Interesting question to debate over, part 2?

Question

Ok, my first question garnered some confusion, so let me clarify. Athletes and salaries, I'm throwing out the idea of pay for performance salaries. You all seem to counter argue that everybody would swing for the fences if they were paid on stats. Again, try to think outside the box.

Each player starts with a base salary of $250,000 (higher than 90% of the American population to begin with anyway -- and we can live off it, so can they).

First would be team bonuses (in order to prevent people from giving up at bats and sacrificing themselves) Win your division each player receives a $100,000 bonus, and etc...

Second would be individual bonuses, not just HR and RBI, but overall performance. You look at sac bunts and sac flies, avg with RISP. You are concerned that with this type of pay structure, all athletes would swing for the fences, but this would also increase their strikeout rate, making them less valuable, it would also decrease the teams wins by being selfish.

Some of you are still taking this way to literally. I know this would never happen, it's just a cool concept. It keeps everybody level, it eliminates hard ball playing sports agents, and would provide the most competitive balance in the league. One problem I see with this though, is with all athletes getting the same salary, without the option to bid higher, many will go to big market teams anyway where they will get more exposure.

Also, who says the owners pay these athletes salaries. To an extent yes, but it is us, the fans that pay the salaries, but us the fans who have no say who the team signs and releases. We pay indirectly the salaries due to increased ticket costs, concession and merchandise sales, etc...But I never once have gotten asked my opinion on if the White Sox should have traded Ordonez.

Answer 1

I've stated most of my points in your previous question, but I noticed something in this one that was a bit different. I too had thought that perhaps you drop the salarys , but raise the bonuses for teams that win a division, a peenant or a World Series. The one drawback to that is that you eventually will end up with all of the better players going to the better teams. Think about college recruitment. If a player has his choice of schools that are the same in all other ways, but one of them is USC and one of them is Duke, most of the better players will go to USC simply because they are a winning program. I could see this resulting in baseball seeing the same 2 or 3 teams winning the World Series almost every year. If a player is going to get, let's say $250,000 a year whether he plays for the Red Sox or the Royals, he'd be a fool to give up the possibility of that extra playoff money by signing with a team that doesn't have a prayer of making it to the postseason. As a result, you may end up with an even greater disparity between franchises, resulting in a lack of interest in some of the traditionally smaller markets. One of the great things about baseball is that there are different ways to build a team - you can go out and buy talent, you can build a team using the draft and your farm system well, and you can even do a little of both, using home grown talent and then finishing the team up with a trade or through free agency. While I prefer to see teams build through their farm system, I can't argue with anyone that builds a team in another fashion.
This is no easy "solution" to the escalation of player's salaries and the resulting impact on the fans. The owners have been able to get away with raising ticket prices, etc. for years, and I would really doubt that ticket prices would be cut by any of them because their payroll has dropped. Whether my team, the Cubs, keep their present payroll or drop it by 50%, the ticket prices will probably go up again next season. We will never see the $1 ticket in the bleachers again regardless of whether their payroll is $100 million or $10 million.
To me the only reasonable solution is a salary cap, but I would doubt that we will ever see one in baseball - the Player's Union is just too strong. You especially will never see one with a wimp like Selig as commissioner. The only way that would ever happen would be for the owners to simply do it amongst themselves, but you will never see that - there will always be those owners that will spend whatever it takes, and unfortunately, there will always be those owners that will not, or maybe just can not, spend in a competitive fashion.

Answer 2

I think you have a great idea. However, I dont agree that pay-for-performance is a great salary structure for sports. Technically, this structure is in place with a players salary based on his numbers, although now one good season at the end of a contract can overly inflate the "value" of a player. Why should a player not get as much as an owner thinks he is worth. Yes, players' salaries extremely high, but the owners, the people who pay their salaries, think those players deserve the money. Who wouldn't take money someone thinks they deserve. Baseball players are just employees, and like the rest of the working people in the United States, they weigh a job offer by what the employer is willing to pay and what benefits they can get from their employer. Yes, their salaries are more than many of us can even imagine, and their benefits include jets, physical therapist, and no-trade clauses, but is that any different than transportation allotments, health insurance and job security that most working people desire?

Having said all that, I dont think its possible for this system to ever be implemented. The players would never agree to this form of payment for their services. The only way it could possibly happen is if all the owners agreed to use this system. In which case, the players union would have a great case against the owners for collusion. And even then, all it would take is one owner paying out guaranteed contracts to destroy the entire system.

Answer 3

Two items, and this concept -- which has been floated before, and often -- goes down in flames.

One. Teams do pay for performance; past performance. ARod didn't get a quarter-billion contract based on a scouting report. He was an established commodity with the right profile -- young, healthy, solid history -- to risk investing that much in him. And with two AL MVP Awards (and a third pending) during the deal, he has delivered full value. Other contracts are offered with less diligence, and while teams may feel burned (why would the Rockies EVER sign a curveballer?), it's their own fault if a player flops for a non-injury/health issue (and in those circumstances, there's contract insurance available).

Two. About five minutes after the annual pay-for-performance rate tables are released, the players will have formulated their methods for maximizing everyone's income. If the D'backs have a five-run lead in the eighth over the Phillies, maybe Webb helps out Howard and grooves a fastball that goes 500 feet in the other direction. Ryan gets his HR pay, and some of that gets kicked back to Brandon. THIS IS NOT THE BASEBALL YOU WANT TO WATCH -- or if it is, you're not a very good fan.

Players need to go out and play and think about winning for the team, not what specific things they need to do to afford that racing boat or Key West condo.

Answer 4

Are you Male or woman? Male How previous are you under sixteen 17 to twenty 21 to 26 27 to 35 36+ Me 17-20 the place are you from ( if in states please positioned you state in case you want) Honduras who's your Fav action picture star and Diva? Undertaker + Melina who's your hire fav action picture star and Diva? The Miz + Cherry How long have you ever been gazing WWE or TNA? 10 years Which do you perfer WWE or TNA? WWE WQ. How long do you think of CM Punk will carry onto the WHC? till the super American Bash

Answer 5

now that you put it that way, then yeah it might work. but i agree that it wont ever happen. too bad cuz even as a Yankee fan i think baseball in general would be more entertaining with everyone held to the same standards. i might actually be able to watch other teams play without being bored out of my mind.

Answer 6

I like it...it would have some kinks to work out of course but it is a good starting point.

Answer 7

the players union would never go for it...
as a union member myself i would never go for it...