STLtoday.com

I just don't get it. We have leaders in this country who have had to settle lawsuits for widespread fraud by their “charity,” Medicare/Medicaid fraud, gladly bragging about cheating on taxes, etc. And people love those guys. Vote them into power.

But one regular guy who may or may not be getting one over on one rich guy, who is a notorious sleazeball, and people lose their minds.

Ronnie Dobbs wrote: ↑31 Dec 2025 11:18 am I just don't get it. We have leaders in this country who have had to settle lawsuits for widespread fraud by their “charity,” Medicare/Medicaid fraud, gladly bragging about cheating on taxes, etc. And people love those guys. Vote them into power.

But one regular guy who may or may not be getting one over on one rich guy, who is a notorious sleazeball, and people lose their minds.

My hypothesis is a combination of envy and decades of neoliberalism (i.e. anti-labor conditioning).

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑31 Dec 2025 07:08 am The MLBPA will never agree to it, but player contracts should be more like 1/3 guaranteed money + 2/3 performance-based money or 1/2 guaranteed money + 1/2 performance-based money.

The downside of a guaranteed Rendon-like contract is damaging enough for a typically larger budget team like the Angels, but it would be lethal to any chance for a lower-mid to small market team to be competitive for a decade. Half the MLB teams have to be extremely cautious of ever even thinking of entering into such a contract.

That would be tough because then the teams wouldn't be able to budget how much they are paying players based on their performance. They would have to have a rather large pool similar to the [shirt] they use to give bonuses to pre-arb players. Teams could pay a certain percentage of every contract into a large pool that gets distributed to players around the league on some type of performance-based zero-sum way of distribution. The costs would have to be fixed for the team.

C-Unit wrote: ↑31 Dec 2025 12:10 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑31 Dec 2025 07:08 am The MLBPA will never agree to it, but player contracts should be more like 1/3 guaranteed money + 2/3 performance-based money or 1/2 guaranteed money + 1/2 performance-based money.

The downside of a guaranteed Rendon-like contract is damaging enough for a typically larger budget team like the Angels, but it would be lethal to any chance for a lower-mid to small market team to be competitive for a decade. Half the MLB teams have to be extremely cautious of ever even thinking of entering into such a contract.

That would be tough because then the teams wouldn't be able to budget how much they are paying players based on their performance. They would have to have a rather large pool similar to the [shirt] they use to give bonuses to pre-arb players. Teams could pay a certain percentage of every contract into a large pool that gets distributed to players around the league on some type of performance-based zero-sum way of distribution. The costs would have to be fixed for the team.

Not necessarily.

Yes, there would be some uncertainty for teams. But you'd just want to structure it as, if Player X produces as you expect them to produce, you project to end up paying them $Y based on the base + performance contract.

If they overproduce, your team benefits from their overproduction and you pay them more than $Y. But if they get injured and are out for the entire season, you just pay them their base salary.

Every guaranteed contract offer now is based on a team's estimate of the player's future production. You'd be doing the same for you base + performance contract offer.

On average, if as many players overproduce as underproduce your estimates, you should break even on your projected budget. If more players overproduce, you will hopefully have a winning season, draw more fans, make more revenue, and can pay somewhat more in salaries than your projected budget.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑31 Dec 2025 12:36 pm

C-Unit wrote: ↑31 Dec 2025 12:10 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑31 Dec 2025 07:08 am The MLBPA will never agree to it, but player contracts should be more like 1/3 guaranteed money + 2/3 performance-based money or 1/2 guaranteed money + 1/2 performance-based money.

The downside of a guaranteed Rendon-like contract is damaging enough for a typically larger budget team like the Angels, but it would be lethal to any chance for a lower-mid to small market team to be competitive for a decade. Half the MLB teams have to be extremely cautious of ever even thinking of entering into such a contract.

That would be tough because then the teams wouldn't be able to budget how much they are paying players based on their performance. They would have to have a rather large pool similar to the [shirt] they use to give bonuses to pre-arb players. Teams could pay a certain percentage of every contract into a large pool that gets distributed to players around the league on some type of performance-based zero-sum way of distribution. The costs would have to be fixed for the team.

Not necessarily.

Yes, there would be some uncertainty for teams. But you'd just want to structure it as, if Player X produces as you expect them to produce, you project to end up paying them $Y based on the base + performance contract.

If they overproduce, your team benefits from their overproduction and you pay them more than $Y. But if they get injured and are out for the entire season, you just pay them their base salary.

Every guaranteed contract offer now is based on a team's estimate of the player's future production. You'd be doing the same for you base + performance contract offer.

On average, if as many players overproduce as underproduce your estimates, you should break even on your projected budget. If more players overproduce, you will hopefully have a winning season, draw more fans, make more revenue, and can pay somewhat more in salaries than your projected budget.

The issue with Rendon is if the reports are true that he doesn't
attempt to rehabilitate and that he does not really even like baseball.
This has been stated by other players and teammates.
If those are true, then that is the issue. I've got ZERO respect for
those who don't try to honor a contract that they were not forced
to sign, or people who don't try when they're capable.

If indeed he is working hard on
a return however doubtful then we're back to a non-issue.

It is the risk one takes on contracts. Attaching performance and production
to contracts can sound great until players think of their own production
over team results or teams start rationing playing time to prevent markers
being reached. jmo.

renostl wrote: ↑31 Dec 2025 13:17 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑31 Dec 2025 12:36 pm

C-Unit wrote: ↑31 Dec 2025 12:10 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑31 Dec 2025 07:08 am The MLBPA will never agree to it, but player contracts should be more like 1/3 guaranteed money + 2/3 performance-based money or 1/2 guaranteed money + 1/2 performance-based money.

The downside of a guaranteed Rendon-like contract is damaging enough for a typically larger budget team like the Angels, but it would be lethal to any chance for a lower-mid to small market team to be competitive for a decade. Half the MLB teams have to be extremely cautious of ever even thinking of entering into such a contract.

That would be tough because then the teams wouldn't be able to budget how much they are paying players based on their performance. They would have to have a rather large pool similar to the [shirt] they use to give bonuses to pre-arb players. Teams could pay a certain percentage of every contract into a large pool that gets distributed to players around the league on some type of performance-based zero-sum way of distribution. The costs would have to be fixed for the team.

Not necessarily.

Yes, there would be some uncertainty for teams. But you'd just want to structure it as, if Player X produces as you expect them to produce, you project to end up paying them $Y based on the base + performance contract.

If they overproduce, your team benefits from their overproduction and you pay them more than $Y. But if they get injured and are out for the entire season, you just pay them their base salary.

Every guaranteed contract offer now is based on a team's estimate of the player's future production. You'd be doing the same for you base + performance contract offer.

On average, if as many players overproduce as underproduce your estimates, you should break even on your projected budget. If more players overproduce, you will hopefully have a winning season, draw more fans, make more revenue, and can pay somewhat more in salaries than your projected budget.

The issue with Rendon is if the reports are true that he doesn't
attempt to rehabilitate and that he does not really even like baseball.
This has been stated by other players and teammates.
If those are true, then that is the issue. I've got ZERO respect for
those who don't try to honor a contract that they were not forced
to sign, or people who don't try when they're capable.

If indeed he is working hard on
a return however doubtful then we're back to a non-issue.

It is the risk one takes on contracts. Attaching performance and production
to contracts can sound great until players think of their own production
over team results or teams start rationing playing time to prevent markers
being reached. jmo.

The whole culture is focused on the income, and doesn't give a rat's cookie about the outcome.

ShakeyWalton wrote: ↑30 Dec 2025 20:08 pm

Ronnie Dobbs wrote: ↑30 Dec 2025 16:52 pm

renostl wrote: ↑30 Dec 2025 15:30 pmSo can he after not living up to what he said he'd do
back in 2020.
IF he was a normal "not" working Joe would you feel the same?

Yeah he scored so I get it but man, no integrity.

I don't know that he's not doing what he said he was going to do. It's not like he opted out of the contract and still got paid. I'm guessing the Angels approached him about it. And the front office would have stopped paying him a long time ago if they could.

I'd be fine with it if he were a regular guy. But I'm very proud of him for doing it to a scumbag like Moreno.

Man, for real? I’d be humiliated if I were Rendon. The guy is so disliked they are paying to rid themselves of the cancer that permeated the locker room. I’d feel absolutely worthless to be paid millions to get the F away, and to fail so miserably on a contract, it will go down as one of the most historical mistakes. He’s an absolute loser.

That’s hilarious. I believe you are being sarcastic and people are missing it.
I am humiliated because I made millions off a business that went bankrupt. I’m so embarrassed.

Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑31 Dec 2025 13:25 pm

renostl wrote: ↑31 Dec 2025 13:17 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑31 Dec 2025 12:36 pm

C-Unit wrote: ↑31 Dec 2025 12:10 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑31 Dec 2025 07:08 am The MLBPA will never agree to it, but player contracts should be more like 1/3 guaranteed money + 2/3 performance-based money or 1/2 guaranteed money + 1/2 performance-based money.

The downside of a guaranteed Rendon-like contract is damaging enough for a typically larger budget team like the Angels, but it would be lethal to any chance for a lower-mid to small market team to be competitive for a decade. Half the MLB teams have to be extremely cautious of ever even thinking of entering into such a contract.

That would be tough because then the teams wouldn't be able to budget how much they are paying players based on their performance. They would have to have a rather large pool similar to the [shirt] they use to give bonuses to pre-arb players. Teams could pay a certain percentage of every contract into a large pool that gets distributed to players around the league on some type of performance-based zero-sum way of distribution. The costs would have to be fixed for the team.

Not necessarily.

Yes, there would be some uncertainty for teams. But you'd just want to structure it as, if Player X produces as you expect them to produce, you project to end up paying them $Y based on the base + performance contract.

If they overproduce, your team benefits from their overproduction and you pay them more than $Y. But if they get injured and are out for the entire season, you just pay them their base salary.

Every guaranteed contract offer now is based on a team's estimate of the player's future production. You'd be doing the same for you base + performance contract offer.

On average, if as many players overproduce as underproduce your estimates, you should break even on your projected budget. If more players overproduce, you will hopefully have a winning season, draw more fans, make more revenue, and can pay somewhat more in salaries than your projected budget.

The issue with Rendon is if the reports are true that he doesn't
attempt to rehabilitate and that he does not really even like baseball.
This has been stated by other players and teammates.
If those are true, then that is the issue. I've got ZERO respect for
those who don't try to honor a contract that they were not forced
to sign, or people who don't try when they're capable.

If indeed he is working hard on
a return however doubtful then we're back to a non-issue.

It is the risk one takes on contracts. Attaching performance and production
to contracts can sound great until players think of their own production
over team results or teams start rationing playing time to prevent markers
being reached. jmo.

The whole culture is focused on the income, and doesn't give a rat's cookie about the outcome.

Money is huge in entertainment whether that sports, movies, or music.
Then it becomes the focus this time of year with baseball.

There are improved incomes with better outcomes.
Compare LA to St. Louis attendance, or Schwarber to Gorman.

Plus they are competitors. If I go the way of thinking
that nobody wants to win or cares, I wouldn't watch.

renostl wrote: ↑31 Dec 2025 14:08 pm

Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑31 Dec 2025 13:25 pm

renostl wrote: ↑31 Dec 2025 13:17 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑31 Dec 2025 12:36 pm

C-Unit wrote: ↑31 Dec 2025 12:10 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑31 Dec 2025 07:08 am The MLBPA will never agree to it, but player contracts should be more like 1/3 guaranteed money + 2/3 performance-based money or 1/2 guaranteed money + 1/2 performance-based money.

The downside of a guaranteed Rendon-like contract is damaging enough for a typically larger budget team like the Angels, but it would be lethal to any chance for a lower-mid to small market team to be competitive for a decade. Half the MLB teams have to be extremely cautious of ever even thinking of entering into such a contract.

That would be tough because then the teams wouldn't be able to budget how much they are paying players based on their performance. They would have to have a rather large pool similar to the [shirt] they use to give bonuses to pre-arb players. Teams could pay a certain percentage of every contract into a large pool that gets distributed to players around the league on some type of performance-based zero-sum way of distribution. The costs would have to be fixed for the team.

Not necessarily.

Yes, there would be some uncertainty for teams. But you'd just want to structure it as, if Player X produces as you expect them to produce, you project to end up paying them $Y based on the base + performance contract.

If they overproduce, your team benefits from their overproduction and you pay them more than $Y. But if they get injured and are out for the entire season, you just pay them their base salary.

Every guaranteed contract offer now is based on a team's estimate of the player's future production. You'd be doing the same for you base + performance contract offer.

On average, if as many players overproduce as underproduce your estimates, you should break even on your projected budget. If more players overproduce, you will hopefully have a winning season, draw more fans, make more revenue, and can pay somewhat more in salaries than your projected budget.

The issue with Rendon is if the reports are true that he doesn't
attempt to rehabilitate and that he does not really even like baseball.
This has been stated by other players and teammates.
If those are true, then that is the issue. I've got ZERO respect for
those who don't try to honor a contract that they were not forced
to sign, or people who don't try when they're capable.

If indeed he is working hard on
a return however doubtful then we're back to a non-issue.

It is the risk one takes on contracts. Attaching performance and production
to contracts can sound great until players think of their own production
over team results or teams start rationing playing time to prevent markers
being reached. jmo.

The whole culture is focused on the income, and doesn't give a rat's cookie about the outcome.

Money is huge in entertainment whether that sports, movies, or music.
Then it becomes the focus this time of year with baseball.

There are improved incomes with better outcomes.
Compare LA to St. Louis attendance, or Schwarber to Gorman.

Plus they are competitors. If I go the way of thinking
that nobody wants to win or cares, I wouldn't watch.

I was speaking more broadly than just baseball.

3dender wrote: ↑31 Dec 2025 11:22 am

Ronnie Dobbs wrote: ↑31 Dec 2025 11:18 am I just don't get it. We have leaders in this country who have had to settle lawsuits for widespread fraud by their “charity,” Medicare/Medicaid fraud, gladly bragging about cheating on taxes, etc. And people love those guys. Vote them into power.

But one regular guy who may or may not be getting one over on one rich guy, who is a notorious sleazeball, and people lose their minds.

My hypothesis is a combination of envy and decades of neoliberalism (i.e. anti-labor conditioning).

You can always be counted on to take “the poor proletariat getting back at his employer” schtick.

In your ridiculous view of life, workers can do no wrong because they’re all abused by their employers.

“Anti-Labor conditioning”.

Stick your Marxist moral high ground where the sun don’t shine.

Ronnie Dobbs wrote: ↑31 Dec 2025 11:18 am I just don't get it. We have leaders in this country who have had to settle lawsuits for widespread fraud by their “charity,” Medicare/Medicaid fraud, gladly bragging about cheating on taxes, etc. And people love those guys. Vote them into power.

But one regular guy who may or may not be getting one over on one rich guy, who is a notorious sleazeball, and people lose their minds.

They both may fit the sleazeball description. That shouldn't matter
since they were perfectly happy signing a contract together.

Take the names out of it and replace it with you and me having a contract either side
the payor or the worker.

We may just disagree here.
If the reports about Rendon are indeed true, how
much different is he than the people who often bring
a consensus here when they could work
but would rather take the hand outs.

Bomber1 wrote: ↑31 Dec 2025 18:59 pm

3dender wrote: ↑31 Dec 2025 11:22 am

Ronnie Dobbs wrote: ↑31 Dec 2025 11:18 am I just don't get it. We have leaders in this country who have had to settle lawsuits for widespread fraud by their “charity,” Medicare/Medicaid fraud, gladly bragging about cheating on taxes, etc. And people love those guys. Vote them into power.

But one regular guy who may or may not be getting one over on one rich guy, who is a notorious sleazeball, and people lose their minds.

My hypothesis is a combination of envy and decades of neoliberalism (i.e. anti-labor conditioning).

You can always be counted on to take “the poor proletariat getting back at his employer” schtick.

In your ridiculous view of life, workers can do no wrong because they’re all abused by their employers.

“Anti-Labor conditioning”.

Stick your Marxist moral high ground where the sun don’t shine.

People with a lesser amount of power can inherently never do as much wrong as people with more power, it's not really that controversial it's just a fact.

renostl wrote: ↑31 Dec 2025 19:18 pmThey both may fit the sleazeball description. That shouldn't matter
since they were perfectly happy signing a contract together.

Take the names out of it and replace it with you and me having a contract either side
the payor or the worker.

We may just disagree here.
If the reports about Rendon are indeed true, how
much different is he than the people who often bring
a consensus here when they could work
but would rather take the hand outs.

I get where you're coming from, but we just disagree.

I don't know what reality is with the Rendon thing. It could be that he's just a guy who got old and broke down. Like I said, we don't know. I just think it's funny in sports how players are constantly villified for not playing through some things that would have regular people crippled up for God knows how long. Shoot you up with something like an animal and get you back out there.

And the second a player fails to live up to that, there's a full court media press against the player. It's just weird how that happens. Why is that? Because it's a message to that player and others to know their place. And it generally works because people see the players every day and root for the team, and the players make a lot of money, so it's easy to make them a target. But what about the billions and billions of dollars that are working against professional athletes to keep them in line? I just think people should think more about that.

Ronnie Dobbs wrote: ↑31 Dec 2025 11:18 am I just don't get it. We have leaders in this country who have had to settle lawsuits for widespread fraud by their “charity,” Medicare/Medicaid fraud, gladly bragging about cheating on taxes, etc. And people love those guys. Vote them into power.

But one regular guy who may or may not be getting one over on one rich guy, who is a notorious sleazeball, and people lose their minds.

You’re a loser and a grifter.

ShakeyWalton wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 09:56 am

Ronnie Dobbs wrote: ↑31 Dec 2025 11:18 am I just don't get it. We have leaders in this country who have had to settle lawsuits for widespread fraud by their “charity,” Medicare/Medicaid fraud, gladly bragging about cheating on taxes, etc. And people love those guys. Vote them into power.

But one regular guy who may or may not be getting one over on one rich guy, who is a notorious sleazeball, and people lose their minds.

You’re a loser and a grifter.

A grifter? Odd choice of words, but I don't think I'm doing anything other than telling the truth. A lot of people are mad at this guy, I'm guessing because they think he defrauded some billionaire (donkey)(pit) out of a little bit of money that is meaningless to him.

It's also an undeniable fact that we have some very important leaders in our society who have actually been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of actual fraud. Whether it's because the charity in their name was defrauding people out of their money or because their sham university was defrauding people out of their money or cheating on their taxes, which is defrauding people who actually pay their fair share. And they're doing it to normal, lower to middle class people.

And yet people can't get enough of certain of those people. I wonder why that is?

Ronnie Dobbs wrote: ↑01 Jan 2026 10:13 am A lot of people are mad at this guy, I'm guessing because they think he defrauded some billionaire (donkey)(pit) out of a little bit of money that is meaningless to him.

I really don't care about this entire Rendon conversation - but I would say that most fans (of the Angels, or the game in general) aren't "mad" because he took $X million of Moreno's money.

They're more inclined to be angry about the fact that Rendon taking that money, and giving little production for it, directly impacted the Angels' ability to be competitive. And fans of other teams know they would not want to see that happen to their team either.

You could rationalize it by saying - "well, Moreno got nothing for the $35 million a year he gave Rendon, but he should just reach in his pocket and put another $35 million into the Angels' payroll to make up for it." But it doesn't work that way.