Agree or disagree

[pan6467]

Cleveland's manager Eric Wedge a week or 2 ago reiterated what Tony Larussa said by saying this, "You may have 2 maybe 3 players on every team that cares about winning and playing for the team, the rest are just looking for their big paydays and care less about how the team does and more about how they look."

After watching the Indians this season as all the big players got hefty raises and watching other teams, I tend to agree with that assessment. There truly are very few teams right now playing as a team. Maybe the Reds, the White Sox, the Tigers and of course the Twins (they always play as a team), but it truly does seem like the players just don't care much anymore about winning.

The StL Cards definately have fallen apart and aren't plying as a team, neither are the Yankees, the Red Sox,

What is your take and how true are the statements by LaRussa and Wedge? Is it true in your opinion?

How do baseball and more importantly we the fans correct this?

I feel the players need more incentive laden contracts and fewer guaranteed payouts. They want to make millions then run out every fly ball, play every day as if it is your last day, and take pride in the team and show some community involvement and fan appreciation.

[Glory's Sun]

This is a tough call. I think alot of kids love the game but always think in the back of their minds "Hey, A-Rod(upmyass) gets a ton of money, if I stick with this I can make that kind of money." The problem won't get any better until teams start paying the players less.

I think there are alot of guys who truly want to win and take the game seriously, it's just they are more reserved while the big payday players are usually more open and "in your face" which of course overshadows those that truly love to just play.

And while I'm here, I think the Bo'Sox are doing just fine TYVM.

[Ample]

I think most do, to a certain extent. It a job that they love, but its still a job. I don’t mind being a team player at work, infact most of the time I enjoy it, but I would never put the teams goals ahead of my own. I would never sacrifice that promotion or raise, so I could make my team look good. I really don't see what make professional sports so holy that it should be any different.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by Ample

I think most do, to a certain extent. It a job that they love, but its still a job. I don’t mind being a team player at work, infact most of the time I enjoy it, but I would never put the teams goals ahead of my own. I would never sacrifice that promotion or raise, so I could make my team look good. I really don't see what make professional sports so holy that it should be any different.

Ah contrare mon ami...... I see it the opposite. In our lives we are paid to do a job to the best of our ability, the way we do our job reflects upon the company. If we do our jobs wel, the company does well and everyone prospers (SHUSH.... this is my fantasy).

However, athletes, professional TEAM athletes, are paid to play their best to win games.

Now, as Wedge implied and more than just succinctly, you have 2 maybe 3 players busting ass on every play, the rest are more worried at their Offensive stats or their ERA and K's and not about the game or winning.

Basically, it's the "why dive for that ball and try to make a play when I may hurt my rib?" Even though the player could have gotten to it. Or the guy in Center who lays up on the fly ball and is willing to give up the double because he may run into the wall and get injured.

I find what Wedge and LaRussa said to be true, players just don't play hard or for their team anymore.

You don't see players out there hustling, running out every fly ball, doing the little things to win games for the team. And that is what they are paid for.

A player gets paid to fill seats so that the team can make money. WINNING is the only thing that will fill seats on a consistent basis. If you are only playing for that paycheck and so you care more about your stats then where your team is...... you ain't doing what you were paid for.

If you refuse to lay down that sac bunt because it won't help your BA (didn't hurt it either but...), or run out a fly in hopes there is an error then you aren't playing 100%, are you?

[Jimellow]

I think there are certainly players there to solely collect pay checks. There are various levels of employees in every job, and sports is no exception.

Union jobs allow their workers to be protected, and thus get away with doing lower quality work and not be terminated as easily. Major league sports are host to the most powerful unions in America. Thus, it's not surprising at all to me that there are players that are there strictly to collect a paycheck each week.

I don't think it is a problem though, compared to other fields of work. Sports are entertainment, and thus not overly important on the grand scheme of things. Sure, it's about money, but so is everything else.

I'd be much more concerned about nurses, doctors, teachers, and those capable of directly affecting another's life or survival slacking at their jobs than I would someone paid to chase a ball for a living.

I love sports, watch them almost constantly, but I don't have misconceptions that their jobs are important when compared to those indivuals that truly influence and/or have a direct affect on the lives of others. Athletes slacking and working just for a paycheck isn't really a big concern of mine. They are entertainers, and thus nothing they do is nearly as important as those with important jobs, where slacking or just "collecting paychecks" can result in actual consequences and life changes for others.

My poll selection, if it existed, would be "Yes, it exists, but it isn't a problem/concern of mine."

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by Jimellow

I think there are certainly players there to solely collect pay checks. There are various levels of employees in every job, and sports is no exception.

Union jobs allow their workers to be protected, and thus get away with doing lower quality work and not be terminated as easily. Major league sports are host to the most powerful unions in America. Thus, it's not surprising at all to me that there are players that are there strictly to collect a paycheck each week.

I don't think it is a problem though, compared to other fields of work. Sports are entertainment, and thus not overly important on the grand scheme of things. Sure, it's about money, but so is everything else.

I'd be much more concerned about nurses, doctors, teachers, and those capable of directly affecting another's life or survival slacking at their jobs than I would someone paid to chase a ball for a living.

I love sports, watch them almost constantly, but I don't have misconceptions that their jobs are important when compared to those indivuals that truly influence and/or have a direct affect on the lives of others. Athletes slacking and working just for a paycheck isn't really a big concern of mine. They are entertainers, and thus nothing they do is nearly as important as those with important jobs, where slacking or just "collecting paychecks" can result in actual consequences and life changes for others.

My poll selection, if it existed, would be "Yes, it exists, but it isn't a problem/concern of mine."

I understand what you are saying, but that is their job, to win. If they aren't and will not give 100% they aren't doing what they are paid for.

And I am sorry, but they are role models. Growing up I idolized Jimmy Connors, Pete Rose, John McEnroe, Nolan Ryan, Gaylord Perry, Steve Carlton, Mike Schmidt, and so on. These players wnet out everyday and played hard and did what it took to win. They weren't in it for "stats" and a big paycheck and "fuck the team". When I played sports, I took their attitudes to the field of play with me.

When I played tennis, I "was" Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe and I was out there to win. When I played baseball and I pitched, I "was" Lefty Carlton, Nolan Ryan and Gaylord Perry and I did whatever I needed to to keep my team i9n the game..... when I played third base or left field, I was Pete Rose, Mike Schmidt, Bake McBride, Joe Morgan, Mike Hargorve and Toby Harrah. I played my ass off, I took dives for balls because that's what I saw Pete or Mike or Bake or Toby do to make the play to win the game. When I played neighborhood basketball I was Larry Bird and Dr. J. and I worked to play like them.

Maybe I'm just getting old and bitching..... but it just doesn't seem like it used to. Sports maybe has become more of a business and taken the shroud off and maybe the athletes never truly cared.... but I miss those days when players didn't hug the opposition and went out and acted like they hated the other team and city...... I like the days when the Big Red Machine players were hated because of their egos and their talent..... not because they had bigger paychecks and more bling-bling.

And I think it is more a sign of what our society has become than any illusion lost over sports.

[Glory's Sun]

One thing you have to consider is that the team owners/management doesn't want a team full of hurt players. A player has to take care of himself while maintaining the balance of playing his hardest. If a center fielder dives after every ball or slams into every wall, it won't be long until he won't be able to do anything, which in result, leaves the owners with worthless money and the fans without a player that can help the team. There is a balance and sure many players may be way under that balance, but I think there's quite a few that are right on target.

[Eweser]

I picked the second choice, but my real choice would be somewhere between one and two. I don't think players play as hard as they used to, but there are a number of exceptions. I'm with pan6467 on the 100%. I will more likely pay money to see a player play all out for a short time than to see a showy player strut around for years and years. But that's just from a fan standpoint...

[Average_Joe]

I feel the players need more incentive laden contracts and fewer guaranteed payouts.

I don't know if this is the answer either. Wouldn't this cause players to be playing for themselves as well? Take your example of a player who refuses to bunt because it may hurt their batting average. If their incentive is to hit above a certain average for extra $$$$, then the player isn't playing for the sake of winning. Maybe another player is trying to hit home runs at every at bat to reach a contract milestone, but they may increase their strikeout frequency and be less productive.

Perhaps the incentive laden contracts should be designed around the success of the team. A player could receive a bonus if the team wins X amount of games or finishes at or near the top of their division, etc...

[grumpyolddude]

The Red Wings just re-signed Hasek for a minimal salary, plus a load of incentives that kick in once the TEAM reaches round 2 of the playoffs. This should be a model contract!
Personally, I enjoy seeing Kenny Rogers dive for a ground ball... even in the All Star game! The high-priced prima donnas need to recall how much fun the games were when they were younger and a little bit hungrier.

[Aurakles]

I cannot say for sure, but I don't think it is as pervasive as the media makes it seem; for one, the media is about ratings, selling papers, and, thus, over-sensationalism. I can, however, think of specific athletes that are more concerned about their stats. Barry Bonds is one that jumps out at me. And while he is being used as a sacrificial lamb for a generation of cheaters, he is to blame for most of his problems and is clearly chasing stats; otherwise, he would have retired a while ago.