What is the end game?

[KirbyDome89]

 

I meant, even within our own self-imposed limitations, Hughes and Mauer aren't really limiting us that much.

If they were looking to extend or compete in FA for Buxton, Sano, Berrios, Kepler, Polanco, Rosario, ect. those contracts would be. That's what a 6 year Darvish deal is running up against.

 

I'm in favor of bringing him in, but that is likely going to affect other decisions/contracts down the road. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

If they were looking to extend or compete in FA for Buxton, Sano, Berrios, Kepler, Polanco, Rosario, ect. those contracts would be. That's what a 6 year Darvish deal is running up against.

Not really. Just like Hughes' and Mauer's deals aren't really affecting a potential deal for Darvish or extension for Dozier. There are so many ways to structure a deal like that anyway, that it would really take more than 1-2 late-term dead-weight deals to have an impact.

[MN_ExPat]

 

I re-read my initial post, and realize I made some typos; "dozens offer agents" was supposed to be "dozens of free agents" and several major players "out" was supposed to mean several big spending teams out due to the luxury tax.  But people got my drift.

 

It would be fascinating to find out whether the Twins, who have been so vocal in their interest in Darvish, have at minimum given him a sense of what they are willing to do in terms of years and dollars.  Obviously if they have, it isn't enough.  Is their stance, let's say, 5/100?  If prices do come down, it seems like a good opportunity to go up in price and he might sign.  But that's how a normal market might function (even if it is a market with downward price pressures). This doesn't seem like a normal market.  It doesn't seem like there is ANY negotiating going on.  

 

That's what is so strange about this, and what makes me so suspicious that there is some sort of collusion going on, in which teams are somehow agreeing not to make any offer over $100mm, for example.

 

In a public policy class years ago, the professor described how the airline industry was colluding on price changes.  It was discovered that the airlines were changing the prices of certain flights six months out, and that was an indicator that alerted all airlines to make a certain change in their prices.  I can't remember how it worked, exactly, but it was fairly sophisticated, and it was excellent sleuthing (by the feds) to figure out what they were doing.

Excellent hypothesis as usual Always.   The only thing I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around though is the collusion on the part of the owners.   If the players weren't getting any offers, I would say that was most likely the case or a part of it at least, but...  my professional Spidey Sense just isn't tingling there.

 

That isn't to say there isn't any possible way it might be happening, but for something of that magnitude to be going on... well let's just say that people just can't keep their pie holes shut,  at least for very long.   At some point, someone is going to screw up and let something slip or boast/confide to the wrong person and... BOOM!   Many friends have cracked much bigger investigations on far less evidence.

 

Just to keep this in perspective though, this is simply my professional opinion (emphasis on opinion), and I have been known to me wrong before.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Not really. Just like Hughes' and Mauer's deals aren't really affecting a potential deal for Darvish or extension for Dozier. There are so many ways to structure a deal like that anyway, that it would really take more than 1-2 late-term dead-weight deals to have an impact.

We're talking about signing one guys vs. five or six. Buxton and/or Sano could easily command at least what Darvish is asking for annually. Also, unless the Twins decide not to truly contend for the next few years their payroll should rise above the bottom 1/3 of the league, which means they won't have the luxury of the extra $$ they're trying to use to lure Darvish. Comparing their financial outlook now vs. 4 years from now is apples to oranges IMO.   

 

Maybe you have higher hopes for the end of the Darvish deal than me. It wouldn't surprise me if years 5-6 are dead weight.  

[Otto von Ballpark]

We're talking about signing one guys vs. five or six. Buxton and/or Sano could easily command at least what Darvish is asking for annually. Also, unless the Twins decide not to truly contend for the next few years their payroll should rise above the bottom 1/3 of the league, which means they won't have the luxury of the extra $$ they're trying to use to lure Darvish. Comparing their financial outlook now vs. 4 years from now is apples to oranges IMO.

 

Maybe you have higher hopes for the end of the Darvish deal than me. It wouldn't surprise me if years 5-6 are dead weight.

But signing Buxton and Sano isn't really going to be affected by the last 2 years of Darvish. If there is any kind of immediate squeeze, they could backload or defer. Just like if they wanted to extend Dozier today, Hughes' deal would not be a serious impediment to that goal. And on a practical level, the Twins won't be able to simultaneously sign 5 or 6 market level star deals anyway, with or without Darvish -- at least a few would have to be staggered as arb buyout deals, etc.

 

And between now and then, virtually the entire rest of the payroll comes off the books too -- Mauer, Dozier, Hughes, Ervin, etc. Any kind of immediate squeeze would require a lot more new commitments than just Darvish.

[KirbyDome89]

 

But signing Buxton and Sano isn't really going to be affected by the last 2 years of Darvish. If there is any kind of immediate squeeze, they could backload or defer. Just like if they wanted to extend Dozier today, Hughes' deal would not be a serious impediment to that goal. And on a practical level, the Twins won't be able to simultaneously sign 5 or 6 market level star deals anyway, with or without Darvish -- at least a few would have to be staggered as arb buyout deals, etc.

And between now and then, virtually the entire rest of the payroll comes off the books too -- Mauer, Dozier, Hughes, Ervin, etc. Any kind of immediate squeeze would require a lot more new commitments than just Darvish.

Dozier at $5 M isn't impeding signings or clearing room. Mauer and Hughes certainly help, if all goes well that could be a Buxton/Sano annual salary and maybe a little more. Ervin leaving doesn't do much, even with him they're likely going to have to spend in FA to really contend; his departure just means the Twins are handing out a more expensive FA contract to replace him. You could argue that if Romero, Gonsalves, and Jorge all hit their ceilings and Berrios can solidify himself as a 2 the Twins might not have to dip in FA for starting help, but is that likely? Even it it does happen, again, we're talking about holding onto 5-6 guys. They might be able to buy out some arbitration years on the lower tier guys like polanco or kepler, but I can't see Sano, Buxton, or Berrios agreeing to give up potential FA years, and those are going to be the big contracts. You certainly could backload one of those large contracts, but that isn't helping you hold onto the arbitration buyouts through their prime.I'm with you, even if all 6 of those guys pan out, and want to resign, the Twins likely wouldn't be able to make it happen, but the attempt certainly isn't any easier with one player already absorbing a massive amount of salary, and that's the point I've made the whole time.

 

Who knows, if the Twins buck the "cheap," trend and sign Darvish, maybe they'll also shed the notion that large contract(s) dictate what they're able to do. Lets hope so..

[Riverbrian]

 

Dozier at $5 M isn't impeding signings or clearing room. Mauer and Hughes certainly help, if all goes well that could be a Buxton/Sano annual salary and maybe a little more. Ervin leaving doesn't do much, even with him they're likely going to have to spend in FA to really contend; his departure just means the Twins are handing out a more expensive FA contract to replace him. You could argue that if Romero, Gonsalves, and Jorge all hit their ceilings and Berrios can solidify himself as a 2 the Twins might not have to dip in FA for starting help, but is that likely? Even it it does happen, again, we're talking about holding onto 5-6 guys. They might be able to buy out some arbitration years on the lower tier guys like polanco or kepler, but I can't see Sano, Buxton, or Berrios agreeing to give up potential FA years, and those are the going to be the big contracts. You certainly could backload one of those large contracts but that isn't helping you hold onto the arbitration buyouts through their prime.I'm with you, even if all 6 of those guys pan out, and want to resign, the Twins likely wouldn't be able to make it happen, but the attempt certainly isn't any easier with one player already absorbing a massive amount of salary, and that's the point I've made the whole time.

 

Who knows, if the Twins buck the "cheap," trend and sign Darvish, maybe they'll also shed the notion that large contract(s) dictate what they're able to do. Lets hope so..

 

If the Owner says... you can sign Darvish but that's it. If signing Darvish drains all of the remaining water from the well for the next 5 years.  

 

There is No Way Any GM would make the deal. 

 

I don't worry about the budget... because I'm pretty sure in Minnesota... they will never spend enough to exhaust it. 

 

[KirbyDome89]

 

If the Owner says... you can sign Darvish but that's it. If signing Darvish drains all of the remaining water from the well for the next 5 years.  

 

There is No Way Any GM would make the deal. 

 

I don't worry about the budget... because I'm pretty sure in Minnesota... they will never spend enough to exhaust it. 

I would say it redirects some of the flow rather than empties the bucket. 

 

If signing Darvish, at a position of extreme weakness, means they aren't able to hold onto a guy(s) like Rosario/Kepler, who play a position of strength, then that's a deal I'm willing to make, and I hope Falvey agrees. 

 

I'm with you 100% on the budget spending. 

[Major League Ready]

 

Curious what data you are using for those claims?

 

Not sure what you are asking.   Obviously, I am generalizing and estimating MLB players get pid 2-3 times what they could make in any other league.  That's the competition for MLB in terms of attracting and keeping talent.  It's hard to be real specific given the limited financial data.  

 

I have looked through all the Forbes data and done some surface analysis.  All of the teams spend in relatively the same fashion if you look at over the course of a 10 year period.  There profits are similar to other industries.  My source is 15 years of consulting for the largest corporations in the US and be granted access to all their financial data via NDA's.  You can also find financial metrics for any industry through the resources provided by any of the brokerage and trading firms.

 

Again, not sure what you are asking for specifically but it comes down to this question.  Could MLB players get paid anywhere near what they do anywhere else in the world.  Perhaps another way toto look at would be to ask if MLB players elect to do something else if the pay was 1/2 of the current level.  Would we loose any talent to other leagues.  If not, one could make an argument the owners could have played hardball once the salary levels reached an average of 1-2M per year.  They could have said take it or leave it.  Hired whomever was willing to play for a year or two and eventually players would have jumped back in before giving upthe opportunity to make millions playing a kids game.  They would have gotten a black eye with the public but I would have to believe they could have kept a considerably bigger piece of the pie.

 

MLB could have donated 50% of whatever addition profit they kept to worthy charities and I would bet that black eye would have healed quickly.  House the homeless and battered women and people would be OK with paying average players $2M or $3M instead of $4M.

[Mr. Brooks]

Not sure what you are asking. Obviously, I am generalizing and estimating MLB players get pid 2-3 times what they could make in any other league. That's the competition for MLB in terms of attracting and keeping talent. It's hard to be real specific given the limited financial data.

 

I have looked through all the Forbes data and done some surface analysis. All of the teams spend in relatively the same fashion if you look at over the course of a 10 year period. There profits are similar to other industries. My source is 15 years of consulting for the largest corporations in the US and be granted access to all their financial data via NDA's. You can also find financial metrics for any industry through the resources provided by any of the brokerage and trading firms.

 

Again, not sure what you are asking for specifically but it comes down to this question. Could MLB players get paid anywhere near what they do anywhere else in the world. Perhaps another way toto look at would be to ask if MLB players elect to do something else if the pay was 1/2 of the current level. Would we loose any talent to other leagues. If not, one could make an argument the owners could have played hardball once the salary levels reached an average of 1-2M per year. They could have said take it or leave it. Hired whomever was willing to play for a year or two and eventually players would have jumped back in before giving upthe opportunity to make millions playing a kids game. They would have gotten a black eye with the public but I would have to believe they could have kept a considerably bigger piece of the pie.

 

MLB could have donated 50% of whatever addition profit they kept to worthy charities and I would bet that black eye would have healed quickly. House the homeless and battered women and people would be OK with paying average players $2M or $3M instead of $4M.

I was asking if you had data, or just spitballing. You sort of stated it like fact before, so I couldn't tell that you were just spitballing.

 

If the owners thought for a second they could pay less, they already would have. They don't pay more than they have to, just to be generous. That's not how any for profit business works.

 

And suggesting they pay the players less, and donate the difference to charity would be great, if it was at all realistic. It's not, these are businesses, not charities.

 

I'm not sure you've seen NBA contracts, if you think baseball players are overpaid. Andrew Wiggins just signed a 5 year $150 million dollar extension. Wiggins is, according to the advanced metrics, one of the worst players in the league. Even if you disregard those metrics, he's at best a complimentary player.

I'd have to see actual data to be convinced that mlb players are more overpaid than other pro athletes.

[ThejacKmp]

 

I think getting rid of arbitration would be far worse for the players than a cap. FAR worse.

 

Arbitration helps provide younger players with better contracts. No arbitration means players will have to wait until free agency until they can get paid. And free agency often comes after their more productive years. So teams will sign guys to longer-term deals to buy out those arbitration years (like Dozier did -- he agreed to such a deal without buying out any free agency).

 

And what we're seeing now is teams are not eager to sign free agents to long-term deals. So getting rid of arbitration would wipe out some negotiating leverage they have as younger, less experienced players.

 

There is already a soft cap due to the luxury tax and teams are seeing the costs of that as the Yankees and Dodgers both keep their spending low to stay under that threshold. That's part of the problem this year -- there's nobody at the top driving up the cost for free agents while teams at the bottom unload salary to build for the future.

 

So if I'm players, I probably agree to a cap in exchange for that floor. Unless they can somehow prove collusion, which is highly doubtful. 

 

I think getting rid of arbitration would mean that players hit free agency at three years instead of six. That would help them immensely.

[Major League Ready]

 

I was asking if you had data, or just spitballing. You sort of stated it like fact before, so I couldn't tell that you were just spitballing.

If the owners thought for a second they could pay less, they already would have. They don't pay more than they have to, just to be generous. That's not how any for profit business works.

And suggesting they pay the players less, and donate the difference to charity would be great, if it was at all realistic. It's not, these are businesses, not charities.

I'm not sure you've seen NBA contracts, if you think baseball players are overpaid. Andrew Wiggins just signed a 5 year $150 million dollar extension. Wiggins is, according to the advanced metrics, one of the worst players in the league. Even if you disregard those metrics, he's at best a complimentary player.
I'd have to see actual data to be convinced that mlb players are more overpaid than other pro athletes.

 

NBA players may very well be more overpaid.  That was not in question.  The question was are the owners screwing the players.  Could they get away with paying less?  I would not be inclined to take a hard position either way.  However, it's very hard to argue they could not pay considerably less at this point and retain all of the talent.  Are players not going to play for an average of $3M/year vs $4.4M?

 

I think the owners could get away with expanding their bottom line but the point was really nothing more than the premise MLB players are under paid is absurd! 

 

 

[Mr. Brooks]

NBA players may very well be more overpaid. That was not in question. The question was are the owners screwing the players. Could they get away with paying less? I would not be inclined to take a hard position either way. However, it's very hard to argue they could not pay considerably less at this point and retain all of the talent. Are players not going to play for an average of $3M/year vs $4.4M?

 

I think the owners could get away with expanding their bottom line but the point was really nothing more than the premise MLB players are under paid is absurd!

Well, I haven't argued anywhere that they are underpaid. Though, I'm not sure that's absurd.

Again, I'd have to see data relating their portion of revenue to other industries to be able to answer that.

 

Are players going to accept a 33% pay cut? Of course not. Not unless revenues go down significantly. Again, if they would, the owners would already be paying them that. This is a for profit industry. The owners are always going to pay the minimum they have to, while retaining the talent they need to operate. Same as every other industry.

I actually don't understand why you think they make what they do, if owners could pay significantly less without losing any talent? Why would they do that? What kind of business would operate that way?

[bird]

 

The IFA is capped now, so they are spending less there....and I'm not sure what you mean by investing in the farm. They've capped pay for draftees also, which is the major expense of the farm.

 

Mike, how many teams adopted your favored strategy and completely blew through that IFA cap before the harsher penalties were imposed this year? What I'm saying is that many teams have curtailed their FA spending in favor of going with much more emphasis on developing their own talent. There has been a pattern of other increased spending besides that flurry of cheating. The largest expenditure teams face is related to scouting personnel and related expenses. The Twins aren't the only ones who have built and are running year-round state of the art facilities in the DR and have expanded their scouting there. 

 

My theory is that organizations have looked at the history of success and failure with FA spending and are relying less on the FA market than they did formerly. The exceptions, are the Yankees and the other big market franchises, where their histories of unbridled spending may return again once the luxury tax re-set interruption is over.

[Major League Ready]

 

Well, I haven't argued anywhere that they are underpaid. Though, I'm not sure that's absurd.
Again, I'd have to see data relating their portion of revenue to other industries to be able to answer that.

Are players going to accept a 33% pay cut? Of course not. Not unless revenues go down significantly. Again, if they would, the owners would already be paying them that. This is a for profit industry. The owners are always going to pay the minimum they have to, while retaining the talent they need to operate. Same as every other industry.
I actually don't understand why you think they make what they do, if owners could pay significantly less without losing any talent? Why would they do that? What kind of business would operate that way?

 

I don't think the normal requirements of attracting and retaining talent apply to MLB.  They would not loose any talent if they paid 1/2 of what they are today.  The owners cant agree to do this across the board because it would be a violation of antitrust laws.  I would guess they are also satisfied with the profit level and relative certainty of that profit.

 

Substantiating industry data is not as simple as going to Baseball Reference and putting in some parameters.  It requires detailing assumptions, validating measurements and methodologies and other supporting documentation.  My team has done a few of these for state governments and large corporations that required 200-350 pages of validation.  I am providing an opinion based on a extremely unusual level of access that has been a product of my profession.  I would be the last guy to suggest that type of information be accepted at face value but I was not thinking about that when I made the comment.

[Mr. Brooks]

I don't think the normal requirements of attracting and retaining talent apply to MLB. They would not loose any talent if they paid 1/2 of what they are today. The owners cant agree to do this across the board because it would be a violation of antitrust laws. I would guess they are also satisfied with the profit level and relative certainty of that profit.

 

Substantiating industry data is not as simple as going to Baseball Reference and putting in some parameters. It requires detailing assumptions, validating measurements and methodologies and other supporting documentation. My team has done a few of these for state governments and large corporations that required 200-350 pages of validation. I am providing an opinion based on a extremely unusual level of access that has been a product of my profession. I would be the last guy to suggest that type of information be accepted at face value but I was not thinking about that when I made the comment.

Well I don't believe that the players would accept a league wide 50% pay reduction. If the owners want to gamble that they will, they can, but we'll see.

[Major League Ready]

 

Well I don't believe that the players would accept a league wide 50% pay reduction. If the owners want to gamble that they will, they can, but we'll see.

 

You are not answering the question I posed.  Would they loose players to another league, industry or profession.  Is there a competitor to MLB that pays more than 50% of what MLB pays? 

[Major League Ready]

 

 

You are not answering the question I posed.  Your position is that normal business economic demand they pay at current levels.  I suggested factors other than normal economics were in play.  So, support your theory that economics dictate they pay at current levels.  Do you really think players would not play for an average of $3M year vs 4.4M?  Are there other leagues I am not aware of that provide a level of pay that would attract MLB players if compensation was reduced.   It would be very interested in an explanation of the alternatives that suggest MLB players would opt for in the event salaries were reduced.

 

[Mr. Brooks]

You are not answering the question I posed. Would they loose players to another league, industry or profession. Is there a competitor to MLB that pays more than 50% of what MLB pays?

The players would strike. The union isn't going to just sit back and accept a drastically lower piece of the pie, unless revenues start going way down.

And the owners would be needlessly slaughtering the goose that laid the golden egg.

Nobody is going to pay to watch replacement players.

[Major League Ready]

 

The players would strike. The union isn't going to just sit back and accept a drastically lower piece of the pie, unless revenues start going way down.
And the owners would be needlessly slaughtering the goose that laid the golden egg.
Nobody is going to pay to watch replacement players.

 

You completely ignored my response/question.  Of course, they would strike.  I am not debating this point and never even remotely suggested they would not fight for every penny.  This is not the question or position I have stated.  If you want to answer the questions I posed do so.   You are changing the question so that you don't have to address the position I posed.   The truth is there is no competition for MLB players paying anywhere near what they earn.  In other words, normal market forces do not apply. 

[Mr. Brooks]

You completely ignored my response/question. Of course, they would strike. I am not debating this point and never even remotely suggested they would not fight for every penny. This is not the question or position I have stated. If you want to answer the questions I posed do so. You are changing the question so that you don't have to address the position I posed. The truth is there is no competition for MLB players paying anywhere near what they earn. In other words, normal market forces do not apply.

You are the one claiming they are overpaid. The burden is on you to show that they make more than athletes in other sports do.

I disagree that normal market forces don't apply.

[Riverbrian]

 

 The truth is there is no competition for MLB players paying anywhere near what they earn.  In other words, normal market forces do not apply. 

 

Baseball is a monopoly. The normal requirements of attracting and retaining talent obviously does not apply. 

 

I can move from Grand Rapids to Cedar Rapids and continue my chosen career. 

 

Baseball players can't.

 

Businesses have to offer competitive wages to retain my services if I have value. 

 

Baseball obviously does not... players can be stashed in the minor leagues at below poverty levels for 5 years with no leverage and have no choice but to work in Grand Rapids if that is where they are instructed to report. 

 

 

Why are you trying so hard to make this point? 

 

 

[Major League Ready]

 

Baseball is a monopoly. The normal requirements of attracting and retaining talent obviously does not apply. 

 

I can move from Grand Rapids to Cedar Rapids and continue my chosen career. 

 

Baseball players can't.

 

Businesses have to offer competitive wages to retain my services if I have value. 

 

Baseball obviously does not... players can be stashed in the minor leagues at below poverty levels for 5 years with no leverage and have no choice but to work in Grand Rapids if that is where they are instructed to report. 

 

 

Why are you trying so hard to make this point? 

 

Because I find the premise baseball players are underpaid ludicrous.  A US marine deployed to a combat zone receives "combat pay" at the rate of $225-250 per month.  The median pay for a Marine Lance Corporal is $22,800.  Annual compensation while in combat = $25,800.  Clayton Kershaw get paid roughly $1M per start.  That equates to 38.75X the annual salary of a deployed Marine Corporal for one game.  That Corporal would need to fight in combat for 1,279 years to receive the same compensation for 1 year of Kershaw’s contract.  He would have to fight in combat or 7,093 years to equal Joe Mauers contract or 12,596 years to equal Giancarlo Stanton contract.

 

How about a Homeland Security Agent Special Agent.   They would have to work roughly 3,000 years to equal Stanton’s contract or we could say it takes 300 Homeland Security agents to equal one Giancarlo Stanton.  The notion baseball players are underpaid is a product of fanaticism.

 

Mostly, I just wanted someone to actually address the question I posed directly.  Let’s try again and see if anyone is actually willing to answer a question directly.  If the government said the MLB monopoly has pushed ticket prices to a point of being prohibitive to many families paying taxes for these stadiums or the revenue just was not there and MLB paid half of the $4.4M average compensation would we lose any talent?  Would an average compensation of $2,2M be considered incredibly lucrative for playing a game?  Would players be thrilled to play for that amount of money?   Could they go to Japan or Korea and make ½ of what they make in MLB?  Let’s see if anyone is actually willing to address these questions.

[Mike Sixel]

They aren't playing a game. They are doing a job. A job that pills in sufficient revenue that no owner has ever not made millions or billions. Suggesting that labor get more of the revenue seems reasonable, given that it is an entertainment industry. We apparently disagree. No biggie.

[ashbury]

Mostly, I just wanted someone to actually address the question I posed directly.  Let’s try again and see if anyone is actually willing to answer a question directly.

Maybe the reason it's not being answered is that people feel it's a blind alley.

 

Big-time pro sports are different from most other lines of work. They are different from small-time sports because of the incredible concentration of revenues. They are different from jobs you gave as examples because of the incredible scarcity of the talent.

 

The latter aspect is what gives the players bargaining power, and the former is why they stand firm. Barrier to entry, in any industry, is a powerful thing. And if you believe the players are lining up to collect easy money, being a team owner in such circumstances but in the absence of collective bargaining is even easier money.

 

With that as where I'm coming from, I'm sorry but I just can't find any aspect of your question that I want to delve into. Only in a benignly authoritarian economy would the important workers you named get paid "fairly".

[Riverbrian]

 

Because I find the premise baseball players are underpaid ludicrous.  A US marine deployed to a combat zone receives "combat pay" at the rate of $225-250 per month.  The median pay for a Marine Lance Corporal is $22,800.  Annual compensation while in combat = $25,800.  Clayton Kershaw get paid roughly $1M per start.  That equates to 38.75X the annual salary of a deployed Marine Corporal for one game.  That Corporal would need to fight in combat for 1,279 years to receive the same compensation for 1 year of Kershaw’s contract.  He would have to fight in combat or 7,093 years to equal Joe Mauers contract or 12,596 years to equal Giancarlo Stanton contract.

 

How about a Homeland Security Agent Special Agent.   They would have to work roughly 3,000 years to equal Stanton’s contract or we could say it takes 300 Homeland Security agents to equal one Giancarlo Stanton.  The notion baseball players are underpaid is a product of fanaticism.

 

Mostly, I just wanted someone to actually address the question I posed directly.  Let’s try again and see if anyone is actually willing to answer a question directly.  If the government said the MLB monopoly has pushed ticket prices to a point of being prohibitive to many families paying taxes for these stadiums or the revenue just was not there and MLB paid half of the $4.4M average compensation would we lose any talent?  Would an average compensation of $2,2M be considered incredibly lucrative for playing a game?  Would players be thrilled to play for that amount of money?   Could they go to Japan or Korea and make ½ of what they make in MLB?  Let’s see if anyone is actually willing to address these questions.

 

OK... I'll bite.

 

would we lose any talent? 

 

I don't believe that baseball would have a massive talent drain if compensation were cut in half for whatever reason. You might lose a couple of the multi sport guys to another sport if it fell far enough but the player has no other legitimate place to go at this current juncture.

 

Would an average compensation of $2,2M be considered incredibly lucrative for playing a game?

 

Obviously Yes. There are Doctors who consider the major league minimum to be incredibly lucrative. 

 

Would players be thrilled to play for that amount of money?  

 

Hard to answer this one... Depends if they knew better or not. 

 

Could they go to Japan or Korea and make ½ of what they make in MLB? 

 

At this moment...It seems the AAAA guy can go to Japan or Korea and make significantly more. Yu Darvish woud make significantly less. 

 

Let’s see if anyone is actually willing to address these questions.

 

Task completed 

[Nine of twelve]

Agreed.  This is the only circumstance I would pull for the owners that I can recall.  The last strike I saw so much of Donald Fehr it just made me totally ambivalent to the game and the process.

 

There seems to be an almost cite-wide defense of the players here and that is what I am quizzical about.  To me, there is no justifying the player salaries.  The players union is unlike any other in the world. Why are they so entitled?

The players are entitled because ultimately they are the ones who bring in the revenue.

[Nine of twelve]

I can watch H.S. ball, college ball, town ball, make a short road trip to minor league ball, even watch some little league if I want.

 

Love me some Target Field, but I can go to the other end of the light rail and watch the Saints for a fraction of the price, get much better seats for much less money, better selection of cheaper brew, etc.

 

Depends whether you are a baseball fan or a MLB fan only.

 

The greed vs. entitlement battle has no appeal to me.

I'm a baseball fan, and the reason I prefer MLB is because that's where the best baseball is played. It's like the difference between hearing the Minnesota Orchestra and the Minnetonka Orchestra.

[Mr. Brooks]

Because I find the premise baseball players are underpaid ludicrous. A US marine deployed to a combat zone receives "combat pay" at the rate of $225-250 per month. The median pay for a Marine Lance Corporal is $22,800. Annual compensation while in combat = $25,800. Clayton Kershaw get paid roughly $1M per start. That equates to 38.75X the annual salary of a deployed Marine Corporal for one game. That Corporal would need to fight in combat for 1,279 years to receive the same compensation for 1 year of Kershaw’s contract. He would have to fight in combat or 7,093 years to equal Joe Mauers contract or 12,596 years to equal Giancarlo Stanton contract.

 

How about a Homeland Security Agent Special Agent. They would have to work roughly 3,000 years to equal Stanton’s contract or we could say it takes 300 Homeland Security agents to equal one Giancarlo Stanton. The notion baseball players are underpaid is a product of fanaticism.

 

Mostly, I just wanted someone to actually address the question I posed directly. Let’s try again and see if anyone is actually willing to answer a question directly. If the government said the MLB monopoly has pushed ticket prices to a point of being prohibitive to many families paying taxes for these stadiums or the revenue just was not there and MLB paid half of the $4.4M average compensation would we lose any talent? Would an average compensation of $2,2M be considered incredibly lucrative for playing a game? Would players be thrilled to play for that amount of money? Could they go to Japan or Korea and make ½ of what they make in MLB? Let’s see if anyone is actually willing to address these questions.

If the premise is pay equates to human contribution, then yes, of course baseball players are overpaid. Then again, under that premise, so are millions of people who work in "normal" industries. I'm sorry, I didn't realize that is the path you were trying to go down. I previously thought you meant from a % of revenue standpoint.

Of course, if we are using that logic, then the owners also don't "deserve" much of the insane money they are earning.

 

I've also never suggested that the players are underpaid. I've simply tried to give the viewpoint that if the market is there for these massive profits, then I respect BOTH sides trying to maximize their earning potential.

 

I will try to answer your questions as best as I can.

 

1) Sure, if the government declares a monopoly, and cuts revenue potential, then it makes sense for both sides to make less money. That argument has not previously been presented in this thread, unless I missed it. My arguments have been on the premise that the owners would still be making as much revenue as the market would allow. If the players portion were to go down, only to further line the pockets of the owners though, that would not be reasonable, IMO.

 

2) Would they lose any talent? Tougher to answer, but I'd say yes. Maybe not a lot in the short term, as it would obviously be too late for most of them to successfully transition to another sport.

Over the long term, I think the talent level would drain dramatically. I think you'd see elite young athletes focus more on other sports, if salary were cut that drastically in baseball only.

 

3) As Mike said, it stops being a game once you are paid to do it. This is a career, just like the majority of other non essential industries. So, I can't say if they'd still find it lucrative or not.

Keep in mind, they don't earn that salary for decades, like most workers do. How long is the average career in MLB?

Some potential mlb players might decide that going to college, and persuing a career in Engineering, or Finance, or Law will be safer, and just as lucrative, if salary is lowered enough.

Is 50% enough to persuade many to take another route? I can't say, probably for some, yes.

 

4) Not sure that Korea or Japan would be the competition. Perhaps in the short term, some lower to mid level talent guys would go over there. Long term, I think it would be other sports, or other career types.

[Nine of twelve]

I choose not to pay either of them PERIOD if i can help it because BOTH sides are spoiled self entitled rich elitists who collectively make rediculous huge amounts of money off hard working Americans for a silly game.

I'd amend this to say that hard working Americans (and Canadians, Dominicans, Japanese, etc.etc.etc.) willingly spend a ridiculous huge amount of money for a silly game.