company that underpaid you for 6 years?

825535943[/snapback]

 

Looks like you just made my argument for me, there is no loyalty in baseball! Thanks!

 

Oakland, I will admit when I am wrong, and I know I am not wrong on this subject! If Opperman is 85-90 years old and was able to have the ability to know what went on in baseball that long ago, I would say that he is right and I have no argument, but the loyalty factor is plain and clear, used too players wanted to play for one team and go down as one of the greats for that team, but now with free agency and revenue sharing and all the other junk that goes with it, teams are throwing players around and players will jump ship like it is nothing anymore! So "NO" I will never concede this argument, because all it takes is common sense to see the change in baseball over the years and i thought a 100% of people could tell you that, but apparently there are a few who have failed to see this?

[Opperman]

3) It's really easy to say other people are overpaid...would you turn down 8 figures to be "loyal" to a company that underpaid you for 6 years?

825535943[/snapback]

Looks like you just made my argument for me, there is no loyalty in baseball! Thanks!

825539219[/snapback]

 

Huh? You don't get it. WHY SHOULD THEY BE LOYAL? Teams aren't loyal to the players, so why should it work the other way around?

 

Oakland, I will admit when I am wrong, and I know I am not wrong on this subject! If Opperman is 85-90 years old and was able to have the ability to know what went on in baseball that long ago, I would say that he is right and I have no argument, but the loyalty factor is plain and clear, used too players wanted to play for one team and go down as one of the greats for that team, but now with free agency and revenue sharing and all the other junk that goes with it, teams are throwing players around and players will jump ship like it is nothing anymore! So "NO" I will never concede this argument, because all it takes is common sense to see the change in baseball over the years and i thought a 100% of people could tell you that, but apparently there are a few who have failed to see this?

825539219[/snapback]

 

The change is that the players aren't legally bound to one particular team. You didn't even BEGIN to answer my point that players COULD NOT CHANGE TEAMS. It's not loyalty if you don't have a choice.

 

What does my age have to do with anything? Or are you saying that history teachers are wasting their time with anything earlier than their birth?

 

The last time before free agency that the players had any choice, 47 of the 48 best players in baseball changed from the NL to the AL. That's really loyal.

 

The only reason players didn't change teams is because they COULDN'T. It's not loyalty to the prison when inmates don't leave.

 

You may not want to know about the history of the game, but not everyone wants to be ignorant and romanticize the past all day long.

Edited January 28, 2005 by Opperman

[muffin]

Looks like you just made my argument for me, there is no loyalty in baseball! Thanks!

825539219[/snapback]

 

Huh? You don't get it. WHY SHOULD THEY BE LOYAL? Teams aren't loyal to the players, so why should it work the other way around?

The change is that the players aren't legally bound to one particular team. You didn't even BEGIN to answer my point that players COULD NOT CHANGE TEAMS. It's not loyalty if you don't have a choice.

 

What does my age have to do with anything? Or are you saying that history teachers are wasting their time with anything earlier than their birth?

 

The last time before free agency that the players had any choice, 47 of the 48 best players in baseball changed from the NL to the AL. That's really loyal.

 

The only reason players didn't change teams is because they COULDN'T. It's not loyalty to the prison when inmates don't leave.

 

You may not want to know about the history of the game, but not everyone wants to be ignorant and romanticize the past all day long.

825540739[/snapback]

Makes me dislike the Braves even more.

[gotmilk?]

Looks like you just made my argument for me, there is no loyalty in baseball! Thanks!

825539219[/snapback]

 

Huh? You don't get it. WHY SHOULD THEY BE LOYAL? Teams aren't loyal to the players, so why should it work the other way around?

The change is that the players aren't legally bound to one particular team. You didn't even BEGIN to answer my point that players COULD NOT CHANGE TEAMS. It's not loyalty if you don't have a choice.

 

What does my age have to do with anything? Or are you saying that history teachers are wasting their time with anything earlier than their birth?

 

The last time before free agency that the players had any choice, 47 of the 48 best players in baseball changed from the NL to the AL. That's really loyal.

 

The only reason players didn't change teams is because they COULDN'T. It's not loyalty to the prison when inmates don't leave.

 

You may not want to know about the history of the game, but not everyone wants to be ignorant and romanticize the past all day long.

825540739[/snapback]

 

Learn your baseball history then we will talk, because mothing you have said make any sense and you have not showed one single bit of facts to prove your point!

[Guest Oakland]

Huh? You don't get it. WHY SHOULD THEY BE LOYAL? Teams aren't loyal to the players, so why should it work the other way around?

The change is that the players aren't legally bound to one particular team. You didn't even BEGIN to answer my point that players COULD NOT CHANGE TEAMS. It's not loyalty if you don't have a choice.

 

What does my age have to do with anything? Or are you saying that history teachers are wasting their time with anything earlier than their birth?

 

The last time before free agency that the players had any choice, 47 of the 48 best players in baseball changed from the NL to the AL. That's really loyal.

 

The only reason players didn't change teams is because they COULDN'T. It's not loyalty to the prison when inmates don't leave.

 

You may not want to know about the history of the game, but not everyone wants to be ignorant and romanticize the past all day long.

825540739[/snapback]

 

Learn your baseball history then we will talk, because mothing you have said make any sense and you have not showed one single bit of facts to prove your point!

825544219[/snapback]

 

lol, gotmilk you are too much. the opp man has probably forgotten more about baseball history than you know!