What would extensions for Bradish and Rodriguez look like?

[emmett16]

43 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

A deal with that proviso is less advantageous to the player than a deal without it.  That clause is solely about mitigating risk for the team.

If you hired a contractor to build you a pool and then he broke his leg and was unable to work for two years (the length of the project), would you expect them to build you a pool once they recover?  
 

Seems prudent that a team (or a homeowner) should expect to receive the services they paid for.  
 

For the record, I’m a pro-player guy.  But as a business owner, it irks me to know end people who get paid for not performing their service.  That is wrong, regardless of injury or anything else.  If services aren’t rendered, payment should not be due.  
 

Everyone assumes a risk.  A pro athlete risks injury.  If they are worried about injury, they can look into insurance policies, just like every other profession in the world, to cover their risks. 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

If you hired a contractor to build you a pool and then he broke his leg and was unable to work for two years (the length of the project), would you expect them to build you a pool once they recover?  
 

Seems prudent that a team (or a homeowner) should expect to receive the services they paid for.  
 

For the record, I’m a pro-player guy.  But as a business owner, it irks me to know end people who get paid for not performing their service.  That is wrong, regardless of injury or anything else.  If services aren’t rendered, payment should not be due.  
 

Everyone assumes a risk.  A pro athlete risks injury.  If they are worried about injury, they can look into insurance policies, just like every other profession in the world, to cover their risks. 

Where did I say it wouldn't be prudent for the owner?

The assertion was that a clause like that would be fair to both sides, I disagree and feel it would be advantageous to ownership.

 

[RZNJ]

11 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

If you hired a contractor to build you a pool and then he broke his leg and was unable to work for two years (the length of the project), would you expect them to build you a pool once they recover?  
 

Seems prudent that a team (or a homeowner) should expect to receive the services they paid for.  
 

For the record, I’m a pro-player guy.  But as a business owner, it irks me to know end people who get paid for not performing their service.  That is wrong, regardless of injury or anything else.  If services aren’t rendered, payment should not be due.  
 

Everyone assumes a risk.  A pro athlete risks injury.  If they are worried about injury, they can look into insurance policies, just like every other profession in the world, to cover their risks. 

Would you like players not to get paid while they are on the IL?   A contact is a contract and baseball contacts are guaranteed for the most part.  You can put clauses in about the amount of games played and so forth but the player doesn’t have to sign it and a free agent can pick another team if one is willing to give him similar terms without the clauses. 
 

 

 

[emmett16]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Where did I say it wouldn't be prudent for the owner?

The assertion was that a clause like that would be fair to both sides, I disagree and feel it would be advantageous to ownership.

 

I didn’t.  I was making a comment.

I think fair to both sides is 100% subjective and does not exist.  
 

In a situation where someone is paying for goods/services, the only thing right is for the payer to pay the payee for services rendered.  If services aren’t rendered payment should not be made.  
 

If a player can’t perform due to injury, they should have their own insurance policy that covers their inability to perform.  The employer should not be penalized.  

 

[emmett16]

3 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

Would you like players not to get paid while they are on the IL?   A contact is a contract and baseball contacts are guaranteed for the most part.  You can put clauses in about the amount of games played and so forth but the player doesn’t have to sign it and a free agent can pick another team if one is willing to give him similar terms without the clauses. 
 

 

 

I think like all other contractors who put their bodies at risk, they should have their own insurance policies.  
 

I realize this can’t be a 1 off situation.  It’s a league issue.  

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

I didn’t.  I was making a comment.

I think fair to both sides is 100% subjective and does not exist.  
 

In a situation where someone is paying for goods/services, the only thing right is for the payer to pay the payee for services rendered.  If services aren’t rendered payment should not be made.  
 

If a player can’t perform due to injury, they should have their own insurance policy that covers their inability to perform.  The employer should not be penalized.  

 

But the player isn't in an even position with ownership.

They are forced to ply their trade for a certain team at a certain rate.

They can be cut during Spring Training and not get full compensation.

If you want to add a clause to a contract with a free agent that is an entirely different kettle of fish.

[emmett16]

14 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

But the player isn't in an even position with ownership.

They are forced to ply their trade for a certain team at a certain rate.

They can be cut during Spring Training and not get full compensation.

If you want to add a clause to a contract with a free agent that is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Why should a player be in an even position with ownership?
 

  In what industry in the world is labor in an even position with ownership?
 

Every employee in the world is forced to ply their trade for a certain company at a certain rate.

If you do not want to do that, you start your own business.  You have options.  It’s a lot more difficult and their is a lot more risk, but you have  an option. 

If an employee is not performing or a company does not want to pay for their services, they shouldn’t be cut?   The company should be forced to carry dead weight which affects their performances and brand? 
 

 

 

[RZNJ]

14 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

I think like all other contractors who put their bodies at risk, they should have their own insurance policies.  
 

I realize this can’t be a 1 off situation.  It’s a league issue.  

Just an example.  The Orioles signed Kyle Gibson for 10M.  He could have gotten hurt the first week of the season, missed the year, and still received 10M.   The Orioles could have written a contract with a clause that said if you pitch less than 25 innings  you only get the league minimum (800K ?).   Gibson can then go to another team willing to guarantee 8M with no clause on the innings.

There’s nothing stopping teams from putting this type of language into long term contracts.   If the team guarantees the contract without the clause then there’s nothing wrong with the player getting paid while he misses an entire year or more.

[CaptainRedbeard]

I’m always in favor of signing pre-arb players to long term deals to buy out free agent years. This is a good outline for what could work for Bradish and Grayson and the team should be exploring this.

But in order of priority, it makes the most sense for the position players who debut between ages 20-23; for those you have a pretty good shot at a win-win deal where the team buys a couple free agency years and the player can still hit free agency around age 30. There should be enough alignment of interests that it’s really a failure by the team to not get those types of deals done, even if you’re dealing with a Boras client. The Orioles failed to do that with Manny and it cost them a lot of value, and if they fail with Gunnar & Holliday as well it will again. (And Mayo and Basallo could end up in the same category given their age, if things break right for them in their continued development.)  

The inability to sign Manny indicates to me that this ownership is unwilling to do these types of extensions, so I have low hopes that one will actually happen. 

Beyond that, I’m not as concerned with locking up position players where you are buying the age 30+ free agent years or pitchers of any age. If they can do it then great, but there’s reasonable arguments to just go year to year through arbitration. 

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

Why should a player be in an even position with ownership?
 

  In what industry in the world is labor in an even position with ownership?
 

Every employee in the world is forced to ply their trade for a certain company at a certain rate.

If you do not want to do that, you start your own business.  You have options.  It’s a lot more difficult and their is a lot more risk, but you have  an option. 

If an employee is not performing or a company does not want to pay for their services, they shouldn’t be cut?   The company should be forced to carry dead weight which affects their performances and brand? 
 

 

 

I'm not going to bother touching most of this but this one line I'm going to address because it's such a phenomenally bad take.

The US Supreme Court allows Major League Baseball to exist as a monopoly.  Players have no opportunity to "start their own business" in their chosen field.

 

[emmett16]

4 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

Just an example.  The Orioles signed Kyle Gibson for 10M.  He could have gotten hurt the first week of the season, missed the year, and still received 10M.   The Orioles could have written a contract with a clause that said if you pitch less than 25 innings  you only get the league minimum (800K ?).   Gibson can then go to another team willing to guarantee 8M with no clause on the innings.

There’s nothing stopping teams from putting this type of language into long term contracts.   If the team guarantees the contract without the clause then there’s nothing wrong with the player getting paid while he misses an entire year or more.

I get it.   The market dictates the situation.  

[emmett16]

6 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm not going to bother touching most of this but this one line I'm going to address because it's such a phenomenally bad take.

The US Supreme Court allows Major League Baseball to exist as a monopoly.  Players have no opportunity to "start their own business" in their chosen field.

 

I disagree.  Look at LIV Golf.  It just takes one disrupter to flip the whole thing upside down.  As the sport continues to grow I think there is massive opportunity abroad.  

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, emmett16 said:

I disagree.  Look at LIV Golf.  It just takes one disrupter to flip the whole thing upside down.  As the sport continues to grow I think there is massive opportunity abroad.  

So players should go form their own rival league in a foreign nation?

You think that's a viable option?

[ShoelesJoe]

5 hours ago, RZNJ said:

Do the contacts mentioned have clauses like that?   It sounds good but I do know what the precedent is.

It's called the John Lackey clause. 

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-rise-of-the-john-lackey-clause/

[RZNJ]

19 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

I disagree.  Look at LIV Golf.  It just takes one disrupter to flip the whole thing upside down.  As the sport continues to grow I think there is massive opportunity abroad.  

And the creation of LIV golf only created a situation where golfers are guaranteed even more money.   Brooks Koepka got a 150M signing bonus.  Does he have to give any of that back if he hurts his back and misses 10 tournaments?