J.D. DREW NOT WORTH IT

[BigPapiEnFuego]

In the end, every player playing baseball is overpaid. No one should make millions upon millions for playing a f***ing game

[YeAuldBroade]

In the end' date=' every player playing baseball is overpaid. No one should make millions upon millions for playing a f***ing game[/quote']

True enough.

[BoSox21]

In the end' date=' every player playing baseball is overpaid. No one should make millions upon millions for playing a f***ing game[/quote']

 

I've always disagreed with this. Like it or not, baseball generates millions and millions in revenue and who is most responsible for that revenue? The players. Therefore, the players should reap the benefits.

[BigPapiEnFuego]

I've always disagreed with this. Like it or not' date=' baseball generates millions and millions in revenue and who is most responsible for that revenue? The players. Therefore, the players should reap the benefits.[/quote']

 

This is a good point. But I think it goes either way too though. Higher player salaries = higher ticket prices.

[yeszir]

I've always disagreed with this. Like it or not' date=' baseball generates millions and millions in revenue and who is most responsible for that revenue? The players. Therefore, the players should reap the benefits.[/quote']

 

20 years ago this wasn't the case. You could make the argument that crafty owners have been able to eek every single dollar possible out of the fans. Should they reap the benefits?

[YeAuldBroade]

20 years ago this wasn't the case. You could make the argument that crafty owners have been able to eek every single dollar possible out of the fans. Should they reap the benefits?

The whole system is screwed and we pay for it. Everyone involved should be able to make a good living but becoming kazillionaires while families can no longer afford a day at the park is wrong. They all make too much money.

[BoSox21]

This is a good point. But I think it goes either way too though. Higher player salaries = higher ticket prices.

 

Right, but then you get into the whole supply vs. demand thing. As long as people are willing to pay the current ticket prices, they'll stay where they are or go even higher.

 

20 years ago this wasn't the case. You could make the argument that crafty owners have been able to eek every single dollar possible out of the fans. Should they reap the benefits?

 

There's enough money being made that the owners are reaping the benefits as well but in the end, it comes down to the players. For the most part, attendance (and thus revenues) from stadium to stadium is tied to the team's performance. Except with owners like Carl Pohlad, who was vilified for not investing money back into a team that was successful and popular.

[Emmz]

Except with owners like Carl Pohlad' date=' who was vilified for not investing money back into a team that was successful and popular.[/quote']

 

Carl Pohlad is probably one of the shittiest owners in the history of baseball. I've never heard of any recent owners who have been as corrupt as that old man. He wanted the fans to pay for everything, he even thought up some stupid way to get them to pay for watching Twins games on TV. Victory Sports Network was basically our version of YES/NESN etc. You had to pay a lot of money just to watch Twins games.

 

Not only that, but his contribution towards Target Field was pathetic.

[Dojji]

This is a good point. But I think it goes either way too though. Higher player salaries = higher ticket prices.

 

Learn some economics. The price is what the market will bear. If the players weren't making that money the owners would be making it, it wouldn't stay in our pockets.

[yankees228]

20 years ago this wasn't the case. You could make the argument that crafty owners have been able to eek every single dollar possible out of the fans. Should they reap the benefits?

 

I could be wrong, and I don't remember where I read this, but I do remember reading that the players make a lower percentage of the revenue in baseball than players in any other sport (NFL, NBA, NHL).

[TheMino007]

Thats because there is no salary cap in baseball to drive down costs for owners.

[a700hitter]

Do the players really need to supplement their income by charging for their autographs?

[Spudboy]

Do the players really need to supplement their income by charging for their autographs?

 

Learn some economics!

 

Make hay while the sun shines.

[RWTP24]

The kid has a great point. Drew is way over paid.

[BoSox21]

The kid has a great point. Drew is way over paid.

 

That's never been his fault.

[Dipre]

The kid has a great point. Drew is way over paid.

 

So are half the players on MLB rosters, so why's it a "great point"?

 

It's a dumb way to criticize a player.

[ORS]

Thats because there is no salary cap in baseball to drive down costs for owners.

This is thought process failure. He said the other sports athletes are paid, in total, a higher percentage of overall revenues. Your justification suggests causation that would support baseball leading the field in that measurement, which it doesn't. The reason it doesn't is the lack of a salary cap. The other sports' salarly caps are negotiated as a fixed percentage of overall revenues. Since baseball doesn't have one, the overall revenues aren't on the table for negotiation.

 

The MLBPA is the strongest professional athlete's union in sports, and in flexing its muscle to resist a cap over micro issues (less leverage in individual player salary negotiations), it has missed the bus on the macro issue (a higher negotiated percentage of revenues for all).

[yeszir]

NFL franchises are more profitable than MLB franchises because of TV rights. The TV money is what creates parity in that league.

[yankees228]

This is thought process failure. He said the other sports athletes are paid, in total, a higher percentage of overall revenues. Your justification suggests causation that would support baseball leading the field in that measurement, which it doesn't. The reason it doesn't is the lack of a salary cap. The other sports' salarly caps are negotiated as a fixed percentage of overall revenues. Since baseball doesn't have one, the overall revenues aren't on the table for negotiation.

 

The MLBPA is the strongest professional athlete's union in sports, and in flexing its muscle to resist a cap over micro issues (less leverage in individual player salary negotiations), it has missed the bus on the macro issue (a higher negotiated percentage of revenues for all).

 

You would agree, though, that there are more factors working against a salary cap in baseball than just the MLBPA, right?

[ORS]

You would agree' date=' though, that there are more factors working against a salary cap in baseball than just the MLBPA, right?[/quote']

Of course, no issue that complex receives resistance through only one avenue.

[yankees228]

Of course' date=' no issue that complex receives resistance through only one avenue.[/quote']

 

I should have structured my response differently. I was more curious to hear your opinion on the various problems, considering (judging by some of your previous posts) you seem to be in favor of a salary cap.

[ORS]

I should have structured my response differently. I was more curious to hear your opinion on the various problems' date=' considering (judging by some of your previous posts) you seem to be in favor of a salary cap.[/quote']

Any particular issue in mind, or did you want a dissertation?

[yankees228]

Yeah, a dissertation would be interesting to hear, if you had the time. Based off that I would probably have a question or two for you.

[ORS]

Sorry, that question was tinged with sarcasm. I'm not proned to writing long, ardous to read posts.

 

Short version.

 

Biggest obstacle after the MLBPA is revenue sharing. A cap is untenable without a floor, and a floor doesn't happen without expanded revenue sharing.

 

If these two issues, the MLBPA waking up and seeing the big picture and expanded revenue sharing (as in "general pool" expanded), can get worked out, then any other lesser issues will fall by the wayside.

[yankees228]

Sorry, that question was tinged with sarcasm. I'm not proned to writing long, ardous to read posts.

 

Short version.

 

Biggest obstacle after the MLBPA is revenue sharing. A cap is untenable without a floor, and a floor doesn't happen without expanded revenue sharing.

 

If these two issues, the MLBPA waking up and seeing the big picture and expanded revenue sharing (as in "general pool" expanded), can get worked out, then any other lesser issues will fall by the wayside.

 

Haha, well, I thought it might be sarcastic, so I should have clarified and said that I just wanted a brief opinion.

 

The issue that you brought up was obviously the one that I was thinking about. Do you think it's realistic to get the teams that have enormous revenue streams to pay more and more money to the small market teams? Additionally, do you even think that's fair? Unless you nationalize television coverage (like the NFL), these teams are generating this revenue on their own. Granted, many of them are able to do it because of their market sizes, but you're still asking them to give money back that they've earned.

 

Sure, I understand that you're viewing baseball as a sport before a business. I'm not saying that I disagree, but it really goes against the foundations of this country's economic structure to ask these teams to sacrifice so much of the money that they earn, to the point where low market teams are able to reach the salary floor.

[yankees228]

Or are you saying that the money going to the small market teams should come from other places, besides the large market teams. If so, where would that revenue come from?

[ORS]

Haha, well, I thought it might be sarcastic, so I should have clarified and said that I just wanted a brief opinion.

 

The issue that you brought up was obviously the one that I was thinking about. Do you think it's realistic to get the teams that have enormous revenue streams to pay more and more money to the small market teams? Additionally, do you even think that's fair? Unless you nationalize television coverage (like the NFL), these teams are generating this revenue on their own. Granted, many of them are able to do it because of their market sizes, but you're still asking them to give money back that they've earned.

 

Sure, I understand that you're viewing baseball as a sport before a business. I'm not saying that I disagree, but it really goes against the foundations of this country's economic structure to ask these teams to sacrifice so much of the money that they earn, to the point where low market teams are able to reach the salary floor.

I'm sorry, don't take this personally, but the "capitalist ideal" applied to baseball economics is intellectually lazy.

 

In actual capitalism, the entreprenuer has much more freedom to place his business where the consumers are. If Main St is where everyone shops, he/she can choose to pay the higher rent for a Main St shop and be where the market is. Or, he/she can go off Main St and try to prosper there. Most importantly, of course, is that it's up to the business owner.

 

Not so in baseball. MLB is a collective union of baseball team owners who have banded together and make decisions that they feel are in the best interests of the whole league. KC can't decide, "Our market sucks, we're moving to NY", they have to get league approval for that.

 

NY, and Boston, and LA, etc, those teams all make so much money because of where they are. Sure they do some creative things to maximize their revenues out of their market, but the notion of them "earning" more than their competitors in smaller markets is laughable. It's like giving Saudi Arabia credit for leading the world in oil production.

 

I readily acknowledge that baseball is a business. It's entertainment business. The entertainment it is selling is sports competition. It's selling a bogus product right now, because sporting competition, in everyone's mind that I know, is about a level playing field. When money is the means by which teams staff their rosters with talent, the money needs to be equal for the field to be level. The current system is tantamount to giving some Little League teams extra picks in each round of the draft. Would anyone think that was fair?

[yankees228]

That's an interesting take, and all the points are valid. I agree, each one of these teams are part of a bigger league, and the best interests of the league must be looked out for. Additionally, as you mentioned, it's not true capitalism.

 

I admit, your argument is solid, and I don't necessarily disagree. The only thing is (I know I'm repeating myself) you're asking teams to give back money that they earned. At the very least, the NFL is set up where one team doesn't usually earn too much more than the other teams, because of the national TV rights. In the current system, regardless of whether or not these teams have a market advantage, they're still earning money on their own. This isn't really a counter argument to yours, because I agree with it, but from the stand point of the big market teams, you're just asking them to give lots of money away.

 

Thanks for sharing your point of view on the topic ORS. While we often disagree on things, many of them stemming from this topic (we must have debated the legitimacy of the Yankees' championship a half dozen times), I do respect your opinion.

 

On the same topic, I remember Keith Law making an argument against a salary floor by saying that teams not in contention should not be expected to sign veterans to meet their payroll obligations that will either block young players, or just rot on the bench. In a system, unlike other sports, where many of these teams rely so heavily on their farm systems, I would agree with Law that having veterans filling positions on the big league club might be counter productive. What do you think about that?