Murray Chass and the Question of Loyalty

Murray Chass tackles the issue of loyalty, which unbeknowest to me, came up last week:

In baseball, loyalty does not travel a two-way street. “When you get in a situation in negotiations when a player who’s been there a long time winds up leaving, it’s the player who is greedy and not loyal,” said Tom Glavine, who based his observations on 22 years in the major leagues. “But when the player wants to stay and the club doesn’t keep him it’s a business decision. You can’t have it both ways. Either it’s loyalty or not. You can’t blame a player when he makes a business decision and not say the same thing about the team.” The subject of loyalty arose last week when two veteran free-agent pitchers signed with new teams. After a 21-year career with the Atlanta Braves, the only team he has pitched for, John Smoltz is headed for Boston to pitch for the Red Sox. And after a nearly 16-year run with the San Diego Padres, Trevor Hoffman is going to the Milwaukee Brewers. Both pitchers would have been happy to stay with their teams, would have preferred staying, but their teams acted in ways that made it preferable for them to leave. The Padres offered Hoffman a one-year contract for $4 million but withdrew it before he said yes or no. He agreed with the Brewers on a one-year contract with a $6 million guaranteed salary and the possibility of an additional $1.5 million in bonuses based on the number of games he finishes. The Braves offered Smoltz a one-year contract with a $2 million salary and a potential $8 million in bonuses, much of them based on roster time, for a possible $10 million total. The Red Sox contract has a $5.5 million salary with an additional $5 million in bonuses based on roster time. Smoltz viewed the Red Sox bonuses as more reasonable and more attractive.

Glavine makes an interesting point.  There is a bit of a double standard applied to this "loyalty" situation.  Business decisions are usually applied to the business, in this case the ball club, while loyalty or lack thereof is applied to the ballplayer, since he is an individual and not a business. It's better to look at what the non-financial benefits are to each side in maintianing such loyalty.  For the player, he doesn't have to uproot his family, take the kids out of their school, go into a new clubhouse with new players and management, or essentially turn over their entire life.  For the ballclub, the benefits of loyalty are... well, a familiar face?  The fans are happy a guy is still there?  I guess PR is really the only benefit outside of whatever performance that player provides.  PR is a fickle argument, one that can easily be wiped away by a team that performs well without the "unloyal" player.  Tino Martinez comes to mind after his rocky start. The teams only benefit is the players performance, which means the team is the only party at risk

based

on the players performance.  That risk is weighed by how much money is invested in the player.  The player reaps the benefit of a stable life, familiar surroundings, etc.  Is there a price that can be applied to that benefit?  Should the player be responsible for subsidizing that value in their contract or is that a benefit that the team isn't privy to? That benefit of loyalty is never given a financial value.  Maybe it shouldn't as we can easily argue that placing a value on intangibles is a costly mistake.  But stability is a benefit nonetheless, one that shouldn't be discounted in the discussion. In the matters of  Hoffman and Smoltz, we're dealing with pretty different circumstances.  In the case of Hoffman, it makes little sense for the Padres to sign an aging closer to a team that won 66 games in the least competitve division in baseball.  Again, the only benefit is a familiar face and a little PR.  That PR would go right out the window if Hoffman continued his decline and didn't perform well. In the case of Smoltz, the Braves were looking at a 42 year old pitcher (not 41, Murray...) who is coming off shoulder surgery and won't be available until late May, if not June.  Their contract, with all incentives reached, was $500k less than the Red Sox, although $3 million less was guaranteed. Said Braves president John Schuerholz:

“We believe we made a very reasonable, fair offer that took into consideration all the elements,” John Schuerholz, the Braves’ president, said, “his long standing tenure with us, our desire to have him return, our willingness to construct a contract that would pay him a considerable amount of money if he is able to pitch. “Our guarantee admittedly wasn’t as high as he was looking for or he got. We just don’t have the information or the knowledge that allows us to be comfortable with someone coming off that particular shoulder surgery coming back to pitch.”

In other words, nobody knows what to expect from this guy and we can't afford $5 million.  It's no coincidence that people have been calling the contract Smoltz signed with the Red Sox a gamble on the Red Sox part.  If he had signed for $2 million plus incentives, that would seem like a lot less of a gamble and, comapred to the Red Sox, a bit more reasonable. Smoltz and Hoffman are entitled to all the money they can gather.  That's how the business is built and it is their right to take advantage.  But when the question of loyalty comes up, we need to remember who takes the risk and who's paying the bills.