Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Full Coverage of 2012 Coke 600

Johnny Damon Tells MLB Network He Would Prefer to Enter the Hall of Fame as a Royal

Tonight on MLB Network Johnny Damon did a pregame interview with Matt Vasgersian. The interview touched on the end of Damon's career, and if he ever thinks about getting close to the Hall of Fame. Transcribing loosely, the following exchange took place:

Vasgersian: I know you don't get to decide, but if you did, whose cap would you be wearing if you went into the Hall of Fame?

Damon: Well, it's a tough decision... four years in Boston... four years in New York... five and a half years in Kansas City. And if you go by the numbers, that's where my best years were. So if they'd have me... [something along those lines]

I'm sure this will invite some debate about whether or not Damon is or should be a Hall of Famer and probably some will be angry that he didn't give the boring answer of "well, I have to get there first." Fine.

I don't mind Damon actually answering a hypothetical question. And as a Royals fan, I'm glad that he said he would prefer to go in as a Royal. Not what I expected, but then again, maybe it makes sense.

Comment 191 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Not to mention

He’s always said his hometown team is the Royals, even though that’s always been a misleading statement.

by hawkinscm87 on Jul 21, 2011 7:12 PM EDT reply actions  

Great Subject

Damon brings out feelings. I can’t stand him, because left town with no sense of loyalty and, more importantly, he then bad mouthed the team and bad mouthed his wife after dumping her.

On the other hand, he was very nice to fans when he was in KC, and he since has had a fascinating career. He now has at least a 50% chance of 3,000 hits. He also ingratiates himself with people, e.g., his comment about going into the HOF as a Royal (he could well be maneuvering for a return to KC to chase 3,000 hits – if we are still awful, we would take him). He has very cleverly ingratiated himself with reporters throughout his career – he always is the go to guy for a quote or an interview. Guess who votes on HOF?

I, unfairly, refer to him as Johnny Stink’in Damon. But he actually has been a fine ball player with a knack for playing his cards right – with the Red Sox and then the Yankees. Surprising that the Yankees did not keep him around.

My bet is that he makes 3,000 hits and gets in the HOF. Ugh.

by Kansas City Oracle on Jul 21, 2011 11:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

Damon

Guy and Gals lets put it this way since David Glass took over the team we have lose a lot of good player like Jonny Damon. Glass is not puting out the money to keep those players with the club. Moerover, to me I think Glass has tune the Royals into a AAA team because you look how the player are play after they have those 4 years under there belt and gotten better. Glass will not put out the money to keep them.

by DWCarr on Jul 22, 2011 12:03 AM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

The story at the time was that the money was fine

but he wanted to dictate which players would be added to the team in FA.

And shockingly, of the few mentioned, they were all Boras clients.

They could have (and would have) signed Damon with the money available, but couldn’t/wouldn’t meet the other demands.

Unless I'm wrong...

by Top Ramen on Jul 22, 2011 9:18 AM EDT up reply actions  

good thing that he doesn't believe in OPS+

but Damon’s cap on the HOF plaque should have a dollar sign on it

Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/bhindepmo
Chairman, The Melky Cabrera Seasoning Sauce. It's great on your outfield!

by BHWick on Jul 21, 2011 7:17 PM EDT reply actions  

aside from him taking it to a Boba Fett extreme

most of the people going for the most money usually don’t wind up somewhere else every 2 to 4 years.

Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/bhindepmo
Chairman, The Melky Cabrera Seasoning Sauce. It's great on your outfield!

by BHWick on Jul 21, 2011 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions  

Except It's 6 teams

Royals, As, Red Sox, Yankees, Tigers, Rays

Still not that many.

by TheHouseFrankBuiltLiterally on Jul 22, 2011 7:55 AM EDT up reply actions  

This is a weird thing to say

Considering how recent a development free agency is and how incomplete it is even today

There are plenty of reasons to cite to defend that proposition (although the idea that an extra $500K makes a difference when you’re already making $4M is weird to me), but history would not be at the top of my list.

by KSinDC on Jul 21, 2011 8:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm talking all sports. Not just baseball.

Players go play for who will pay them the most in professional sports. Sports is a job where one injury can end your career and end your money-making potential for the rest of your life. Athletes have an extremely small window of opportunity to make money, compared to the rest of us who can find jobs and make money well into our 60s or 70s if we wish. These guys might only get one or two chances to earn a nice contract and make their money..so I just don’t understand the criticism of guys who try and make the most they can while they can.

Killing time until time kills me

by EspeciallyK on Jul 21, 2011 8:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

That's what I meant

I think baseball was the earliest to have any sort of free agency. Before Curt Flood, athletes in every sport were pretty much stuck with whatever team owned their rights. Football didn’t get real free agency until the 1980s. I think international soccer just got it this past decade. And even then, almost all sports have significant restrictions (like baseball’s rules where the team controls the players for up to 5 years in the minors and 7 years in the majors).

Also, the contract Johnny Damon got when he refused to stay in KC paid him $31M. The median American household makes just under $50,000. Spread over a 50-year working life (18 to 68), that’s $2.5M in lifetime earnings for a household. People have every right to criticize the greed of sports stars. The whole “only have a few years” point doesn’t carry much water when it would take the typical American family several generations working over a century or more to bring in as much as the athlete does in a few years.

by KSinDC on Jul 21, 2011 8:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

How manyof those people making $50,000 per year are one of the top 50-100 in the entire world at their profession?

Damon performed his job better than all but 50 or 100 or so people in the entire world. Comparing his salary to that of a factory worker, teacher, cop, or whatever other “normal” job you want is irrelevant.

When you are one of the very best in the world at something, you deserve to be paid like it.

Killing time until time kills me

by EspeciallyK on Jul 21, 2011 8:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

Also, if all the players made less money, that would just mean the unbelievably wealthy owners would just be wealthier.

Just like Chris Rock says, Shaq is rich. The guy who signs Shaq’s paycheck, he’s wealthy. It’s not like Damon trying to get more money is taking money from those families..he’s taking money from a guy whose worth 500 million dollars or more.

Killing time until time kills me

by EspeciallyK on Jul 21, 2011 8:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

shaq's career ON COURT earnings....$292,198,327

i think Chris Rock should find another example

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Jul 21, 2011 9:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well for starters, that's before taxes.

and B., the point is, the owners are way, way, way richer than the players. Shaq was just the example Chris Rock used in his joke. Feel free to substitute Chris Bosh if you wish.

I’d be willing to bet that if some of these team owners woke up and found out that their net worth was only 200 million dollars, they’d slit their wrists. That’s the difference between “rich” and “wealth.”

Killing time until time kills me

by EspeciallyK on Jul 21, 2011 9:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

Also, those "wealthy" owners have money that comes from companies that will be passed down through generations, allowing all that money to stay in the family.

Shaq’s moneymaking (on that scale) is over and yeah, his kids will get some of that, but the revenue stream is over for him. Difference between being rich and wealthy.

Killing time until time kills me

by EspeciallyK on Jul 21, 2011 9:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

i understand that it was just a joke...

but shaq is more wealthy than quite a few owners in the major sports….basketball players make crazy amounts of money off of the court as well

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Jul 21, 2011 9:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'd say a very, very select few number of players will make enough money to ever hope of owning an NBA team.

Again, Shaq was just the name Chris Rock used at the time, which was probably 7-9 years ago (?). Substitue 99% of other NBA players in there and it works the same.

Killing time until time kills me

by EspeciallyK on Jul 21, 2011 10:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

jordan is already an owner.

mainly because the bobcats were managed so poorly that he got to buy a 5% stake and get 50% control though. i doubt any player would ever be able to just pony up the majority of the cash himself. they can be the face of a group to make fans feel warm inside, but they don’t put up a lot of cash.

by BeauJackson on Jul 21, 2011 11:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

Frank McCourt bought a team without putting up any money

I think the Glazers did the same thing with the Buccaneers

by KSinDC on Jul 21, 2011 11:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

Teams on shaky grounds go for less

I don’t think you’ll see a player buy the Knicks, Celtics, Patriots, Yankees, etc. But some player could get the Jaguars or Grizzlies or the like in the same fashion Jordan and Nolan Ryan did.

by BeauJackson on Jul 21, 2011 11:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

that's what i'm saying

a player is nice to have to be the face that makes the team more likeable, but they don’t pony up the cash. like i said, jordan bought 5% of the team and got 50% control.

by BeauJackson on Jul 21, 2011 11:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

I actually largely agree with you on this point

But I think the statement was more true ten years ago than it is today.

A lot of these owners have a lot of assets but also a lot of debt. I’d guess that owners like McCourt and the Glazers and the Maloofs have a smaller net worth than some of their players who’ve been responsible with their money.

As players’ salaries have gone up and the effect of leverage on owner’s net worth has reversed, the gap between elite players’ wealth and owners’ wealth has shrunk.

by KSinDC on Jul 21, 2011 10:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

The Glazers own Manchester United

Arguably the best sports brand in the world.

by BeauJackson on Jul 21, 2011 11:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

But didn't they buy it with borrowed money?

And they’ve had to jack up prices and sell off pieces just to service the debt?

A bunch of Americans bought EPL teams with borrowed money a few years back. Tom Hicks with Tottenham Hotspur got in around the same time I think, and he eventually went bankrupt when the financial crisis hit

by KSinDC on Jul 21, 2011 11:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

Just reading up

The team is basically owned by a bunch of hedge funds right now. The Glazers essentially own it in name only.

by BeauJackson on Jul 21, 2011 11:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah, I thought they got pretty much wiped out by the debt

I don’t know why a league would ever allow somebody to buy a team without a huge portion of the purchase price in equity, but it seems to happen over and over.

by KSinDC on Jul 21, 2011 11:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

On what planet do the top 100 beat cops make millions of dollars a year? What factory do I need to apply to where I can make millions if I’m the absolute best worker the line has ever seen? There are lots of people who go into careers where being one of the best doesn’t mean making millions.

But setting all of that aside, the point here is that the family making do with $50,000 a year has every right to question what the hell Johnny Damon needs an extra couple million for. If they can manage, so can he. If he doesn’t want to, that’s fine. He can choose the money. But he shouldn’t be surprised when the fans are pissed.

Also, for the record, this is not why I dislike Damon.

by KSinDC on Jul 21, 2011 9:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

If those factory workers bring in enough money for their companies to support those salaries, then they should. But they don't. That's not Johnny Damon's fault.

Damon works in a business that draws in that kind of money, so he deserves to make a lot of money. Being pissed at him for being paid what he deserves is silly. Besides, these huge contracts are the exception. There are tons of baseball players around the world who devote half their life to their craft and don’t even sniff one contract like Damon’s. These huge contracts are the exception and should not be the basis of any kind of “athletes are overpaid” argument.

What, if every baseball player just made $50,000 per year, how would that satisfy the fan’s rage? Then owners worth a billion dollars would just be making even more money. How’s that justice?

Killing time until time kills me

by EspeciallyK on Jul 21, 2011 9:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

and yes I understand you are not saying you hate Damon b/c of his salary, I just think people being upset at their “greed” is misguided. It’s actually quite a small percentage of players who ever get the chance to get paid these high amounts and they may only get one chance in their lifetime to earn a lot of money.

Killing time until time kills me

by EspeciallyK on Jul 21, 2011 9:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm making a smaller point

I’m not talking about people complaining that players make too much money. I’m talking about people complaining about players leaving KC in order to make maximum possible money. KC wanted to sign those guys (Sweeney, Damon, Dye) to long term contracts to keep them in KC, but only Sweeney agreed. I think it’s perfectly understandable for someone to say “You could have made $6-7M per year in KC. Why leave to get $7.5M? What can you do with $7.5M that you can’t do with $7M?”

by KSinDC on Jul 21, 2011 9:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

Was that ever the case?

A he was traded

B the salary diff was prob much more

by Freneau on Jul 21, 2011 9:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

He was traded because he said he wouldn't stay

And the Royals were trying to get something out of the deal. They were actively trying to get him to sign an extension and Boras said no way.

As for the salary in KC, what we know for sure is that Sweeney signed a 5 year/$55M (with a vesting option for a 6th year at $12.5M) contract with KC that offseason, so that money was definitely there. Sweeney and Damon were both 28 and both had been producing about 2.5 WAR / full season up to that point Obviously, Sweeney was doing more with the bat, but Damon played a premier defensive position. If there’s some reason to believe that the Royals were low-balling Damon, I’d love to see it, but the facts suggest that the Royals were ready to pay up. I’m just conceding a hometown discount for sake of argument.

by KSinDC on Jul 21, 2011 9:43 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

I'd say there are plenty of reasons to suspect KC wasn't willing to pay those guys what they are worth.

Namely the fact that the Royals were probably the cheapest organization in baseball (or one of them anyways) at that time.

Killing time until time kills me

by EspeciallyK on Jul 21, 2011 9:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

He was willing to pay Sweeney as much or more than he was worth

That’s a pretty powerful piece of evidence to go up against not spending enough on the negro leagues museum or hitting instructors for the player development program.

by KSinDC on Jul 21, 2011 10:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

or refusing to spend a lot of money on the draft..

…or refusing to pay hardly anything as far as scouting internationally or signing international FAs, and refusing to sign premium FAs or offer premium contract extensions with ONE exception (Sweeney)….

Glass was an incredibly cheap and controlling owner during his first few years. Fact.

Killing time until time kills me

by EspeciallyK on Jul 21, 2011 10:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

Somehow the payroll doubled in his first two years as owner

I don’t disagree that he was cheap in a lot of respects, but I think this is overboard.

by KSinDC on Jul 21, 2011 10:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

Arbitration

Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!

by cmkeller on Jul 21, 2011 10:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

By 2002, Damon and Dye were gone

Sweeney was making $8M, but that was on a long-term contract. Jeff Suppan was arb-eiligible, but he had signed a very generous 2-year contract after 2000 that paid him $4.5M in 2002.

The big contracts, in addition to Sweeney and Suppan were free agent signee Roberto Hernandez at $6M / year and the hefty Neifi Perez contract ($4.1M / year) we took on in trade.

Other free agent signings for over $1M/year included Knoblauch, Mayne, and Grimsley.

The only big increase in costs due to arbitration were Randa ($1M to $4M) and Beltran ($0 to $3.5M).

by KSinDC on Jul 21, 2011 10:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

Here's a sense of their spending

Payroll:
2000: $23,132,500 (28th in MLB)
2001: $35,422,000 (27th)
2002: $47,257,000 (22nd)
2003: $40,518,000 (29th)
2004: $47,609,000 (22nd)

http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/baseball/mlb/salaries/team

by KSinDC on Jul 21, 2011 9:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah, I'm not saying he was spending out of his own pocket

I’m just saying he was spending. If he got a new $30M/yr pot of money in 2002, that’s all the more reason to believe that the Royals had money to pay Damon if he would have considered extending.

by KSinDC on Jul 21, 2011 10:27 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm not saying give him the benefit of the doubt

I’m saying look at the numbers.

Yes, he proved himself a cheapskate in many different ways, but he was spending money on payroll. The money was wasted on guys like Roberto Hernandez and Neifi Perez (and even Sweeney), but he was spending money.

by KSinDC on Jul 21, 2011 10:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

Glass giving Perez 4 million dollars for one season and Hernandez 6 mil for two seasons...

…is not close to proving he was willing to make MUCH larger and longer commitments to both Dye and Damon.

Yes, he upped payroll a little bit. It wasn’t enough to make a serious offer to Damon or Dye, apparently.

Killing time until time kills me

by EspeciallyK on Jul 21, 2011 11:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

My understanding is that Damon refused to listen to offers

He was going to become a free agent no matter what. I believe this is still how Scott Boras negotiates.

by KSinDC on Jul 21, 2011 11:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

That only means he wasn't willing to negotiate during the year or before his current contract was up.

Many of players do this. Doesn’t mean he wouldn’t have signed for the right money in the offseason. The Royals had just as much chance to sign Damon following the 2001 season as any other team..but they weren’t willing to pay. Simple as that.

Killing time until time kills me

by EspeciallyK on Jul 21, 2011 11:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah, I don't dispute that the Royals weren't top bidder

I’m saying that Glass would have given him a very substantial contract within range of the top bidder. And people are free to criticize him for passing that up in favor of maximum money.

by KSinDC on Jul 21, 2011 11:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

Sure, they can do it.

It just makes them all hypocrites b/c every single one of them would take the extra money if they were in Damon’s position.

Killing time until time kills me

by EspeciallyK on Jul 21, 2011 11:31 PM EDT up reply actions  

Do you live in a world where Griffey doesn't sign for less to be in Cincy?

Where Buerhle doesn’t announce he’s quitting when his son reaches school age?

Or to bring it closer to the real world, where people don’t go into careers like social work, where they’ll never make good money?

I don’t understand the insistence that everybody is motivated solely by money

by KSinDC on Jul 21, 2011 11:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

Fine, not literally every person.

The large, large majority of people.

Killing time until time kills me

by EspeciallyK on Jul 21, 2011 11:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

I agree that people don't pick their professions based on money...

but if a teacher has two job offers and one pays more, she is taking the one that pays more unless there’s a big outside reason not to.

Killing time until time kills me

by EspeciallyK on Jul 21, 2011 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

Urban schools (often) pay more than suburban

Public schools (usually) pay more than private.

I don’t think salary is nearly as big a factor in these decisions as you think it is.

by KSinDC on Jul 21, 2011 11:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah well, I wouldn't take a bigger salary if I had to up my risk of getting stabbed either.

In baseball, I don’t think personal safety is much of a factor when picking teams.

Killing time until time kills me

by EspeciallyK on Jul 21, 2011 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

Here in the Northland

It was very difficult for teachers to find a job in the Liberty school district a few years ago. After the financial scandal caused tightening of the budget, Parkville SD started paying higher, and teachers jumped ship. My best friend’s wife, who was trying to get into Liberty from Excelsior for years, was finally able to get a job in Liberty because it wasn’t the highest paying teaching job in the vicinity any longer.

by Tito42 on Jul 21, 2011 11:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think that's a pretty represntative story

Some people are motivated more by money and some less. Although it’s also worth noting that an extra 10% is worth a lot more to someone making $35,000 a year than someone making $3.5M a year.

by KSinDC on Jul 21, 2011 11:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

I said everyone would take the money if they were a baseball player.

The difference’s between choosing which team to sign with is a completely different scenario than choosing a school to teach at…so bringing that up is pointless.

Killing time until time kills me

by EspeciallyK on Jul 21, 2011 11:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

well, real baseball players forgo free agency all the time, but I don’t have any evidence about the contracts signed by regular people who magically became baseball players, so I guess there’s no evidence that could work here

by KSinDC on Jul 21, 2011 11:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

how often do they forego FA...

the last year before they’re eligible? Giving up a couple years 4 years in advance for security is just as greedy as taking the highest FA offer

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Jul 22, 2011 12:06 AM EDT up reply actions  

We're talking about profit-maximizing

There are advantages to signing long-term contracts, but it’s hard to argue that guys like Longoria, Yunel Escobar or even Billy are maximizing their profits.

by KSinDC on Jul 22, 2011 12:11 AM EDT up reply actions  

In reality

A lot of people care more about where they live than where they work, and make job decisions based on that. I didn’t, and I ended up living in a place I don’t much like, but I’m relatively young and working my way to financial stability. I’ll certainly take less money in a couple of years to move to where I want.

by OnixConcepcion on Jul 21, 2011 11:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

In talking to a corporate recruiter

For engineering at least, they said the magic number to get someone with a solid job to change companies was about a 20-25% raise.

Any less than that and most people wouldn’t find it worth the hassle.

Now, if their current job was on shaky footing, or they hated their work, the number was obviously lower.

Unless I'm wrong...

by Top Ramen on Jul 22, 2011 9:23 AM EDT up reply actions  

Sounds about right to me

I’d move for a 25 percent bump and I love my job.

by BlueEyes_Austin on Jul 22, 2011 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

LF is a premier position?

and he wouldn’t stay because we were too cheap and had shown no ability to commit to a winner in all the years he was with the organization.

by Fernando Vina School of Linguistics on Jul 21, 2011 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

People have every right to criticize the greed of sports stars.

I don’t agree. Our society was founded on the principles of freedom and capitalism. There’s nothing wrong with any athlete telling a team to piss off because he can get $500K more somewhere else in free agency. The only thing bad about The Decision was the presentation.

by Tito42 on Jul 21, 2011 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm speaking of our current society, not the nation historically

And that idea is definitely under attack these days, but would you not say that capitalism is an underpinning of our society today?

by Tito42 on Jul 21, 2011 11:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't know what it means to found a society if it means something other than founding a nation

And I’m not sure when it’s supposed to date to.

A lot of the development of capitalism took place in America in the middle of the 19th Century. Much of the criticism of profit-seeking developed as a result. Both are well established in the American experience and in American thought.

This is an extreme example for purposes of illustration, but if Johnny Damon sold his children into slavery for $500K, I don’t think anyone would defend him by saying “The man simply loves capitalism. You can’t criticize that.” There’s plenty of profit-seeking behavior that Americans think focuses too much on money and too little on other values. People have every right to criticize others for pursuing money above all else.

by KSinDC on Jul 21, 2011 11:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

Society develops and changes long after a nation is founded

And I know you realize that. I misspoke and meant more precisely that capitalism is an underpinning of our society. At least it is to me. Not illegal, tax-evading, unbridled, greedy, profit-mongering. But that’s not what we’re talking about with Johnny Damon. We’re not talking about Bernard Madoff or Enron. We’re not talking about selling children in to slavery for Pete’s sake. We’re talking about a baseball player taking contracts with more successful teams for a larger salary.

by Tito42 on Jul 21, 2011 11:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah, and people are free to criticize him for elevating money to too high a status

He made it clear that he was going to become a free agent in order to get the maximum amount of money possible. He said the Royals were his hometown team, but he elevated pursuit of money above all else. And this despite the fact that he was going to be a millionaire several times over no matter the result.

Capitalism plays an important role in our society. Of course, so does religion and so does charity. There are some impulses pushing people to maximize their profits and others pushing them to forgo profits in pursuit of other goals. I don’t think there’s anything un-American about saying somebody is too focused on maximizing their money.

by KSinDC on Jul 21, 2011 11:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

So, basebally players should provide their children and family with less money for the rest of his and their lives in order to sign with the team he originally played for...

…out of “loyalty” to the fans who cheer for him….those exact same fans who will call for his release and call him a bum the second he starts struggling.

Well, keep waiting on that one to happen.

Killing time until time kills me

by EspeciallyK on Jul 21, 2011 11:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

Hometown discounts happen all the time

What’s rare is people like Meche giving back money.

But in any case, the whole “provide for their family” line is pretty much garbage when you’re already sitting on tens of millions. An extra million dollars isn’t going to make an ounce of difference in the life of any of Damon’s children or grandchildren at this point.

by KSinDC on Jul 21, 2011 11:31 PM EDT up reply actions  

you're out of your mind....

the extra 20+ million he got for switching teams, sets up another couple generations of damons

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Jul 21, 2011 11:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

It'll be gone in the next generation

We don’t have as significant an estate tax any more, but the American way of life is still pretty good about chewing up inherited fortunes (unless there’s a continuing business to keep providing new money). It just means a couple more houses for his kids and some more cocaine for his grandkids. Nothing that makes a difference in anyone’s life

by KSinDC on Jul 21, 2011 11:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

It’s not tens of million dollars per year. It’s that one contract to last his family and their future generations the rest of their lives. Damon has made 105 mil in his career. Take out taxes and what is left, 75 million (no idea). Yeah, that’s a lot of money, but it aint’ like he is going to go through that in ten years. That is for the rest of his life and is to help his kids live a comfortable life, and for their kids.

Damon’s in a profession where you have to make all your money, essentially, before age 35. That’s unlike any other job in America and thus you have to adjust your perceptions of his salary.

Killing time until time kills me

by EspeciallyK on Jul 21, 2011 11:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

The typical American family makes $2.5M in their lifetimes before taxes

$75M, conservatively invested, would throw off that much in interest every year. It’s not like he has no more income after he’s done. It’s just capital income instead of labor income.

by KSinDC on Jul 21, 2011 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

Damon

Has a charitable foundation like many players, and supports the Wounded Warrior Project, which is a great cause.

We’ll have to agree to disagree. I would never criticize anyone, in any profession, moving to another employer to get a higher paycheck. There is nothing wrong with it. You’re entitled to your opinion, but I think it’s baseless.

by Tito42 on Jul 21, 2011 11:29 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah, I'm not asking you to criticize them

You argued that other people don’t have the right to criticize them. That’s what I’m defending.

by KSinDC on Jul 21, 2011 11:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

No

I said “I don’t agree.”

by Tito42 on Jul 21, 2011 11:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

With criticizing. Of course you have the right to do so. I just don’t agree with the act of doing it.

by Tito42 on Jul 21, 2011 11:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

Plus

Loyalty to employers isn’t what it was a few decades ago among the general workforce, not only in sports. Should we expect athletes to sacrifice dollars for loyalty to the team that drafted them or gave them a shot?

by Tito42 on Jul 21, 2011 11:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

The hell it didn't.

You ever hear of the Dutch East India Company? How about the Hudson’s Bay Company?

Capitalism and market speculation were booming globally long before this country was founded.

My new blog: Those Other Guys. Critiques welcome.

by jonfmorse on Jul 22, 2011 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

Uh, no

There were a few limited-purpose corporations given monopolies by the government, and there were artisans who operated their own shops, but there were none of the hallmarks of modern capitalism. Markets were poorly developed and poorly understood (Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations isn’t published until 1776), private corporations didn’t exist, people almost never worked for others, and the caste system in England (weakened but still existent in the U.S.) tended to divided up spoils autocratically rather than letting competition decide matters.

If you believed that capitalism was in existence at the time of the country’s founding, what do you make of the lack of references to it (or any economic system) in the Declaration of Independence or the Preamble to the Constitution?

by KSinDC on Jul 22, 2011 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

About the same as I make of

the lack of references to privacy, marriage, and health care.

That markets were “poorly developed and poorly understood” does not in any way imply their lack of existence. Mercantilism is a subset of capitalism, or in even the most jaundiced view, proto-capitalism.

Oh, and “people almost never worked for others”? Millions of brown people and white people on indentured service contracts would like a word with you. The ONLY reason “people almost never worked for others” is because so much of the labor force was compelled to do it for free.

My new blog: Those Other Guys. Critiques welcome.

by jonfmorse on Jul 22, 2011 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

I’m not saying markets didn’t exist. Markets existed thousands of years ago.

But, slavery aside, we did not distribute the basic elements of production through markets. There were no meaningful markets for labor, capital, or land. Capitalism, a system of organizing economic activity through markets requires those. Mercantilism, a government-imposed and controlled system of distributing production of raw materials in the periphery and intermediate and finished goods in the center is closer to the opposite of capitalism than a forerunner to it.

We had apprenticeships and we had indentured servants, but grown adults worked for themselves. When the growth of factories in the early 19th century first put people in a position of “employee” they were derided as “wage slaves,” hardly better than the africans in bondage in the South.

Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations first sketched the theoretical basis for capitalism in 1776. The essential elements of modern capitalism, private corporations and liquid financial markets, both first appear in America in the early 19th century. The government first experimented with auctions for land (rather than giving it away or selling it at a fixed price) around the same time. The development of factories as part of the industrial revolution in Britain paralleled these advances in America, and although it was still rather primitive, the economic system in America by the mid-19th century can fairly be called capitalism. But to say it existed a century before is to expand the definition of capitalism to include basically any economic system.

by KSinDC on Jul 22, 2011 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

All this presupposes

that there’s some arcane difference between the Dutch East India Company and, say, Royal Dutch Shell. There’s not. The mercantile companies were traded in, and their actions were predicated on what was best for the stockholders, even if at the time the majority holders happened to be the crown.

The Dutch East India Company was publicly traded on the Amsterdam exchange from 1602 (and the Amsterdam exchange itself predated that by many years). Capitalism is “he who provides the capital takes the profit”, and once you have publicly-traded companies, you’re there. Smith didn’t invent capitalism. He preached it, and he streamlined it, but he didn’t devise it.

My new blog: Those Other Guys. Critiques welcome.

by jonfmorse on Jul 22, 2011 8:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

Going back to the beginning of private property, people who owned the capital controlled received the profits. Dating back just as far are pirate captains who would put together a crew and profit by their takings. By the middle ages, you’ve got guilds, a primitive forerunner of modern companies, and there are investors to fund explorations. By the renaissance, you get the first government corporations. By the 1700s, the first factories. I suppose an argument could be made to dating the beginnings of capitalism to any of these points.

Anyway, this is just a semantic difference at this point. I don’t think what Tito42 means by capitalism and what most people mean by capitalism comes into being until the invention of means of transportation and communication that made real liquid markets possible, until the development of standardization that makes commoditization possible, or until the development of private corporations that makes amassing capital and labor for a single purpose possible. That’s 1820s/30s at the earliest.

I believe that events in America in the 1820s and 30s were key, not just to organizing the economy around markets but also to moving markets beyond a thin slice of the richest few and out to the populations as a whole.

by KSinDC on Jul 22, 2011 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

Exactly what I meant is immaterial to this argument

Because you’re the one that threw out there that capitalism didn’t exist when the country was founded. So you have to live with that argument, sir.

My meaning was that seeking higher wages in the job market has never been looked down upon in this country to my knowledge.

by Tito42 on Jul 23, 2011 12:59 AM EDT up reply actions  

That's what I thought you meant

Since the job market didn’t exist when the country was founded, and you chose the term capitalism to describe it, it seemed like saying “capitalism didn’t exist” was the shortest way of making that point.

Also, I thought we reached an agreement that you were just saying that you don’t look down on others for seeking higher wages, but others are and have been free to do so.

by KSinDC on Jul 23, 2011 2:30 AM EDT up reply actions  

Yes, we did. Freedom prevails :)

by Tito42 on Jul 23, 2011 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions  

I like Johnny

But I never thought of him as a Hall of Famer.

by LaFLamme on Jul 21, 2011 7:23 PM EDT reply actions  

Old News,

he mentioned it early in the season. Saw it suggested that he might be fishing for a free agent deal to come back for a year and finish out his career.

by Jim Fetterolf on Jul 21, 2011 7:24 PM EDT reply actions  

I think Damon should be a Hall of Famer I'm sure one can find many worse already in the

Hall and he found a way to standout during an era filled with steroid excellence. Like it matters though I’m sure they would probably put him in as a Red Sox considering his grand slam was a key hit in to end the curse

Checkout Royals minor league notes at www.14for77.blogspot.com

by kcscoliny on Jul 21, 2011 7:50 PM EDT reply actions  

That's faulty logic, though.

That thinking lowers the standards over time.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Jul 21, 2011 8:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

Hey Clint

I wanted to say thanks for your coverage of the minor leagues. I follow the pinteparpress Twitter account and check out the Diamond in the Rough report quite a bit. But I do have one thing to ask. Sometimes you’re hard to read because you don’t use a lot of punctuation. I don’t mean to be critical. I just like getting the kind of info you report. Please don’t take it the wrong way.

by hawkinscm87 on Jul 21, 2011 9:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

If he wants to go in as a Royal...

HELL YEAH HE IS A HALL OF FAMER.

But if he wants to go in as anybody else he sucks and Frank White was better.

by KCTiger on Jul 21, 2011 7:56 PM EDT via mobile reply actions  

I'm not really a Damon fan

If he does go to the Hall of Fame (and it blows my mind that he’s even close), I hope they put some other cap on him.

Now Beltran on the other hand…

by KSinDC on Jul 21, 2011 8:03 PM EDT reply actions  

Beltran?

I’m thinking “no way.” Unless he plays consistently from now on and is injury-free. Even then, I think it’s unlikely.

by hawkinscm87 on Jul 21, 2011 8:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

Like I said, I don't understand the case for Damon

But if he’s got a chance so does Beltran. Beltran’s career WAR trajectory puts Damon’s to shame:
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/589_185___ograph_%20_7_21_2011.png

What I actually meant by my comment though was that I’d love to have Beltran go in as a Royal if he goes in

by KSinDC on Jul 21, 2011 8:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

This.

Beltran was an obvious, first-time, sure-fire HOF…until he wasn’t.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Jul 21, 2011 8:57 PM EDT up reply actions  

if he can stay healthy a couple more years...

and movign to the AL and DHing part of the time will help…then he will be…a WS or two wouldnt hurt either

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Jul 21, 2011 9:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

You guys have to be joking

Beltran….1,859 hits, 295 HR, no MVP’s, only 3 gold gloves, known mostly for one great playoff run with Houston in ’04. Never one of the feared hitters of his time. Very good player, very deserving of team HOF honors. But MLB HOF, no way. Omar Vizquel gets in first.

I think Johnny Damon’s only shot is if he can somehow stick around until he’s 41 and pick up 3,000 hits. My money’s against it.

by Tito42 on Jul 21, 2011 10:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

omar's career doesnt even come close to stacking up to beltrans....

even though he’s got 10 extra years in his career…lets get serious

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Jul 21, 2011 11:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm making a joking reference to my OT thread

But seriously, Carlos Beltran and HOF? If he kept up his KC production throughout his career, sure. But he was hitting 30 and 40 homers when other were hitting 50 and 60. His career number simply don’t stack up to HOF worthiness.

by Tito42 on Jul 21, 2011 11:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

according to what standards...

great offensive numbers…incredible defensive numbers…

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Jul 21, 2011 11:34 PM EDT up reply actions  

Not even

2,000 hits or 300 HR yet. Great offensive numbers? Sure, he has a very good OPS, but since when did HOF voters use that criterion? If you have 600 HR you can get in with 2,200 hits (Jim Thome). I just don’t see it.

by Tito42 on Jul 21, 2011 11:38 PM EDT up reply actions  

he's 34 years old

albert pujols doesnt yet have 2000 hits

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Jul 21, 2011 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

C'mon

You don’t really want to compare Beltran to Pujols, do you?

by Tito42 on Jul 21, 2011 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

if you're going to make dumb arguments that beltran doesnt have the counting stats...

when his career is far from over…then, yes…i do…and if your stats for whether he’s deserving of the hall are hits and home runs…then yes…i do

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Jul 21, 2011 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

We do not live in a world (yet)

Where HOF voters consider WAR before home runs and hits. I’m trying to be realistic here. I understand what you’re saying. Beltran would have to hit 34 home runs a year for the next 6 years, when he’ll be 40, to get to 500.

by Tito42 on Jul 21, 2011 11:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

10 years from now though?

they’re now rewarding pitchers with 14 wins the cy young based on WAR and FIP

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Jul 21, 2011 11:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm pessimistic

But it will be a good thing if you’re right.

by Tito42 on Jul 21, 2011 11:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

I mean

Bob Fescoe is still telling people on his radio show (this morning) that Bruce Chen was the best pitcher for the Royals last year….

by Tito42 on Jul 21, 2011 11:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

wait is this a satire

I can’t tell anymore

I am probably the only Royals fan in Hong Kong?

by Yamfun Cheng Kamfun on Jul 21, 2011 8:25 PM EDT reply actions  

I root for the laundry

Damon wants in the HOF as a Royal, I want him in as a Royal.

by BlueEyes_Austin on Jul 21, 2011 8:30 PM EDT reply actions  

It really doesn't matter

If he actually gets into the HoF, the media tagline will be :“Yankee Great inducted into HoF”

They may mention at some point that he played his “minor league ball” in Kansas City.

This is my signature line. It is full of awesome and win.

by KC_Satchmo on Jul 21, 2011 8:32 PM EDT reply actions  

Sure, why noty a Royals cap?

The Hall of Fame won’t pay less for that than they do for a Yankee cap.

Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!

by cmkeller on Jul 21, 2011 8:48 PM EDT reply actions  

Damon was my favorite Royals player post-Brett.

He’s not a hall of famer; he’s not even close, really. He’s above average and he got paid a lot of money as a reward for being an above average player. I would love to see him retire as a Royal and maybe even get into the Royals HOF, though.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Jul 21, 2011 8:52 PM EDT reply actions  

If Bill Mazeroski is in

Why not Damon?

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Jul 21, 2011 9:26 PM EDT via mobile reply actions  

Jim Eisenreich now!

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Jul 22, 2011 9:23 AM EDT up reply actions  

Fuck! Shit Hell!

I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.

by philofthenorth on Jul 23, 2011 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions  

Be nice

but it would never happen. If and when it happens it will almost assuredly be Boston, that was when he was at his most iconic look and he helped bring them back to greatness no way does the media allow him the honor of being remembered as a Royal

by slackator on Jul 21, 2011 10:34 PM EDT reply actions  

I thought the sports reporters had a say

guess Im wrong either way my point still stands it would be nice but if and when Im certain it will be as a Red Sox

by slackator on Jul 22, 2011 12:15 AM EDT up reply actions  

Im not from the area

but I have a hard time believing there are alot of Sox fans that hate him simply because he was a key part of bringing the team back to glory. dislike the move maybe but not enough hatred that they wouldnt want him as a HoFer with a Sox hat on it. But I didnt think of the NY Cooperstown connection, while I dont think they will I could see them putting him in as a Yankee just to upset the Sox fans

by slackator on Jul 22, 2011 12:26 AM EDT up reply actions  

The reporters have no say at all.

The Hall makes the call, with consideration to the player’s wishes.

My new blog: Those Other Guys. Critiques welcome.

by jonfmorse on Jul 22, 2011 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

The cynic in me wants to think

that he’s just using KC as a way to not offend either Boston or NY (or himself). I personally think of him as a member of the Red Sox, but I’m sure he can’t decide since he won a WS with both teams. If he hadn’t won the NY world series, he could have been like “Well, same amount of years, but I won that WS with Boston…”

Kansas City Royals: your 2006 and 2007 NL Central champions!

by mazoboom on Jul 21, 2011 11:06 PM EDT reply actions  

Didn't he offend the shit out of Boston by going to NY?

I don’t think they revere him like they did at one time. His time in NY ended rather unceremoniously as well.

Dude smokes a fair amount of weed; it’s likely he’s being honest when he thinks things were best in KC.

by OnixConcepcion on Jul 21, 2011 11:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

Not true as far as Boston goes.

You have to understand the historical context of that 2004 team. Every player is loved from that team because of what it meant to every fan of the team. I have to live amongst them, there’s not ill will on Damon.

by BeauJackson on Jul 21, 2011 11:25 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

Thanks for replying.

I remember outcry at the time when he went to NY, but I can see how quickly that can be healed when you’re looking at a pivotal player for your team’s first championship in decades.

by OnixConcepcion on Jul 21, 2011 11:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

Good Point

He probably is playing politics, not wanting to offend New York or Boston and, at the same time, looking like he is being nice to KC.

by Kansas City Oracle on Jul 21, 2011 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

It's baseball

Color me apathetic, but I really don’t get the big deal about Johnny Damon. He left the team for richer pastures after 2000, at which point the team had suffered 6 consecutive losing seasons with no end in sight. It was common knowledge that they couldn’t keep all the players around. I was in college at the time and not here in KC, so I didn’t get the local spin. But the level of hatred toward Damon never made sense to me.

by Tito42 on Jul 21, 2011 11:11 PM EDT reply actions   1 recs

Bit off-topic, but it's the current thread

Why are there fireworks going off at the K? They started at 10:15.

by Royals-Gooner on Jul 21, 2011 11:27 PM EDT reply actions  

Royals Diamond Of Dreams fundraiser

On-field charity function

I'm very much interested in the process of pitching." -Brian Banister

by Hanging Brainister on Jul 22, 2011 12:39 AM EDT up reply actions  

Thanks!

Sometimes I’m too close to the K. When I had satellite, the fireworks would announce a home run (rare) or victory (more rare) before it was on my screen. They were something of a suspense killer.

by Royals-Gooner on Jul 22, 2011 12:46 AM EDT up reply actions  

Damon won't make it

Beltrán would have without the injuries, but a lot of guys might have if they hadn’t gotten injured.

"From northern New Jersey came Boom Boom Mazzaro
A righthanded starter drafted out of high school
He pitched in the minors at Stockton and Midland
And blew them away with all of the tools" --Not Warren Zevon

by Juancho on Jul 22, 2011 5:34 AM EDT reply actions  

I think this is rather odd, considering

Damon routinely gets booed at the K. Might make for a fairly awkward induction ceremony?

If strikeouts are indeed fascist - then find me some starters that believe in fascism

by loyal2sdad on Jul 22, 2011 10:36 AM EDT reply actions  

If he goes in (which he shouldn't)...

maybe they should have him go in sans hat. Or they could give him a hat that says MLB like you see in MLB The Show for someone who had no team when the game went to manufacturing.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Jul 22, 2011 10:46 AM EDT reply actions  

Put that plaque

Right next to Rollie Finger’s mustache and Bruce Sutter’s beard.

Don Mattingly’s sideburns, however, are unlikely to ever be thus immortalized.

Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!

by cmkeller on Jul 22, 2011 11:43 AM EDT up reply actions  

D'oh

Please ignore the misplaced apostrophe in “Fingers’”

Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!

by cmkeller on Jul 22, 2011 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Kansas City Royals.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Royalsretro_small
Would Royals Review Make Better Decisions Than Dayton Moore?
Funny-tattoos-hey-look-they-found-a-royals-fan_small
Mitch On the Bench

Recent FanPosts

Dignan_small
Friday Game 43 Open Thread
Funny-tattoos-hey-look-they-found-a-royals-fan_small
MORE Mitch on the Bench
Sexy-beast-original_small
OT Friday: The generic boilerplate template desert island gambit
Tumblr_lwfiy4qkgv1r204zxo1_500_small
RR Poetry Contest
Small
Extrapolating the First 43 Games over the Full Season
Small
Is Dave Eiland doing ... anything?
Small
Alcides Escobar's Bat
Download_small
Was Dayton Moore Right on Bruce Chen?
Chalmers2_small
2012 Royals vs 2012 Ex-Royals

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Yahoo_full_count

Managers

Cimg0036_small Freneau

Editors

Dayton_small Jeff Zimmerman

Authors

Royalsretro_small RoyalsRetro

Headshot_small Old Man Duggan