Jump to content

Alex Rodriguez...WOW!

olehippi

By olehippi
in MLB

Recommended Posts

DrungoHazewood Hangout Grand Counsel

DrungoHazewood

Posted
Posted
Part ownership of the team? That has to be a joke.

Why? For $200M or so you could probably by one of several entire teams. The salaries he (or Alfonso Soriano, for that matter) is and will receive would certainly enable them to purchase a large share in a team. Why not just negotiate that into the deal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Migrant Redbird All-Star

Migrant Redbird

Posted
Posted
Are we talking future ownership or current? I would think there might be some clubhouse issues with a player being a part owner.

Perhaps, but the NBA forced Michael Jordan to relinquish his part ownership of the Wizards when he came out of retirement. I doubt if MLB has any such restriction, but I could be mistaken. More to the point, if Boras is mentioning it, he probably has researched the issue well and knows there are not any rules that would prohibit it.

Of course, MLB did prohibit owners from managing a few years ago, as a way to force Ted Turner out of the Braves dugout. That rule might also apply to players; don't recall.

Well, upon further review, Baseball-Reference thinks it violates rules. I was under the impression that clause was inserted specifically to exclude Ted Turner....

Television mogul Ted Turner purchased the Atlanta Braves in 1976 and the NBA's Atlanta Hawks in 1977. Turner named himself manager of the Braves in 1977 for one game (which the team lost). He had to step down as manager when it was pointed out that he was in violation of a major league baseball rule that prohibits players and managers from owning shares of their teams.

Recalling that Connie Mack managed the Athletics for some 50 seasons, I can't imagine why baseball would have added that rule unless there was some strong sentiment against a particular owner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Carver All-Star

Mark Carver

Posted
Posted
Could they put shares of the franchise in some sort of trust to be given to him upon his retirement? Didn't they do something like that with Selig when he became acting Commissioner while his daughter took over running the Brewers?

The difference with Selig is that once he became the Commissioner, he's suppose to represent the players and the owners and that he had to lose all interest in the way the Brewers are run.

What would it matter it matter if Rodriguez owned part of a ballclub. As long as he doesn't have the controlling interest, he can't make any decisions on how the ballclub is run. Just like Tom Clancy and Pam Shriver who are minority owners in the Orioles, they have no say on how the ballclub is run. The controlling owner is Peter Angelos, and he has the final say on how the ballclub is run.

Rodriguez couldn't say as a minority owner that he deserves a bigger salary and give it to himself. He wouldn't have any say into the matter of him being traded either...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
scOtt Hangout Grand Counsel

scOtt

Posted
Posted
Why? For $200M or so you could probably by one of several entire teams. The salaries he (or Alfonso Soriano, for that matter) is and will receive would certainly enable them to purchase a large share in a team. Why not just negotiate that into the deal?

Is what I was thinking. Seems to me it would be an easy way for management to offset some of the tremendous cost it would take to sign him. There would still of course be value going from whatever team to AROD, but it would seem an easier blow than an extra $10 mill cash per year. Not to mention the luxury tax implications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bgfield Major Leaguer Cup of Coffee

bgfield

Posted
Posted
You mean, besides being in violation of an established rule of major league baseball?

Not to mention the precedent it would set. It's hard enough for small market teams to imagine signing the top FA's as it is. If they all see one guy getting friggin part ownership of the team, they'll all want it, too.

Even if he doesn't get part ownership, if he does sign for $30m+ a year, it'll be a joke. He might end up being worth more than any player in the game, but that's still an obscene amount of money for any one player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChaosLex Hangout Grand Counsel

ChaosLex

Posted
Posted
He said that apparently Scott Boras has been quietly putting out feelers to certain teams, and the concensus of many is that if ARod takes the out clause in his contract, the asking price will be a whopping 8 yrs at $30-$40M/yr PLUS part ownership of the team.

I doubt there's any team stupid enough to do this. But then again, there's a first time for everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrungoHazewood Hangout Grand Counsel

DrungoHazewood

Posted
Posted
The difference with Selig is that once he became the Commissioner, he's suppose to represent the players and the owners and that he had to lose all interest in the way the Brewers are run.

That's a good laugh. All pretense of an independent commissioner was blown up when Selig and the other owners ousted Fay Vincent. The commish is and employee of the owners and acts in the owners' interests. The players union is the only check on this.

What would it matter it matter if Rodriguez owned part of a ballclub. As long as he doesn't have the controlling interest, he can't make any decisions on how the ballclub is run. Just like Tom Clancy and Pam Shriver who are minority owners in the Orioles, they have no say on how the ballclub is run. The controlling owner is Peter Angelos, and he has the final say on how the ballclub is run.

Rodriguez couldn't say as a minority owner that he deserves a bigger salary and give it to himself. He wouldn't have any say into the matter of him being traded either...

Now that I've thought about it, there's no way Selig allows this to happen. He and the other owners have veto rights on who owns a major league team. He (they?) hand-picked all of the recent ownership groups, often to reward their friends. There's been a lot of discussion about how they'll never let a maverick like Mark Cuban into their club, and no matter how much money he has he has to get Bud's check in the box first.

Even if there wasn't a rule forbidding this already, they'd make one up. If Arod and Boras can negotiate this it would have to be an agreeement for a future stake, almost certainly with a caveat that he'd have to get down on his knees and kiss Bud's ring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrungoHazewood Hangout Grand Counsel

DrungoHazewood

Posted
Posted
Recalling that Connie Mack managed the Athletics for some 50 seasons, I can't imagine why baseball would have added that rule unless there was some strong sentiment against a particular owner.

I could be mistaken, but I think the rule is there because of Connie Mack. He owned the A's, and was their field manager well into his 80s. It was an open secret that by the last few years the players would nod and smile at Connie but look to the bench coaches for the real signs. He wasn't exactly all there at the end, but there was nothing anyone could do since he owned the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...