This could turn into one of my most explosive posts yet! (i doubt it though lol)

So in another Forum (the Kinsler one specifically)

One poster brought up the possibility of Elvis going to the Yankees and Profar being his eventual replacement. Regardless your opinions on that, it got me thinking....

Before we get into the topic let me just say this about myself, so you get somewhat of an understanding of where i'm coming from. for my age (27) i'm extremely old school. I was raised in a leave it to beaver 2 parent 2 childe 2 dog household, your prototypical american dream. My parents are still together to this day (a rarity). Along with that they established thes oft forgotten values and beliefs in me that have been somewhat phase out just with the way the world goes. I feel like an old timer sometimes (no offense to anyone, i know theres quite a few of yall out there that read and post here) in the fact that sometimes i feel like i just dont understand the world anymore. Things just arent how they used to be, and maybe my parents filled my head with this picturesque grandiose version of the world that doesnt exist. who knows.... but on to the topic.

The idea of the Elvis going to the Yankess, much like the possibity of CJ going to the Yankees, or even the Angels next year made me wonder do any players have any bit of Allegiance to a team anymore? Has this ever existed?

Now i'm not talking about comfortability. You look at situations like Jeter, or another good example is Craig Biggio's Career in which it seems like they were with a team so long that they become comfortable, established roots, and would prefer not to leave "home" for another team.

My question is do you think that there are any players, or can you develop a player through your system that has such a loyalty to the team that in a FA situation they would say i would prefer to stay w the my current team, but if they cant offer me the max i'll go to said teams... but theres no way in hell i'm playing here (a rival) because youve grown through the system with such a hatred for that team. Or does bottom line, money talks.

i'm just curious to see yalls opinions on this. i have a feeling that most everyone is going to say that money talks. And one thing, is as fans, i think we actually take our sports, and our teams way more serious than the players do. to them its just a game, and maybe they hold no animosity towards each other. However Bos/NY are supposed to have the greatest rivalry in sports (debatable) yet there was Johnny Damon a year after winning a WS w Bos in a Yankees Uniform. But in that same breath i remember Johnny Cueto (i believe) cleating a St. Louis Cardinal Player in the face last year. i remember Pedro Martinez chunking Don Zimmer's Fat ass to the ground.

I'm just curious if there's anybody out there that still believes that some players might have such an allegiance to their current team that if they had to leave, they would be a list of a certain teams they wouldnt go to, not based on personal reasons, but based on loyalty and rivalry.

Lemme know what you think..... Pujols in a Cubs uniform... right lol

Very few fit this definition anymore. If any one person does? See Michael Young. Self-less, team oriented guy. I don't think Michael was ever thinking of disloyalty. If anything, he felt it was the other way around, i.e. the way the situation was handled. But in true Michael fashion, he swallowed his pride and is again the stick and glue of this team. Many a prima dona would have demanded to and would be gone. It is hard to find a Cal Ripken Jr. now days, but Mike is as close as they come. You can partially thank free-agency for the evolution of the loss of team loyalty. When you can shop your true market value versus your production, it is usually to the highest bidder. Rusty Greer is one of my all time favorite players. Not only because the way he approached and played the game, but when it came contract time, there was no "shopping". He told his agent to get him a fair deal and he took it without bartering. He loved being here and we loved him here. I think you will still see it happen. Especially with this team. A team that treats its players as family (See Clark Murphy http://www.thevillagenews.com/story/56567/). If any team will retain players via allegiance? It will be this group. - RP

As much as I love Elvis and CJ, I think Elvis covets being a Yankee and CJ would like to be on an NL (winning) team. I hope I'm wrong on both accounts. But at least the FO has prepared for the possibility in Elvis's case with Profar.

Yeah, there's nobody like rusty anymore. he knew he wasnt the greatest, but he played each game like it was game 7 of the WS. He will always be my all time favorite ranger. Its so hard seeing him now though. his body is just been beaten to a pulp. he walks around like an 80 yr old man at times. When he leaves this earth he can atleast say he gave it his all. literally.

and i gotta say your right about MY. as much as i disagree with how he's handled this whole DH thing, and the effect his demands to play in the field are having on the team overall..... i can say i do not think that he would willfully go to the yankees or the angels.

I am not a huge Wash fan. Never have been. BUT, one must give credit where credit is due... he has held up to his word to Mike that he would find him playing time, and he has done just that, if not superceded what he originally promised. I was skeptical, but he is a man of his word. Gotta admire a man who keeps his word to a player. He is growing on me.

Honeslty, the World is more or less not any different than it ever has been. It's just very different than people SAY it used to be.

It's not nearly as rare as you think for kids to be raised in a traditional 2-parent family, for example. People are fond of saying that 50% of all marriages end in divorce. Actually, just over 30% of first marriages end in divorce. Now, 80% of 3rd marriages end in divorce, and so the 5-divorce person ends up bringing the average up. But the majority of kids are still raised with both parents in the household. And "back in the day", far fewer than 100% of kids were raised in 2-parent households. Things are much as they always were. But there is a myth out there that there was a time when 90% of kids were raised in 2-parent households (not true) and today it's more like 30% (also not true) and that the world has changed greatly in this regard (it hasn't).

I don't want to get overly political, but this is a deliberate (and broadly statisticly refutable) attempt at misinformation. Certain political intersts (basically a confluence of highly monied business elites and elites from the fundamentalist Christian community) have come together to propogate this myth widely in our society as a meens to drive voters in an attempt to gain political power. Business interest seek to do this because the internationalization of the World Economy has led to less and less economic security for the Western middle class and greater and greater disparities in wealth between the haves and have nots in the developed World. Propogating the myth that the World's ills are due to a cultural decline as opposed to a result of the capture of Congress (both parties) and the Federal regulatory establishment by heavy lobbying and a revolving door employment policy that amounts to bribary (well-paid mining executives, for example, routinely become top mining industry regulators, slash safety requirements, then go back into the private sector working for mining companies, with fat bonuses as a reward for their work slashing regulation, for example) helps business interests prevent a backlash at the voting booth and even dupes many people into voting explicitly against their own economic self-interest without knowing it. Religious leaders benefit from this arrangement by putting butts in pews, increasing collections, enabling rapidly increasing wealth over the last 3 decades for top leaders of he Evangelical movement and allowing churches to purchase 18,000 seat former NBA arenas for their own agrandizement.

Now, as to players, the system is different for them than you and I, when it comes to employment. At the end of the day, if you love Apple and hate Microsoft, Microsoft can't draft you. The number of current Rangers players who grew up Rangers fans is probably close to 0. You just can't expect them to grow a lifetime's worth of loyalty out of endentured employment. Furthermore, loyalty from employees almost always follows loyalty from employers, not the other way around. As loyalty from business (including sports teams) has dropped, so has loyalty from employees. This is not always a bad thing, it just is. When teams could not sign Free Agents, they were loyal to the best guy they had at a position for many years, not out of a sense of loyalty, but out of a lack of options. In a world where teams are always looking to upgrade at your position, you always have to be looking to upgrade your contract in return. It can't be any other way with Free Agency. Look at the Mavs. Just won a title. I assure you Cuban, Donnie, and the crew are thinking hard RIGHT NOW about how they can dump their aging vets and make cap room to bring in Dwight Howard, Chrip Paul, or Derron Williams. They have to. With Free Agewncy in sports, every team is a shark- it moves forward or it drowns.

As to guys not signing with the Yankees/Red Sox, at the end of the day if you don't let the Yankees/Red Sox bid on your services, you drastically drive down your market value, because theyw rite the biggest checks. In the rpocess of trying to score a payday that sets up your family financially in a multi-generational way, you are shooting yourself in the foot, even if you want to stay with the Rangers (Padres/Rockies/Cardinals/Braves/etc) if you let them only bid against themselves, and don't make them bid against the Yankees/Red Sox. Sports is a job for a pro athlete. You have to seek your market value (or something close to it) in the working world.

The 1950s were not a Golden Age or Halcion Era. Ask African Americans. Or Hispanics. Or Gays. Or Women who couldn't leave their physically abusive husbands because they lacked the correct set of genitals to get a job that would support their families. My parents were both raised in the 1950s by single mothers (one a widow, one pregnant out of wedlock). Both had to work 3 jobs and 7 days a week because of how little women in the workforce got paid to raise their ONE child successfully.

The world is not a worse place than it used to be. In fact, by almost every objective measure it is a much better place than it used to be, including in sports, where prior to Free Agency, revenue sharing, and collective bargaining the biggest dynasties were MUCH more dominant than they are now in almost every sport (Yankees, Celtics, Canadians). The reason you feel like the world has passed you by is because there is a constant, almost imperceptible whispering in your ear that things long ago used to be b etter than they actually were. It's very hard to hear, but once you know it's there, if you listen carefully, you will begin to hear this whisper almost constantly, until it becomes a cacophony of lies meant to rob you of your ability to see how fortunate you are to live at what is almost undoubtedly the BEST time yet in human history, and which will almost assuredly get better in the decades to come. Thank your lucky stars!

Loyalty exists to a degree, but Josh Hamilton put it best just before he signed his two-year extension. He let it be known he owes it to his union to look for the best deal when he hits free agency after the 2012 season. Now I think Josh is a pretty loyal guy who would love to finish his career in Arlington. However, supporting his union could mean Josh will move somewhere else because the Players' Union wants players to get the biggest contracts possible. Not anything wrong with that, per se, but it does help put a damper on the whole "Home Team Discount" type of deal.
Add in the small market teams like San Diego, who would have loved to keep Adrian Gonzalez but saw no way to both pay him what he deserves and provide a product on the field that will consistently compete for a title. Not fair to the fan base and not even fair to AG, who would be saddled with losing teams for most of his career.
There have been a few exceptions in the free agent era: Mike Sweeney in his prime signed back with the Royals when he had better offers on the table, but there aren't a lot simply because the union (and their agents) encourage players to go after the top dollar offers.

Jesus H. How do you guys have time to type and read all of this stuff?

I guess we are die hard baseball fans, Adam. OSF - I remember when the Rangers were in that same situation as the Padres. Never fun being a lower-tier team, i.e. small market. The Royals and the Senators are putting together a couple teams to be reckoned with via the draft, and reckoned with right soon. That's about the only way the Royals could ever be able to do it. Same as the Rays. I don't know how they (Rays) even keep there head above water. My graduating class was bigger than their nightly attendance! And DC06's point was really about player loyalty, not so much the state of morality in our nation today, but the response was good reading, Scooby. And the baseball points were valid. Love 'em or hate 'em, the Yankees and Red Sox will drive up your selling price like an a-hole at an auction. Often they do it, not because they want the guy, but to prevent competition from getting the guy. And Hamilton did say he owed it to the players coming after him to establish fair market value. I have no issue with that, as long as he has no issue with the Rangers bringing up his caveats come contract negotiation time. All that needs to be handled with kid's gloves to some extent. But both sides realize it is a business just as much, if not more so, than it is a game. Calling it just a game, is an over-simplification of a very indepth, technical, and intellectual business.

@Scooby

Thank you for taking the time to write all that i appreciate it. If my orginal message seemed overly negative that was not my intent trust me i know the blessing that it is to be where I am today in the world that it is today. I was just trying to merely show that i tend to think in a more mature or elderly manner than most youthful people. but for you to write that much shows how much you care, not necessarily about me, but just in general. its a rare quality. thank you.

on to the baseball. i do have one arguement with what you have said. i agree with you that the majority of the rangers did not grow up being a rangers fan. but that doesnt mean that the mentality cant be changed. the best examply I can give is personal, but one that many can probably relate to. Look at my sig, its obvious i went to Texas A&M. i'm a first generation aggie, i'm a first generation college student. as dreadful as it is to admit this, Texas Tech was my first choice. by sure fate, i visited a&m first and decided from that point thats where i was going to go to school. Prior to that i had no affiliation good or bad with the tu longhorns. However now, as an aggie i cant stand them. I wont root for them. I wont fucking wear orange lol. i'm a die hard native country texan... but during the red river rivalry.... i'm decked out in red. folks thats just how i roll.

My point being is that thats where my loyalty, my allegiance (my thousands upon thousands of dollars) lie.

That being said, why dont we anything similar in sports today. If i was a Mav, Cowboy, Ranger, etc.... you wouldnt catch me dead playing for the eagles, 49ers, giants, redskins, steelers, spurs, rockets, heat, yankees, angels, A's, etc... you get my point. no matter how much i was offered to pay.

i'm just curious as to why we dont see that more kind of loyalty or allegiance in today's players more. i just wonder if its worth the money to "sell your sout"

so basically thats where my loyalty, thats where my allegiance lies.

@OSF

very valid point.... but man nothing will get my blood boiling like talking about players unions. raaaarrrrr

Speaking of Unions or "Players' Associations"... I am curious to see what happens in November @ the next CBA. Not worried about a strike, but rather realignment of teams, divisions, and even an NL team moving into the AL to balance 15 / 15. (Rumors of Texas moving to the Central), as well as other theories about just an overall play-off system regardless of NL & AL. It gives me tired head. And although I heard it on good authority, many dismiss the fact that the elimination of the DH is on the docket. I think the change could be made, but with an implementation date of, say 5 years down the road.

If you were a college coach (baseball, football, hoops, synchronized swimming, doesn't matter which sport) and you were an assistant coach who was offered 2 head coaching jobs, The University of Texas and Moorehead State, which one would you take? Sometimes you just have to swallow hard and get over that loyalty. If you were a ML player and a liftime Ranger and even a Ranger fan, and a Free Agent, and the Rangers offered you a contract of 5/$70 mil and the Angels offered you a contract of 6/$100 mil, would you really leave $30 mil on the table? Would your loyalty really allow you to even leave $10mil on the table? These are huge sums of money. CJ has to talk to Bos/NYY. It could be worth literally $30+ mil to have those clubs in the bidding for him. It just doesn't matter how loyal he is. If he loves his wife and parents and kids and grandkids, etc, he just HAS to ask them to place a Free Agency bid.

I think the whole Cowboys/Eagles thing is a bit different. After all, the NFL is a salary cap world. Hard cap, not soft. No one team makes the kind of difference in your market value the way the biggest ML bidders (Yankees/Sox/Dodgers-pre-McCourt/Cubs) do.

And then you have the Torii Hunters of the world; a hometown boy taking less, because his son said his friends would laugh at him if he played for Texas. Or the pitchers who say Texas is too hot. Ask Ogando & Torealba about Atlanta. I recall the Braves having elite staffs for years. I think the class and culture of an organzation CAN alter the mind set of an individual. Many of the 90's Rangers speak so highly of the club back then (Hell, Tettleton cried when he left!). It was family friendly and the locker room was a players locker-room. I think we have arrived back to that point. Much like no one ever wanted to be a Mav for years, until the past decade or so, the same is happening for Texas, with exceptions such as Cliff Lee.

scooby.... i'm going to moorehead state. live the minor league ish Bull Durham life style.... thats where its at

Dc
What if it was your dream to play in the nfl and a team you hated drafted you, and you're not eli manning, you're a late round pick just trying to realize your dream. People being drafted into professional sports don't have the luxury of choosing where they play like can people can choose to go to whatever university they want (provided they're accepted). P.s. why do aggies spend so much time and energy hating another university? It comes across as quite small

i get what youre saying though, and youre pretty much proving what i expected to hear. money is everything. see too me, whats the diff btw 15 mil a year and 20 mil a year (if i was a player). 5 mil extra is alot of money, i'm not going to deny that. especially when i wouldnt see that in a lifetime. but when you compare the two, especially 15 mil in TX w no state tax, and a lower cost of living to 20 mil in CA w a high state tax and extremely high cost of living.... you start to see the wash. but also when youre making 15 mil a year whats the diff 5 mil extra is gonna make in your life to stay loyal to a franchise. most ppl except hammer, tyson, holyfield, MORONS will NEVER spend their entire salary over the course of their lifetime. especially if they live smart. thats where i question why they say money is sooooo important.

There is still loyalty, its just rare.

I like the way it is, there is every reason to be loyal if you want to, but you are not told that you have to.
Curtis Flood be praised.

Other than Biggio, the player that comes to mind is Chipper Jones. It can still happen, but it requires both sides to be loyal to each other.

Tre makes a valid point. True loyalty is not Jeter and the Yankees, as that is a symbiotic relationship where they both benefit from one another. Loyalty would be more like Rusty was here back in the day. But, can anyone really blame GMJ for bolting to the Angels for millions, only to be roaming AAA fields for the Reds somewhere? At some point, don't you need to be loyal to your self? The Rangers stuck with Ogando & Beltre for years thru the visa mess they put themselves in. Do you really think he would turn down a few more million to play for the Yankees, or even the Nationals, just to be loyal to the Rangers. Reality sucks. Sometimes guys are content, kids in school, etc. thus they are loyal to their family, not so much the team. Tired head now.

It always IS about and WILL be about... being loyal to ones self.
The inner struggles of each man, eventually comes down to truth,
integrity and what really brings true happiness to ones BEING in life.
Some will understand... most won't. Basic truth, with all, not Baseball.

Queen Elizabeth I .. last words:
"all my possessions... for a moment in time".

I don't see a great deal difference over the years.
Stan Musial stayed with the Cards. Many chances for Big Money.
Asked why he didn't jump ship for a payday.
"I'm happy in St. Louis... what more is there"?

I don't disagree at all HubZ. It is always a matter of loyalty to one's self, albeit stay where you're are comfortable or pursue the $, should that be your thing. Musial however preceded the MLBPA. Don't you think a guy would be ostracized by other players for taking far less money to stay, i.e. home town discount?

Did Joe Mauer get ostracized?
Cliff Lee, even?
Again, it comes down to Inner Self.
People fall by the way-side through time.
You still have to deal with your own ID.
Things aren't too different really, even w/MLBPA.
Musial turned down the Nights of NY
and the Lights of a New LAD team.
With all the major perks of either choice City Club,
he'd be making $30mil plus p/y- today's money
He certainly is one in a million, in ANY form of man.

I'm with you DC. I just don't see how a few million dollars from one place to another makes that much of a difference. If I were a free agent with the Rangers I would play for whatever they felt was fair market value for the skills I possess. Besides if I wanted to make money I could do something else with my life.

To me it really is a problem with unions and Hamilton's comment confirms that. I hate them all. Back when unions were prominent throughout most of the country I believe they actually stood up for and really represented the poeple that belonged to their associations. However over the last three or four decades it seems to me unions are established for the sole purpose of making the union bosses rich which is actually worse than how most businesses treat their own employees because at least the business will make decisions in the interest of keeping the company solvent. Union Bosses don't give a rats ass if a company folds leaving thousands unemployed as long as they made they're union dues before the doors close for good. Similarly the players don't care how a team does financially as long as they get paid in the end.

They all say they want to win a title but when push comes to shove how many are willing to be paid below market value to improve the quality of their own team. None. If Pujols wants to win a championship he could stay in St. Louis for 10 to 15 mil per year which would allow the Cards to retain Wainwright and Carpenter and then sign another premium free agent like perhaps Matt Kemp.

I know this sounds like I am against people making as much as they can which isn't true. I am actually for everyone making as much as they possibly can. I just think we need to call a spade a spade and players need to have the balls to admit that titles come second until they reach a point in their career when they have to make sacrifices to win one. If CJ came out at the end of the year and said "I'm signing with BLANK because they gave me the most money and I can always worry about winning a title before I retire." I would have a tremendous amount of respect for him and his decision.

a 7 for10mill deal as oppsoed to 6 for 8mill is really no different than if a company offered any of us 80,000 as opposed to 60,000...the best way to anaylize this is to put yourself in the place of the athlete
your loyalty lies with your family and friends..and the other thing to keep in mind is these guys don't peak in their carreers at age 45-55 like us...they're carreers are shorter peaking at age 29-32 and pretty much ending by their mid to late 30's..there is an urgency fro them to cash in fast.