Let's Fix Things That May or May Not Be Broken

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

1 hour ago, BrySmalls said:

It's time to reign in the absurdly high contracts that are given to players in the NBA, MLB, and NFL. Fortunately, the NHL doesn't have ridiculous  contracts that pay more than $120M to one player (at least not yet). At the rate things are going, no one will be able to afford going to a major league game anymore.

 

First of all, it's "rein in".

 

Secondly, no.  The size of a contract is determined by the market.

[BrySmalls]

2 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

First of all, it's "rein in".

 

Secondly, no.  The size of a contract is determined by the market.

1) Thanks for the grammar check!
2) Is it? 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

5 hours ago, BrySmalls said:

1) Thanks for the grammar check!
2) Is it? 

 

1. It's not grammar. It's spelling. (Or, from another point of view, word choice, as the misspelling gives us an entirely different word.)

 

2. Yes. 

 

Well, except for the factors that distort the market by putting downward pressure on contracts to the disadvantage of players. These factors include, amongst other things, a salary cap or a luxury tax, the draft, limitations on when a player can become a free agent, a team's right of first refusal, and compensation for a team whose player signs elsewhere.

 

So, even though the pay of players in the top sports leagues is far beyond what workers in any other field make, the reality is that owners are systematically stealing from players (the people who do the actual work that creates all value), as player contracts are being kept artificially low, by an enormous amount.

 

Your critique is thus entirely unfounded. Teams offer the contracts that they offer because they can afford to do so, based on their revenue. If a team were to price out its fans, as you suggest, its revenue would drop as a result, and likewise would drop the size of contracts that it can offer to players.

 

The main thing to understand is that the interest of players is identical to the interest of fans (in other words: to the general interest). If you are a fan of a sport, then you should naturally be in favour of the highest player salaries possible given the league's revenues, and therefore opposed to the market distortions that hold those player salaries down.

 

[BrySmalls]

9 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

1. It's not grammar. It's spelling. (Or, from another point of view, word choice, as the misspelling gives us an entirely different word.)

 

2. Yes. 

 

Well, except for the factors that distort the market by putting downward pressure on contracts to the disadvantage of players. These factors include, amongst other things, a salary cap or a luxury tax, the draft, limitations on when a player can become a free agent, a team's right of first refusal, and compensation for a team whose player signs elsewhere.

 

So, even though the pay of players in the top sports leagues is far beyond what workers in any other field make, the reality is that owners are systematically stealing from players (the people who do the actual work that creates all value), as player contracts are being kept artificially low, by an enormous amount.

 

Your critique is thus entirely unfounded. Teams offer the contracts that they offer because they can afford to do so, based on their revenue. If a team were to price out its fans, as you suggest, its revenue would drop as a result, and likewise would drop the size of contracts that it can offer to players.

 

The main thing to understand is that the interest of players is identical to the interest of fans (in other words: to the general interest). If you are a fan of a sport, then you should naturally be in favour of the highest player salaries possible given the league's revenues, and therefore opposed to the market distortions that hold those player salaries down.

 

 

1. Word choice is grammar and not spelling.
2. The owners generate more revenue by increasing ticket, concession, parking, and souvenir prices. Here is a costs breakdown for a family of 4 to attend an MLB game last year. Fans will still attend games regardless of the costs. 
   
   While I am a sports fan, I do not look through rose-colored glasses. I cannot celebrate, support, or cheer for a player (e.g., Aaron Judge) earning an astronomically high contract because the team (e.g., Yankees) can afford him and because the fans are paying that contract for years to come one way or another. 

[McCall]

7 hours ago, BrySmalls said:

Word choice is grammar and not spelling.While I am a sports fan, I do not look through rose-colored glasses. I cannot celebrate, support, or cheer for a player (e.g., Aaron Judge) earning an astronomically high contract because the team (e.g., Yankees) can afford him and because the fans are paying that contract for years to come one way or another. 

By choice.

    We all choose whether or not we want to purchase something or some service (entertainment included) from someone or some company. What that company chooses to do with that money (legally, of course) is up to them. If we disagree with how they use it, we can choose to no longer do business with them. But we don't get to tell them what to do, nor other customers what to do, for the sake of our own, individual opinions.

    If you don't like contributing to the "astronomical" salaries of players, then don't purchase anything that would contribute to it. But you don't get to tell others they shouldn't just because you don't like how the money's being used. It's up to each individual to decide for themselves.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

2 hours ago, BrySmalls said:

Word choice is grammar and not spelling.

 

Word choice is emphatically not grammar.  It is word choice, the techincal term for which is "diction".  (Though this term is rarely used outside of linguistics circles, thanks to the popular misuse of the term to refer to elocution.)

 

 

2 hours ago, BrySmalls said:

Here is a costs breakdown for a family of 4 to attend an MLB game last year.

 

This is highly misleading.  There is no good reason to include hot dogs, beers, and sodas, which are not necessities. It's also arbitrary. A family of four? Not everyone has such a thing.  (Also, in the most civilised parts of the country, you don't need to include parking, as stadiums can be reached by public transit. But that is highly localised.)

 

Anyway, all of that is irrelevant, because, as you yourself said:

 

2 hours ago, BrySmalls said:

Fans will still attend games regardless of the costs. 

 

Well, then, if people will pay the price, then that means that the price isn't too high.

 

Though to say that people will attend "regardless of costs" is wrong, as everything has a price past which the audience won't pay.  But the major sports leagues have clearly not reached that point.

 

Anyway, most important is to understand that ticket prices are set by the market, and that teams will charge the most that they can, regardless of their payroll.  To complain about any given player's contract is utterly foolish, partly because of the aforementioned (and repeatedly proven) lack of correlation between player salaries and ticket prices, and partly because high player salaries are actually a cause for celebration, as they indicate the robust health of the sport that you supposedly love.

 

Still, if you consider the price of a ticket too expensive, then the answer is: don't pay it.  And if enough other people come to that same conclusion, then the price will go down.  (Also, there's this new thing called "television" that allows you to enjoy games without having to buy any tickets at all.)

 

[BrySmalls]

On 12/9/2022 at 11:28 AM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Well, then, if people will pay the price, then that means that the price isn't too high.

It appears that we agreed on something!

 

On 12/9/2022 at 11:28 AM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

To complain about any given player's contract is utterly foolish, partly because of the aforementioned (and repeatedly proven) lack of correlation between player salaries and ticket prices, and partly because high player salaries are actually a cause for celebration, as they indicate the robust health of the sport that you supposedly love.

 

Just to be clear, the longevity of these contracts are worth celebrating even though it's possible that the players may not live up to their expections [current age in brackets]?

• Aaron Judge [Age 30] Yankees: 9 years, $360 million (2023-31)
• Carlos Correa [Age 28], Giants: 13 years, $350 million (2023-35)
• Bryce Harper [Age 30], Phillies: 13 years, $330 million (2019-31)
• Corey Seager {Age 28], Rangers: 10 years, $325 million (2022-31)
• Gerrit Cole, Yankees [Age 32]: 9 years, $324 million (2020-28)
• Manny Machado [Age 30] , Padres: 10 years, $300 million (2019-28)
• Trea Turner {Age 29], Phillies: 11 years, $300 million (2023-33)
• Xander Bogaerts [Age 30], Padres: 11 years, $280 million (2023-33)

On 12/9/2022 at 11:28 AM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Still, if you consider the price of a ticket too expensive, then the answer is: don't pay it.  And if enough other people come to that same conclusion, then the price will go down.  (Also, there's this new thing called "television" that allows you to enjoy games without having to buy any tickets at all.)

 

 

I'm new to technology. I didn't know that's how everything worked! Can I also stream games on my laptop and what one calls a smartphone? /sarcasm

[DCarp1231]

I’m not too keen on massive contracts either.

Especially in MLB. There is an insane pay rate gap between the big league and minor league. Kyler Murray was 100% correct when he demanded a couple million from the Oakland A’s. Teams shelling out all these quarter billion contracts yet can’t allot money to their minor league systems for proper housing and food for low level players.

Massive contracts in the NBA seem pointless when players opt out after one year. Or you know, get paid millions to sit at home for an entire season and do nothing (John Wall in Houston).

[tBBP]

On 12/14/2022 at 4:35 PM, BrySmalls said:

 

• Aaron Judge [Age 30] Yankees: 9 years, $360 million (2023-31)
• Carlos Correa [Age 28], Giants: 13 years, $350 million (2023-35)
• Bryce Harper [Age 30], Phillies: 13 years, $330 million (2019-31)
• Corey Seager {Age 28], Rangers: 10 years, $325 million (2022-31)
• Gerrit Cole, Yankees [Age 32]: 9 years, $324 million (2020-28)
• Manny Machado [Age 30] , Padres: 10 years, $300 million (2019-28)
• Trea Turner {Age 29], Phillies: 11 years, $300 million (2023-33)
• Xander Bogaerts [Age 30], Padres: 11 years, $280 million (2023-33)

 

Geez, I remember first going "what da eff" when Alex Rodriguez first got that 10/252M deal from the Yankees. Now we got that many players banking 300 M's?? Dangone, boy...

[Discrim]

4 hours ago, tBBP said:

 

Geez, I remember first going "what da eff" when Alex Rodriguez first got that 10/252M deal from the Yankees. Now we got that many players banking 300 M's?? Dangone, boy...

That one was the Rangers, but the point still stands

[McCall]

20 hours ago, DCarp1231 said:

I’m not too keen on massive contracts either.

Especially in MLB. There is an insane pay rate gap between the big league and minor league. Kyler Murray was 100% correct when he demanded a couple million from the Oakland A’s. Teams shelling out all these quarter billion contracts yet can’t allot money to their minor league systems for proper housing and food for low level players.

Massive contracts in the NBA seem pointless when players opt out after one year. Or you know, get paid millions to sit at home for an entire season and do nothing (John Wall in Houston).

I'm not saying MiLB players shouldn't be paid better, but arguing about the gap between established major league players (the top tier, no doubt) and minor league players who have yet to do anything in the majors and therefore earn these massive deals, is a rather odd take.

[DCarp1231]

13 minutes ago, McCall said:

I'm not saying MiLB players shouldn't be paid better, but arguing about the gap between established major league players (the top tier, no doubt) and minor league players who have yet to do anything in the majors and therefore earn these massive deals, is a rather odd take.

I’m not arguing for equal contracts. However, I am arguing that some of that money from those multiple $300M+ is rather ridiculous when looking at how minor leaguers are treated on a daily basis.

 

https://www.insidehook.com/article/sports/frontlines-battle-better-working-conditions-minor-league-baseball/amp

 

https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/2062307-an-inside-look-into-the-harsh-conditions-of-minor-league-baseball.amp.html

[McCall]

1 hour ago, DCarp1231 said:

I’m not arguing for equal contracts. However, I am arguing that some of that money from those multiple $300M+ is rather ridiculous when looking at how minor leaguers are treated on a daily basis.

 

https://www.insidehook.com/article/sports/frontlines-battle-better-working-conditions-minor-league-baseball/amp

 

https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/2062307-an-inside-look-into-the-harsh-conditions-of-minor-league-baseball.amp.html

Yes, I'm aware. But you're putting it all on the owners. Players command these big contracts. They feel it's what they're worth and it's the market the drives them up, which is good for them and other players in regards to their future contract possibilities. But it's also because MLB is what's generating the money. Now, do they need to have better conditions, absolutely. But it's the market working as it's intended to work, and how the players want it to work, that is resulting in these contracts.

 

(off topic but somewhat not off topic note: I went to school with that one former player-turned-lawyer, Garrett Broshius [pronounced BRUSH-HOUSE] from Kindergarten through Second Grade in Advance, MO. One of my best friends.)

[DCarp1231]

In light of recent events (Commies vs Giants, among others), field officials/referees should be reprimanded for calls they blatantly miss or miscall. None of this half-assed “oh whoops sorry” hindsight apologies.

 

One could argue things can be close calls, but for things like what happened in the Commies-Giants game last night where a player asked an official if he was fine where he was only to be flagged for a penalty (which was caught on camera), the official in question should face consequences.

[DCarp1231]

Tyreek Hill gets it

 

 

[BBTV]

no surprise that a person of his intellect would have such a stupid idea.

 

All any team needs is a Robert Edwards situation in the middle of the season.  Also, what are they gonna do - a league-wide bye week?  LOL, the networks would piss all over that idea.

 

 

[The_Admiral]

Come up with some system for pooling state/provincial income tax obligations so that northern states and provinces aren't disadvantaged in free agency by providing services to their citizens. Everyone has to pay a little to everywhere.

[BBTV]

On 12/23/2022 at 5:02 PM, the admiral said:

Come up with some system for pooling state/provincial income tax obligations so that northern states and provinces aren't disadvantaged in free agency by providing services to their citizens. Everyone has to pay a little to everywhere.

 

This would be pretty easy to do.  The league establishes an "average income tax" percentage, and teams in the no-income states pay a "tax" against the salaries for their players which goes into a pool and can be used by the high-income-tax-state teams to supplement their players' income in a way that doesn't impact their cap.  All the cap gymnastics and bonuses may make the math a little tricky but there's enough nerds that can figure it out.

[BBTV]

As a non-soccer fan (not a soccer detractor, just it's not my "go to" sport) I think PKs are absurd.  It seems like just a guessing game and the goalie has to make a quick read and guess right, left, low, or high, and hope.

 

If PKs cannot be eliminated, then two options to make it better:

 

1. there should be two goalies - a left and a right one.

or

2. the kicker should be blindfolded.

 

Also, one of the balls in the PK session is actually a mine that explodes upon contact.  The usual case is that it would detonate upon contact with the kicker's foot, however there's always a chance that it might not detonate until it makes contact with the goalie.  Either way, hilarity ensues.

[raysox]

I think If I ran a spring league, I would use the college-style wide hashmarks and make the kickers set up for point after touchdowns relative to where the touchdown was scored in the endzone like they do in rugby