Michael Vick might sign a big 10 year contract, none of it is guaranteed except the signing bonus up front. In baseball you have these ridiculous contracts like A-Rod 252 million - 10 years, that big Albert Belle contract with the Orioles, where he played only 2 seasons and then got hurt and still got paid 10 million per season for 3 years even though he didn't play, same with Mo Vaughn with the Mets. My point is, you play - you should get paid - you get career ending injuries - you shouldn't get paid, except maybe a small buyout, and also with these long contracts, if you don't produce, you should be able to be cut from the team and not keep getting paid.
2007-08-14 04:05:12 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Baseball
because baseball has no salary cap or revenue sharing
in football, a team couldnt afford to pay guys not playing because of injury. it would kill their cap
in baseball, the union was smart enough to negotiate this because of the no cap. teams can afford to pay guaranteed money to players, even when hurt, at least teams that can GIVE those types of contracts (ie teams with payrolls at or over 100 Mill)
2007-08-14 04:23:37 · answer #1 · answered by TheSandMan 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you have a job you want to get paid, if you have your contract and are fired you are still paid for the remainder of the contract. How come people don't complain about that?
Players, especially in the NFL, feel they should get a raise when they have a career year. Why don't they give back money when they have a terrible year?
Hitting a baseball is the most difficult task to complete, thats why .300 avg is a hall of famer. If you got that score on a test you'd never graduate elementary school. It's agreed upon by both the team and the player as a legal document to pay money over a certain amount of time to play. If you are injured you cannot complete your end because of things you cannot control.
If the injuries occur outside of the game I would agree to give back the salary. If a pitcher hurts his arm during a game you can't ask him to pay back money for trying to do his job. Its part of the risk in the contract on the team.
There are clauses now that include a certain number of innings for pitchers to get paid a certain amount or number of plate appearances for batters to collect their pay check. In the end it all works out in baseball. Football players are the bigger problems, if they want more money they don't play. Like they're in kindergarten and didn't get a cookie at snack time so they won't play duck duck goose now.
I get the injury risk in football is greater, but these players know that from pee wee football, it's not like they get to the pros and are like: whoa, I didn't sign up for this. I think they should both have guaranteed contracts and end this holdout nonsense.
2007-08-14 04:17:49 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In the NFL the players get a signing bonus which is money they receive up front (guaranteed money) plus they have other money that is guaranteed if they meet certain stipulations. This to me is the fairest way for the team and player, so that the player still has some security if he gets a career ending injury, but the team doesn't have to continue to pay a guy that is no longer on the team because of injury, poor performance or some other circumstance. The players agreed to this so that they could get free agency. The MLB way is unfair to the team, a player gets paid no matter how he performs or whatever other circumstance that would arise.
2007-08-14 04:24:54 · answer #3 · answered by wiley16350 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the baseball players union negotiated guaranteed contracts with the owners and got it though i don't remember when. it is primarily that point which makes that union so powerful.
NFL owners would not accept similar terms and that is why the signing bonus has become so important to the player. the signing bonus in the only guaranteed money and with the high risk of career ending injury I can't say that I blame the football player.
I think it should be the other way around giving the high injury risk football player the guaranteed contract.
2007-08-14 04:17:20 · answer #4 · answered by Mark 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is actually a great rule. First off it protects the players from being cut for salary cap purposes (i.e. Basketball, Football), and it makes GM's actually think about the contracts they offer the players.
2007-08-14 05:08:26 · answer #5 · answered by Laker man 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The MLBPA is, hands down, the strongest union ni America. Stronger than the Teamsters, stronger than the mob in the 1970's...They pretty much get away with anything they want, whenever they want... Including, but not limited to, guarunteed contracts, terrible steroid policies, and Steve Howes ninth last chance
2007-08-14 05:18:30 · answer #6 · answered by newrorugby 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There has always been a greater chance that any NFL player's career could be over on the next play than in any other sport.
But ultimately it is because the NFL crushed their union years ago while the MLBPA is the strongest union in the country and the owners always shoot themselves in the foot during negotiations.
2007-08-14 04:11:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Because the MLBPA is the strongest union in labor history, and the football player's union is not.
2007-08-14 04:42:44 · answer #8 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The union, it is too strong in the MLB.
They are like the school bus drivers, nothing happens without them.
2007-08-14 04:18:46 · answer #9 · answered by rhuzzy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No argument here. Good Points!
2007-08-14 04:12:33 · answer #10 · answered by cuddleyleo2003 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋