Cole Hamels is the latest Phillie to bitch about his contract, leading to fears from fans that he'll bail as a free agent when he's eligible for free agency in five years. I agree with what the700Level.com says:
"MLB salary structuring and renewal is a complicated (although not very) process, and it's easy for us fans to become frustrated when we see a top player like Hamels making so much less than an absolute trainwreck like Adam Eaton. It's a process that sometimes doesn't make a lot of sense, but it's not without precedent, and until it's officially changed, we'll continue to read these stories and be frustrated. As fans, we'll almost always side with shelling out that "little extra" to keep the young talent in town, because (1) it's not our money, and (2) nothing is scarier than the thought of that talent leaving for greener pastures after years of strained relations. I'd rather this post have been about a young star happy with his new Phillies contract, but the fact that it's not is more of a reflection on the status quo of Major League Baseball than that of the Phillies organization, which we know is far from perfect."There are a couple parts of the reaction to this that I disagree with: Lots of fans are complaining about how unfair it is that players can't get paid market value and end up with less than $1 million a year before they're arbitration-eligible. But what's so unfair about that? Why shouldn't players have to pay their dues, and not get huge money right out of the gate? And also, why are the Phillies so at fault for not meeting Hamels' askng price? Is it these fans' position that every player's every salary demand should be met at all times? Posted by Stephen Silver at March 4, 2008 05:23 PM