Yeah, I am sure the players union would sign off on that deal.

Yeah, I am sure the players union would sign off on that deal.

They would probably consider it. After all, what the guy is proposing is that MLB pays out the full value of the contract to the player, and then makes him a free agent - the players aren't losing any money, and they all get an immediate shot at another contract.

Mr. Peabody should have never let Sherman publish this article.

Still, the more I talk with team executives, the more I hear that this could be a dud season for trades because so many clubs claim they cannot afford to add salary.

... and why would anyone doubt such claims?

After all, what sport would know best what to do with a TARP.

Insert your own Backlasher Oakland A's joke here.

It's actually an interesting idea, but the unintended consequences might be dire. On the one hand, small market teams could hand out a couple of big contracts to home grown talent knowing that the risk is mitigated if one of the contracts goes all Eric Chavez on them. (Maybe the Twins pony up for a Johan extension if this provision existed.) On the other hand, you don't want teams foolishly throwing around cash.

So this would be like releasing a player outright? What happens with options and vesting options, like Maggs'?

This is an amazingly stupid idea. the new york post for ya.

Which contract would everyone give up?

Baltimore - Melvin Mora
Boston - dare I say David Ortiz?
Chicago - Paul Konerko
Cleveland - Travis Hafner
Detroit - Magglio Ordonez
Kansas City - Jose Guillen
Los Angeles - Gary Matthews
Minnesota - ???
New York - Kei Igawa
Oakland - Eric Chavez or Bobby Crosby
Seattle - Carlos Silva
Tampa Bay - ????
Texas - Vincente Padilla
Toronto - BJ Ryan

Arizona - Eric Byrnes
Atlanta - Jeff Franceour?
Chicago - Luis Vizcaino
Cincinnati - Ramon Hernandez
Colorado - would have been Jason Marquis before the season, not sure who now
Florida - ????
Houston - Kaz Matsui
Los Angeles - Andruw Jones
Milwaukee - David Riske
New York - Luis Castillo
Philadelphia - ???
Pittsburgh - ???
San Diego - Brian Giles now
San Francisco - Barry Zito
St. Louis - ???
Washington - Austin Kearns

Yay, reward stupidity!

I can tell none of you actually read the article, because nobody's commented on the fact that he concludes that the Yankees should release A-Rod.

Florida - ????

Who's the highest paid player? There's your answer.

The logical choice for the Cubs is Soriano. I'd choose Aaron Miles.

Oakland - Eric Chavez or Bobby Crosby

Chavez, and it's not even close.

Yay, reward stupidity!

I think it's more the idea that #### happens and this would be a way to keep it from crippling teams and a way to incentivize small markets to keep some of their talent. Maybe Carlos Beltran would still be a Royal and such. I can think of a lot of problems already with the idea and I may come to the conclusion it's stupid, but there is something intriguing about it.

Toronto - BJ Ryan

I'd say Wells. BJ Ryan only has about $15M remaining on his deal between now and next season, whereas Wells has about anouther $100M remaining. I like Wells, and think he's a good player, but his deal is just plain ugly.

I can tell none of you actually read the article, because nobody's commented on the fact that he concludes that the Yankees should release A-Rod.

Yeah, I didn't want to ruin my curiosity of the idea by seeing where he might go with it. Obviously, a contract like A-Rod's might abort the whole project.

Yeah, I didn't want to ruin my curiosity of the idea by seeing where he might go with it. Obviously, a contract like A-Rod's might abort the whole project.

It would almost automatically ensure that the whole project is aborted, since I'm sure that the rest of the league would have absolutely no interest in contributing $300M to help the Yankees out (assuming that the Yankees would actually want to release A-Rod).

Why would teams even want to do this? Its THEIR money being used, its not like the dollars from the Internet, merchandising and the new network go to the government. Or do all those funds end up in Bud's slush fund?

And this is a one time thing, its not a future thing. So its not incentivizing small markets or any of that other ########. Its just giving a free out to a past stupidity.

Phillies would probably reliquish Brett Myers at this point. Adam Eaton would be logical, too. The Phils have gotten past any bad long range contracts at this point.

It would almost automatically ensure that the whole project is aborted, since I'm sure that the rest of the league would have absolutely no interest in contributing $300M to help the Yankees out (assuming that the Yankees would actually want to release A-Rod).

I think it would have to work as some kind of insurance policy. The bigger the contract you wanted to insure, the more you would pay into a central league fund. This would keep the # of contracts a team could relieve itself of from getting out of hand, as well. The real trick would be determining if a team were justified in wanting to release themselves of a contract. I think you'd have to have some kind of mimimums--a player must have been with the team for 25% of the contract or some such thing. I don't know. I had given this idea zero thought until 10 minutes ago.

For most teams on that list (including the Angels getting rid of Matthews) it comes down to dropping a player who's got a year or 2 left at around 10 million. Which is balanced out by having to kick in a share to bail out the other 29 teams releasing their similar dumb contracts.

The ones that stick out are Zito and A-Rod, money far greater than what other teams are giving up. So if you want 28 other teams to subsidize A-Rod and Zito's contracts, this plan is for you.

Others that might be considered: Todd Helton, Carlos Lee, Soriano.

I can tell none of you actually read the article, because nobody's commented on the fact that he concludes that the Yankees should release A-Rod.

In this scenario, they should. Then resign him for the MLB minimum for 9 years while MLB pays out his current contract.

Boston - dare I say David Ortiz?

The guy with an 1.150 OPS the last two weeks? I'll give you another guess.

Others that might be considered: Todd Helton, Carlos Lee, Soriano.

And Vernon Wells.

Let's say AROD's hip is significantly compromised, enough so that his play is impacted, but not so badly that the Yanks can collect in insurance. Let's say that he's now a 130g 120 OPS+ type player....

why should the other 29 teams foot the Yankees' bill for that?

Shooty, I'm afraid to say that I agree with Barry on this one. This is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. I'm shocked you think it is interesting.

The guy with an 1.150 OPS the last two weeks? I'll give you another guess.

here's a hint: it rhymes with Stool-ee-o Pooh-go

why should the other 29 teams foot the Yankees' bill for that?

Because watching Rodriguez proceed to beat the Yankees in October would be really, really funny.

I guess the Cardinals' choice in #9 would be Lohse, even though he can be a useful pitcher. The team just misread the impending market at the start of the last off-season. (Glaus is giving them nothing, but his contract is up in 3 months.)

agree with the post saying 'yay reward stupidity'.

I haven't RTFA, but guessing outright this is a fan of one of the good big market teams who is crying because his team is claiming they aren't able to up their payroll. Just the thought of this is stupid, this is the opposite style of stupidity as people clamoring for a salary cap. In this case they want to add another advantage to the teams already making more money by allowing them to not be responsible with how they spend it.

The Cardinals have flat out stated that they are willing to take on payroll, of course they offended some of their fanbase by not spending money during the offseason, but now if a player that they want and can make a trade for, they have the funds available, but now this guy wants to reward teams like the Angels for making a stupid signing like Gary Mathews by allowing them to just get out of the contract, so now the stupidly run front office can then compete against my team for a player? It's not like the big money teams don't already have a few advantages to begin with.

Lugo or Dice-K. Dice-K has a "no trade", so maybe him.

Shooty, I'm afraid to say that I agree with Barry on this one. This is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. I'm shocked you think it is interesting.

Meh. It might be an interesting alternative to revenue sharing/luxury tax which seems to only encourage teams to sign players through their arb years or give far too much money to mediocrities while avoiding an investment is championship quality players. On reflection it will probably prove to be a stupid idea, but I'm not convinced the revenue sharing/luxury tax MLB has now is doing what fans of small market teams hoped it would do.

I haven't RTFA, but guessing outright this is a fan of one of the good big market teams who is crying because his team is claiming they aren't able to up their payroll.

Nope. It's a Post article by Joel Sherman. Though that does go a long way towards explaining the stupidity in the article.

I'll also add that Sherman doesn't even think this is a good idea he's just trying to fill up space by throwing words at a page. It's a symptom of the shortened news cycle and the negative influence of blogs. Everything we read is something the author came up with in five minutes and wrote it up without thinking about it or taking his own work seriously.

Everything we read is something the author came up with in five minutes and wrote it up without thinking about it or taking his own work seriously.

I don't think this is the fault of blogs. Sportswriting has been fairly crappy since I first started reading the sports page when I was 12 or so.

Didn't NY press folks already give this three-legged notion a walk back when Giambi was dealing with his parasite? Or when A-Rod "choked" in whatever game you want to note?

Dice-K has a "no trade", so maybe him.

I wonder if this would violate a no-trade provision? I mean I guess technically it doesn't, but it seems to go against the spirit of the provision.

Lugo or Dice-K. Dice-K has a "no trade", so maybe him.

Way to overreact to 30 innings. Yeah, he's frustrating, and he's stunk this year, but he's also a 28 year old starting pitcher with a career 114 ERA+ and 389 Ks in 407 innings. Lugo would be the only logical choice.

I wonder if this would violate a no-trade provision? I mean I guess technically it doesn't, but it seems to go against the spirit of the provision.

And would the bailout cover the posting fee or, presumably, just the contract?

"Pittsburgh - ???"

The Pirates don't really have anybody at this point, which is kind of a nice statement about the quality of current management relative to past administrations.

The best Sherman can do is suggest Freddy Sanchez. Really? He's making a little over $8M this year, he's putting up a .850 OPS as a 2B, and he's a FA this offseason as long as his option doesn't vest (which, at his current pace, it won't).

I don't see any way that he isn't an attractive trade commodity at the deadline, much less some kind of millstone.

I can tell none of you actually read the article, because nobody's commented on the fact that he concludes that the Yankees should release A-Rod.

Former Post writer Wallace Matthews (now at Newsday) claims to believe that the Yanks should release A-Rod under the current rules.

It might be an interesting alternative to revenue sharing/luxury tax which seems to only encourage teams to sign players through their arb years or give far too much money to mediocrities while avoiding an investment is championship quality players. On reflection it will probably prove to be a stupid idea, but I'm not convinced the revenue sharing/luxury tax MLB has now is doing what fans of small market teams hoped it would do.

I don't think it would make much difference at all to tell Florida that if they're willing to give Josh Johnson a big contract, they might be able to get out of it later. Here's what would make a difference: Tell them that they can sell Johnson, which would actually give them the money that they could then use to pay someone to replace him, and/or keep other players.

Mr. Peabody should have never let Sherman publish this article.

Quiet, you.

Mr. Peabody should have never let Sherman publish this article.
Quiet, you.

Don't fail to miss my next exciting Rocky & Bullwinkle reference.

I can tell none of you actually read the article, because nobody's commented on the fact that he concludes that the Yankees should release A-Rod.

In this scenario, they should. Then resign him for the MLB minimum for 9 years while MLB pays out his current contract.

This assumes no other team would offer A-Rod any more than the minimum. Which I think has about a 0% chance of happening.

I think some of you are missing the whole

one-time, one-contract reprieve

.

On the one hand, small market teams could hand out a couple of big contracts to home grown talent knowing that the risk is mitigated if one of the contracts goes all Eric Chavez on them. (Maybe the Twins pony up for a Johan extension if this provision existed.) On the other hand, you don't want teams foolishly throwing around cash.

None of this would happen - as the suggestion is to drop a current contract, nothing about future contracts in the suggestion.

It really isn't a terrible idea, it worked very well in the NBA, but with only the Yankees above the luxury tax thresh-hold there isn't the same incentive for MLB teams.

It really isn't a terrible idea, it worked very well in the NBA, but with only the Yankees above the luxury tax thresh-hold there isn't the same incentive for MLB teams.

The best part about the NBA version was that everyone immediately started calling it the Allan Houston rule. It's never a good thing for a player when his name is attached to a rule like that.

Way to overreact to 30 innings.

He is the luckiest pitcher ever to go 18-3. He pitches himself into trouble too many times for it not to catch up to him. They have younger pitchers who have more promise, at this point, IMO, and are cheaper. Buchholz, Masterson, Bowden. Plenty of pitching here. Pitching rich.

The Pirates don't really have anybody at this point, which is kind of a nice statement about the quality of current management relative to past administrations.

Hard to have bad contracts when you don't keep anyone around once they start commanding any kind of longterm deals.

At least no forward-thinking league like the NBA has ever tried this.

"Don't fail to miss my next exciting Rocky & Bullwinkle reference."

Aw, that trick never works.

The NHL has a "buy-out" period every summer.
A team can pay 75% of the remaining money on a contract in a lump sum, and the player is then made an unrestricted free agent. He can then sign with any team EXCEPT the one that just bought him out.

Minnesota - ???

Gotta be Nick Punto although Jesse Crain and _elm_n Young get honorable mentions.

I can't fathom why MLB would ever want to do this. It would just escalate player salaries even more - teams would have it in the back of their minds that they could get their debts erased if they lobby the commissioner's office enough, so why not offer that extra year even though this player is very mediocre? Plus MLB does not want to be in the business of paying off player contracts. Finally, it does seem to disproportionately help larger market clubs, who sign more big money free agents.

So, yea, dumb idea.

Florida does this every season. You're all late to the party.

Meh. It might be an interesting alternative to revenue sharing/luxury tax which seems to only encourage teams to sign players through their arb years or give far too much money to mediocrities while avoiding an investment is championship quality players. On reflection it will probably prove to be a stupid idea, but I'm not convinced the revenue sharing/luxury tax MLB has now is doing what fans of small market teams hoped it would do.

The suggestion in the article is stupid for the reasons mentioned above. If they want to spur the trade market, just give each team a couple million dollars of trade dollars....money that they can't keep, but they can use to trade for a player (either paying their contract or giving it to the other team). Suddenly there will be trades going on everywhere. The trade deadline will get very exciting (for anyone who cares), and it would be much cheaper than taking on the full salary of every bad contract.

Improving the revenue sharing system is a fine pursuit, however. I have wondered if they should move to a system where MLB pays the minimum salary for all players and pre-free-agent arbitration salaries out of it's central fund, and the only thing teams would pay for would be free agents (beyond the $400k minimum). That would allow teams to focus on developing young players and filling a roster without regard to cost. They would never have to worry about trading a player because arbitration was getting too expensive. They wouldn't have to try to game the arbitration system to keep players from becoming super-2s. MLB would be the ones arguing the arbitration cases, so the teams can keep a little more harmony with the players. And the players union might even like parts of the plan, since there wouldn't be a rash of players being released because the team is afraid that they'll get more than they're worth in arbitration. It would make the trade market much different (both better and worse probably), because pre-free-agent players would be like gold. But it would be obvious to fans that signing/trading for free agents is a real commitment to improving the team, since that is the only money that the team really spends. If the Marlins/Padres/etc want to rebuild, they can make a real effort to do that on the cheap, and decide on each player after 6 years whether to commit their own dollars or not. But the mid level and elite teams would still need to be active as far as free agents go in order to try to get to the next level.

This is probably a bad idea too for other reasons (arbitration, bonuses, trades, and signing long term contracts prior to free agency could get really bizarre), but it keeps teams honest as far as really being able to build a team to compete without finances getting in the way. And that is really what I think revenue sharing should focus on.

After all, what sport would know best what to do with a TARP.

52 posts and no Vince Coleman jokes?

Hard to have bad contracts when you don't keep anyone around once they start commanding any kind of longterm deals.

Not all that hard. Matt Morris is making $1m this season.

The best part about the NBA version was that everyone immediately started calling it the Allan Houston rule.

Which is made even better by the fact that, if memory serves, the Knicks didn't actually use it to get rid of Allan Houston.

After all, what sport would know best what to do with a TARP.

Insert your own Backlasher Oakland A's joke here.

I was trying to think of a punchline involving Vince Coleman.

In this scenario, they [release Alex Rodriguez]. Then resign him for the MLB minimum for 9 years while MLB pays out his current contract,

because Rodriguez's agent has a long history agreeing to major league minimum contracts for his superstar clients. This would be a tremendous windfall for Rodriguez (and Boras). Want to see the first $50M a year player?

Edit: Carbonated beverage for MH#1F!

#50 - The suggestion in the article is for THIS YEAR ONLY. Each team may choose to drop one current contract. Only once. Only this year.

Which is made even better by the fact that, if memory serves, the Knicks didn't actually use it to get rid of Allan Houston.

Given the idiots that were running the Knicks at the time, is this really all that surprising?

I still believe that Isiah Thomas is the dumbest man to ever run a team (into the ground).

I still believe that Isiah Thomas is the dumbest man to ever run a team (into the ground).

And don't forget the CBA - he bankrupt a 54 year old league after two years of 'running' it.

This plan has the unsavory effect of enriching the players that are already the most overpaid. For instance, Barry Zito would get to keep all the salary from his current contract PLUS whatever he could earn on the free market. It would reward the players who are both ridiculously wealthy already and who have underperformed ... so the people who both need and deserve extra money the least.

And don't forget the CBA - he bankrupt a 54 year old league after two years of 'running' it.

That is an unreal accomplishment. Any idea where to find a good writeup of exactly how he managed to do this?

I've said before that Joe Dumars could be this generation's Jerry West - a championship player who goes on to bring more championships as a GM, though after a good start there is the Darko draft and Billups-Iverson trade.

Isiah is the Anti-Jerry.

This plan has the unsavory effect of enriching the players that are already the most overpaid. For instance, Barry Zito would get to keep all the salary from his current contract PLUS whatever he could earn on the free market. It would reward the players who are both ridiculously wealthy already and who have underperformed ... so the people who both need and deserve extra money the least.

I suppose you could tweak it so that the player's contract + a moving stipend would be all that the player gets. The interested teams could bid on a player and the winner would pay that amount back to the Vince Coleman fund.

EDIT: Surely some team would take a 5M+ flyer on Zito.

AROM - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Basketball_Association

It was because of Thomas's desire to look out for himself and only himself.

And don't forget the CBA - he bankrupt a 54 year old league after two years of 'running' it.

He also did a good job of screwing over the Raptors.

This plan is about as realistic as expansion on the moon.

#50 - The suggestion in the article is for THIS YEAR ONLY. Each team may choose to drop one current contract. Only once. Only this year.

It will only happen once. Until the next time when teams want to shed large contracts. Like government bailouts, there is never a "one time bailout."

This plan has the unsavory effect of enriching the players that are already the most overpaid. For instance, Barry Zito would get to keep all the salary from his current contract PLUS whatever he could earn on the free market. It would reward the players who are both ridiculously wealthy already and who have underperformed ... so the people who both need and deserve extra money the least.

This. I don't see why teams should be let out of their contractual obligations. Should the MLBPA buy out player contracts for players that are underpaid?

If your goal is to increase trades this deadline, why not incentive winning by giving "trade fund" bonuses for teams depending on winning percentage?

Don't fail to miss my next exciting Rocky & Bullwinkle Simpsons reference.

Fixed.

In accordance to this plan, the Braves hearby drop the contract of Mike Hampton, retroactively. The franchise expects payment in the form of $17 mil from MLB headquarters and would like to talk to ANYONE interested in moving high priced offensive players.

Setting aside all the other problems with his idea, does he really want to make a whole bunch of free agents in the middle of the season?

It would be interesting if MLB had a salary cap like the NBA, and guys with massive albatross contracts in their last year or two would actually be valuable. Imagine the bidding war for Andruw Jones!

Which is made even better by the fact that, if memory serves, the Knicks didn't actually use it to get rid of Allan Houston.

It was Jerome Williams, right?

Chicago - Paul Konerko

Though he has as much on his contract over 2 1/2 years as Konerko has in his final season, I would say Scott Linebrink.

Has anybody here realized how much money we would be talking about?

AROD alone would be a $200 M buyout. Soriano would be nearly $100. Zito, etc.

Does anybody really think Bud is gonna give up $1.5 billion (billion!) or more out of his slush fund?

And if you did it now, it would be reverse revenue-sharing since the low-revenue teams have mostly shied away from these contracts. Sure, OK, the Royals would get to walk away from $12 M of Jose Guillen while the Yanks would get to walk away from $200 M of AROD (or $80 M of Burnett or whatever). Presumably you'd also get shenanigans like the Cubs "dumping" Soriano then turning around and signing him for like 3/$30 while the Pirates get squat.

More sensible and believable would be to pay off the last year of a contract or for MLB to self-insure for guys lost to major injury. Or, from a reveue-sharing perspective, let the slush fund cover half of one FA's salary per team if a low-reveue and/or sub-500 team signs an offseason FA -- though simpler would be to continue current revenue sharing but put in a salary floor.

But really, is this a major problem in baseball? Are there any teams that are truly crippled by bad contracts? How many big money disasters are out there at the moment -- I mean true disasters? Even Zito's pitching halfway decently this year.

Dontrelle Willis.

Each newspaper should get to sack one writer each year without paying a severance package