A few connections from class popped up in my mind regarding this story but mainly, the idea of "going home." Pettite retired from the game but after just over a year felt the urge to return. Pettite returned home with ease to the team he had abandoned; I find this case a little unusual but heart-wrenching all the same. Moneyball came to mind as I read this article, mostly in the sense of how Billy Beane would have handled Pettite. Since Pettite clearly had a reason to retire in the first place( age, fatigue, etc.) why would management want to reabsorb that kind of liability? Billy Beane values exploitable talent over loyalty and I just don't think he would have made the decision to give him a contract at all.
His quote also raises the question of playing for the love of the game vs. the love of money. Most likely Pettite could play for another team besides the Yankees and make more money than his 1-year contract. By prioritizing the love of the game, Pettite reminds me of a kid playing baseball. Pettite is happy just to re-embraced by his home team that money is pointless. (Unless this is all a hopeful ploy to be picked up for a multi-year, multi-million dollar contract.)
I really like the correlation you're making between loyalty and talent. Call me a cynic but I always feel as though there are ulterior motives in play anytime a player claims to be signing with a team simply for the "love of the game." Why can't Pettite have love for the game with the Detroit Tigers or Seattle Mariners? (Not that those teams were particularly interested in him, simply a hypothetical.) From a business perspective it seems as though Pettite signed with the Yankees for only a year in order to get the recognition from a team who's willing to invest a lot more time and money into him for the lung haul seeing as New York gets some of the most face/media time out of any MLB team in the league. Really interesting post.
ReplyDeleteI wrote a similar post to this a couple of weeks ago, where I questioned why players consider teams their "home" when they could get traded at any moment. Your post seems to solve this dilemma in a way for me, because as someone who has almost no baseball knowledge I didn't really think about the fact that not all teams approach trading from a Moneyball perspective. Thinking back on it, we have definitely discussed a few players who will always play for one team; Derek Jeter, for example. In this case, I think home-founded sentimentality and the baseball tradition of loyalty are being manipulated by the Yankees, in order to project a certain image of purity that is popular with idealistic fans (which are most fans). As a result, they ensure that their image will go down in baseball history as a team truly dedicated to a "team" mentality, and popularity obviously only boosts their financial gain in the long run.
ReplyDeleteI thought this was a really interesting argument and that it is interesting how "home" can be what it was for Pettite. I liked that his desire to be with the Yankees didn't necessarily stem from monetary desires but because he felt like it was home and just truly cared. I also agree with Kristen that theres a possibility that the Yankees could be manipulating the idea of home-founded sentimentality and stuff because it maintains a certain image. There could definitely be different perspectives on this idea!
ReplyDeleteI think that maybe for many players, their decisions about where they play are a combination of love and money. Like any other job, if you get transferred to another state you may eventually try and work your way home once you have the money ( which I am sure all MLB players do). I agree also that the Yankees in particular may be trying to maintain a "home" more for not only the players, but also for the fans. Even though baseball is a career for these players, just has fans feel loyalty to one team I am sure they do as well.
ReplyDelete