SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Salaries, Agents, and Baseball Finances
|
Post by larrycook on Dec 26, 2013 8:43:55 GMT -5
I like Xander also but virtually all of these proposals are borderline ridiculous. $100 mil for a guy with less than 100 mlb AB? A 20-21 year old? More than twice what Longoria got? We are being extremely optimistic to throw around numbers like the above. These numbers are not based on actual probability analysis. There is no doubt in my mind that Bogey has a really good rookie season this year. Maybe he even wins rookie of the year. At some point the Sox will offer him a contract that covers his remaining years of team control and maybe a year or two of free agency. The contract offer will be huge but it will probably not be much more than the market prevailing rate based on when they offer the contract. Best to see how Bogey performs and adjusts to MLB pitching before we hand him a 9 figure contract.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 26, 2013 10:15:10 GMT -5
I like Xander also but virtually all of these proposals are borderline ridiculous. $100 mil for a guy with less than 100 mlb AB? A 20-21 year old? More than twice what Longoria got? We are being extremely optimistic to throw around numbers like the above. These numbers are not based on actual probability analysis. I would start by comparing it to this one: On December 3, 2008, Pedroia signed a six-year contract extension worth $40.5 .... As in after he he had already won the ROY and MVP award. We extended him 6 years for $40.5 mil. And some here are talking $100 mil or more for a 20 year old with about a month of PT. But I'm sure it's just me being stupid again. What does that have to do with probability analysis? I'm just trying to figure out what your words mean.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Dec 26, 2013 10:43:16 GMT -5
Lavarnway, you're also ignoring the fact that Pedroia's deal was laughably team friendly, as was Longoria's. Although that's probably the only way they'd do something with Xander right now.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Dec 26, 2013 11:02:36 GMT -5
I would start by comparing it to this one: On December 3, 2008, Pedroia signed a six-year contract extension worth $40.5 .... As in after he he had already won the ROY and MVP award. We extended him 6 years for $40.5 mil. And some here are talking $100 mil or more for a 20 year old with about a month of PT. But I'm sure it's just me being stupid again. Not being stupid, just ignoring the fact that it was a VERY team friendly deal and the other differences I highlighted in bold.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 31, 2013 15:27:03 GMT -5
Scott Boras is the best agent there is when you consider that even with his "fame" he still nearly always get the best deals for his clients. Dude's a rockstar, I bet most of the people that hate him only do so because he's living the dream. There's that plus the obnoxious way he makes his clients sound like they're the second coming of Babe Ruth. It's so obvious he's full of crap. But doesn't doing that serve his clients which is by the way his job? Look a good agent, lawyer, image consultant, or whatever goes out of his way to serve his clients even if he looks bad in the process. Personally I have a great admiration for someone who goes out of their way to serve their clients. What do you want him to do? Tell the press that all of his clients suck and are likely overpaid?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 31, 2013 17:54:49 GMT -5
There's that plus the obnoxious way he makes his clients sound like they're the second coming of Babe Ruth. It's so obvious he's full of crap. But doesn't doing that serve his clients which is by the way his job? Look a good agent, lawyer, image consultant, or whatever goes out of his way to serve his clients even if he looks bad in the process. Personally I have a great admiration for someone who goes out of their way to serve their clients. What do you want him to do? Tell the press that all of his clients suck and are likely overpaid? I'm not sure what you're arguing about. I didn't say that Boras was a bad agent or wasn't doing his job very well. I said I find him nauseating to listen to. There's a big difference. If I wanted top dollar because I must be the highest paid whatever, he'd be the guy I'd want representing me. Still doesn't make me roll my eyes any less when he makes his guys sound like they're the second coming of Ruth clearly when they're not. Some of us on this planet don't make $20 million per year at our job and don't enjoy listening to the demands of how player X is worth some ridiculous amount that boggles the mind. Now I acknowledge this is a totally different argument and I'll stop it there. Players make what they make. Owners generate what they generate - we all get it - that's capitalism baby. Doesn't mean I enjoy seeing his mug on TV or seeing him spoon-feed the moronic Nick Cafardo him dimwitted Sunday Globe columns.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 31, 2013 18:16:18 GMT -5
But doesn't doing that serve his clients which is by the way his job? Look a good agent, lawyer, image consultant, or whatever goes out of his way to serve his clients even if he looks bad in the process. Personally I have a great admiration for someone who goes out of their way to serve their clients. What do you want him to do? Tell the press that all of his clients suck and are likely overpaid? I'm not sure what you're arguing about. I didn't say that Boras was a bad agent or wasn't doing his job very well. I said I find him nauseating to listen to. There's a big difference. If I wanted top dollar because I must be the highest paid whatever, he'd be the guy I'd want representing me. Still doesn't make me roll my eyes any less when he makes his guys sound like they're the second coming of Ruth clearly when they're not. Some of us on this planet don't make $20 million per year at our job and don't enjoy listening to the demands of how player X is worth some ridiculous amount that boggles the mind. Now I acknowledge this is a totally different argument and I'll stop it there. Players make what they make. Owners generate what they generate - we all get it - that's capitalism baby. Doesn't mean I enjoy seeing his mug on TV or seeing him spoon-feed the moronic Nick Cafardo him dimwitted Sunday Globe columns. Apparently we don't all get it: players generate revenue. Owners get money.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 31, 2013 21:24:35 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you're arguing about. I didn't say that Boras was a bad agent or wasn't doing his job very well. I said I find him nauseating to listen to. There's a big difference. If I wanted top dollar because I must be the highest paid whatever, he'd be the guy I'd want representing me. Still doesn't make me roll my eyes any less when he makes his guys sound like they're the second coming of Ruth clearly when they're not. Some of us on this planet don't make $20 million per year at our job and don't enjoy listening to the demands of how player X is worth some ridiculous amount that boggles the mind. Now I acknowledge this is a totally different argument and I'll stop it there. Players make what they make. Owners generate what they generate - we all get it - that's capitalism baby. Doesn't mean I enjoy seeing his mug on TV or seeing him spoon-feed the moronic Nick Cafardo him dimwitted Sunday Globe columns. Apparently we don't all get it: players generate revenue. Owners get money. They all make a crapload of money Fenway whether you want to use the technical term of generate or not. Is that better for you? Really?!
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Dec 31, 2013 22:40:32 GMT -5
It's a symbiotic relationship. They both generate and get money! That's capitalism baby!
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 31, 2013 23:20:57 GMT -5
It's a symbiotic relationship. They both generate and get money! That's capitalism baby! Exactly. Call it what you want. The point is obvious even if Fenway is looking for a reason to be snarky. And what I'm saying is an opinion. I don't care for Scott Boras, regardless of how effective he is. And they do both generate and get money when you think about it. Players are the product. Without them the owners have nothing to sell. Without the owners of franchises, players would be passing the hat around hoping for public handouts. They both need each other. Fortunately they both have finally figured out how to slice up the billions of dollars in revenue, which they failed to do miserably in the past. Anyways I'm sure Boras has a trick up his sleeve to get Drew signed by somebody for a lot of money. I personally hope it isn't the Sox - not because Drew tanked offensively in the post-season, but because the Sox need to see what they have with WMB at this stage of his career and they need to see if Bogaerts can maximize his value as a SS.
|
|
|
Post by rsnationiowa on Jan 1, 2014 17:57:59 GMT -5
My shot at making sense of it: Could it be they are trying to stick it to Borus in this situation? Everyone knows how Borus works - he tries to get the word out that more teams are involved in his players than what really exists. Could the Yanks (and other teams in the future) be using this type of "game" to counteract the tricks Borus pulls?
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 1, 2014 19:21:53 GMT -5
Yeah something about the tone of this strikes me as wrong. So I will try to elaborate the best that I can.
#1 Most of us want to be paid as much as possible for what we do for ourselves and our families. Ballplayers are no different. Contrary to the belief of some, most baseball players want and expect to be paid as much as possible. IOW with a few exceptions most want "top dollar", and "want to be the highest paid or whatever", no matter whom their agent is.
#2 I would personally love it if someone went into my bosses office and went on for hours about how good I was even to the point of hyperbole and I think you would too. You don't have to like it, but I would hope that you understand that he does this because that's what his players want. After all, the players for many reasons cannot serve their own interest to the media in this fashion.
#3 Baseball players cannot make demands. If they make a salary because the money is there to be paid. No one is putting a gun to anyone's head and making the Yankees give $150M to Jacoby Ellsbury.
#4 By and large Boras is right. In the end, players are workers who generate revenues for their incredibly rich bosses. They request nothing other than their fair share of a massive revenue stream that they are mostly responsible for generating.
#5 I cannot be nauseated by workers merely demanding their fair share of a revenue stream. What does nauseate me are the players bosses who make far more than the players yet refuse to pay their fair share to the rest of society by demanding publicly financed stadiums, and lower income tax rates.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jan 1, 2014 19:29:07 GMT -5
The Yanks now have 6 guys who are mainly middle infielders or 3rd basemen? Is that right? Do they still have Nunez? That seems excessive just from a roster management perspective. In my wildest dreams I never thought I'd see the Yanks with this sort of approach. It's to balance out their six outfielders, three of whom have no trade contracts.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 2, 2014 0:48:30 GMT -5
#5 I cannot be nauseated by workers merely demanding their fair share of a revenue stream. What does nauseate me are the players bosses who make far more than the players yet refuse to pay their fair share to the rest of society by demanding publicly financed stadiums, and lower income tax rates. Just to clarify this too, free agents get what they get in large part because player salaries for the first few seasons in the majors are so low. You get the minimum for three years, then have arbitration for three years in which you make increasingly larger fractions of what you're actually worth. There's a reason baseball players get a smaller percentage of the league's revenue than any of the four major sports. The other sports may not have players making $20M/year, but they also don't have nearly as many players making as little. (I know NFL salaries are probably lower, but on a per-game basis, it's not remotely comparable.)
|
|
|
Post by bjb406 on Jan 2, 2014 11:28:25 GMT -5
#5 I cannot be nauseated by workers merely demanding their fair share of a revenue stream. What does nauseate me are the players bosses who make far more than the players yet refuse to pay their fair share to the rest of society by demanding publicly financed stadiums, and lower income tax rates. Just to clarify this too, free agents get what they get in large part because player salaries for the first few seasons in the majors are so low. You get the minimum for three years, then have arbitration for three years in which you make increasingly larger fractions of what you're actually worth. There's a reason baseball players get a smaller percentage of the league's revenue than any of the four major sports. The other sports may not have players making $20M/year, but they also don't have nearly as many players making as little. (I know NFL salaries are probably lower, but on a per-game basis, it's not remotely comparable.) I know, I cannot imagine only making $400,000 for 6 months work at my job. Seriously though, owners conning taxpayers into paying for new stadiums is pretty ridiculous. But its not nearly as ridiculous as the people in charge of major college sports programs. its revolting how much money they make off of people who are not getting paid, especially when said unpaid employees have such a huge chance of getting hurt on the job. The fact that they get away with masquerading as a school is a joke.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 2, 2014 12:01:42 GMT -5
I think we've identified a lot of the distortions in sports financing and payrolls. The key takeaway is that there's a huge pile of money being made. It all comes down to how that pile should be split up. I fall on the side of having the players, the ones who bring actual value to the game, get at least 50% of that pie.
Now, back to Stephen Drew??
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Jan 2, 2014 12:32:37 GMT -5
Seriously though, owners conning taxpayers into paying for new stadiums is pretty ridiculous. But its not nearly as ridiculous as.... ....taxpayers (I use the term loosely) electing politicians who throw money at teams to pay for new stadiums.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 2, 2014 12:37:41 GMT -5
Seriously though, owners conning taxpayers into paying for new stadiums is pretty ridiculous. But its not nearly as ridiculous as.... ....taxpayers (I use the term loosely) electing politicians who throw money at teams to pay for new stadiums. It's not as if there's a choice to elect one who doesn't or won't...
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 2, 2014 13:45:18 GMT -5
Yeah something about the tone of this strikes me as wrong. So I will try to elaborate the best that I can. #1 Most of us want to be paid as much as possible for what we do for ourselves and our families. Ballplayers are no different. Contrary to the belief of some, most baseball players want and expect to be paid as much as possible. IOW with a few exceptions most want "top dollar", and "want to be the highest paid or whatever", no matter whom their agent is. #2 I would personally love it if someone went into my bosses office and went on for hours about how good I was even to the point of hyperbole and I think you would too. You don't have to like it, but I would hope that you understand that he does this because that's what his players want. After all, the players for many reasons cannot serve their own interest to the media in this fashion. #3 Baseball players cannot make demands. If they make a salary because the money is there to be paid. No one is putting a gun to anyone's head and making the Yankees give $150M to Jacoby Ellsbury. #4 By and large Boras is right. In the end, players are workers who generate revenues for their incredibly rich bosses. They request nothing other than their fair share of a massive revenue stream that they are mostly responsible for generating. #5 I cannot be nauseated by workers merely demanding their fair share of a revenue stream. What does nauseate me are the players bosses who make far more than the players yet refuse to pay their fair share to the rest of society by demanding publicly financed stadiums, and lower income tax rates. Where I bolded your post - you could have stopped right there and we'd be good. I have a right not to like it. You have a right to like it, love it, hate it, or not give two hoots about it. Doesn't mean that Boras isn't great at his job or that the player isn't entitled to his share of the revenue stream. You're taking an opinion of mine much, much further than it needs to go. It's not necessary to get into the Marvin Miller/Ownership war again. Personally I'm not for the owners and I'm not for the players and I'm glad that they've finally figured out a way to work together and not go on strike/lockout. As a guy living in the real world, not making monopoly money while I bust my butt at my job (as do most of us) I don't enjoy listening to Boras. It's a personal opinion. I love the game and my Red Sox, not the business of the game other than playing fantasy armchair GM and trying to figure out a budget for what I'd do. As has been correctly pointed out this is a Stephen Drew thread, but I think the fact that absolutely nothing has happened regarding him, much speculation has already been posted and things probably won't happen for a few weeks longer, things can get off track.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 2, 2014 21:27:07 GMT -5
Moved all the Boras, Bogaerts, baseball salary/finance stuff into this thread since it seems like a good discussion.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 2, 2014 21:30:04 GMT -5
Apparently we don't all get it: players generate revenue. Owners get money. They all make a crapload of money Fenway whether you want to use the technical term of generate or not. Is that better for you? Really?! People deserve to capture the value of their own labor. The labor of elite (MLB caliber) baseball players is extraordinarily valuable. Owners are merely capturing the value of the labor of others. I have far less respect for that method of "earning" money.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 2, 2014 21:45:10 GMT -5
They all make a crapload of money Fenway whether you want to use the technical term of generate or not. Is that better for you? Really?! People deserve to capture the value of their own labor. The labor of elite (MLB caliber) baseball players is extraordinarily valuable. Owners are merely capturing the value of the labor of others. I have far less respect for that method of "earning" money. Honestly Fenway, it really doesn't matter to me. Players need owners and owners need players. Without players owner don't have a product to sell - nobody comes to the ballpark to watch the owners and without owners owning franchises players would be passing the hat around hoping for a few bucks to trickle in their way. As I've already stated, it's nice that millionaires and billionaires can come together for the common good and find a way not to go on strike or do a lock-out while trying to divide an ungodly amount of revenue. It doesn't make me enjoy listening to Boras or listen to an owner cry about payroll expenses. As a guy working as hard as he can just to get by it kind of turns me off. That is my opinion. I get that you're pro-player. That's cool. I'm not anti-player or pro-player or anti-owner or pro-owner. Like I said in a previous post, I love the game of baseball between the lines and I'm crazy about the Sox and enjoy the history of the game and the history of the Red Sox, but don't care much for the financial aspect of the game other than how it pertains to staying with a payroll budget.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Jan 2, 2014 21:51:21 GMT -5
They all make a crapload of money Fenway whether you want to use the technical term of generate or not. Is that better for you? Really?! People deserve to capture the value of their own labor. The labor of elite (MLB caliber) baseball players is extraordinarily valuable. Owners are merely capturing the value of the labor of others. I have far less respect for that method of "earning" money. Players capture the "value " of their DNA, their upbringing, their trainers, their family, etc. Owners make money - they sell the product. I can't see how one is morally superior. They are splitting a pie that continually grows; that's all.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jan 2, 2014 22:03:41 GMT -5
People deserve to capture the value of their own labor. The labor of elite (MLB caliber) baseball players is extraordinarily valuable. Owners are merely capturing the value of the labor of others. I have far less respect for that method of "earning" money. Players capture the "value " of their DNA, their upbringing, their trainers, their family, etc. Owners make money - they sell the product. I can't see how one is morally superior. They are splitting a pie that continually grows; that's all. Owners never benefit from what family they were born into or their upbringing? I'd say family resources and upbringing correlates more at an ownership level than a player level. There are players from all different backgrounds, I can't say the same about owners.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 2, 2014 22:28:15 GMT -5
People deserve to capture the value of their own labor. The labor of elite (MLB caliber) baseball players is extraordinarily valuable. Owners are merely capturing the value of the labor of others. I have far less respect for that method of "earning" money. Players capture the "value " of their DNA, their upbringing, their trainers, their family, etc. Owners make money - they sell the product. I can't see how one is morally superior. They are splitting a pie that continually grows; that's all. What do you mean, "sell the product"? Some owners are more involved than others of course, but it's entirely possible for a team owner to do no work whatsoever and reap enormous profits.
|
|
|