Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

Does Greinke miss the Angels/OC?


Recommended Posts

Greinke signed a six-year, $147 million deal with the Dodgers in December 2012. Given the way he talks about those two months with the Angels, you wonder if he might consider signing there should he opt out of his contract after the 2015 season, which he may do depending on market conditions.

A native of Florida, Greinke said he enjoyed living in Orange County briefly.

“It’s got to be the best part of L.A., that area,” he said. “It’s really nice over there, at least for my personality type, I guess. The city over there is as great as it gets, the team was good, the stadium and fans were great too. That part of town is the No. 1 thing they have going for them. It’s easier to get to the beach.”

 

- From Mark Saxon's blog on ESPN: http://espn.go.com/blog/los-angeles/dodger-report/post/_/id/11581/sneak-peek-at-a-freeway-series

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's such bullshit that teams are the only ones bound by these 1 way "contracts". Players can cancel contracts at will without penalty. Imagine if a team decided that they no longer wanted future investment in a player and cancelled his contract and the remaining $200,000,000 owed...

 

All the owners have to do is renegotiate at the next CBA.  The player's union has been historically just too strong.

If the owners wanted, they could wait them out.  But they don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's such bullshit that teams are the only ones bound by these 1 way "contracts". Players can cancel contracts at will without penalty. Imagine if a team decided that they no longer wanted future investment in a player and cancelled his contract and the remaining $200,000,000 owed...

huh? its not one-way. Some players have contracts that include team options.

Also, teams agree to these terms with the players. I blame them more than the players

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's such bullshit that teams are the only ones bound by these 1 way "contracts". Players can cancel contracts at will without penalty. Imagine if a team decided that they no longer wanted future investment in a player and cancelled his contract and the remaining $200,000,000 owed...

 

The Dodgers didn't have to give him an opt-out clause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The owners could break the players union if they really wanted too. The owners are billionaires that don't rely on the profit of their team to survive. The players are millionaires that need to play baseball in order to make their incredible living. When was the last time you heard of an owner that after he sold his team he was bankrupt a few years later? Granted Mcbankrupt and the Mets guy come to mind, but they aren't really broke. However you hear of athletes all the time that are broke shortly after their careers end. If the owners wanted real change they could force it. I myself would love a system where we don't know what each player makes. It would make this place better and less bitter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, a separate, 1-year deal the year following the end of the original multi-year contract with no options. Which the player would cancel anyway if picked up by the team and the market demands more than the option year provides.

Good deal.

I bet less than 5% of contracts have player opt out clauses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, a separate, 1-year deal the year following the end of the original multi-year contract with no options. Which the player would cancel anyway if picked up by the team and the market demands more than the option year provides. 

 

Good deal.

 

Huh?

 

There is no way Street or any other player could "cancel" a team option that their club picks up without retiring and sitting out that season.

 

The opt-out clause in Greinke's contract was specifically agreed upon by him/his agent and the Dodgers at the time the contract was signed with both parties aware of the situation. 

 

If teams don't like giving players opt-out clauses, it's simple: Don't give them to them. Hard for me to get worked up about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are the ramifications in place if a player decides he doesn't want that contract anymore? I doubt the MLBPA would allow that player to be banned from signing another contract until the original was set to expire.

He would have to retire and lose that money. I don't know for sure, but my guess is that person would be obligated to return to the team he left if he returned to baseball for whatever the duration of that contract is. I know for a fact that they have to sit out for at least a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The owners could break the players union if they really wanted too. The owners are billionaires that don't rely on the profit of their team to survive. The players are millionaires that need to play baseball in order to make their incredible living. When was the last time you heard of an owner that after he sold his team he was bankrupt a few years later? Granted Mcbankrupt and the Mets guy come to mind, but they aren't really broke. However you hear of athletes all the time that are broke shortly after their careers end. If the owners wanted real change they could force it. I myself would love a system where we don't know what each player makes. It would make this place better and less bitter.

 

McCourt walked away a billionaire. It was the biggest heist ever in sports. He bought the Dodgers with nothing and walked away beyond wealthy while still having interest in the parking lots. While this is a bit of hyperbole it isn't far off reality. Thank god, he was turned away from buying the Angels

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The owners could break the players union if they really wanted too. The owners are billionaires that don't rely on the profit of their team to survive. The players are millionaires that need to play baseball in order to make their incredible living. When was the last time you heard of an owner that after he sold his team he was bankrupt a few years later? Granted Mcbankrupt and the Mets guy come to mind, but they aren't really broke. However you hear of athletes all the time that are broke shortly after their careers end. If the owners wanted real change they could force it. I myself would love a system where we don't know what each player makes. It would make this place better and less bitter.

 

 

What on earth??

 

After the Dodgers sale, McCourt shits 100 dollar bills, and wipes his ass with 1,000 dollar bills.

Edited by yk9001
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...