It seems redundant to begin this post with something like "With the recent economic downturn..." even though I haven't breathed a word of it in this collection of work, so I won't.
Our "insider" over at ESPN.com, Buster Olney, provided a piece today entitled "For Holliday and others, free agency looks bleak", a title that makes sense given the current state of our economy. Almost everyone has something to worry about in regards to the future and their bank account. In reading the story, though (at least the first three paragraphs, since I don't subscribe to ESPNinsider) I couldn't help but laugh at the following:
With a strong season, Holliday might have been in position to get something in the area of six years and $100 million, but right now, he might be looking at something for three years and $30 million to $35 million.
Buster mentions that Holliday is headed for a smaller payday than he'd hope for given his current offensive projections. However the above statement is in reference to the financial/economic issues teams are facing. We saw examples of this heading in to the 2009 season with players like Ken Griffey who, despite his declining production, would have certainly fetched more than two million dollars had be been in the same position five years ago. The same can be said for Garret Anderson and his two point five million.
Either way, paying a big-time slugger between ten and twelve million dollars a season should hardly be considered "bleak", though I understand the desire for a 29 year-old player to have a six-year contract versus one only lasting three. That's job stability and that works in to the model of present-day baseball business, as Dr. D recently pointed out at SSI when discussing Russ Branyan.
The reason I'm writing this blog, other than the fact that Buster's title amused me, is that I have been hoping for a few years now that MLB salaries would come down to earth. Consider, for instance, the 2009 Mariners. The team, in a season where they have cut a substantial amount from the payroll compared to last year, currently employs five players making 9.5 million dollars. Given all the talk we hear about baseball salaries, that doesn't sound like much. But reallly, five players making 9.5 million bucks just this year? That's a lot of bread. How does one person even spend that much money unless they're Jamie Moyer who has about thirty children to put through college? These salaries are the reason why it doesn't surprise me to hear stories about players like Manny who have paychecks pile up in their locker week after week, forgetting or not caring to deposit them. At the moment, they really don't need the money, and apparently the appeal of building interest on the money doesn't seem immanently important either.
Just for kicks, a couple more examples: The Oakland As, a "small market" team currently employs two players over the 9.5 million mark (11.5 and 13.5), while the Royals also have two (11.4 and 12). Looking down these team's rosters and salaries, I feel that the numbers look about right for a team. But that's not the way things work. The Yankees pay their players extravagantly, but their ticket prices are also pretty high, they make a LOT from merchandise and advertising, and probably several other places. I understand that everything is a balancing act, but I'm just saying that I wouldn't mind seeing players a bit more accountable for their pay checks and made to REALLY earn a bloated contract, if one is to be given at all.
With all this in mind, and judging from Buster's use of the word "bleak", it seems that accompanying an economic improvement in this country will be a revival of A-Rod-esque paydays. But who knows? Maybe owners will realize that they can control the free agentmarket a little better (as long as people like Scott Boras butt out), lower ticket and merchandise prices, and maintain a similar profit level. I can hope, right?
No comments:
Post a Comment