Salary complaints

by sabernar on Mar 4, 2008 9:54 AM EST Comment 30 comments

Is anyone else getting tired of the young stars of baseball complaining about the money that they're making? Fielder, Howard, Hamels and the rest of the complainers? I was just curious to hear what other people thought. Yes, the system is stacked against the players in their first couple years, but it's not like this isn't a known situation. And it's not like these guys aren't going to make $100M over their lifetimes as ballplayers. And it's not like a $500k/yr (or $10M) isn't a lot of money.

Thoughts?

0 recs | Comment 30 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Idiots

I would tender them to the ML minimum if I were the teams and they were complaining. No reason to pay more than you have too. Especially if they're going to be pricks about it. Giving them extra money in their Pre-arbitration years doesn't make them more likely to settle for a more team friendly deal later anyway.

The Phillies for example gave Howard a million dollars last year. He didn't account for that when he took them to arbitration and got a record 10 million in his first year of eligibility. They cost themselves over a half million dollars for no reason.

If I'm a player I'm trying to make as much money as possible. And the team shouldn't expect them to do anything less. You're only a ball player for a short amount of time, make your money while you can. But the players also shouldn't expect the team to do them any favors when the team controls their salary.

by Tyler on Mar 4, 2008 10:00 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

+1

Bingo. I'm sure there are Brewers fans who want the club to give Fielder some extra money so they stay on his good side. That's just throwing money away. The player, such as Fielder, that gets angry about earning "only" hundreds of thousands of dollars, is not the same guy that will grant a hometown discount anyway. Save the money and add it to the future free agent offer. That may actually make a difference.

by my dixie wrecked on Mar 4, 2008 12:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

On the other hand...

.... with how much money teams are making and handing out to mediocre talent, Im sure they could swing the extra couple 200,000 or so to keep their stud young players happy.

That said, I think those guys really shouldnt be unnecessarily whiny, as they are making an obscene amount of money to play baseball.

I can see it more from Hamels' prospective though. As a pitcher, an arm injury could derail his future earnings. If he blew out his elbow or messed up his shoulder pitching this year, he may end up never getting that big payday. I dont know about Hamels specifically, but because they've devoted their lives to baseball, not a lot of ballplayers have a lot to fall back on if their career doesnt work out.

by grozzy on Mar 4, 2008 10:05 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Risk Management

I'd be willing to bet that if Hamels approached the Phillies and said I want to sign a long term deal they'd be willing to listen. It's just a matter of how much he'd be willing to sacrifice in potential future earnings vs. current security. For example, James Shields, while he isn't Cole Hamels, he's not so far behind just signed a long term deal for around 15 million guaranteed, potentially worth 44 million. Cole would almost certainly scoff at that offer, but it would give him security. He'd be potentially costing him self 10's of millions by signing a deal like that and it's not worth it too him. On the other hand, he could tear his Labrum and never pitch in the show again.

by Tyler on Mar 4, 2008 10:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I forgot

you said teams could throw the player an extra 200 grand to keep them happy, but my point is that it doesn't make a difference. Back to Howard, the Phillies paid him 600 grand more than they had too last year and he still took them to arbitration and won the biggest case in history. That extra little bit of money doesn't make a bit of difference to the player, they're going to try to get as much as possible the next year anyway (and well they should). So, as a team, you might as well keep that extra money.

by Tyler on Mar 4, 2008 10:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Howard

Ryan Howard has a special case, IMO. He got jerked around by the organization and didn't get a real chance until he was 26 because the Phillies didn't know what to do with both Thome and him and refused to trade either. They stole a number of years from him so he's going to have to make up for it quickly.

by Lunkwill Fook on Mar 4, 2008 10:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with that

And Howard should try and get as much money as possible because of his age and skill set, mixed with his salary, it's going to be very difficult to get a market value Long term contract, so he's going to have to go the arbitration route. I'm very pro player when it comes to salary.

People complain about players making too much money, well, where would they like that money to go, millionaire players or Billionaire owners? Rant over

But from a team perspective, you're also trying to best allocate your resources and if you have a chance to save 600,000, and it's not going to affect your chances of winning, then by all means, do it. Ryan Howard isn't going to care about that once he's a FA, and even if he does, he'll be 32 and probably on the decline and you're not going to want to invest 100+ million in him at that time anyway.

by Tyler on Mar 4, 2008 10:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

re

"People complain about players making too much money, well, where would they like that money to go, millionaire players or Billionaire owners? Rant over"

How about the money goes back to the fans in terms of lower prices on tickets, food or parking?

The Dodgers won't win a playoff series until the Cool-a-Coo returns.

by mckeeno on Mar 4, 2008 10:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not to be too cynical

but you know thats not going to happen. The front office for most teams probably could already, but they will charge what people will pay for. The money they save on players almost never goes back to the fans

by grozzy on Mar 4, 2008 10:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ya..

Of course this won't happen, but I just bring up that alternative when people say the money can either go to owners or players.

The Dodgers won't win a playoff series until the Cool-a-Coo returns.

by mckeeno on Mar 4, 2008 4:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

phh

Why bring it up at all? That's like saying a five star steakhouse should charge $8 a meal. They could still pull a profit that way - but no one, anywhere, ever will do something like that. Baseball teams are businesses - you can say "it's an alternative", but it really isn't because it literally is not going to happen. Why talk about an alternative that you know is never going to be implemented?

http://rswanzey.blogspot.com

by rswanzey on Mar 4, 2008 4:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Dream on

Why do you think the majority of teams report an operating loss and yet there's still no shortage of owners willing to buy in? Owners are running a business, not a community center. They're going to milk fans for all they're worth. And they really don't have any obligation to do otherwise, though I suppose an argument could be based for it off public stadium financing.

http://rswanzey.blogspot.com

by rswanzey on Mar 4, 2008 10:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The extra hundred grand....

... is trivial to a major league team. Its not about paying him the extra money now to try to get him to give you a break money-wise later. Its about giving him the extra money now to reward him for how good he has been and to try to keep the player happy and productive now. When you have a staff anchor like Hamels, or a hitter like Fielder, why not reward them for their excellence and pay them a little extra. It sends a positive message to other young players in the organization as well, that if you can come make an impact early, the team will reward you for it.

It may not save the team any money in the long run, but it should help to keep players happy with the organization and motivated when they are young players approaching the majors.

by grozzy on Mar 4, 2008 10:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Fielder

I'm not sure I buy that $100,000 was the difference here. I think Prince is starting to get stars in his eyes about the big paychecks to come... and rightly so. But I think this complaint came from a general disapproval of a system that does not allow top performers to earn top money.

As for dishing out a little extra for future player relations, I think this can work, depending on the kind and caliber of player. Chris Capuano openly stated he would show some loyalty to the Brewers after they gave him a pay raise following one of his good early seasons. He is not a star, of course, and a "home-team discount" for him need not be as big as one for Prince.

Ichiro, on facing Daisuke Matsuzaka for the first time: "I hope he arouses the fire that's dormant in the innermost recesses of my soul."

by DaleCoop14 on Mar 4, 2008 12:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It sounds like....

... he wanted what Ryan Howard got at the same point in his career, which was $230,000 more than what Fielder got. Thats pretty trivial for an MLB team. He's not going to play poorly, but keeping him happy with still help his level of play somewhat. Plus, players arent just a collection of stat producing machines, pissy players in the clubhouse is going to affect the atmosphere around the team and will hurt how the team does.

Additionally, as I brought up, it sends a message to players in the minors, that the team will reward them if they produce. I know they will still be looking toward the big payday in the long future, but it still will have an effect on them.

People act like the $300K that they might save on him is going to be spent on a draft pick or funneled back to the fans or something. The team isnt going to say "Sweet, by letting Fielder be pissy, we can now go an extra $300K over slot for our 2nd round pick). I guarantee you that that they are independent. In fact, most teams keep a separate payroll and draft budget. The most that extra $300K will do is go toward paying some random FA $300K more than they should.

by grozzy on Mar 4, 2008 1:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Motivation

See, I don't buy that. If they're motivated by money, being as good as they possibly can will get them paid the most. They understand that. They're still going to perform at the highest level possible to make the most money possible, regardless of their pre-arb salary.

Also, 600 grand is not trivial. That's essentially a 2nd round pick. You could use it to sign a guy who falls due to signability reasons. And which could potentially give you another star that you control at a cheap rate. It's all about allocating your resources. And overpaying guys during their pre-arb years isn't good use of resources in my opinion.

by Tyler on Mar 4, 2008 12:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Arm injury

Yes, Hamels could have an arm injury and never pitch again. But when has this changed in baseball? Hasn't this ALWAYS been the case? Why is Hamels suddenly different?

Part of the reason these players are on these contracts is that the baseball clubs are taking the initial risk by investing money on these players that MAY NEVER MAKE THE BIG LEAGUES. Don't the clubs themselves deserve some sort of reward for that, by which I mean getting the player relatively cheaply for a few years?

If it suddenly becomes the norm for kids to suddenly get immense raises after one full year of service time, say goodbye to small market teams. And that's right: Hamels has only ONE FULL YEAR of service time. He should learn to STFU.

by Lunkwill Fook on Mar 4, 2008 10:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That is always the case

but thats why players will want to make as much as they can right away, especially pitchers. I know teams dont have to pay them that little bit extra, but a couple hundred grand is nothing to a team, so why not use it to make sure to keep the player happy.

by grozzy on Mar 4, 2008 10:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

22 or 24 or 26 year olds making 600K?

This isn't already a lot of money? Pay the players as little as possible now in order to pay as little as possible when arbitration comes a knocking.

I find it laughable that anyone thinks it better to give them extra money when they have no proven history in the bigs...almost as laughable as paying some snot nosed college kid 5 million JUST TO SIGN with a major league club.

by tuna411 on Mar 4, 2008 10:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But...

... for one thing, these guys dont have "no proven history". While they dont have a long track record, they have succeeded as top level players at the major league level. Heck, Fielder was 3rd in the MVP race this past year.

It is a lot of money already, but its not a lot compared to the people they spend the majority of their time around.

Lets say you worked at a company and made $60,000 out of college (good money) and you developed a product that made the company millions.

You have a bunch of co-workers who have much less impact (basically replacement level) making 10x what you make. Wouldn't you be a bit pissed if you were denied a raise from $60,000 to $80,000 when your co-workers were all making $600,000+ and not half the employee you are.

I have to think that most of you, if you are being honest, would say that you would be pretty pissed at your boss.

by grozzy on Mar 4, 2008 11:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Problems with that analogy....

Did the company pay for your education? No. If they did, I'm sure you'd have to have signed a contract with salary stipulations. You might have helped make this invention but you'd never have gotten there if they hadn't paid for your education.

by Lunkwill Fook on Mar 4, 2008 11:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

They pay you....

... while you are in training to work for the company.

MLB teams dont pay college players either. Top players get by in college on scholarships, just like top students get academic scholarships.

If you were good enough to join the company straight out of HS, they would be paying you while they trained you.

You joined the company at whatever salary you did. That doesnt mean you wouldnt feel like you deserved the raise.

by grozzy on Mar 4, 2008 11:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Blame the owners

They've been tearing up contracts and extending players a quite the pace the last few years. Ryan Zimmerman and others with minimal service time have been receiving new deals years before they should have. Then factor in MLB contracts being handed out guys right out of the chute and the players have a basis for a complaint.

It's easy for us to look at a six figure salary and cry foul, but that just isn't a good way of looking at things. You have to look at it from a comparable situation point of view.

by slurve on Mar 4, 2008 11:05 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Zimmerman?

Did he finally sign a contract? Last I heard was about two weeks ago and the report said Zimmerman and the Nationals were quite far from each other on amounts.

"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Mar 4, 2008 11:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ehh...

Meant to say David Wright. Jose Reyes, Troy Tulowitski and James Shields also fit this bill.

by slurve on Mar 4, 2008 12:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Additions...

apparently Markakis and Francouer are also upset about their salaries. Why is this becoming a big issue this season? I don't remember hearing about it so much in the past. Sure, maybe a player or two. But half a dozen or more?

Even Ervin Santana wanted more money than the team originally offered. So they basically said "screw you" and gave him a pay decrease from last season and are only paying him about the minimum allowed. They were offering him a raise from last season and he declined it. Idiot. Doesn't he know that when your production goes down, you don't ask for a raise? Just take what they give you and shut your mouth. You don't want them to spend any more time looking at you than they already have to. They'll start to get ideas... like cutting your salary.

"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Mar 4, 2008 7:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Not an issue at all...

I think most of this two things: the Phils being idiots and throwing a wad of cash at Howard and then the media deciding, "Hey, we can get some easy headlines out of this, since EVERYONE likes to complain about their salary!"

The only way this can effect future negotiations is if one of the parties decides to act like a jackass. And if that's the case, that same party probably would have done it down the road as well, so still no biggie.

Also, where'd you hear that Frenchy was complaining? I've actually heard nothing but optimism out of his camp. Mostly stuff like, "we're focused on winning this season, everything else will take care of itself, etc." I mean, I'm sure he'd love to get a David Wright type deal done. But I think the Braves feel that first he ought to, you know, produce like David Wright a little bit. If he breaks out big-time this year, maybe they'll ink him to a 3-5 year deal or something next off-season.

by mraver on Mar 5, 2008 8:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ESPN Spring blog from two days ago...

BRAVES RENEW FRANCOEUR, IRKING OUTFIELDER (1:53 p.m. ET)
Braves outfielder Jeff Francoeur figured a season that included 105 RBIs and a major league-leading 19 outfield assists deserved a good bump in salary. Atlanta management disagreed.

The Braves simply renewed Francoeur's contract Monday when he turned down their offer for 2008.

"They've got a process and we respect their process," said Molly Fletcher, who is one of Francoeur's agents.

Francoeur made $427,500 last year and is not arbitration eligible yet.

"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Mar 5, 2008 11:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

funny

After I posted this diary, two other website brought up the same subject. I'm a trend setter! ;)

by sabernar on Mar 4, 2008 10:48 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Given

Given that the whole major league salary structure is monopolistic and is granted merely by an exception, I can understand the players' complaining.

No one should really feel sorry for them, since if they are successful, they make huge money. But for every one who succeeds, there are many who fail.

And keep in mind that these guys don't get to choose which city they work in as you and I do.

by sharksrog on Mar 7, 2008 9:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs