Should young players make more?

[QuinlansMinion]

I have kinda always figured this is the reason GM's give out these stupid contracts that end up blowing up in their face 99 % of the time.  Over the last decade we have seen some incredibly bonehead contracts, and guys that dont even come close to earning it.  I think the main problem is that teams have absurd budgets because with the revenue coming in, and the low cost of young players, the team that overpays the most is usually going to get the player they want.  

 

Will this problem be fixed by giving younger players better salaries?  Its kind of funny to think had we not given Trout a new contract, he would still be making 1 million per year.  Its funny that Trout would get a million, while some guys are getting 10-20 million and not doing jack shit.  We also have guys like Richards and Shoemaker who are aces at the MLB level, and are going to get peanuts compared to a guy like Brett Anderson who is about to get 10 million.  

 

So I guess my point is younger players should have increased salaries.  Or there should be some kind of new system that allows young superstars to get rewarded earlier.  Maybe arbitration should be from the rookie year and onwards.  That way teams wont have ridiculous budgets because they will have to pay their young players as well.  It would lead to less idiotic contracts given out.  The best part would be that guys who deserve the money would get it, and guys who sucker teams into these contracts wouldnt get rewarded.

[laagamer]

The best thing for the league would be to decrease the disparity between team salaries.

Edited December 16, 2014 by laagamer

[Stradling]

I have kinda always figured this is the reason GM's give out these stupid contracts that end up blowing up in their face 99 % of the time. Over the last decade we have seen some incredibly bonehead contracts, and guys that dont even come close to earning it. I think the main problem is that teams have absurd budgets because with the revenue coming in, and the low cost of young players, the team that overpays the most is usually going to get the player they want.

Will this problem be fixed by giving younger players better salaries? Its kind of funny to think had we not given Trout a new contract, he would still be making 1 million per year. Its funny that Trout would get a million, while some guys are getting 10-20 million and not doing jack shit. We also have guys like Richards and Shoemaker who are aces at the MLB level, and are going to get peanuts compared to a guy like Brett Anderson who is about to get 10 million.

So I guess my point is younger players should have increased salaries. Or there should be some kind of new system that allows young superstars to get rewarded earlier. Maybe arbitration should be from the rookie year and onwards. That way teams wont have ridiculous budgets because they will have to pay their young players as well. It would lead to less idiotic contracts given out. The best part would be that guys who deserve the money would get it, and guys who sucker teams into these contracts wouldnt get rewarded.

No, I just think owners should control themselves. These are all billionaires that piss money and it doesn't really get personally affected financially if they blow it on a contract. I don't think young players should be paid more, that won't solve it, it will just increase everyone's salary, no different than arbitration.

[QuinlansMinion]

No, I just think owners should control themselves. These are all billionaires that piss money and it doesn't really get personally affected financially if they blow it on a contract. I don't think young players should be paid more, that won't solve it, it will just increase everyone's salary, no different than arbitration.

I dont think owners can control themselves.  Teams that nobody wants to go to overpay because that is the only way they can attract talent.  And owners make ridiculous amounts of money, they can throw it around if they choose to.  We will always see teams overpay tremendously if no changes are made.  Owners will never learn their lesson, every offseason its the same dumb contracts given out.  

 

If you increase young players salaries, owners will have less to spend on free agency.  Right now its completely an unfair and bogus system.  Crappy players that cant even stay on the field make 10+ million, while solid young players who provide great production make less than a million dollars.  It needs to be evened out, right now the crappy veterans get tons of money while the young stars get nothing.  

[AngelsLakersFan]

Well, increasing young player salaries decreases the value of player development and increases the value of the dollar among teams.

 

The question comes down to what kind of a league do you want?

 

An entirely free market league would lead to probably 8 franchises in the New York city area, all moved out of the smallest markets. The current system is a balance designed to allow teams to compete on lower budgets than would be required in a free market league. 

 

Simply moving arbitration up a year likely just causes a decrease in the size of bonuses given out to players in the draft and an increase in players non-tenders after year 5. 

[Angelsjunky]

Everyone should make less. Salaries are out of control.

[JAHV76]

Athletes should be compensated like salespeople a base salary based upon experience with a variable income based upon performance.

[IEAngelsfan]

Okay, pay younger players more money, but the trade-off would be non-guaranteed contracts.  It's ridiculous to have non-performing players getting paid ridiculous salaries when they simply suck.  And before anyone mentions it, I know the union would never allow this.

[ScottT]

Owners are not out of control.

 

Players shouldn't make less.

 

Baseball is a $9 billion business.  

[Oz27]

It's ridiculous minor league players are paid so little, they're the ones who should earn more. If we draft someone we don't think much of at the time (so he doesn't get much of a bonus) but he establishes himself as a top prospect, we've got a big part of the future of our organisation eating cheap takeaway every night during the season and forced to find shit jobs in the offseason just to make a very crappy living. That's ridiculous. I'm not saying they should be paid like kings, but human beings would be a decent start.

[ABC]

Everyone should make less. Salaries are out of control.

 

 

[ukyah]

Everyone should make less. Salaries are out of control.

 

 

agreed with one caveat, the fan experience should cost less. it's absolutely retarded that it costs so much for families to go to mlb and nfl games. i resent in some fashion how much athletes and owners make because i resent how much it costs to attend. and that's still with the added fact that artie keeps the fan experience cost below the averages.

[ukyah]

Okay, pay younger players more money, but the trade-off would be non-guaranteed contracts.  It's ridiculous to have non-performing players getting paid ridiculous salaries when they simply suck.  And before anyone mentions it, I know the union would never allow this.

 

i love baseball, but if i knew that mlb would get non guaranteed contracts in return, then i'd be willing to forego any salary cap and endure an entire strike season to get it.

 

that is not going to happen.

Edited December 16, 2014 by ukyah

[wopphil]

Owners are not out of control.

Players shouldn't make less.

Baseball is a $9 billion business.

Yep. Particulalry the young guys, whom owners make tons of money off without fairly compensating.

I actually think every player should get arbitration after their first season. The arbitration raises don't have to be as large as they are now, but it would help compensate guys whose owners are too cheap to pay them what they deserve.

Edited December 16, 2014 by wopphil

[NrM]

I do think it's ridiculous that players can get contracts as long as 10 years without any risk of losing the contract.

 

Doesn't even matter if a player was caught taking roids the year prior to signing the contract.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Poozy

[QuinlansMinion]

Owners are not out of control.

 

Players shouldn't make less.

 

Baseball is a $9 billion business.  

 

This isnt a political statement about why athletes make too much and how teachers and cops dont make enough.  My point is that the pay scale is really lopsided right now.

 

There are examples of it on our own team.  Pujols and Hamilton will make about 60 million next season right?  Richards and Shoemaker will make about what, 2 million combined?  

[Hollyw00d]

I disagree 100%. Players should get more money, and especially tightwad owners should spend more on free agency. These guys are making hundreds of millions in profit every year, even the small market teams. Oakland, with a horrible stadium, bad fan base, and being held by the balls by the Giants, still is easily in the black every single season.

[Blarg]

Hard to believe you idiots think rookies making $500k a year are under paid.

[QuinlansMinion]

I disagree 100%. Players should get more money, and especially tightwad owners should spend more on free agency. These guys are making hundreds of millions in profit every year, even the small market teams. Oakland, with a horrible stadium, bad fan base, and being held by the balls by the Giants, still is easily in the black every single season.

Then it sounds like you agree.  Because im saying younger players salaries should be increased.  If it means no changes in free agent spending, so be it.  But the fact that bums are getting 10-20 million and stars are getting less than a mill is sickening.

[QuinlansMinion]

Hard to believe you idiots think rookies making $500k a year are under paid.

Hard to believe your reading comprehension is that bad that you think someone actually said that.

[NrM]

What about emulating what the NBA does? Not all of it is great, but they get a few things right.

 

I like the idea of teams being able to offer their homegrown players more years and money than other teams.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Poozy

[mancini79]

It's difficult to compare MLB to other pro sports. The cost to develop players is exponentially higher for MLB clubs. NBA & NFL can draft a player and the next year they are on the pro team or cut. Baseball has to keep a stock of players to develop. About 35% will make the bigs and only 8% will go on to have a 5+ career war. So it takes a lot of resources and money to create a productive player. Due to the risks, the club needs to have controllable years.

 

Now guaranteed contracts is a separate conversation. The owners have created this monster, not the players. They are the ones offering the $$. MLB is making a ton of dough and they are putting back into the product. Whether it be brand new stadiums or huge free agent contracts they are investing back into the product. Fans complain about how freely owners spend the money, but they are being fed by the fans. I personally have no problem with the spending since I haven't seen a franchise crippled by it. McCourt tried his best to bankrupt a team then go on to be sold for $2Bil and now are one of the best in the NL. In 2012 people kept saying the Red Sox over spent and were doomed with bloated contracts. They go on to trade those "untradeable contracts" then win the World Series the next year.

 

I've realized no contract can't be traded and no amount of over spending can cripple a franchise.

[Guest]

Another issue with the extreme disparity between league minimum through arb 3 and free agency is it encourages teams to trade away all their talent and perpetually rebuild a'la the Astros and, to a lesser extent, the A's.

They also need to make it so there isn't so much incentive for teams to tank by changing the draft rules: as it is there's a huge difference in allowance money between the worst team in MLB and the second worst team in MLB. Having pick order occur in reverse order of standings is one thing, but there shouldn't be such severe difference in the bonus pool money, either.

 

What about emulating what the NBA does? Not all of it is great, but they get a few things right.

 

I like the idea of teams being able to offer their homegrown players more years and money than other teams.

I think the MLB scheme is pretty good. A soft salary cap coupled with a real luxury tax with teeth. Something analogous to NBA's amnesty clause would be good as well so that teams that make huge mistake on ridiculous Vernon Wells-like contract can buy them out but at least not have that money count against them for the purpoose of the cap.

[ABC]

Hard to believe you idiots think rookies making $500k a year are under paid.

 

You make a valid point as do others, but why call members "idiots"?

[AngelsSurfer]

The one reason I'm okay with the larger salaries (notwithstanding the ridiculous 10 year 200 mil contracts for under-performing players) is that the owners make more .They're making their money off the backs of these players, and the career is very short-lived and fraught with injuries. Let them rake it in while they can.

 

I'd like to see what someone mentioned above: more incentives and contract support for homegrown players. If you come up in the Angels' farm system and put in a decade or more helping various teams in the franchise, there should be some bonus for that, much in the same way other types of companies will reward long-term employees.

 

I'd also like to see performance bonuses for players who are truly achieving. Last season it could probably be argued that Matt Shoemaker or Garrett Richards were more valuable pitchers than CJ Wilson, and that Kole Calhoun was more valuable both on the field and batting than Josh Hamilton. But Hamilton and Wilson were making the big bucks and the kids were not. It would have been nice if they'd been able to adjust those players' salaries upward or offer a bonus for their great work.