Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, February 24, 2021

Seattle Mariners prospect Jarred Kelenic says team is punishing him for refusing to sign contract extension

Prized outfield prospect Jarred Kelenic told USA TODAY Sports Tuesday that he is a victim of service-time manipulation by the Seattle Mariners, and is being punished for refusing to sign a contract proposal nearly 14 months ago.

Kelenic, one of the top five prospects in baseball according to MLB.com, said he was offered a guaranteed contract, but says that declining the deal has kept him off the Mariners’ big-league roster.

“It was communicated to Jarred that had he signed that contract, he would have debuted last year,’’ said Brodie Scoffield, who represents Kelenic. “It was made crystal clear to Jarred — then and now — that his decision not to call him up is based on service time.

“There’s no question that if he signed that contract, he would have been in the big leagues.”

Said Kelenic, who spent last year in the Mariners’ alternate camp: “It wasn’t just communicated one time to me. It was told to me several times. That’s the God’s honest truth. It got old.’’

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 24, 2021 at 09:47 AM | 60 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: jarred kelenic, mariners

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. JRVJ Posted: February 24, 2021 at 10:06 AM (#6006479)
Peter Gammons
@pgammo
Gerritt Cole is right. Service time manipulation has to be renegotiated. But, especially after a 2020 w/ no minor league games, 2021 is more complex; it may be Duran, Liberatore, Franco and dozens others need Minor League time. Does 60 days MLB service time deem consideration?
Traducir Tweet
6:31 a. m. · 24 feb. 2021


Gammons posted this early this morning.

I really hadn't thought of the fact that those players who had no minor league playing time, probably need some time in the minors.

Does that apply to Kelenic? No idea.
   2. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 24, 2021 at 10:42 AM (#6006491)
Service time is so stupid anyway. It should be tied to begin when you are added to the 40-man roster, with maybe some restricted free agency after X number of years. Baseball should incentivize bringing up awesome young players.
   3. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 24, 2021 at 11:07 AM (#6006496)
Is it like if your name is Brodie, you have to be an agent?
   4. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: February 24, 2021 at 01:12 PM (#6006535)
Obviously, the team changed when they brought him up based on his contract situation, but in this case, think about it:

If he had signed a deal that bought out a few free agent years in exchange for security, then the team could look at having him up in 2020 to take some lumps, but perhaps accelerate his acclimation to the big leagues - because they'd have him for, say, eight years instead of six.

But if you feel like you've only got him for six years, then wouldn't you wait to call him up until he was more of a finished product?

And in terms of waiting until a few weeks into 2021 to bring him up, rather than the beginning of 2021, I think Gammons' point is a good one: I'd want to see him play at least a few weeks in the minors to make sure he was good to go. And if the players don't like that the teams get an extra year of team control if they wait until later in April, then they should make that part of the next negotiation.
   5. Jose Is An Absurd Balladeer Posted: February 24, 2021 at 01:25 PM (#6006536)
I think Gammons' point is a good one: I'd want to see him play at least a few weeks in the minors to make sure he was good to go.


Yeah, the issue is one that needs to be considered but this year is odd. The same concerns popped up in the Benintendi trade, the Red Sox are getting three PTBNLs in that deal because the possibilities on that list haven't played competitively since 2019. I'd be pretty wary of having a true rookie in my opening day lineup this year. Get a few games in at least and make sure we aren't missing something.
   6. bunyon Posted: February 24, 2021 at 01:29 PM (#6006538)
Under current conditions, losing a few games at the start of a season in exchange for an extra year of control makes all the sense in the world for teams. Hard to blame them. But it's bad for the game. I think teams ought to get X years period. If the guy doesn't make the majors until year X-1, tough.

   7. Rally Posted: February 24, 2021 at 01:59 PM (#6006551)
I had concerns about owners in my APBA league doing this to try and force players to sign team friendly extensions. The rule I put in place to disincentivize it was that if you offered such extension, whether the player signed or not, his service time clock started right then.
   8. Mayor Blomberg Posted: February 24, 2021 at 02:12 PM (#6006557)
Kelenic was part of the squad from which replacements were called up, specifically so that he could have coaching and playing time.

A couple weeks in the minors after spring training is a timeline that doesn't have to affect service time.
   9. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: February 24, 2021 at 02:23 PM (#6006562)
Under current conditions, losing a few games at the start of a season in exchange for an extra year of control makes all the sense in the world for teams. Hard to blame them. But it's bad for the game. I think teams ought to get X years period. If the guy doesn't make the majors until year X-1, tough.


Why is it so bad for the game? Kris Bryant is the poster boy for this, right? He was 'held back' in 2015 and managed only 151 games. Next year he peaked at 155 games, then back to 151, 102, 147, then COVID ###### with everyone's career stat line. So it's a travesty that he didn't start the year with the Cubs, but still managed a very respectable 151 games played? Talent-wise should he have started 2015 with the MLB team? Yeah, sure, but one year > one month.


   10. Ziggy: social distancing since 1980 Posted: February 24, 2021 at 03:16 PM (#6006579)
“It was communicated to Jarred that had he signed that contract, he would have debuted last year,’’


Well yeah. Of course they're not going to pay him big league money to sit in AAA. (Or at the practice facility or whatever.) If he's not willing to sign the contract, they're happy to pay him peanuts while he gets some more seasoning (if you will), but if he is willing to sign the contract they'll pay MLB money to him instead of whoever was actually the 25th man on their roster. I get it that service time manipulation is a thing, but this quote isn't all that damning, really.
   11. Jay Seaver Posted: February 24, 2021 at 06:01 PM (#6006616)
Why is it so bad for the game?


Well, if you figure baseball is more enjoyable when played by the best players, you'd want each individual roster spot to be the best it can be, so that when you aggregate that over the entire league and the entire season, you've got better baseball overall.

Plus, if you're competing for talent with other sports, you're already looking at asking players to wait longer to make the majors and then get the big payday, and pushing that out another year while also tightening things up so that there are going to be fewer contracts that make up for those dues-paying years has to make the sport less attractive to folks with multiple options.

In either case, it's hard to know what you're really missing out on, so it's easy to ignore until a club's reputation for this sort of penny-pinching actually leads to players avoiding them to the extent that they can. It still strikes me as kind of a silly question from a fan's perspective, though, because of course I want my team to be the best it can every night.
   12. Walt Davis Posted: February 24, 2021 at 09:01 PM (#6006653)
Broken record I know but Bryant should have been up mid-2014. The Cubs held him back a half-season to get this "extra year", a year they almost certainly could have had with a good buyout offer.
   13. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 24, 2021 at 09:19 PM (#6006656)
I think it would be a good thing if baseball teams could hype up rookies instead of being like "maybe we'll see him this summer once he works on his defense *wink wink*". Imagine an NBA team with a hyped #1 pick and they benched him the first two weeks.
   14. Ziggy: social distancing since 1980 Posted: February 24, 2021 at 11:36 PM (#6006666)
It still strikes me as kind of a silly question from a fan's perspective, though, because of course I want my team to be the best it can every night.


Well, you've got to pick and choose your nights. By missing out on having Bryant in the line up the first two weeks of 2015, Cubs fans get to see him for all of 2021. That sounds like a deal that Cubs fans should sign up for.
   15. bunyon Posted: February 25, 2021 at 07:31 AM (#6006671)
I was mostly thinking along the lines of RoyalsRetros 13. MLB has a problem with star power and I think the way it handles its young phenoms is part of that. They are treated as greedy jewels who have to be handled rather than celebrated.

The vast majority of fans in 2015 don’t care about 2021. Or the team’s bottom line. You can’t advertise a guy as a star if you also are saying he sucks at defense.
   16. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: February 25, 2021 at 07:40 AM (#6006672)
I get it that service time manipulation is a thing, but this quote isn't all that damning, really.

It's damning because the team is admitting they're not basing roster decisions solely on merit. Which, from a player's and fan's perspective, is the only thing that should matter. As [15] says fans aren't going to care about the speculative future value of another season of control.
   17. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: February 25, 2021 at 09:00 AM (#6006681)
It's damning because the team is admitting they're not basing roster decisions solely on merit. Which, from a player's and fan's perspective, is the only thing that should matter. As [15] says fans aren't going to care about the speculative future value of another season of control.


But who actually thinks that's the case? Obviously $$ plays into every roster spot and to not understand that that is a fundamental part of the game is just being willfully naive. Ryan Spilborghs hosts a few MLB radio shows, just heard him talking about one of his spring trainings when he was the last cut. He said management told him, you two are equal, but he's half your salary, so we're going with the MLB minimum guy. Does that suck for Spilborghs? Sure. Does that suck for the other player? Of course not. Does that affect the average fan in any way shape or form? No.

Remember that for every rookie that gets called up someone needs to get cut. In a lot of instances that star rookie may be replacing a replacement player, no loss for the fan, but in other instances they are going to replace the slightly over the hill veteran fan favorite that has been on the team for a while, but is also creeping up in salary and just not worth it.

   18. Rally Posted: February 25, 2021 at 09:26 AM (#6006684)
It's bad for the game to have a situation where GMs all keep the best young players down to manipulate service time. It's even worse when the executives who are honest about what they are doing are fired as the audience gasps in horror. And the executives who spin scarcely believable lies as cover are lauded as great leaders.
   19. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 25, 2021 at 10:59 AM (#6006701)
You can’t advertise a guy as a star if you also are saying he sucks at defense.
Big Papi Nation might disagree with you there. Or more recently, Vlad Jr. was certainly hyped as a star with defensive problems.
   20. Jay Seaver Posted: February 25, 2021 at 12:09 PM (#6006728)
By missing out on having Bryant in the line up the first two weeks of 2015, Cubs fans get to see him for all of 2021. That sounds like a deal that Cubs fans should sign up for.


A lot of things can happen in six years that lead to me not getting much benefit from that. I could move across the country and pick up a new rooting interest or the player could blow his elbow out. And that's on top of it being generally not how I'd want my employer to treat me if they had the ability to do so.
   21. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 25, 2021 at 12:13 PM (#6006732)
By missing out on having Bryant in the line up the first two weeks of 2015, Cubs fans get to see him for all of 2021. That sounds like a deal that Cubs fans should sign up for.

Why? The Cubs could afford to keep Bryant at market value if they wanted to. Why should a fan root for the team to save a few dollars, when the team is swimming in money?
   22. Greg Pope Posted: February 25, 2021 at 12:36 PM (#6006740)
But who actually thinks that's the case?

Right, nobody. The players aren't complaining the Chris Davis is still on the Orioles. They are clearly not basing that roster decision on anything other the fact that they're paying him. All decisions have a financial aspect.
   23. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: February 25, 2021 at 02:33 PM (#6006767)
But who actually thinks that's the case? Obviously $$ plays into every roster spot and to not understand that that is a fundamental part of the game is just being willfully naive. Ryan Spilborghs hosts a few MLB radio shows, just heard him talking about one of his spring trainings when he was the last cut. He said management told him, you two are equal, but he's half your salary, so we're going with the MLB minimum guy. Does that suck for Spilborghs? Sure. Does that suck for the other player? Of course not. Does that affect the average fan in any way shape or form? No.

I don't follow about Spilborghs. Was he on a non-guaranteed contract? Otherwise teams usually subscribe to the sunk cost fallacy and take the proven vet (see Chris Davis).

The choice over the 25th man is not going to affect the average fan. But if the team stashes a hyped prospect in the minors for a month instead of putting him on the major league roster, then yes, I can see that dampening fan enthusiasm. That's sending a clear message to the fanbase that the org is not interested in putting their best roster forward because of some hypothetical value to be accrued 6 years later.
   24. Ziggy: social distancing since 1980 Posted: February 25, 2021 at 02:43 PM (#6006773)
The Cubs could afford to keep Bryant at market value if they wanted to.


But they probably won't. And given that they won't, as a fan I'd rather my team keep its star players for more years rather than fewer.
   25. SoSH U at work Posted: February 25, 2021 at 02:45 PM (#6006775)
Why? The Cubs could afford to keep Bryant at market value if they wanted to. Why should a fan root for the team to save a few dollars, when the team is swimming in money?


Because the teams operate with an eye toward saving money. So if you're a Cubs fan, that extra year of control is more likely to have value to the team you root for than they would get out of those extra nine games at the start of 2015.

If you are not a Cubs fan or merely a fan of the sport as a whole, then by all means you should want to see the very best players on the field as soon as they're ready.
   26. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 25, 2021 at 03:00 PM (#6006779)
Having lived in Chicago, and been at Wrigley a lot, in 2015-16, I can tell you that the fans somehow managed to remain fairly enthusiastic despite the Bryant thing.
   27. Lars6788 Posted: February 25, 2021 at 03:08 PM (#6006782)
Where does the need to play more in the minors conflict with the service time issues? If a hyped up young guy flops, the team rushed him, so what happens then? Maybe something bigger is at play but who knows if you can just plug in a player and have him take off and never look back?
   28. Walt Davis Posted: February 25, 2021 at 05:41 PM (#6006805)
Again, Cub fans were denied seeing Bryant (deservedly) in the majors for 2-4 months of 2014. That's what's "balanced" against getting to see him (for now) in a Cub uni in 2021 at a lower cost to the Ricketts clan.

And nobody has mentioned the Kelenic issue. Teams are not just manipulating PT to get the "extra year", they are using it as leverage to push players into bargain buyouts before they even reach the majors.
   29. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 25, 2021 at 06:56 PM (#6006811)
Where does the need to play more in the minors conflict with the service time issues? If a hyped up young guy flops, the team rushed him, so what happens then? Maybe something bigger is at play but who knows if you can just plug in a player and have him take off and never look back?

There's already a safety valve. Nobody ever complains if a struggling rookie is sent back down. If a top prospect flops over his first 200 PA, you send him down, and the service time clock stops.
   30. dejarouehg Posted: February 26, 2021 at 05:56 AM (#6006845)
Clearly the Cubs "screwed" Bryant. BUT, given his 2020 performance, if he has a decent 2021, he will be better off financially than if he had become a FA after this past-season.

His Arbitration salary is no bargain for the Cubs.

As for the buyouts of young players' arbitration years, who is to say that these are bargains? Is everyone sold on Evan White? Were you also sold on Jon Singleton?

On the surface, Albies (I'm almost always pro-Ownership - but this was outrageous to me; when I saw it I envisioned him being extorted by someone and willing to sign anything to get himself out of a jam,), Acuna and Bregman (booooooo) seem like good deals for ownership. And, there was no better deal (ok, maybe there was and I just don't remember) than Salvatore Perez. Still, I have no doubt there there are plenty of cautionary tales - talking non-pitchers - where the injury factor is less likely, Royce Lewis notwithstanding.

If Kelenic's claims are correct, then he may be a beneficiary of this entire episode. Certainly, the potential scrutiny on the Mariners' management's behavior will be closely watched by the MLBPA.


EDIT: Change "good deals" to "great ****ing deals"
   31. dejarouehg Posted: February 26, 2021 at 06:09 AM (#6006846)
Why? The Cubs could afford to keep Bryant at market value if they wanted to. Why should a fan root for the team to save a few dollars, when the team is swimming in money?


I don't believe in spending other people's money indiscriminately just because they may have it. The problem is that the MLBPA, like most sports associations, has always focused more on the potential star players' benefits than the Ron Hodges' of the world.

The problem of teams keeping talented players in the minors is insidious. That's why free agency after x years in the minors or age XX, whichever is sooner is the dogfight that should be fought. I wonder how many great players we never got to see.

And, again, even though I'm a pro-management guy, I was thrilled that Ryan Howard got his money (as much as it turned out to be a lousy deal relative to the production during that time,) because I thought he got screwed.
   32. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: February 26, 2021 at 12:40 PM (#6006890)
I wonder how many great players we never got to see.


0. We have missed out on 0 great players because management dicked around with their playing time and never called them up. The most heralded case - Kris Bryant - we lost 5 months.

I tend to understand the arguments about someone like Trout, where the team was good and missing out on ANY games of Trout could cost the Angels a playoff spot. But re Kelenic - why burn an arb year if the team is going to suck anyways?

   33. dejarouehg Posted: February 26, 2021 at 03:50 PM (#6006918)
But re Kelenic - why burn an arb year if the team is going to suck anyways?


The Mets sucked in 83 and when they brought up Strawberry, there was an immediate buzz. Certainly not fair to compare Kelenic to Straw, but in rare cases there could be a monetary argument for promoting a player on a horsespit team.

   34. JRVJ Posted: February 26, 2021 at 05:30 PM (#6006931)
And nobody has mentioned the Kelenic issue. Teams are not just manipulating PT to get the "extra year", they are using it as leverage to push players into bargain buyouts before they even reach the majors.


José Castillo.

Luis Valbuena.

I have no problem with Kelenic betting on himself, but it's perfectly reasonable for a young players to sign a deal which buys out his arb and even FA years and guarantees him money.

Yordano Ventura.

Andy Marte

Because accidents do happen.

José Fernández.

Oscar Taveras.

And sometimes, its not even accidents.

Darryl Kile.
   35. A triple short of the cycle Posted: February 26, 2021 at 06:36 PM (#6006932)
I agree with SOSH. If I'm a fan of the team, I can accept waiting a few weeks for the debut if it means an entire extra year with the team on the back end. And if I'm not a fan of the team, I can also wait a few weeks. That said, I think this loophole should be eliminated.
   36. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: February 26, 2021 at 08:15 PM (#6006938)
Clearly the Cubs "screwed" Bryant. BUT, given his 2020 performance, if he has a decent 2021, he will be better off financially than if he had become a FA after this past-season.

How do you figure? He could always have just signed a one-year deal for 2021 and then gotten the same FA deal after 2021. The one-year deal would certainly have been for more than the got paid his last year in the minors (which is basically what that one extra year of FA would be replacing).
   37. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: February 26, 2021 at 08:17 PM (#6006939)
I have no problem with Kelenic betting on himself, but it's perfectly reasonable for a young players to sign a deal which buys out his arb and even FA years and guarantees him money.


Sure, but they’d potentially get more in those deals if teams didn’t have the leverage of leaving them down in the minors at the team’s discretion.
   38. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 26, 2021 at 10:35 PM (#6006949)
Because accidents do happen.

José Fernández.

Oscar Taveras.

And sometimes, its not even accidents.

Darryl Kile.


Well, if you die, getting a big contract doesn't do you any good. A healthy male in his 20s can buy $20M in Term life insurance for like $10,000 a year.
   39. JRVJ Posted: February 27, 2021 at 10:48 AM (#6006962)
37, sure, but that's not (and has not been) the labor arrangement in baseball. If and when it changes, then decisions will change, as Maynard Keynes said.

38, If you are dirt poor, $10K off of a $500K minimum salary is a lot of money (2% of yearly income).

That's $10K that you can't use to help your family, versus millions that you may be making in 4, 5, 6 or 7 years away.

And while a big contract doesn't do a dead athlete a lot of good, it sure will help his family (I realize that most Primates don't really think of Latin American players first and foremost, but as a Latin American, I do).
   40. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: February 27, 2021 at 11:47 AM (#6006966)
37, sure, but that's not (and has not been) the labor arrangement in baseball. If and when it changes, then decisions will change, as Maynard Keynes said.

I don’t know what the original point of your post was, then. Somebody complained that teams are using the threat of service time manipulation to get young players to sign team-friendly long-term deals. And you responded by saying that those deals might be good for the players, which implied that you didn’t think the teams were actually using that leverage. Sure, these team-friendly deals might be good for the players under the currently CBA which allows teams to manipulate service time, but that was the original poster’s point. The current arrangement is bad for the players because it allows them to get pressured into these deals that they wouldn’t have otherwise entered into.
   41. dejarouehg Posted: February 27, 2021 at 11:56 AM (#6006967)
How do you figure? He could always have just signed a one-year deal for 2021 and then gotten the same FA deal after 2021. The one-year deal would certainly have been for more than the got paid his last year in the minors (which is basically what that one extra year of FA would be replacing).


2014 is not in question. The issue is had he been brought up in the beginning of 2015, he would have been a free agent this off-season, not post-2019. (Or, am I missing something?)


Had he been a free agent this current off-season, what kind of offer do you think he would have received?
   42. JRVJ Posted: February 27, 2021 at 12:00 PM (#6006968)
40,
which implied that you didn’t think the teams were actually using that leverage.


I have no idea where you get this, as I certainly implied no such thing (you may have inferred it, but that's you).

There seems to be a prevailing view in these parts that the only correct course of action for a player under the current system is to wait out 6-years' worth of service time, and then go on the FA Market and make a killing.

That's a perfectly reasonsable course of action for some players, but it cannot possibly be the only course of action for ALL players. That's why I wrote:

I have no problem with Kelenic betting on himself, but it's perfectly reasonable for a young player to sign a deal which buys out his arb and even FA years and guarantees him money.


Yes, some players leave money on the table by doing that, but they also guarantee their financial situation, should something happen (see the reference above to accidents and/or heart attacks) or even should the player not pan out (as a Phillies fan, let me point out Odubel Herrera and - for now - Scott Kingery).

   43. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: February 27, 2021 at 03:46 PM (#6006982)
#41 fair point, although Josh Donaldson got $23 million for a one-year deal coming off an injury a few seasons ago. So I doubt Bryant would have gotten much less than he did in arb on a 1-year deal.
   44. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 27, 2021 at 05:14 PM (#6006987)

38, If you are dirt poor, $10K off of a $500K minimum salary is a lot of money (2% of yearly income).

That's $10K that you can't use to help your family, versus millions that you may be making in 4, 5, 6 or 7 years away.


$10K is nothing if you're making $500K. You're saying it's better to sign away $10-20M in future earnings than spend $10K? That's insane. Hell, someone will loan you the $10K if you want. Put it on a credit card and pay 20% interest and it's still a better deal than most of the buyout offers.

And while a big contract doesn't do a dead athlete a lot of good, it sure will help his family (I realize that most Primates don't really think of Latin American players first and foremost, but as a Latin American, I do).

Buy even $2M of life insurance, and the family will never have to worry. Insuring against death is a very efficient market. No need to sign a team friendly contract when the cost is literally hundreds of $ per million of insurance.
   45. dejarouehg Posted: February 27, 2021 at 07:09 PM (#6006990)
Buy even $2M of life insurance, and the family will never have to worry. Insuring against death is a very efficient market. No need to sign a team friendly contract when the cost is literally hundreds of $ per million of insurance.


Not sure what you mean. $2 Million certainly should allow you to breathe if the unfortunate happens, but never have to worry? If you 70 years old, $2M is good. If you're a 30 year old widow with a couple of kids, it will certainly help. Never have to worry?
   46. . . . . . . Posted: February 27, 2021 at 08:04 PM (#6006992)
Don’t know if covered above, but Kelenic’s dad is a successful businessman (he got into developing ballfield complexes when his kids proved talented at softball/baseball, and hes don’t quite well with it), so Kelenic can take the risk of telling the Mariners to #### off with their lowball bullshit.
   47. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 27, 2021 at 10:07 PM (#6006999)
Not sure what you mean. $2 Million certainly should allow you to breathe if the unfortunate happens, but never have to worry? If you 70 years old, $2M is good. If you're a 30 year old widow with a couple of kids, it will certainly help. Never have to worry?

The response was about Latin American ballplayers. $2M is certainly set for life anywhere in Latin America.

Even in the U.S. $2M (tax free as insurance is) means you never have to worry. You can take $50,000 p.a. as income pretty safely. You may have to work, but so what? I've never understood the desire to leave one's wife and kids as idle rich. The life outcomes for people like that are generally not good.
   48. dejarouehg Posted: February 28, 2021 at 11:12 AM (#6007009)
Even in the U.S. $2M (tax free as insurance is) means you never have to worry.


That depends on how old you are, if you have kids and where you live.

You are right, though, you may still have to work and if that's the case, too bad. No one is entitled to a free ride.

To declare that you can generate a 5% return in this day and age when people are still desperately chasing yield, is a little aggressive and that's still taxable, so it's really $40k. Precisely where in this country is that a significant income?

My point is, "never have to worry," as a blanket statement, is hyperbole.


   49. JRVJ Posted: February 28, 2021 at 11:26 AM (#6007010)
46, I did not know that.

That makes a lot of sense (I seem to recall that G. Cole was sort of in a similar position when he was first drafted out of High School by the Yankees).


47, You have no idea what $2MM will or won't buy for life in Latin America, especially when you factor in extended families.

Really, your post is deeply offensive and you don't even realize it.

   50. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 28, 2021 at 12:13 PM (#6007015)
47, You have no idea what $2MM will or won't buy for life in Latin America, especially when you factor in extended families.

Really, your post is deeply offensive and you don't even realize it.


I think it's far more offensive to think that someone making $500K should sign away $20M+ of career earnings because they're too dumb to budget for a $10K life insurance premium.

I also think it's offensive to think that someone who makes a good living is responsible for setting up his whole extended family so they don't have to work anymore. You take care of your wife, your kids, and your parents, but why does anyone else have a call on a player's income? Let them work.

These kids are being taken advantage of, not only by the teams, but also by their friends and relatives. It's disgusting.
   51. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 28, 2021 at 12:20 PM (#6007016)
To declare that you can generate a 5% return in this day and age when people are still desperately chasing yield, is a little aggressive and that's still taxable, so it's really $40k. Precisely where in this country is that a significant income?

I would expect to spend down principal for major expenses like college. And $40K a year is higher than the average per capita income in every Latin American country. Make it $5M in coverage and I was advising $20M) and you have a six figure income easily.
   52. dejarouehg Posted: February 28, 2021 at 01:23 PM (#6007019)
I also think it's offensive to think that someone who makes a good living is responsible for setting up his whole extended family so they don't have to work anymore. You take care of your wife, your kids, and your parents, but why does anyone else have a call on a player's income? Let them work.

These kids are being taken advantage of, not only by the teams, but also by their friends and relatives. It's disgusting.


100% Correct!

I would expect to spend down principal for major expenses like college. And $40K a year is higher than the average per capita income in every Latin American country. Make it $5M in coverage and I was advising $20M) and you have a six figure income easily.


I was ignoring the whole Latin American angle on this thing.

Don’t know if covered above, but Kelenic’s dad is a successful businessman (he got into developing ballfield complexes when his kids proved talented at softball/baseball, and hes don’t quite well with it), so Kelenic can take the risk of telling the Mariners to #### off with their lowball bullshit.


There's successful and then there's $ucce$$ful! This isn't a great business. Many of these places have gone toes-up (non-Covid-related) due to over-saturation and a belief that these places are all great draws.

First of all, is his dad like Bill Laimbeer's dad (was a CEO who reportedly outearned his son), or is he $.5M - $1.5M annual income successful. If the latter, big deal.

If Kelenic is elite and successful, knowing nothing about his dad, I'll bet he would significantly outearn him. Second of all, just because the father does well does not mean that the father is putting his kid on easy street.
   53. JRVJ Posted: February 28, 2021 at 01:28 PM (#6007020)
50, this answer doubles down on your original offensive Tweet.

It's pretty clear you have no idea how people think in Latin America and how family networks operate, and what is expected from those who strike it rich.
   54. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: February 28, 2021 at 01:30 PM (#6007021)
First of all, is his dad like Bill Laimbeer's dad (was a CEO who reportedly outearned his son), or is he $.5M - $1.5M annual income successful. If the latter, big deal.

It is a big deal as it provides a safety net and allows Kelenic to bet on himself in a way that someone without that fallback may not feel secure enough doing.
   55. dejarouehg Posted: February 28, 2021 at 01:59 PM (#6007027)
It is a big deal as it provides a safety net and allows Kelenic to bet on himself in a way that someone without that fallback may not feel secure enough doing.


There are a lot of wealthy fathers who say, they have raised their kids and now they are on their own. The safety net you refer to isn't necessarily there. Perhaps a bit presumptuous.

It's pretty clear you have no idea how people think in Latin America and how family networks operate, and what is expected from those who strike it rich.


It is this mentality/cultural mindset that has destroyed the financial well-being of many - overwhelmingly - minority athletes/entertainers.
   56. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 28, 2021 at 02:09 PM (#6007028)
It's pretty clear you have no idea how people think in Latin America and how family networks operate, and what is expected from those who strike it rich.

It is this mentality/cultural mindset that has destroyed the financial well-being of many - overwhelmingly - minority athletes/entertainers.


Concur 100% with dejaroueg.

JRVJ, think about what you're saying. You're saying a Latin American athlete can't set aside $10K from his $500K salary to ensure the financial security of his wife and kids, and grandkids ($20M goes a long way anywhere) because he's got to give handouts to a bunch of cousins and hangers on. That's insane.

If buying a Rolex or car for your brother or cousin is more important than paying for insurance to cover your wife and kids, you have badly misplaced values.
   57. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: February 28, 2021 at 02:34 PM (#6007029)
There are a lot of wealthy fathers who say, they have raised their kids and now they are on their own. The safety net you refer to isn't necessarily there. Perhaps a bit presumptuous.


Not a lot of wealthy fathers who will let their kids go hungry or homeless or without medical care, for example. That’s the kind of safety net that a lot of people don’t have. Even just knowing that you’re not responsible for financially supporting your parents in their old age is a big burden to have lifted.
   58. dejarouehg Posted: February 28, 2021 at 03:35 PM (#6007033)
Not a lot of wealthy fathers who will let their kids go hungry or homeless or without medical care, for example. That’s the kind of safety net that a lot of people don’t have. Even just knowing that you’re not responsible for financially supporting your parents in their old age is a big burden to have lifted.


So you're saying that if he fails to make it in baseball, and then fails to make it at anything else, then he's fortunate in that his father is (or mother is, or parents are) likely to make sure he won't be homeless. I'm not "wealthy" in the sense that we are ascribing to Kelenic's father, but I would, of course, do the same for my kids (assuming they weren't a deadbeat or drain on society). As a matter of fact, everyone I know would because that is what most normal, sane people do.......wealthy or not!

[Section about white privilege eliminated to avoid going down that rabbit hole.]

   59. . . . . . . Posted: February 28, 2021 at 03:41 PM (#6007035)
There are a lot of wealthy fathers who say, they have raised their kids and now they are on their own. The safety net you refer to isn't necessarily there. Perhaps a bit presumptuous.


I think you're the one being presumptuous. I'm one of those lucky kids and grew up surrounded by those lucky kids. The safety net is of course there. If the kid is a total deadbeat, just pissing money into the wind, then perhaps there's an issue? But if the kid is a hard worker, gets bad luck - the parents 100% step in and give the kid a comfortable life. Literally 100%. I have never seen the other outcome. And my sample size is pretty big.

If someone like Kelenic bets on themselves and then their back goes David Wright the year before arb or something like that, you think his parent is going to punish him for that? It's laughable.

My pop, who was a big proponent of me doing my own thing and made me pay for graduate school out of my own pocket, told me explicitly that if I wanted to pass up tenure track jobs at second tier schools to take a run at getting a job at a top school, he would have my back financially if I crashed and burned. Because what the #### did he earn the money for if not to support THAT.
   60. dejarouehg Posted: February 28, 2021 at 04:31 PM (#6007043)
I think you're the one being presumptuous. I'm one of those lucky kids and grew up surrounded by those lucky kids. The safety net is of course there. If the kid is a total deadbeat, just pissing money into the wind, then perhaps there's an issue? But if the kid is a hard worker, gets bad luck - the parents 100% step in and give the kid a comfortable life. Literally 100%. I have never seen the other outcome. And my sample size is pretty big.

If someone like Kelenic bets on themselves and then their back goes David Wright the year before arb or something like that, you think his parent is going to punish him for that? It's laughable.

My pop, who was a big proponent of me doing my own thing and made me pay for graduate school out of my own pocket, told me explicitly that if I wanted to pass up tenure track jobs at second tier schools to take a run at getting a job at a top school, he would have my back financially if I crashed and burned. Because what the #### did he earn the money for if not to support THAT.


Generally I agree with you. I too grew up among those lucky kids.

Many of the parents I know, who have given their kids what most would consider as much of an opportunity as any child could reasonably hope for, have helped out their kids when they've come out of college and struggled. Most of them have done it with the proviso that the gravy train has a limited run and if they don't have their act together after (fill in the blank) months, then they are on their own. Surprisingly, many have actually acted upon it. That was my greater point. Many parents, irrespective of their financial capabilities, will not necessarily come to the rescue or, if they do, maintain it for a significant run.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
greenback used to say live and let live
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogYour job's a joke, you're broke, your love life's OMNICHATTER! for June 22, 2021
(38 - 11:08pm, Jun 22)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogNBA 2021 Playoffs+ thread
(1952 - 11:07pm, Jun 22)
Last: Der-K's emotional investment is way up

NewsblogBaseball Reference Adds Negro Leagues Statistics, Rewriting Its Record Book
(177 - 11:00pm, Jun 22)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

NewsblogI Am Breaking My Silence About the Baseball Player Who Raped Me
(3 - 10:48pm, Jun 22)
Last: Obo

NewsblogMajor League Baseball's crackdown on sticky substances begins with regular checks on pitchers Monday
(1 - 10:12pm, Jun 22)
Last: John Northey

NewsblogToronto Blue Jays' Alek Manoah suspended five games for throwing at Baltimore Orioles' Maikel Franco
(3 - 10:10pm, Jun 22)
Last: John Northey

NewsblogArizona Diamondbacks' losing streak over at 17 with win over Milwaukee Brewers
(9 - 6:34pm, Jun 22)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 6-22-2021
(7 - 5:29pm, Jun 22)
Last: EddieA

NewsblogOT Soccer Thread - In Which Euro 2020 Is Played in 2021
(251 - 4:44pm, Jun 22)
Last: AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale

Sox TherapyAnd Breathe
(33 - 2:30pm, Jun 22)
Last: Jose Is An Absurd Balladeer

NewsblogEmpty Stadium Sports Will Be Really Weird
(13256 - 12:47pm, Jun 22)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

NewsblogSo no one told you OMNICHATTER! was going to be this way, for June 21, 2021
(33 - 8:36am, Jun 22)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

NewsblogCollege baseball pitcher Sang Ho Baek dies after complications from Tommy John surgery
(19 - 1:17am, Jun 22)
Last: Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams)

NewsblogRays call up top prospect Wander Franco
(6 - 9:07pm, Jun 21)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogThe story of honoring Negro League history and a search for buried treasure
(1 - 8:31pm, Jun 21)
Last: Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc

Page rendered in 0.5494 seconds
48 querie(s) executed