Skip to content

Dodgers players could theoretically become free agents if the team misses payroll. But they won’t.

May 5, 2011, 5:00 PM EST

Matt Kemp

There’s an item over at Bloomberg this afternoon that caused a bunch of people to email me with “Hey! Can we get Matt Kemp??!” messages. Thusly:

Los Angeles Dodgers players could file for free agency if the team can’t make payroll, Major League Baseball players union spokesman Greg Bouris said in an e-mail.

That is technically true, per the uniform player contract. If the team can’t pay, sure, they’re free agents.  But the team will never technically miss payroll because Major League Baseball would step in and pay the players.  Of this there is 100% certainty, because the only thing the other owners would hate more than footing the bill for Frank McCourt is 25 brand new free agents on the market in the middle of May.

So: thanks for the brief scare, Bloomberg, but next time feel free to add a touch of commentary to your technically-true but in this case misleading news item.

  1. bobulated - May 5, 2011 at 5:30 PM

    I have something I think you all ought to know about.It seems that Mrs. Phelps doesn’t think too highly of our worth. She put this team together because she thought we’d be bad enough to finish dead last, knocking attendance down to the point where she could move the team to Miami… and get rid of all of us for better personnel.

    • goforthanddie - May 5, 2011 at 6:27 PM

      Gotta love the Hanson brothers :)

    • cur68 - May 5, 2011 at 8:08 PM

      bob; if you suggest that they pull pieces of Frank or Jamie McCourt’s clothes off after every win, I for one will start a campaign to have you hounded from this blog, through the streets of Pamplona, and up the steps of the Empire State building until you are brought bay and forced to watch POV cam video of every one of Charlie Sheen’s live act performances. Harsh, true, but you’ll need a short sharp shock to teach you to never suggest such a thing. Ever.

      • bobulated - May 6, 2011 at 1:27 AM

        For minor league free agents to make the team as replacements they would have a choice of either Frank or Jamie on the “tryout” couch. Very fair IMHO.

  2. jamie54 - May 5, 2011 at 5:50 PM

    Don’t buy that statement at all. What about all those games to be played that could not without a team? And that would leave an uneven number of games played the remainder of the year, especially in the NL West. Would rosters expand to pick up the players? Would MLB hold a ‘draft’ in order to pick them up? Don’t buy any of it. MLB would pick them up, that’s why they stepped in in the first place.

    • SmackSaw - May 5, 2011 at 7:20 PM

      You’re a female aren’t you, Jamie?

      • fearlessleader - May 6, 2011 at 10:09 AM

        You’re sexist, aren’t you, SmackSaw?

    • Kevin S. - May 5, 2011 at 8:28 PM

      Nothing of the sort would happen. Not being able to meet payroll does not mean they have no money at all. Twenty-five guys making the minimum would cost roughly $8 million over the remainder of the season. They would call up minor leaguers to replace any players they lost. As for the lost players, there would be no dispersal draft – they’d be free agents, free to go to the highest bidder. The winning teams wouldn’t have to expand rosters, they’d just cut or send down the number of necessary players.p

  3. rapmusicmademedoit - May 5, 2011 at 6:53 PM

    Craig, chile please………….

  4. SmackSaw - May 5, 2011 at 7:23 PM

    To contact the reporter on this story: Rob Gloster in San Francisco

    Giants fan, I’ll bet.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Cubs shore up rotation with Jon Lester
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. W. Myers (5269)
  2. M. Kemp (3130)
  3. W. Middlebrooks (2840)
  4. C. McGehee (2831)
  5. J. Upton (2736)
  1. J. Kang (2678)
  2. M. Morse (2224)
  3. A. Rios (1968)
  4. J. Peavy (1947)
  5. D. Norris (1767)