Free agent negotiations are strange thing sometimes. On one hand, you have those players that decide to sign their deals right away, at the first sign of a suitable offer. On the other hand, there are those that decide to play the waiting game, regardless of what offers are out on the table. Neither way is right or wrong, in all reality. They're just...different.
It's all a guessing game, when it comes down to it. If you choose to sign immediately, without letting more offers come in, are you giving yourself a fair chance to make the most money you can? Some might contend that signing right away equals signing too early, that the opportunity to consider other potentially greater offers is missed. Some may also suggest that the first offer received may potentially be the best available, and consider it a smart decision to take it. Yet others believe that letting all offers filter in, and giving yourself options is the best course of action.
In the case of Michael Cuddyer, the jury is still out. Cuddyer received a 3-year, $24-$25 million contract offer from the Minnesota Twins a little over one week ago, thus far the only offer received, at least publicly. Prior to that offer, there had been mild interest shown by a couple of teams, namely the Philadelphia Phillies and the Colorado Rockies, yet, neither have offered the right-handed outfielder a contract.
As the days went on, the Twins found themselves coming to a crossroads. Do they hold out for Cuddyer to make a decision, hoping he elects to accept their offer and re-sign with the Twins? Do they pursue other options in the outfield, assuming Cuddyer receives a better offer from another club? Do they somehow find a way for both?
At first glance, it appears they may have chosen the second option. On Thursday, they finalized a 3-year, $21 million deal with free agent outfielder Josh Willingham. Willingham would be the right-handed outfield replacement for Cuddyer in the Twins' lineup if they are not able to re-sign the 11-year Twin. Given the decision to trim the payroll in 2011, it doesn't seem as though re-signing Cuddyer would be an option anymore.
That being said, if the Twins are now out of the picture, where does that leave Cuddyer? One week after the Twins made their offer, the Cuddyer camp is still awaiting that elusive "other" offer from one of the other interested teams. Is this an instance of possibly waiting too long? With Willingham signing for only $21 million for three years, has Cuddyer's value now been lowered in the eyes of other ball clubs?
Some people with knowledge of the Twins have suggested that maybe Cuddyer's decision to possibly sign elsewhere is not a money-based one. The current direction of the team may also be a huge deciding factor for him. Being 32, his drive to contend for a World Series Championship may be greater than any desire for a big contract. If that's the case, then look for Cuddyer's decision to come much later, as contending teams put the final pieces of their puzzles together. However, if the decision is primarily value and money based, then look for a team in the middle of the pack to snatch up Cuddyer to be a strong leader in their clubhouse.
One way or the other, we should know soon.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Sunday, December 11, 2011
NBA Players Need To Grow Up
Imagine you work for a company in Phoenix, Arizona. You step into your boss's office to discuss your future with the company one afternoon. You've been a good employee, with no history of poor performance to speak of. As you sit down with your boss, he/she says to you that they are going to send you to one of their regional offices in Milwaukee, a sort of promotion, if you will. You inquire why they are doing this, and the reason given is that, quite simply put, you deserve more money and this division simply doesn't have the means to pay you that next year when you are due for a raise.
Sounds fair enough, right?
Now, imagine the following conversation with your boss:
(You) "Thank you for looking out for me financially, but I'd much rather you send me to the regional office in San Diego instead."
(Boss) "Well, there just aren't any openings in the regional office in San Diego at this time."
(You) "I really don't want to work in Milwaukee. I'd much rather be in San Diego."
(Boss) "I'm sorry, that just isn't possible right now. We can wait until next year to see if something opens, but we just simply won't be able to pay you any more than we are right now."
(You) "I'll tell you what. Work on getting me to San Diego. In the mean time, I don't think it's important for me to be here for the next couple of weeks, at least until you find something out. If you don't find anything out in the by the time our busy time starts, I'll come in and work, but I won't give it 100%, since I'm not really making the kind of money I should be. And actually, now that I think about it, I'd rather work in San Diego, regardless of the money. So, see what you can do and get back to me."
(Boss) "Well, why don't I put a call in and see what openings we have in the regional office in Kansas City. I know they would definitely be able to increase your pay accordingly. That would solve the issue, right?"
(You) "Ehh...not really. Like I said, I really don't want to be here anymore, and neither Milwaukee or Kansas City sound good either. The only place I'd like to work is San Diego. That being said, you've got to get me there by the end of March, otherwise, I'm going to quit and go find someplace else to work."
I think it would be safe to say that, in the real world, had that conversation taken place, it would've resulted in you, the employee, being terminated immediately.
More often than not, in the real world, we don't have the luxury of mandating where we work or how much we get paid. There are a certain few who are able to do that, but the majority of the world isn't given that chance.
So why is it that professional athletes are permitted to hold teams hostage in order to play where they want to play? And, actually, let's be honest about it. The word "play" is the operative word here. Their "play" is actually "work." It's their job.
When the NBA lockout was coming to an end, it appeared that some things may possibly change. There was some hope that players (employees) wouldn't be able to flock to certain destinations of their choosing, just because that's where they wanted to play (work), or who they wanted to play (work) with.
Given the events of this past week, it seems that nothing has changed. The irony of professional sports is that the games (baseball, basketball, football, etc.) became businesses. Sadly, those businesses have now become games. Free agency in sports changed the landscape forever, but it was a concept that was okay by many people. It gave the players an opportunity to finish out their contracts, thus earning the right to play (work) where they wanted to after that. Sad for some franchises who may lose that star player to more money in a bigger market, but great for the bigger markets.
Although all sports have the issue, there is no sport where the issue is as glaring as in the NBA. What is the issue? Rather than waiting for contracts to expire, teams are now forced to "play the game" and trade their stars a year or two before their contracts expire, in order to get some value for them.
When the NBA blocked the trade of Chris Paul from the New Orleans Hornets to the Los Angeles Lakers, sparks flew. Why was the trade blocked? Some said the 26 other owners not involved in the deal vetoed the deal, because it would've sent a "Top 5" talent in Paul to the already stocked Lakers team. Others implied that because the Hornets are actually owned by the NBA itself, that it appeared the league was forcing the move to make a league and fan favorite team better. Yet Commissioner David Stern said he blocked the deal because "the league would be better with Chris Paul on the Hornets."
Assuming the trade does not find a way to go through, and assuming the Hornets do not trade Paul during the season, how does this benefit New Orleans? Come the end of the season, if Paul hasn't been dealt, he will most certainly leave (probably to Los Angeles in free agency) leaving the Hornets with nothing. They will not be able to replace him in free agency because the league's stars don't want to play in New Orleans. If they did, Paul would stay.
Players should be treated like employees.
Employees are not and should not be able to make demands of their employers. You, as an employee, have the right to apply and interview for a job anywhere you would like. Once you are with that employer, you work. You can make the decision to leave and go someplace else if you choose to, but are not able to walk into your boss's office and tell him or her where you would like to work. If a transfer is feasible, then it can be accommodated. If it's not, you can quit or continue working. If you quit, the company will not pay you while you look for another job.
Players are not and should not be able to make demands of their teams. As a player, if you are fortunate enough to be drafted by a team, you are given employment without having to interview for it. You are playing a game in which you love, and given the opportunity to make a living doing it. When your contract is up, you can make the decision to leave and go someplace else if you choose to, but should not be able to walk into the team owner's office and tell him or her where you would like to work. If you no longer want to play for the team which drafted you, you have the option to quit. The only difference is, you signed a contract to play for a certain amount of time, and quitting would put you in breach of contract.
I have not heard it from any other professional league other than the NBA, but the idea of a "plantation mentality" of team owners "owning" players is absurd! Team owners own the team, not the players. As an owner, it is your responsibility to put a product out on the field/court that your fan base wants to see. If NBA players want to cry about being considered "slaves", then NBA fans should cry about being "hostages." Fans are the ones suffering, not the players.
Grow up!
Sounds fair enough, right?
Now, imagine the following conversation with your boss:
(You) "Thank you for looking out for me financially, but I'd much rather you send me to the regional office in San Diego instead."
(Boss) "Well, there just aren't any openings in the regional office in San Diego at this time."
(You) "I really don't want to work in Milwaukee. I'd much rather be in San Diego."
(Boss) "I'm sorry, that just isn't possible right now. We can wait until next year to see if something opens, but we just simply won't be able to pay you any more than we are right now."
(You) "I'll tell you what. Work on getting me to San Diego. In the mean time, I don't think it's important for me to be here for the next couple of weeks, at least until you find something out. If you don't find anything out in the by the time our busy time starts, I'll come in and work, but I won't give it 100%, since I'm not really making the kind of money I should be. And actually, now that I think about it, I'd rather work in San Diego, regardless of the money. So, see what you can do and get back to me."
(Boss) "Well, why don't I put a call in and see what openings we have in the regional office in Kansas City. I know they would definitely be able to increase your pay accordingly. That would solve the issue, right?"
(You) "Ehh...not really. Like I said, I really don't want to be here anymore, and neither Milwaukee or Kansas City sound good either. The only place I'd like to work is San Diego. That being said, you've got to get me there by the end of March, otherwise, I'm going to quit and go find someplace else to work."
I think it would be safe to say that, in the real world, had that conversation taken place, it would've resulted in you, the employee, being terminated immediately.
More often than not, in the real world, we don't have the luxury of mandating where we work or how much we get paid. There are a certain few who are able to do that, but the majority of the world isn't given that chance.
So why is it that professional athletes are permitted to hold teams hostage in order to play where they want to play? And, actually, let's be honest about it. The word "play" is the operative word here. Their "play" is actually "work." It's their job.
When the NBA lockout was coming to an end, it appeared that some things may possibly change. There was some hope that players (employees) wouldn't be able to flock to certain destinations of their choosing, just because that's where they wanted to play (work), or who they wanted to play (work) with.
Given the events of this past week, it seems that nothing has changed. The irony of professional sports is that the games (baseball, basketball, football, etc.) became businesses. Sadly, those businesses have now become games. Free agency in sports changed the landscape forever, but it was a concept that was okay by many people. It gave the players an opportunity to finish out their contracts, thus earning the right to play (work) where they wanted to after that. Sad for some franchises who may lose that star player to more money in a bigger market, but great for the bigger markets.
Although all sports have the issue, there is no sport where the issue is as glaring as in the NBA. What is the issue? Rather than waiting for contracts to expire, teams are now forced to "play the game" and trade their stars a year or two before their contracts expire, in order to get some value for them.
When the NBA blocked the trade of Chris Paul from the New Orleans Hornets to the Los Angeles Lakers, sparks flew. Why was the trade blocked? Some said the 26 other owners not involved in the deal vetoed the deal, because it would've sent a "Top 5" talent in Paul to the already stocked Lakers team. Others implied that because the Hornets are actually owned by the NBA itself, that it appeared the league was forcing the move to make a league and fan favorite team better. Yet Commissioner David Stern said he blocked the deal because "the league would be better with Chris Paul on the Hornets."
Assuming the trade does not find a way to go through, and assuming the Hornets do not trade Paul during the season, how does this benefit New Orleans? Come the end of the season, if Paul hasn't been dealt, he will most certainly leave (probably to Los Angeles in free agency) leaving the Hornets with nothing. They will not be able to replace him in free agency because the league's stars don't want to play in New Orleans. If they did, Paul would stay.
Players should be treated like employees.
Employees are not and should not be able to make demands of their employers. You, as an employee, have the right to apply and interview for a job anywhere you would like. Once you are with that employer, you work. You can make the decision to leave and go someplace else if you choose to, but are not able to walk into your boss's office and tell him or her where you would like to work. If a transfer is feasible, then it can be accommodated. If it's not, you can quit or continue working. If you quit, the company will not pay you while you look for another job.
Players are not and should not be able to make demands of their teams. As a player, if you are fortunate enough to be drafted by a team, you are given employment without having to interview for it. You are playing a game in which you love, and given the opportunity to make a living doing it. When your contract is up, you can make the decision to leave and go someplace else if you choose to, but should not be able to walk into the team owner's office and tell him or her where you would like to work. If you no longer want to play for the team which drafted you, you have the option to quit. The only difference is, you signed a contract to play for a certain amount of time, and quitting would put you in breach of contract.
I have not heard it from any other professional league other than the NBA, but the idea of a "plantation mentality" of team owners "owning" players is absurd! Team owners own the team, not the players. As an owner, it is your responsibility to put a product out on the field/court that your fan base wants to see. If NBA players want to cry about being considered "slaves", then NBA fans should cry about being "hostages." Fans are the ones suffering, not the players.
Grow up!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)