Are the Sox paid enough?

[Maxbialystock]

I'm getting a little tired of reading column after column saying MLB teams don't want to improve their teams, which to me means they are reluctant to enrich Scott Boras.

 

My version of reality is the the MLBPA has been by far the most powerful professional sports union and enormously effective. So effective that it's rare if not impossible to find a contending team (.500 or better) that isn't overpaying someone who is under-performing.

 

The Sox, for example, might have led that parade in 2018 when they continued to pay Hanley and Pablo not to play for the Sox. Pomeranz was an obvious overpay and David Price probably was.

 

On the other side of the ledger are the underpays. You know, like apprentice Mookie Betts, who won the AL MVP, but had to work a second job (as Carl Furillo and others in fact used to do) to make ends meet because, you know, $10.5M was barely enough to put food on the table. This year, thanks to arbitration (and the MLBPA), he will finally get a living wage, $20M. Then, finally, with his apprenticeship over, will come the real money.

 

Still on the underpaid side of the ledger are Machado and Harper. At 26 and at the end of his apprenticeship, poor(literally) Manny has accumulated an embarrassingly paltry $34M in salary to date. Harper's doing a tad better at $47.4M, but the fact remains: MLB and those nasty, stingy owners owe these two legendary, franchise-saving, wonderful human beings a lot and by that I mean a ton of make-up salary. How in the world are these two going to be able to live the rest of their lives with any smidgen of comfort and security without another $350M guaranteed apiece?

 

I do get that salaries are supposed to be commensurate with the overall profitability of MLB--and last year reportedly MLB's net profit was better than every. That said, I for one am delighted that those nasty owners are digging in their heels just a tab because to MLBPA got a little too powerful, especially when you consider the fans pay for everything (well, almost).

[dgalehouse]

I'm getting a little tired of reading column after column saying MLB teams don't want to improve their teams, which to me means they are reluctant to enrich Scott Boras.

 

My version of reality is the the MLBPA has been by far the most powerful professional sports union and enormously effective. So effective that it's rare if not impossible to find a contending team (.500 or better) that isn't overpaying someone who is under-performing.

 

The Sox, for example, might have led that parade in 2018 when they continued to pay Hanley and Pablo not to play for the Sox. Pomeranz was an obvious overpay and David Price probably was.

 

On the other side of the ledger are the underpays. You know, like apprentice Mookie Betts, who won the AL MVP, but had to work a second job (as Carl Furillo and others in fact used to do) to make ends meet because, you know, $10.5M was barely enough to put food on the table. This year, thanks to arbitration (and the MLBPA), he will finally get a living wage, $20M. Then, finally, with his apprenticeship over, will come the real money.

 

Still on the underpaid side of the ledger are Machado and Harper. At 26 and at the end of his apprenticeship, poor(literally) Manny has accumulated an embarrassingly paltry $34M in salary to date. Harper's doing a tad better at $47.4M, but the fact remains: MLB and those nasty, stingy owners owe these two legendary, franchise-saving, wonderful human beings a lot and by that I mean a ton of make-up salary. How in the world are these two going to be able to live the rest of their lives with any smidgen of comfort and security without another $350M guaranteed apiece?

 

I do get that salaries are supposed to be commensurate with the overall profitability of MLB--and last year reportedly MLB's net profit was better than every. That said, I for one am delighted that those nasty owners are digging in their heels just a tab because to MLBPA got a little too powerful, especially when you consider the fans pay for everything (well, almost).

 

Billionaires vs millionaires . Not your normal labor dispute . Overpriced tickets , parking , beer and hot dogs . Where will it end ? I guess we should be happy that we are not fans of one of the teams that are going to spring training with almost no chance at winning it all . And not willing to spend in order to at least make it somewhat interesting .

Edited February 7, 2019 by dgalehouse

[Maxbialystock]

The OP is just another rant by yours truly. I honestly have to say I don't like 7 year contracts even though I understand why the players want them so much.

 

"Billionaires vs. millionaires" is a tad misleading I think because the billionaires got that way outside of MLB (there are no doubt exceptions, however).

 

In the Ken Burns series on Baseball, once chapter is about Curt Flood and the end of the Reserve Clause. A commentator says, "before Curt Flood the average player made 7 times as much as the average fan. Afterward, it was 7 x 7." If the average fan today makes $50K (they probably make more), the average player would only have to make $2.45M for the new formula to be 7 x 7 x 7. Ain't that a hoot?

[Bellhorn04]

This is broken record stuff.

[bkzwhitestrican]

Players are overpaid compared to the rest of us schmucks, but I wouldn't say they're overpaid for the amount of revenue that they bring in for the league. I have a hard time aligning my views with these billionaire owners but I get it, logically it doesn't make sense for teams to agree to huge contracts with players who will be in their mid 30's by the end of their contracts. So then to make up this difference players should be paid more during their prime years, when they're still under team control. I'm pretty sure there's a much more detailed discussion on this in another thread.

[dgalehouse]

The average fan wants to make more money too . But that is his / her problem . It is good to be rich . It is not good to be jealous and envious .

[Kimmi]

I've always liked the idea of teams having 6 years of control over their young players, but perhaps it would be best for baseball if the control period is shortened to 4 years.

[Maxbialystock]

I've always liked the idea of teams having 6 years of control over their young players, but perhaps it would be best for baseball if the control period is shortened to 4 years.

 

Agreed. I was thinking the same thing.

[Maxbialystock]

This is broken record stuff.

 

No doubt. And I do apologize.

[TylerD]

Billionaires vs millionaires . Not your normal labor dispute . Overpriced tickets , parking , beer and hot dogs . Where will it end ? I guess we should be happy that we are not fans of one of the teams that are going to spring training with almost no chance at winning it all . And not willing to spend in order to at least make it somewhat interesting .

 

This ^^^

[BillyWilliams]

I find it hard to feel sorry for someone who gets paid millions to play a game .............

[Bellhorn04]

I find it hard to feel sorry for someone who gets paid millions to play a game .............

 

I don't think any of us feel sorry for the players.

 

The concern is for the game itself.

 

And if the players feel like they're getting screwed over to the point they're willing to strike, that ain't good for the game or for us.

[Maxbialystock]

I don't think any of us feel sorry for the players.

 

The concern is for the game itself.

 

And if the players feel like they're getting screwed over to the point they're willing to strike, that ain't good for the game or for us.

 

Too true. And, as I understand it, that is precisely the concern of the owners. They don't want to kill the goose producing those golden eggs.

 

At the same time, I just read that the last year the Nationals offered--in advance of his free agency--Bryce Harper $300M for 10 years. And reportedly he was insulted--or Scott Boras was. On top of that, Bryce has had just one really good year, 2015, when his OWAR was 91.. That's out of six full seasons. His next best OWAR was 2017 at 4.3. Xander Bogaerts average OWAr for the past 4 seasons is 4.4. On top of that Harper is usually a bust in the postseason. Plus he is just one guy in the lineup. Boras says he is a franchise player, but I frankly am not seeing it, so to me $300M for 10 years is a tremendous overpay.

 

Nevertheless, your point is still well taken. MLBPA taught the players they have leverage, and they are going to use it. What did Gordon Decko say? Greed is good.

Edited February 8, 2019 by Maxbialystock

[mvp 78]

I'm getting a little tired of reading column after column saying MLB teams don't want to improve their teams, which to me means they are reluctant to enrich Scott Boras.

 

Hard disagree.

[dgalehouse]

Too true. And, as I understand it, that is precisely the concern of the owners. They don't want to kill the goose producing those golden eggs.

 

At the same time, I just read that the last year the Nationals offered--in advance of his free agency--Bryce Harper $300M for 10 years. And reportedly he was insulted--or Scott Boras was. On top of that, Bryce has had just one really good year, 2015, when his OWAR was 91.. That's out of six full seasons. His next best OWAR was 2017 at 4.3. Xander Bogaerts average OWAr for the past 4 seasons is 4.4. On top of that Harper is usually a bust in the postseason. Plus he is just one guy in the lineup. Boras says he is a franchise player, but I frankly am not seeing it, so to me $300M for 10 years is a tremendous overpay.

 

Nevertheless, your point is still well taken. MLBPA taught the players they have leverage, and they are going to use it. What did Gordon Decko say? Greed is good.

 

Maxie , It was Gordon Gecko . Double G . And he went to prison .

[Slasher9]

i dont think mookie, JBj, Xander, Beni are paid enough. that will change in the coming years tho.....

[Slasher9]

Maxie , It was Gordon Gecko . Double G . And he went to prison .

 

in real life he would never go to prison. he would just become prez or something....

[oldtimer]

The average fan wants to make more money too . But that is his / her problem . It is good to be rich . It is not good to be jealous and envious .

 

With a new political situation, the very highly paid players may get taxed at a 75% rate or higher. Good luck to all those making big money as maybe they can be on a Canadian or Japanese team.

[sk7326]

I'm getting a little tired of reading column after column saying MLB teams don't want to improve their teams, which to me means they are reluctant to enrich Scott Boras.

 

My version of reality is the the MLBPA has been by far the most powerful professional sports union and enormously effective. So effective that it's rare if not impossible to find a contending team (.500 or better) that isn't overpaying someone who is under-performing.

 

The Sox, for example, might have led that parade in 2018 when they continued to pay Hanley and Pablo not to play for the Sox. Pomeranz was an obvious overpay and David Price probably was.

 

On the other side of the ledger are the underpays. You know, like apprentice Mookie Betts, who won the AL MVP, but had to work a second job (as Carl Furillo and others in fact used to do) to make ends meet because, you know, $10.5M was barely enough to put food on the table. This year, thanks to arbitration (and the MLBPA), he will finally get a living wage, $20M. Then, finally, with his apprenticeship over, will come the real money.

 

Still on the underpaid side of the ledger are Machado and Harper. At 26 and at the end of his apprenticeship, poor(literally) Manny has accumulated an embarrassingly paltry $34M in salary to date. Harper's doing a tad better at $47.4M, but the fact remains: MLB and those nasty, stingy owners owe these two legendary, franchise-saving, wonderful human beings a lot and by that I mean a ton of make-up salary. How in the world are these two going to be able to live the rest of their lives with any smidgen of comfort and security without another $350M guaranteed apiece?

 

I do get that salaries are supposed to be commensurate with the overall profitability of MLB--and last year reportedly MLB's net profit was better than every. That said, I for one am delighted that those nasty owners are digging in their heels just a tab because to MLBPA got a little too powerful, especially when you consider the fans pay for everything (well, almost).

 

When the top 3 free agents are unsigned entering the season - that is the definition of teams not trying to improve. You might want the owners to keep all the money entering the system and just sit on profits - I do not. Baseball pays its players a smaller slice of the pie than any other sport. And any offseason this dull is bad for everyone - the players and the fans, and industry popularity. And - TV pays for mostly everything. The fans pay for quite a bit - but it's small relative to TV (though fans watching obviously is critical there).

 

Most of these players came from nothing. Hal Steinbrenner's biggest accomplishment was not being an uberdouche to his dad.

[dgalehouse]

Some of the owners may be influenced by analytics . Or maybe just use them as an excuse not to spend . I don't know . Do you really believe that some of the best players in the game are only worth 2 or 3 more wins to the team than some minimum wage jabroni ? If you do , you certainly are not going to pay them 100 mil and upwards . However , it will be very difficult to win a championship without any elite players . Possible maybe , but very difficult . Some owners seem to be okay with that . Are their fans okay with it too ?

[sk7326]

Some of the owners may be influenced by analytics . Or maybe just use them as an excuse not to spend . I don't know . Do you really believe that some of the best players in the game are only worth 2 or 3 more wins to the team than some minimum wage jabroni ? If you do , you certainly are not going to pay them 100 mil and upwards . However , it will be very difficult to win a championship without any elite players . Possible maybe , but very difficult . Some owners seem to be okay with that . Are their fans okay with it too ?

 

The value per win is different by team - and sometimes during the season. I mean, JD Martinez was a 3 or 4 win improvement over the incumbent DHs ... but those wins were immensely valuable to the Red Sox because he literally solved their only weakness.

 

For a team like Philadelphia, 3 or 4 extra wins could get them to MAKE THE PLAYOFFS which is another new revenue stream - one which the owners get a much larger slice of. The marginal value of those extra wins is enormous. Now for a non contender, your math is right. Also - baseball is fun and great baseball players are worth watching.

 

Now the playoffs are largely a crapshoot - but MAKING THE PLAYOFFS is not.

[Kimmi]

When the top 3 free agents are unsigned entering the season - that is the definition of teams not trying to improve. You might want the owners to keep all the money entering the system and just sit on profits - I do not. Baseball pays its players a smaller slice of the pie than any other sport. And any offseason this dull is bad for everyone - the players and the fans, and industry popularity. And - TV pays for mostly everything. The fans pay for quite a bit - but it's small relative to TV (though fans watching obviously is critical there).

 

Most of these players came from nothing. Hal Steinbrenner's biggest accomplishment was not being an uberdouche to his dad.

 

It's not right for owners to pocket all the money, without any consideration towards building a competitive team. OTOH, I don't think it's fair to expect owners to hand out awful contracts that they know will become dead money. The justification that 'they can afford it' really isn't fair.

 

There has to be a better way to make sure the owners' rights and responsibilities are upheld.

[notin]

Some of the owners may be influenced by analytics . Or maybe just use them as an excuse not to spend . I don't know . Do you really believe that some of the best players in the game are only worth 2 or 3 more wins to the team than some minimum wage jabroni ? If you do , you certainly are not going to pay them 100 mil and upwards . However , it will be very difficult to win a championship without any elite players . Possible maybe , but very difficult . Some owners seem to be okay with that . Are their fans okay with it too ?

 

 

Players worth only two or three more wins than a minimum wage jabroni are NOT elite players, salary noneithstanding.

 

The only difference in this case is closers, where the best are only 2-3 wins more than the average players. But then how many more wind does a great closer give you?

Edited February 9, 2019 by notin

[sk7326]

It's not right for owners to pocket all the money, without any consideration towards building a competitive team. OTOH, I don't think it's fair to expect owners to hand out awful contracts that they know will become dead money. The justification that 'they can afford it' really isn't fair.

 

There has to be a better way to make sure the owners' rights and responsibilities are upheld.

 

Awful is relative. After all if the entire player cohort is undervalued - the awful contracts aren't actually as awful as they seem. Putting that aside there is a case for almost every team to sign a 26 year old All Star.

[Behindenemylines]

I'm getting a little tired of reading column after column saying MLB teams don't want to improve their teams, which to me means they are reluctant to enrich Scott Boras.

 

My version of reality is the the MLBPA has been by far the most powerful professional sports union and enormously effective. So effective that it's rare if not impossible to find a contending team (.500 or better) that isn't overpaying someone who is under-performing.

 

The Sox, for example, might have led that parade in 2018 when they continued to pay Hanley and Pablo not to play for the Sox. Pomeranz was an obvious overpay and David Price probably was.

 

On the other side of the ledger are the underpays. You know, like apprentice Mookie Betts, who won the AL MVP, but had to work a second job (as Carl Furillo and others in fact used to do) to make ends meet because, you know, $10.5M was barely enough to put food on the table. This year, thanks to arbitration (and the MLBPA), he will finally get a living wage, $20M. Then, finally, with his apprenticeship over, will come the real money.

 

Still on the underpaid side of the ledger are Machado and Harper. At 26 and at the end of his apprenticeship, poor(literally) Manny has accumulated an embarrassingly paltry $34M in salary to date. Harper's doing a tad better at $47.4M, but the fact remains: MLB and those nasty, stingy owners owe these two legendary, franchise-saving, wonderful human beings a lot and by that I mean a ton of make-up salary. How in the world are these two going to be able to live the rest of their lives with any smidgen of comfort and security without another $350M guaranteed apiece?

 

I do get that salaries are supposed to be commensurate with the overall profitability of MLB--and last year reportedly MLB's net profit was better than every. That said, I for one am delighted that those nasty owners are digging in their heels just a tab because to MLBPA got a little too powerful, especially when you consider the fans pay for everything (well, almost).

 

When a player turns down a $300 million ten year contract there is something wrong with the system. With that said maybe players need to start making money earlier when they actually earn it. Then these bank breaking contracts that never pay off can go away. Players won’t have to break the bank if they make money earlier. The extra money the owners are holding on to should go back to the fans in the way of lower ticket prices. Make it more affordable for families.

[Kimmi]

Awful is relative. After all if the entire player cohort is undervalued - the awful contracts aren't actually as awful as they seem. Putting that aside there is a case for almost every team to sign a 26 year old All Star.

 

I agree that there is a case for a team to sign a 26 year old star. I disagree that there is a case for almost any team to sign that star to a 10 year contract.

 

Yes, awful is relative. IMO, signing any player, including Mookie, to a 10 year deal would be awful, though it would be a lot less awful than signing Miggy to a 10 year deal. Okay, maybe for Mookie it wouldn't be awful, but it wouldn't be good either.

[Kimmi]

When a player turns down a $300 million ten year contract there is something wrong with the system. With that said maybe players need to start making money earlier when they actually earn it. Then these bank breaking contracts that never pay off can go away. Players won’t have to break the bank if they make money earlier. The extra money the owners are holding on to should go back to the fans in the way of lower ticket prices. Make it more affordable for families.

 

I wonder how feasible it would be to allow contracts that would vest based on performance rather than only on plate appearances or innings pitched. A team could guarantee the first 5 or 6 years to someone like Machado, then for each year following that, the contract would continue if the player meets a certain level of performance. If Machado ends up being as good as he thinks he is, then he will end up with his 10 year deal. The performance standard would have to take aging into consideration.

[dgalehouse]

Merit based pay and merit raises ................. A smart idea , but an idea that never , ever catches on .

[sk7326]

I wonder how feasible it would be to allow contracts that would vest based on performance rather than only on plate appearances or innings pitched. A team could guarantee the first 5 or 6 years to someone like Machado, then for each year following that, the contract would continue if the player meets a certain level of performance. If Machado ends up being as good as he thinks he is, then he will end up with his 10 year deal. The performance standard would have to take aging into consideration.

 

Basicaly this is a technocratic version of the reserve clause - or it could work out that way.

Edited February 10, 2019 by sk7326

[sk7326]

Merit based pay and merit raises ................. A smart idea , but an idea that never , ever catches on .

 

Who determines merit - and why would it be static? I mean player measurement has evolved greatly, and with all the Statcast API stuff will evolve even more. Why should GMs bear no risk here?