Why don’t baseball player show any loyalty anymore??

Question

I know it’s all about money, but can baseball players not show any class at all? They just jump from team to team like high-paid mercenaries. I really hate when a player like Johnny Damon (as an example) will go on and on about his love of the Red Sox and his hatred for the Yankees---and the next thing you know---he’s wearing pinstripes. I am frankly quite sick of the whole sport! Tori Hunter was the last straw!

Answer 1

The difference between loyalty in 'real life' and loyalty in sports is this

If you are offered a 30% raise and you go from 40k a year to 52k a year, that 12k can really make a big difference in your life.

To go from 30k to 60k because of education or training makes a HUGE difference in what you can do and what you can't do.

If you work for 40 years,
at 30k a year, you will get 1.2 mil in your lifetime
at 50k, you will earn 2 mil.
at 80k, you will earn 3.2 mil.
Even at 150k a year, a Vice President level salary, that's 6 million in a life time

Torii Hunter made 12 million last year, has made 45 mil so far in his career.
Now, he has another 18 mil a year for 5 years.

Torii hunter will make the equivilent of 3 VP's entire lifetime next year.
What does he possibly need with 120 years of VP like salary
He will make 400 years worth of salary for a starting teacher (assuming 40k a year).

I am not even specifically suggesting that Hunter is or is not worth the money, in isolation or when compared to anyone else, I am simply suggesting that 'getting all you can', while a viable option for everyday people loses meaning when you are talking about the difference between 15 and 18 million dollars a year.

In 1994, during the strike, Barry Bonds went back to court to request that his alimony payments be reduced because he is no longer working. Fair enough, I guess.
In the story that came out of it, it was revealed that Bonds and his wife (not sure if it's the ex-wife or the current wife at the time) spend 400k a month.

They spend, in a month, what I make in 5 years. OUCH.
If the average fan makes 40k a year, Alex Rodriguez gets 3 years average salary EVERY game.

Forget again 'is he worth it', concentrate on what you possibly NEED that requires that much money, then consider it's coming from your pocket.

I think, after say, the 4 mil a year mark, if you enjoy a city or a team, give a bit of a discount.

While this holds true for American born players, it's even more exaggerated for players from Mexico, DR, Cuba where the cost of living or the conditions that they grew up in (or even could thrive in now) is considerably lower.

The only plus to a players demands is that if it doesn't go to them, it goes to the owners.

A truly radical idea would be 'why can't it just stay with the fans a little longer'

Cost of a shirt, $12.
Cost of the exact same shirt with a Nike Swoosh, $45.

You are advertising for Nike by wearing it and paying to do so.
Why the difference, because perhaps Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods got you to buy it and they are paying them all this money. It won't come out of Nike's pockets for sure.

While I will do my part, refusing to buy concessions at the ball park, wouldn't be caught dead buying licenced merchandise, my efforts are foiled by the millions of fans that will.

Recently, Mike Myers was filming a movie during a Toronto Maple Leaf exhibition game.
Since they wanted a big crowd, the tickets were free.
This friend of a friend got some tickets, but on the subway line, there was a delay and they took a cab the rest of the way.
$35
This man, and his grown son at 6 beers each at the game.
They were $13 each. He spent $156 on beer and $35 on the cab for a total of $191 for a free game.

Beer can be bought in a case of 24 for $28 here. That's a bit over $1 a beer. $1.17 I would suppose.

That's a HUGE markup, but these guys paid it, either to make it part of the experience, or they were nuts.

Answer 2

Actually, there are a few players today who show loyalty...Craig Biggio was a prime example. He did what he needed to do to make life better for the ball club. The were worried about him catching, so he became an All-Star 2nd basemen. And even after all that, he became fond of the place he called home and stated with the Astros for 20 years. Bagwell, Berkman, Oswalt, the latter two of which have both said were probably done playing ball after their contracts expire after the 2011 and 2012 seasons are up...That is just one team. You only hear about the big blockbuster deals because that is what you the fans care about...who is making 20 mil a year as opposed to the 37 year old gamer who is there day in and day out to be the back up utility guy/pinch hitter/pinch runner -- who makes 500K when he could have gotten a 800K which is about a 60% mark up playing for a different team. People don't care to hear about the Orlando Palmerio's or the guy's of that nature. What about the guys who have been with the same organizations for 7-8 years playing farm club ball, still hoping for their big shot. Thats pretty loyal, they could have denied those contracts to try else where...

Answer 3

"Loyalty" was mandatory in the days prior to 1976 when teams owned a player for life once the player signed a contract to that team. The team could do anything they wanted with and to that player. If the team decided to hold on to a good player, they could do so for 10-15-20 years. When THEY decided they could do better without the player, they traded the player.

Today the players call the shots regarding their own movement. It is not about loyalty, and has never been about loyalty. It's about the salary the player will receive. If they stayed with the same team it was because the salary they would receive was acceptable to them.

Thus, I don't think the concept or the action of being loyal to a team has changed at all. It's just that now players can decide, not the owners, to be loyal to whomever will pay them (the players) to do so.

Answer 4

Baseball has been a profession since 1869, and it has ALWAYS been about the money. Witness the many defections to the Players League in 1890, or the Federal League in 1914-15... short-lived but lucrative options. An unaffiliated league was the only way for players to escape the reserve clause, as Craig mentioned. Hint, youngsters -- there's no such thing as "loyalty" when one is enforced into it. (Not that it doesn't exist, but it is highly overrated and never was a dominant factor for most players).

Players are no more loyal to their teams than the teams are to the players. Consider, when does a team show "loyalty" to a long-time, dependable, but clearly faded star? Biggio for the last few years (as he was chasing 3000; very marketable). Bernie Williams, I suppose, who walked away from a backup role offer. Barry Larkin's last deal. (And I'm not talking about paying off an existing contract; that always happens. Think about re-signing someone who really isn't that much of an asset any longer.) If "loyalty" isn't a two-way street -- and it isn't -- then it really isn't influential except in very small pockets.

Of course no one ever slams a general manager for releasing or not re-signing the faded fan favorite, but it's the exact same thing from the other side.

-----
Denis, you are dead wrong. Free agency ENABLED players to demonstrate loyalty (such as it is). Some do, some don't. But don't fall for the noise that loyalty existed while the reserve clause was in effect. Indentured servitude* is no environment for fostering loyalty.

* I'm not saying the players had a bad time or particularly harsh working conditions. But they did NOT have license to sell their services to other bidders in an open market, unless their team no longer wanted them and released them.

Answer 5

Yes, why can't it be like when Eddie Collins played for the A's--and then the White Sox. Or cobb who played for the Tigers--then the A's. Wait, Tris Speaker! Who went from the Red Soc to the Indians to the 's. Ruth? Red Sox, Yankees, Braves. Hornsby--about 7 teams. We can go on about this.

Players were legal slaves in the old days. Owners bought and sold them on a whim. This has laready been noted. But the question is simply flawed.

Answer 6

when all is said and done, it is not just in baseball that this happens. How many employees are loyal to their employers? How many people, regardless of income, stay in one job for 30 years? 20 years? 10 years? No - people jump from job to job same as the baseball players are doing. Additionally, team owners are not loyal to the players, either. They never really were. Before the advent of free agency, there was the reserve clause that basically made a player a slave to one team unless the team traded him. The days of company loyalty on either side of the fence died a long time ago, if it ever existed to begin with. Employers and employees getting along, being loyal...etc. is generally a myth. All you have to do is look at the history of unionization...etc. The players formed a union for a reason and it was not because team owners were catering to them and being loyal to them.

Answer 7

It's interesting. Did you know that the percentage of players who play for one team only has not changed over the years? For every Stan Musial in the old days there was a Willie Mays. For every Kenny Lofton you get a Bernie Williams. In the old days it was because players were "owned" in quite a literal sense, but if they didn't want to retire the teams would trade them for what they could get. Now, a player can try to sign on with a team to make the post season. I like today's method better.

Answer 8

It was never about loyalty in the "good old days" - the players couldn't change teams because the owners held them essentially as slaves thanks to their illegal reserve clause. It's nice to have continuity on your team, but past greats like Musial, Mantle, and others probably would have bounced around more if they'd had the chance.

There's still some loyalty, but I think baseball players are like the rest of us. I've left jobs I enjoyed in the past because the money at others was simply too good to pass up, and they're doing that on a much, much larger scale. Given the average length of a career, I think it's a smart move for them. It sometimes stinks for us, especially those of us who root for small or mid-market teams, but that's the way it works now.

Answer 9

Loyalties are left to the fans who do not get paid for their love of a team, a player, a sport... Baseball (or any professional sport) is an entertainment BUSINESS to those who earn their living in it. And a very lucrative business at that. Loyalty in a carreer, as a general rule, is secondary to livelihood.

Answer 10

The New York Training School for Teachers and New York Model School, now the A. Philip Randolph Campus High School, was designated a landmark by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission in 1997.

http://www.sneakersforsaleshop.us