Master Index of Archived Threads


An Interesting Approach to Signing A-Rod

MFS62 Nov 04 2007 12:48 PM

One of the callers to WFAN the other day said something I feel is worth considering for any team. (I paraphrase) He noted that the current (reported ) salary demands of Agent Orange - $30 million-per-yer and above may move A-Rod out of consideration for most teams. But he suggested that an interested team might offer a more reasonable salary (maybe $20+ mil?) and then offer a piece of the club when he retires. The caller noted that this would address Boras' contention that signing A-Rod would result in the financial growth of the franchise. So, he continued, why not allow the player to reap those benefits he provided to that team? ***************************************** My thoughts are that even with joint partnership with one majority owner, the team might offer non-voting shares (the votes associated with shares given to the player remain with the owners giving up those shares). But the profits of those shares would go to the player. It seems like this is something worth considering. I'm not sure if the Union would agree, since he would be signing at a lower annual salary. And I'm not sure this is allowed within the baseball bylaws. BUT... Thoughts? Later

metirish Nov 04 2007 01:09 PM

There would seem to be too many conflicts involved with a player having a piece of the team.

Nymr83 Nov 04 2007 01:29 PM

there is a rule against a player having a piece of the team.

metirish Nov 04 2007 01:34 PM

That then would be the major conflict.

MFS62 Nov 05 2007 06:32 AM

Nymr83 wrote: there is a rule against a player having a piece of the team. This plan calls for the player to receive the shares when they are finished playing, so it doesn't violate any current league regulations. Anyone care to comment now? Later

sharpie Nov 05 2007 07:07 AM

There is such a rule: that contracts cannot have provisions whereby players have a piece of the team afterward.

attgig Nov 05 2007 09:08 AM

mario with the penguins?

sharpie Nov 05 2007 09:19 AM

An MLB rule, not a rule rule.

MFS62 Nov 05 2007 09:53 AM

Thanks for the update. Later

TransMonk Nov 05 2007 10:03 AM

From what I remember, the rule is vague and could probably be skirted around depending on the situation. I've read this before, but don't remember exactly where they talk about the dos and donts of compensation (and don't have time to read it again right now). http://mlbplayers.mlb.com/pa/pdf/cba_english.pdf

Nymr83 Nov 05 2007 10:04 AM

MFS62 wrote: ="Nymr83"]there is a rule against a player having a piece of the team. This plan calls for the player to receive the shares when they are finished playing, so it doesn't violate any current league regulations. Anyone care to comment now? Later the rule includes that, know what you're talking about before you try to correct me.

Edgy DC Nov 05 2007 12:04 PM

I don't like the rule. An architect or a lawyer becomes a big enough asset for his firm that they can't affortd to lose him, he makes partner.

Centerfield Nov 05 2007 12:10 PM

What we should do is bring back Jose Lima and his wife. Promise Alex a few romps with her and that should get the deal done. In fact, we should make this policy for all top tier free agents.