Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

Should young players make more?


Recommended Posts

notti - so the cast benefits for the higher ratings, right? So, why shouldn't baseball players benefit from the revenue being generated in baseball?

They are. Just what is it about a base salary if half a million are you not getting?

So if we take this big bang analogy further, guys in community theatre get what they get until they have a guest shot on the show. They get more if they are a recurring character and then compensated greatly if they have to be Sheldon's girlfriend about season four.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a fair system I would like to see replace the arbitration system they currently have:

 

Call ups & first year players make $500k

 

At the end of each year after, the team can either offer the player a contract or grant them free agency. The player, in turn can either accept the contract or ask to 'collect offers' from other teams.

 

If the player elects to 'collect offers' then all 30 clubs will issue an offer on a single year salary for the player. The player will then get to choose the team of his choice, limited by his service time.

 

Year 2: Offer 30 & 29, plus the current team's new offer

Year 3: Offers 30 - 25, plus the current team's offer

Year 4: Offers 30 - 20, plus the current team's offer

Year 5: Offers 30 - 15, plus the current team's offer

Year 6: Offers 30 - 10, plus the current team's offer

 

If the current team's offer is not the highest available, they may elect to match the offer, or allow the player go to the highest overall (#1) bidder.

 

Example; An Angel player is heading into year 3, and elects to collect offers.

 

The Angels offer $4.5 million

 

Team 30: $0

29: $500k

28: $600k

27: $1m

26: $4.5m (The Angels offer)

25: $4.8m

Highest Bid: $15 million

 

The player can choose between the 6 offers, or he can ask the Angels to match offer 25. If the Angels decline, then the player can choose to go to the highest bidder.

 

This system forces all teams to place a competitive offer on a player, while controlling the salary for the original team, and giving them final say in what they pay for the player. This will see a lot of salaries rise in the third year, but overall it's designed to mimic the salary structure of arbitration, while basing it on the real world economics of the game rather than the whims of an arbitration panel. Plus I think it'd make for a lot of excitement during the first month of the off season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

frustrated with guys like QuinlansMinion that is basically making Boras's argument for him to increase his commission.

The leagues pay scale is completely out of whack where athletes are getting 10 year contracts valued at the GNP of 3rd world countries and the audacity that the bench guys underpaid when they make $6 million a year.

Sensible salary caps along with a reasonable tiered salary structure for club control players while tossing arbitration to the street is what makes sense. There is no reason a marginal player gets to base arbitration to league average salaries when the top ten percent players are included in the median.

The minors costs a lot of money and every players arm, foot, knee is insured to get fixed even if they never play. The stadiums barely cover costs and most draftees wash out the first two years. This is all funded by the parent club so the guy that does it can start at high corporate executive pay that is reserved for business professionals that paid more dues than a three or five year stint in the minors.

It is complete bullshit the pay scale that the owners backed themselves into a corner with but when so many teams are hitting the top payroll status just because they had to drop $30 million a year on a Trout or Stanton, something needs to be fixed.

Because your $5 cheap seat is now $45 and isn't going down anytime soon. This isn't the NFL where there is only one game a week for an 8 game home season. If you are an average wage earner you can afford to go to %10 of the games at best, to watch guys play that are making dot Com value money.

It's silly and sillier to say any of them are under paid.

 

My posts have nothing to do with Boras.  Again, I question your reading comprehension abilities.  My point is keep free agency the way it is.  If owners want to hand out ridiculous contracts to guys who are not even close to being worth that money, by all means go for it.  But since the owners have so much money to spend on crap players like Alex Rios and Brett Anderson, maybe the young players who do most if not all of the heavy lifting for these clubs should be getting paid more as well.  More money going to younger players equals less money thrown around in free agency, which means guys who are producing get paid and guys who are crap get contracts much closer to what they deserve.  

 

And by the way, I went to a lot of games last year where I paid 5 dollars each for tickets.  And because Angel Stadium never sells out for regular season, I always found seats on the field level.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your posts have everything to do with Boras and the desire to create an never ending revenue stream of new inflated contracts based entirely not on need but just greed.

 

These guys, no matter how lowly you think are paid, are paid ridiculously well. Paying the lower tiered talent more only inflates the upper tier to create even more assumed disparity but just how well can these guys eat on a $4 million a year budget or the asinine $30 million a year lifestyle?

 

The pay scales for the veterans is wrong. The Brett Andersons should be getting a minimum with incentives if his arm doesn't fall off in June, but that doesn't mean the guys at the bottom are being under paid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This. I once had a conversation with a MiLB player for a fairly successful short-season (June - Septemeber) franchise. He made $1250 a month, he was being housed in a college dorm (and had to pay for that) and he had to do a lot of promotional work, the way the MLB players did. His likeness was on items sold and used in promotions at the stadium and he didn't get compensated for it. He didn't have any time to really even get out and see the city he was living in. I asked him what he did when the season was over and he shrugged and said "work at Costco." And at $20/hour, working at Costco for even 20 hours a week earned him MORE than he was making in the minor leagues.

 

I guess for a lot of these guys, they're college-age so living in a dorm and being paid ANYTHING to play baseball is awesome for them. Still, the minor league parks make money too, and it's a shame that more of it doesn't seem to filter back to the players.

 

i think it's simply a matter of putting in your time. there's a base salary that you start at in any occupation, be it teaching, firefighter, lawyer, mechanic, or baseball player. the longer you stay with it and the more you improve, the more you get paid. i don't think merely by being a baseball player you should automatically get paid more as you begin your career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone should make less. Salaries are out of control.

If the players make less the owners would just pocket the difference. If the TV channels started playing hardball because of the lower cost to the owners then the networks would just pocket the difference. If the cable companies decided to not pay the broadcast fees then the cable companies would be the ones keeping the money and there's no way they'd ever lower your bill to make up for it. The only way to lower the salaries would be to cripple the cable companies but I can't see that happening. 

Edited by Count Orlok
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your posts have everything to do with Boras and the desire to create an never ending revenue stream of new inflated contracts based entirely not on need but just greed.

 

These guys, no matter how lowly you think are paid, are paid ridiculously well. Paying the lower tiered talent more only inflates the upper tier to create even more assumed disparity but just how well can these guys eat on a $4 million a year budget or the asinine $30 million a year lifestyle?

 

The pay scales for the veterans is wrong. The Brett Andersons should be getting a minimum with incentives if his arm doesn't fall off in June, but that doesn't mean the guys at the bottom are being under paid.

You said it yourself, Brett Anderson doesnt deserve 10 million, while Richards and Shoemaker get a fraction of that.  Increase the salaries of young players so that owners have less to spend in free agency, and then fair contracts will be given out all around.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think it's simply a matter of putting in your time. there's a base salary that you start at in any occupation, be it teaching, firefighter, lawyer, mechanic, or baseball player. the longer you stay with it and the more you improve, the more you get paid. i don't think merely by being a baseball player you should automatically get paid more as you begin your career.

You always start out low at entry level, but when the base salary is unjustifiably low and the expectations are so high, it's ridiculous. There's no reason a MiLB player who basically completely gives up his life from April to September and is in a very physically demanding field should be making less than the guy at Costco. They should at least be giving these guys a living wage. Making sure they have an annual salary of say $25,000 or $30,000 instead of $7500 would be a step up and would really not be unreasonable IMHO.

 

A comparison for me would be Big Bang Theory salaries vs. what a day player makes on a TV show or film. If you're working on a TV show and you only have a few lines, right now you get between $100 and $500 per day based on what type of production it is. You're not making anywhere what the principals who have put in their time are earning, but you're getting something fair. 

Edited by AngelsSurfer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are. Just what is it about a base salary if half a million are you not getting?

So if we take this big bang analogy further, guys in community theatre get what they get until they have a guest shot on the show. They get more if they are a recurring character and then compensated greatly if they have to be Sheldon's girlfriend about season four.

 

I was responding to the folks who thought baseball players make too much money.  I thought that was clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said it yourself, Brett Anderson doesnt deserve 10 million, while Richards and Shoemaker get a fraction of that.  Increase the salaries of young players so that owners have less to spend in free agency, and then fair contracts will be given out all around.  

 

Richards and Shoemaker are making over a half million to throw a baseball 60 feet 6 inches and try not to blow out a knee covering 1st base. They are not paupers. Anderson is just a clear example of how grossly over paid the rest of the league is. Paying less for Anderson still doesn't equate to Richards and Shoemaker being under paid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if they keep monitoring diligently, it shouldn't be an issue.

True. But don't you think that by directly correlating a players earnings to their achievements within a giving season might increase the temptation to find a way to beat the system? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think it's simply a matter of putting in your time. there's a base salary that you start at in any occupation, be it teaching, firefighter, lawyer, mechanic, or baseball player. the longer you stay with it and the more you improve, the more you get paid. i don't think merely by being a baseball player you should automatically get paid more as you begin your career.

Its like the opposite in porn though. Ive heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to judge a players contract solely based on performance is great in theory, but not practical. Baseball is a team sport and this only encourages players to perform selfishly. Players will file grievance if a coach benches the player or they get injured. How will the stats be weighted against one another and how would you determine subjective play like defense. Certain positions may garner more demand if the field is weak. Then there are teams that would be willing to pay more $$ if they are specifically needing a certain position.

 

How frequent will the players be evaluated for pay (every year, two year, 5 years?). Without contracts, how can a team manage their budget. If a bunch of players over-perform, then they may not be able to cover payroll. The Rays are a small market team and a couple years ago a lot of their young talent were performing (Longo, Price, Crawford, Shields). By drastically changing their payroll without their control, they wouldn't be able to pay for their players. The players would need to be traded or cut and the rich teams will pick them up....for cheap. Thus creating a larger gap between small market and big market teams.

 

How would the intangibles be valued? Hunter Pence is getting paid $18.5m/yr, but he's known around the league as a great leader. His stats alone do not reflect that size of contract but he brings more than just those numbers. Or someone like Jeter that was performing like a $5m/yr shortstop. The Jeter name alone brought people to the ball park. He brought more overall value to the organization than any other SS batting .250.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude harsh. Baseball is a $6 billion business and you want to take signing bonuses away from players in exchange for paying them minimum wage!?!?!

 

McDonald's is a $30 billion corporation and employees don't get signing bonuses. I'm guessing they start at/near minimum wage, too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McDonald's is a $30 billion corporation and employees don't get signing bonuses. I'm guessing they start at/near minimum wage, too

 

Supply & demand. Anyone could work at McDonalds, while few can play professional baseball. The salaries are only so low in the minors because of MLB's anti-trust exemption which doesn't allow players to auction their skills off to the highest bidder, and forces them to negotiate with just one entity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but I just don't get this discussion at all.  The minimum salary for a MLB player is $507,500 for 2015.  In their arbitration years, they will get more.  Maybe not the millions that they will get in FA, but it is still a lot of money.  I can't feel bad for these guys.  They are doing something they love and getting well compensated.

 

I do agree that MiLB players earn very little and they should address this issue.  But as Lou mentioned earlier, they can always do something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You always start out low at entry level, but when the base salary is unjustifiably low and the expectations are so high, it's ridiculous. There's no reason a MiLB player who basically completely gives up his life from April to September and is in a very physically demanding field should be making less than the guy at Costco. They should at least be giving these guys a living wage. Making sure they have an annual salary of say $25,000 or $30,000 instead of $7500 would be a step up and would really not be unreasonable IMHO.

 

i think that would be fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True. But don't you think that by directly correlating a players earnings to their achievements within a giving season might increase the temptation to find a way to beat the system? 

 

1. there will always be players who try to find ways to beat the system. being diligent is the best way to combat that.

2. in my proposal i also included several team-based incentives, because ultimately, it's a team game and how your team performs should matter to everyone. the better your team performs, the more financial incentive there is for each member of the team.

 

it's not a perfect proposal, but i think there's merit in it and worth starting a discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to judge a players contract solely based on performance is great in theory, but not practical. Baseball is a team sport and this only encourages players to perform selfishly. Players will file grievance if a coach benches the player or they get injured. How will the stats be weighted against one another and how would you determine subjective play like defense. Certain positions may garner more demand if the field is weak. Then there are teams that would be willing to pay more $$ if they are specifically needing a certain position.

 

How frequent will the players be evaluated for pay (every year, two year, 5 years?). Without contracts, how can a team manage their budget. If a bunch of players over-perform, then they may not be able to cover payroll. The Rays are a small market team and a couple years ago a lot of their young talent were performing (Longo, Price, Crawford, Shields). By drastically changing their payroll without their control, they wouldn't be able to pay for their players. The players would need to be traded or cut and the rich teams will pick them up....for cheap. Thus creating a larger gap between small market and big market teams.

 

How would the intangibles be valued? Hunter Pence is getting paid $18.5m/yr, but he's known around the league as a great leader. His stats alone do not reflect that size of contract but he brings more than just those numbers. Or someone like Jeter that was performing like a $5m/yr shortstop. The Jeter name alone brought people to the ball park. He brought more overall value to the organization than any other SS batting .250.

 

in my proposal, i included several team-based incentives to try and avoid guys going out there and just focusing on themselves. i realize it's not a perfect solution i've offered, but it's a starting point. there clearly would have to be a great deal of discussions to address some of the things you've brought up.

 

i'm not really sure how your'd compensate for intangibles like leadership. maybe each team should have a captain and two associate captains like hockey, and there would be financial compensation for being appointed to those positions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said it yourself, Brett Anderson doesnt deserve 10 million, while Richards and Shoemaker get a fraction of that.  Increase the salaries of young players so that owners have less to spend in free agency, and then fair contracts will be given out all around.  

 

without making contracts incentive based, how would you do this? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in my proposal, i included several team-based incentives to try and avoid guys going out there and just focusing on themselves. i realize it's not a perfect solution i've offered, but it's a starting point. there clearly would have to be a great deal of discussions to address some of the things you've brought up.

 

i'm not really sure how your'd compensate for intangibles like leadership. maybe each team should have a captain and two associate captains like hockey, and there would be financial compensation for being appointed to those positions. 

 

On the previous page I laid out a plan for basing young player salaries on the market. It's a good compromise between completely incentive based salaries and our current system that bases most of a players salary on the players experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tank's solution:

 

Create a base salary system, where your base salary is determined by years of play.

* first year base - 500k

* second year base - 750k

* third year base - 1m

etc.

 

then load it up with incentives.

bonus money for each RBI, HR, double, run scored, sac fly, walk

bonus money for fielding pct, number of errors, DPs turned

bonus money for pitchers for each win, save, K, shutout, complete game

bonus money for getting MVP, cy young, ROY, sliver slugger, gold glove

bonus money for getting votes for each of those awards

bonus money for making the all star team

 

more bonus money for team wins, making the playoffs, advancing in the playoffs, getting into the world series, team era, team winning percentage, etc.

having team incentives can help make sure that players are focused as much on how the team does as how they do personally.

 

i have no set amount on what the bonus money should be, but that can be negotiated with the players union so that your better players are earning more. it's all performance based and should eliminate silly contracts like albert and hamilton have.

 

I like this idea but what if a guy gets injured? What if the coaches don't play him in certain situations to save $$$?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...