Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chris Davis is really bad at baseball right now

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Hawker007 View Post
    And that is the problem with baseball. The O's can't do shit about it with that contract. They are screwed. No way there should be fully guaranteed contracts.
    And honestly, this is even worse than suggesting Davis is somehow the bad guy. The owners have almost all the power in the MLB. Clubs exploit players consistently; every time a potential great player is ready for the majors, MLB clubs intentionally delay their call up for a month or two to get an extra year of cheap, controlled labor. They fight the most deserving players in arbitration court, generally club-favoring, so as not to have to play players what they are worth. And that's totally fine, it's how baseball is set up and owners take advantage. But to then suggest that, despite all these advantages, players would be forced into non-guaranteed contracts despite already having next to no negotiating power except for what their track record is and how they have performed up to the moment of the offer? Chris Davis signed that contract coming off of a 47 HR season that led the majors. He had a 53 HR season a couple years prior. He was late 20's, heading straight into what should have been his prime. That contract made sense. It sucks for the Orioles that it ended up looking horrendous, but hindsight is always 20/20. To suggest that his contract means now owners should receive get out of jail free cards with non-guaranteed contracts is at best a gross overreaction.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Hawker007 View Post

      Yes I do. So you think it’s ok to sign a contract and then basically not show up for work and still get paid in full? That’s pretty much what he is doing.
      He's quite literally showing up for work....now, he's performing poorly, which, there should have been a performance clause in his contract if they wanted some wiggle room, but a contract is a contract and I agree with Gooner here

      I think the NFL and MLB need to meet somewhere in the middle when it comes to contract admin, if I'm being honest

      Comment


      • #18
        There's already a free agency course correction taking place in MLB. The last two offseasons have seen average to above-average players waiting out spring training because clubs have realized they can pass on them in favor of cheaper, more controllable (if worse) players without considerable backlash from fans who have been conditioned to side with ownership. Hell, Craig Kimbrel isn't what he was earlier in the decade, but he's still very good and just out there for the taking. It's smart to give contracts based on what you expect from the player moving forward as opposed to what he's been in the past. Teams should have been doing that the whole time, and it was a big part of the Moneyball revolution. But if teams are going to do that, it becomes even more imperative to fix the problems of suppressing callups and the arbitration system.
        Last edited by NoPantsChico; 2 weeks ago.

        Comment


        • #19
          Hmmm. Sounds to me like Cousin Kimbrel is holding out for a management position.

          Comment


          • #20
            A question for 007:

            If your employer offered you a huge raise and guaranteed it for 5-7 years regardless of your ensuing performance, would you take that deal?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Jhawkz5 View Post
              A question for 007:

              If your employer offered you a huge raise and guaranteed it for 5-7 years regardless of your ensuing performance, would you take that deal?
              Of course, but if I came in late, didn't respond to emails or answer the phone, slept in my office, and lost us a ton of business, I wouldn't expect to keep my job and continue getting paid. That's the equivalent of what Chris Davis is doing.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Gooner View Post

                Declining in performance =/= willfully not showing up to contractually obligated work, and to suggest otherwise is laughable and indicates you don’t understand basic contract law.
                Jesus, you're insufferable. That's not what I'm saying at all. I completely understand it and know that they owe it to him. I just think baseball is fucking stupid to be set up this way. The union has driven them to it, and it's a terrible way to do business. Great for the players union, but a shit model all together.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Hawker007 View Post

                  Of course, but if I came in late, didn't respond to emails or answer the phone, slept in my office, and lost us a ton of business, I wouldn't expect to keep my job and continue getting paid. That's the equivalent of what Chris Davis is doing.
                  So your employer would fire you and still have to pay you. You would expect to keep getting paid cause it was a guaranteed contract. You can't say "Yeah, but..."

                  There's nothing stopping the O's from cutting Chris Davis and moving on.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Hawker007 View Post

                    Jesus, you're insufferable. That's not what I'm saying at all. I completely understand it and know that they owe it to him. I just think baseball is fucking stupid to be set up this way. The union has driven them to it, and it's a terrible way to do business. Great for the players union, but a shit model all together.
                    It's an employer/employee relationship, just involving sports. The players union and owners collectively bargained. The owners have almost all the advantages, and the one thing the players really have in their favor is when players finally are able to negotiate a contract (often after their prime is tailing off), the players get that contract guaranteed.

                    I just don't understand how someone who is pro-free market thinks this is a bad model.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Well, he got a few hits over the weekend and the streak has ended at 0-54. That is a really bad string of bad at bats, but he also has apparently also had some bad luck, according to this article.
                      https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/20...sox-mike-trout

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Gooner View Post

                        It's an employer/employee relationship, just involving sports. The players union and owners collectively bargained. The owners have almost all the advantages, and the one thing the players really have in their favor is when players finally are able to negotiate a contract (often after their prime is tailing off), the players get that contract guaranteed.

                        I just don't understand how someone who is pro-free market thinks this is a bad model.
                        I can't remember who wrote it, but I was reading a recent article discussing an extremely team-friendly deal that the Braves just gave one of their young players through the lens of the owners' new attitude towards free agency, and it had this excellent kicker: "If you dim the light at the end of the tunnel, you're more likely to sell a flashlight to a passerby."

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X