Trade Rickey Now!!!
Edward Tam
--
Well it's spring training time again and the smell of hot dogs and popcorn
is in the air. Ahhhh!! and there's also Rickey Henderson complaining about
his 3 million dollar contract. It seems to be a Spring Training ritual now
that Rickey complains about his multi-million contract not being enough.
Well, I'm just about fed up with his complaining and somebody should
really humble him. First of all 3 million dollars is a helluva lot of money!
Second of all he hasn't been playing up to par as of late. And lastly he
is already a millionaire what more does he want?!?!?!?!?! Somebody should
really take Rickey to a homeless shelter or to some ghetto to show him
how the real world is like! Wake up and smell the coffee Rickey there are
other people in the world other than you!! You should be happy with what
you already have! Either quit complaing or leave cause I'm sick of hearing
your whining about your contract!!!!
Edward Tam
Roger Lustig
> Well it's spring training time again and the smell of hot dogs and popcorn
>is in the air. Ahhhh!! and there's also Rickey Henderson complaining about
>his 3 million dollar contract. It seems to be a Spring Training ritual now
>that Rickey complains about his multi-million contract not being enough.
>Well, I'm just about fed up with his complaining and somebody should
>really humble him.
And I bet you're just the guy to do it. What makes *you* so great, er,
humble?
>First of all 3 million dollars is a helluva lot of money!
Not compared to what comparable players make. We're talking about
a market for players.
>Second of all he hasn't been playing up to par as of late.
I see. Being one of the top ten offensive players in the league,
even when missing a good deal of the season with injury -- this isn't
up to par? Perhaps you could point out all the better players.
>And lastly he
>is already a millionaire what more does he want?!?!?!?!?!
He probably wants to receive a salary commensurate with what other
players of his caliber get. The level of his salary was an aftereffect
of the owners' free-agent collusion; he signed right after that, before
the market had had time to adjust.
>Somebody should
>really take Rickey to a homeless shelter or to some ghetto to show him
>how the real world is like!
Where do you think he grew up? Not Beverly Hills.
Besides, are you telling me that if he didn't earn as much, the rest
of the money would go to a homeless shelter? Are you telling me
that he doesn't make large charitable contributions? (Ballplayers
tend to spend a rather large portion of their income on charity.)
Areyou telling me that if he earned more it would come out of the
pockets of the poor?
The issue is simply this: should Henderson get more money, or should
the owner of the A's get more money? Henderson, not the owner, is
the one who fills the stadium, who gets millions of people to change the
channel and watch the ballgame. Why *shouldn't* he get paid for that?
Do you complain about the salaries of other people? Rock stars?
Hollywood actors? Do they work as hard, and have such limited time
to make their money?
>Wake up and smell the coffee Rickey there are
>other people in the world other than you!!
What is this supposed to mean? Henderson's point is that he's paid
far less than others who do what he does. Why hold only him to this
standard?
>You should be happy with what you already have!
I'll give your boss a copy of this for your nextn performance review.
I'm sure you'll see things his way. After all, you don't *need* a new
car, or restaurant meals, or anything like that. You can be perfectly
happy with what you have. Money isn't everything, you know.
>Either quit complaing or leave cause I'm sick of hearing
>your whining about your contract!!!!
Bad news. You don't own the A's.
Roger
Mark Singer
>Ballplayers
>tend to spend a rather large portion of their income on charity.)
Is this just a generalization, or do you have any information on it?
I'm not trying to flame you. If anyone out there has any information
on any athletes in regard to what percentage of their income is donated
to charity, please post or email.
--
Mark Singer
m...@netcom.com
Mike Fester
>
>Not compared to what comparable players make. We're talking about
>a market for players.
And a signed contract.
>>And lastly he
>>is already a millionaire what more does he want?!?!?!?!?!
>He probably wants to receive a salary commensurate with what other
>players of his caliber get. The level of his salary was an aftereffect
>of the owners' free-agent collusion; he signed right after that, before
>the market had had time to adjust.
Pity that he and his agent were not smart enough to see that.
>>Somebody should
>>really take Rickey to a homeless shelter or to some ghetto to show him
>>how the real world is like!
>Where do you think he grew up? Not Beverly Hills.
>Besides, are you telling me that if he didn't earn as much, the rest
>of the money would go to a homeless shelter? Are you telling me
>that he doesn't make large charitable contributions? (Ballplayers
Not that any of this is relevant, but are you telling us he *does*?
>tend to spend a rather large portion of their income on charity.)
>Areyou telling me that if he earned more it would come out of the
>pockets of the poor?
???
>The issue is simply this: should Henderson get more money, or should
>the owner of the A's get more money? Henderson, not the owner, is
>the one who fills the stadium, who gets millions of people to change the
Henderson does all that? So, what did people do in Oakland before Rickey got
there? What will they do when he leaves? What about all those places where
Rickey does not play? How do they ever manage?
>channel and watch the ballgame. Why *shouldn't* he get paid for that?
How about: he looked at his situation several years ago. He thought about
what he wanted, and what he could get, he asked for, and got, salary and
terms that were wholely acceptable to him at the time. He became unhappy
only upon finding out the *HE* misjudged the market.
>Do you complain about the salaries of other people? Rock stars?
>Hollywood actors? Do they work as hard, and have such limited time
> to make their money?
Possibly. Still, it is difficult to see the relevance to rec.sport.baseball.
>>Wake up and smell the coffee Rickey there are
>>other people in the world other than you!!
>What is this supposed to mean? Henderson's point is that he's paid
>far less than others who do what he does. Why hold only him to this
>standard?
He signed a contract. No one forced him to do so.
>>You should be happy with what you already have!
>
>I'll give your boss a copy of this for your nextn performance review.
>I'm sure you'll see things his way. After all, you don't *need* a new
>car, or restaurant meals, or anything like that. You can be perfectly
>happy with what you have. Money isn't everything, you know.
No doubt, he will then compare it with the *signed contract on file*, right?
Oh, he doesn't HAVE a guaranteed contract?
>>Either quit complaing or leave cause I'm sick of hearing
>>your whining about your contract!!!!
>
>Bad news. You don't own the A's.
Neither do you.
Mike
--
Disclaimer - These opiini^H^H damn! ^H^H ^Q ^[ .... :w :q :wq :wq! ^d ^X ^?
exit X Q ^C ^? :quitbye CtrlAltDel ~~q :~q logout save/quit :!QUIT
^[zz ^[ZZZZZZ ^vi man vi ^@ ^L ^[c ^# ^E ^X ^I ^T ? help helpquit ^D ^d !!
man help ^C ^c :e! help exit ?Quit ?q CtrlShftDel "Hey, what does Stop L1A d..."
David Marc Nieporent
Drivel:
> Well it's spring training time again and the smell of hot dogs and popcorn
>is in the air. Ahhhh!! and there's also Rickey Henderson complaining about
>his 3 million dollar contract. It seems to be a Spring Training ritual now
>that Rickey complains about his multi-million contract not being enough.
>Well, I'm just about fed up with his complaining and somebody should
>really humble him. First of all 3 million dollars is a helluva lot of money!
So? So is $50,000. Should he accept that? I'm sure *you* give all
your money away to starving people.
>Second of all he hasn't been playing up to par as of late. And lastly he
What do you mean he hasn't been playing up to par as of late? When was this?
Does he have to be the best player in the league *every* year? Not too
many people can do that. I'd say being among the top 10 is good enough.
>is already a millionaire what more does he want?!?!?!?!?! Somebody should
Maybe he wants to be paid what he's worth?
>really take Rickey to a homeless shelter or to some ghetto to show him
>how the real world is like!
Hell, why not the Sudan, while you're at it? I'm sure Rickey Henderson
knows what growing up in a ghetto was like at least as much as you do.
And besides, what the *(&)( does this have to do with anything? No
matter what Rickey Henderson gets paid, the homeless shelter/ghetto
isn't going to be better off.
> Wake up and smell the coffee Rickey there are
>other people in the world other than you!!
So? What does this have to do with anything?
> You should be happy with what
>you already have!
Why? Are you never planning on asking for a raise? After all, no
matter what you make, it's more than 99% of the world's population.
Does that mean you're greedy if you want more?
> Either quit complaing or leave cause I'm sick of hearing
>your whining about your contract!!!!
So don't listen. *I'm* sick of hearing this complaint about Rickey Henderson.
That doesn't mean I spend all my time whining about it.
--
David M. Nieporent | "Only one thing wrong with theory...
niepornt@phoenix. | Is stupid! Is stupidest theory I ever heard!"
princeton.edu | ---------------------
Baltimore Orioles 93 | Who's the dangerous cult -- the BDs or the BATF?
Roger Lustig
>In article <1993Mar22....@Princeton.EDU> ro...@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>>First of all 3 million dollars is a helluva lot of money!
>>Not compared to what comparable players make. We're talking about
>>a market for players.
>And a signed contract.
One.
>Pity that he and his agent were not smart enough to see that.
There was nothing for them to see. As Tate et al. have pointed out,
this was a market distortion artificially induced by collusion, which
might well have made for a third arbitration case. They chose not to
do that, but it's hardly as though it were all their fault.
>>>Somebody should
>>>really take Rickey to a homeless shelter or to some ghetto to show him
>>>how the real world is like!
>>Where do you think he grew up? Not Beverly Hills.
>>Besides, are you telling me that if he didn't earn as much, the rest
>>of the money would go to a homeless shelter? Are you telling me
>>that he doesn't make large charitable contributions? (Ballplayers
>Not that any of this is relevant, but are you telling us he *does*?
I don't know that he does, nor is it my business. (See Maimonides.)
But many ballplayers *do* contribute heavily, certainly more than
the population at large.
>>tend to spend a rather large portion of their income on charity.)
>>Areyou telling me that if he earned more it would come out of the
>>pockets of the poor?
>???
What's so hard to understand? My point is that the poverty of those
who are poor is irrelevant to Henderson's earnings. They do not
suffer *because* he earns what he does.
>>The issue is simply this: should Henderson get more money, or should
>>the owner of the A's get more money? Henderson, not the owner, is
>>the one who fills the stadium, who gets millions of people to change the
>Henderson does all that? So, what did people do in Oakland before Rickey got
>there? What will they do when he leaves? What about all those places where
>Rickey does not play? How do they ever manage?
Oh, give it a rest. Henderson certainly contributes to the effort,
and it's not too much of a leap of the imagination to think that he
does more to attract people to the ballpark and the TV than some
middle reliever.
>>channel and watch the ballgame. Why *shouldn't* he get paid for that?
>How about: he looked at his situation several years ago. He thought about
>what he wanted, and what he could get, he asked for, and got, salary and
>terms that were wholely acceptable to him at the time. He became unhappy
>only upon finding out the *HE* misjudged the market.
Two.
>>Do you complain about the salaries of other people? Rock stars?
>>Hollywood actors? Do they work as hard, and have such limited time
>> to make their money?
>Possibly. Still, it is difficult to see the relevance to rec.sport.baseball.
Really, Mike? Has it never occurred to you that we're talking about a
sector of the entertainment industry?
>>>Wake up and smell the coffee Rickey there are
>>>other people in the world other than you!!
>>What is this supposed to mean? Henderson's point is that he's paid
>>far less than others who do what he does. Why hold only him to this
>>standard?
>He signed a contract. No one forced him to do so.
Three.
>>>You should be happy with what you already have!
>>I'll give your boss a copy of this for your nextn performance review.
>>I'm sure you'll see things his way. After all, you don't *need* a new
>>car, or restaurant meals, or anything like that. You can be perfectly
>>happy with what you have. Money isn't everything, you know.
>No doubt, he will then compare it with the *signed contract on file*, right?
>Oh, he doesn't HAVE a guaranteed contract?
Four.
Mike, I'm sure you can say "signed contract" even more times in a posting;
but that doesn't address the point.
Signed contracts are not the be-all and end-all of baseball labor relations.
Nor are they the be-all and end-all of ANY labor relations. Baseball
executives have a long history of extending, revising, or tearing up
contracts of players who have shown a value greater than what they're
being paid.
Rickey Henderson's contract is way out of line with his contribution.
Is it good business practice for the A's to say, "Fuck you, we have your
signature, go do what you want to do"? I think not. Players like
incentives, just as all workers do; Henderson's contract is short on them.
Of course, all this may be moot. The NYT reported today that the A's had
opened negotiations with an offer of 18 million for 3 years, which is
high for a 34-year-old, but not high if one views some of that as compensation
for the underpaid years. I'd say Alderson isn't all that dumb after all.
Roger
Mike Fester
>In article <1993Mar24....@island.COM> fes...@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>>In article <1993Mar22....@Princeton.EDU> ro...@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>>>First of all 3 million dollars is a helluva lot of money!
>
>>>Not compared to what comparable players make. We're talking about
>>>a market for players.
>
>>And a signed contract.
>
>One.
>
>>Pity that he and his agent were not smart enough to see that.
>
>There was nothing for them to see. As Tate et al. have pointed out,
>this was a market distortion artificially induced by collusion, which
>might well have made for a third arbitration case. They chose not to
>do that, but it's hardly as though it were all their fault.
It is difficult to see how that affects his situation in any form other than
he signed too early, for too long a term, with guarantees he does not
currently find to his liking.
>>>Where do you think he grew up? Not Beverly Hills.
>
>>>Besides, are you telling me that if he didn't earn as much, the rest
>>>of the money would go to a homeless shelter? Are you telling me
>>>that he doesn't make large charitable contributions? (Ballplayers
>
>>Not that any of this is relevant, but are you telling us he *does*?
>
>I don't know that he does, nor is it my business. (See Maimonides.)
>But many ballplayers *do* contribute heavily, certainly more than
>the population at large.
If it is not relevant, then why you say "Are you telling me that he doesn't
make large charitable contributions?" Surely, there is not point in bringing
up, if you have no information on it.
>>>tend to spend a rather large portion of their income on charity.)
>>>Areyou telling me that if he earned more it would come out of the
>>>pockets of the poor?
>
>>???
>
>What's so hard to understand? My point is that the poverty of those
>who are poor is irrelevant to Henderson's earnings. They do not
>suffer *because* he earns what he does.
>>>The issue is simply this: should Henderson get more money, or should
>>>the owner of the A's get more money? Henderson, not the owner, is
>>>the one who fills the stadium, who gets millions of people to change the
>>Henderson does all that? So, what did people do in Oakland before Rickey got
>>there? What will they do when he leaves? What about all those places where
>>Rickey does not play? How do they ever manage?
>Oh, give it a rest. Henderson certainly contributes to the effort,
>and it's not too much of a leap of the imagination to think that he
>does more to attract people to the ballpark and the TV than some
>middle reliever.
Sorry, you claimed that it is Riceky who fills the stadium. Perhaps a bit of
unwarranted hyperbole on your part, no? Rickey does NOT fill the stands himself.
>>How about: he looked at his situation several years ago. He thought about
>>what he wanted, and what he could get, he asked for, and got, salary and
>>terms that were wholely acceptable to him at the time. He became unhappy
>>only upon finding out the *HE* misjudged the market.
>
>Two.
>
>>>Do you complain about the salaries of other people? Rock stars?
>>>Hollywood actors? Do they work as hard, and have such limited time
>>> to make their money?
>
>>Possibly. Still, it is difficult to see the relevance to rec.sport.baseball.
>
>Really, Mike? Has it never occurred to you that we're talking about a
>sector of the entertainment industry?
We sure are. Shall we change the name of the group to accomodate your points?
>>>>Wake up and smell the coffee Rickey there are
>>>>other people in the world other than you!!
>
>>>What is this supposed to mean? Henderson's point is that he's paid
>>>far less than others who do what he does. Why hold only him to this
>>>standard?
>
>>He signed a contract. No one forced him to do so.
>
>Three.
>
>>>>You should be happy with what you already have!
>
>>>I'll give your boss a copy of this for your nextn performance review.
>>>I'm sure you'll see things his way. After all, you don't *need* a new
>>>car, or restaurant meals, or anything like that. You can be perfectly
>>>happy with what you have. Money isn't everything, you know.
>
>>No doubt, he will then compare it with the *signed contract on file*, right?
>>Oh, he doesn't HAVE a guaranteed contract?
>
>Four.
>Mike, I'm sure you can say "signed contract" even more times in a posting;
>but that doesn't address the point.
You miscounted. BTW, how many times can you say "he's paid far less"?
>Signed contracts are not the be-all and end-all of baseball labor relations.
>Nor are they the be-all and end-all of ANY labor relations. Baseball
>executives have a long history of extending, revising, or tearing up
>contracts of players who have shown a value greater than what they're
>being paid.
Hmm. Rickey's contract is NOT relevant, but the salary of the poster whose
points you are attempting to rebut *is* relevant? Odd.
>Rickey Henderson's contract is way out of line with his contribution.
>Is it good business practice for the A's to say, "Fuck you, we have your
>signature, go do what you want to do"? I think not. Players like
>incentives, just as all workers do; Henderson's contract is short on them.
Is it good business to pay more for something than you need to?
>Of course, all this may be moot. The NYT reported today that the A's had
>opened negotiations with an offer of 18 million for 3 years, which is
>high for a 34-year-old, but not high if one views some of that as compensation
>for the underpaid years. I'd say Alderson isn't all that dumb after all.
Hmm. Alderson was "dumb" for getting Henderson for $3 million a year, but he
is smarter if he can sign an older, more injury-prone Henderson for twice as
much.
So far as Alderson's acumen is concerned, I rather think 4 division titles in
5 years, 3 World Series appearances, and a World title speak rather more than
your estimate of his contract negotiations with Rickey Henderson.
Roger Lustig
>In article <1993Mar26.1...@Princeton.EDU> ro...@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>In article <1993Mar24....@island.COM> fes...@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>>>In article <1993Mar22....@Princeton.EDU> ro...@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>>Pity that he and his agent were not smart enough to see that.
>>There was nothing for them to see. As Tate et al. have pointed out,
>>this was a market distortion artificially induced by collusion, which
>>might well have made for a third arbitration case. They chose not to
>>do that, but it's hardly as though it were all their fault.
>It is difficult to see how that affects his situation in any form other than
>he signed too early, for too long a term, with guarantees he does not
>currently find to his liking.
It affects his situation like this: he may be unhappy with A's management
and won't play there again because of it. In other wirds, *their*
problem.
>>>>The issue is simply this: should Henderson get more money, or should
>>>>the owner of the A's get more money? Henderson, not the owner, is
>>>>the one who fills the stadium, who gets millions of people to change the
>>>Henderson does all that? So, what did people do in Oakland before Rickey got
>>>there? What will they do when he leaves? What about all those places where
>>>Rickey does not play? How do they ever manage?
>>Oh, give it a rest. Henderson certainly contributes to the effort,
>>and it's not too much of a leap of the imagination to think that he
>>does more to attract people to the ballpark and the TV than some
>>middle reliever.
>Sorry, you claimed that it is Riceky who fills the stadium. Perhaps a bit of
>unwarranted hyperbole on your part, no? Rickey does NOT fill the stands himself.
Go look up "synecdoche."
>>>>Do you complain about the salaries of other people? Rock stars?
>>>>Hollywood actors? Do they work as hard, and have such limited time
>>>> to make their money?
>>>Possibly. Still, it is difficult to see the relevance to rec.sport.baseball.
>>Really, Mike? Has it never occurred to you that we're talking about a
>>sector of the entertainment industry?
>We sure are. Shall we change the name of the group to accomodate your points?
Huh? Who said anything about the name of the group? Is it taboo to
mention analogous things outside of baseball here? I don't recall
anyone appointing you moderator.
>>>>>You should be happy with what you already have!
>>>>I'll give your boss a copy of this for your nextn performance review.
>>>>I'm sure you'll see things his way. After all, you don't *need* a new
>>>>car, or restaurant meals, or anything like that. You can be perfectly
>>>>happy with what you have. Money isn't everything, you know.
>>>No doubt, he will then compare it with the *signed contract on file*, right?
>>>Oh, he doesn't HAVE a guaranteed contract?
>>Mike, I'm sure you can say "signed contract" even more times in a posting;
>>but that doesn't address the point.
>>Signed contracts are not the be-all and end-all of baseball labor relations.
>>Nor are they the be-all and end-all of ANY labor relations. Baseball
>>executives have a long history of extending, revising, or tearing up
>>contracts of players who have shown a value greater than what they're
>>being paid.
>Hmm. Rickey's contract is NOT relevant, but the salary of the poster whose
>points you are attempting to rebut *is* relevant? Odd.
Learn to read. Nowhere have I said that his contract was not relevant:
it is EXTREMELY relevant. If you can't make your points without putting
words in my mouth, go play elsewhere.
Yes, the contract is relevant. But it is not the ONLY relevant thing.
>>Rickey Henderson's contract is way out of line with his contribution.
>>Is it good business practice for the A's to say, "Fuck you, we have your
>>signature, go do what you want to do"? I think not. Players like
>>incentives, just as all workers do; Henderson's contract is short on them.
>Is it good business to pay more for something than you need to?
Depends on how long you want to use it. If Rickey walks, the A's have
to look for LF bargains elsewhere. There aren't many.
>>Of course, all this may be moot. The NYT reported today that the A's had
>>opened negotiations with an offer of 18 million for 3 years, which is
>>high for a 34-year-old, but not high if one views some of that as compensation
>>for the underpaid years. I'd say Alderson isn't all that dumb after all.
>Hmm. Alderson was "dumb" for getting Henderson for $3 million a year, but he
Oh, grow up. Again, that's nothing I've said; so stop your childish games.
Alderson, if he was dumb at all (remember, it was a *hypothetical* based
on presumed trade attempts) was dumb in trying to trade RH and in
renegotiating earlier. Of course, this is grandstanding; but it's based
on what we knew.
>is smarter if he can sign an older, more injury-prone Henderson for twice as
>much.
What other choices does he have? He got a fantastic bargain the first
time. Only fools expect luck like that to continue.
>So far as Alderson's acumen is concerned, I rather think 4 division titles in
>5 years, 3 World Series appearances, and a World title speak rather more than
>your estimate of his contract negotiations with Rickey Henderson.
Which estimate is that?
Roger
Brian Jepperson
>
>
> >is smarter if he can sign an older, more injury-prone Henderson for twice as
> >much.
>
> What other choices does he have? He got a fantastic bargain the first
> time. Only fools expect luck like that to continue.
>
I've finally figured it out!!! Roger Lustig is Rickey Henderson's agent.
He must be! Who else would fill the net with all the "poor Rickey"
sentiment. Seriously though, how can you say that Alderson "got a
fantastic bargain the first time and only fools expect luck like that to
continue"? When he signed that contract he was one of the highest (or
was it the highest) paid players in baseball. Now Rickey is crying
about it. Well, right now his contract is not competitive with some of
his peers, but that is the price of signing long term. Name one
contract prior to Rickey's contract that is/was NOT a "bargain" by
today's standards. There are several things he could have done: 1) sign
a short term contract. Of course the down side is that if he suffers a
career-ending or career-threatening injury he would have wished he signed
long term. 2) He could have negotiated a contract simply stating what he
is really after: namely that he remain, say one of the 5 highest paid
players (I think Patrick Ewing negotiated a contract like that). The way
salaries have gone up the past few years, ANYONE who signs a long term
contract quickly becomes a "bargain", simply because after he signes,
everyone else uses that contract in their negotiations and salaries
escalate. Even Canseco's "monster" contract of a couple of years ago
is quickly becoming a "bargain". At least I haven't heard a wimper from
him yet. Somehow, sometime this madness has got to stop. No, I'm not
putting all the blame on the players, the owners are willing to pay this
salary escalation, but I just hope baseball is able to survive through
all of this.
Brian Jepperson
jepp...@csid.gmeds.com
or
wild...@aol.com
Roger Lustig
>In article <1993Mar30.0...@Princeton.EDU>, ro...@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>> >is smarter if he can sign an older, more injury-prone Henderson for twice as
>> >much.
>> What other choices does he have? He got a fantastic bargain the first
>> time. Only fools expect luck like that to continue.
>I've finally figured it out!!! Roger Lustig is Rickey Henderson's agent.
>He must be! Who else would fill the net with all the "poor Rickey"
>sentiment.
Excuse me, but where have I said that even once?
>Seriously though, how can you say that Alderson "got a
>fantastic bargain the first time and only fools expect luck like that to
>continue"? When he signed that contract he was one of the highest (or
>was it the highest) paid players in baseball.
Doesn't make him any less of a bargain. Henderson hasd produced a
huge amount. How many players of Henderson's age/tenure have produced
more over that period, and how much were they paid? High performance
for low price is what I call a bargain.
>Now Rickey is crying
>about it. Well, right now his contract is not competitive with some of
>his peers, but that is the price of signing long term.
Again, you miss the point. The A's NEED to keep Henderson (or find
a good replacement, which would be a neat trick); it's good policy
to keep players happy, no matter what the contract situation was three or
howevermany years ago.
>Name one
>contract prior to Rickey's contract that is/was NOT a "bargain" by
>today's standards.
Still missing the point:
a) Before Rickey's contract, the owners colluded to keep free-agent
prices down. (This was *not* a bargain in the long run, as you know.)
b) Going year-by-year and viewing performance vs. salary structure,
Henderson has given incredible value for money on this contract;
far more than almost any other player in baseball. "Today's standards"
is irrelevant; it's the standard at the time of performance and pay.
>There are several things he could have done: 1) sign
>a short term contract. Of course the down side is that if he suffers a
>career-ending or career-threatening injury he would have wished he signed
>long term. 2) He could have negotiated a contract simply stating what he
>is really after: namely that he remain, say one of the 5 highest paid
>players (I think Patrick Ewing negotiated a contract like that). The way
>salaries have gone up the past few years, ANYONE who signs a long term
>contract quickly becomes a "bargain", simply because after he signes,
>everyone else uses that contract in their negotiations and salaries
>escalate.
Non-sequitur. Even if salaries escalate, a contract need not be
a bargain. Even now ost teams would resent paying what the Yanks
paid Don Gullett 15 years ago.
And, yes, Henderson could have done those things, though I doubt he
would have gotten the second option;such contracts are hard to
enforce. (Also, how do you know what he's "really after"?)
And that's *still* irrelevant. Baseball has a tradition of rewarding
players who outperform expectations. The A's were unwilling to
renegotiate even after the MVP year.
>Even Canseco's "monster" contract of a couple of years ago
>is quickly becoming a "bargain". At least I haven't heard a wimper from
>him yet.
He didn't sign it when the market was artificially depressed, either.
Henderson did -- the effects of collusion were still there.
>Somehow, sometime this madness has got to stop. No, I'm not
>putting all the blame on the players, the owners are willing to pay this
>salary escalation, but I just hope baseball is able to survive through
>all of this.
All of what? Are the teams losing money or something? How can you
tell? Why do you call it "madness"?
Roger
Mike Fester
>In article <1993Mar29....@island.COM> fes...@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>>>There was nothing for them to see. As Tate et al. have pointed out,
>>>this was a market distortion artificially induced by collusion, which
>>>might well have made for a third arbitration case. They chose not to
>>>do that, but it's hardly as though it were all their fault.
>
>>It is difficult to see how that affects his situation in any form other than
>>he signed too early, for too long a term, with guarantees he does not
>>currently find to his liking.
>It affects his situation like this: he may be unhappy with A's management
>and won't play there again because of it. In other wirds, *their*
>problem.
So, we have a man who will be 35 when his next spring training starts, with
a recent history of ailments, who will demand more than double his current
salary. Looks more like Rickey's problem.
>>>and it's not too much of a leap of the imagination to think that he
>>>does more to attract people to the ballpark and the TV than some
>>>middle reliever.
>>Sorry, you claimed that it is Riceky who fills the stadium. Perhaps a bit of
>>unwarranted hyperbole on your part, no? Rickey does NOT fill the stands himself.
>Go look up "synecdoche."
And...?
>>>>Possibly. Still, it is difficult to see the relevance to rec.sport.baseball.
>
>>>Really, Mike? Has it never occurred to you that we're talking about a
>>>sector of the entertainment industry?
>>We sure are. Shall we change the name of the group to accomodate your points?
>Huh? Who said anything about the name of the group? Is it taboo to
>mention analogous things outside of baseball here? I don't recall
>anyone appointing you moderator.
Then explain the relevance of of the Hollywood salaries and rock musician
salaries to baseball. How are they analogous? How do they show that Rickey is
underpaid?
>>>Mike, I'm sure you can say "signed contract" even more times in a posting;
>>>but that doesn't address the point.
>
>>>Signed contracts are not the be-all and end-all of baseball labor relations.
>>>Nor are they the be-all and end-all of ANY labor relations. Baseball
>>>executives have a long history of extending, revising, or tearing up
>>>contracts of players who have shown a value greater than what they're
>>>being paid.
>
>>Hmm. Rickey's contract is NOT relevant, but the salary of the poster whose
>>points you are attempting to rebut *is* relevant? Odd.
>Learn to read. Nowhere have I said that his contract was not relevant:
>it is EXTREMELY relevant. If you can't make your points without putting
>words in my mouth, go play elsewhere.
I'm sorry, did you misquote yourself when you said "Mike, I'm sure you can say
"signed contract" even more times in a posting; but that doesn't address the
point." If you claim that a signed contract does not address the point, then
it would seem you are claiming the signed contract to be irrelevant.
Then please explain why the original poster's salary is relevant, Mr Lustig.
>Yes, the contract is relevant. But it is not the ONLY relevant thing.
Actually, right now it is the only relevant thing. If he did not have one, he
would be free to find any employer in baseball he liked.
>>>Rickey Henderson's contract is way out of line with his contribution.
>>>Is it good business practice for the A's to say, "Fuck you, we have your
>>>signature, go do what you want to do"? I think not. Players like
>>>incentives, just as all workers do; Henderson's contract is short on them.
>
>>Is it good business to pay more for something than you need to?
>Depends on how long you want to use it. If Rickey walks, the A's have
>to look for LF bargains elsewhere. There aren't many.
If he walks, he walks as a 35-year old injury-prone player. Quite a bargain.
>>>Of course, all this may be moot. The NYT reported today that the A's had
>>>opened negotiations with an offer of 18 million for 3 years, which is
>>>high for a 34-year-old, but not high if one views some of that as compensation
>>>for the underpaid years. I'd say Alderson isn't all that dumb after all.
>
>>Hmm. Alderson was "dumb" for getting Henderson for $3 million a year, but he
>Oh, grow up. Again, that's nothing I've said; so stop your childish games.
>Alderson, if he was dumb at all (remember, it was a *hypothetical* based
> on presumed trade attempts) was dumb in trying to trade RH and in
>renegotiating earlier. Of course, this is grandstanding; but it's based
>on what we knew.
Why is it "dumb" to try and trade a player if one feels one can get equal or
greater value, especially an older player who will demand considerably more
money than he is currently making?
>>is smarter if he can sign an older, more injury-prone Henderson for twice as
>>much.
>What other choices does he have? He got a fantastic bargain the first
>time. Only fools expect luck like that to continue.
So, what kind of non-fool expects Rickey to continue to perform after the age
of 35, at a level corresponding to your reports of $6 million a year?
>>So far as Alderson's acumen is concerned, I rather think 4 division titles in
>>5 years, 3 World Series appearances, and a World title speak rather more than
>>your estimate of his contract negotiations with Rickey Henderson.
>Which estimate is that?
Your estimate of him. Or did you misquote yourself when you said "I'd say
Alderson isn't all that dumb after all"?