Welcome to our community
Be apart of something great, join today!
What if there was a standard pay scale???
- Thread starter rum151man
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
maxe0213
New member
You can't compare baseball and basketball. 162 games vs 82 games (Maybe 81 can't remember).
Apples and Oranges Ryan, Apples and Oranges.
If you want to count games why not count minutes of actual activity. I'd say an NBA season compares very favorably.
maxe0213
New member
You are trying to compare NBA pay to MLB pay. Why not compare sports to the same sports instead of reaching for these LeBron to Ellsbury/Choo comparisons. It's a widely known fact that the MLB has higher salaries. That isn't just going to change.
RStadlerASU22
Active member
- Jan 2, 2013
- 8,883
- 16
You are trying to compare NBA pay to MLB pay. Why not compare sports to the same sports instead of reaching for these LeBron to Ellsbury/Choo comparisons. It's a widely known fact that the MLB has higher salaries. That isn't just going to change.
You miss my point. It's no reach , the point was brought up that the players generate the revenues this should be paid as such. My point is if there is one guy that sets the bar for this (and as I stated regardless of sport, and u miss me saying that I am aware the game difference, though the season length is similar) it's LeBron. He generates sales , he can have an influence on TV deals , he sells tickets. Ellsbury and Choo do not and make more. I DON'T CARE THAT BASEBALL SALARIES ARE JUST HIGHER. The point of this thread isn't to just retype out what reality is, it was to explore other options. It won't happen, won't change, it's just playing around with what we prefer to be the system from an outsiders perspective. I would prefer LeBron to make $100m (a number closer to his worth) than Zitos, Ellsbury, etc making $20+m . If it takes a baseball comparison , then Miggy, Goldy, Trout etc = players who made well below their value and should have made $25m+ last year , Zito , BJ Upton, ARod all overpaid last year and should of received a small portion of what they did. Again it's all hypothetical, I am not opposed to high salaries, based on production.
Ryan
maxe0213
New member
I would argue that ellsbury 100% would sell more for the Yankees than the other options (Vernon wells, Brett Gardner, Ect).
I agree salaries are high and that these people don't deserve to make that much but it's about inflation. The owners and teams are making millions and millions more than they used to which allow them to spend more this raising salaries of above average players.
IMO I have no problem paying players 20+ million a year even if it's an overpayment because that's where the sport is today. Most of the players that are making that much do increase sales just because of name recognition even if they perform below average.
I agree salaries are high and that these people don't deserve to make that much but it's about inflation. The owners and teams are making millions and millions more than they used to which allow them to spend more this raising salaries of above average players.
IMO I have no problem paying players 20+ million a year even if it's an overpayment because that's where the sport is today. Most of the players that are making that much do increase sales just because of name recognition even if they perform below average.
RStadlerASU22
Active member
- Jan 2, 2013
- 8,883
- 16
I know , that's why it's a hypothetical discussion. I understand , but do not agree with, the economics of it.
The Yankees would sell the same (or extremely similar) amount of tickets with player x on the team vs Ellsbury. On the next TV negotiation, Jacoby Ellsbury is not going to move the needle when bargaining. A slight tick in jersey sales etc for a new player sure, but for a caliber of Ellsbury , Choo etc it doesn't do that much to justify $153m IMO. The players who fit this bill are the ones with Marketing Deals, they matter in ticket sales and TV deals. Anyway it's all just fun discussing what we think is right, it will continue as if for years into the future as long as TV stations can get the advertising dollars to pay for the games. If there is a shift down the road with people moving away from TVs then a shift may happen. Until then...
Ryan
Musial Collector
Active member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 5,671
- 2
Jordan twice made over 25 million.
I remember that Jordan was a stand up guy. He signed a long term contract and played it all the way thru while half asses in the league were holding out 2-3 years into a contract for a new deal. Jordan did the honorable thing and played out the contract he signed. Go look at basketball-reference.com, search jordan, look at the bottom of the page. 63 of his 90 million earned was in two of his thirteen seasons. Jordan killed it off the court in endorsements, smart businessman, leave more team money to surround you with a supporting cast that can win 6 championships in 6 years of playing. Genius.
scotty216brs
Active member
Ryan - I understand where you are coming from but paying players based on their performance would not work out in the MLB. There would be no reason for players to be under team control for their first several years, as teams wouldn't be able to afford them if they had some amazing seasons. Think of a team like the Rays who develop young talent and trade them with only a year or two until FA, you think they would be able to afford all of their players?
As for the players, I think it's a terrible idea using a statistic based pay scale because it discourages team play. Player A: "Well I should lay down a sacrifice bunt to advance the runner, but I'll try for a home run instead so I can make more money. If I strike out oh well, money-wise it would be the same as a sac bunt anyway." I'm going to assume home runs would be more 'valuable' [literally] than a single so that is unfair to non-power hitters. It would also strongly encourage PED use among the league. NO thanks on that! There is very little fairness in paying a player for every small aspect of production, it would never work out.
Lastly about paying players who are marketable? That's a bit silly if you ask me. How are you supposed to determine which players are and are not marketable? Do you pass out a survey before every home game to ask fans in the stadium which players they came to the game to watch? How do you determine how much $ 'marketable' players get? Paying players based on that opens up a whole new can of worms IMO.
I respect your opinions Ryan, but I want NO part of that pay system in baseball. Ever. On the surface it makes a ton of sense to pay players based on performance, but dig a little deeper and it creates many more problems than it solves.
As for the players, I think it's a terrible idea using a statistic based pay scale because it discourages team play. Player A: "Well I should lay down a sacrifice bunt to advance the runner, but I'll try for a home run instead so I can make more money. If I strike out oh well, money-wise it would be the same as a sac bunt anyway." I'm going to assume home runs would be more 'valuable' [literally] than a single so that is unfair to non-power hitters. It would also strongly encourage PED use among the league. NO thanks on that! There is very little fairness in paying a player for every small aspect of production, it would never work out.
Lastly about paying players who are marketable? That's a bit silly if you ask me. How are you supposed to determine which players are and are not marketable? Do you pass out a survey before every home game to ask fans in the stadium which players they came to the game to watch? How do you determine how much $ 'marketable' players get? Paying players based on that opens up a whole new can of worms IMO.
I respect your opinions Ryan, but I want NO part of that pay system in baseball. Ever. On the surface it makes a ton of sense to pay players based on performance, but dig a little deeper and it creates many more problems than it solves.
- Thread starter
- #50
maxe0213
New member
Correct. It would be horrible for teams.
Couldn't agree more with you man!
Thats just flat out false man. Ellsbury would 100% sell more tickets, jerseys, tv, etc. than a player like Vernon wells. He isn't being paid to do that though. If he is able to put up 290 15 75 and 60 steals then this deal is succesful.
Ellsbury does sell more than "player x" you can't debate that. Especially when player x is vernon wells or gardner.
RStadlerASU22
Active member
- Jan 2, 2013
- 8,883
- 16
My theory/structure is hypothetical based on if the current structure never existed. So when you base "that would never work", understand that you wouldn't know how it is currently set up as it wouldn't be in place.
Players are currently paid on performance, but either past or what if performance. If you think that they don't already look at the theories you suggested about bunts vs hrs etc , then we disagree. IMO the what if the player does this instead etc , that already happens with those who care more about themselves than the team. If players are running through signs or not butting when asked then they would get pay deducted or some sort to prevent that. What happens now days when they do that ? Maybe kangaroo court, this is in the same lines that would affect the contract.
I also agree that the RC salary and structure would have to be worked so they are under team control the first few years at some sort of "newbie" scale.
Max you bring up Ellsbury sells more than Wells or whoever. Sells more what ? Some jerseys ? Yup I pointed that out in my post, but not $20m justifiable. Tickets , I said minimal, TV I said none. He is being paid $22m based on what really? Just because the market said its ok, not really $22m worth of production. I just would have preferred based on what they deliver each year, not because a team can cut the check.
Also in regards to the Rays , yeah they would have had to pay some more based on if the players were having exceptional seasons. IMO if you own a team , you can afford the salaries. If your market dictates you can't pay them when they preform well, that market shouldn't have a team. Free agency would be different as the player would get paid the same regardless of place and the competitive balance would be better and a bunch of players would stay longer with their home/beginning team. Anyway it's all in fun, it's a thought of mine, feel free to disagree
Ryan
Players are currently paid on performance, but either past or what if performance. If you think that they don't already look at the theories you suggested about bunts vs hrs etc , then we disagree. IMO the what if the player does this instead etc , that already happens with those who care more about themselves than the team. If players are running through signs or not butting when asked then they would get pay deducted or some sort to prevent that. What happens now days when they do that ? Maybe kangaroo court, this is in the same lines that would affect the contract.
I also agree that the RC salary and structure would have to be worked so they are under team control the first few years at some sort of "newbie" scale.
Max you bring up Ellsbury sells more than Wells or whoever. Sells more what ? Some jerseys ? Yup I pointed that out in my post, but not $20m justifiable. Tickets , I said minimal, TV I said none. He is being paid $22m based on what really? Just because the market said its ok, not really $22m worth of production. I just would have preferred based on what they deliver each year, not because a team can cut the check.
Also in regards to the Rays , yeah they would have had to pay some more based on if the players were having exceptional seasons. IMO if you own a team , you can afford the salaries. If your market dictates you can't pay them when they preform well, that market shouldn't have a team. Free agency would be different as the player would get paid the same regardless of place and the competitive balance would be better and a bunch of players would stay longer with their home/beginning team. Anyway it's all in fun, it's a thought of mine, feel free to disagree
Ryan
RStadlerASU22
Active member
- Jan 2, 2013
- 8,883
- 16
I believe I said he would sell some jerseys and minimal bump in tickets. Far from justifying $22m a year. We completely disagree on those stats making it a success and worth it. Anyway we just disagree
Ryan
maxe0213
New member
Yep
Its all debating for fun. I totally see what your saying though. Its just where baseball is going (hate it or love it) because of all the money coming into the sport average players salaries are just rising. Also, the really poor offensive market this winter is putting all these contracts under the magnifying glass. Anytime Choo is one of the top 3-4 offensive players available you know the market is weak lol.
