outside of 3-4 teams, he's right.

Based on what are their salaries nuts? Based on what a cop earns? Or based on the profits that baseball teams make?

Based on what are their salaries nuts? Based on what a cop earns? Or based on the profits that baseball teams make?

I understand KW's point which I believe is where does it stop? Eventually tickets in the upper deck are going to be $100. A beer is going to be $10. But $30 million a year isn't so asinine for Albert Pujols. Maybe a 10 year committment at this time is, but if you watch the interview, he really never mentioned length. As someone pointed out the Sox will be paying Peavy and Rios close to that combined and there isn't a GM in the world that wouldn't take Pujols over those 2. KW said he would do better spreading it out, well, Teahen, Rios, Peavy will combine to make about $30 million or even a little more in 2011. I'd take Pujols for $30 million and probably have a lot more revenue from ticket sales already to fill the other spots. The best players in the game earn their money, but it drops off quickly. Ironically JR is one guy who really started snowballing salaries when he gave Albert Belle that huge contract. From what I read there was very little negotiation.

 

When Hawk talks about Selig he always mentions how everyone is making money, so the owners are making money too. Is it supposed to be like the old days where the players make hardly anything and JR and his buddies pull in $100 million or more a year? I do hope they find away to keep tickets somewhat affordable or they will be doing the game a great disservice, but paying guys what they earn isn't a problem. Its the guys like AJ Burnett. Its giving Ben Sheets $10 million.

Edited February 23, 201115 yr by Dick Allen

Based on what are their salaries nuts? Based on what a cop earns? Or based on the profits that baseball teams make?

 

Based on the price of a ticket, parking, beer and pop and food at games.

My god ... baseball was a sport that once was affordable. Good for you if money is no object.

I guess most baseball fans are affluent and don't care about costs at all.

You know what ... baseball owners didn't have to do this, escalate salaries to this level. Their own greed and insatiable egos forced them to pay (most of) these players WAY TOO MUCH money.

 

Oh well, to those of you who can afford it (obviously you can get in the park and sit in the nosebleed on Tuesday nights for pennies, whoopie), good for you and more power to you.

And the poor ballplayers of the 60s and 70s who see what a dime a dozen player like Alex Rios for godsakes is making compared to them and they are crying in their beer.

Edited February 23, 201115 yr by greg775

I don't know, I bet Pujols brings in $30 mil for the cards in revenue.

I don't know, I bet Pujols brings in $30 mil for the cards in revenue.

So if net=0 it's probably a bad business decision?

I don't know, I bet Pujols brings in $30 mil for the cards in revenue.

 

It will be interesting to see how much revenue drops if he leaves. I bet it is less than $30 million. Cardinals fans are like Cub fans in that they are super loyal. Its not like Cleveland where the place would become deserted if the team didn't do well.

It will be interesting to see how much revenue drops if he leaves. I bet it is less than $30 million. Cardinals fans are like Cub fans in that they are super loyal. Its not like Cleveland where the place would become deserted if the team didn't do well.

The last time St. Louis drew less than 2,000,000 in attendance in a full season was 1980. That was the last year in a stretch of 12 that they did not make the playoffs.

I think signing Albert Pujols to a 10/$300 contract would be stupid, but I wonder how much it harms baseball, in that smart teams can use their money more wisely and beat the tar out of teams like the Nationals that blow their wad on one or two guys. It almost seems like an opportunity to outsmart some idiots.

 

Of course, my theory doesn't hold true if these bloated monsters change the rate of inflation. Then I'm wrong. Actually, I rescind the above paragraph and substitute Kenny's opinion.

 

You're welcome for the worthless post.

FWIW, here is Dave Cameron's take on it.

 

It's interesting and I think I tend to agree. Would I take Pujols plus some scrub for Rios and Dunn? For the duration of their contracts, absolutely I would. I wouldn't want Pujols for 4-6 years beyond that though, and that's the predicament that some team will almost certainly have to face 5 years down the road.

FWIW, here is Dave Cameron's take on it.

 

It's interesting and I think I tend to agree. Would I take Pujols plus some scrub for Rios and Dunn? For the duration of their contracts, absolutely I would. I wouldn't want Pujols for 4-6 years beyond that though, and that's the predicament that some team will almost certainly have to face 5 years down the road.

I'd take Dunn/Rios over Pujols/scrub any day, and I'm so glad that KW doesn't base everything he does over sabermetric stats.

Who would you rather have?

 

Peavy and one of Rios/Konerko vs. Pujols

Konerko, Rios, Teahen vs Pujols

 

Obviously the number of years you would be giving Pujols is the crazy part, but that $30 million could be better spent than what Kenny has done with it considering injury risk and production.

 

Hell, if the Sox really wanted Pujols they could get him if they traded Rios, Konerko, and Teahen for cheap filler pieces after this season, without upping the payroll from the 125 mill too much (not saying it would be the best move for the club at all, unless you can sign him for 7-8 years).

 

Could you imagine Pujols/Dunn back to back, scary thoughts.

Would you rather your team's total salary drops $20 mil which they take as profits, or they pay a superstar player $20 mil?

You know what ... baseball owners didn't have to do this, escalate salaries to this level. Their own greed and insatiable egos forced them to pay (most of) these players WAY TOO MUCH money.

One of the causes of the escalation of salaries was PEDs. Owners looked the other way because fans "dig the long ball." But, ultimately, it created too many guys who put up stats they never would have without PEDs. Suddenly, everyone could hit 30 homeruns. With FA and arbitration, it gave the players/agents ammunition in a deal so salaries rose. In the long run, it's not the owners who foot the bill, though, it's the fans. Going to a baseball game now is a ridiculous expense.

 

If Pujols is clean, and I've never been sure he is, he will not be productive for 10 years. History says so. He might be worth what he's asking for per year, but the length of the contract is a joke.

The issue isn't the amount of money as it's relative. The issue is competitive balance. Eventually, MLB is going to lose major fan bases. There's no incentive for kids in over half of the markets to follow their team. People in Pittsburgh, KC, Baltimore, Cleveland etc. won't continue to follow teams that have no chance. That will hurt MLB overall.

The issue isn't the amount of money as it's relative. The issue is competitive balance. Eventually, MLB is going to lose major fan bases. There's no incentive for kids in over half of the markets to follow their team. People in Pittsburgh, KC, Baltimore, Cleveland etc. won't continue to follow teams that have no chance. That will hurt MLB overall.

 

 

Yet the Cubs draw great crowds year after year. How are they any different than KC or Baltimore? There is even another team in the Cubs' market that does field a challenger almost every year.

 

Even since free agency got started decades ago people have been predicting this. Eventually, maybe it will happen.

Yet the Cubs draw great crowds year after year. How are they any different than KC or Baltimore? There is even another team in the Cubs' market that does field a challenger almost every year.

 

Even since free agency got started decades ago people have been predicting this. Eventually, maybe it will happen.

Really?

 

Yet the Cubs draw great crowds year after year. How are they any different than KC or Baltimore? There is even another team in the Cubs' market that does field a challenger almost every year.

 

I understand the whole WS drought thing, but the Cubs have made the playoffs 3 teams in the past 10 years, which is more than the other team in their market. They occasionally have real s***ty years but over the the past decade, they have spent the money and competed, nothing like KC/Baltimore.

I understand the whole WS drought thing, but the Cubs have made the playoffs 3 teams in the past 10 years, which is more than the other team in their market. They occasionally have real s***ty years but over the the past decade, they have spent the money and competed, nothing like KC/Baltimore.

Also, Chicago is about 92,000 times bigger than KC and 24,342 times bigger than Baltimore.

 

Also, Wrigley field. Bars. Lots.

In baseball, I agree. 1 player is not going to turn around your team. In basketball that's true. You are better off splitting 30 million into two or three players than spending it on one.

Yet the Cubs draw great crowds year after year. How are they any different than KC or Baltimore? There is even another team in the Cubs' market that does field a challenger almost every year.

 

Even since free agency got started decades ago people have been predicting this. Eventually, maybe it will happen.

 

 

Obviously the Cubs are an anomaly. A Cubs game is more about entertainment than baseball. They play to a packed house daily, but baseball isn't really the draw. It's more like an outdoor party of day drinking where a baseball game breaks out. If the Fire played at Wrigley, soccer would be huge in the city.

Obviously the Cubs are an anomaly. A Cubs game is more about entertainment than baseball. They play to a packed house daily, but baseball isn't really the draw. It's more like an outdoor party of day drinking where a baseball game breaks out. If the Fire played at Wrigley, soccer would be huge in the city.

 

Which is my point. Baseball teams have to promote fun at the ballpark, not come watch our team win.

I understand the whole WS drought thing, but the Cubs have made the playoffs 3 teams in the past 10 years, which is more than the other team in their market. They occasionally have real s***ty years but over the the past decade, they have spent the money and competed, nothing like KC/Baltimore.

 

Of course, over the past 11 years, both teams have made it 3 times, and the team that has made it only 2 times in the past 10 years has a World Series title in that time frame too.

 

I do agree that the comparison to KC and Baltimore is wrong though.

Its not the Cubs who have promoted fun at thier ball park. It was first the media, in such things as Saturday Night Live and Ferris Bhueler's (I can't spell) Day Off. Then it was the gentrifing of the neighborhood into the socio-economic cetner of the yuppie universe in Chicago. You can also not forget the reach of day baseball on free TV in the Chicago market on kids during the summer. You can't give too much props to the Cubs for that since the city and neighborhood has basically stopped them from playing 81 night games a year at Wrigley.

 

But back to the topic at hand, $30 mil for Albert is a good deal for a few years, but after 5 years, it a no win for either party, imo. Paying a single player $30 mil a year is also not good for baseball. It will only drive prices up for lesser ability players (as it always has) which will further cripple small market / low budget / small(er) margin teams, such as the Royals, Twins, Rays, etc.

Obviously the Cubs are an anomaly. A Cubs game is more about entertainment than baseball. They play to a packed house daily, but baseball isn't really the draw. It's more like an outdoor party of day drinking where a baseball game breaks out. If the Fire played at Wrigley, soccer would be huge in the city.

 

That image made me laugh, thank you. You put it perfectly.