MLB contract scale

I'm sort of on the fence about this, but I like that they don't just throw money at the young players. It truly has to be earned. No other sport does it this way.

But, two big time players are getting shafted by the scale this year so far. I think they are all overpaid hugely, but these two earned more than this based on comparison to other players contracts who get much more but have done much less:

Cole Hamels - $500,000
Prince Fielder - $650,000

Last year Ryan Howard only got 900,000 as returning MVP.

I'm not promoting this or bashing it, like I said, I havn't been able to form a solid opinion without going back and forth. Just tossing it out for discussion.

Originally posted by PocketKings
I'm sort of on the fence about this, but I like that they don't just throw money at the young players. It truly has to be earned. No other sport does it this way.

But, two big time players are getting shafted by the scale this year so far. I think they are all overpaid hugely, but these two earned more than this based on comparison to other players co le to form a solid opinion without going back and forth. Just tossing it out for discussion.

What you need to understand is that the union traded this scale off with the owners to get free agency modified. While it is true that some players end up grossly underpaid based on production during their first 4 years of service, if those players are indeed the studs that their numbers would indicate them to be, they will make it up hugely when free agency or the next contract rolls around. If they were a flash in the pan and they can't sustain the production, or owners, they get hurt, then they suffer the consequences and the owners aren't forced to eat their "overpaid" contracts. It is a trade off the players union jumped at and it was a measure to help defend the basic stupidity of the owners from bidding up the salaries worse than they already are. And, when a team tries to do right by these players, and pay them "over the scale" in an effort to endear them to the franchise when their contract does come up for free agency, the players almost unilaterally become forgetful whores and the agents shop them out to the highest bidder. Since that is going to happen the majority of the time, owners have two choices. They can lock them up with very long term contracts based on how they believe they will produce (a big gamble many times), or they can assume they will have to pay when it is time and just follow the scale and take their chances.


Personally, I think the best and most fair way to do things is to eliminate long term contracts altogether. That way, each year the player would be fairly compensated for the upcoming year based on the last year's production. The owner's wouldn't be breaking the bank eating contracts form players who went to pot, or were permanently injured. They would willing pay them for the one year. The players union would not agree to this because their members want long term protection from injury and from having to move their families or be away from their families as much. Also, if you had to play to make your money for the next season, then you would see nearly as many of the prima donnas sitting out because of a headache or a hangnail. Again, the players union would never go for this, so the point becomes moot.

Originally posted by PocketKings
I'm sort of on the fence about this, but I like that they don't just throw money at the young players. It truly has to be earned. No other sport does it this way.

But, two big time players are getting shafted by the scale this year so far. I think they are all overpaid hugely, but these two earned more than this based on comparison to other players co ...[text shortened]... le to form a solid opinion without going back and forth. Just tossing it out for discussion.

All players should be paid based on the combined average of their previous 2 seasons. It should be set scale whereby the top 10% of the players with the best stats get X amount of dollars.

The next 10% get a little bit less.

The next 10% get a little bit less than that. etc etc.

Rookies should be paid a base salary for 2 years. After that they get paid according to the above.

A player would have the option to sign for less if they wanted.

I am not sure how you come up with a fair number for a pre-arbitration eligible/ pre frequency eligible player. One should consider that in some sense it is "fair" to have lower salaries for a certain period of time so major league teams can recoup some of the costs of scouting, minor league systems etc. Nevertheless, even arbitration does nor have a written decision so no knows why an arbitartor think a certain number is fair for a player who does not have the right to set it in the market. I have no problems with multiyear contracts. It gives an elemement of certainty to the clubs and the players plus it gives continuity to the teams which benefits the fans and the sport in general. I always hear that it is unjust for a player to get paid a lot when they have not produced as mush since they signed a contract, but I am not sure why a fan should care.

Originally posted by jofaz
I always hear that it is unjust for a player to get paid a lot when they have not produced as mush since they signed a contract, but I am not sure why a fan should care.

not all teams can afford to pay top dollar for all positions. If you pay more for player X, then you might not be able to afford to pay player Y.

Originally posted by uzless
not all teams can afford to pay top dollar for all positions. If you pay more for player X, then you might not be able to afford to pay player Y.

First of all if you won't pay the going rate then I truly believe it is definitely questionable whether you deserve a major league team.
Secondly, if there were only one year contracts I think each year the teams willing to spend more could outbid those less willing to pay less. In this sense. long term contract actually help competeitive balance.

Originally posted by jofaz
First of all if you won't pay the going rate then I truly believe it is definitely questionable whether you deserve a major league team.
Secondly, if there were only one year contracts I think each year the teams willing to spend more could outbid those less willing to pay less. In this sense. long term contract actually help competeitive balance.

Wake up and smell the coffee. Owners own teams and they ransom cities with them. Don't kid your self into believing baseball isn't a lucrative endeavor, it is. But, there are certain uneven economical advantages enjoyed by some that others do not share in. The Yankees, Braves, Mets, Dodgers and Red Sox have huge revenue streams that provide them that small market teams do not enjoy. For that reason, you will never see true equality in the sport. There will always be a separation of financial power. Because of that, you will see a steady migration of talent where the money is. Because a team is unwilling or unable to meet the salary demands of a particular player or players is not germain to the ownership of a team. Like it or not, it is a business. Owners want to make money...period. They also like the baubles like winning divisions, league and world series. The titles are not only for bragging rights, but they enhance the profitability of the franchise. They can charge more for advertising, they can raise ticket prices, they will have more people and companies wanting to buy tickets.

Now, the money is not limitless. Major league baseball existed just fine on annual salaries only until 1974, when free agency came into play. You also saw more hard nosed players and a much tighter game. Free agency and the long term contracts have created soft players who are "self" motivated instead of "team" motivated. The owners are too stupid to take the game back so they play into the players association's hands. Both sides know they need each other to exist, but they still tussle over the control. This control is established in the contract negotiations that are ratified between the owners and the players union. Both sides agree on these rules and both sides use the agreement to their advanatge whenever possible. Players salaries for players with less than 4 years experience who are not arbitration eligible is one of the owner's tools. Whether perceived as fair of not, the choice is the owner's.

Originally posted by jofaz
First of all if you won't pay the going rate then I truly believe it is definitely questionable whether you deserve a major league team.

Then there would only be about 6 teams in baseball. How many teams can afford A-Rod's contract?

(1) Other sports just pull bad franchise or even good one. Baseball is much nicer to its cities than other sports. The NBA feels like Seattle is not a major league town and they will lose the Sonics just as Charlette lost the Hornets. The NFL let two of its premier franchises leave town the Colts leave Baltimore and the Browns leave Cleveland. Plus the Cardinals left St. Louis. They abandon Los Angeles. The NHL made mass exodus from Canada (the county that cares about its game).
It is a joke that big market baseball teams tax their fans and send the money to teams like the Marlins who have a non-competitive triple A roster. Maybe small cow pasture cities that don't support a baseball team should lose it, like the do in other sports and the whinning would be over.
(2) For all people who whine about competitive imbalances there is better competitive balance in baeball than in any other North American major sport. No team last season had a winning percentage above .600 or below .400. The Rockies and Cardinals went to the world series in consecutive years. A different team wins the World Series every year. This idea that Twins deserve Santana or the Mariners deserve A-Rod for their whole career but are unwilling to pay is a complete joke.

Originally posted by jofaz
(1) Other sports just pull bad franchise or even good one. Baseball is much nicer to its cities than other sports. The NBA feels like Seattle is not a major league town and they will lose the Sonics just as Charlette lost the Hornets. The NFL let two of its premier franchises leave town the Colts leave Baltimore and the Browns leave Cleveland. Plus the Car ...[text shortened]... the Mariners deserve A-Rod for their whole career but are unwilling to pay is a complete joke.

Your memory is short. There have been several relocations in MLB. The Seattle Pilots, the Washington Senators, The Kansas City Athletics, The Brooklyn Dodgers, the New York Giants, St. Louis Browns, Montreal Expos, the Milwaukee Braves and there are a couple of others that escape me right off the top of my head. Do any of those cities look like "cow towns"?

Washington got a second team and it will probably fail as well. Seattle is on its second team. Kansas City is on its second team. Brooklyn never got another team. New York did get the Mets to replace the Giants. Milwaukee got a second team. St. Louis got a second team.
Most of those cities had to pony up to get them a second team as well.

Just FYI.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Your memory is short. There have been several relocations in MLB. The Seattle Pilots, the Washington Senators, The Kansas City Athletics, The Brooklyn Dodgers, the New York Giants, St. Louis Browns, Montreal Expos, the Milwaukee Braves and there are a couple of others that escape me right off the top of my head. Do any of those cities look like "cow tow ...[text shortened]... ond team.
Most of those cities had to pony up to get them a second team as well.

Just FYI.

Before the Expos left Montreal, the last franchise to relocate in MLB was the Pilots and that was over 35 years ago. So it seems pretty clear to me that franchise location has nothing to do with arbitration and free agency which came afterwards.
The most proftable baseball teams like the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox and Braves made money by taking risks. They spent a lot of money on salary and TV stations and fans resposnded by supporting their team. You go to New York or Boston, you can listen to basebal talk radio 365 days a year. If you live in a city that will not support a team, don't cry about cities that support theirs.

Originally posted by jofaz
Before the Expos left Montreal, the last franchise to relocate in MLB was the Pilots and that was over 35 years ago. So it seems pretty clear to me that franchise location has nothing to do with arbitration and free agency which came afterwards.
The most proftable baseball teams like the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox and Braves made money by taking risks. They sp ...[text shortened]... If you live in a city that will not support a team, don't cry about cities that support theirs.

You have it a bit backwards. They take risks because they can afford to do it.

It comes down to the owners really. How rich they really are and how much money they give to sign players to contract. All teams work with the budget they are given. Its not a salary cap. We had this debate a few months ago during the world series, and our reseach concluded that the top salaried teams don't always win. In fact, middle of the pack and lower end salary teams often make it to the world series.So the rich team risks don't always pay off.

And by the way, I'm in Philadelphia, and I hear phillies talk on the radio every single day.

I do believe that in any business you first spend money and then you get returns.
The Phillies are one of many cities that fields a great team and a beautiful stadium. They have many MVP quality players, they won the division last year and have a great chance to be in the playoffs again this year.

Originally posted by jofaz
I do believe that in any business you first spend money and then you get returns.
The Phillies are one of many cities that fields a great team and a beautiful stadium. They have many MVP quality players, they won the division last year and have a great chance to be in the playoffs again this year.

Hey, I have this really neat bridge I'd like to sell you. I also have a beautiful piece of swampland that has your name on it. Spend and it can be yours. Bound to make a profit, because you are spending first. I'm sure you will want to advertise it too...a lot!! Buy more ads, sell it for more...right?

Originally posted by uzless
Then there would only be about 6 teams in baseball. How many teams can afford A-Rod's contract?

I wish our Rockies could...can you imagine how many homers he would hit here in Denver???

Dave