Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Baseball Salaries Make No Sense To Me
- Thread starter zelmo
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Now, we're getting somewhere. I consider the Steinbrenners to be the modern day ruination of the game. Unless the head of the snake gets due stomping on, there's little hope of seeing the whole system being revamped and cured of its poisonous problem. There was once a day when a legitimate Farm Club System approach was a viable and somewhat healthy approach, but those day are gone. The smaller market cities who used to enjoy a glimpse and hope of parity at play may never recover, and we have the avarice of ownership, appeal to the corporate, season block ticket holders, some but not all players who are totally absorbed in self interest and entitlement and, the perpetual and on-going victim, the average fan who is left to pick up the tab. That's entertainment.MacDawg said:Baseball has tried to change the salary structure on occasion, but they get taken to court for collusion. And, there is always a Steinbrenner who is willing to pay.
Woof, Woof Dawg
xsedrinam said:
I've heard that the Yankee make so much money on great business deals, like the YES network, that they spend a less percentage of their earning on salary than most teams in baseball.
Personally, I hate the Yankees. I hate the fact that they spend so much money. I hate the fact that Steinbrenner buys any player he wants. I hate the fact that they don't care about firing players and eating cash just to pick up a better player. But...If Steinbrenner where to purchase any sports team in Philadelphia I'd rejoice. He is everything you want in an owner. Yes, he makes lots of money, but he puts wining first. I truly think he'd sell his soul for another World Series. The problem is not Steinbrenner, the problem is the other owners who don't emphasize winning to the same degree.
grapes911 said:
I disagree- everyone emphasizes winning and *wants* to win, winning means more money in the end for everyone in the organization.
Other owners can't/don't spend the same ammount that he does for whatever reason. Yes, I hate losing to him, but until there is a cap- more power to him
I don't know. Have you ever watched my Phillies?gwuMACaddict said:
It took them 8 years to fire the worse GM in all of pro sports.
The players are paid what the market will bear.
Owners will pay according to their philosophy, and their means.
It is big time business with $$$$ everywhere, just like other entertainment industries: music, movies, etc.
Players want as much as they can get (do you blame them?)
Owners are willing to shell it out to win (we demand competetive teams don't we?)
Nobody is going bankrupt in baseball
The 'haves' beat up on the 'have nots', but that's true everywhere in business, global politics and in life
Woof, Woof Dawg
Owners will pay according to their philosophy, and their means.
It is big time business with $$$$ everywhere, just like other entertainment industries: music, movies, etc.
Players want as much as they can get (do you blame them?)
Owners are willing to shell it out to win (we demand competetive teams don't we?)
Nobody is going bankrupt in baseball
The 'haves' beat up on the 'have nots', but that's true everywhere in business, global politics and in life
Woof, Woof Dawg
grapes911 said:I don't know. Have you ever watched my Phillies?
It took them 8 years to fire the worse GM in all of pro sports.
eh? you guys have a fantastic team on paper... they just suck when they play together
I think this kind of rationale only serves better to make my point. The thinking "let's get the best team money can buy" is part of the illness. To applaud and placate that kind of ownership mentality would show they have not only sold out their soul, they've bought yours. What's your price?grapes911 said:
gwuMACaddict said:eh? you guys have a fantastic team on paper... they just suck when they play together
Fantastic?
We have a catcher who only produces in Sept. I guess that is better than only producing in april. We have a 3rd baseman who flat out sucks. That is supposed to be a power position. We have no starting pitching. The whole damn team makes more than the going rate for similar players, they all have long term deals, and they all have no-trade clauses. There is no way to improve the team when you are locked in like this. I'm going to have to settle for 80-85 win seasons and no playoffs for the next 10 years.At least Steinbrenner would be willing to release players and eat salary to make the team better.
If the point of sports is not to win, then why play? Why wouldn't you want the best team possible? That is not an illness--that's competition.xsedrinam said:
And the price of my soul? The going rate would be a World Series. Too bad I already sold it for that bad of Cheetos. That was one good bag of Cheetos.
grapes911 said:
Well, you know what you want
I'm not against "competition" but the playing field has to be level. My argument is that there are unfair angles and advantages bought and bullied which tilt the playing field and that that philosophy is not healthy for any level of sports, though it is rampant. Mine may not be the popular position, but that's what I hold to.
xsedrinam said:Well, you know what you want
Who ever said that the playing field has to be level?
This really has never been true in any regard in any sport.
Look at it outside the salary issues:
Minnesota plays in a dome, Green Bay in the snow - advantage home team
Consider the dimensions of baseball fields
Even basketball courts play differently from surface to surface
What about crowd noise? That's why they call it home field advantage
Sports is all about every legal* advantage you can get
*lets not make this about steroids
Is it to baseball's advantage to ensure the competitiveness of small market teams? Perhaps, for the entertainment value, but I don't see it happening on a large scale. The luxury tax has not changed anything to date.
Woof, Woof Dawg
MacDawg said:
People do seem to forget that baseball is a federally protected monopoly. The club owners are allowed to collude, in ways no other business in the country can. And yet, some seem to feel that the players force the owners to pay them "too much." Bizarre.
IJ Reilly said:
Agreed. Even with the occasional disagreement, this is the system that the owners and players work from. Don't believe the accounting tricks. Even the poorest teams aren't losing much money.
The real outrage should not be how much pro athletes make. (And honestly, I'm not sure why this thread has focused specifically on baseball.) The bigger tragedy is that governments are blackmailed into using taxpayer money to build the stadiums that make owners rich.
And yet there are definte economic advantages to the city, its businesses, and to the constituents to having a pro team as well, otherwise the governments wouldn't acquiesce.
Woof, Woof Dawg
Woof, Woof Dawg
jsw said:So... we'll just pass a law saying that only people who've taught or been police officers, etc., for five years can play pro sports. Then they'd've paid their dues to society.
Yeah... that'll happen.
Nor should it happen. Why do you say that pro athletes don't "contribute to society," that they don't do a "useful" job? They very clearly do. How do I know? Because in a free market, the consumers set the value of any good or service. If the public didn't value the contributions of these athletes, it wouldn't pay to see them play, and then they wouldn't make any money.
Unless the money is being earned by fraud or other criminal behavior, it's safe to say that anyone getting rich in a free market is providing a service that either a) a lot of people consider fairly useful (pro athletes), or b) a few people consider very useful (CEOs).
MacDawg said:
Sometimes, not always. But in any event, I think this practice is still highly questionable, especially given that the number of franchises is tightly controlled. It's not a free market, not even close, so the owners can and do hold guns to the heads of the local governments by threatening to go elsewhere unless they fork over loads of public funds.
But the salaries ARE part of the issue, so framing the issue outside of it misses the point.MacDawg said:
And gambling....and throwing games....and...MacDawg said:
There's where we agree...to disagree; and I'm not talking about a luxury tax, either. But I think the damage is done.MacDawg said:Is it to baseball's advantage to ensure the competitiveness of small market teams? Perhaps, for the entertainment value, but I don't see it happening on a large scale. The luxury tax has not changed anything to date.
Woof, Woof Dawg
If the object is to win the game, and I can afford the best players to do that, why wouldn't I do it, and why should I be told that I can't?
This isn't the playground where everyone is supposed to play nice with each other.
Woof, Woof Dawg
This isn't the playground where everyone is supposed to play nice with each other.
Woof, Woof Dawg
MacDawg said:
I believe you are missing the point. Obviously, it's a game -- and the objective is to win. Nobody disputes that. But it's not much of a game if a many of the participants are permanently disadvantaged simply because their homes are in smaller cities where they will never get the kind of ticket sales and TV deals the larger-market teams get routinely. Would the Steinbrenner be able to spend $200 million a year on player salaries if his team was the Kansas City Yankees? Of course not! Sadly, the owners haven't been able to set aside their own personal greed long enough to realize that baseball isn't going to retain the fan loyalty it needs to survive let alone thrive unless they can figure out a good, fair and effective way of pooling and sharing revenues. And I'm tired of them blaming the entire problem on the players, who after all, only earn what the owners are willing to pay them.
No, he wouldn't be able to do it as the KC Yankees, which is why he is the NY Yankees, and why the Montreal Expos are now the DC Nationals.
But, every time someone sounds the alarm for baseball's health, they rebound and do quite well. Small market teams may not be able to support pro franchises. That's a reality of a free market economy. They have no inherent right to have a franchise.
And yet look at Green Bay in another sport...
And additionally, there are small payroll teams with young hungry talent that often do quite well. And amazingly, the Yankees don't always win
Actually, I swore off baseball after the last strike. Haven't even been to Turner Field. I watch a little here and there during the post season, and keep up on Sports Center, but that's about it. And baseball was my #1 sport, the only one I played. I had a few friends that played pro. They always said I should have stuck with it.
Woof, Woof Dawg
But, every time someone sounds the alarm for baseball's health, they rebound and do quite well. Small market teams may not be able to support pro franchises. That's a reality of a free market economy. They have no inherent right to have a franchise.
And yet look at Green Bay in another sport...
And additionally, there are small payroll teams with young hungry talent that often do quite well. And amazingly, the Yankees don't always win
Actually, I swore off baseball after the last strike. Haven't even been to Turner Field. I watch a little here and there during the post season, and keep up on Sports Center, but that's about it. And baseball was my #1 sport, the only one I played. I had a few friends that played pro. They always said I should have stuck with it.
Woof, Woof Dawg