If someone has to make a sacrifice to keep Baez or Bryant in Chicago, why should it be the player and not the owner? The marginal value of those extra millions is so much greater for the player than the billionaire owner. It is absolutely a pro-owner point of view to say that the player should make a little less. Why doesn’t anyone ever ask the owners to make a little less to keep the team together?
As I tried to say in my post, when there is an annual budget (which every team is going to have), the issue is not simply one of whether the owner or the individual should get the difference in millions. Every million spent on one player within that budget affects how much is available for other players, whether they be current players or players who could be acquired through free agency or trades.
The issue of how much an owner should devote to the player budget - that's another issue - one that is itself worthy of discussion. But not every comment about an individual's decisions about how they handle free agency and competing salaries is about the conflicting interests of players and owners. And this one was not about that.
Home
Chat
Login
Register