Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
"The proposed trade between the Boston Red Sox and the Texas Rangers is dead," says Red Sox President Larry Lucchino, and although there are still rumblings of making something happen later on, so it appears to be. Had it gone though, the mega-trade and its aftershocks would have seen HOF-calibre players like Alex Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez and Nomar Garciaparra, along with major figures like Magglio Ordonez and as many as two top-rated Dodgers pitching prospects change teams. It would have shifted the balance of power in the American League for at least a decade (especially the Eastern Division) and likely would have reduced George Steinbrenner to finding a strand of Babe Ruth's DNA in order to get the last word. And it would have had a serious, long-term impact on the competitive fortunes of your Toronto Blue Jays. But when a deal is this big, even a failed attempt is going to have ramifications.



Reports indicate that there were two factors behind the deal's collapse. The first, which is getting most of the press this morning, is that the Players' Association forbade Rodriguez from renegotiating his contract to the extent of losing $28M in total value, as A-Rod had apparently agreed to do in order to accommodate the Red Sox payroll. The union's argument is superficially attractive: employers cannot be allowed to lean on employees to reduce the value of their contracts, because the inherent power imbalance between master and servant invites exploitation. Even though Rodriguez would have undertaken the pay cut willingly, the precedent he would have set would have undermined all future club-player contract renegotiations going forward. Rodriguez, publicly at least, is agreeing with his union. He has little choice: his agent, Scott Boras, is one of the most important figures in the Players' Association -- it's generally understood that the union spends 90% of its efforts on the 10% of its members who make 90% of the total MLB payroll -- and the big-money alliances going on here reduce even someone as powerful as Rodriguez to the role of a bit player.

Personally, I think it's a little ironic that the union is thwarting A-Rod, the man whose $25M contract was the champagne toast of every single agent and player looking to hit his own jackpot down the road. Rodriguez, with the help of Boras' machinations and the oil-field largesse of a pre-Enron Tom Hicks, remade the landscape of player contracts when he signed on with the Rangers, blowing off less rich but still overwhelmingly good offers from successful, stable organizations like the Braves. Put it down to millennial fever if you like, but everyone on the labour side of baseball loved that deal, and they're not going to do anything to see it watered down in any way. A-Rod is learning a lot of lessons these days, and one of them is that he personally was never as popular with his agent, his union and many of his fellow players as was his market value. It's not you they love, A-Rod; it's your contract. Otherwise, why else would they be fighting to protect the latter and not the former?

I agree with the principle at stake here -- but I don't think it's being employed properly or sincerely by the union. The Association doesn't much care about owner-player power imbalances these days -- if it did, it would be making more of a stink about the waves of free agents and non-tenders all hitting the market at the same coincidental time this winter. One hundred non-tendered Cliff Polittes won't get Gene Orza's attention half as fast as the possibility of a 10% drop in the value of The Contract. Moreover, I have a fundamental problem with an organization forbidding one of its members to take actions that the member himself, with sound advice, perceives to be in his own best interests. A-Rod is willing to switch franchises -- from an overheated calliope of failure in Arlington to a storied and legendary (not to mention better-run) institution in Boston, at the cost of a 10% salary penalty. Frankly, that seems fair to me. If I hated my job and had the chance to get a much better job elsewhere, but at a lower salary, I'd very likely do it. A-Rod made his choice; he should be allowed to carry it out. Everyone in baseball knows that his is an exceptional case -- the first half-billion-dollar personal services contract in sports history can't be anything but -- and that no precedential value could ever be taken from it. The wave of non-tenders, to be swiftly followed by another wave of signings at greatly reduced salaries, will be far more of a precedent. But as we've discussed, the MLBPA isn't greatly concerned about that.

In any event, the union's intervention isn't the real problem here -- if anything, it was a Christmas gift for Tom Hicks and John Henry. Even had the union stood aside, the Red Sox and Rangers couldn't agree on the money. The Rangers insisted that the Red Sox, in addition to taking on A-Rod's longer and more expensive contract, also pick up millions of dollars of Manny Ramirez's salary as well. The Red Sox, perhaps understandably, told the Rangers to stuff it, that the Rangers were already getting an incredible break from tens of millions of dollars in future debt and that the Red Sox weren't going to finance one penny more of Hicks' new-found fiscal responsibility. The amounts at stake, comparatively, were piddling; the principle was not. And whether you like them or not, John Henry's principles are usually the going concern. Put it this way: would Steinbrenner allow $15M extra to stand between getting A-Rod and dumping Ramirez? But this is why everyone, including Larry Lucchino, is jumping on the golden PR opportunity provided to them by the Players' Association: instead of blaming each other and consequently spoiling Cognac Hour at future owners' meetings, the two sides can blame everyone's favourite unrepentant target, the union. The Sox and Rangers should send Gene Orza a Christmas basket.

So now what? As mentioned, the trade could still possibly happen, but I think we can safely assume it won't. This spells some trouble for the Rangers, who are now exposed to the baseball world as desperate to unload salary. If I was an enterprising GM, I'd be approaching John Hart about taking Chan Ho Park off his hands if Texas picked up all but, say $4M of his annual salary: Park was never as good as he appeared in LA, but he's not this bad either.

But the real trouble, of course, is at Fenway Park. Nomar Garciaparra is pissed, and it's hard to blame him. He's given the Red Sox tremendous production on the field and conducted himself graciously off it. If he hasn't been Mr. Personality with the press and the corporate sponsors, well, so what? Red Sox superstars have never been a lively, friendly bunch -- Ted Williams, Carl Yastrzemski and Jim Rice never won any press-box awards. Nomar conducts himself as a professional, and more than one person has observed that he's one of the few standup personalities in an increasingly unpleasant Red Sox clubhouse. Now Garciaparra has to return to the team that was desperate to replace him with a younger, better model, and take infield practice with a Kevin Millar, who told ESPN that he wanted A-Rod, not Nomar, at shortstop next season (and Millar certainly is not the only one who feels that way, even if he was the only one foolish and boorish enough to say it). Garciaparra would have to be a saint not to take this personally; and even if he doesn't, he surely will have friends and allies in the clubhouse, the front office and press row who will.

Simply put, the Red Sox overreached; they got greedy. They had already had a hugely successful off-season, bringing in a co-ace in Curt Schilling and a brilliant reliever in Keith Foulke: those two moves alone probably guaranteed a divisional crown over the increasingly shaky Yanks and the not-yet-ready Blue Jays, and 100 wins would have been almost expected. But they flew too close to the sun: Theo Epstein, or someone higher up the food chain, decided he wanted everything, the whole enchilada. They were going to build the ultimate powerhouse team, bury the hated Yankees, finally win the Series. I think it's going to rebound on them, hard. Bad feelings, uncertainty, negativity and low morale mar productivity in every workplace -- and there is no workplace in baseball more susceptible to these influences than the one in Boston. Had the Red Sox left well enough alone, they would likely have been champs; but there is now a bad taste here, and it's not going to go away soon.

And what if the trade does in fact go though, if A-Rod and Magglio replace Nomar and Manny in next year's lineup? A wise person once said: you can only score so many runs, and you can only win so many games. The Red Sox would be a better team on paper and on the field next year, should these deals go through (though they'd sure be worse off in the ledgers). But would they be unbeatable -- over a full season, and especially in a short series? No. The Red Sox, tired of near-misses and truly desperate to finally make it to the top, have guaranteed nothing, and they've sown a lot of bad seeds. The day will come, I predict, when they will be sorry they ever tried to trade for Alex Rodriguez.
The Mega-Trade That Couldn't | 56 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Pepper Moffatt - Friday, December 19 2003 @ 11:06 AM EST (#82474) #
http://economics.about.com
If I was an enterprising GM, I'd be approaching John Hart about taking Chan Ho Park off his hands if Texas picked up all but, say $4M of his annual salary: Park was never as good as he appeared in LA, but he's not this bad either.

I think the Orioles are missing a grand opportunity. If I were them, I'd agree to pay half of Chan Ho Park and Denny Neagle's contracts, if the Rangers and Rockies also sent along a boatload of prospects. Given the financial crunches of the two clubs, I could see the Orioles making out like bandits.

Mike
_perlhack - Friday, December 19 2003 @ 11:16 AM EST (#82475) #
According to this article from the Toronto Star, Lucchino was quoted as saying:

"The players' association's intransigence and the arbitrary nature of its action are responsible for the deal's demise today."

Those are rather harsh words, and somewhat self-serving, in my opinion. I suppose everyone has their own view of the situation, but Lucchino's comments seem odd. I certainly wouldn't say that the union's action was arbitrary. And as far as intransigence is concerned, would Lucchino be willing to compromise by extending ARod's contract while reducing yearly commitments? I doubt it.

This is obviously a financial game being played by the union and owners. I think ARod is correct in supporting the union in this matter; there's no need to set a precedent for the future that's neither desirable nor needed.

The fans, as usual, are caught in the crossfire.
_Gwyn - Friday, December 19 2003 @ 11:49 AM EST (#82476) #
Would A-Rod changing his contract really set a legal precedent for all other baseball player's contract being changed ? It seems to me its such an obvious out-lier that it should be treated as a seperate case.

Then again all I know about the law is its full of long words and Rumpole of the Bailey was a top TV show.

Excellent piece as usual Jordan, I've read about five articles on the big trade this morning and this is easily the best.
_JOhn Ducey - Friday, December 19 2003 @ 12:01 PM EST (#82477) #
Excellent analysis.

I agree wholeheartedly with your comment:

"I have a fundamental problem with an organization forbidding one of its members to take actions that the member himself, with sound advice, perceives to be in his own best interests"

Obviously I do not understand all the principles at work here, but what exactly is the union's concern? It cannot be that players might suddenly all be asked to take a pay cut in order to facilitate a trade because the player can simply say no to changing the terms. A-Rod could have said no to altering the terms of his deal and that would have been the end of it.

Is it just that the union wants to keep the Contract as the standard against which all further contracts are measured? Doesn't the fact that the trade will not happen due to the Contract's size undermine this argument?

In any event, the aspiring Evil Empire Lite (or perhaps The Empire slightly less Evil than the Yankees because they have not won in 80 years) hopefully may have some problems with Nomar and, if possible, some more with Manny. You have to think that the Boston media are going to be wondering out loud about the Trade if the Sox hit the skids.

For a real twist to this story, imagine if Big George was to go and grab A- Rod?
_JTJ - Friday, December 19 2003 @ 12:02 PM EST (#82478) #
I've had a hate-on for the union since 1994 but I agree with their principle here. It could be bad also for clubs and owners if contracts suddenly can get re-negotiated at any time. Remember in the 80s and early 90s how players after big seasons wished to renegotiate their contracts? Remember how NHL players would sit out for months of the season until they were satisfied? Respecting the contract works both ways, particularly for the 'Moneyball' clubs: Imagine Vernon Wells decided he didn't want to play anymore unless for $10M (which he is worth in market value). Teams could no longer organize success by monitoring free agent status.

Anyway, the difference between Manny Ramirez's contract and Rodriguez's is not vast. I'm not even so sure about the trade. It seems that the Red Sox would be losing two marquee players (Ramirez, Garciaparra) to get one (Rodriguez).
_Marco S. - Friday, December 19 2003 @ 12:06 PM EST (#82479) #
Wow. Great piece of writing, Gideon. :-)

This has probably been brought up elsewhere, but wouldn't the Yankees be a great fit for ARod? Surely Steinbrenner wouldn't mind dishing out a few extra million per season for the likes of baseball's elite player. I guess you run the risk of pissing Jeter off, but if he agrees to a move to 2nd I'm sure the Yankees would be a much better team, at least on paper.

Here's hoping that ARod stays in Texas, for the Jays sake.
_Scott Lucas - Friday, December 19 2003 @ 12:10 PM EST (#82480) #
http://bbfl.scottlucas.com
I think the Orioles are missing a grand opportunity. If I were them, I'd agree to pay half of Chan Ho Park and Denny Neagle's contracts, if the Rangers and Rockies also sent along a boatload of prospects

Texas is not so desperate to unload salaries that they would eviscerate their farm system in the process.

And in fact, Texas doesn't have to trade A-Rod. After 2004, $20 million in salaries disappears (Greer, Perry, Zimmerman, Powell, Van Poppel, Diaz). In 2005, they will have only three guaranteed contracts on the roster at a sum of $37.5 million (A-Rod, Park, Teixeira), barring upcoming signings.

If Texas is smart and patient (I know, I know...), they'll achieve their salary purge AND retain the services of the best player in baseball.
Gerry - Friday, December 19 2003 @ 12:26 PM EST (#82481) #
If Texas is smart and patient (I know, I know...), they'll achieve their salary purge AND retain the services of the best player in baseball.

There are also stories out there suggesting A-Rod and Buck Showalter are not speaking. A few weeks ago there was a story that A-Rod was not taking calls from Hart or Showalter because the clubhouse attendant A-Rod recommended had been fired by Showalter at the end of the season.

The suggestion is that Buck wants A-Rod out of Texas.
Coach - Friday, December 19 2003 @ 12:35 PM EST (#82482) #
they flew too close to the sun

Great piece, Jordan. If the deal is really dead, which I doubt, the Red Sox will be the big losers. It's one thing for the last-place Rangers to have an unhappy shortstop, another entirely if Nomar is miserable. That could be the most dysfunctional clubhouse since the Duquette-Kerrigan era.

This is obviously a financial game being played by the union and owners.

In the Washington Post, Tom Boswell suggests it's also about grandstanding and mud-slinging between those traditional enemies.

Do Larry Lucchino, Tom Hicks and Bud Selig detest Gene Orza, Don Fehr and Scott Boras enough to screw up what may be the most entertaining trade -- or sequence of interlocking trades -- in the whole history of American sports?

Whether the Commissioner and the owners (please excuse the redundancy) actually set up the MLBPA this time, or just seized an unexpected opportunity to make the union look like the villain, we may never know. I suspect that when Lucchino uttered his harsh remarks, you could see Bud's lips moving. A-Rod's a mere pawn in this latest match between Fehr and Loathing.
_perlhack - Friday, December 19 2003 @ 12:42 PM EST (#82483) #
There are also stories out there suggesting A-Rod and Buck Showalter are not speaking.

Everyone has had to deal with someone, at some point in time, with whom they don't get along. Pouting about it is what children do. Adults should be able to handle it, whether they are ballplayers or coaches, or regular business folk.
_Cristian - Friday, December 19 2003 @ 12:47 PM EST (#82484) #
One question that hasn't been answered in all the Arod-Manny articles is, "Why is Bud Selig able to set deadlines for trade negotiations between two teams?" I just don't get this. My gut feeling is that if the Sox and Rangers want to keep negotiating they can do so until one of them decides to stop. If the answer to this was hidden in one of the hundred or so articles on the matter, I'd like to see it.
_Scott Lucas - Friday, December 19 2003 @ 12:49 PM EST (#82485) #
The deadline was for A-Rod to deal directly with Boston. Players under contract cannot negotiate with other teams (unless Bud says so).
Pistol - Friday, December 19 2003 @ 01:06 PM EST (#82486) #
The suggestion is that Buck wants A-Rod out of Texas.

If you had to keep one or the other, who would you want? The MVP who's in his 20s at a premium position or a manager picked up out of the recycling bin who has worn out his welcome after a few years in his last 2 managerial stints?
_perlhack - Friday, December 19 2003 @ 01:19 PM EST (#82487) #
About the issue of the MLBPA getting involved in the negotiations, and my statement that it sets a precedent:

I realize that some people take exception to that, saying that the player should have the right to do what he feels is in his best interest, but let's recall that the owner's union implemented a luxury tax despite the Yankees (read: George's) protest of it. Why should they restrict the actions of one member for the benefit of all of them?

In the Washington Post, Tom Boswell suggests it's also about grandstanding and mud-slinging between those traditional enemies.

Excellent article. My favourite quote:

"Whenever the sport hits an incredible high note and seems poised to regain much of its endangered popularity, its most flawed people seem eager to take the stage and, in some preposterously ill-conceived farce, bring the game into disrepute."
_Cristian - Friday, December 19 2003 @ 01:33 PM EST (#82488) #
Thanks Scott. I assumed it was a simple enough that it didn't require a heck of a lot of explanation. Simple enough that it went over my head it seems. Of course, nothing would stop the Red Sox and Rangers to keep on discussing a trade where no contract gets renegotiated.
_Andrew Edwards - Friday, December 19 2003 @ 01:59 PM EST (#82489) #
That could be the most dysfunctional clubhouse since the Duquette-Kerrigan era

The worst Red Sox clubhouse since... uhhh... the year before last!
Craig B - Friday, December 19 2003 @ 02:05 PM EST (#82490) #
One question that hasn't been answered in all the Arod-Manny articles is, "Why is Bud Selig able to set deadlines for trade negotiations between two teams?"

Negotiations between the teams are permitted to continue.

What is not permitted, and requires MLB's permission to do, is for a team to negotiate a contract with a player who is under contract to another team. This is a fundamental aspect of the reserve system (and the cartel system of ownership as well). Is the Red Sox continue to negotiate with A-Rod while he is a Rangers employee, they would be accused of tampering and would be subject to some rather eye-popping fines by MLB.
robertdudek - Friday, December 19 2003 @ 02:34 PM EST (#82491) #
The Rangers were right to ask for millions of dollars of Manny's contract to be picked up by the Sox. Manny is older than A-Rod, is a poor defender at an "easy" position and doesn't run the bases. He is grossly overpaid.
Joe - Friday, December 19 2003 @ 02:34 PM EST (#82492) #
http://me.woot.net
How eye-popping are we talking, Craig? I know that players in many sports are often fined in the area of $50k, which while a hell of a lot of money for Joe Blows like us is peanuts to most superstars. It'd have to be ridiculously high to even register as an issue for the billionaire owners.
_R Billie - Friday, December 19 2003 @ 02:42 PM EST (#82493) #
Seeing as this trade would have been terrible for the Rangers I'm not that broken up about it not happening. Tom Hicks should be concentrating more on why his minor league system hasn't produced any arms and why his GMs having been giving long term contracts to Chan Ho Park and overpriced middle relievers rather than trading his best player whom he himself was willing to overpay by a mile.

It could still happen I guess. But since it so ridiculously favours the Red Sox I'm not holding out hope.
_Scott Lucas - Friday, December 19 2003 @ 03:34 PM EST (#82494) #
http://bbfl.scottlucas.com
I was listening to the Dan Patrick show (a bad idea in and of itself, but anyway...), and Mr. Patrick said that Bud Selig should step in and order the trade "in the best interest of baseball." Because, apparently, Tom Hicks is hemorrhaging money to the point that the viability of the Ranger franchise is in jeopardy. (Dan sure does like to say "hemorrahge.")

Then Rob Dibble defended Gene Orza, saying that the downward restructuring of A-Rod's contract would set a terrible precedent that would weaken the union, and that A-Rod should be treated no better or worse than any other union member.

Finding myself in agreement with Mr. Dibble, my head exploded.
Named For Hank - Friday, December 19 2003 @ 03:36 PM EST (#82495) #
As a big believer in the effects of positivity, this really makes me excited.

Bad feelings, uncertainty, negativity and low morale mar productivity in every workplace -- and there is no workplace in baseball more susceptible to these influences than the one in Boston.

Hear that sound? It's a crack forming. And it's gonna get bigger. And soon enough it'll be big enough for the Blue Jays to squeeze through.
Craig B - Friday, December 19 2003 @ 04:16 PM EST (#82496) #
Joe, I know that Selig can levy fines essentially at his discretion, and I assume he wouldn't hesitate to levy a fine similar to the $1 million fine for talking to the press about union negotiations.

We haven't seen a tampering fine in MLB for a long time, I think... the basketball ones are pretty steep, even players aer liable to big fines.

Those tampering fines could be assessed for each individual contact made with A-Rod. I am sure Selig wouldn't hesitate to fine even his good buddy John Henry $1 million a crack for negotiating with A-Rod out of turn. A million bucks a phone call? Ouch... even for a billionaire, that hurts bad.

If the Red Sox defied an edict not to negotiate, I think Selig could easily walk in and veto any trade that arose as a result of it - and probably would, as it sets a terrible precedent for other owners to set each other up. Remember, the Commissioner has absolute veto power over any player movement.

A-Rod should be treated no better or worse than any other union member

Hey, my view is that as the one guy who has benefitted moer than anyone from the union, he might well be expected to abide by tyhe strictest standard. I think he's doing that, it was a great stance for him to take, saying he won't be part of any deal that the union doesn't sign off on 100%.

Mr. Patrick said that Bud Selig should step in and order the trade "in the best interest of baseball." Because, apparently, Tom Hicks is hemorrhaging money to the point that the viability of the Ranger franchise is in jeopardy

Oh man, that is *the* dumbest thing I have ever heard about the baseball business. The Rangers are leaking money, so Selig should step in and start running the team from the Commissioner's Office? Yeah, that'll right the ship. Dumbass.

If Hicks is leaking cash, he will find plenty of takers for the Rangers. In the right hands, that team can make a lot of money.
_jason - Friday, December 19 2003 @ 04:21 PM EST (#82497) #
The contrasting opinions and perceptions on this thread are likely a big reason this deal can't get done.

Some people think Garciaparra will go back to Boston, and they'll have 'clubhouse' and 'chemistry' problems, so they really need to make this deal more than Texas does.

Other people think the relationship between ARod and Showalter has soured to the point where ARod must go, and that Hick's is on the verge of financial ruin and he needs to swap ARod's $180 million off the books in favor of Ramirez's $90 million, so they need to make this deal more than Boston does.

What if the people in Boston and Texas are as wide apart on the perception of who needs the deal more? Even if some deal exists that would be palatable, those involved might be unable to find it because they each feel they are in the superior bargaining position.

I think to some extent, the Boston clubhouse chemistry issues are seen through Blue Jay colored glasses. It's hard to imagine a team that's such a lock to win 95 games having all that much trouble in the clubhouse.
_Scott Lucas - Friday, December 19 2003 @ 04:58 PM EST (#82498) #
http://bbfl.scottlucas.com
Part of Patrick's argument is the upcoming end-of-all-worlds strike/lockout in the NHL. (Sorry, I don't follow hockey enough to know which side is walking away.) Since Hicks owns the Stars, he'll be losing all of his hockey revenue for an indefinite and perhaps lengthy period.

But (and maybe my Texas bias is clouding my judgment), I get the feeling that Patrick wants this trade to occur because A-Rod is A-Rod, and Boston is Boston, and wouldn't things just be better if A-Rod were playing in Boston instead of some baseball backwater like Arlington?

When the Dodgers were involved in the Garciaparra talks, Patrick said: "We're not just going to give you the Boston perspective. We're also going to give you the LA perspective." Presumably, there is no Texas perspective except that Texas paid too much for A-Rod and doesn't deserve him anyway.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why Texas HAS to trade Rodriguez. There is no desperation. It doesn't exist. If someone makes Texas a knockout offer, fine. But otherwise, they simply continue to enjoy the services of the game's best player (while paying handsomely for those services) and try to improve the team so that they can compete by 2005-2006.
_Dr B - Friday, December 19 2003 @ 06:18 PM EST (#82499) #
For those of you who haven't seen it you should take a look at some interesting commentary at baseball prospectus about the A-rod deal; check out evaluating A-rod and Joe Sheehans latest column which are free.
The main points made in each column are respectively that A-rod is *not* underpaid, and that the the players union is not the villain here.

Whether you agree with those opinions or not, I hope the rangers ask the earth of Boston (money + their best prospects + Manny Ramirez) as it looks like Boston was getting a steal here. As a Jays fan I think Boston is quite strong enough, thank you.
_Ryan Day - Friday, December 19 2003 @ 09:34 PM EST (#82500) #
There is, of course, no reason why Alex Rodriguez should agree to lower his salary just because the team asks him to. The Rangers agreed to that contract, and they should have to stick by it.

But, of course, that's not what is happening here, and the union seems to be ignoring one important fact: Alex Rodriguez, by all accounts, wants to be traded. He wants to play in Boston. But Boston does not want to pay him according to his contract as it is currently structured.

Therefore, in order for Rodriguez to get what he wants, he has to give up something. If he doesn't want to alter his contract, fine; he has that right. But he also doesn't get to play in Boston.

Rodriguez is essentially willing to give up $X in order to make his overall situation more favourable. Given that he'll still be making far more than anyone else in baseball, and that he's still represented by probably the best agent in pro sports, the union should really just butt out.

Aside: Didn't Pat Gillick get fined for tampering with John Olerud? It was pretty minor, iirc, but there was a token gesture.
_R Billie - Friday, December 19 2003 @ 10:30 PM EST (#82501) #
The union was obliged to interfere according to their rules. I think it was highly questionable for the commissioner to even allow the Red Sox the opportunity to talk with A-Rod about restructuring his deal. Talk about setting a nasty precedent.

If you're going to offer the Red Sox that benefit then who's to stop every team trading for a high priced player to try the same thing? And if Selig wasn't going to allow that to become standard practice then he's clearly shown favouritism towards Henry and Hicks.
robertdudek - Friday, December 19 2003 @ 10:34 PM EST (#82502) #
Ryan,

Alex is part of a union. As such, he has responsibilities to the union. Doug Pappas makes a persuasive argument that allowing the restructuring of his contract so that he loses money (perhaps 30 to 80 million dollars) on the deal will set a precedent and allow clubs to pressure players to agree to paycuts so they can keep their jobs. In effect, he could harm the other members of the union by taking less money to play in Boston.

Remember that teams can usually trade a player wherever they want. Suppose a team has a player who signed a lucrative contract that can't be justified by his current market value. They might be able to say - "Joe, if you don't accept a 20% paycut, we'll ship you to the Devil Rays. You don't want to play for the Devil Rays do you?". There 's a lot of leverage a team could potentially apply to pressure a player to "adjust" his contract.

Besides which, the CBA contains a clause which states that a team or player can't renegotiate a contract such that the overall value of the contract decreases. It's a deal the owners signed and they ought to respect it.
_Ryan Day - Friday, December 19 2003 @ 11:13 PM EST (#82503) #
I realize there's "The Principle" at stake. But the entire trade business came about because of Rodriguez. Since he's got a no-trade clause, if he wants to stay in Texas and collect the salary as guaranteed by his contract, all he has to do is say "I don't want to be traded." That's the end of the discussion right there.

But he has said he wants to be traded. What the union has said, in effect, is that Rodriguez should be able to get out of his committment to Texas and play for the team of his choice without having to make any sacrifices. (I realize the Union probably doesn't care where he plays so long as his salary stays intact)

Rodriguez had every right to sign his contract, and he has every right to demand and ensure he's paid everything. But he has to remember that his salary came in return for him making a committment to the Texas Rangers. Remember all those great things he said about the Rangers' future and committment to winning? He seemed so darned positive about the organization that he did not, as far as I'm aware, insert a clause into the contract allowing him to demand a trade to whoever he wants whenever he wants.

To paraphrase Robert, it's the deal Rodriguez signed and he ought to respect it. He's the one that wants to get out of it (okay, the Rangers do, too, but that's not really the issue). He has a very clear choice: Remain with the organization he signed with and collect his full salary, or move to another organization, perhaps one with a better shot at a World Series, and take a pay cut.

This is not the Rangers threatening him with a benching if he doesn't take a pay cut. This is the Red Sox offering him a very tangible benefit if he is willing to alter his salary. If the trade-off is fair to Rodriguez, and Scott Boras, why should it not be to the Union?
robertdudek - Friday, December 19 2003 @ 11:20 PM EST (#82504) #
Rodriguez said that he won't do anything that doesn't have the full support of the union. In effect he is saying that the union, and not he, has the final say. The union is looking out for the best interests of all its members (or at least it thinks it is).

Rodriguez is respecting the deal. The deal gives the Rangers the right to trade him. But the larger deal (CBA) says he can't take a paycut. There's no provision to weight non-monetary benefits against monetary loses. He has to respect that deal too.
_Ryan Day - Friday, December 19 2003 @ 11:53 PM EST (#82505) #
If the CBA & the Union will only recognize money as the Be-All & End-All of Everything, then I don't suppose I can really argue much further. All I can really conclude is that it's ridiculous for grown men, who make millions of dollars and are represented by elite agents, to be forbidden to decide what's in their own best interests.
_R Billie - Friday, December 19 2003 @ 11:56 PM EST (#82506) #
Why does being traded to another team necessarily mean he has to take a paycut? How about telling the Red Sox that if they want him then they have to pay him? They're much bigger beneficiaries in the deal which would bring the biggest property in baseball to them if they can somehow weasel their way out of having to pay him the money due to him.

Whether or not A-Rod was dumb enough to leave tens of millions of dollars on the table just to move to a different team is besides the point. Allowing him to do so sets too dangerous a precedent and eventhough the MLBPA will be portrayed as the bad guys, especially in the city of Boston, they acted in the only logical and fair manner they could to their union.

A situation like Curt Schilling's is entirely different...they extended him beyond the contract already in place. In Rodriguez's case they're asking a member of the union, the most prominent and highly paid member, to void several years and tens of millions of salary already guaranteed to him. Whether you agree that he's worth that money or not that's against the rules. They can't allow the Red Sox or any other filthy rich team special privlege to break the rules.
robertdudek - Friday, December 19 2003 @ 11:56 PM EST (#82507) #
Not so ridiculous. We live in a society of rules and regulations - we are not free to do what's in our own best interest regardless of the consequences.
_Ryan Day - Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 12:21 AM EST (#82508) #
Being traded to another team doesn't neccessarily mean he has to take a pay cut. Plenty of players are traded without any alterations to their contracts whatsoever.

But in this case, the Red Sox have said they don't want to take on A-Rod's contract as currently structured. Of course, they don't have to; they have the option of simply not acquiring him. Rodriguez, similarly, does not have to accept a cut in pay; he has the option of staying in Texas.

Rodriguez wants to move to a better team. The Red Sox offer him this opportunity, but at a cost of $X million. Rodriguez weighs the pros and cons and decides, with advice from his agent, that it's a good deal. So what's the problem?

The precedent argument seems overly alarmist to me. This is the highest-paid athlete in baseball, involved in one of the biggest and most complex trades of all time. It is, to my view, a fairly unique situation that isn't likely to be repeated any time soon. I fail to see how it's going to affect Ken Huckaby's next contract.
robertdudek - Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 12:32 AM EST (#82509) #
Ryan,

The problem is simple. That move harms the other players. A-Rod is part of the union. The union's job is to look after the interests of ALL their members. In this case, the best interests of A-Rod conflicted with the interest of the union membership at large. In such cases the union must protect the interests of the membership.

If teams know they can apply pressure to make a player accept a cut in salary, they will do it. Don't kid yourself into thinking it's a special case. Teams don't do it because they are prohibited by the CBA.
_Ryan Day - Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 01:03 AM EST (#82510) #
Robert,

The move only harms other players if it establishes a precedent that can be freely applied to everyone else. It can't be. This is a player who a) asked to be traded, b) had a no-trade clause, c) waived that clause, d) was negotiating with the team he was to be traded to.

Wanna threaten a trade to Tampa if Player X doesn't take a pay cut? Not the same thing. Force a salary cut so the team can afford another pitcher? Not the same thing. Pay cut or demotion? Not the same thing.

I do understand that it's against the rules. I'm just arguing that it's a short-sighted and one-dimensional rule that doesn't recognize there are more important things than money. I'll also just add that I'm not one of those people who ran about screaming that Boras & A-Rod had destroyed the sport of baseball forever with their greed. I just think the union is foolish for assuming that "best interests of the players" applies only to their salaries.
robertdudek - Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 01:16 AM EST (#82511) #
You know how legal agreements are. They have to write things in to protect their interests. If there were no clause in the CBA pertaining to renegotiating contracts for a lower value, you can bet that teams would use it as a club to pressure all sorts of players. The alternative is to write in hundreds of clauses that cover every conceivable tactic the teams could use to pressure the players to accept less money. Then both sides would have to agonise over the wording of each clause. Which do you think is preferable?

The union has to protect the clause in all instances or else they invite its anullment. What if some team insinuates (in private) to trade someone if they don't take less money? The team will claim the A-Rod case as a precedent and challenge the union to prove its assertions. If you are the union, are you going to risk taking the issue to an arbitrator when your alternative is simply to put your foot down in the A-Rod case and have no more trouble?

One must remember that it's not simply a Boston-Texas-A-Rod issue. It involves the whole union and the union isn't going to allow this little exception through because that would jeopardize the rule. Nor should they.
_Jurgen - Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 01:45 AM EST (#82512) #
The Rangers were right to ask for millions of dollars of Manny's contract to be picked up by the Sox. Manny is older than A-Rod, is a poor defender at an "easy" position and doesn't run the bases. He is grossly overpaid.

Whatever metric you want to use, Ramirez is one of the five best hitters in baseball.

He's older than A-Rod, but he's not a geezer.

If A-Rod is "worth" $25M, than Ramirez at $20M seems reasonable to me.
robertdudek - Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 02:51 AM EST (#82513) #
Ramirez isn't worth $20 million, more like 16 million. And that';s today - what's he going to be worth 4 years from now?
Dave Till - Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 09:07 AM EST (#82514) #
I find that I am coming around to the union's point of view on this one. If they let A-Rod reduce his contract, they've given baseball owners a hammer with which they can smash salaries of all the top players. And once the top players' salaries are reduced, everyone else's salaries fall into line.

A-Rod made a decision, years ago, to lock himself into a long-term contract with a single team. He should have been smart enough to realize that that decision meant that there was a risk of his becoming this generation's Ernie Banks.

Having said that, I agree that A-Rod is not to blame for Texas's on-field woes. Had the Rangers made better decisions, they would have been able to put an affordable supporting cast on the field alongside A-Rod.
_Jurgen - Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 10:30 AM EST (#82515) #
Ramirez had 28 WS last year to A-Rod's 32.

87.5% of $25M is $21.9M.

I'll knock a couple of million off Ramirez's contract because of the age thing, but it still seems like the Red Sox are paying what he's worth relative to A-Rod.

I just realised that A-Rod will only be 34 when his contract expires. He's still be plenty young when it's over to sign a Sheffield-sized deal with the Yankees to get a couple of rings.
_Jurgen - Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 10:36 AM EST (#82516) #
Ramirez is no less the cause of the Red Sox's "woes" than A-Rod is for Texas.
Mike D - Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 11:35 AM EST (#82517) #
If they let A-Rod reduce his contract, they've given baseball owners a hammer with which they can smash salaries of all the top players. And once the top players' salaries are reduced, everyone else's salaries fall into line.

I agree completely, Dave. I'm right on board with Gene Orza on this one (and I'm not always pro-MLBPA).
robertdudek - Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 03:17 PM EST (#82518) #
Win shares are not meant to be taken that literally.
_Jurgen - Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:35 AM EST (#82519) #
I understand that, Robert.

It was just a quick way to say I don't think Ramirez is overpaid given his production. Sure, he might not net as much as a free agent today, but then again, neither would A-Rod. I think it's completely valid to question the length of his contract, but not his yearly salary.

Come on. Bonds, maybe Pujols, maybe Giambi... is there anyone else who's a better hitter nowadays?

How did you arrive at the $16M figure?
robertdudek - Monday, December 22 2003 @ 01:25 AM EST (#82520) #
Manny has huge minuses attached to that bat. Really, no one would pay even 16 million for him in today's market, whereas A-Rod is younger, in great shape and a shortstop.
_JOhn Ducey - Monday, December 22 2003 @ 03:29 PM EST (#82521) #
"If they let A-Rod reduce his contract, they've given baseball owners a hammer with which they can smash salaries of all the top players. And once the top players' salaries are reduced, everyone else's salaries fall into line."

I don't understand this ... please explain. I will take it as a given the union wants to keep salaries as high as possible, but I am talking about real concerns (actual negative impacts).

In my limited understanding, Manny's and A-Rod's (even Delgado's) contracts are now seen as inflated and the market has 'corrected' downwards. Even at the time of signing, A-Rod's contract was a lot more than what other teams were offering. Does anyone really believe that A-Rod would get this kind of deal now? If so, then why are there not teams lined up to get the 'best player in baseball'.

It seems to me that teams will pay what they can/ want based on the all the circumstances including: number of available similar free agent players, how close the team is to contention, the availability of up and coming farm players, the number of competing teams ... You got to figure that the amount of A-Rod's salary is a ways down the list of considerations.

The quote also presumes some sort of group operating mind between owners. Do we really believe that Big George would lay off a player and not pay the best rate going as some attempt to reduce salaries?

Maybe the union just wants to cite A-Rod's salary at arbitration time? This is the only real concern I can see for them - and it is pretty minor.
Pistol - Monday, December 22 2003 @ 03:55 PM EST (#82522) #
"If they let A-Rod reduce his contract, they've given baseball owners a hammer with which they can smash salaries of all the top players. And once the top players' salaries are reduced, everyone else's salaries fall into line."

I don't understand this ... please explain.


The union doesn't want the possibility of teams thinking they can get players to lower their salary. For example, say the M's go to Jeff Cirillo and say we'll trade you to San Diego where you can play every day, or you can rot on our bench and be miserable. But we'll only trade you if you reduce your contract by 25%.
_S.K. - Monday, December 22 2003 @ 05:28 PM EST (#82523) #
This is not about the signing of future contracts. It's about the pressure management can put on CURRENT contracts to convince players to renegotiate.
I agree with the Union's position. I also agree with A-Rod - first with his decision to take less money, and then with his decision to bow to the union. He's accepting the consequences of his decision to sign the contract, and I respect that.
Mike Green - Monday, December 22 2003 @ 10:30 PM EST (#82524) #
Jordan's original point that the very pursuit of Rodriguez contained risks to team morale for the Red Sox was a good one. It may very well be a difficult clubhouse for a manager to handle this year. Francona's record with a younger team in Philadelphia during the period 97-00 was not wildly impressive; we'll see how he deals with a number of unhappy veteran stars.
_Ryan Day - Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:07 PM EST (#82525) #
For example, say the M's go to Jeff Cirillo and say we'll trade you to San Diego where you can play every day, or you can rot on our bench and be miserable. But we'll only trade you if you reduce your contract by 25%.

Conversely, though, say Jeff Cirillo is miserable sitting on the bench in Seattle. He asks to be traded and the team shops him around, but finds no takers. It occurs to Cirillo that a large reason no one is willing to take him is his salary. He offers to take a 25% pay cut if the team can trade him.

Shouldn't Cirillo, a reasonably intelligent man with competent representation, be allowed to make that tradeoff? Nobody is forcing him to do so; in fact, nobody can force him, since he's always got the option of staying in Seattle on the bench. (and at least in this particular case, there's no question he belongs there; benching a productive player for ulterior purposes would be an entirely separate union issue)
_S.K. - Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:09 PM EST (#82526) #
Ryan - the problem is that it sets a precedent which may end up encouraging EVERY team to demand that any players asking to be traded take a pay cut.
_Ryan Day - Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 12:20 AM EST (#82527) #
What about another very important aspect of Alex Rodriguez's deal? Something which was obviously very key to the deal and bestowed upon Rodriguez considerable power? Something he freely gave up, without any worries about how it might affect other players?

I'm talking, of course, about his no-trade clause. Should A-Rod have also been forbidden to waive his no-trade clause? It sets a precedent, after all, for teams to force other players to give up their no-trade clauses.

There's no discussion about it because it is obvious that A-Rod waived that very important clause in his contract because it was in his own best interest to do so.

S.K. -- I don't see how that's a particularly bad precedent. If a player signs a free agent contract with a team, we can assume it's because he wants to be with that team. If the player later wishes to get out of that committment to the team, why shouldn't he have to give something up?
robertdudek - Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 01:16 AM EST (#82528) #
According to the CBA, players are allowed to waive no-trade clauses. This all comes down to the Union protecting the CBA - if they didn't do that, what would be the point of the Union's existence?
_S.K. - Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 12:53 PM EST (#82529) #
I don't see the problem with a player waiving his no-trade clause - it is there so that he MAY block a trade if he chooses, it does not forbid him from letting himself be traded. Juan Gonzalez blocked his trade to Montreal last year, which was his right. Curt Schilling waived his clause, which was also his right. This has nothing to do with the union, because it is written right into a no-trade clause that a player may waive it if he so chooses.
It is one thing to see a player giving up, say, $100,000 to make a trade work. It is quite another thing for the most high-profile player in the union to give up up to *$80 MILLION*. One is a miniscule case few will notice, the other is precedent-setting. (Alex Rodriguez gave up 80 million, why can't you give up 5 million?)
The Mega-Trade That Couldn't | 56 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.