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.
MLB Hotstove 08
- Thread starter MacNut
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
With all the big deals Boras has made over the years he will make out better then his clients.
His clients are doing pretty well...Drew for $70, Zito for $126, Varitek for $40, $87.5 for Bernie Williams, $52 for Damon, Arod for $252, $119 for Carlos Beltran...
Just how in the world does the Player's Association get to veto a contract based on how much money is involved? The collective bargaining agreement sets a minimum salary, everything above that is between the players and the clubs.
Personally, I think I'd rather see the money in the pockets of the players than in the pockets of the owners, but that's just crazy isn't it? Perhaps you think the owners are going to lower tickets prices or give a rebate to fans if the players don't sign for the money the owners decide to pay them, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Well the Yankees have been giving the money to the players for years but you don't like them.
Since when does a union allow any of its members to settle for less money?
Here's an example,from MLB.com
fotografica, I have no doubt the Player's Association wants its members to get everything they can, but they don't have a veto on whether a player accepts x or y amounts of dollars - with the exception that they can't sign for less than the minimum. What happened with their veto of a restructuring of a contract is another question altogether. There are safeguards in the collective bargaining agreement that give them the right to intervene if the way a contracted is worded doesn't meet certain standards. The long and short of it is that if ARod wants to sign for the minimum salary, there isn't a damn thing the Union can do about it. Not that he ever would do such a thing.
MacNut, I hate the Yankees because they are the Yankees. Not because they pay their players well.
IJ, exactly!
MacNut, I hate the Yankees because they are the Yankees. Not because they pay their players well.
IJ, exactly!
it's not that the yankees pay their players well, it's that they pay so many players well.
By all means, pay Jeter $50 mill a year if you want...it's the Abreu for $16, Jeter for $22, Arod for $27, Giambi for $23, Pettitte for $16 and on and on and on and on....that's the issue.
By all means, pay Jeter $50 mill a year if you want...it's the Abreu for $16, Jeter for $22, Arod for $27, Giambi for $23, Pettitte for $16 and on and on and on and on....that's the issue.
If the Yankees have the money to spend why should anyone else tell them how they can spend it if the rules allow them too. If you think they spend to much then push for a salary cap in the league.
So, are you saying that the revenue issues between large and small market baseball teams is irrelevant?
Right now, MLB and the Player's Union agree with you to a degree. They have agreed that each player must be paid a minimum salary ($390,000 next year) and that if a team chooses to have a team salary of over a certain amount ($148 million in 2007, $155 million in 2008, $162 million in 2009, $170 million in 2010, and 178 million in 2011) they have to pay a tax for competitive balance to Baseball as a whole. Other than that the Yankees, or any team for that matter, can pay any player whatever they want. The Yankees consistently choose to have the highest salary in baseball, and I don't believe the departure of Alex Rodriguez is going to change that trend.
I hear what you're saying Sayhey..But what's the answer for getting some kind of parity in MLB?How do the smaller market teams compete with the larger markets?I'd say a salary cap,but I think the horse is out of the barn on that one..
There has actually been a huge discrepancy since 2000, which is the last time the yankees won the WS.
In 2000 we had the following (top 10):
New York Yankees-$92,538,260
Los Angeles-$88,124,286
Atlanta-$84,537,836
Baltimore-$81,447,435
Arizona-$81,027,833
New York Mets-$79,509,776
Boston-$77,940,333
Cleveland-$75,880,871
Texas-$70,795,921
Tampa Bay-$62,765,129
The Yankees were separted from the number 10 team by $30 million.
The difference between top and bottom in 2000 was roughly $76 million.
In 2007 we have (top 10):
New York Yankees-$189,639,045
Boston Red Sox-$143,026,214
New York Mets-$115,231,663
Los Angeles Angels-$109,251,333
Chicago White Sox-$108,671,833
Los Angeles Dodgers-$108,454,524
Seattle Mariners-$106,460,833
Chicago Cubs-$99,670,332
Detroit Tigers-$95,180,369
Baltimore Orioles-$93,554,808
Difference 7 years later between #1 (Yankees) and #10 (Orioles) is now over $96 million.
The difference between top and bottom in 2007 was roughly $165 million.
The Yankees payroll went up by over $97 million in that time.
The Red Sox are getting worse too, of course.They increased by over $65 million.
Meanwhile, teams like Cleveland saw their payroll *drop* by over $14 million.
The Diamondbacks' payroll dropped by almost $29 million.
I wouldn't mind the Yankees spending whatever they liked if it weren't so out of whack with the rest of the league.
And let's face it, it's not even a winning strategy is it?
In 2000 we had the following (top 10):
New York Yankees-$92,538,260
Los Angeles-$88,124,286
Atlanta-$84,537,836
Baltimore-$81,447,435
Arizona-$81,027,833
New York Mets-$79,509,776
Boston-$77,940,333
Cleveland-$75,880,871
Texas-$70,795,921
Tampa Bay-$62,765,129
The Yankees were separted from the number 10 team by $30 million.
The difference between top and bottom in 2000 was roughly $76 million.
In 2007 we have (top 10):
New York Yankees-$189,639,045
Boston Red Sox-$143,026,214
New York Mets-$115,231,663
Los Angeles Angels-$109,251,333
Chicago White Sox-$108,671,833
Los Angeles Dodgers-$108,454,524
Seattle Mariners-$106,460,833
Chicago Cubs-$99,670,332
Detroit Tigers-$95,180,369
Baltimore Orioles-$93,554,808
Difference 7 years later between #1 (Yankees) and #10 (Orioles) is now over $96 million.
The difference between top and bottom in 2007 was roughly $165 million.
The Yankees payroll went up by over $97 million in that time.
The Red Sox are getting worse too, of course.They increased by over $65 million.
Meanwhile, teams like Cleveland saw their payroll *drop* by over $14 million.
The Diamondbacks' payroll dropped by almost $29 million.
I wouldn't mind the Yankees spending whatever they liked if it weren't so out of whack with the rest of the league.
And let's face it, it's not even a winning strategy is it?
How does a payroll cap usually come about? I think that the NBA and NHL implemented the cap pretty successfully.
Payroll caps are not well loved by the player's unions for obvious reasons. They want the highest salaries possible under all situations.
So the first step for bringing about a salary cap is to smack down the unions until they accept it.
There is no way the owners would lockout and the players are not going to risk another strike.
I still think it's just a negotiating ploy. By starting at an outrageously high amount, he forces everyone to bargain down to something that is merely amazingly high.
That's an agent's job. Players hire Boras because he has a reputation for getting bigger contracts. It's not like the player wakes up one day and suddenly realizes his agent is greedy.
I'm not sure why people think they've got Rodriguez all figured out. How do you know he didn't like NY? Maybe he just didn't like Steinbrenner? Or Jeter? Or the locker rooms at Yankee Stadium? And how do any of us know what players and agents say to each other? Of course they keep their strategies close to the vest because they don't want to give away any negotiating advantage.
I can understand the rumors and speculation about where a player might go, but I'm not sure psychoanalysis is going to get us anywhere. He wants to play close to home in Florida. No, wait, he wants to own the Cubs. Or maybe he wants to go to Boston to stick it the Yankees. San Francisco, so he can break the home run record with Bonds' old team. Who the hell knows?
Not necessarily. Other professional sports are a lot better at sharing the game's revenue. If the owners could be "smacked down" to accepting this, then the impact of a couple of teams bidding up players salaries would be mitigated.
Some of us tend to forget that MLB is a congressionally protected monopoly. Then we blame the players for the owners paying them too much? This never made much sense to me.
It's not the first time I've suggested it (and there were others before me), but I think the most logical solution is for teams to share TV and radio money the same way they do gate receipts. Every home team shares its ticket sales with the road team for that game (60-40, maybe? not sure). After all, the home team needs an opponent, right? If teams shared their broadcast money too, it would even things out quite a bit, but the big-market teams would still make more money. This seems fair to me.
You're never going to get the kind of revenue-sharing that the NFL has because it's too impractical to have a national TV contract for so many baseball games. (In that way, the NFL acts even more like a cartel than baseball does.) The salary cap works in the NFL because the TV money is huge and is always increasing. This revenue-sharing system was also put in place before the NFL became the huge financial juggernaut that it is today. Making changes to a system of sharing money is much harder once some teams are making a lot of it.
I think the parity situation in baseball is much better than people assume. There's been much more parity in the last ten years than in the NFL, for example.