U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Baseball
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-16-2012, 05:59 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,669,789 times
Reputation: 36116

Advertisements

This calls for a hypothetical prediction. How many current MLB players would continue to play, if the maximum salary were wet at $100,000 a year?

Before you jump to a quick conclusion, consider these facts:

1. There are twice as many players playing in 6 independent leagues, most of whom were originally drafted by MLB teams. They make about $1,000 month, and continue to play.

2. Players under MLB contract in the lower minors (Class A and Rookie leagues) have almost no prospect of reaching the majors, and they make less money than their little sisters working at Burger King. And they continue to play.

3. About 5,000 players are playing Division I or NAIA college baseball for no compensation at all (but maybe $20K in college fees), and 90% know that they will never be offered a contract by an MLB team. And they continue to play.

4. All MLB players would still be eligible to make just as much money endorsing products and signing autographs at card shows and on trading card contracts.

Could MLB salaries be cut by two billion dollars, without significantly impacting the quality of the game?

Who do you think are the players that would refuse to play and end their career?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-16-2012, 06:10 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,749 posts, read 18,748,794 times
Reputation: 18880
The ones good enough to play pro in another major sport would probably bolt if they can still make millions doing that rather than the 100 K your hypothetical provides. I would not imagine that very many of the ML players have skill sets which would allow them to make more than 100 K a year outside of sports, and even some of those who could, would still prefer playing a game for a living while they still could.

I suspect most would still be in place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2012, 07:30 PM
 
Location: Cook County
5,288 posts, read 6,390,507 times
Reputation: 3070
How is the answer anything but every single one of them
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2012, 04:34 AM
 
Location: Albuquerque, NM
13,293 posts, read 12,866,213 times
Reputation: 6637
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
This calls for a hypothetical prediction. How many current MLB players would continue to play, if the maximum salary were wet at $100,000 a year?

Before you jump to a quick conclusion, consider these facts:

1. There are twice as many players playing in 6 independent leagues, most of whom were originally drafted by MLB teams. They make about $1,000 month, and continue to play.

2. Players under MLB contract in the lower minors (Class A and Rookie leagues) have almost no prospect of reaching the majors, and they make less money than their little sisters working at Burger King. And they continue to play.

3. About 5,000 players are playing Division I or NAIA college baseball for no compensation at all (but maybe $20K in college fees), and 90% know that they will never be offered a contract by an MLB team. And they continue to play.

4. All MLB players would still be eligible to make just as much money endorsing products and signing autographs at card shows and on trading card contracts.

Could MLB salaries be cut by two billion dollars, without significantly impacting the quality of the game?

Who do you think are the players that would refuse to play and end their career?
Do you own a major league baseball team?

Taking two billion dollars from 750 individuals (25 players on 30 teams) and redistributing it to 30 individuals (the owners) would be quite a consolidation of wealth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2012, 07:10 AM
 
Location: Virginia
8,153 posts, read 12,757,409 times
Reputation: 3776
I agree w/ filihok. Beyond ticket sales, think about the revenue from TV/radio/media contracts, sales of team merchandise. People are paying to see the players play and to buy merchandise with the players' names and likenesses on them. The players are the product which brings in the revenue so I don't see any reason why they might be expected to play for $100k.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2012, 08:03 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,749 posts, read 18,748,794 times
Reputation: 18880
The hypothetical wasn't asking if such a thing could be brought about, it asked if such circumstances materialized, would the players continue their careers at reduced salaries, or leave the game and seek their fortunes elsewhere.

Obviously the MLBPA would not cooperate in a plan to reduce incomes for their members and a strike would greet any such attempt. Equally obvious is that the owners can afford to pay more than 100 k a year to the players and are not in need of any socialistic adjustments to make things fair for them.

This was ...'what if...?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2012, 08:16 AM
 
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, originally from SF Bay Area
30,221 posts, read 55,074,459 times
Reputation: 31710
None would stay for that. Professional sports are all tied to TV, radio, and advertising. Players would not tolerate such a low salary cap compared to the other major sports. They would refuse to play, and if replaced by minor leaguers who are willing to work for that little, attendance would drop to nothing and the owners would be driven out of business.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2012, 09:15 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,669,789 times
Reputation: 36116
Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok View Post
Do you own a major league baseball team?

Taking two billion dollars from 750 individuals (25 players on 30 teams) and redistributing it to 30 individuals (the owners) would be quite a consolidation of wealth.
No, I sold my team a couple of years ago, and bought the oil pipeline through Uzbekistan. Much more profitable.

Hypothetical questions (by their very nature) encompass hypothetical scenarios which would make them possible, if not realistic. Coupled with the lower salaries would be club ownership that was not "for profit", but as a civic institution in their respective cities, like museums and symphony orchestras, and, in fact, the ballparks they play in.

With 60-70 million spectators having their ticket prices reduced by 2 billion dollars, that would be an average price reduction of $15 per ticket, assuming constant profit levels for the owners.

For those of you who don't understand the concept of a hypothetical question, the person raising the question does not necessarily need to justify the circumstances of the hypothetical, nor explain exactly how it would come to pass as a likely scenario, so you can stop concentrating your brainpower on trying to stick me with that, or evading the question with ancillary arguments about it's improbability.

Hemlock, do you rally think most, or even many MLBers would go and sell insurance or work in a body and fender shop, or try their luck on the pro golf circuit, or go back to the Dominican Republic, rather than continue to earn $100K a year, plus endorsement? Supposing I expanded the hypothetical to all pro sports, so there wouldn't be a run of shortstops on the NBA.

Last edited by jtur88; 03-18-2012 at 09:36 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2012, 08:04 AM
 
Location: Brooklyn
40,056 posts, read 30,652,249 times
Reputation: 10491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orangeish View Post
How is the answer anything but every single one of them
Somehow, I doubt that every one of them would accept a $100,000 maximum salary. There'd be a couple of posturing, soapbox-climbers who would refuse to play--and believe that they'd have fan sympathy. (They would be wrong, and baseball would somehow survive without them).

Of course, as long as we're visiting Hypothetical Land, we'd have to acknowledge that there would be lawsuits based on some sort of restriction of capitalism. But, as we say here in New York City, waddaya gonna do?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2012, 08:16 AM
 
Location: NE PA
7,936 posts, read 13,916,438 times
Reputation: 4382
I wish they'd slash salaries and lower ticket prices...as it stands now, its getting harder and harder to afford to take a family to a game. I have 2 kids, so a day at the ballpark is pretty expensive. I hope to get my boys to 1 game in Philly this year, 2 if I'm lucky.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Baseball
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top