Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallex
That's untrue. At least in regards to MLB.
https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid...ly%20contracts
Hell, on the show Pitch (if you haven't seen it you should it's very good) a character talking about worries that a player would be traded says "well he's a young all-star centerfielder with a team friendly contract). If it's on a FOX network show about then it's not just an NHL concept. |
Parallex, you're arguing two different things - there's a distinct difference between a team friendly contract and signing a hometown discount. What TAO is arguing is that in MLB the culture and economics is such that players don't give discounts to their teams. They simply sign for the most part, with the highest bidder. Having said this, there are always exceptions, but for the most part there is little loyalty to take a discount to stay with a particular team. Now, generally a "team friendly contract" is either a) something that turned out to be a steal when a player was already signed in and broke out, b) a reclamation player who signed because nobody else would and they turned their game around, or c) a young player who was already signed who broke out and the sometimes seen d) a team option that gets exercised on a player because the contract signed
turned out to be good for the team.
Summing it up, team friendly contracts are outcomes as opposed to a conscious decision made on the players part to sign for a discount. That happens more in the NHL as MLBPA has really discouraged that type of thing.