Why would a former commissioner want Major League Baseball players to push for team ownership shares?
Earlier this week, former Major League Baseball commissioner Fay Vincent penned an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Albert Pujols’s Capital Opportunity.”
At face value, Vincent appeared to be offering a public service to those players already being paid the highest salaries in the game by suggesting they relieve some of their considerable tax liability by pursuing ownership shares in their teams as part of their compensation.
Vincent cited examples of corporate executives and film industry bigwigs that have prospered in such an arrangement, while wondering aloud why MLB stars currently pushing for contacts such as Albert Pujols and Derek Jeter don’t demand the same treatment.
Initially, I was intrigued by the premise, but after reading more, I became alarmed over the impracticality of Vincent’s recommendations. I began to wonder why he would be advocating an approach that he acknowledges is not allowed under baseball’s current agreements.
Why is Vincent pushing for a solution to a problem that may or may not exist for a very few? Even if the tax burden on these elite athletes was a major issue, their agents often secure long-term payouts of contracts and deploy savvy financial professionals to manage their clients’ investments.
Why in the world would Vincent care about this?
I can only draw the conclusion that not far beneath the surface, the deposed commissioner seems to be trying to stir up trouble during the final year leading up to a new agreement between players and owners. His proposal could drive a wedge between the top players and the rank and file as well as cause heartburn for the owners who fired him almost two decades ago.
In an article touting the Hall of Fame Veterans Committee candidacy of former Vincent adversary and Players’ Union head Marvin Miller, MLB.com’s Peter Gammons outlined several gaping holes in Vincent’s proposal.
“For instance, it has recently been suggested that one way to resolve the Derek Jeter and Albert Pujols contractual stalemates is to give each a piece of ownership. If only Miller were in the MLBPA office to roar to The New York Times or The Associated Press. What that would do is alienate Jeter or Pujols from teammates unhappy about the biggest or smallest of issues. As a member of ownership, neither player would be allowed in union meetings, and how could they be eligible for postseason shares? If Phil Hughes or Colby Rasmus were shaken down by management, why wouldn’t they harbor animosity toward Jeter or Pujols?”
Even prior to that, in fact as soon as I read his Monday article, I emailed Vincent to express my concern. I waited for several days, but he did not respond. The content of my note follows.
“Mr. Vincent, we have spoken and exchanged messages about umpiring and the Hall of Fame in the past. I enjoyed and appreciated your openness.
I am contacting you now about your Wall Street Journal article on the subject of team ownership shares by players. While I agree with your basic proposal as a valuable long-term direction for a small group of elite players, I find your specific recommendations for the here and now surprisingly impractical.
Specifically, you state there is nothing in MLB rules which prohibit player ownership, yet later acknowledge that the current union agreements do just that. Despite this reality, you express surprise that players negotiating for current contracts are not demanding that which is not allowed and would not realistically be negotiated into the current CBA. Further, you erroneously said the CBA ends this year.
You and I both know that Albert Pujols’ next contract will be signed long before a new agreement is in place. Given that, how in the world could he request and receive a share of ownership of the Cardinals as you say he should in your closing statement?
You also avoid any discussion of the challenge within the union of implementing a change that would only benefit the very top tier of players. To negotiate such a change may mean the rank and file would likely have to give in another area just to ease the tax burdens of the elite few. That could be a very tough sell.
Agents, which as you know can be very savvy, may have personal compensation issues with such a proposal. For example, if Scott Boras thought he could prosper financially from such a change, chances are very high that he would have been pushing for player (and even agent ownership?) long ago.
You, more than 99.9 percent of your readers, understand the myriad of complexities behind such changes, yet gloss over many of the realities in your WSJ article. For that, I am disappointed.”
Loading ...Follow me on Twitter.
Follow The Cardinal Nation Blog on Facebook
Brian, I am reminded of your previously expressed fears that the Cards would be hounded by a swarm of reporters throughout 2010 because they hired McGwire as batting coach. It turned out, this fearful vision did not come to pass. The world yawned.
You may be a traditionalist prone to be skeptical about new ideas. Nothing wrong with this. And new ideas can be bad, so there is nothing wrong with skepticism about them.
Nonetheless, an ownership share for a player is going to tend to be small. Hypothetically, if it were 5 percent, it would hardly be controlling. So why would a junior player care if a star were a small shareowner? Why should it matter to a junior player whether the team constrains his salary under present ownership or under present ownership plus one player? The team is going to hold down his salary the same amount, either way. There is no reason to fear a player/owner will affect the salaries of junior players.
Its odd how you besmirch Mr. Vincent as “deposed”, even while mentioning how much you have enjoyed a prior communication with him. Since he was replaced by Bud Selig, who you often seem to deplore in essays here, why would his predecessor not stand higher in your eyes? If Bud is so deplorable, would not his predecessor be all the more credible for having been “deposed”?
Maybe if mid-market teams like the Cards could offer ownership shares, they would better be able to retain free agent stars like Pujols. Maybe Mr. Vincent is trying to offer ideas to help mid and small market teams?
I am completely missing any McGwire connection to this subject. I am not besmirching Vincent by calling him deposed. He was fired by the owners. That is fact. Just because I had communications with him in the past does not mean I automatically agree with everything he says. In this case, I question the motives and approach and explained why.
The neat thing about polls here is that everyone can express their opinion, whether they choose to comment or not. As I type this, 50% of the voters are against the idea with the rest either for it or ambivalent.
I was one of the ones that voted no.
Jumbo, why would Brian have to like Vincent better than Selig because Selig replaced him? You are barking at that logical fallacy dog again my friend.
It is common for former leaders of an organization to coordinate with a successor. Do I know if this is one such instance? No. But I also do not know that it is not.
Just because the owners may have replaced Fay Vincent with one of their own cronies in Buddy Boy does not prima facie serve as grounds for assuming that the Owners and Fay Vincent are in disagreement on everything. It is possible that Vincent is broaching an idea into the public domain to stimulate its consideration within the universe of star players, their agents, and the Union.
Lots of top executives within many different kind of businesses are given stock or stock options. Becoming a Shareholder means becoming a part owner. MLB is just another private business. There is no intrinsic reason for MLB not to consider offering ownership shares to important players as one possible means for their remuneration, if mutally agreeable reasons for doing so can be found.
In the US, these are changing times. The President was running a huge budget deficit, but now his economic advisor Dr. Summers has decamped, the opposing party administered an electoral shellacing, and now both parties are talking, finally, about cutting Social Security, Medicare, and pursuing other means of cost containment and narrowing the enormous deficit. There is lots of change in the air. By comparison, Fay Vincent’s idea is trivial, hardly worthy of either objeection or support. His seems an idea best left to MLB and the Union to consider, rather than fans.
Based on your final sentence, you are saying Vincent should not have run his opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal. Using that vehicle would seem to be a direct appeal to the public.
Mr. Vincent ran his piece not in Sports Illustrated, nor at the Cardinal Nation Blog, or ESPN. He chose to share it in the business arena. It can be read there by cigar smoking MLB tycoons and agents alike.
If the MLB fanbase wants to read it too and comment, fine. But the ultimate deciders will be MLB owners and star players, not fans, young Rasmus, nor Phil Hughes. Why should I care how Pujols chooses to collect his money?
Brian claims there is a “challenge within the Union for implementing a change that will only benefit the top tier of players.” Actually, a lof of the Union’s efforts already are directed toward earning money for the top players. Why should junior players care whether stars get paid only in cash or sometimes with shares? Either way, stars get paid a lot and juniors aspire to become stars too, so as to earn riches themselves.
I did not state there is a challenge, but suggested it could be an issue. As far as we know, the whole idea has not yet been put on the table by anyone, other than in one newspaper article.
The concept of give-to-get is why it matters. To convince ownership to allow this, the players may need to give up something as well. Pretty standard in negotiations. Chances are that could be a give from the rank and file, but of course we don’t know that.
Hmmm… might be the other way around. To convince the owners to allow this the players need to give up something!
Sorry, yes, that is what I meant.
Probably mutually beneficial if done right.
I would be very surprised if ownership would willingly go there.
Brian — I think just the opposite. Convergence of interests between owners and labor would be beneficial to both. The unions and agents would be the ones hollering. Less need for them to play go-between. Which is probably why it won’t happen.
I agree. If players got ownership shares, this would give them more stake within the game, in that the interests of players and owners would be closer.
There would probably need to be more open accounting of finances for each franchise. Each share would get a dividend, with all shareholders getting paid equally on a per share basis.
Some players have become franchise owners in basketball, with Michael Jordan coming to mind.
Fay Vincent is doing some enlightened thinking.
You explained precisely why this won’t happen, Jumbo.
Do you think the owners would agree to that?
Jumbo — Your stock/stock options analogy has merit. What would be wrong with aligning the interests of players and management? When ‘the company’ wins, they both win. It would be a much better model than paying huge multi-year salaries to guys who seem to be the most productive in the year before contract negotions… guys like Beltre.
I’m not a fan of unions… baseball or otherwise. It would be wrong to deny they’ve done some good, but many seem to have outlived their usefulness. What if the player’s union does the same thing for baseball that unions have done for automobile manufacturers or steel or a host of other rust-belt industries?
Next thing you know, they’ll be outsourcing baseball… and we can import that from China or Mexico or Korea… just like everything else.
Let’s go back to sweat shops and the reserve clause. That’s the ticket HB!
Wouldn’t consider any big league ball player a ‘sweat shop’ worker… and I did say it would be wrong to deny that unions have done some good. The reserve clause would apply, as would the concept of weekends.
It would end up just like Wall St. The players do well when teams do badly and do super well when they do great. A sure ticket to bankruptcy. Now, if th eplayers want to make the minimum when they and the team do badly, I’d be willing to talk.
HB: they have already outsourced MLB. We have loads of players from other nations.
Baseball is a legally protect monopoly. Given such an unusual employment situation, a union is needed or all the players would be making peanuts.
Jumbo — Agree, to a point. At least will still play it here, even if the raw materials are imports. Outsourcing will be complete when we watch Japanese/Korean/Latin teams on TV… games that are being played there instead of here because once again the US has priced itself out of the market in a global economy.
Tex: Why don’t you, Carioca, and me partner up and buy the Seoul Cardinals? We can serve kim chi instead of cracker jack. I wont care if I ever come back.
Jumbo — Been watching the news? We’d have to keep a sharp eye out for incoming artillery in Seoul!
We want to buy while the price is low. The more shells and missiles, the better.
why buy just a team. I’m ready to start my own Brazilian Baseball League.
You can’t find the balls when they roll off into the jungle…………..bad investment.
We’re going to play on the beach. A modified version of the San Diego game “over the line” — the girls dont wear dental floss bikinis in the jungle. HAve to keep your priorities straight.
And think of the payroll money we’ll save. You only need 3 players on a team. Maybe a 4th for a sub. I think I may be on to something!
Brilliant!
Over the Line is a great game. For those of you not familiar with it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-line
Oh how I miss San Diego sometimes. And I definitely miss being young
An interesting thought. Using this proposal as a union-buster….
Brian — That thought crossed my mind during the initial discussion on the other thread. In favor with baseball club owners now or not, Vincent (or any MLB Commissioner) is the representative of those owners. Natural and logical to think he would still be representing their interests.
No doubt that players have benefited from changes from the bad old days, when the robber barons held all the Cards. But there have to be limits to what some of these guys are getting paid. Otherwise, baseball will cease being a sport where families can afford to go to a game together… Benefits to ‘workers’ don’t always benefit the public, especially when things get out of hand.
Tell an unemployed person that Alex Rodriguez deserves $50K per at bat… I think that point of view would find little sympathy among the common folk.
If you are not unemployed HB, please don’t speak for me.
Do I think baseball players are overpaid? In many circumstances, yes. I also think corporate CEO’s are overpaid. Ask an unemployed person how he or she feels about their bosses making 100s of mllions of dollars a year, especially those who run their companies into the ground.
Sorry, didn’t intend to speak for you or anyone specifically, just used that as a rhetorical device (apt I think) in these troubled times. It stands to reason that a CEO who runs his/her company into the ground will also be unemployed and/or unemployable.
Comparing one bad behavior to another doesn’t excuse either. Like my mom used to say to me, ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’.
Not a two wrongs don’t make a right scenario HB. I didn’t say ONLY CEOs who run their companies into the ground were overpaid. 90% of CEOs are overpaid imo. I love baseball. Albert Pujols is a great player and is good for the Cardinals. Do I think he is worth 30 million a year? No. I also love my Hewlett Packard laptop but I don’t think Mark Hurd is worth $30 million dollars a year. Nor I’ll bet do the thousands of people who lost their jobs there while he was making it.
“”"”"Using that vehicle would seem to be a direct appeal to the public.”"”"”"
Who owns the journal???????????? He was allowed to raise the question that owners could easily deal with…….would like to deal with……… so that the dialog could be manipulated………………..where do you think that goes from a BD/Murdock standpoint…………………. do you honestly not see what it is???????? Do you have a problem with “Take back America” propaganda” ………its meaning…………………??????????
There is a big time push…………as I have pointed out……….to contain the expectation that these players deserve to be “revenue sharing partners”………… the push for players to be recognized as “share holders” because of the fame and notoriety that they have attained as “professional entertainers” is being contested by their sponsors or promoters…………..this dialog is being dressed up by those that it will benefit. Who do you think that is?????????
Vincents view of baseball is well know………. he would like some accountability and honesty that player share holders might bring back to the business…………….he is being used, to offer his opinion/position this way. And Rupert encouraged it………….
Owners want a salary cap………….. they don’t want a free system where players can sell their fame like “Sinatra” or the Beatles……………….they want Jumbo the elephant………. or side show freaks.
Murdock allowed this because as I have said………….you will soon be seeing AP/Lozano’s opinion on this issue……………. BD now has your sympathy as you ask yourself……….. why should these guys be worth so much, that they want to become the “Bosses”…………don’t owners have rights? are they going to be at the mercy of the “Famous Frankenstein’s”…………. its just baseball…isn’t it……………………
“Hey Albert”…………look, I need you to sign off on this…………I need to raise 30 million in a hurry….. I’ve got a buddy who will cover me but I need some collateral………..what say you if I trade out a few shares for a while till I get things back on track…………you want talk to your agent…….well I never!!!!!!!!!!
Or this one……………. after jogging to first………….being thrown out by 10 steps on a ball twice booted by the SS………….. Tony comes to the top step…………and AP as he approaches says “sit down”……………………………………………………………..oh yeah……….he already does that……….how about this one………………….
That’s a good point about owners being “managed” by employees.
Nut………………no way that Vincents article had any other significance than I suggested. ……
In truth…..and fairness…there was a reference to two types of ownership shares in the article on city complaints….. I know why that is true……………..as I’ve made “vague reference to”…….. in code……… why the Team attorney had to suggest that there were transaction concerning team “collateral” that didn’t count as “a real sale” of team interests…………….
This is not the place to talk about such matters…….possibly………. but ……if you can read……..I’m about 6 weeks ahead of most of you………..as of now……………but the good part is…….. it will get worse………………….. events to come, as with most everything else around here, will be easily rationalized “Jumbo Style” as why things are the way they are. Knowing where your at at any time allows for extrapolation on future probabilities……………………..
Something that’s missing here……..reason………………….. are the Cardinals in a position now to force/influence BR into a one year agreement…….say 600,000………as a pre- arbitration offer……………pissing off Tony and Albert at the same time…………..saving 500,000………………. ya think………………….. does Brendan go for it? He has been played for that possibly. Then skip would have to hold his spot against pressure from Theriot……Lopez style………..BD/Mo taking options away from Tony???????????? and its cheap………… who’s MO is that………..
If they dont do the low ball deal with Brendon today, it isn’t happening (And I’ll bet you it doesn’t) – of course Westie already knew that as he’s six weeks ahead oof us common folk. But Brendon is smarter than Westie thinks and knows that if Theroit can get paid $3 million as a cost controlled player that he can easily get over a million (maybe $2MM) as a FA.
If BD/MO wanted to take options away from TOny, they wouldn’t have gone out and gotten Theroit.
Gotay goes to the Marlins…………….
Says you……………… in position…………..to try……….they went there by defaming their property…………..not so smart……….or what? Brendan’s smart……yeah right…….he wants to play for Pittsburgh……………….. they almost always make the Lo=ball play………
Not says me – today is the non tneder deadline. They will either sign him low ball today, offer him arbitration, or non tender him. They’ve already public said they will offer him arbitration.
Yes……………but they can settle at any time…………or trade him…………. that is the point………he will never get to arbitration and his agent knows it………..with the Cardinals………..the 09 season lines him up for more than they want to pay…………… they could get a good deal……..and then trade that deal……….. he has been guaranteed a contract……somewhere.
Now why would BR sign a low ball deal knowing he is likely to be traded? Splain please.
Intimidation…………..insecurity……………. all the things that BR shows as his vulnerabilities………
Mark M. was helping him dream of the big money that comes with power and extra bases……. a weak mindset for an impressionable kid……………..Skip too wanted to be paid Utley money for an outfielder turned second base……………….power in the infield is lucrative…………. Skip sobered as he saw his career flash before his eyes……………….Brendan broke…………………….if he lets it be know that he will take a beating financially……they will keep him in the guise of a utility man…….if not…….he’s gone…………………….. just like with Lopez, Ryan will win the job back from Theriot…………..pressuring Skip out in all likelihood……………………its really irrelevant………they will take the cheap way………..
And I believe they already did…………and he already conceded the point…………unless his agent is taking inquires……….Mo isn’t going to tell him sh-t about who is interested…………
Padres have already expressed interest according to MLBTR—-Cards low ball him, he says no, waits to be traded. He will get more in arbitration so why settle for peanuts if he knows he won’t be playing for the Cardinals in 2011? You must really think he and his agent are stupid.
He doesn’t know where he will be playing………………..and what your missing CRD is the fact he doesn’t really know if he can play………….he fears the debilitating frustrations about solving his own problems……………… He likely won’t be moved until after the first AP/BD meeting……….he is a pawn in that game too……………….Brendan is insecure………with good cause………. He wants a career…not a few dollars and the highway at his first payday if he can’t hit…………..I still look for Colby to be moved……that changes a number of things……just a hunch.
Let’s remove the psycho babble RC. He’s been tendered. That means he goes to arbitration with the Cardinals or with whatever team he’s traded to. Either way he gets a contract and it is going to be more than $600,000 or whatever ridiculously low number you are suggesting.
Sorry I meant WC, not RC.
Crd ………..you need to review this situation. Your need to be defending Brendan are very motherly……….I’m not guessing about that…………. few players ever go to arbitration….it is a rarity in fact……….. it is highly unlikely that Brendan will be traded without some understanding of what his contract demands might be………..interested teams will talk to his agent before proceeding.
The weakness in an arbitrated contract is that is can be nullified………with a penalty of course to the team of 25/30 % or something like that…………..the Cardinals rarely go to arbitration….very rarely.
The Cards have framed this very nicely……..600 might be low……….850 might be more realistic….
Psycho babel????????????? are you a player CRD? Be well mannered here.
An aside………….I hope Brendan leaves……..this is becoming a toxic environment……he may find himself elsewhere……….RC is correct in this.
You missed my point WC. If the Cards low ball him, he says no. They either trade him or go to arbitration. They trade him, he gets a deal with the team that takes him, either through negotiations or arbitration. Whether he actually has an arbitration hearing with either team is irrelevant. He gets a contract worth more than what you are suggesting he accept either by negotiation or arbitration. He would be stupid to sign for such a ridiculously low amount when he will get more no matter what. Remember you stated yourself his 2009 numbers will get him more than the Cards are willing to pay. Are you retracting that?
The reason for the psycho babble remark was that I have to wade through all the insecurity and fear, etc. talk to try to get to the meat of what you are trying to say. It was not meant to be ill-mannered it was meant to get you to get to the point–to something I can respond to without a PHD in Psychology.
I am not arguing that Brendan would be better off with the Cardinals. I’ve already said he deserves to be somewhere where he is appreciated and the Cardinals are not that place. The Cardinals, however, would be better off with him than with Theriot and Skip.
The Cards have options……..as I’ve mention…………..your not factoring in a simple consideration…………….there are more ways out of the big leagues than you can shake a stick at……………. if he wants to play here……he will agree to their number……….. they can always give him away in this market……….but he looses something ever time he fails……….he isn’t sure of him self…….. an injury right now could be dangerous………..he could loose his mojo……….it is the most common occurrence………..that’s why the value of them that can, is so high.
Sure, the team has options. So does Brendan. Even if Brendan were a complete vegetable, he still has an agent to will tell him what to do. And that agent is not going to tell him to sign for peanuts to a team that wants to trade him away. So, he waits for option #2—the trade. Go there, get more money. Play better there too cuz no TLR. The End.
Brendon would make out like a bandit if the Cards released him, had to pay him 30-90 days termination salary, and made him a free agent. His agent sure hopes the Cards think like you do WC!
I voted no but would vote yes if all the players would be owners, like a collective co-op.
For those of you that don’t know about the 19th century Players League check this link out.
Many of the big stars of the time played in it, but the league had to fold after one season.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Players‘_League
chief, where have you been? Stick around…
Ron Santo has passed. A classy Cub and loss to the ML baseball community.
That’s too bad. Santo was a stinkin’ Cubby, but he was true blue to them through thick and thin. When they lost (which was often) you got the feeling it cut Santo to the bone. With him, it was personal, and one has to admire loyalty, even in the misguided.
RIP Ronnie… maybe in heaven the Cubs actually win a WS more often than every century or so.
Luis Perdomo was non-tendered by the Padres, even though low salaried.
The As non-tendered 3B Edwin Encarnacion. Encarnacion could well become a signing target for the Cards. He plays a position where we need help.
You’ve brought up Encarnacion’s name often enough to almost make me buy in. It’s hard to like the sound of a guy who has been given up on by three teams in the past couple of years, but his low batting average and OBP has been masking some legit power.
His arbitration salary would have been too high, but maybe he would sign for reasonable dollars on the market.
He probably is not a good defender, but if he stays healthy, he could outplay Freese.
The As picked up Encarnacion for a few weeks to see if they could flip him in trade. Apparently this did not work and they chose not to pay him an arbitrator’s salary.
Edwin is a special individual………..needing only a special team………..in a special competition
Almost sounds like I’m suggesting something special…………special needs maybe……….special Olympics maybe……………. I’m not trying to be rude……….he is just…well…special………..
Two years ago, the Cards lost Perdomo after exposing him to the Rule 5 draft. He ended up on a bad Padres team in 2009 and not pitching well (too many HRs and BBs allowed). He only pitched 1 inning in 2010. Mo’s decision not to protect Perdomo is affirmed.
‘Crd ………..you need to review this situation. Your need to be defending Brendan are very motherly…’
Is it possible that crdswmn is secretly one of the ‘Mama Grizzlies’?
HB. To link me in any with that woman is the biggest insult you could give me. I would rather spend the day locked in a closet with TLR.
I’ll make a few calls and see about arranging that closet meeting.
crdswmn, did you see the episode where she clocked the hallibut with a club, gutted it, and held the beating heart in her hand? Awesome. Now that is resume building. The old boys are experiencing some shrinkage to be sure.
I once suggested that Westy and Jumbo spend a weekend in the woods with a webcam. Maybe you and Tony could have one on hand in that closet.
If I see that woman’s face or hear her voice on TV I change the channel.
There would be nothing on that webcam except pictures of me glaring at TLR. I think you would rather watch paint dry.