sensei_hanson
New Member
Listening to Sporting News Radio last night, and the topic came up as to what sort of rights professional athletes should have, do exercise, and often abuse.
The first instance was the whole draft procedure. They starting rattling off a number of high-profile athletes who, for one reason or another, declined to sign a contract with the team that originally selected them. One of the first ones that sprung to mind was Eric Lindros with the Quebec Nordiques. Steve Francis with the Grizzlies, John Elway (who defied all convention by going to another league), and a variety of others who held teams hostage by refusing to report to play. In the case of Lindros, his move was basically one of the final nails in the coffin of the Quebec franchise. It almost solidified the notion that the city would never be able to attract, or hold onto, big-name players.
This could rear its ugly head again this summer when the NFL draft takes place. Heisman trophy winner and probable #1 pick Carson Palmer could very well find himself as the QB of the future for the Cincinatti Bengals. Cincy is an awful franchise who has no real future and seems to make bad decision after bad decision. The city of Cincinatti is actually suing the franchise for not putting a competitive product on the field for so many consecutive seasons.
Now, the question is this. Is Carson Palmer justified if he declines to sign with the Bengals? Or any draft pick, for that matter? As a first year player, do you simply report to camp and play with the team who drafted you, or do you use your skills as a pro athlete as leverage to obtain what you truly desire? In this case, what Palmer might desire would be not getting sacked 934 times next year behind a brutal Cincy offensive line. And going to a desolate franchise that might never recover from years of poor results.
The other point SNR offered up was the rights of a pro-athlete once a contract was signed. This Major League Baseball off-season saw a rather bizarre incident involving Larry Walker (Colorado) and Matt Williams (Arizona). In short, Williams had a no-trade clause in his contract with Arizona. Knowing this, Arizona management went into negotiations with Colorado for Larry Walker, offering up Williams in return. They then leaked this info to the media, who broke the story that a major MLB trade was hinging on whether or not Matt Williams would waive his no-trade clause. It was a strange deal because at this point in both their careers, Walker is a far more valuable commodity than Williams. This move was done in part to improve a baseball team, and in part to save money down the road.
Williams refused to waive the clause, and justifiably so. He cited that his family had established roots in Zona, and he wanted to end his career there rather than move to a new city. From this standpoint, I can agree with Williams' move. He has a binding agreement with his bosses which clearly states he cannot be traded unless he says so. He made a family decision and should be commended somewhat for that.
At the same time, I can agree with the several thousand fans who are going to show up to Arizona games this fall, and boo the shite out of Williams. Because to them, and rightly so, Matt Williams has prevented their baseball team from getting better. His contract is keeping Arizona from obtaining Larry Walker, who would undoubtedly make them a stronger team. And for the fans, winning really is the bottom line. You can't really sympathise with a guy who's making 50 times the money you'll ever see in a lifetime, even if he might have to uproot his family. It's not like he would be moving to some ghetto in downtown Denver.
I'll let this marinate for a bit. I don't know where I actually stand on this but I found it interesting nontheless.
Cheers,
-Sensetive.
The first instance was the whole draft procedure. They starting rattling off a number of high-profile athletes who, for one reason or another, declined to sign a contract with the team that originally selected them. One of the first ones that sprung to mind was Eric Lindros with the Quebec Nordiques. Steve Francis with the Grizzlies, John Elway (who defied all convention by going to another league), and a variety of others who held teams hostage by refusing to report to play. In the case of Lindros, his move was basically one of the final nails in the coffin of the Quebec franchise. It almost solidified the notion that the city would never be able to attract, or hold onto, big-name players.
This could rear its ugly head again this summer when the NFL draft takes place. Heisman trophy winner and probable #1 pick Carson Palmer could very well find himself as the QB of the future for the Cincinatti Bengals. Cincy is an awful franchise who has no real future and seems to make bad decision after bad decision. The city of Cincinatti is actually suing the franchise for not putting a competitive product on the field for so many consecutive seasons.
Now, the question is this. Is Carson Palmer justified if he declines to sign with the Bengals? Or any draft pick, for that matter? As a first year player, do you simply report to camp and play with the team who drafted you, or do you use your skills as a pro athlete as leverage to obtain what you truly desire? In this case, what Palmer might desire would be not getting sacked 934 times next year behind a brutal Cincy offensive line. And going to a desolate franchise that might never recover from years of poor results.
The other point SNR offered up was the rights of a pro-athlete once a contract was signed. This Major League Baseball off-season saw a rather bizarre incident involving Larry Walker (Colorado) and Matt Williams (Arizona). In short, Williams had a no-trade clause in his contract with Arizona. Knowing this, Arizona management went into negotiations with Colorado for Larry Walker, offering up Williams in return. They then leaked this info to the media, who broke the story that a major MLB trade was hinging on whether or not Matt Williams would waive his no-trade clause. It was a strange deal because at this point in both their careers, Walker is a far more valuable commodity than Williams. This move was done in part to improve a baseball team, and in part to save money down the road.
Williams refused to waive the clause, and justifiably so. He cited that his family had established roots in Zona, and he wanted to end his career there rather than move to a new city. From this standpoint, I can agree with Williams' move. He has a binding agreement with his bosses which clearly states he cannot be traded unless he says so. He made a family decision and should be commended somewhat for that.
At the same time, I can agree with the several thousand fans who are going to show up to Arizona games this fall, and boo the shite out of Williams. Because to them, and rightly so, Matt Williams has prevented their baseball team from getting better. His contract is keeping Arizona from obtaining Larry Walker, who would undoubtedly make them a stronger team. And for the fans, winning really is the bottom line. You can't really sympathise with a guy who's making 50 times the money you'll ever see in a lifetime, even if he might have to uproot his family. It's not like he would be moving to some ghetto in downtown Denver.
I'll let this marinate for a bit. I don't know where I actually stand on this but I found it interesting nontheless.
Cheers,
-Sensetive.