But this is all theoretical, since things like this never happen in baseball. Management can't fire contracted players and they have no incentive to punish them by busting them down to the minors since they only hurt their own team's chances. If the team starts to lose because of a move like this (or if attendance diminishes because fans want to see the player play), fewer fans show up for the game and the team's revenues suffer. You'll find very few owners who are willing to prove a point while hurting their own pocketbook.

What this ultimately means is that no superstar is ever really under contract to a specific team. If they decide they no longer want to play for a given team, they just make life so unpleasant for their teammates that they leave the front office with little choice but to trade them. Baseball is littered with such examples. Raul Mondesi, Carl Everett, and David Wells are just a few players who have recently been traded more out of frustration than anything else.

Players have come up with some pretty creative ways of making others suffer - like children who have been forced to stay inside on a sunny summer afternoon tormenting their parents. Pretty soon, parents decide that their own mental health is more precious than making a stand and send them back outside. Players blast management in the press, they feign illness or injury, they stop diving for balls, and running out grounders. This doesn't work in reverse. Management doesn't go out of their way to make life unpleasant for their players - they just trade them.

If they keep them around, it's because they need their talents and why would they sabotage that (and their chances of winning) by trying to anger them? This sort of thing would never fly in the real world. I can honestly tell you that no boss of mine has ever said, "Gary, you've ridiculed me in front of the other employees. You've complained constantly. In short, you've been a real pain in the ass here. So I've decided to give you exactly what you want - I'm sending you to our branch office in Atlanta where the weather is nicer. You'll maintain your present salary, will be treated better, and will likely get more recognition for your work. Good luck and Godspeed." On planet Earth, if you make life unpleasant for your boss, he'll fire you. And he won't help you get another job.

Take the most recent example of a disgruntled player forcing management's hand: Gary Sheffield. Sheffield has been a thorn in the Dodgers side for quite some time - at least since the beginning of last year when he spent most of spring training railing against management in the press. His discontentment was such an open secret in town that the L.A. Times used the term "migraine" when referring to Sheffield in a recent article.

The Dodgers have made countless bad decisions over the years and on the surface, getting rid of Sheffield would seem to be near the top. How are they going to replace his bat? Brian Jordan is a fine player, but he's no Sheffield, who is downright dangerous at the plate. Every year, that distinctive bat wiggle looks less like an innocuous eccentricity and more like a taunt. He even does it when facing Randy Johnson.

When confronting the Diamondback's lefty, most players need to start their swing about the time Johnson heads down to the bullpen to warmup. Sheffield acts like he's playing wiffle ball with the guy. And he knows how to deliver under pressure. According to the L.A. Times, of Sheffield's 36 homeruns last season, 24 tied the game or put the Dodgers ahead. It seems like another bonehead trade courtesy of the Fox family at Chavez Ravine, but on second examination, I wonder whether they had much of a choice.

Dodger management has put more spin on this deal than a politician being caught in a strip club. According to the AP, General Manager Dan Evans claims, "We didn't get rid of Gary Sheffield. We made the trade because we felt it made a lot of sense for us." (Yeah, okay, just like buying lottery tickets is not getting rid of your money.) Evans went on to say that he believes that Eric Karros, Mark Grudzielanek and Adrian Beltre will have better, healthier years and compensate for the loss of Sheffield.

I'm not sure where to begin with this theory. Without question, Karros and Beltre had subpar years (Grudzielanek had a career-high year in RBIs and HRs, so I'm not sure what Evans was expecting), but to expect them to bounce back to such a degree that no one notices the Dodgers no longer have a cleanup hitter is setting the bar pretty high. What Evans didn't mention is that Shawn Green had a fantastic year in 2001 - tying for fourth place in the NL with 49 homeruns - and is not likely to repeat it. Why? He won't have the luxury of Sheffield hitting behind him and providing protection.

For every Sheffield, there are countless players out there who's employment destiny is completely out of their hands. They are happy to play wherever the can, for whoever wants them, for however much they want to pay them.

Sheffield doesn't seem like a bad guy and is a truly potent force when his head is in the game. My prediction is that he will have one of the best years of his career in Atlanta this season. And he may have legitimate complaints about his treatment in L.A., but he reveals the inherent flaw in teams believing that they ever really "own" a player. They are likely to get their money's worth only if the player is healthy and happy.

It's a little like buying a very expensive lottery ticket. Instead of spending his weekends in the subway, Sheffield just got a corner office.

Have something to say? Visit the message boards and discuss this article. Comments? Agree? Disagree? Send in your feedback about this article.