Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:51 pm EST Scott Eyre is the latest ballplayer to admit he's almost broke By 'Duk Never thought we'd see a day when a pro ballplayer might take to selling apples or asking a fan to spare a dime, but thanks to the ongoing fraud schemes those farfetched scenes could become a reality this spring. On Monday, Phillies reliever Scott Eyre became the latest MLB player to admit he's in a bit of a financial bind, telling MLB.com's Todd Zolecki that his assets are currently frozen due to the ongoing investigation into the Stanford Financial fraud case. Just how bad is it? Well, because of the court-ordered freeze, Eyre says he's "broke right now" and that he has "$13 in my wallet." This after the lefty signed a one-year deal worth $2 million in the offseason. From MLB.com: "I can't pay my bills right now," Eyre said. "My wife just wrote all these checks to pay bills, and they're all going to bounce. If it takes a week or two to get my money back, I'm going to have to ask my teammates for some money. Seriously, I'm going to have to ask them that. I can't get any money out." Eyre has another account not affiliated with Stanford, but he said that account doesn't have enough to handle living expenses â including mortgage, bills, etc. â on a long-term basis. "We'll get our money back eventually," Eyre said. "They caught ours so early that they think we'll only lose the interest. Supposedly, the money is insured. But it's all a scheme, so who knows if that's real insurance or not? Though some accounts may start to be unfrozen, the situation is the talk of clubhouses across Arizona and Florida. Both Johnny Damon and Xavier Nady of the Yankees have already said they've been affected and Mets pitcher Mike Pelfrey says "99 percent" of his cash is stuck. Meanwhile, other sport stars like soccer's Michael Owen and golf's Vijay Singh have been mentioned as victims of Stanford's farflung Ponzi scheme. As for Eyre, the 36-year-old family man says he's thinking about 2009 being his last year in the game, although more financial uncertainty could change that. While I know we're talking about someone who's already made more money that many of us could ever dream of, it's hard not to have sympathy for what these guys are going through and hope for a quick and easy solution for them. Simply put, you wouldn't wish this situation on the most hated player from your most hated rival. Godspeed, gentlemen. http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/bi...latest-ballplayer-to-admit-he-?urn=mlb,143663 ********************************************* "Simply put, you wouldn't wish this situation on the most hated player from your most hated rival. Godspeed, gentlemen." Well maybe Barry Bonds.
My father played pro ball and would have loved to make 1/100 of the money that these guys make. No sympathy or even empathy for any of them.
It is unbelievable anyone would have their millions + at ONE place. Divide your money widely if you are rich. Otherwise, you might wind up like the Madoff and Stanford client pigeons Diversification also means not trusting one person. This video is a 90 year old man, who lost all his savings to Madoff ($700,000) , and had to go back to work... http://video.aol.com/video-detail/90-year-old-madoff-victim-back-to-work/1821751731
There is no mention of his brother, also a MLB pitcher? Come on, man...he has to borrow from his teammates? This story was written to fill space on the yahoo front page. I have no sympathy for him because he played for the Cubs.
pro sports players do not diserve their salaries, they are not productive and only serve as a cause for the continuation of american couch potatoes.
It's really a dangerous argument to get into, this entire thing of "who could possibly be worth so much"? Well in the case of professional athletes they obviously are. The owners are no dummies and they are going to pay the smallest amount they can to get the guy to come and play. Obviously the guy earns his keep, if he doesnt then he wont get another contract. I find it kind of surprising to see traders engaged in this type of discussion, since more then most we are also victims of the populist/socialist mindset of the average (jelous) person.
people complain that corporations don't pay employees well enough. but as soon as one corporation pays its employees well, people complain that these employees are overpaid. what do you want?
Sounds a bit harsh. The fact that you think he's paid too much (which is highly debatable when you look at the numbers involved in pro sports) means that because he invested in good faith (you obviously agree with this since you have sympathy for a retiree who invested in the same funds) and he got ripped off, you have no sympathy for the fact that he now wonders how he's going to feed his kids and pay his bills? He may be (and probably is) a quality guy who worked his ass off to make it to the majors, and may also be a decent family man. Do you look at the billions that Tiger Woods generates for Nike et al, the PGA Tour, the European Tour, and for every other player who plays pro golf, and make the claim that he's 'overpaid'?? Just seems a little bit dangerous to say you have no sympathy for 'any of them'.
I never said he was paid too much. Whatever his employer paid him was evidently satisfactory for both parties. It pisses me off that some pro sports figures, that make the salaries they do, for something they love, aren't smart enough to seek out quality financial advisors. Then when something stupid (and I mean stupid and not ignorant) happens we are suppose to feel sorry for the idiots. Everyone with a lick of common sense knows not to put all of your investments in one source. Maybe he was beaned 6 or 7 times too many.