CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

UW's Locker could be forced to play baseball this summer

by Mars · 5/26/2010

Advertisement
M
Mars


http://fromthedugout.freedomblogging.com/2010/05/24/lockers-plans-news-to-angels/57439/

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2010/05/focusing-on-football-this-summer-could-be-costly-to-washingtons-jake-locker/1



" Angels GM Tony Reagins said the team expects to “have discussions” with Huskies quarterback Jake Locker about playing for one of their minor-league teams this summer (most likely rookie-level Orem or the Arizona Summer League... The Angels drafted Locker in the 10th round last year and signed him to a six-year, $250,000 contract that allows them to retain his rights even if he pursues a football career during that time... His contract with the Angels includes provisions for his participation in baseball activity with the team. He fulfilled the first of those provisions when he spent two weekends at the Angels’ minor-league camp this spring. If he does not play for one of the Angels’ minor-league teams this summer, that would not void the contract but it could cost Locker financially. “There are provisions in the contract and any time you have a contract and one party doesn’t live up to those provisions, there are recourses you can take,” Reagins said. "
C
craigoscarson
250 grand = chump change compared to what he's getting a year from now...
B
BigCougsFan
craigoscarson wrote:
250 grand = chump change compared to what he's getting a year from now...


Wasn't that $250,000 over six years???

If so... That would make it $41,666 a year.



It's a no brainer for Locker to stick with football.
B
BerliNY
BigCougsFan wrote:
250 grand = chump change compared to what he's getting a year from now...


Wasn't that $250,000 over six years???

If so... That would make it $41,666 a year.



It's a no brainer for Locker to stick with football.


Pretty sure the Yankees third-string assistant bat-boy makes more than that.
G
gmj81
I just wanna know how Locker can play "professionally" (getting paid) for the Angels but the kid from CU a few years back couldn't ski for his country in the Olympics because he got paid. Anyone know the reason? Whatever it is, it's ridiculous how they draw the lines about what's OK and what's not.
Advertisement
S
snoscythe
gmj81 wrote:
I just wanna know how Locker can play "professionally" (getting paid) for the Angels but the kid from CU a few years back couldn't ski for his country in the Olympics because he got paid. Anyone know the reason? Whatever it is, it's ridiculous how they draw the lines about what's OK and what's not.


First, Bloom did compete in the Olympics, and he is now back on the Olympic team since his NFL dreams petered out. He was never prevented from the Olympics. What happend was Bloom was DQ'd by the NCAA because he took sponsor money as a professional skiier.



You can be paid to play a professional sport and maintain your amateur status for other NCAA sports, but the NCAA draws the line at sponsorship as an athlete could purportedly sign a sponsorship contract as a pro-baseball player, when their true notoriety is for the sport they still want to play as an amateur. If Locker signed with Nike today, would you think it was for football, or baseball?



That's their logic, but I don't agree with it. Bloom's contract was with a ski company---I doubt they were tapping into his football notoriety with that deal. But that was the bright-line the NCAA drew.



I think the NCAA needs to just let the kids get paid. We've outgrown the naivete of thinking the kids are going to school to get educated, at least in the big sports.
G
gmj81
I agree that the NCAA is stupid but I don't agree that kids should get paid. That opens up a whole can of worms. Does every one get paid the same? Do you allow sponsorships? How much do you pay them? Should they be allowed to have agents? Why shouldn't the non-revenue sports get paid when they put just as much work and practice into their athletic pursuits? And if you start paying them, why even make them go to class at all?



No, these kids are going to school to prepare for a professional career just like every other student, theirs just happens to be playing a sport. Even in math or engineering or psychology, some kids pay for their education, others get a scholarship, but none are paid despite research or notoriety they may bring the university. They get their due once they enter the working world.



I'd be in favor of reducing the time in college before they can apply for professional status (3 years removed from HS for football, 1 year for basketball) or letting kids play straight out of high school even(though in football they'd get killed) before I'd be in favor of letting them get paid. If a HS football player doesn't want to go to school to get his "training" then go play in the CFL or overseas like in basketball before you become eligible.



At some point, the money the NCAA football and men's basketball is making has got to give. I keep hoping that the universities will start to use more of that money to promote or improve their academic pursuits or facilities but it seems that most just keep reinvesting it into the athletics. It really shows what many of these schools are in the "business" of.
S
Short_Change
gmj81 wrote:
I agree that the NCAA is stupid but I don't agree that kids should get paid. That opens up a whole can of worms. Does every one get paid the same? Do you allow sponsorships? How much do you pay them? Should they be allowed to have agents? Why shouldn't the non-revenue sports get paid when they put just as much work and practice into their athletic pursuits? And if you start paying them, why even make them go to class at all?



No, these kids are going to school to prepare for a professional career just like every other student, theirs just happens to be playing a sport. Even in math or engineering or psychology, some kids pay for their education, others get a scholarship, but none are paid despite research or notoriety they may bring the university. They get their due once they enter the working world.



I'd be in favor of reducing the time in college before they can apply for professional status (3 years removed from HS for football, 1 year for basketball) or letting kids play straight out of high school even(though in football they'd get killed) before I'd be in favor of letting them get paid. If a HS football player doesn't want to go to school to get his "training" then go play in the CFL or overseas like in basketball before you become eligible.



At some point, the money the NCAA football and men's basketball is making has got to give. I keep hoping that the universities will start to use more of that money to promote or improve their academic pursuits or facilities but it seems that most just keep reinvesting it into the athletics. It really shows what many of these schools are in the "business" of.


I think it's more of they should be allowed able to get paid if someone wants to pay them, not everyone should get paid. That does open a huge can of worms though.
M
Mingjai
Locker "forced" to play baseball? He's only forced in the sense that your employer forces you to come to work. What happens if you don't? Either you get fired or you don't get paid, and in this case the Angels have already said they won't fire Locker. It just means Locker may have to forgo a portion of his wages. If working out over the summer allows him to become a 15th pick instead of a 25th pick, he will have made up that chump change a hundred times over.
M
Mars
Short_Change wrote:
I think it's more of they should be allowed able to get paid if someone wants to pay them, not everyone should get paid. That does open a huge can of worms though.

Then you get Oklahoma football players working 10 hours a week at an $8/hour job for a grand total of $5000/month, and a free car to boot!
Advertisement
Y
Y12
Isn't sponsorships the only way to make money for the sports like skiing? That is where I have a problem with the NCAA decision. In football, basketball, and baseball the normal method is a contract that pays a salary, but in other sports the normal method is to have sponsorships. There isn't much in gate revenues and team apparel sales, and tv contracts. Jeremy Bloom was doing what every other skier does to support him/herself in that sport. The NCAA needs to see that and not apply the norm for football to what football players do in other sports.
C
CougarClaw
Mars wrote:
I think it's more of they should be allowed able to get paid if someone wants to pay them, not everyone should get paid. That does open a huge can of worms though.

Then you get Oklahoma football players working 10 hours a week at an $8/hour job for a grand total of $5000/month, and a free car to boot!


Or you have USC players working 0 hours per week for the same benefits AND a free house for your folks.



Problem with paying college kids, especially poor college kids, is the strength of your football team suddenly becomes about the depth of booster pockets rather than the merits of a given team, or the educational experience.I say keep the farce.
C
CougarClaw
Y12 wrote:
Isn't sponsorships the only way to make money for the sports like skiing? That is where I have a problem with the NCAA decision. In football, basketball, and baseball the normal method is a contract that pays a salary, but in other sports the normal method is to have sponsorships. There isn't much in gate revenues and team apparel sales, and tv contracts. Jeremy Bloom was doing what every other skier does to support him/herself in that sport. The NCAA needs to see that and not apply the norm for football to what football players do in other sports.


i don't disagree that it's harder on certain sports to get money outside of sponsorship, but it opens a gaping loophole. All you have to do to pay a football player is tell him to take up skiing, golfing, swimming or whatever and say you're paying for THAT sport instead of this one.



Sorry skiers. It's a football world.
M
Mars


With Locker, I thought that money was all a signing bonus, which means they wouldn't dock his pay if he didn't play, they would actually sue him for cold hard cash- which he may not have anymore. That's what might force him to leave Washington and play some baseball.
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.