Two Phillies pitchers are on the mend, but there is cause for concern with another. Cole Hamels will throw a bullpen session Tuesday, and Mike Adams will throw from a mound on Feb. 27, reports Jim Salisbury of CSNPhilly.com.
Adams thinks he can be back my mid to late April. It will be interesting to see how much different he looks when he eventually makes his season debut. Last year, Adams struggled to control the ball and fell off the mound on every pitch, putting him in no position to field hard-hit balls up the middle.
He admitted that the pain he was feeling was affecting his mechanics.
Hamels seems to be right on the schedule he and the team laid out for him when it was announced the first day of camp that he was suffering from shoulder tendinitis. Both Ruben Amaro Jr. and Ryne Sandberg said their concern level with Hamels was at a 2 on a scale of 1-10.
Jonathan Pettibone, however, remains shut down with right shoulder soreness. The Phils hope to have him throw by the weekend, but there's no guarantee he will.
Pettibone was also shut down last season, his rookie year, after 18 starts. He had a 4.04 ERA at that time in just over 100 innings.
It's worrisome that Pettibone's shoulder has acted up for about six months now. When Chad Gaudin was released, it looked like Pettibone had the inside track to the long relief/spot starter role.
Expect the Phils to be overly cautious with Pettibone well into spring training. The 6-foot-6 lefty is still just 23 years old, and remains a piece for the future if he can figure out a breaking pitch.
I like it up the a$$
Posted by: cut_fastball | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 01:15 AM
Read the 455+ comment on tgf to masturbate along with a subject that obviously stimulates their sensitive fantasy world regarding a 5th round pick. No room for lawyers until the dust settles.
Posted by: Meyer | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 01:22 AM
But, contrary to the BS apologists and sycophants in general in charge over at TGF, this is going to create problems for the Phillies.
___________________________________________
Actually TGP is having a pretty good debate over a multitude of issues regarding the situation. I realize that is why you are not over there participating. You aren't intelligent enough to participate.
Posted by: slider | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 06:31 AM
That comment thread: Wow. I'm just 10% through.
Early impresssions: even smart people about baseball have zero understanding (LorecorE) of how real-world activities unfold. Any game or social activity has a set of unwritten rules that govern conduct as much as the written rules do. The "culture" of a game, or any social activity really, matters as much or more, than the actual written rules if the question is "how am I to behave here?".
There are plenty of prominent examples from baseball one can point to.
Posted by: bittel | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 06:36 AM
LorecorE understands it, to be clear. NEPP apparently doesn't.
Here's a hint, NEPP: kids don't have "a choice" not to play college baseball, not unless they want to effectively give up their dream of playing baseball at the top levels of the game without forfeiting their education. Some "choice". The mistake is casting the problem as an individual one, rather than a class or social one.
NCAA players as a class are exploited. As a CLASS, see? What individual players do or don't do does nothing to affect the structural realities of that. If you don't like the term "indentured servitude," fine. Do you like "criminally unjust?"
Posted by: bittel | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 06:47 AM
sounds like bittel is posting from the inside of his rectal cavity.
Posted by: slider | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 06:55 AM
I'll shut up about it soon (good! right?), but it just galls me. Talking about "free choice" is like the business types who scream about the "free market" when some perfectly appropriate or even needed regulation/tax is imposed on them. The history of corporate capitalism is essentially one big effort to gain control of markets (leaving them as "unfree" as possible) in any and every way they can.
What is "slotting," after all, except a scheme designed to gain control of an otherwise potentially messy market? It's nakedly collusive, but let's make the issue about whether a 17-year-old made the right "choice' in deciding to play baseball for the university he attends.
If the Phillies actions (which appear detestable) ultimately wind up bringing light to a corrupt system, at least that bit of good will come of it. The idle threats by player agents mean nothing. They're scum, but necessary scum in the present environment. They don't want to see the system made fair, because if it was they'd potentially see their own worth to the process significantly diminished.
Posted by: bittel | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 06:59 AM
this is a good read about the corruption and exploitation in college sports. first linked by wet luzinski at TGP.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/308643/2/
Posted by: bullit | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 07:22 AM
slider: uneducated, brainless, and neoliberal is no way to go through life, son.
Make an argument or kindly go back to being banned, or whatever the f*ck you were.
Posted by: bittel | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 07:35 AM
this is an interesting quote from the Atlantic article:
"Slavery analogies should be used carefully. College athletes are not slaves. Yet to survey the scene—corporations and universities enriching themselves on the backs of uncompensated young men, whose status as “student-athletes” deprives them of the right to due process guaranteed by the Constitution—is to catch an unmistakable whiff of the plantation. Perhaps a more apt metaphor is colonialism: college sports, as overseen by the NCAA, is a system imposed by well-meaning paternalists and rationalized with hoary sentiments about caring for the well-being of the colonized. But it is, nonetheless, unjust."
Posted by: bullit | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 08:33 AM
"The simple question is what did the Phillies expect to gain by ratting out the players? I can think of a lot of negatives but not one positive."
Dragon, exactly, which I why there HAS to be more here than meets the eye.
The BA article says the Phillies "told" the NCAA. It provides no context.
Did the NCAA approach the Phillies after someone else ratted the kids out, and were the Phillies legally bound to provide the info?
I'll be the first to state that if the Phillies were the proactive party here - that they actively sabotaged these kids out of spite for their not signing - that they are not only dumber than anyone here has EVER said they were, but also of questionable character.
But there is way more here that we don't know than what we do know.
I'll reserve kneejerk, righteous judgment until the rest of the information comes out - and it will.
Posted by: awh™ | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 08:58 AM
Yes they do. You do not have to go to college to get drafted for one...but you already knew that. Also, playing a sport is a choice in itself. It's not a requirement. They choose to play a sport, they choose to go to that college and they voluntarily trade their ability to play a game in exchange for an education. Stop acting as if these are all poor innocent kids that had no idea what they were entering into. For most of them, it's a lifelong pursuit to win the lottery (make it to the pros) even though maybe 2% of them even get that far and a fat smaller amount end up making money from it. Maybe they should realize that and have a backup plan in place rather than banking everything on that dream.
Your argument to the contrary is idiotic at best.
Posted by: NEPP | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 09:10 AM
"corporations and universities enriching themselves on the backs of uncompensated young men, whose status as “student-athletes” deprives them of the right to due process guaranteed by the Constitution—is to catch an unmistakable whiff of the plantation."
This is such b.s.
These men are getting a FREE college education - something that the vast majority of us spend twenty or more years trying to pay off.
In exchange, they're expected to play a game - and if they're any good at that game, they stand to make five to seven figures in a signing bonus and the opportunity to earn millions at the major league level.
Plantations? Colonialism? Unjust? The over-privileged hack who wrote that should be ashamed of themselves.
Posted by: Will Schweitzer | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 09:14 AM
I get the feeling that bittels understanding of our rights under the Constitution is a bit circumspect at best.
Posted by: NEPP | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 09:17 AM
"I'll reserve kneejerk, righteous judgment until the rest of the information comes out - and it will."
WHAT????? Don't you understand?
THIS. IS. BEERLEAGUER!!!!
Posted by: Cyclic | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 09:21 AM
NEPP, you got properly schooled on that TGF thread, and I'll be happy to drag over the relevant comments if you like. By raising the Constitution as if it decides the matter shows you really don't understand the winning points on that thread, because the whole point was to explain that laws by themselves often can and do mean very little and, even more important, that corrupt institutions tend to evolve toward a position where that's precisely what is wanted from them.
Here's a point that wasn't made which deepens the basic one:
In our society going to college isn't "a choice", if by choice is meant something one may choose or not without significant coercive aspecs. Thankfully, ours is no longer a society in which you can legally discriminate against someone based on gender or race (though of course it still happens). But you may perfectly legally discriminate against someone on the basis of "education." I was myself a beneficiary of this discrimination, when I won my first-ever job out of college over another candidate who was vastly more qualified (on experience) than me. How'd I win? He wasn't a college grad, but I was.
Under such conditions, college isn't a full-on choice for most people; it's practically compulsory if you want to become an upwardly mobile member of the society (and yeah, I know about the exceptions). When you factor in that students cannot get out from under college loan debt, but that, for instance, corporations can and do routinely offload billions of dollars a year through bankruptcy and other business-friendly vehicles only to start the process of offloading debt again immediately (see Donald Trump for one), you begin to understand he full scale of the operation.
Posted by: bittel | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 09:48 AM
My keyboard has no "t". Sorry if some words like "the" sometimes appear as "he".
And no, I'm not Steven Wright.
Posted by: bittel | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 09:49 AM
bi__el: might as well start using _ in place of t's. lol
Posted by: bullit | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 09:56 AM
I think college players should get a stipend or work-study money for workout/practice/travel/game time and some compensation for the video game images, particularly in football and basketball. A lot of players come from underprivileged backgrounds or don't get full rides (particularly in baseball) and a small bit of money would help them out and make them less susceptible to the machinations of agents and boosters. Problem would be, not all schools could justify the extra expense for all sports or all players. Would U of Penn want to pay their players? Would Alabama think they need to at all. Penn St. might pay football players but would they pay X country or the swim team? But I also think players should be allowed to hire agents if they are drafted.
As for the NCAA being an example of robber baron capitalism, you can also argue its an example of the socialist denouement. The top 1% of athletes in the most lucrative sports are vastly under compensated in order to support the opportunities for the 2nd string shot putter, the golf team and other hanger abouts and ne'er do wells.
Posted by: jbird | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 10:02 AM
I'm late to this party, but on another matter I wanted to say:
MG: keep posting. You try to bring fresh information to the site which I for one appreciate. Even when you go mildly autistic I don't care, because you seem like a really nice and gentle person.
So f*uck them.
Posted by: bittel | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 10:07 AM
Aaron Fitt (@aaronfitt)
One agent: "As of today, Phillies are out. Phillies are not getting into any more of our households. We're shutting down all communications"
Posted by: Dickie Thong | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 10:07 AM
I _hink bi__le is full of shi_
My "_" is broken _oo.
You sir a a grade A moron, and your pos_s are proving _ha_. Please s_ick _o _opics you know abou_. Like wha_ is the bes_ lubrican_ _o shove one's head up _heir own boo_y.
Posted by: slider | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 10:10 AM
Dan Brooks (@brooksbaseball)
@keithlaw @BillPetti @aaronfitt So, you think rather than players changing attitudes, it will be Philly ops hampered by no contact w agents?
keithlaw (@keithlaw)
@brooksbaseball @BillPetti @aaronfitt yes. Like getting signability info, questionnaires returned, psych tests, etc.
Posted by: Dickie Thong | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 10:11 AM
I feel fairly confident that the people who are saying "this kid broke the rules and he deserves what he gets" are only saying that because the story involves their favorite team.
If this story were the Marlins, I doubt a single person would be defending their front office and concocting crazy theories to try and provide a justifiable reason for what happened.
There appears to be a simple explanation here, as much as people still don't want to admit it: the Phillies just did a bad thing.
Posted by: Jack | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 10:11 AM
Buster Olney (@Buster_ESPN)
Current MLB players pointing out that pre-draft, players have power to restrict any particular team from viewing medical info.
Posted by: Dickie Thong | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 10:17 AM
Bittel, if you want to be taken seriously at all, you can't make statements like "In our society going to college isn't a choice" simply because the choice has consequences.
All choices have consequences. If your criteria for free will is to choose without consequence, none of us are free to do anything and the entire discussion loses all of its meaning. What any of this has to do with the discussion at hand is anybody's guess.
NCAA athletes are perhaps the most over-privileged "class" in the country. Student athletes are routinely accepted into schools in which their academic achievement in no way qualifies them for enrollment, and they've given a free (or drastically reduced) ride on top of that. And as someone who has an understanding of unwritten rules, I'm sure you recognize that the privilege doesn't end there, whether it be unearned grades to maintain academic eligibility or protection from being punished for criminal activity (for both players and coaches), with behaviors ranging from rape to harassment to assault to child abuse in the Sandusky case (Don't even try to argue against this. Your position would be indefensible and I won't waste my time to debate it).
There is no indentured servitude or exploitation. There are rules and regulations that student athletes are expected to adhere to, and like the laws of citizenship, they are almost universally ignored. Your claim that student athletes are a persecuted class and that the Phillies action will "bring light to a corrupt injustice" is ridiculous on every level and not worthy of further discussion or debate.
Posted by: Will Schweitzer | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 10:19 AM
Here comes Jack to give his opinion with bi__el:
Because we are all stupid like Jack
Posted by: slider | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 10:21 AM
"I feel fairly confident that the people who are saying "this kid broke the rules and he deserves what he gets" are only saying that because the story involves their favorite team."
Agreed.
Like Bittel's argument, the Phillies actions (if it was the Phillies actions, and it certainly looks like it was) are indefensible.
The theories of rogue agents, rival coaches, drunken scouts, Bud Selig and/or NCAA sting operations, etc... have been the most entertaining writing on BL this year.
The fact that there hasn't been a news post of these events pretty much rules out Beerleaguer as a legitimate source of Phillies news at this point. At best, it's a Comcast mirror site with occasional news in the comments.
Posted by: Will Schweitzer | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 10:32 AM
Without all the facts, it's a pretty boring thing to discuss.
Posted by: Cyclic | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 10:38 AM
What about the Philliedelphia blog? It seems to have frequent posts (1-2/day), it's a typepad site, and no one ever comments, so we wouldn't be invading an established commentariat.
Posted by: Dickie Thong | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 10:38 AM
I feel fairly confident that the people who are saying "this kid broke the rules and he deserves what he gets" are only saying that because the story involves their favorite team.
Just idiotic. Simply idiotic
Posted by: slider | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 10:41 AM
Will, I think you misunderstand my position. The Phillies acted deplorably, it seems. Nothing I wrote is intended as a defense of them.
"you can't make statements like In our society going to college isn't a choice" simply because the choice has consequences.
All choices have consequences."
It's not simply that "all choices have consequences." It's your relative lack of concern over the sorts of consequences meted out for that choice, and your seeming misunderstanding of the role free choice theory plays in obscuring the constrains within which choices are made.
We make our own decisions, Will, yeah. But not under conditions of our own making. So focusing on choice is a bit of a red herring.
NCAA athletes are perhaps the most over-privileged "class" in the country. Student athletes are routinely accepted into schools in which their academic achievement in no way qualifies them for enrollment, and they've given a free (or drastically reduced) ride on top of that.
They're accepted because of the value that can be extracted from their labor. Full stop. Does that "benefit" some of them? Yes. Less than you think though, because college has become less about education and more about simply processing students in the last couple of generations. The University system runs on the same logic that the health care system runs on: coerced participation. Not surprisingly, since the two systems are increasingly run by the same class of people. The logic of the hospital and the university is basically to get as many in the doors as possible, extract as much money from them as possible, and then get rid of them o make room for more.
And as someone who has an understanding of unwritten rules, I'm sure you recognize that the privilege doesn't end there, whether it be unearned grades to maintain academic eligibility or protection from being punished for criminal activity (for both players and coaches), with behaviors ranging from rape to harassment to assault to child abuse in the Sandusky case
here we agree completely, though I doubt you would go as far as I would in enacting penalties. Give this a read for an ineresting perspective on how bad college rape culture is, and particularly the culture of rape and rape cover-up around the Notre Dame football team:
http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/reported-sexual-assault-notre-dame-campus-leaves-more-questions-answers
Your claim that student athletes are a persecuted class and that the Phillies action will "bring light to a corrupt injustice" is ridiculous on every level and not worthy of further discussion or debate.
Strawman, addressed above. I said "if" about he Phillies' action. If is was out of spite, then it is a vile act. I'm leaving towards vile no matter what, by the way.
Posted by: bittel | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 10:42 AM
**leaning towards vile.
Posted by: bittel | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 10:43 AM
i saw an interesting movie ("Saturday's Heroes") on TCM a few months ago that tackled this exploitation of college football players. made in 1937 and starring a young van heflin as a college quarterback who starts a crusade for just compensation, it demonstrates how old this quandry is.
Posted by: bullit | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 10:55 AM
So the signing deadline is Aug 15th. The Phillies "ratted" out that these kids had agents in November, according to the BA article. They sat on the information for 3 months until the NCAA was informed.
Posted by: Redburb | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 10:57 AM
Sigh. And despite repeatedly mentioning it, apparently I have to devote a whole post to doing so, but...
I never said I thought that any of those reasons were likely, or even more likely than not. They were simply shots in the dark at one possible justification (for a largely-unjustifiable act).
Since none of us know anything beyond "BA say Phillies bad," all we can do is (w)i(l)dly speculate.
I would be surprised if Amaro suddenly woke up one morning and said "you know what, I want to make every player and agent in the sport distrust me!" I would be equally surprised, however, if we ever find out the full story behind this, so regardless of the cause the effect is going to remain exactly as it is.
Posted by: Phillibuster | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 11:02 AM
Here are the two best comments I've read on BL about this "Phillies Rat Story"
pblunt @ 5:13 last night.
As has been stated by a few here, there absolutely has to be more to this story than meets the eye.
Cyclic @ 10:38 this morning.
Without all the facts, it's a pretty boring thing to discuss.
Posted by: Kashmir | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 11:13 AM
Philibuster: That's fair enough. I agree we don't know enough to definitively say what happened. But I guess my point is simply that it's not "we don't know enough, so it could be good or it could be bad."
What we know points to more one conclusion being more likely than another. I mean, you yourself say that your justifications aren't "likely."
I mean, it's like a .200 hitter coming to the plate against Craig Kimbrel or something. You don't know the result of the AB. But you can guess pretty well based on percentages. I can guess pretty well what happened based on what's been reported and my own common sense. Do I know for sure? Of course not. But I'm making a somewhat educated guess, is all. I have no issue at all doing that.
Posted by: Jack | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 11:15 AM
Also, the argument vis-a-vis the athlete "underclass" is very interesting, but is grounded in ideals nowhere near as lofty as you're painting them, Bittel.
End of the day, college athletes feel that they're worth - proportionately - the same to the NCAA as professional athletes are to their professional sports organizations. As such, they want more of the money that the NCAA and individual institutions are pocketing, and they want an easier transition to the pros, where they can start earning some real money.
The NCAA and universities, meanwhile, want to keep as much of that money for themselves as possible. Whether for good reasons (funding for other sports programs that don't draw enough $$$ on their own) or ill (athletic coordinators with 8-figure compensation packages).
Just because the NCAA is in a position of authority over the players doesn't make it exploitation. This has nothing to do with the idea that the NCAA could "take its ball and go home" (shut down the program), and everything to do with the fact that college athletes are compensated, both monetarily (scholarships) and culturally (W.S. raised a number of the methods above). In fact, they've likely been receiving these benefits as early as their junior years of high school, when college scouts come by to wine-and-dine parents, offering competing scholarship bids, and imply that their school will be the one from which their children will most benefit - whether academically, or via an easier shot to the pros.
Not to mention the cultural benefits they received in HS (it's not just college athletes who get out of legal troubles).
People arguing for "fair pay for work" for college athletes have their hearts in the right place (most likely), but they imagine a system in place that is somehow more restrictive than advantageous. There are certainly restrictions, and some of them are pretty silly (such as the agent rule in question), but the average college athlete is receiving far more in benefit from their participation than just "a shot at making the pros."
Especially in non-contact sports like baseball, where long-term physical/neurological damage are exceedingly unlikely.
Posted by: Phillibuster | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 11:16 AM
Jack: I never said there was any chance of this being good. It isn't. I honestly didn't think I had to say as much, because even if it comes out that this was someone who works for the Braves sneaking into CBP and making a phone call impersonating a Phillies employee, the initial PR damage is done and will never be completely undone.
The problem I had with your jump to a conclusion is that next to nothing has been reported. "Phillies say something to NCAA about guys they didn't sign," and "Phillies were offering one of them over-slot," and really nothing else.
There's no history of the Phillies reporting draftees for rules violation - signed or otherwise. In fact, there's barely a history of draftees getting reported at all.
You're not handicapping Michael Martinez vs. Craig Kimbrell. You're handicapping two 18-year-old prospects facing off in the NYPL. Sure, you can make some guesses based on their HS numbers, but you know so little about the opposition they faced, the reasons for their success/failures, and their tendencies that it's only an "educated guess" in as much as most hitters fail more often than they succeed.
Sure, if it's two guys you know nothing about, the safe money is on the pitcher, but then again maybe this pitcher is pretty poor, and the hitter pretty good.
Posted by: Phillibuster | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 11:25 AM
Then you compounded that jump in logic by repeatedly saying: "Give me a reason this could be anything other than the Phillies organization being vindictive - and no, none of the examples I've seen by anyone here count."
A few people, mostly me, tossed out a few ideas that could be the case, but if what you really meant was "can I have some proof that the Phillies didn't do this?" then no. Nobody here has any.
Of course, nobody has any proof to the opposite either, but that doesn't seem to have stopped you from instantly adopting your PoV.
Posted by: Phillibuster | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 11:34 AM
Jack: You are such an ignorant dope. Please just shut the hell up and bring something to the table other than idiotic opinions and a sense that people are not intellectually on your level. You are about as deep as a puddle dude. Get over yourself.
Posted by: slider | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 11:41 AM
A college player who doesn't share his information pre-draft to a team with deep pockets b/c of how it handled a situation with a completely different person, is probably not a business major.
Posted by: Bedrosian's Beard | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 11:51 AM
Will: "Student athletes are routinely accepted into schools in which their academic achievement in no way qualifies them for enrollment, and they've given a free (or drastically reduced) ride on top of that."
Given the amount of money that student athletes generate for their schools and given that most never graduate (for the reason you cite), would you say they are fairly compensated for their services?
Posted by: clout | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 12:26 PM
I'm not really sure if this necessarily hurts the Phillies (and their draft process) going forward, but I fail to see how it HELPS in any way. I mean, it's highly doubtful a player the Phils draft would refuse to sign with them based on this issue, although restricting information prior to the draft (such as medicals, signability issues, etc) is entirely possible on the part of their "advisors".
Could the Phillies be attempting to bully drafted players into negotiating with the team directly, as opposed to through "advisors", in order to gain a negotiating advantage with the players? Do they think they will be able to negotiate substantially less expensive contracts, or insert restrictive clauses that agents would otherwise identify? If they're trying to scare these kids into not using an agent in their negotiations with the team, they could engender A LOT of bad will within the agent community...but this is all speculation, of course.
Just not sure what the perceived benefit is of doing this...
Posted by: Chris in VT | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 12:34 PM
and once drafted the exploitation begins anew:
http://www.sfgate.com/giants/article/Baseball-sued-over-low-minor-league-wages-5245784.php
Posted by: bullit | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 12:42 PM
Given the amount of money that student athletes generate for their schools and given that most never graduate (for the reason you cite), would you say they are fairly compensated for their services?
Posted by: clout | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 12:26 PM
Fair compensation is an interesting question...what exactly constitutes "fair"?
Would it be fair, for instance, to pay the student-athletes $40,000 a year (random number), but then not provide a free scholarship, room and board, meals, travel expenses, etc? What is the value of all those things that the school currently provides?
Wetzler is an Oregon resident, and as such expected fees and tuition at OSU add up to ~23,600 for a "normal" student (~$39,000 for non-res). Considering the coaching ("job-training"), travel, meals, etc he is also receiving as a scholarship athlete, how much would you have to pay him to make him "fairly compensated"?
Posted by: Chris in VT | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 12:46 PM
Chris: Excellent question and one that deserves to be answered. How much does the star running back or star basketball player deserve to be compensated by a major college raking in tens of millions annually from their efforts?
Posted by: clout | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 12:58 PM
when shady mccoy was a star RB at Pitt he was worth much more than the value of his education. so i guess he was subsidizing the edu. of the 2nd and 3rd stringers.
Posted by: bullit | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 01:03 PM
Chris: Excellent question and one that deserves to be answered. How much does the star running back or star basketball player deserve to be compensated by a major college raking in tens of millions annually from their efforts?
Posted by: clout | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 12:58 PM
Couldn't you ask the same thing about any large corporation? Wal-Mart, for instance, made $17 billion in profits in 2012. Their average employee is paid $22,300 a year, and almost 1 million of their 1.4 million employees make less than $25,000 annually. Their CEO made $23.2 million in 2012.
Are their employees "fairly compensated"?
We have to remember that, at its core, the NCAA functions as a for-profit corporation( yes I know it's technically a "non-profit organization", but give me a break)...just because their product is created by athletes on the field, rather than employees in a factory, doesn't mean that it isn't going to have a similar pay-scale and compensation structure.
Posted by: Chris in VT | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 01:08 PM
Diekman's looking good. MAG, not so much...at least not yet.
David Murphy @ByDavidMurphy 4m
You can diminish the importance of live BP sessions, or you can trust your eyes about Miguel Alfredo Gonzalez: http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/phillies/Miguel-Alfredo-Gonzalez-and-the-Phillies-lack-of-starting-pitching-depth.html …
Posted by: GBrettfan | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 01:27 PM
Chris: That enters some nebulous ground, because there's a very valid argument to be made that Walmart employees aren't fairly compensated. Nobody thinks that all members of the corporation should receive the same salary, but the sums earned for full-time employment there are generally not enough to survive upon barring additional sources of income.
College athletes, on the other hand, are being provided room and board, (presumably) high-quality training that is both transferable and appealing to future employers, a shot at a free college degree (for all that a college degree is "a necessity," a majority of Americans still don't have/get one, and certainly can't afford to procure one) and often from an institution they couldn't have attended on their academics alone, as well as a variety of other perks that are not as easily quantifiable.
Lots of people get hung up on the idea that college athletes are "just like professional athletes," in that they play on a team that makes an overarching organization money. The fact that a number of the players then go on to be pros further blurs the line for some.
I can understand the reasoning, and I'm not entirely unsympathetic, but it doesn't take into account all of the myriad advantages enjoyed by athletes that aren't set dollar amounts (and are self-referential in many cases, such as getting into a better school that costs more, and thus has the money to better "pay" the athlete).
Also, I find that the most vocal advocates for this chance tend to be those who would most directly benefit (agents, sportscasters, players of the most commercially-viable sports), which does seem to chip away a bit at the moral indignation angle.
Posted by: Phillibuster | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 01:31 PM
Phillibuster - Yeah, I think that's kind of my point...Just stating that the NCAA and its member schools are making a lot of money off the product provided by the student-athletes doesn't automatically entitle them to a significantly higher amount of compensation than they already receive. Every corporation makes a significantly higher amount off of their employees than they pay them, or else said corporation ceases to exist as it's no longer profitable (or it's a co-op style arrangement, but that's a whole 'nother story...)
In the end, I think there is a very valid argument to be made that the student-athletes deserve to be compensated...but you need to take into account the fact that they are already compensated a fairly significant amount (several tens of thousands of dollars, depending on circumstances), and how much more do you need to compensate them to make it "fair"? And is it "fair" to, for instance, pay the star QB the same stipend/salary/compensation as the 3rd string Offensive Lineman, for instance?
It isn't as simple as saying the student-athletes deserve more money...you have to actually define what that means and how you would actually make that happen.
Posted by: Chris in VT | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 01:38 PM
I'm not sure colleges make much money from their baseball programs. It's likely there are a handful of college baseball powers that turn a profit. But in a world where college basketball and football are major income producers, baseball would be, at best, a distant third place in income produced. My best guess is that football and basketball likely subsidize baseball at most schools.
Oh, and Slider: Welcome to BL. I know we're not all slobbering over how wonderful the Phillies FO is, like over at TGF, but everyone is welcome here. I'd like you to notice that the comment threads over at The Good Phight are much livelier now that a handful of BL posters have wandered over there. The initial attempt at bullying them into silence has apparently failed. And it's a better site for it. And as long as this site is nothing more than a cracked mirror of Comcast's sight, you should continue having more lively discussions over there. Also, I enjoy the articles. They make it a very worthwhile site. I just choose not to comment on more than one site because I occasionally have to eat meals and visit the water closet. But please carry on.
Posted by: aksmith | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 01:41 PM
Chris: "by athletes on the field, rather than employees in a factory, doesn't mean that it isn't going to have a similar pay-scale and compensation structure."
So you would say a factory employee in a large corporation is analogous to a star running back at a college pulling down $15M a year from TV specifically for football?
Posted by: clout | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 02:12 PM
Jack-- Mini Mart is batting 1.000 (1-1) off Craig Kimbrel for his career.
Posted by: Cyclic | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 02:16 PM
Thanks for the link, GBrett.
Great to hear Diekman's looking good and more importantly, throwing strikes.
Posted by: Cyclic | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 02:19 PM
Cyclic - I wish you hadn't looked that up because you know Rube will use that line someday to justify having had Minimart on the roster so many times.
"Well, you have to realize that Mikey Martinez is one of the few people on earth to have a lifetime 1.000 batting average against the greatest reliever of all time." - Ruben Amaro Jr. upon Craig Kimbrell's induction into the HOF, following a career in which he doubled Mariano Rivera's career save total.
Posted by: aksmith | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 02:21 PM
Clout: I think the analogy was "entry-level employee" vs. "upper management." MLB players make huge sums, but it pales compared to what the team owners make.
I'm all for generally reducing income disparity, but again, you're disregarding some important differences.
To wit: A cashier at Sears is often directly responsible for the ringing-out and proper monetary calculations for over $5,000 per 8-hour shift. $25,000/week, multiplied by 52 weeks is $1,300,000 per year.
A regional VP is directly responsible for less than $50/day in sales. Probably closer to $5/day, honestly, when averaged out.
The regional VP couldn't do his/her job without the cashier, while the cashier could do his/her job without the regional VP. Does this mean the cashier should be paid more than the regional VP?
Posted by: Phillibuster | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 02:32 PM
clout - no, I wouldn't say they are the same, but you also have to admit that the compensation structure currently in place is "fair" by corporate standards...Most corporations also don't provide extensive job-training, education, meals, travel, room and board, etc. to their factory workers. Nor do they provide the opportunity for said employees to advance their careers to a position where they could make millions, an opportunity that wouldn't exist if the organization wasn't "exploiting" them.
The NCAA had total revenues in 2012 of $872 million (approximately $71 million in "profit). They compensate their athletes something equivalent to 40-60 thousand dollars per year (to give a rough estimate) depending on the school they go to...
To take my earlier example, Wal-Mart made $17 billion in PROFIT in 2012, and pays their average employee just over 22 thousand dollars a year.
You're telling me that an organization that makes 1/240th the profit should be paying those athletes VASTLY more?
I'll ask again...what, exactly, constitutes "fair compensation" in your opinion? They are already being compensated an amount in the multiple tens of thousands. What would make it fair?
Posted by: Chris in VT | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 02:35 PM
There's really no good answer to the college sports debate. Once you have money intermingled with athletics and colleges, you're inevitably stuck in a bad place.
You either remove college athletics from television and play it as a purely amatuer sport, or you end up in a position that they're in right now. There is no middle ground or fair answer, that I've seen proposed.
The ultimate issue with the NCAA is trying to enforce "amatuerism" on the athletes while allowing everyone else to be a professional (i.e., make money). There is simply no fair way to reconcile these.
Posted by: Jack | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 02:37 PM
All of which is almost completely besides the point in terms of what the Phillies did, of course.
Posted by: Jack | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 02:37 PM
By the way, the NCAA's "no-agent" rule was actually struck down by the only judge who has looked at it, in the Andy Oliver case, but the NCAA then settled the case in order to keep the law on the books. It's an illegal rule that the NCAA knows is illegal, and yet it continues to use it.
Say what you will about the NCAA and compensaing athletes, but its again besides the point as to what happened here. The actual NCAA rule at issue here is absurd and has been found so by a judge. It denies a kid a right to use a lawyer in negotiating a contract, and serves no legitimate purpose.
Posted by: Jack | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 02:44 PM
Jack: There is a very thin veneer of legitimacy.
It's not enough to outweigh the rest of it, but pretending that the "in kind" compensation issues arising from agents representing future stars don't exist is foolish.
In much the same way that a "stand your ground" law has some degree of legitimacy, in that it's unreasonable to expect a person to flee their home before defending it with a firearm, but is so open to exploitation in other situations that it's not a good law.
Posted by: Phillibuster | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 02:59 PM
"A college player who doesn't share his information pre-draft to a team with deep pockets b/c of how it handled a situation with a completely different person, is probably not a business major.
Posted by: Bedrosian's Beard"
BedBeard FTW!
Posted by: awh™ | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 03:03 PM
offtopic: Anyone ever been to cactus league games in ST? Any recommendations for favorite parks?
ontopic: the walmart argument is terrible. Walmart doesn't make revenue because people want to get checked out by Irma the Cashier like people come to college games for the players.
The argument about what is "fair compensation" can be answered in an extremely easy way: Let the colleges decide who is worth what. If Texas values recruit #1 at $100k because of what they think he'll bring to the university, then they can pay him that -- how could you get any 'fairer'?
Posted by: LorecorE | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 03:05 PM
Matt Gelb of the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote this as part of an article in the paper today:
"The Phillies have publicized their disagreements with previous unsigned picks. Alec Rash, a second-round pick in 2012, enrolled at the University of Missouri instead of signing with the Phillies. Wolever told The Inquirer in July 2012 that Rash "hasn't performed like a player deserving of more than the slot" bonus."
"He seemed to have a different price for every team," Wolever said. "It changed depending on the day."
Such comments by a Phillies FO official to a newspaper reporter do give off a slight whiff of pettiness.
Posted by: Dragon | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 03:10 PM
The argument about what is "fair compensation" can be answered in an extremely easy way: Let the colleges decide who is worth what. If Texas values recruit #1 at $100k because of what they think he'll bring to the university, then they can pay him that -- how could you get any 'fairer'?
Posted by: LorecorE | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 03:05 PM
Ah, the "free market as God" argument.
Posted by: Chris in VT | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 03:14 PM
Almost forgot the link to Gelb's article.
http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/phillies/20140221_Report__NCAA_probes_Phils__accusations_against_draft_picks.html
Posted by: Dragon | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 03:14 PM
Chris: "Fair" is in the eye of the beholder. But I think a reasonable person would say that if you think paying a star running back $60,000 is "fair," when he's the major draw yielding $15-$20M in revs a year, then you have no clue what the word means.
Posted by: clout | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 03:15 PM
There are a ton of angles on the student athlete perspective, I'm not saying I have the perfect answer. I'm just replying to your last few posts that mentioned walmart employees and 'fair compensation' questions.
Posted by: LorecorE | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 03:17 PM
I kinda remember that comment regarding Rash, and at the time, remember thinking it sounded harsh. Sounds like it is Wolever who is frustrated, and I get it, but still, he's gotta do better keeping it in check. I wonder if in some cases, the players essentially come to terms with the drafting team, only to have an "advisor" come in at the 11th hour to nix the deal and ask for more. I can get how it's frustrating to a team, kinda like seeing a movie where a cop is having success questioning a suspect, only to have the suspect suddenly call for his lawyer*
*I fully support lawyering up, just reminds me of the situation.
Posted by: Bedrosian's Beard | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 03:17 PM
BETTER CALL SAUL!
Posted by: Cyclic | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 03:21 PM
Clout: So in exchange for a salary of $100K, the student would no longer get a scholarship, no longer receive free travel, no longer receive insurance through the school (generally granted at significantly higher premium for players)... And to top it all off, they'd somehow have to mandate that the player wouldn't be able to reap any of the social benefits?
No more getting into a top-tier educational institution just because of athletic ability, no more "majoring in basket-weaving" in order to keep the GPA out of academic probationary territory, no more being excused from class for an away game or a practice, no more putting pressure on professors to give athletes more opportunities to pass (or simply inflating their grades), no more team parties, no more "one-team" fraternities, no more covering for an underage player who gets caught walking down the quad in a drunken stupor, no more covering up sexual abuse allegations, no more looking the other way at team hazing, no more allowing anybody to attend or watch the games (so as to prevent preferential treatment from the rest of the student body)...
In essence, I'd be fine with that. Except then the universities wouldn't be making huge sums of money, so they couldn't have the funds to pay the students at the rates you think they're worth. Also, most sports other than football and basketball would be dropped from the athletics programs.
Posted by: Phillibuster | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 03:26 PM
Oh, and completely forget about Title IX. Maybe you could get women's basketball to pay for itself, but the odds are it couldn't.
Posted by: Phillibuster | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 03:28 PM
Minor league ball suit is alot more revelant and interesting to MLB than the Phils issue. Hope the minor league players won too. Ridiculous that with the mandatory condition and other time that minor leaguers earn annual less than federal minimum wage per hour worked during the season.
Posted by: MG | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 03:30 PM
Here's the thing. The deck is so stacked in favor of teams with this sort of thing (the draft itself is collusive and anti-labor, the slotting system, the fact that draftees are not represented by a union, etc.) that to complain because kids actually have the gall to negotiate with you and use someone who knows what they're doing is just so reactionary and unseemly. Like, do the Phillies even realize what they look like?
It's management saying "I don't understand why our employees aren't just happy to have a job--who do they think they are to ask for anything else?"
I mean, this is like basic labor stuff that got settled in the 1920s and 30s. The Phillies come off like they're still angry about it. It's not a good look.
Posted by: Jack | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 03:34 PM
Well, apparently the Phillies' snitching isn't exactly "unprecedented," as several reporters have stated. The Blue Jays reported James Paxton several years ago for having his "advisor" Scott Boras directly contacting and negotiating with the team.
And he ended up withdrawing from school instead of cooperating with the NCAA investigation.
Posted by: Chris in VT | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 03:52 PM
Dragon, the Phillies have also drafted other guys like Brandon Workman, who did not sign, went to UT Austin, and now pitches for the Red Sox.
They said nothing about him not signing at the time.
So, perhaps, Wolever was justifiably frustrated with the kid and his agent?
Also, it's important to know, that guys like Wolever don't just pick up the phone and call the media unsolicited with these pronouncements like:
"So-and-so is a frustrating little d8ck because he wouldn't sign with us".
They get prodded by the beat guys as to how the draft went and why certain guys wouldn't sign, so it's not like they're out to purposely sling mud publicly.
Posted by: awh™ | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 03:57 PM
Yeah, it's real tough to say "We were optimistic about signing him but it just didn't work out. We wish him the best."
Posted by: Jack | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 04:16 PM
Or, for instance, if you want to keep a good relationship with a beat writer and feed them something to keep them happy, you give a stock quote like I wrote above, and then off the record say that you thought he was asking too much based on his performance.
Then, the article says "Phillies officials indicated that Rash's asking price was high based on what they had seen, and they weren't willing to above slot for him." Which is better than having an actual quote from the Phillies scouting director disparaging the kid.
Posted by: Jack | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 04:21 PM
On MAG: What exactly did the Phillies see in him to first offer him a $48mm contract and ultimately settle on a $12mm contract. All accounts are that the guy isn't an MLB caliber pitcher. Sure, he may be "rusty" but someone worthy of that contract should at least be able to throw a decent BP session.
Posted by: Steve | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 04:33 PM
It seems that Ruben blew every other team out of the water with his initial offer to MAG. And the more he talks about MAG, the more it makes me wonder if he'd ever "seen" him at all. So, what did the Phillies see? Very hard to say. We know the kid did well in international competition, so there's some talent there. But the real telltale event was that when the Phillies lowered their offer from 48 mil to 12 mil, nobody else jumped in on the kid. If he was a great talent, I have to wonder if some other org wouldn't have pounced on him at that point.
Posted by: aksmith | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 05:00 PM
Almost no college sports teams turn an annual profit and the only two that do are men's college basketball and football and it because of theTV revenues. Even alot of moderately-sized colleges lose money annually though on football especially if they aren't in a conference with its own TV network.
College basketball with the exception of the NCAA tourney doesn't generate the kind of money that college football does either.
Lets no pretend that college football players at top programs aren't paid already by booster programs or other circuitous ways. Joke when you talk about 'atheletic integrity of amateur sports' or even the value of the college education due to the horrendous 4-year graduation rates. It is a business and a big business. Look at the dollars from the national playoff schedule next year.
I do support giving college football players a stipend though but it does get challenging for Div I schools that don't play in a big conference or make I've of the elite bowls.
The indirect effects though for a college football program that does well are staggering. Seen a few very interesting articles on the impact that (Saban - a scumbag who had always cared only really about one thing, Saban) has had on Alabama in turns of applications and alumni giving rates and $$$. It was similar to what Carroll did while at USC.
Posted by: MG | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 05:07 PM
aksmith: The reason cited for the drop in price was the results of his physical. I can imagine the kid's agent saying that he'd be better-suited to sign sooner rather than later, and indicating that no team was likely to come to a different conclusion after a similar physical.
It's only a 3-year deal, so if he proves he can get past the issues indicated in the physical (plus time away from the game) and do at least adequately in 2 of his 3 years, he's still in line for a good contract after the current one.
Posted by: Phillibuster | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 05:10 PM
The fact that Sandberg plans on going with a lineup of Revere-Rollins-Utley-Howard doesn't give me much hope for creativity or flexibility in constructing the lineup to maximize offense.
If Chooch + Adderall 2014 is anything like Chooch + Adderall before then it would be a shame if he's stuck in 7th, behind basically everyone who will end the year with an OBP lower than his (except maybe Utley).
Not to mention if Brown builds on his success last year, maybe dipping in power, but increasing his walks, there's no way he should be behind the likes of Rollins and Byrd.
Ugh ridiculous.
Posted by: Cyclic | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 05:15 PM
Interesting that Salisbury said that Phils have focused alot early on base running including pickle drills and sweeping the bag correctly. Sandberg said the baserunning 'stunk' last year and Bowa said a number of players need to improve. I have to think he is talking about Brown, Mayberry, and Revere to a lesser degree.
Posted by: MG | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 05:19 PM
"Oh, and completely forget about Title IX. Maybe you could get women's basketball to pay for itself, but the odds are it couldn't."
Buster, you're smarter than that (at least as a Dip you "should" be).
How does F&M, or any other college or university who don't have a cash sow sports program, and that are all subject to Title IX, fund their women's (or any other) sports?
Posted by: awh™ | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 05:24 PM
Holy Sh!t, new thread.
Posted by: Dickie Thong | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 05:33 PM
Colleges are a Titanic looking for an iceberg too. Focus on things that have nothing to with their mission, way too top heavy with administrative staff that have nothing to due with teaching/research, and are too reliant on sources of govt funding which aren't going to be there especially at the state level in the near future. Simply is too much excess capacity.
Ditto for US hospitals although have quite the same dynamics. Big names and chains will do find and same with certain public institutions but alot of private colleges and 2nd tier state schools are going to get run off the road by the WBC of this facade or early next. Ditto community hospitals and critical access hospitals.
Posted by: MG | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 05:39 PM
awh: DIII schools already don't factor into this, because they don't offer sports scholarships at all. Literally all of their athletics budgets arise from alumni donations and the general fund, plus concessions/admission (if they charge it). Occasionally you see a DIII national championship televised (F&M made it there in women's lacrosse two or three times a few years back - before they got completely shut down for a year due to hazing) on ESPN College, but that's about it.
DI schools are a whole different kettle of fish, and generally have to follow different regulations about the allocation of funding (F&M wrestling is DI, for instance, but they still don't offer scholarships, so it only affects their competition).
That said, even at DIII schools (F&M included), players who would do well for the sports teams get "unofficial" inside tracks to acceptance, and additional help finding grants/scholarships that [Nominally-Acceptable Student A] doesn't.
Posted by: Phillibuster | Friday, February 21, 2014 at 05:42 PM