Greed, greed, greed. That's the one word that's been used to describe today's
athlete AND right after that, you hear about how the "old" guys played for
the love of the game and not money (Some of this coming from writers and
the rest coming from the players themselves). The list of greedy incidents
just go on and on...
Player holds out because another player in the league is making more. He's
so adament about being the highest paid that he's willing to accept ONLY $1
more than the other player. Greedy scum.
Two players are so p.o.'d at management that they decide that the only way
that they'll get what they want is to hold out together and they do. The
team has no choice but to give them their raises. What greedy slime they
are.
Player doesn't like the free agency rules so he goes to court to sue. The
ungrateful wretch.
Man, you'd think that these ungrateful punks would learn from the oldtimers
and act like professionals and play for the love of money, wouldn't you? I
have news for those of you who don't have a clue or didn't catch on where
this was headed -- those players were Bill Russell, Don Drysdale and Sandy
Koufax and finally, Oscar Robertson.
Let NO player from the pre-free agency era fool you -- they had no choice so
they played for far less than their worth. Make no mistake, WHEN they did
have a choice (AAFC, AFL, WFL, USFL, Mexican League, FL, ABA, etc.), they
either jumped for more money or accepted great big raises from their bosses
so they wouldn't jump (I think it's funny that you hear writers talk about
Reggie White deserving his first ring, this before the Super Bowl was played,
because he was a throwback to an earlier era, especially when you consider
that he took the money of the USFL over the NFL after he got out of college
and his leaving Philly for money. Some throwback -- oh wait, that's exactly
what they did back in the old days). No one played for the love of the game,
either they played the game and enjoyed their offseason because they made
enough money from playing or they played the game and worked a second job
in the offseason and kept playing because they didn't enjoy "working for
a living" fulltime (and pardon me if I don't sympathize with those guys who
DID work in the offseason. They STILL made more money than most people in
this country. During the '60s, the average person made between $3996-$5960
a year while the average player made 3 1/2 times as much. Bob Uecker recently
said that his biggest contract was for $20,000+ and he played from 1962 to
1967. During those years, the average person made $4338, $4475, $4749, $4963,
$5139 and $5296. A friend of mine made about 1/2 of what Uecker made, had 2
kids, his wife didn't work and they lived comfortably on what he made back
then. If an ordinary Joe can make it on $10,000 a year then how can a player
hope to plead poverty when even the worst made more than the average person
in this country did. Looks more like they were working extra hours to please
their wives and keep up with the Joneses on their teams than struggling to
make ends meet and I have no sympathy for that).
I get so tired of people talking about modern players as being greedy and
then talking up the old timers as being so selfless and willing to do it
only for the team. The truth be told, those before free agency held out a
lot and when they got a chance to move to other leagues for more money, they
did so (and it was only preemptive moves by management that kept more from
jumping) and it wasn't exactly like these guys had much of a choice, anyway.
While college players were filtering into baseball, most of them were still
unskilled and their options out of sports made sports their only viable
option. Playing several years in the minors after their major league careers
were long over wasn't an act of selflessness, it was a way of hanging on to
the hope of making it back to the majors, even for a short time for that one
last big paycheck.
When there were no competing leagues, the players' only recourse was to hold
out and they did it with regularity. Once some players became stars of such
magnitude that they a lot of value, they signed one-year contracts and went
into every season with a new contract. If management was extremely generous,
they'd sign a two-year pact. When they DID sign deals for several years, it
was at a high price for management.
This lovefest between the players and management DID NOT exist back then as
some of the players OR management OR even the press likes to lie about (Lie
IS the word to use. Plain and simple, these people are lying when they talk
so warm and fuzzy because they KNOW what kind of crap went on and yet, they
refuse to acknowledge that). George Halas alienated a lot of his players
because he was so cheap. There were guys that stayed around despite not
making as much as other people in the league and I think a lot of it had to
do with him sewing some of them up with long term contracts early in their
careers and not having a choice when they did have a chance to jump (The AFL
wars were ending when his major stars could have taken flight). Baseball's
equivalent of Halas was actually the Dodgers. Some people might say Finley,
however, Finley was only trying to maximize his small share of the pie. The
Bears and Dodgers were making more money than most of the other teams in
their leagues and they were CHEAP (Dallas was also a cheap team and until
free agency, even Jones was cheap).
The Dodgers didn't lose players like they could have because the only
competition was the AL and they had a working agreement. What they did have
were annual battles with their stars and one year Drysdale and Koufax held
out together in order to get what they felt they deserved. Believe me, the
Dodgers couldn't claim that they didn't have money. They made so much money
on parking alone, they could pay their stars far more than they did but they
loved that profit (Let me say that I'm NOT against owners making profit but
I am against owners who refuse to give money to their stars because they
are "losing" money when it's an out-and-out lie).
Greed wasn't invented by today's players and any of the oldtimers that says
that he can't remember it happening during his playing days is lying out of
his teeth. Players, be they involved in football, baseball, basketball or
hockey, played for whatever they were offered because they had little choice
and it wasn't until they HAD options that this so-called greed began to
manifest itself. There are oldtime players today that are being cited by
their fans of that time that were being called greedy back then when they
either held out or jumped to other leagues for more money. Today, they and
their fans have forgotten the truth when they put down today's players and
suddenly, they played "for the love of the game" and they would have "played
for nothing" when they remember how it was during their day. Isn't it so
amazing that those holdouts for $500 didn't happen or they suddenly forgot
about that stint in the WHA for more money when the owner told them to take
it or leave it during contract negotiations. Playing for nothing? Loyalty? I
beg to differ on their definitions of these words and phrases. Think long and
hard before you condemn today's players for being greed and think even longer
and harder when you throw those oldtimers into their faces. I could go on
but I leave that for another day...:-)
--- TrekEd 1.00
---------------