• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

$12 million? No thanks, I don't deserve it

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
rcpratt said:
He earned it when they Royals offered him the contract. Contracts are earned before you sign, not during your contract. There's a risk to signing players and it certainly isn't Meche's fault that the Royals rode him into the ground and played him while he was injured, causing him to be seriously injured and unable to play effectively.
Click to expand...

So, a kid out of college has earned his keep? This is exactly what happens in sports leagues. Players are contracted based on potential not what they've earned.
 
Phokus said:
Sure it does. In this case, the employer was partially the reason why he couldn't perform up to his standards and he still believed, in the grand scope of things, he didn't deserve a whopping 12 mil. The CEO, OTOH, typically doesn't face those types of risks that an athlete, and even if they are solely at fault for destroying their companies, will gladly accept raises/bonuses with a smile on their face and absolutely no shame whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Sorry, no it doesn't. Er, didn't you say it does and then basically admit that its not a comparable situation at all?

Um, how can a CEO be solely responsible for destroying a company? They'd have to have started the company, in which case, it would seemingly have been built into what it was due to them. Any reasonable company would have a board of directors or some form of "checks and balances" setup to prevent shit like you're talking about, in which case its their fault for giving a single person that much power. At minimum there will always be more people in on it. I can't think of a single company where a CEO gets the blame for running the company into the ground that it isn't several other people's faults as well.

Jeff7 said:
Accept the money, then give it to a charity?
Click to expand...

Isn't that what he's doing by letting the Royals keep it?
 
darkswordsman17 said:
Sorry, no it doesn't. Er, didn't you say it does and then basically admit that its not a comparable situation at all?

Um, how can a CEO be solely responsible for destroying a company? They'd have to have started the company, in which case, it would seemingly have been built into what it was due to them. Any reasonable company would have a board of directors or some form of "checks and balances" setup to prevent shit like you're talking about, in which case its their fault for giving a single person that much power. At minimum there will always be more people in on it. I can't think of a single company where a CEO gets the blame for running the company into the ground that it isn't several other people's faults as well.



Isn't that what he's doing by letting the Royals keep it?
Click to expand...

1. Not all CEO's start the companies they work for

2. Congrats, you just described the phenomenon of 'interlocking directorates' and the principle/agent problem, which is pervasive amongst all industries.

3. Maybe 'solely' was a bad choice of words, but they are still completely responsible for their underlings, especially the ones they promote/hire.

4. The buck should ALWAYS stop at the CEO, stop giving them excuses.

5. This guy, Meche, had some valid excuses to take the money, CEO's will invent excuses ("oh the economy's bad, but i worked hard so i still deserve my extra bonus, even though we underperformed... but again bad economy'). In that sense, i think there is a valid comparison.
 
While I wonder if there isn't more to the story, my hats off to him. Whether he needed the money or not, earned it or not, or just flat out hates baseball, it takes quite the person to just up and walk away from that kind of cash.
 
Consider a few points:
1) He has made some bank in the past. He may likely be the salt of the earth, and the millions he already has are plenty enough for him.
2) He views the organization differently than many do. To him, it may be a collection of good friends, and his taking the money and not being able to perform will hurt their chances to get somewhere.
 
skyking said:
Consider a few points:
1) He has made some bank in the past. He may likely be the salt of the earth, and the millions he already has are plenty enough for him.
2) He views the organization differently than many do. To him, it may be a collection of good friends, and his taking the money and not being able to perform will hurt their chances to get somewhere.
Click to expand...

Even if he made 100 million (he didn't), 12 million still buys the kids a lot of trips to Disneyland.
 
If he knows he's set for life and doesn't want to work anymore, what the hell is wrong with that?

The only reason we look at it differently is because he's a "star". If he was Joe Nobody that won 50 million dollars(someone else posted that number?) and decided not to work anymore, nobody would pay any attention.. lol.
 
Having 50 million (minus taxes, agent fees, etc.) already in the bank makes turning down 12 million a hell of a lot easier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top