Sports salaries

[cjclong]

Many baseball salaries now have incentives. If a player puts up certain numbers he gets a higher salary. I've been thinking recently about players who sign a contract and then play little or none of the season. I don't mean to make ARod a particular target, but even if he is not suspended he may not play this year, he has already missed half the season, and is being paid $25 million. I realize that if a player is injured playing for team he should be paid his salary for any surgery he undergoes and rehab he has to do. However it just seems wrong for a player to make 10, 15 or 20 million dollars to play in few or no games for a team during the season. It seems to me just as there are incentives and player should get somewhat less money if he misses all or most of the season. I realize the way things are set up now this isn't likely to happen but it seems wrong for a player to make millions and then essentially not play all year.

[Klattsy]

Clubs normally have insurance on contracts to cover for injury.

Unfortunately no player will sign a contract where they might not get paid if they get injured. Just too much risk for them. If a club tried to do that, the player would just go to another team that will take on the risk. The only time this becomes acceptable is when a player is aging and has an obvious injury history that NO team would take on a risk.

[DJaeger22]

In the case of Braun, I believe he's suspended without pay and would hope that will be the case when the rest of those associated with the Biogenesis clinic get their suspensions.

[cjclong]

I realize the likely chance of that happening is not great. And I'm not talking about players who are suspended for drug usage. They don't get paid while suspended. If ARod is suspended he won't receive a salary while suspended. But suppose he is not suspended. He has already missed 100 games and will still be paid over $25 million. Just doesn't seem unfair to me for him to lose a few million. I know realistically it probably won't happen but salaries paid to guys like Pujols , ARod and others are completely ridiculous and if, in the case of ARod, they lost a few million I can't see its unfair if they don't play. I'm not saying don't pay them if they are injured, just cut some of it.

[Mark17]

I realize the likely chance of that happening is not great. And I'm not talking about players who are suspended for drug usage. They don't get paid while suspended. If ARod is suspended he won't receive a salary while suspended. But suppose he is not suspended. He has already missed 100 games and will still be paid over $25 million. Just doesn't seem unfair to me for him to lose a few million. I know realistically it probably won't happen but salaries paid to guys like Pujols , ARod and others are completely ridiculous and if, in the case of ARod, they lost a few million I can't see its unfair if they don't play. I'm not saying don't pay them if they are injured, just cut some of it.

They can't just decide to withhold a few million from the guy. Whatever's in the contract, those are the terms that must be adhered to.

I don't see that it should matter much to any of us. It's between the Yankees and A Rod. Frankly, it's even more ridiculous that a couch potato can waddle into a convenience store for his next few bags of Doritos, buy a lottery ticket, and end up with $100 million. But it happens, and it doesn't hurt anybody so why care about it.

[cjclong]

First, it does hurt someone. It damages the team and as a by product, the fans. Obviously a team can't simply withhold money from a player unless they can prove he can play and simply won't. A contract is a contract. In "the old days" contracts of star players like Mantle, Mays, Williams, Ruth, etc were on a year to year basis. I get sick and tired of hearing about a player who is making 100 times as much as most of us spoken about as being "expected to have a great year because he will be a free agent." If you are making 10, 15, 20 million, or even "just" $400,000 why not give it your best effort every year, not just your free agent year. That is what you are getting paid for and and fans expect. And yes, it does harm a team. When even a team with great finances like the Yankees or Angles tie up money in a player who doesn't play it limits their ability to put good players on the field. Look at the retreads the Yankees have on the field right now.I know it doesn't work that way now, but just as contracts are now structured with incentives they should also have clauses that if a player doesn't produce he should get less money. The Angles aren't paying Hamilton to hit .220 or Pujols to hit .240 or the Yankees ARod to miss 100 games. Its not like some lottery winner lucking into 100 million. Its guys being paid 100 million to produce and not producing. I'm a realist and know that contracts are totally out of hand and are not likely to change, but that doesn't mean someone shouldn't point it out.

[cohibasmoker]

The Minimum salary for a MLB player is $490,000. I've added a link that answers a lot of questions about MLB.

http://mlb.mlb.com/pa/info/faq.jsp

Jim

[Mark17]

First, it does hurt someone. It damages the team and as a by product, the fans. Obviously a team can't simply withhold money from a player unless they can prove he can play and simply won't. A contract is a contract. In "the old days" contracts of star players like Mantle, Mays, Williams, Ruth, etc were on a year to year basis. I get sick and tired of hearing about a player who is making 100 times as much as most of us spoken about as being "expected to have a great year because he will be a free agent." If you are making 10, 15, 20 million, or even "just" $400,000 why not give it your best effort every year, not just your free agent year. That is what you are getting paid for and and fans expect. And yes, it does harm a team. When even a team with great finances like the Yankees or Angles tie up money in a player who doesn't play it limits their ability to put good players on the field. Look at the retreads the Yankees have on the field right now.I know it doesn't work that way now, but just as contracts are now structured with incentives they should also have clauses that if a player doesn't produce he should get less money. The Angles aren't paying Hamilton to hit .220 or Pujols to hit .240 or the Yankees ARod to miss 100 games. Its not like some lottery winner lucking into 100 million. Its guys being paid 100 million to produce and not producing. I'm a realist and know that contracts are totally out of hand and are not likely to change, but that doesn't mean someone shouldn't point it out.

First, I'm not going to cry for the Yankees if their stupid decision to pay A Rod so much guaranteed money hurts their team. How many times have they hurt other teams by using their extensive resources to grab up star players?

Second, when you say it hurts the team... how? If a player is not playing, or under performing, what difference does it make if the Steinbrenners' collective wallet is a little lighter? Either way, they have a player not producing.

Third, how about teams that make stupid trades? I think a team giving up a quality player for next to nothing hurts a team a lot more than a billionaire owner giving up some of his own money in exchange for next to nothing.

Ballplayers are not machines, where you can expect a certain production consistently from year to year. Performance fluctuates for all sorts of reasons, sometimes for the better, sometimes not. After over 100 years of baseball experience to draw from, when contracts are negotiated, the players and the teams know the risks involved. As you say, they sign a contract and then they stick to it. Simple. Sometimes owners load the contract with incentive (performance) clauses. Sometimes the dough is simply guaranteed. If some owner loses a boatload of money on a bad contract (or if the same owner loses a boatload in the stock market, or playing the ponies) why would any of us care?

[cjclong]

Just used the Yankees as an example. Angles might be a better one. Have Pujols locked up until around age 41. If what he is doing now is the best they are going to get they have vastly overpaid. And the chance are the last few years will be much worse. IF Hamilton remains a hitter below .250 with home runs in the mid 20's he is overpaid too. The Rangers did the same thing with ARod and while he did produce it nearly wrecked them. (They are still paying part of his salary.) In my job, which involved competition, if I had not produced I would have been gone. In the sports world a guy can sign a huge long term contract, not produce and still keep all the money. Like most people I didn't have the luxury of signing a long contract and then coasting or not performing. That is kind of unique to sports. Again, why do we hear about about a guy "is going to have a great year because its his contract year when he becomes a free agent." Why didn't the guy have a great year two years before? If a guy is going to be paid millions at least go out and give your best effort. We don't accept that in many other areas of society, why should sports be different? One year Joe DiMaggio had a very painful heel in late September. The Yankees had clinched the pennant and were going to the world series and someone asked him why he was still playing so hard. His answer was, "Every game there are fans in the stands who have never seen me play and I want to give them my best." There are players today on long contracts who play like DiMaggio did. But there are a lot who don't and if anyone wants to defend someone making a big salary, in sports or anywhere else, and then giving a half effort or less go ahead.

[Jim65]

No one forces these owners to give out ridiculous contracts. If high paid, underperforming players hurt the team, so be it, be smarter next time.