If you are a free agent in sports, you have two main questions to ask yourself: “Do I want to go play on a team because they offered me a lot of money?” or “Do I want to go play on this team because they are competitive and I think they can win it all?”
Sometimes you get lucky and you get wooed by the Red Sox or Yankees and the choice is made for you. The team that offers you the most money just happened to be a team always in contention to win the World Series (or the championship in any sport).
Other decisions like the ones Curt Schilling recently wrote about on his blog about the school district his kids will enter into as well as Lamar Odom saying he only wants to play in a warm city like Miami probably factors into a free agent's decision. But time and time again we see athletes taking the money as opposed to trying to get a ring. But why? I think the ability to win it all should play a factor, but I guess it really does not. This perplexes me.
How many times do you hear a player say, "It does not matter what you did in the regular season, it is all about the post season"? It is all about the post season, because everyone wants to win it all. How many times did you hear Tom Brady and Randy Moss and Bill Belichick say, it doesn't matter that we are undefeated, we still have not won it all. I'm sure if you ask anybody who plays in a professional sport what their goal is in the sport is they would all say “To win a championship.”
Now I’m not ignorant. I know money is important. I know athletes need to look out for their families and look out for themselves. Plus, an athlete has a limited amount of time to participate in his occupation before age becomes a factor. This is something (most of) the working class does not have to worry about. Everyone wants to be rich and have millions of dollars for doing what they love. It is the American dream. However, at what point in your career do you say, "I have money, now I want a ring"? I feel like at some point athletes need to ask themselves this question.
Most players in major sports become free agents after they've been in the league for five or six years or so. This is most likely the one point in a guy's career where he has the best opportunity to make a ton of money. The first time a player becomes a free agent is the toughest call. They have to weigh the fact that this is their best and maybe only time to garner a big contract versus this is also this is the best time where I will play well enough to help my future team get a ring.
However, if an athlete is lucky enough to become a free agent for a second time and still has multiple teams requesting his services yet still has not been a part of a championship team, he should chose the team that gives him the best opportunity to win and take contract price out of the equation.
The hardest factor though to consider is which team will win a championship or be in contention. What if an athlete goes to play for a team he believes will be a competitor but they never end up even making it to the post season? It is extremely difficult to predict which team will win it all. The 2007 and 2008 Cubs looked poised to at least make it to the World Series and ended up getting bounced in the first round both years due to plain bad luck. As good as the Yankees and Red Sox are, only the Red Sox have it won it twice in like the past decade with teams like the Phillies, Cardinals, and White Sox winning it in other years. Nobody would have ever expected the Giants to win it all in 2007. So choosing a team to win it all is extremely risky and unreliable, but I believe you can and should try to spot the teams that will be competitive.
I'm sure owners and GM’s would not like it if players chose better teams than bad teams offering them more money. I'm sure it would be hard for the Detroit Lions and St. Louis Rams and pre-Drew Brees Saints to get free agents without money. But if you are a player, do you really care?
When Miguel Tejada became a free agent, he chose the money. He played some darn good years but on an Orioles team that didn't finish higher than 4th place in their division. Taking his steroid usage aside, do you think he is happy he put up some great numbers and made money on a lousy team? In fact, because of his steroid scandal, I bet he wished he won a championship to help preserve his legacy.
Sometimes athletes are aware that they don't have a lot of time left and would like a ring. Long time and great Kansas City Chief TE Tony Gonzalez wanted out of his existing contract because he knew the Chiefs were not going anywhere. I'd have to imagine winning it all played a factor into former Padres RHP Jake Peavy's decision to eventually sign with the White Sox. In fact, he was already getting paid no matter what. I think he knows his statistics will take a tumble coming into the AL and into a homer friendly park, but I think he also knows the White Sox give him a better chance to win than the Padres will. Marion Hossa seemed to have this in mind as well. He thought the Red Wings gave him a better chance to get a ring than Pittsburgh did and I'm sure he thinks the Blackhawks give him the best chance to win as well.
It's obvious that some players do care about the ring more than the money and I have no problem if a player does choose money over the ability to win a championship. However, I think when that player's career is said and done, he will regret that he didn't at least try to win a championship. I do not always think that a ring should be a player's main goal when signing a contract, but I would like to see athletes take that into account more instead of them signing a huge contract to play for a team that's last in their division every year.
Local Blogs We're Reading
National Blogs We're Reading
Finding Stats
Faceball
That pitch accounted for 15% of Jimmy Rollin's OBP for 2006
Ump Bump
Is my .320 batting average giving you a boner?
Did You Know...
That Darren Erstad was a punter in college??
Little Known Fact
John Kruk struck out in this AB
The Great Runs Expectancy Chart
Statistically speaking, sacrifice bunts are counter-productive
Pete Rose Baseball
Best signature ever
The Most Ironic Book Ever Written
Written by none other than Joe Morgan
14 comments:
you're on a role with these recent posts my friend. Was that an accurate and applicable hockey reference!?
Hossa was offered basically the same contract by the penguins that he got with the blackhawks, but passed it up to play in detroit. Hockey players are different from all the other sports athletes we watch in general. More team oriented i would say.
But it is all about the money. We would like all our guys to stay with their teams long term, but they their own lives to take care off, and that usually means taking the money. Could anyone pass up an extra 10 million?
I remember when Mike Hampton signed a 7yr/120mil deal with the rockies, at his presser, he actually said that colorado has a really good school system. I'm sure 120mil can buy you a personal school system Mikey
Oh, and the blackhawks are awesome again this year, even though Hossa is out with a shoulder injury. Except the goalies suck big time. That may be a problem
No, I know athletes are almost always going to take the money. I mean it's human nature- go after things that are advantageous to us, and we as a society (as most other have) have deemed wealth to be advantageous, but I'd have to imagine as a professional athlete, at some point, winning it all should be the most advantageous to you.
Maybe after get that big contract and you become a free agent for a second time or after your awesome deal you have another opportunity to change teams, I would think you would have so much money that you should take a few million dollar pay cut so you can end ur career with at least one ring and still have shit tons of money
Also, like, (and this is just the first example that popped into my head), when Aaron Rowand became a free agent and he had multiple teams courting him to be in their team- and he ended up choosing like the worst team offering him a deal- The Giants because it was more money and years than the rest. Now yes Rowand has a ring and he's not that good so it would probably the best decision for him to take the San Fran deal, but this type of thing happens to guys without rings and if you have multiple teams courting you, why not go play for the better team?
If I was an athlete, I would take the money every day. No question. When an athlete is retired, will a ring pay the bills? In the scheme of things in life, how important is a sports championship? Sure, for sports fans it is lots of fun to see the favorite team win a championship. However, a championship has no real value. Money does. An athlete taking money is making the same decision we all have to make, providing for selves and family. I can think of lots of athletes, famous and obscure, who were probably happy they could provide for selves and family once their playing career is over.
If I was actually Aarond Roward and didn't have a ring, I would probably choose the money. But what about the people who has lots of money?
I think the best example is LeBron James. He already has a shit ton of money. As Adam Corolla likes to say "he has more money than god". LeBron will make a shit ton of money in advertisements alone, no matter where he plays. Plus, he already has enough money to not sign with any team once his contract expires. Should money really be an issue for him?
Also, when I say take less money, I don't necessarily mean a considerable amount. But for big time guys, why not take a two, three, four million dollar pay cut to win a ring? Sure that much of a pay cut seems like a lot to us, but in the scheme of that athletes life, is that much money really going to affect you and your family's security? I would say no.
And I think you underestimate how much a ring means to an athlete. We as sports fans (stupidly) define athletes by rings. We love Tom Brady because he has three of them. If LeBron doesn't win any, hos legacy will be affected by it and athletes care deeply about their legacy. Guys that don't don't play in American pros. Plus, rings do mean a lot of them. It gives athletes a purpose and a satisfaction. If they only went out to play solely for statistics, then you wouldn't hear any athlete say "this wins means nothing if we don't win it all" Sure, they all want to have good stats, but they want to suppliment it with a ring. I disagree and think championship has a lot of value- it's just not material
And in the end, the athlete an have both money and the ring. Most athletes who have the ability to make the choice probably have enough money to help themselves out financially. There is no reason why a player can't have lifetime financial security AND a ring.
I bet if you ask guys like Griffery and Thome and Bonds how they feel about having an amazing career without winning it all- they would probably tell you they would give up some of the money they have earned to get a ring
And I'm surprised to hear you say this Journal about having money considering you told me you would be fine living in a tent in the corner of my backyard
where is DME? We need him to set you straight.
You are confusing fans with players. Sure, the players would prefer to win, but if they have to lose and make a shit tone of money, they will do that too. I cant think of an example of a guy taking less money to go to a good team, before the age of 35. I dont think derrek ward thought the Bucks give him a better chance to win.
Griff went to the Reds for personal reasons, even though he knew that would give him a worse chance of winning. So he is actually worse than all the guys taking money from bad teams. He chose to not win. He prob could have signed with the Yanks/Sox, but chose to go back to seattle. I doubt bonds gives a shit he never won. And Thome left Cleveland, who were still good when he left, for Philly who were not.
Players are more concerned with "getting what they're worth" than anything else. We should do a podcast on this
For an athlete, the ideal is to make bank and win championships. However, I think you overestimate how fragile the career of a professional athlete is. David Tyree has faded into oblivion, but he has a Super Bowl ring. SR, I think you are thinking of elite top-tier athletes like LeBron. However, most athletes have short careers. You never know what sorts of situations you might end up in later in life. A championship is nice within the sports world, but money is a real-life necessity. As much as it pains me as a sports fan to see favorite athletes leave, I can never truly fault them.
True, I may not need much money in life, but I am different than most folks.
1) I know athletes DON'T consider the ring, but I'm saying the SHOULD
2) I'm mainly talking about athletes who do have the choice- David Tyree and never has the choice, he always has to choose the money. Plus, for athletes who do have a ring, I could care less for what those athletes do
3) I understand that most athletes do not have long successful careers and a great athlete could end it tomorrow, but athletes take risks like that all the time. Bradford and Leinart choose to stay in college to try and win an other championships instead of going #1 in the NFL draft. I understand if athletes do get injured after a huge contract they feel nice that they didn't take the paycut, but how often does that happen? Are you really going to assume you're going to get badly injured? Granted, based off of your point there's a risk, but I think that's a risk worth talking
4) Griffey also sucked since coming off of the Reds and mainly went back to Seattle because no one else really wanted him
5) For a guy like LeBron James, he is the perfect example for when he becomes a free agent, he should absolutely choose the ring over money. I'm still not convinced that for guys who have the ability to choose the ring over money, like the big guys in next year's NBA free agency class, that they can't have both. I find it hard to believe that the "pay cut" these guys would take is still not a shit ton of money and still enough for them to have financial security.
6) I think Tom Brady is another example of choosing the ring. He keeps restructuring his contract to allow guys to stay on the Pats. Sure he's getting a shit ton now and he can always make money off of endorsements, but why doesn't he leave the Pats because I guarantee you he can make more money than Vick did on the open NFL free agent market? He stays because the "pay cut" is still a shit ton and the Pats give him a helluva chance to win another ring. Another Tom Brady doesn't even have to because he already has 3.
Ken Griffey Jr's been injured for over a decade. I entirely and solely agree with ex-blog contributor Journalissimo. Sure, the ring should be a factor for guys who are already filthy rich, but athletes make all their $$ in their career. Few go on to be successful used car salesmen.
LEAVE SPORTS GUY ALONE!
"the ring should be a factor for guys who are already filthy rich"
That's my fucking point! If you're already filthy rich, like Lebron James is, why go out to get a huge contract instead of going after a ring.
So far, I have not heard an adequate answer for why can't guys be financially secure and try to go after a ring? Yes, if you as an athlete and do not feel you are financially secure-like David Tryee (I find it hard to belive that Ken Griffey Jr is not financially secure- even w/o any baseball contracts I guarantee you a non-steroid 600 HR guy can find an easy endorsement deal or something- or the "pay cut" he would take by chosing a team to go after a ring is still not a lot), then yes go after the money. By all means. I you're a shitty player, you need all the money you can get. But for studs like Tom Brady, like Jim Thome, like A-Rod, like LeBron, and Melo, and Bosh, why not take a "pay cut"? (I put pay cut in quotes b/c sure they might not take the best deal, b/c the deal they get will still be a lot of money)
Why do you only see the mediocre players go oversees to play basketball? I think my point would be so apro poe (sp?) for 'Bron, Mell, and Bosh, and to a lesser extent Wade in 2010 when they become FA. All have great endorsement deals and will be able to get more no matter which team they choose. They will be financially secure and probably already are. So why STILL choose money over the ring? Yes, obviosly lots of money is never bad, but those athletes will still have the best of both worlds if they take The Ring into more of a consideration than money alone.
SR, here's my answer for why you can't go for the money and the ring - because life is unexpected. Both from a ring standpoint and a money standpoint. Certain teams will always be competitive or can be assumed to be competitive. Take the Yankees for example. However those competitive teams do not always win the ring. I do not think any big free agents were pining to join the White Sox after the 2004 season. Trying to determine which team will win a championship over a three to six year time span is a crapshoot.
Now, for the money side. Yes, I would agree from my perspective that there is not much of a difference between say $15 million and $17 million. Either way it is an obscene amount of money that to us does not seem like much of a difference. However, for a famous athlete, that extra money can make a huge difference. What happens if that athlete gets slapped with a huge lawsuit? That extra money goes a long way. What about if the athlete is financially supporting a large group of friends and family? That money goes a long way. What if that athlete engages in a lot of charity work? That money goes a long way.
Life is unpredictable. When signing a contract, an athlete should ensure him/herself with more security by taking the extra cash.
Most valid point I've heard.
My response to that is at least take a risk. Yes, as I mentioned in my post, it's really really hard to choose a team for the ring because whoever wins at all is a crap shoot. Why not take that risk? Athletes can play a factor into the ring they get both with their play and with their decision of which team to go to.
And how much can it be playing for the Baltimore Orionles or Kansas City Royals or Washington Nationals? You may not win a ring or better teams, but at least you're competitive- and I feel like that's much more satisfying.
What if you had the 17 million dollars as opposed to the 15 and gets sued and you lose all 17? You may lose all your money but no one can take away your legacy and your championships (except the NCAA and Memphis....)
There's more to life than money. Money can help contribute to happiness but there are certainly other factors. For fans and players alike, winning a ring can help contribute to that happiness.
I obviously understand why athletes make decisions for money, the same reason human beings do anything for money, but I still believe that a ring should start playing more of a factor.
For example and hypothetical you guys can name, I can do the opposite. What if I guy loses all of his money? Well, what if he doesn't? What if he needs to pay for his 10 brothers and sisters forever? What if he can pay for his family AND get a ring?
I think we are all aware of the arguments and I appreciate the criticism and response. I think it's safe to say neither side is going to budge and both sides have their opinions. But I'm going to stop posting comments. I think I've exhausted my arguments and frankly I think you know what I would say anyway. Good comments guys.
Ivan Rodriguez just came off a world series with the marlins, and instead of resigning for maybe 2yr/10mil, be chose to go to the Tigers, who had just lost 110 games, cause they gave him 4yr/40mil. No player has ever passed up money, ever, unless they were filthy rich and above the age of 35.
Maybe money doesnt matter to you, but you would never, ever, ever, pass up 20mil for 15 mil. Cause that money will not only make you rich, but it will basically secure the future for your grandchildren as well.
Only a handful of players even have a legacy. Everyone else just comes and goes. Also, the team has the option to trade you any time you want, so if you took less money to stay with one team, and then they trade you, your screwed.
Everyone who restructures contracts is not taking a pay cut, they are just getting the money deferred, meaning they will get paid what they are owed over a span of like 10-20 years, kinda like winning the lottery. All it is doing is decreasing the salary cap now. So dont worry, Tom Brady is getting every dollar of his contract.
In the NBA, there is a max contract any team can offer a player. Hence, you cant really outbid for a player, so the player can basically chose which team to go to without losing money. Ron Artest got the same money from LA that he would have gotten from any other team that wanted him, but he chose to play for the lakers. It is a similar situation in the NHL. Obviously, the yanks and Dan Snyder can throw around 100mil to anyone they want in the MLB and NFL respectably
And like i said before. Players main objective is to get paid what they are worth. Their stance is the league is based more on how much they get paid, over their stats or respect from opponents. Money gives you respect, especially to super competitive guys who make up most athletes
good points, I'm no0t gonna respond the main points of your argument, but I will say that if you have a WS ring like Pudge just got, then who cares? now you can have the best of both worlds.
Post a Comment