PDA

View Full Version : Loyalty to Team?


starboy0
07-06-2004, 08:28 PM
I admit I don't know all (or any!) the subtleties involved in contract negotiations nor if we're truly informed of what's really going on with Maggs. But I do remember the concept of team loyalty. Of course these are different days and the concept might be passe and naive. Although I remember Tommy LaSorda when interviewed said he "bled Dodger Blue." And I believed him. It had that ring of authenticity. He loved his team and was going to stay with it.

So I'm hoping that Maggs has a sense of that with the White Sox and that it's just not about the money. Heck, if we all clip coupons and send them to Maggs he'll never miss that extra $2 million. There are ways to get by.

I would like to see team loyalty as an actual dynamic once again.

slugfish
07-06-2004, 08:34 PM
Not that its a legitimate excuse, but the previously proposed Nomar trade may have tarnished his loyalty.

owensmouth
07-06-2004, 08:39 PM
In the past the team loyalty was primarily the result of the reserve clause. The players had a choice: stay with your ballclub or be out of baseball.

npdempse
07-06-2004, 08:45 PM
In the past the team loyalty was primarily the result of the reserve clause. The players had a choice: stay with your ballclub or be out of baseball.
And even then guys made the effort to jump teams for better kale, even sitting out seasons or quitting all together. Yankee money has won a lot of championships.

owensmouth
07-06-2004, 08:49 PM
And even then guys made the effort to jump teams for better kale, even sitting out seasons or quitting all together. Yankee money has won a lot of championships.
You couldn't sit out a season and then change teams. You were locked into the team.

Daver
07-06-2004, 08:50 PM
In the past the team loyalty was primarily the result of the reserve clause. The players had a choice: stay with your ballclub or be out of baseball.
Frank Thomas disagrees with you.

SouthSideHitman
07-06-2004, 08:50 PM
I dunno, I think that the loyalty of times past is overblown and the present is undervalued. Players in the old days (Tommy Lasorda aside) were more "trapped by the reserve clause" than "loyal", there were a lotta people who wouldn't have been with teams for nearly as long as they were if free agency were around in the 40s. For many (especially latin) players, childhoods spent in poverty mean that they feel a need to get enough money to provide for their extended families and enough to never have to worry about it again and for others, they would like to be able to look at other cities than the ones that drafted them. I know that I wouldn't necessarily feel a need to stay in, say, Pittsburgh or Phoenix just cause they drafted me. Imagine if your first job was in one of those cities, you wouldn't necessarily stay there once your skills allowed you to move to a better position for yourself or your family somehwere else.

Not to mention the fact that teams aren't as loyal to players anymore either. Back in the day, due to many factors, including the lack of competitive equity, there were far fewer midseason deals and teams wouldn't release guys in order to slash payroll.

TDog
07-06-2004, 09:25 PM
You couldn't sit out a season and then change teams. You were locked into the team.
I have a friend whose father pitched in the Cardinals organization. He got married, had a family became a teacher, forgot all about baseball, and years later the Cardinals sent him a letter saying he was being released.

doublem23
07-06-2004, 10:37 PM
Frank Thomas disagrees with you.Reserve clause has different meanings, or at least implications, pre- and post-Curt Flood.

Dan H
07-07-2004, 10:09 AM
I am a strong believer in loyalty. I am also a strong believer that loyalty should be a two-way street.

joeynach
07-07-2004, 10:19 AM
I admit I don't know all (or any!) the subtleties involved in contract negotiations nor if we're truly informed of what's really going on with Maggs. But I do remember the concept of team loyalty. Of course these are different days and the concept might be passe and naive. Although I remember Tommy LaSorda when interviewed said he "bled Dodger Blue." And I believed him. It had that ring of authenticity. He loved his team and was going to stay with it.

So I'm hoping that Maggs has a sense of that with the White Sox and that it's just not about the money. Heck, if we all clip coupons and send them to Maggs he'll never miss that extra $2 million. There are ways to get by.

I would like to see team loyalty as an actual dynamic once again.Intersting is loyalty supposed to come from the team or players now. Maggs has been a classy and wonderful guy to represent us over the past 7 years. Always a 300/30/100 hitter with no off the field problems, never anything bad to say. An all around class act. Deserves a big contract right. Yes, so the sox offer something around 5 years 60 mil, 12mil per year and yes the last year is deffered, but still hes getting 12 mil salary. Then to Maggs he could get more with a different team. He coult get 5 years 70 mil none deffered from a crappy team with players and coaches who are not his friends, with fans who dont already love him, and in a city he doesn't necissarily like. And so far he has opted for the 2nd. Where is Maggs team loyalty. Its not like he doens't know we are not the yankees, that our payroll is mid market, that he is the superstar here but would be average in NY. Our loyalty was 14 mil this year and 12 mil for the next 5. Where is Maggs loyalty to the fans, players, coaches, that love him and have supported him as the underrated superstar he is. Loyalty goes both ways if i am concerned. He claims to be stung from the potential trade to boston last winter. Well he brought that on himself. KW never wanted to trade him, but when Maggs said in 03 i dont want your contract exentsion and i want to go to Free Agency he left KW no choice but to pursue a trade. If the wasn't even willing to negotiate how does that help KW stance on trying to resign him.

pearso66
07-07-2004, 10:25 AM
Intersting is loyalty supposed to come from the team or players now. Maggs has been a classy and wonderful guy to represent us over the past 7 years. Always a 300/30/100 hitter with no off the field problems, never anything bad to say. An all around class act. Deserves a big contract right. Yes, so the sox offer something around 5 years 60 mil, 12mil per year and yes the last year is deffered, but still hes getting 12 mil salary. Then to Maggs he could get more with a different team. He coult get 5 years 70 mil none deffered from a crappy team with players and coaches who are not his friends, with fans who dont already love him, and in a city he doesn't necissarily like. And so far he has opted for the 2nd. Where is Maggs team loyalty. Its not like he doens't know we are not the yankees, that our payroll is mid market, that he is the superstar here but would be average in NY. Our loyalty was 14 mil this year and 12 mil for the next 5. Where is Maggs loyalty to the fans, players, coaches, that love him and have supported him as the underrated superstar he is. Loyalty goes both ways if i am concerned. He claims to be stung from the potential trade to boston last winter. Well he brought that on himself. KW never wanted to trade him, but when Maggs said in 03 i dont want your contract exentsion and i want to go to Free Agency he left KW no choice but to pursue a trade. If the wasn't even willing to negotiate how does that help KW stance on trying to resign him.


Now wait one minute. In one thread you are ripping the Sox for not giving him the money he wants and deferring his contract, and here you are ripping maggs for not being loyal? Which is it?

joeynach
07-07-2004, 11:00 AM
Now wait one minute. In one thread you are ripping the Sox for not giving him the money he wants and deferring his contract, and here you are ripping maggs for not being loyal? Which is it?
Maybe i wasn't being clear enough, but its more of a question. I am asking everyone which one is it. Who is not being loyal here and who deserves to be. In my opinion the sox are being loyaler then Maggs. But still it can go both ways. I mean if Maggs was offered 5 years 70 mil he would sign. However, Maggs should understand that if he wants to stay here like he said that this is not realistic. We are the sox, middle market, still have holes to fill, and can seriously pay a guy who wants 14 mil 12 mil, not bad right. You tell me?

Dadawg_77
07-07-2004, 11:16 AM
The fact is ball players are contract employees so as soon as they acquire six years service time, they can sign with who ever they want. How many of you would stay at your job if another company came along and offered you more money to leave and do the same job? I would bet it would be a very little percentage.

hawkjt
07-07-2004, 12:00 PM
Unforunately I think agents drive the train for the players and agents are only loyal to one thing. Cash. Hence the Boras getting the A-Rod deal in texas where he was miserable and Boras did not give a hoot. A guy like Maggs probably needs an agent as he seems like such a nice guy but again I hope Maggs has some control here. If the yankees or dodgers offer maggs the max those situations look better than the sox cuz he would not be the highest paid guy on those teams and the large latin market in LA. Anywhere else except anaheim I think would be bad for maggs as he would be the savior and on teams with less chance to win. At least in Chicago the endoresment potential is there as the city with the second largest latin pop in the country. The cubs are also a real possibility. that is about it as for good situations for maggs and I hope he realizes that. Now if one of those teams pony up he will be gone and life will go on. Sox should use the 14 mil to sign more pitching and hope that Borchard will come thru.

Lip Man 1
07-07-2004, 12:15 PM
Dan, as usual, is right on the money. It is a two way street.

Lip

idseer
07-07-2004, 02:37 PM
Dan, as usual, is right on the money. It is a two way street.

Lip
maybe ..... and only when it exists at all.

there has never been loyalty in the game of baseball. you either liked the team you were on or you didn't. the team either thought you were worth what they paid you or worth more as trade bait. i'm willing to bet many players 'felt' loyal .... until they were traded for a better model ( and vice versa).
i'm sure there are exceptions, but no more than you could count on one hand in all of baseball history. even players who actually played for one team their whole careers you have to figure it just happened to work out that way .... in other words, the odds!
loyalty means sticking together thick AND thin. and in the me generation (which i believe has been at least MY whole lifetime so it should really be 'generations') the word has precious little meaning.