PDA

View Full Version : Are professional sports players overpaid and greedy?



Zmaster52
11-27-2012, 08:33 PM
I post this in the MLB forum because I see it here the most. I also see that baseball players are probably some of the highest paid players in all of sports.

I have 2 questions actually, are baseball players (or all sport players or thay matter) overpaid? Also, are some players so greedy?

I see players such as A-Rod who years ago expected 300 million an refused to sign for a penny less, any Scott Boras client who won't sign for anything less than 7 figures. I also see the David Wright situation, claiming he wants 7+ years and it's not about the money when the Mets offered him 7 years (supposedly)

A lot can be done with the average salary of an MLB player (3.4M I believe) and, is it really worth all that money for somebody who just plays a game? This may sound cliché but, comparing the money to the salary of somebody who cotributes to society (i.e a teacher) doesn't it seem a bit unfair? Even if you're in neither of their shoes.

Why is money such a big deal? Is having 300M a lot worse than having 100M and for that matter, isn't 1M more than enough to live on? Not saying players should only get paid 1M but, this ties into the idea if baseball should have a salary cap.

Is all of this money really necessary?

jej
11-27-2012, 08:36 PM
Yes. Its nuts how much these people make to play sports

abe_froman
11-27-2012, 08:38 PM
overpaid? some are,some arent.it depends on the player.greedy? sure,but who isnt?

if you could make 20+ mil a year,you would jump at the chance(everyone here would),so i dont get the hypocritical *****ing that fans do about players saying yes to that kind of money,like you'd argue to minimum at your job or something?

2009mvp
11-27-2012, 08:39 PM
No. Perspective. Try some.

abe_froman
11-27-2012, 08:42 PM
Yes. Its nuts how much these people make to play sports

not really.some make an absurd amount ,but most dont.its not like its a fixed paycheck throughout their life .whatever the make has to last them after they retire(which is alot younger then you will ,by decades) and for a skill set that most dont have and the money that it brings to the club.i'd say its adjusted to be pretty fairly for he most part

GasMan
11-27-2012, 08:46 PM
No. They generate a lot of money, why shouldn't they get their fair share? She we return to the reserve clause?

Kelly Gruber
11-27-2012, 08:46 PM
They're not trying to "live on" their salaries, they're setting up the rest of their lives and their children's lives. At best they have 20 years (most often much less) to make money at their career. Most of them know how to do little else. Their bodies likely wrecked by the time they're done. This is their chance, what they've worked their whole lives for, they need to squeeze as much out of it as they can, just like the owners squeeze all they can out of each and every one of them.

Which brings me to my next point, the ticket prices are set already by the marketplace, merchandise selling constantly, if not more to the players each year, the owner's then? The investors? These athletes lay it all on the line for these owners and fans. The money is there, who better to recieve a big chunk than the ones actually doing the work. Don't we all wish our jobs were a bit more like that?

Yes, it's insane money, but it's part of the game. These are highly specialized individuals. There are 1000s of Neurosurgians in the world, there is one 3B for the New York Yankees.

More-Than-Most
11-27-2012, 08:46 PM
yes period

Rylinkus
11-27-2012, 08:55 PM
Comparing an MLB player to a teacher is insane. There's literally thousands of teachers for every MLB player. And no school is raking in millions of dollars in revenue due to school performance.

Sports are big time businesses. And just like Microsoft would be willing to spend millions to acquire a top exec, MLB teams will do the same to acquire a top pitcher.

1908_Cubs
11-27-2012, 09:04 PM
I'm a teacher. And just because I probably should be paid, immensely more than I am, I understand why pro-athletes are making what they are, and I'm making what I am.

Sadly, I generate zero revenue, despite generating the minds of young'ins. And because salary is, a lot of the time (and most of the time, really) a direct correlation of how much money you make for your employer, I make peanuts comparatively.

I wished we lived in a perfect world were teachers, nurses, doctors (well, they already make a ton, so they're not really that left out), police officers and fire fighters made more than everyone else because of the, absolutely, important roles they play in our society. That said, we don't. So it sucks, but, it's pretty easy to understand why.

SACNYY
11-27-2012, 09:07 PM
Of course they are. It's funny how many are broke.

Bravo95
11-27-2012, 09:12 PM
Why is money such a big deal? Is having 300M a lot worse than having 100M and for that matter, isn't 1M more than enough to live on? Not saying players should only get paid 1M but, this ties into the idea if baseball should have a salary cap.
As a friend of mine says: "That's something a non-rich person would say."

Don't think of them as athletes, think of them as entertainers... like musicians, etc. They make a lot of money because a whole lot of people like what they do and keep coming back for more.

dudeonthemoon
11-27-2012, 09:20 PM
Yes and no some players really worker their *** off and they really respect the fans and the game while others just rely on talent and have little care of what we think or if they win. But we're gonna watch regardless of how much they make

Nymfan87
11-27-2012, 09:23 PM
Overpaid? No

Greedy? Yes

Greedy22
11-27-2012, 09:27 PM
Us fans are are the main reason they get these deals, we shell out the money to watch and buy the merchandise.

BKLYNpigeon
11-27-2012, 09:30 PM
this is what happens when its an open market in the MLB. you see dumb 10 year contracts for over 200 million dollars.

2009mvp
11-27-2012, 09:31 PM
The thing I don't understand, what do people think happens to all the money that would come off the books if there was a cap put in place and salaries all of a sudden tumbled? You feel better about the owners lining their pockets than the players getting what they deserve?

long ball
11-27-2012, 09:34 PM
These are the most talented people in their profession in the entire world. There are very few people in the world that can do what they do. They're in an extremely lucrative business.

It's not the athletes that are in the wrong. It's the value our society puts on entertainment.

jej
11-27-2012, 09:34 PM
How is $20M a year not overpayed? It's ridiculous that some people think its OK. Obviously their field is very rich, but its still crazy. No one deserved $20M a year for playing sports, or really for doing anything.

They are very greedy also. These people don't need all this money to "set up their lives". None of us make anything close to that, yet I'm sure most of us have been pretty successful, and can provide for themselves and their family, some probably very well. Yet these guys gripe over a few million and go to the place that offers them the most, or refuse to re sign with their team cause they aren't getting enough. People turning down $100M offers because they think they should get more is ridiculous and greedy.

Teams are raising ticket prices, and I have to pay $12 for a slice of pizza and a small soda while these guys are making millions and millions of dollars. Sure the money is gonna go to someone, but they don't need even more by ripping fans off to pay for these ridiculous contracts. That's the worst part. They want MORE.

SpecialFNK
11-27-2012, 09:34 PM
I have felt for awhile now that baseball players are overpaid. they don't need to be making upper teens/20+ million a season.
but I just now thought of something else.
in normal life people work until the age of 65. it's not even close to that in sports. baseball for example, what is the average age a player retires? mid/upper 30's? now some of them get into coaching, but not all of them. but still even if they know mostly baseball wouldn't they have a good chance at getting into coaching baseball somewhere? regardless. I don't know the math. but what is the average money made for a baseball player between the ages they are playing baseball, compared to the average person in life who works from after college until they retire at 65? maybe something worth considering. baseball players play professionally from what maybe 18/19 but more so roughly 20ish until say 35+? not that many years in there compared to regular people that work until 65.

jej
11-27-2012, 09:41 PM
Most/close to all make more in 15 years than the average person does in 40. Guaranteed. I mean, even $10M/year for 15 years is 150M. Do you think most people make that in their life?

And that's just a slightly above average player. Think about the all stats and guys getting $200M.

Plus they can go work more if they need to. They aren't exempt for that cause they played sports. If they are out of money at 45, that's on then and they can work like everyone else.

Farsight
11-27-2012, 09:43 PM
I honestly believe it matters what perspective you take on this situation. As sports fans, most can rationalize the amount of money they make. However, ask most other people, and they would probably tend to agree that they make too much.

ink
11-27-2012, 09:43 PM
Overpaid? Check
Greedy? Check

bosox_mattyice3
11-27-2012, 09:50 PM
If you think they are overpaid then that is your problem as the fan. Do you own a jersey or any other merchandise from your favorite team? Do you not go to games even if the prices are a tad bit outrages at times? Do you not pay $8 for that beer and another $10 for a hot dog and chips? These players are the ones who attract you to pour money into this buisness. Sure some are "over paid" compared to other players, but if the revenue keeps coming in at the rate it is than technically no, they are not.

The money coming in is money that must go out as well and it is not like these owners are losing any money. If people think that they are overpaid than they must like seeing the "rich get richer." Maybe not in baseball, but some players are actually underpaid in sports if you take in account all the revenue they bring in. For example Lebron James.

So if you are the one who thinks they are overpaid, than stop paying the prices.

1908_Cubs
11-27-2012, 09:54 PM
It's either the players getting the money or the owners. Sorry. If you think they're over paid, how much money should they make? Then....take all that left over money.....and one person gets it. Instead of the people who put their bodies and time on the line.

If you think they're over paid, then you think the money should be in one person's hand. Also, remind yourself, you are part of the problem you're complaining about. You've undoubtedly bought tickets, bought concessions, purchased merchandise, or watched a game on tv (which is selling advertisements to you) and you've, in some way, given them money.

I hate when people ***** at how much sports players make. It's either the owners making everything and the players making nothing, or the players making a ton and the owners making a ton, but less than everything. That's the only options. What, they should take their profits and give it back? Sorry kiddies, that's not how it works in America.

MetsFanatic19
11-27-2012, 09:56 PM
You could make a case for yes and no for this one. Yes because, well, they play baseball for a job and ask for 100 million dollars instead of 90 million dollars. On the other hand, there's so much demand for entertainment in America, and the world for that matter. The more people want to see it, the more they will pay. They do earn it, too. You think you work and diet hard? Multiply that by the highest number you can think of and there you get the highest paid athletes.

jej
11-27-2012, 10:12 PM
It's either the players getting the money or the owners. Sorry. If you think they're over paid, how much money should they make? Then....take all that left over money.....and one person gets it. Instead of the people who put their bodies and time on the line.

If you think they're over paid, then you think the money should be in one person's hand. Also, remind yourself, you are part of the problem you're complaining about. You've undoubtedly bought tickets, bought concessions, purchased merchandise, or watched a game on tv (which is selling advertisements to you) and you've, in some way, given them money.

I hate when people ***** at how much sports players make. It's either the owners making everything and the players making nothing, or the players making a ton and the owners making a ton, but less than everything. That's the only options. What, they should take their profits and give it back? Sorry kiddies, that's not how it works in America.

What about the fact that teams keep jacking up prices? They don't need that extra few dollars a ticket. So yes, they are greedy, and payed more than they have to be, even for their market. Obviously the money has to go somewhere, but its more money than it should be.

bosox_mattyice3
11-27-2012, 10:31 PM
What about the fact that teams keep jacking up prices? They don't need that extra few dollars a ticket. So yes, they are greedy, and payed more than they have to be, even for their market. Obviously the money has to go somewhere, but its more money than it should be.

Yes they are greedy, but who isn't anymore? You're saying if you have an opportunity to make more money you're not going to take it? If you are in their shoes and got to where they were, you too would be fighting for every dollar. You earned it. We are to blame for their massive contracts because owners know we are suckers as fans to pay these prices.

Spiderman 1nner
11-27-2012, 10:32 PM
EVERYONE in the entertainment industry is overpaid. They make no legitimate contribution to society in their profession to justify making that much money. They are the reason the dollar has diluted so greatly... the more money printed; the weaker its currency and when people whose jobs are nothing more than to keep us entertained contain a large chunk of the total money printed; how are we supposed to pay for peoples skills who are actually necessary? Print more money right? You wanna know why the gap between the rich and the poor is so great? Its staring you right in the face every time you turn on the television. Stop fueling the problem people. Entertainment is fueling this country and its pathetic; its created a generation of ignorance, obesity, and overall just counterproductive behavior. Television, music, sports, etc. are supposed to temporarily distract us from our lives (although good music and television should actually help you sub consciously relate to real life problems); when were letting them fill all our free time; how are we supposed to live our lives? How are we supposed to confront our problems? How are we supposed to keep up with the rest of the world and real problems? Sorry for my rant but this thread was totally started with a rhetorical question and it felt necessary

Pistol_Pete
11-27-2012, 10:40 PM
Are they overpaid and greedy? Yes. End of thread.

jej
11-27-2012, 10:43 PM
Yes they are greedy, but who isn't anymore? You're saying if you have an opportunity to make more money you're not going to take it? If you are in their shoes and got to where they were, you too would be fighting for every dollar. You earned it. We are to blame for their massive contracts because owners know we are suckers as fans to pay these prices.

Doesn't make it right. That's why monopolies are illegal. They allow crazy prices just cause there is no other choice. Raising already crazy prices when the organization is already making **** tons of money is greedy an unnecessary.

2009mvp
11-27-2012, 10:44 PM
Dude at the shelter probably thinks you're greedy too for turning down a 35k salary when you know your skills are worth more. Perspective.

R. Johnson#3
11-27-2012, 10:46 PM
If you're in the MLB and you suck you make around $500 000. It would take me 10-12 years to make that. Yes, professional athletes are grossly overpaid.

jerellh528
11-27-2012, 10:48 PM
I think the real overpaid ones are actors/ musicians...

jej
11-27-2012, 10:53 PM
Dude at the shelter probably thinks you're greedy too for turning down a 35k salary when you know your skills are worth more. Perspective.

Is me turning that down directly affecting that homeless guy, that could very easily go across the street and apply at McDonalds?

If I go for a higher paying job, it isn't taking money away from the hobo. These players getting ridiculous contracts while the prices get jacked up does affect others.

bosox_mattyice3
11-27-2012, 10:54 PM
Doesn't make it right. That's why monopolies are illegal. They allow crazy prices just cause there is no other choice. Raising already crazy prices when the organization is already making **** tons of money is greedy an unnecessary.

Yes, I agree with you 100%. It's not right. But it's not like sporting events are a need in our lifes. We watch it for our own pleasure and pour hundreds if not thousands of our own money into it. We have no one to blame but ourselves. I don't know how people don't see that. If you're going to cry about it than stop watching and going to games. Sounds harsh but it's reality.

Quinnsanity
11-27-2012, 10:54 PM
I always find it odd that players have to fight for the absolute top dollar. Take Carl Crawford for example. He wanted to go to the Angels, but took slightly more money to sign with Boston where he was miserable. Why not take slightly less to go somewhere you'll enjoy? If you're worried about running out of money when you have over $100 million than you are incredibly greedy.

Tanakid777
11-27-2012, 10:55 PM
Overpaid? The market says no

Pfeifer
11-27-2012, 10:56 PM
I'm a teacher. And just because I probably should be paid, immensely more than I am, I understand why pro-athletes are making what they are, and I'm making what I am.

Sadly, I generate zero revenue, despite generating the minds of young'ins. And because salary is, a lot of the time (and most of the time, really) a direct correlation of how much money you make for your employer, I make peanuts comparatively.

I wished we lived in a perfect world were teachers, nurses, doctors (well, they already make a ton, so they're not really that left out), police officers and fire fighters made more than everyone else because of the, absolutely, important roles they play in our society. That said, we don't. So it sucks, but, it's pretty easy to understand why.

As a teacher you generate revenue by educating kids and making successful people to pay taxes. You are paid by the same government that collects these taxes. There is a direct correlation between them and though I don't think you should be paid like a pro athlete, you should make good money as long as your a good teacher.

OaklandFan75
11-27-2012, 10:57 PM
Yes.

bosox_mattyice3
11-27-2012, 11:01 PM
I always find it odd that players have to fight for the absolute top dollar. Take Carl Crawford for example. He wanted to go to the Angels, but took slightly more money to sign with Boston where he was miserable. Why not take slightly less to go somewhere you'll enjoy? If you're worried about running out of money when you have over $100 million than you are incredibly greedy.

Yes, certain players in general are overpaid compared to other athletes around them. But as an overall athletes make what they are expected to bring back in in revenue. Red Sox sign Carl Crawford for that ridiculous contract and the Red Sox bump their price up in tickets because they know we as fans are intrigued to see this new team, along with us buying merchandise of this new player. Once again, making us look like fools. There is a reason these owners became successful.

bosox_mattyice3
11-27-2012, 11:04 PM
As a teacher you generate revenue by educating kids and making successful people to pay taxes. You are paid by the same government that collects these taxes. There is a direct correlation between them and though I don't think you should be paid like a pro athlete, you should make good money as long as your a good teacher.

Good teachers are hard to find these days. I know many friends going into teaching at ISU which is actually has a really good teaching program. Sadly, they are just not meant to be teachers and went that direction for the safe security route. I feel bad for childeren getting those people as teachers.

SenorGato
11-27-2012, 11:07 PM
Always amaze me how much fans love to protect the owners' money. There are people who OFFER these guys this money, and can afford it with ease, but since most owners can't be named right off the top of the head....

BTW: How sports fans look at players who get paid is a microcosm of why the wealthy, the truly wealthy, will always freely dominate. We don't want the big guy at the top to go down, just the people that guy allows to have a little more than ourselves. A little too political for my tastes, but undeniable. As long as the owner is in the shadows the bad guy is always the highest paid guy on his team. Meanwhile the owner piles up the money to the point where he's probably never actually held or even seen cash in a very long time. It's scary to see too because most fans will NEVER acknowledge how many of players came from absolutely nothing, the same place many are and grew up as.

jej
11-27-2012, 11:24 PM
Yes, I agree with you 100%. It's not right. But it's not like sporting events are a need in our lifes. We watch it for our own pleasure and pour hundreds if not thousands of our own money into it. We have no one to blame but ourselves. I don't know how people don't see that. If you're going to cry about it than stop watching and going to games. Sounds harsh but it's reality.

Not crying about anything. I didn't say it was going to change. I'm not gonna stop watching my favorite sport just because people are greedy. They have the power. I'm not disputing it. All I'm saying is they are greedy and overpayed. Didnt say whose fault it was.

TrueYankee
11-28-2012, 12:16 AM
They are overpaid, but it is not their fault. In today's sports market, that is the way supply/demand works. For example, there is not a large supply of elite starting pitcher out there in the free agent market, mainly because teams are locking their players up to long-term contracts as of late. Therefore, the demand for players who are available on the free agent market is very high and teams tend to out-bid each other to acquire that player.

We are also in an era now where incredibly talented players are breaking old records accomplished by retired talented players, and that is also raising their value (players were not breaking records in the 20th century as fast as they are/will in the 21st century).

A-rod for example before free agency was offered a massive contract by the Yankees, mainly because they felt he was the best 3B in the league who is on pace to be the all-time HR leader (debatable now).

Point is, teams will overpay for great players and it is because the MLB market for players has transformed entirely from what it use to be, and big-market teams could (note "could") be the reason why.

If Trout was a free agent in 2014, he would receive a $250M contract.

bosox_mattyice3
11-28-2012, 12:26 AM
Not crying about anything. I didn't say it was going to change. I'm not gonna stop watching my favorite sport just because people are greedy. They have the power. I'm not disputing it. All I'm saying is they are greedy and overpayed. Didnt say whose fault it was.

Fair enough. I see where you're coming from and the other side of the spectrum. I wasn't trying to call you out about crying either, just people in general who constantly complain about athletes salaries.

burgh_fan66
11-28-2012, 12:26 AM
They aren't overpaid but the contracts are excessive. The money they make is in line with the market meaning they aren't overpaid but the money generated by the sport (and all entertainment industries really) is excessive and would ideally be scaled back.

Guppyfighter
11-28-2012, 12:29 AM
They are not overpaid and greed is not something you can generalize to a group.

Most of these guys can't sit on their money their whole life. They need the security. Some may be greedy, some may not be.

However, they are definitely not overpaid.

Houston_Heat
11-28-2012, 12:38 AM
I actually work closely at times with nba teams, and most of those guys, in my opinion, could easily be working at Mcdonalds based off their intelligence level. Some of the dumbest people ive ever encountered. And, yes, they are greedy and leave awful tips when we go out. They make millions, and leave waiters barely 15-20%

jej
11-28-2012, 12:42 AM
They are not overpaid and greed is not something you can generalize to a group.

Most of these guys can't sit on their money their whole life. They need the security. Some may be greedy, some may not be.

However, they are definitely not overpaid.

They need $25 million to be secure? What?

SenorGato
11-28-2012, 12:46 AM
They need $25 million to be secure? What?

How many are actually making 25 million anyway?

What of the guys who can afford to pay that and STILL feel more than secure that they will never not make a profit?

Also, who gives a damn? I get that the job of haters is to hate, but the amount athletes get paid is far more reflective of the society we're in (boy do we plebs loved to be entertained, and the wealthy are only too happy to oblige so long as we aim the hate at each other) and the rarity of their ability amongst other things.

Guppyfighter
11-28-2012, 12:50 AM
They need $25 million to be secure? What?

99.7 percent of the players do not make 25 million.

jej
11-28-2012, 01:17 AM
How many are actually making 25 million anyway?

What of the guys who can afford to pay that and STILL feel more than secure that they will never not make a profit from paying that?

Also, who gives a damn? I get that the job of haters is to hate, but the amount athletes get paid is far more reflective of the society we're in (boy do we plebs loved to be entertained, and the wealthy are only too happy to oblige so long as we aim the hate at each other) and the rarity of their ability amongst other things.
Did you just call me a hater? What are you 13?

Even if its not $25M. 5, 10, 15 whatever it is. They don't NEED that much money. No one does. The average person makes 1/100 of what an average player makes a year. They seem to be alright.

jej
11-28-2012, 01:19 AM
99.7 percent of the players do not make 25 million.

Cool, they don't need $1 million either. The original point was bogus. Why do they need more security than everyone else? Most people seem to do okay making a small percentage of that a year.

To say they need millions a year is ignorant.

Guppyfighter
11-28-2012, 01:28 AM
Cool, they don't need $1 million either. The original point was bogus. Why do they need more security than everyone else? Most people seem to do okay making a small percentage of that a year.

To say they need millions a year is ignorant.

You think you can sit on one million dollars or something? You know how easy it is to run out of a million in a two or three year span?

I am convinced you don't pay bills or pay taxes.

Stop using the word need, because that's entirely subjective. We don't need most everything in society to survive, but I doubt you'd argue against those things.

SenorGato
11-28-2012, 01:32 AM
Then don't go to games, stop watching sports, don't buy merchandise, and take money out of the source that can pay those players.

Who caaaaaares what the average person makes? These people aren't average - average people cannot do an athlete's job, and there are far less jobs for athletes than there are for whoever/whatever the average person is/does.

To say they're greedy is incredibly ignorant, and I am sure you would have zero complaints if you were in their position. What you are doing here is hating -13 or not - it's unimaginably pointless, the hate is disturbingly misdirected and simplistic, and it gains nothing for any person out there.

SenorGato
11-28-2012, 01:37 AM
Guppy nailed it on need. Who are you to tell another working human being what they need and deserve to acquire for themselves anyway?

Jeffy25
11-28-2012, 01:56 AM
Too much focus on the top 1% of the professional athletes.


Most professional athletes never even make it to the 'show' and never make enough to retire on in a sport that they are forced to retire dangerously young in a business where their health and fitness is primarily number one importance, only behind their level of peak performance at prime ages.


Keep some perspective of what these athletes actually go through to get where they are and to earn what they earn.


There are a total of 9225 professional baseball players playing professional baseball

They make a combined total of 4 billion dollars per year

Which averages in total of just over 430k per year on average.

And you have guys like A-Rod and Fielder making well over 20 million a year.

But most professional baseball players are making about 1500 a month in a shortened season in a profession where after 40 they have no more future, usually at the age of 30.

When they can finally get to the point of earning 7 figures+, good for them. But they are the minority. Until you make the big leagues, you make basically nothing.




Also, nobody should ever, anywhere, care what others make in life. Those with jealousy for others will never accomplish themselves. Who cares what they earn? Good for them for doing it. Don't support the sport if you don't like it so much.

Jeffy25
11-28-2012, 02:02 AM
Stop using the word need, because that's entirely subjective. We don't need most everything in society to survive, but I doubt you'd argue against those things.

:clap:

-Lavigne43-
11-28-2012, 02:12 AM
It's basic supply and demand. MLB caliber players are extremely rare, and baseball generates an incredible amount of money. Even the worst MLB players are terrific athletes, and are better than the AAA players who just can't make it despite a lifetime of work.

KingPosey
11-28-2012, 02:27 AM
It's a two headed sword. They play a GAME, so yes, they're overpaid. BUT they generate billions of dollars as THE product, so they have a right to want to get paid accordingly.

doyerfan59
11-28-2012, 02:38 AM
Haha I can't believe so many people actually think these players are overpaid and greedy. Do you think that if they got paid less that money saved goes to society or something? That money either goes to these players or to rich owners who are generating money through other means unrelated to baseball. Would you rather have the baseball player who entertains you and went through a lot to get to the show get that money or some owner you barely know/care about get that money?

Greedy22
11-28-2012, 02:48 AM
Too much focus on the top 1% of the professional athletes.


Most professional athletes never even make it to the 'show' and never make enough to retire on in a sport that they are forced to retire dangerously young in a business where their health and fitness is primarily number one importance, only behind their level of peak performance at prime ages.


Keep some perspective of what these athletes actually go through to get where they are and to earn what they earn.


There are a total of 9225 professional baseball players playing professional baseball

They make a combined total of 4 billion dollars per year

Which averages in total of just over 430k per year on average.

And you have guys like A-Rod and Fielder making well over 20 million a year.

But most professional baseball players are making about 1500 a month in a shortened season in a profession where after 40 they have no more future, usually at the age of 30.

When they can finally get to the point of earning 7 figures+, good for them. But they are the minority. Until you make the big leagues, you make basically nothing.




Also, nobody should ever, anywhere, care what others make in life. Those with jealousy for others will never accomplish themselves. Who cares what they earn? Good for them for doing it. Don't support the sport if you don't like it so much.

Great post. :clap:

IceHawk-181
11-28-2012, 10:07 AM
So basically the argument is from each according to his ability to each according to his need?

Baseball players generate tens of billions of dollars in revenue through a myriad of products including game attendance, merchandise, television rights, etc.

I am quite content that the men who dedicate two-thirds of their year to this game in an effort to entertain me are able to reap a benefit commensurate to their effort and success.

No one "needs" a million dollars a year...hell, no one "needs" to live beyond a subsistence level of income approximately $1 above the poverty line. Anything more is excess.

Of course I would not expect someone like Jej to make a similar argument, as even you likely have a divergent view on what a comfortable level of living truly is.

The joyous thing about America that truly is different from the rest of the world is that we live in a nation in which the argument is actually, to each according to his ability.

When that finally changes we will have more problems than simply the decline in MLB talent.

Pinstripe pride
11-28-2012, 10:10 AM
yes and yes

ccugrad1
11-28-2012, 10:14 AM
Absolutely they are overpaid, if you are looking at it from the average person's perspective. A-Rod could bat .000 the next 5 years and he is going to get 114 million dollars. I think any person would sign up for that!

As for greedy, I will say this: These guys live in a world that NONE of us will ever understand, being the average American person. From my perspective, is there really any difference for Albert Pujols between 9 years, 191 million he got offered from the Cardinals or 10 years, 275 million from the Angels? Is he ever going to go hungry? Are his children ever going to have to work a day in their lives? From my perspective, my name would have been on the 9 years, 191 million before the Cardinals had a chance to rescind the offer. But then again, I am looking at it from the "average American" perspective!

1-800-STFU
11-28-2012, 10:17 AM
Nope, and everyone is. Some people are just more open about it than others.

Jeffy25
11-28-2012, 10:35 AM
I am quite content that the men who dedicate two-thirds of their year to this game in an effort to entertain me are able to reap a benefit commensurate to their effort and success.


And I accidentally left this part out of my last post, and was going to add it butt then I saw this.


Sure, these guys gets a few months off in the winter, but then they work for 9 months straight, on the road consistently. It's not like their spouse can work if they have a family. They consistently travel and have very little control over where, when, and what they do when they are in these cities.

when they are home, it's a little better certainly, but still. Not great.


Not the bigger issue here at all, but it's worth mentioning

sager729
11-28-2012, 11:31 AM
Athletes are extremely overpaid. But it is not their fault. This is where ask sports have gone. Good for them and I have no problem with it.

mtf
11-28-2012, 12:21 PM
I find it absolutely absurd when I see a friend or family member ***** about how much athletes get paid, meanwhile they're wearing usually multiple pieces of apparel of their favorite team.

Sports are a business. You are the customer, and as such are the ones putting the money in their pockets. Would it make you feel better if the owners took a greater cut of that money? If anything, that'd make athletes far more susceptible to bribery.

GasMan
11-28-2012, 12:37 PM
How is $20M a year not overpayed? It's ridiculous that some people think its OK. Obviously their field is very rich, but its still crazy. No one deserved $20M a year for playing sports, or really for doing anything.

They are very greedy also. These people don't need all this money to "set up their lives". None of us make anything close to that, yet I'm sure most of us have been pretty successful, and can provide for themselves and their family, some probably very well. Yet these guys gripe over a few million and go to the place that offers them the most, or refuse to re sign with their team cause they aren't getting enough. People turning down $100M offers because they think they should get more is ridiculous and greedy.

Teams are raising ticket prices, and I have to pay $12 for a slice of pizza and a small soda while these guys are making millions and millions of dollars. Sure the money is gonna go to someone, but they don't need even more by ripping fans off to pay for these ridiculous contracts. That's the worst part. They want MORE.

You don't have to buy a slice of pizza at all! How much the home team is paying their star player has NOTHING to do with the price of that piece of pizza, the fact that you're WILLING to pay the $12 is what sets that price.

mtf
11-28-2012, 12:40 PM
You don't have to buy a slice of pizza at all! How much the home team is paying their star player has NOTHING to do with the price of that piece of pizza, the fact that you're WILLING to pay the $12 is what sets that price.

Exactly! It's so stupid that some fans think that their prices go up because athletes want more money. When prices go up, the owners make money too.

They'll always charge as much as they can on their products until consumers stop making purchases.

mtf
11-28-2012, 12:43 PM
Teams are raising ticket prices, and I have to pay $12 for a slice of pizza and a small soda while these guys are making millions and millions of dollars. Sure the money is gonna go to someone, but they don't need even more by ripping fans off to pay for these ridiculous contracts. That's the worst part. They want MORE.

So who's the bigger idiot... The guy who charges $12 for a slice of pizza or the guy who says "What a ripoff! I'll take 3."

Getting UGGLA
11-28-2012, 12:55 PM
Unfortunately, it's the way this country works. We are run by nitwits and played like puppets. We place such high demand, value and praise on the Hollywood types and athletes, so it's really our own fault. We'll pay anything to be entertained (paying money to see games/movies), or to feel like we're part of it (hats, jerseys, memorobilia). Highest value has unfortunately been placed on movie stars and athletes. Only when disaster strikes (ex: Waldo Canyon Fire, Katrina, World War, disease/sickness) do we know the true value of the individuals who should be paid the most (Firefighters, Policemen, Doctors, National Guard, military). And yes, teachers. You can never underestimate the stupidity of the mass of uneducated American people buying into the liberal media. Example: look who's been elected president.......twice!

Nomar
11-28-2012, 12:58 PM
The Communist Thread

GasMan
11-28-2012, 01:13 PM
Unfortunately, it's the way this country works. We are run by nitwits and played like puppets. We place such high demand, value and praise on the Hollywood types and athletes, so it's really our own fault. We'll pay anything to be entertained (paying money to see games/movies), or to feel like we're part of it (hats, jerseys, memorobilia). Highest value has unfortunately been placed on movie stars and athletes. Only when disaster strikes (ex: Waldo Canyon Fire, Katrina, World War, disease/sickness) do we know the true value of the individuals who should be paid the most (Firefighters, Policemen, Doctors, National Guard, military). And yes, teachers. You can never underestimate the stupidity of the mass of uneducated American people buying into the liberal media. Example: look who's been elected president.......twice!

Pretty sure it's been the right wing that's been demonizing teachers as only working 9 mo so their overpaid and they have too good of benefits because they're government employees, so on so on.

Jeffy25
11-28-2012, 01:24 PM
Unfortunately, it's the way this country works. We are run by nitwits and played like puppets. We place such high demand, value and praise on the Hollywood types and athletes, so it's really our own fault. We'll pay anything to be entertained (paying money to see games/movies), or to feel like we're part of it (hats, jerseys, memorobilia). Highest value has unfortunately been placed on movie stars and athletes. Only when disaster strikes (ex: Waldo Canyon Fire, Katrina, World War, disease/sickness) do we know the true value of the individuals who should be paid the most (Firefighters, Policemen, Doctors, National Guard, military). And yes, teachers. You can never underestimate the stupidity of the mass of uneducated American people buying into the liberal media. Example: look who's been elected president.......twice!

By the way, everyone should watch the documentary 'Waiting for Superman' on Netflix.

Not very politically biased, it's just about our public education in this country. Very informative.

koberulesall
11-28-2012, 01:37 PM
is this even a questionable question?? only humble athlete I can think of that didnt think they deserve the world is NONE OF THEM

Rogi10
11-28-2012, 01:51 PM
Of course they're overpaid, but we're the ones causing it.

We go to the games
We watch them on t.v (increasing ratings, and leading to those massive t.v contracts)
We pay for the ticket prices, concession stand ********, etc,

We gladly give them millions upon millions, and tolerate all the ******** related to "buisness of baseball" (i'm looking at you regional blackouts) because we love baseball.

However, I still don't think we should continue this acceptance of "it's just the way things are"

This can't continue, sooner or later player salaries will reach a level that will cause the game to become so expensive, it will be out of the reach of your average joe.

ATL#22
11-28-2012, 02:05 PM
Yes they are overpaid. We should eliminate them

GasMan
11-28-2012, 02:27 PM
Of course they're overpaid, but we're the ones causing it.

We go to the games
We watch them on t.v (increasing ratings, and leading to those massive t.v contracts)
We pay for the ticket prices, concession stand ********, etc,

We gladly give them millions upon millions, and tolerate all the ******** related to "buisness of baseball" (i'm looking at you regional blackouts) because we love baseball.

However, I still don't think we should continue this acceptance of "it's just the way things are"

This can't continue, sooner or later player salaries will reach a level that will cause the game to become so expensive, it will be out of the reach of your average joe.

No it won't, if they try to price the games, concessions, merchandise, Cable deals, demand will go down and they will have to lower prices again. I'm sure teams have people whose job is to determine price points for this stuff to find the price that maximizes profit for that item.

Jeffy25
11-28-2012, 02:30 PM
This can't continue, sooner or later player salaries will reach a level that will cause the game to become so expensive, it will be out of the reach of your average joe.

Zero chance in hell that ever happens.

2009mvp
11-28-2012, 02:32 PM
Love how people with thousands of posts on a sports forum get sanctimonious about the value of entertainment. Could we live without sports? Sure. Would it suck? You bet.

Jeffy25
11-28-2012, 02:37 PM
No it won't, if they try to price the games, concessions, merchandise, Cable deals, demand will go down and they will have to lower prices again. I'm sure teams have people whose job is to determine price points for this stuff to find the price that maximizes profit for that item.

Haha, yup. Exactly (sorry, just saw this).


The Cardinals in fact (and I believe a few other teams, I believe the Giants in particular) have a software that determines the ticket pricing based on a number of factors and a long algorithm.

So pricing is tiered to maximize the revenue per game.


I have no idea how there are people that don't understand basic supply and demand when it comes to pricing structures.

When you set the price point for a product or service, you base it on the maximum amount that people will pay in the most quantity so that you can have the max revenue overall. It has nothing to do with the mark-up, and ticket prices are not set based on the players salaries. In fact, most baseball players salaries are paid for by the tv deals as a whole.


Ticket pricing works in this sort of format:

Option 1: Average 30.00 per ticket price, ticket sales will be 30,000 per game - $900,000 per game
Option 2: Average 25.00 per ticket price, ticket sales will be 31,000 per game - $775,000 per game
Option 3: Average 35.00 per ticket price, ticket sales will be 25,000 per game - $875,000 per game

So then you start to work between options 1 and 3 to find the maximum point of revenue.

This is a way dumbed down example, but it's how all pricing is structured in business. It is not based on expenses. Anyone who is setting their pricing based on what they need to make to operate will not last long in business (or are operating way too inefficiently).

You should always be at about 50% markup (+/-) in order to justify being in business. But you don't set your pricing based on the necessary markup. You determine if you can justify selling the product or service if you cover the necessary mark-up (and if it is even worth the headache). You always attempt to maximize revenue based on what the market will pay.

And every employee has to earn double their gross income to justify having the employee.

Sorry Vernon Wells, I don't think you are accomplishing that. But good job Mike Trout, you are making up for him.

Rogi10
11-28-2012, 03:12 PM
Haha, yup. Exactly (sorry, just saw this).


The Cardinals in fact (and I believe a few other teams, I believe the Giants in particular) have a software that determines the ticket pricing based on a number of factors and a long algorithm.

So pricing is tiered to maximize the revenue per game.


I have no idea how there are people that don't understand basic supply and demand when it comes to pricing structures.

When you set the price point for a product or service, you base it on the maximum amount that people will pay in the most quantity so that you can have the max revenue overall. It has nothing to do with the mark-up, and ticket prices are not set based on the players salaries. In fact, most baseball players salaries are paid for by the tv deals as a whole.


Ticket pricing works in this sort of format:

Option 1: Average 30.00 per ticket price, ticket sales will be 30,000 per game - $900,000 per game
Option 2: Average 25.00 per ticket price, ticket sales will be 31,000 per game - $775,000 per game
Option 3: Average 35.00 per ticket price, ticket sales will be 25,000 per game - $875,000 per game

So then you start to work between options 1 and 3 to find the maximum point of revenue.

This is a way dumbed down example, but it's how all pricing is structured in business. It is not based on expenses. Anyone who is setting their pricing based on what they need to make to operate will not last long in business (or are operating way too inefficiently).

You should always be at about 50% markup (+/-) in order to justify being in business. But you don't set your pricing based on the necessary markup. You determine if you can justify selling the product or service if you cover the necessary mark-up (and if it is even worth the headache). You always attempt to maximize revenue based on what the market will pay.

And every employee has to earn double their gross income to justify having the employee.

Sorry Vernon Wells, I don't think you are accomplishing that. But good job Mike Trout, you are making up for him.


Yes, under basic supply and demand practices, prices should remain at respectable levels. However, baseball is a different beast.

For example, baseball tickets have increased by over 300% (after inflation) since 1957. That means in 55 years the prices have continuously gone up with no projected decrease forcasted. Now, teams individual pricing will obviously vary, but on the whole baseball is projecting increasing profits for probably the next 10 years (some reports say the next 5, but my research here is lacking, thus the guess)

My concern is, and will continue to be the increasing cost in tickets removing the average joe from the stadium ( or even pushing them to worse, and worse seats). The best example is in the Toronto Maple Leafs (ewww hockey) The average ticket price is $123.77 US, and your average leaf fan isn't seeing the game live.

While I agree with you that baseball will never eliminate the average fan, it sure as hell is making sure to suck every last dollar from the them.

Rogi10
11-28-2012, 03:19 PM
By the way, everyone should watch the documentary 'Waiting for Superman' on Netflix.

Not very politically biased, it's just about our public education in this country. Very informative.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUgrpjMjsyY a trailer for "The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting For Superman"

It talks about the about major issues the documentary ignores/misinforms. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLmXV4-CBOQ&feature=related) the actual documentary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U

This is a great video about the state of US eductaion, adn the problems it faces. by Ken Robionson.


Edit: ****, double post, though it was part of the other post, oops.

Getting UGGLA
11-28-2012, 03:43 PM
By the way, everyone should watch the documentary 'Waiting for Superman' on Netflix.

Not very politically biased, it's just about our public education in this country. Very informative.

GREAT movie.

Getting UGGLA
11-28-2012, 03:48 PM
Pretty sure it's been the right wing that's been demonizing teachers as only working 9 mo so their overpaid and they have too good of benefits because they're government employees, so on so on.

Nope, you've been watching too much Rachel Madcow. It's the left, and the teacher unions. They're a cancer in this country.

GasMan
11-28-2012, 04:07 PM
Nope, you've been watching too much Rachel Madcow. It's the left, and the teacher unions. They're a cancer in this country.

I don't watch Maddow. But I saw plenty of venom towards teachers from the right during the Wisconsin state workers/Walker standoff.

Gritz
11-28-2012, 04:22 PM
Thread created by a hater for haters

lsptoo
11-28-2012, 04:34 PM
overpaid.. i dont think so maybe some position in some sports yes.. for instance closers in baseball, yes they are specialist but they make crazy money for an inning. But overall athletes put there body through alot and it sucks when u cant get out of bed, or play with your kids etc...

jej
11-28-2012, 10:39 PM
You think you can sit on one million dollars or something? You know how easy it is to run out of a million in a two or three year span?

I am convinced you don't pay bills or pay taxes.

Stop using the word need, because that's entirely subjective. We don't need most everything in society to survive, but I doubt you'd argue against those things.

Its easy to run out of a million in two years? Thats ridiculous.

No, Im 16. But if people are making $1M a year and they run out, thats on them. They are spending recklessly. Most people get by on 10% of that or less, and do pretty well. They can buy some nice things that arent need.

I obviously didnt mean need as strongly as you implied. But these guys arent special. They dont require millions of dollars to be secure. Its ridiculous that you think $1M over a year or two is easy to run out of. If you arent a ****ing idiot, then I think you can feel pretty secure with that.

Then you get into the people who are making well above $1M a year, which is most people, so Im not sure why you used that as your example anyway. When these ****ers are griping over $15 Million/year rather than $13, then yes, its greedy. Most people would be extatic to get handed $13M a year to play a sport. But they need that extra $2million.

Then ticket and food prices go up and ****. Thats my real problem.
They generate a lot of $, I get it. Its either them or the owners. But then prices get jacked up when these people are already ****ing richer than most other people. That is basically the definition of greed

jej
11-28-2012, 10:45 PM
Too much focus on the top 1% of the professional athletes.


Most professional athletes never even make it to the 'show' and never make enough to retire on in a sport that they are forced to retire dangerously young in a business where their health and fitness is primarily number one importance, only behind their level of peak performance at prime ages.


Keep some perspective of what these athletes actually go through to get where they are and to earn what they earn.


There are a total of 9225 professional baseball players playing professional baseball

They make a combined total of 4 billion dollars per year

Which averages in total of just over 430k per year on average.

And you have guys like A-Rod and Fielder making well over 20 million a year.

But most professional baseball players are making about 1500 a month in a shortened season in a profession where after 40 they have no more future, usually at the age of 30.

When they can finally get to the point of earning 7 figures+, good for them. But they are the minority. Until you make the big leagues, you make basically nothing.




Also, nobody should ever, anywhere, care what others make in life. Those with jealousy for others will never accomplish themselves. Who cares what they earn? Good for them for doing it. Don't support the sport if you don't like it so much.

I dont think thats what it was about. No one was talking about A ball players, at least not that I know of. Thats a completely different thing

But a big leaguer griping over a couple million a year when they are gonna make $12M/year anyway is greed.

Im not gonna stop watching the team just because they are greedy. Thats ****ing ridiculous. Like I said, its a monopoly. People want to watch sports, and unfortunately the only way to do that (in person) is to pay their ridiculous prices. Monopolies are illegal for a reason. They are unjust and fueled by greed.

When most everyone involved is already making millions of dollars a year, they dont need to keep charging $10 for a hot dog and ****. THAT IS GREED.

"excessive desire, as for wealth or power"

Sounds about right to me. They want an excess of wealth. In this case, an excess of their excess!

jej
11-28-2012, 10:51 PM
So who's the bigger idiot... The guy who charges $12 for a slice of pizza or the guy who says "What a ripoff! I'll take 3."

Its a monopolistic situation! Theres no other choice. They dont want you to bring your own food in, so If you want to eat (most games are around a meal time) you have to pay the crazy prices. They have the power. Do you think me not buying that pizza is gonna make them lower the prices? No, they dont give a ****. They have the power.

jej
11-28-2012, 10:56 PM
Nope, you've been watching too much Rachel Madcow. It's the left, and the teacher unions. They're a cancer in this country.

Yay for bias, uneducated political posts!

Way to not defend your point. Just a typical ignorant response of "No you are wrong I am right. Your ideas are cancer. God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve."

GasMan
11-28-2012, 11:08 PM
Its easy to run out of a million in two years? Thats ridiculous.

No, Im 16. But if people are making $1M a year and they run out, thats on them. They are spending recklessly. Most people get by on 10% of that or less, and do pretty well. They can buy some nice things that arent need.

I obviously didnt mean need as strongly as you implied. But these guys arent special. They dont require millions of dollars to be secure. Its ridiculous that you think $1M over a year or two is easy to run out of. If you arent a ****ing idiot, then I think you can feel pretty secure with that.

Then you get into the people who are making well above $1M a year, which is most people, so Im not sure why you used that as your example anyway. When these ****ers are griping over $15 Million/year rather than $13, then yes, its greedy. Most people would be extatic to get handed $13M a year to play a sport. But they need that extra $2million.

Then ticket and food prices go up and ****. Thats my real problem.
They generate a lot of $, I get it. Its either them or the owners. But then prices get jacked up when these people are already ****ing richer than most other people. That is basically the definition of greed

The cost of the players has absolutely 100% nothing to do with the ticket price, concession cost or merchandising prices. No correlation at all.

GasMan
11-28-2012, 11:12 PM
Its a monopolistic situation! Theres no other choice. They dont want you to bring your own food in, so If you want to eat (most games are around a meal time) you have to pay the crazy prices. They have the power. Do you think me not buying that pizza is gonna make them lower the prices? No, they dont give a ****. They have the power.

Actually if the price of the pizza led to significantly less sales then they would lower the price. The point of running a business is to maximize profits.

jej
11-28-2012, 11:13 PM
Didnt say it did. Im talking about how greedy everyone involved is cause even though they all make way more many than most people, they still increase prices.

They have the power. people dont have any other choice but to eat there since they dont let you bring your own stuff in. Thats a monopoly.

GasMan
11-28-2012, 11:19 PM
Then ticket and food prices go up and ****. Thats my real problem.
They generate a lot of $, I get it. Its either them or the owners. But then prices get jacked up when these people are already ****ing richer than most other people. That is basically the definition of greed

This is what I was responding to. They don't set the market, we do. We will spend up to a certain point for a product or service and that becomes its value.

Restricting the ability to bring in outside food is not by any means something only baseball does. I generally eat before the game and on the way home although I do usually drink a $12 beer. I guess if you want cheaper concessions you gotta stay home and watch it on TV.

themadstork
11-28-2012, 11:24 PM
Regardless of whether they are or aren't overpaid, the fact remains that sports was a far better product when the players were chattel.

Free agency was not a good thing.

-Stork

jej
11-28-2012, 11:43 PM
I understand that we kind of fuel it, but I still think it is unfair.

Dont you think having ridiculous prices when they already pull in so much is greedy? Its basically the definition of greed.

Agree to disagree i guess.

KadoCH
11-28-2012, 11:49 PM
Not Overpaid at all, while greedy is a case by case basis, but in a league where your salary is public its on the stars to drive up the price so the lower tier talents can earn as much as possible for the years of toil they put in for very little pay off.

I worked for a company where I was a contracted out to do work. I knew my charge rate and was getting 40% of it back as salary. This drove me nuts, of course the company I work for has over head and paid my insurance and a few benefits etc.. but that they took more than half my charge rate while they would get nothing if I didn't show up and I did all the work would drive me insane.

So I can sympathize with players feeling entitled to large salaries when there presence drives large revenues.

jej
11-29-2012, 12:03 AM
Not Overpaid at all, while greedy is a case by case basis, but in a league where your salary is public its on the stars to drive up the price so the lower tier talents can earn as much as possible for the years of toil they put in for very little pay off.

I worked for a company where I was a contracted out to do work. I knew my charge rate and was getting 40% of it back as salary. This drove me nuts, of course the company I work for has over head and paid my insurance and a few benefits etc.. but that they took more than half my charge rate while they would get nothing if I didn't show up and I did all the work would drive me insane.

So I can sympathize with players feeling entitled to large salaries when there presence drives large revenues.

Yes, but griping over $14M vs $12M is ridiculously greedy. Players now go to whoever pays them the most, not where they want to play.

SenorGato
11-29-2012, 12:20 AM
Yes, most people would move for a higher paying job. The purpose of working is to make money.

OTOH, CJ Wilson just last year took less from the Angels to pitch in his home state.

jej
11-29-2012, 12:23 AM
But they are already making ridiculous amounts of money! Letting money be the biggest factor in where you play when you are gonna be crazy rich anyway is greed. Almost an exact definition.

If I am going to make a few thousand more a year at the expense of being unhappy, I'm not gonna take it. Because money isn't my biggest desire like it is for many players.

If one team offers $20M a year, and another $24, is that extra $4M a year gonna even make a differnce? That person isn't even going to realize a difference. It's the desire for excess, which is the definition of greed.

SenorGato
11-29-2012, 12:33 AM
2 million dollars - the difference between 14 and 12 - is alot of money. I'd move over it.

And once again, a very small percentage of athletes actually get to that level.

You choosing to take less money because you assume having more money will make you unhappy has far less significance than you think it does.

The extra 4 million is going to make a 4 million dollar difference, so yes. Most people will notice 4 million dollars moving no matter how much money they have. In fact, if I had 20 million and I could have had 24 million I would probably kick the closest small, defenseless organism and then some.

jej
11-29-2012, 01:00 AM
Then you are greedy, plain and simple. Money is more important to you than any other factor. That 2 million dollars in nothing when you have another $12M.

What is that extra 2 million gonna get you? You won't even notice it. You could go where you actually want to and still get tons of money.

SenorGato
11-29-2012, 01:11 AM
Then you are greedy, plain and simple

In your opinion, which has significant significance in this case to you and only you.

Worse:


Money is more important to you than any other factor.

What a huge assumption.

Once again, that 2 million dollars is not nothing - it's 2 f'n million dollars. An extra 2 million dollars gives me an extra two million dollars, which can get me (and my now far more secure progeny) a whole lot of things that make my life easier and better.

Dugmet
11-29-2012, 03:35 AM
not really.some make an absurd amount ,but most dont.its not like its a fixed paycheck throughout their life .whatever the make has to last them after they retire(which is alot younger then you will ,by decades) and for a skill set that most dont have and the money that it brings to the club.i'd say its adjusted to be pretty fairly for he most part

Do you realize that players make as much in 4 seasons, as the average working man makes in his lifetime, working 40 years? The MLBPA has a great pension as well. If you put in just 43 days on a MLB roster, you receive $34k/year for life.


Arguably, Major League Baseball (“MLB”) offers one of the best pension and healthcare programs in all of sports. Players vest in their pensions after 43 days on the active roster and just one day qualifies a player for lifetime healthcare. Playing isn’t even a requirement, benchwarmers may qualify for benefits as well. After 43 days, players qualify for the minimum benefit of $34,000 per year and those with 10 years of service receive a pension of approximately $100,000 annually.

http://benefitsbryancave.com/major-league-baseball-pension-and-healthcare-benefits/

bagwell368
11-29-2012, 07:32 AM
Please. Why not ask if they are human?

People want to get what they can. Most people are not interested in charity. Since big money came into baseball, team rivalries mean less and less and the commonality of interests of players is more important. I.E. Pete Rose wiping out Ray Fosse in the ASG cannot happen in this era.

The average player in 1965 made about $6500.00, the average wage earner about $3000.00. So your choice is for the "good" of the community would you take $120k or 20 times that - $2.4M and be "selfish".

I'd wager at least 1/2 of you never paid a mortgage, or had to support several children, a spouse, retirement savings, college savings, and an elderly parent.

Walk in the shoes of an adult before you cast moralistic judgment at those that do. The fact is sports careers are short, and often these people are not well prepared for what's next. So now - go ahead and rail against common sense and capitalism.

GasMan
11-29-2012, 10:28 PM
And how many of those who say they would love to play baseball for a living have actually made the sacrifices in time and effort to be a professional athlete? We'd all love the hit like Cabrera and make $20 million doing it but how many of us have been willing to put the work in to get there? What if there was no guarantee that you would make a dollar from it as you put all that work into it?

Jeffy25
11-29-2012, 10:34 PM
And how many of those who say they would love to play baseball for a living have actually made the sacrifices in time and effort to be a professional athlete? We'd all love the hit like Cabrera and make $20 million doing it but how many of us have been willing to put the work in to get there? What if there was no guarantee that you would make a dollar from it as you put all that work into it?

No doubt.


I wonder how many hours the league average MLB player worked out today. Even though it's their vacation time.


3.5? Some might be away on a vacation with their families, but I bet most are still training.

Carlos Martinez for example, Cardinals double A prospect. Moving up our prospects ranks. Was sent home to the Dominican, and the team is paying for a full time instructional coach to live with him all winter to work out with him all-day, everyday. Not much of a vacation.


There are plenty of perks.....if you make and get the 7 figure deals. But that's far from everybody (especially when we consider minor leaguers). Agents make 3%, lawyers make another 2%, and accountants 1% (these are averages, it varies obviously). Then taxes takes 25-30%, and they obviously have other personal expenses as well.

Obviously, after a year or two in the big leagues, you make good money, but that isn't most.

If you are signed out of the Dominican, the guy who trained you gets anywhere between 15-30% of your signing bonus (they take them in and develop them through camps from like age 12-13 and this is how they are rewarded).

It's not all 100 million dollar deals and living high for everybody. Some players get to that point. But that is far from most.

mtf
11-29-2012, 11:07 PM
Then you are greedy, plain and simple. Money is more important to you than any other factor. That 2 million dollars in nothing when you have another $12M.

What is that extra 2 million gonna get you? You won't even notice it. You could go where you actually want to and still get tons of money.

I know what you're trying to say, but it's a comment which lacks perspective. A homeless guy may think that a man who makes $100,000 a year is greedy for trying to find a job which would pay $120,000.

There's nothing wrong with being motivated to earn more money and no need to vilify someone for it unless they do something unethical to pursue it.

Zmaster52
11-30-2012, 01:09 AM
In your opinion, which has significant significance in this case to you and only you.

Worse:



What a huge assumption.

Once again, that 2 million dollars is not nothing - it's 2 f'n million dollars. An extra 2 million dollars gives me an extra two million dollars, which can get me (and my now far more secure progeny) a whole lot of things that make my life easier and better.

2 Million dollars is such a big difference? Yeah to US it is. Is $14 so much more than $12? No. It's evidentally the same percentage.

jej
11-30-2012, 01:12 AM
I know what you're trying to say, but it's a comment which lacks perspective. A homeless guy may think that a man who makes $100,000 a year is greedy for trying to find a job which would pay $120,000.

There's nothing wrong with being motivated to earn more money and no need to vilify someone for it unless they do something unethical to pursue it.

If that extra 2k is more important to them than anything else then I agree. They are greedy.

mtf
11-30-2012, 01:21 AM
If that extra 2k is more important to them than anything else then I agree. They are greedy.

Greedy would imply that they are doing something wrong by taking the best offer they can get. There's nothing wrong with being ambitious, even if someone who is poor and envious will unfairly criticize them for it.

Jeffy25
11-30-2012, 01:41 AM
If that extra 2k is more important to them than anything else then I agree. They are greedy.

I pursue the most money in business opportunities every time.

I am doing this because I don't want to work forever, and because I have a family I am providing for.

And I don't feel badly about it, and I don't feel greedy about it. I don't screw people over, and I am not unethical about it. But I pursue the best deal whenever such an opportunity is created.


I don't think that is greedy.

Just like if I was a big leaguer, and I was finally a free agent.

If I had three offers on the table, for example:

4/40 - Team I was drafted by
4/44 - Team I have the best chance to win with
4/48 - Most money, okay team

Am I a greedy person if I took option C?

GasMan
11-30-2012, 08:59 AM
If that extra 2k is more important to them than anything else then I agree. They are greedy.

What if someone making $25k is looking for a $45k job? Is that greedy?

Most of these baseball players do care about where they play, who they play for and what kind of chance they have to win. When they're picking between $12 million and $14 million they've already narrowed it down to places that meet all these other non-monitary criteria.

What contract could Josh Hamilton take for you to not consider him greedy?

HowFit
11-30-2012, 09:07 AM
I'm a teacher. And just because I probably should be paid, immensely more than I am, I understand why pro-athletes are making what they are, and I'm making what I am.

Sadly, I generate zero revenue, despite generating the minds of young'ins. And because salary is, a lot of the time (and most of the time, really) a direct correlation of how much money you make for your employer, I make peanuts comparatively.

I wished we lived in a perfect world were teachers, nurses, doctors (well, they already make a ton, so they're not really that left out), police officers and fire fighters made more than everyone else because of the, absolutely, important roles they play in our society. That said, we don't. So it sucks, but, it's pretty easy to understand why.

True...

jej
11-30-2012, 09:55 AM
If Josh Hamilton went where he wanted to play for a little less than the biggest offer. Didt his wife say they would go to whoever offers the most money?

Pujols was greedy. He left the World Series champion cards when he was already gonna get $230M.

That's a fundamental difference. Someone getting $45k rather than $20k is a lot different than getting $250M rather than $230M or whatever. He will never even get into that last $20M

mlisica19
11-30-2012, 09:56 AM
This $$$ situation always gets brought up with athletics.
Its simple.

The MLB is a business based around athletics. The owners and the league make billions on athletics and each and every player that plays in the league. They deserve a share of those earnings because if you take out those players than all you have is a baseball field and no one is paying much to see that casually on a pretty dime.

Players only make a portion to the owners,

mtf
11-30-2012, 10:20 AM
If Josh Hamilton went where he wanted to play for a little less than the biggest offer. Didt his wife say they would go to whoever offers the most money?

Pujols was greedy. He left the World Series champion cards when he was already gonna get $230M.

That's a fundamental difference. Someone getting $45k rather than $20k is a lot different than getting $250M rather than $230M or whatever. He will never even get into that last $20M

I don't think you really know what greedy means, based on the context you've repeatedly used it in. Greedy has a negative connotation because it implies that the person it's describing has done something unethical for the sole purpose of acquiring wealth. There's absolutely nothing wrong, or greedy, about accepting the best offer made to you.

ccugrad1
11-30-2012, 10:27 AM
I have said it once and I will say it a million times over: The average American and fan will NEVER understand the professional athlete thinking because we have never been in their situation. In my eyes, there isn't any difference between 125 million and 110 million-- You aren't going hungry either way; you are set for life either way; your kids are set for life either way; you can buy just about anything you want either way. You see these guys haggling over 1 or 2 million more a year and you ask the question, "My goodness man, when is enough enough?" Like with David Wright: I read on mlbtraderumors.com earlier yesterday that he may wait until after the Winter Meetings to decide on the Mets 7 year, 124 million dollar extension offer (of course he signed last night and good for him). In my eyes it was like, "Hey David, you moron, what the heck are you waiting for?" My name would have been on that contract before the Mets had a chance to rescind the offer.

But again, I am just an average American fan that can't relate to the professional athlete thinking.

1908_Cubs
11-30-2012, 10:42 AM
If Josh Hamilton went where he wanted to play for a little less than the biggest offer. Didt his wife say they would go to whoever offers the most money?

Pujols was greedy. He left the World Series champion cards when he was already gonna get $230M.

That's a fundamental difference. Someone getting $45k rather than $20k is a lot different than getting $250M rather than $230M or whatever. He will never even get into that last $20M

It is not greedy to accept the best offer.

jej
12-01-2012, 02:00 PM
I don't think you really know what greedy means, based on the context you've repeatedly used it in. Greedy has a negative connotation because it implies that the person it's describing has done something unethical for the sole purpose of acquiring wealth. There's absolutely nothing wrong, or greedy, about accepting the best offer made to you.

Greed: excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions

I don't think you know what it means considering I don't see anything g bout unethical in the definition.

Wanting an extra $4M a year when you already get a ton, and making that more important than playing where you want to play or anything else, is GREED. Excessive desire. $20M a year is already excessive. $24M is an excessive excess.

mtf
12-01-2012, 02:04 PM
Greed: excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions

I don't think you know what it means considering I don't see anything g bout unethical in the definition.

Wanting an extra $4M a year when you already get a ton, and making that more important than playing where you want to play or anything else, is GREED. Excessive desire. $20M a year is already excessive. $24M is an excessive excess.

Wanting an extra $4M when you believe that your market value entitles you to ask for it, or wait for it to be offered is hardly excessive. Excessive would be if someone wasn't willing to offer it. This is why I suggested that you aren't aware of what "greedy" means. You can quote the dictionary but you can't use it properly in context.

jej
12-01-2012, 03:24 PM
We have different interpretations of the word then.

Quit acting like there is only one opinion in this discussion. It's ignorant to do so.

I think it's greedy, you don't. Doesn't mean I'm wrong.

mtf
12-01-2012, 03:29 PM
We have different interpretations of the word then.

Quit acting like there is only one opinion in this discussion. It's ignorant to do so.

I think it's greedy, you don't. Doesn't mean I'm wrong.

I wasn't acting like there's only one opinion, I was acting like mine is more plausible and I was defending it as such. At no point did I suggest you should stop posting.

When people here can't defend their positions well, they begin acting as though they're getting attacked and are a victim of someone who doesn't share their opinions. It's all too common and it's pretty weak.

jej
12-01-2012, 03:50 PM
When people do what you are doing, it seems like you are acting like there is only one valid opinion.

None of this is fact. It's all up to interpretation. I disagree that what you think is more plausible. That's the whole point of what I am saying.

mtf
12-01-2012, 04:00 PM
When people do what you are doing, it seems like you are acting like there is only one valid opinion.

It may seem like that to you, but that's just irrational. I've argued against your stance in a very reasonable manner. If i was unable to stand up to your arguments, I could just as easily been irrational and said you were picking on me simply because I had no retort that was relevant to the discussion.


None of this is fact. It's all up to interpretation. I disagree that what you think is more plausible. That's the whole point of what I am saying.

The claim that it's all open to interpretation isn't really viable. Multiple people are telling you that it's unreasonable to call someone greedy just for taking the best offer that they've been presented with. It's actually quite logical. Greedy, for example, would be demanding more than anyone else would be willing to offer you. Accepting the best offer that the market presents you with is fine. There's pretty much consensus on that so saying it's just open to interpretation is merely a way of saying "but i'm not wrong" rather than present an argument to backup that claim.

Cosmic_Canon
12-01-2012, 04:10 PM
Greedy: No
Overpaid : It depends on how you view overpaid. Do you view most(not star players mind you, but the average guy) players being overpaid as how much they're worth or how much they'll get on the open market?

mtf
12-01-2012, 04:12 PM
Overpaid : It depends on how you view overpaid. Do you view most(not star players mind you, but the average guy) players being overpaid as how much they're worth or how much they'll get on the open market?

Yeah, this is the part that I believe, as jej would say, is open to interpretation. Some people would argue (and I'd be among them) that they're not overpaid because of the revenue that they collectively generate for the sport. Others would get emotional about the disparity between the income of an athlete vs the average citizen like themselves and argue the opposite.

Jeffy25
12-01-2012, 04:18 PM
Jej, I get what you are saying.

I think the disconnect here is that when most of these professional ball players decide between a few teams, they might take the best offer because they have already ruled out most baseball teams.


For instance, 'apparently' last year when Albert Pujols decided to sign with the Angels. It was based on a few things. Cardinals fans seem to get upset and say that he just chased the dollars. But that isn't the case.

His largest offer was from the Marlins, 10 year, pushing 300 million, and he would have topped A-Rod. Which is something he did want.

The Cardinals came in around 9/200-211 (something like that), and then the Angels were around 10/250

He had had communication with a large number of other teams, but he ruled most of them out based on a number of factors (chances of winning, management) He ended up choosing between the Cardinals and Angels. Apparently the Marlins were never a factor (even though he visited their new stadium) because they refused to include a NTC (Pujols was smart in that sense).

He chose the Angels because he felt they wanted him more. The personal services clause said he would be around for 20 years, and Artie really wanted him. More than he wanted anybody else. He wanted Pujols. And Pujols showed appreciation in that. This wasn't about the additional 40ish million or whatever. He was upset with the Cardinals from the off-season prior, and never felt they really wanted to keep him for that contract. And in reality, they probably didn't like the idea of paying him huge to decline.

Cliff Lee went through a similar thing. He had already been with a number of teams. Yankees and Rangers wanted him badly. Nationals and 'apparently 6 teams' all together made him an offer. He chose the Phillies for personal reasons.

When these players make their decision, it might be based on money when they accept the offer, because they have already broken down the suitors to 2 or 3, and then will take whatever is the best offer of the 3. They have picked these three because they are the 3 that best fit what they want. The money is the icing on the cake.


Everyone is motivated by different things. I have learned this in business. Everyone has different motivations, and as an employer, it is important to put people in proper positions where their motivations can be accomplished.

I have found four key motivations

1. Money. They want to make as much money as possible, it's what they most care about. I fit into this category. I usually put these kinds of people on a commission scale somehow. Keep the carrot in front of them to earn a lot, and they will succeed as long as they remain hungry.

2. Security. Sometimes people just want to not have change. I have a girl that works at our front desk for the computer store. She is highly educated (Masters), very good looking, and very articulate. But she has remained at the front desk of a retail store for four years now in her upper 20's because it's stable. Annual raises has gotten her to 12 bucks an hour, she never calls in sick, she is dependable. For me, I have to just never change anything on her. Let everything remain the same. Don't change her system, just let her do it the same way every day. She craves the security, and won't pursue anything ambitious because she is safe where she is.

3. Title. Some people just want to have a title they can brag about. Usually they also care about money too. I have a guy that I have given the title Operations Manager to at the same store, he is proud of that. But it's a useless title. But he is motivated to get 'the next promotion'. With each promotion he gets a little more responsibility, but he is motivated to get the next possible position within the company. This is usually someone pretty insecure fwiw.

4. Perks. Some people just want the perks of a job. Vacation, use of company equipment etc.


I know there are more, and we actually do testing for this when I hire. The point being. Not everyone is motivated by money. I am a bit greedy. I want to earn as much for my family in as short of time as possible so I can retire young, and my wife not have to want or worry. We are all pursuing the most food, right? By definition, I am greedy. But, like you are attempting to say. You are not condemning anyone for being greedy. I might be greedy, but that doesn't make me a bad person, or a bad employer, or a bad person to work with or for. It's the carrot in front of me to work harder. Everyone has different reasons for wanting to work. Money is a tool, it's a resource. It's the key-cog to our societies motivation. So these baseball players make millions. It doesn't make them bad people (I know that isn't what you are saying Jej). They should be able to earn whatever they can while they can, and achieve their worth. It's a difficult industry to succeed in. I say good for them. I don't personally care what other people make, I won't ever spend that money, so it's not for me to worry about.

By definition of greedy, yes. They are probably greedy. So am I. But that doesn't make anyone a bad person (until you start harming people for the sake of greed of course). It's considered a deadly sin, but I think it only is when it is greatly exasperated and can cause harm to others. I am greedy for a lot of good reasons, but maybe not all good reasons.

Braves14
12-01-2012, 04:27 PM
You also have to take into account that while baseball players do make a substantial amount of money, Uncle Sam and his lapdog, IRS, are waiting patiently. Unless you're playing in Florida(forgot the other income tax free state, if there is one), you're getting taxed heavy for whatever you make. Athletes are in the top tax bracket, higher than politicians/hedge fund managers/CEOs/et all.

Just because you sign a contract for $100M does not mean you are actually ever going to see $100M.

jej
12-01-2012, 04:29 PM
I didn't say you or I or anyone else wasn't greedy. I just said they were too, and I don't think there is any disputing that if you believe that most people naturally are.

I just happen to think they are more greedy than others because the extra money they want, in some cases, won't actually make a different. Is Pujols ever going to actually get to the 250th million that he got? I tend to think he won't.

Jeffy25
12-01-2012, 05:00 PM
Well he is going to be paid it.

These contracts are guaranteed, he isn't taking this offer from start-up company in Hondouras or something.

But he will be taxed, and likely won't ever spend that much in his lifetime.

After taxes, he would have to spend basically 12 grand a day for the rest of his life to actually go broke with all the compensation he has already earned, will earn, and what he has likely already spent.

YadiSTL
12-01-2012, 05:22 PM
These are the most talented people in their profession in the entire world. There are very few people in the world that can do what they do. They're in an extremely lucrative business.

It's not the athletes that are in the wrong. It's the value our society puts on entertainment.

Bingo, its disgusting.

metswon69
12-01-2012, 07:34 PM
I think people need to look at it in context too.

How many players are paid at the level of a Pujols, A-Rod, Fielder, Votto etc etc?

It's a very small group of major league players that even make 15+ million over an extended period of time. Saying that, you might see more of these types of deals are certain markets look to increase tv market revenue through larger contracts and starting their own sports networks.

It's also the fact that guys who make 2 or 3 million dollars a year don't specifically have long life spans in MLB. If they can maximize their value and collect 5-10 million dollars that's still not probably enough to live on for their rest of their lives between taxes, agents fees and their own personal expenses.

There are a lot more guys in MLB who make that type of money that no one ever speaks about as greedy. That's why guys like Scott Hairston are looking to cash in coming off a good season with a multi year deal after getting only 1 million from the Mets last year.

Some of these elite guys are not getting paid right away either. I mean Trout for example is making next to nothing and he was the best player in the majors last year. He also isn't arbitration eligible for another 2 seasons and not a FA till 2018 when he will be 26 or 27 years old. Those arbitration years and his next big contract will be probably the only time he makes considerable money.

It's a very short time frame in which this players can cash in. They aren't teachers, scientists, doctors etc etc who can work 40-50 years if they want to. Then you look at professions like CEOs, stockbrokers, executives at profitable companies and they can also make "major sports money" for that amount of time as well.

So i believe there has to be some context to it besides "Look at all these greedy players"

I mean if we are going to complain about athletes making this amount of money then what about the CEOs of major banks that needed to bailed out by taxpayer money?

Or even the money they were making before that?

Or complain about the owners of these franchises and the profits they bring in?

Some professions are incredibly lucrative and these players (and their agents) see how much money these teams are making off a certain player or just in general and feel they deserve a piece of that. I say rightfully so! (The NCAA should also pay their players but that's a different can of worms)

Saying that, there are people to blame for the FA market being where it is today.

John Hart opened the flood gates (no pun intended) to these modern day monster contracts with A-Rod and the Yankees have been at the forefront of many of these major money deals since the Steinbrenners (George specifically) took over the Yankees in 1973.

These owners were willing participants because they wanted to win or generate a crap load of money, whatever their main motivation was.

We are also to blame in some respects, paying subscription fees for certain sports channels on Cable (like MSG, SNY, YES here in NY), paying sometimes absorbitant amounts of money to see live sporting events like a Knicks game or a Giants game, paying 20,000 bucks for a PSL to see the Jets, and doing little about it even as it becomes harder on our wallets.

Like i said it's all about context, there are plenty of guys who make a modest living playing major league baseball for a short period of time. They need that money to sustain a certain lifestyle and put some away for their future. Even so a lot of them move on to work in professional baseball after their playing career is over because they need a profession past playing professional sports.

Do certain athletes make too much money? Of course but as long as we are willing to pay to see them, there is going to be this type of money out there for these players.

And i hate to burst everyone's bubble but it's going to only get worse with the way the major sports are currently constructed.

jej
12-01-2012, 07:40 PM
It's also the fact that guys who make 2 or 3 million dollars a year don't specifically have long life spans in MLB. If they can maximize their value and collect 5-10 million dollars that's still not probably enough to live on for their rest of their lives between taxes, agents fees and their own personal expenses.

So they can go back to work. Why are they exempt from working until 50-60 just because they were a pro baseball player?

If they only play til 30, collect $10M and cant live of that, they can work. They didnt make it, oh well. They will just have to be a regular person like everyone else and work for a while longer.

metswon69
12-01-2012, 07:51 PM
So they can go back to work. Why are they exempt from working until 50-60 just because they were a pro baseball player?

If they only play til 30, collect $10M and cant live of that, they can work. They didnt make it, oh well. They will just have to be a regular person like everyone else and work for a while longer.

I wasn't saying that they shouldn't, in fact a lot of them like i said in my post go back to baseball in some capacity (as a job) after their playing career is over.

That doesn't mean they don't deserve a share of the pie with all this money being thrown around and increasing revenue (in some cases ballooning revenue) for some of these major sports teams.

mtf
12-01-2012, 08:01 PM
I just happen to think they are more greedy than others because the extra money they want, in some cases, won't actually make a different. Is Pujols ever going to actually get to the 250th million that he got? I tend to think he won't.

Do you mean is he going to spend every single dollar he earns in the contract? No, he's probably not an idiot.

I know a lot of people who aren't homeless or anything, but definitely not a part of the middle class. They stay poor not because they're lazy, they stay poor because they're completely awful at managing their money. They live pay check to pay check and never give consideration to their future.

There are some athletes like this too. Every once and a while, you hear about an athlete going bankrupt or in financial trouble after earning millions because they live beyond their means or they're just generally completely stupid about handling their money. I think I heard about Curt Schilling going broke recently because of a stupid investment and I'd heard Mike Tyson was having money trouble too.

These athletes who make a lot of money aren't necessarily trying to get every last dollar because of vanity or greed, it's just common sense to try to get as much financial security for yourself and your family as possible. It's really ridiculous of anyone to let envy get the better of them and start calling these people greedy just because they're trying to get market value for themselves.

Saying something like "I agree that we're all greedy" dilutes it to be a meaningless adjective then as well. Why even bother to use it to describe anyone if it's attributed to everyone.

abe_froman
12-01-2012, 08:08 PM
ever their main motivation was.

We are also to blame in some respects, paying subscription fees for certain sports channels on Cable (like MSG, SNY, YES here in NY), paying sometimes absorbitant amounts of money to see live sporting events like a Knicks game or a Giants game, paying 20,000 bucks for a PSL to see the Jets, and doing little about it even as it becomes harder on our wallets.

.

its more than just we pay to watch.its we demand a winner,out emotions ride on it.if we as fans didnt care who was fielded than cost would drop,but no,we want our fav team to win the championship and most times we complain if our teams dont pay whatever it takes to make that happen.so you guys who are complaining about salary ,stop caring if your team wins or loses..because as long as the desire to win exists than those that can make it happen are in a strong negotiating position

jej
12-01-2012, 08:08 PM
Because they are greedier than most. They don't need that extra few million, and if they do they need to be a little more conservative with their money.

You are acting as though they aren't greedy at all, and that's ridiculous. I answered the question are they greedy. I believe most people are.

We obviously disagree. I don't see why you seem to think something is going to change in this argument. Just agree to disagree like I said a few pages back.

Jeffy25
12-01-2012, 08:14 PM
So they can go back to work. Why are they exempt from working until 50-60 just because they were a pro baseball player?
Most of them fore-go college to pursue professional baseball. They are not necessarily trained or educated in a world where their skills are really going to help society outside of probably coaching, which is what most of them do.



If they only play til 30, collect $10M and cant live of that, they can work. They didnt make it, oh well. They will just have to be a regular person like everyone else and work for a while longer.

10 million doesn't go nearly as far as you seem to think.


And what about the 9000 current professional baseball players that won't make it the big leagues, let alone ever top 7 figures in a single season, or 8 figures.

They are usually done with baseball by the age of 26. Some go back to college, some go work some labor job, etc.

They deserve to get every penny out of their professional baseball playing days that they can. It's a long journey, and only that top 1% ever make enough to live out their days on.

Hell, every professional baseball player is one injury away from never playing again, and never getting paid again. Some get long term deals to provide security from such a thing.

Jeffy25
12-01-2012, 08:15 PM
Because they are greedier than most. They don't need that extra few million, and if they do they need to be a little more conservative with their money.


That's your opinion, but not your place to say that.

Their money is their money, and they should be allowed to pursue however much they can/need and reach their worth.

It's either they make it, or the owners keep it. I don't consider it greedy at all.

Jeffy25
12-01-2012, 08:16 PM
Do you mean is he going to spend every single dollar he earns in the contract? No, he's probably not an idiot.

I know a lot of people who aren't homeless or anything, but definitely not a part of the middle class. They stay poor not because they're lazy, they stay poor because they're completely awful at managing their money. They live pay check to pay check and never give consideration to their future.

There are some athletes like this too. Every once and a while, you hear about an athlete going bankrupt or in financial trouble after earning millions because they live beyond their means or they're just generally completely stupid about handling their money. I think I heard about Curt Schilling going broke recently because of a stupid investment and I'd heard Mike Tyson was having money trouble too.

These athletes who make a lot of money aren't necessarily trying to get every last dollar because of vanity or greed, it's just common sense to try to get as much financial security for yourself and your family as possible. It's really ridiculous of anyone to let envy get the better of them and start calling these people greedy just because they're trying to get market value for themselves.

Saying something like "I agree that we're all greedy" dilutes it to be a meaningless adjective then as well. Why even bother to use it to describe anyone if it's attributed to everyone.

I believe former 30-40% of NFL players file bankruptcy between within 10 years of retirement from the NFL.

They don't know how to manage their money.

mtf
12-01-2012, 08:17 PM
Because they are greedier than most. They don't need that extra few million, and if they do they need to be a little more conservative with their money.

You are acting as though they aren't greedy at all, and that's ridiculous. I answered the question are they greedy. I believe most people are.

They aren't greedier than most. They aren't greedy necessarily at all. If put in the same situation, "most" would accept the offer which is the best fit for them (financially and otherwise). It isn't greedy to do so.

As you quoted from the dictionary before, when trying to make your case but in doing so made one to the contrary, greedy means an excessive desire for wealth. It isn't excessive to accept the best contract someone offers you.


We obviously disagree. I don't see why you seem to think something is going to change in this argument. Just agree to disagree like I said a few pages back.

We do obviously disagree, but I've responded only as much as you have. Trying to insinuate that I'm perpetuating this by not simply letting you have the last word is somewhat hypocritical.

abe_froman
12-01-2012, 08:19 PM
So they can go back to work. Why are they exempt from working until 50-60 just because they were a pro baseball player?

If they only play til 30, collect $10M and cant live of that, they can work. They didnt make it, oh well. They will just have to be a regular person like everyone else and work for a while longer.
alot of them do.but most players are idiots,many skip college and most of the time they only go because they need more time to raise their draft stock.besides that they are handled with kids gloves in high school,auto passed or have others do they're work.so they arent really in a position to flourish in a society where they have to rely on using their brain.

mtf
12-01-2012, 08:19 PM
I believe former 30-40% of NFL players file bankruptcy between within 10 years of retirement from the NFL.

They don't know how to manage their money.

Wow, I didn't know the percentage was that high but it's definitely understandable. I think the NFL tends to employ the dumbest (and most criminal) athletes of any of the 4 major sports.

Jeffy25
12-01-2012, 08:20 PM
Wow, I didn't know the percentage was that high but it's definitely understandable. I think the NFL tends to employ the dumbest (and most criminal) athletes of any of the 4 major sports.

And they have the shortest careers on average (2-3 years or something like that, I don't really know what the average is, but it's small)

They get there, get used to an income level, are surrounded by people making similar incomes, and spend, spend, spend for that income level. When they have to retire because they can't get on a squad, they are completely screwed and don't adjust their spending until it's too late.

jej
12-01-2012, 08:52 PM
So because they are stupid and skip college to go pro and get paid (another greedy aspect) they should be rewarded?

The ones that don't make it aren't the ones that take the bigger contracts like I'm talking about. Most people that are out by 26 aren't getting multiple offers.

Wanting more money rather than being close to home or any other aspect is greedy.

mtf
12-01-2012, 09:02 PM
So because they are stupid and skip college to go pro and get paid (another greedy aspect) they should be rewarded?

The ones that don't make it aren't the ones that take the bigger contracts like I'm talking about. Most people that are out by 26 aren't getting multiple offers.

Wanting more money rather than being close to home or any other aspect is greedy.

No it isn't. This is going beyond an opinionated discussion into just plain factually right and wrong. Wanting to make money does not make a person greedy. You seem to think that the two are synonymous and that just isn't the case. Being greedy is being obsessed with money to the point of someone else's detriment. Simply accepting a high paying job offer is not greedy.

jej
12-01-2012, 11:36 PM
How can it be wrong? Didnt we just go over this? Opinions and interpretations of a word or other beliefs can't be wrong. Just cause you believe it doesn't make it a fact.

I think it makes them greedy. You don't. Neither is right or wrong despite what you want to believe.

jej
12-01-2012, 11:41 PM
Me? How so?

And reported for insults.

mtf
12-01-2012, 11:47 PM
How can it be wrong? Didnt we just go over this? Opinions and interpretations of a word or other beliefs can't be wrong. Just cause you believe it doesn't make it a fact.

I think it makes them greedy. You don't. Neither is right or wrong despite what you want to believe.

What you're basically saying is you can interpret any word, phrase or expression to mean whatever you want and it's not wrong because it's labeled an opinion (by you). This is not how language works. Sometimes people can be wrong, and simply hiding behind the "well it's my opinion" excuse just compounds the error.

jej
12-01-2012, 11:50 PM
I disagree with your idea of greedy. That doesn't make me wrong.

Hate to break it to you, but your opinion does not always equal fact.

I'm not changing the meaning if the word. I just think its greedy, and you don't. We both know what greedy means. We just have different ideas of what is considered greedy.

Learn to accept that fact. Don't automatically assume opinions that differ from your own are wrong. It's one thing when it's fact based like player comparisons and stuff. It those situations, stats can clearly show right and wrong. This argument isn't like that. It's entirely opinion.

mtf
12-01-2012, 11:58 PM
I disagree with your idea of greedy. That doesn't make me wrong.

Hate to break it to you, but your opinion does not always equal fact.

I'm not changing the meaning if the word. I just think its greedy, and you don't. We both know what greedy means. We just have different ideas of what is considered greedy.

Learn to accept that fact. Don't automatically assume opinions that differ from your own are wrong. It's one thing when it's fact based like player comparisons and stuff. It those situations, stats can clearly show right and wrong. This argument isn't like that. It's entirely opinion.

You disagree with the definition of greedy which you yourself posted earlier. This makes you wrong.

Hate to break it to you, but facts are not always subject to debate.

You are changing the meaning of the word if you're saying that anyone who makes large quantities of money are greedy simply because it's more than they need to survive.

Learn to accept facts. Don't automatically assume that something is opinion based when presented with facts to the contrary. This is a situation where multiple people have expressed to you that you are misinterpreting and misusing the word greedy, yet you still claim that it's just your opinion so it's not wrong. It's entirely wrong.

jej
12-02-2012, 01:33 AM
When did i ever say that everyone who is rich is greedy? Now you are just making stuff up. I never disagreed with the definition.

I'm not sure where you got any of that from. I simply disagree about what is "excessive" as stated in the definition.

If you are gonna keep making stuff up and acting as though my opinion is wrong, then I think we are done here. I'm not trying to argue over facts like you suggest. None of this is fact. It's all opinion. Just cause multiple people agree doesn't make t right/wrong. That's something you need to learn.

Lots of people believe in god and would disagree with me on that topic, but that doesn't make them right. That is awful logic.

I think they are greedy. You don't. Deal with it. Not everything has to be a big debate or something.

mtf
12-02-2012, 01:48 AM
When did i ever say that everyone who is rich is greedy? Now you are just making stuff up. I never disagreed with the definition.

I never said that you said everyone who is rich is greedy. You did say anyone who places more weight on money than on other factors is greedy, you cited proximity to family as one of these potential factors or chance to win a championship as another. This doesn't make a person greedy, it simply makes them practical.


I'm not sure where you got any of that from. I simply disagree about what is "excessive" as stated in the definition.

If you are gonna keep making stuff up and acting as though my opinion is wrong, then I think we are done here. I'm not trying to argue over facts like you suggest. None of this is fact. It's all opinion. Just cause multiple people agree doesn't make t right/wrong. That's something you need to learn.

Lots of people believe in god and would disagree with me on that topic, but that doesn't make them right. That is awful logic.

No, it's not your opinion which is wrong, it's your understanding which is wrong. Also, I never said consensus against you is what makes you wrong, it's merely an indicator that you should consider that you're wrong.


I think they are greedy. You don't. Deal with it. Not everything has to be a big debate or something.

There's nothing for me to deal with. I'm simply refuting your claims and comments as you make them. It's not really a big deal.

jej
12-02-2012, 11:31 AM
You can't refute opinions. That's all this is. Just because you disagree and claim to refute what Isay, doesn't make it wrong.

I think that if they value money over anything else, it makes them greedy. You don't. Neither is wrong or right, it's just opinion.

Quit trying to fill your ego by winning debates that are really undebatable. There are no facts that we can use to support either side, it's all opinion. So what's there to debate? Nothing

mtf
12-02-2012, 11:41 AM
You can't refute opinions. That's all this is. Just because you disagree and claim to refute what Isay, doesn't make it wrong.

No one is trying to refute opinions as no opinions are really being stated here. You're just interpreting the English language to mean whatever you want it to mean just so you can say "But I'm not wrong".


I think that if they value money over anything else, it makes them greedy. You don't. Neither is wrong or right, it's just opinion.

Actually no, that is quite wrong. What you said is a broad statement and doesn't fall within the definition of greed. A subset of it can, but not the entire human race that you've just grouped into your claim.


Quit trying to fill your ego by winning debates that are really undebatable. There are no facts that we can use to support either side, it's all opinion. So what's there to debate? Nothing

My ego is not damaged or boosted by having a conversation or debate with someone on the internet whom I disagree with. Your concern is dismissed.

I see you trying to end this discussion, however you want it to be on your terms with everyone acknowledging your re-arrangement of the English language to suit your needs and allowing you to exit the thread with the last word.

If you truly wish to stop posting, you needn't try to make stop responding. You can just take the initiative yourself. I'll continue in this circular disagreement until a mod closes the thread, you acknowledge you're in error or you simply stop claiming "Okay, I have the last word and I'm not wrong because I'm labeling it an opinion and those are sacred and can't be wrong".

hagausaf
12-02-2012, 01:34 PM
I like money. They like money. We all like money. That isnt greed, thats life. Pretty sure if I was offered millions for any job I'd would be mine.

jej
12-02-2012, 02:43 PM
I didn't rearrange anything. I believe it is greedy, you don't

Our ideas of excessive differ.

See, you just said what I think is wrong. That's exactly what in telling you not to do. I said I think that putting money over other things is greedy. That's not wrong just cause you disagree. That's my opinion. Yours is different. I didn't group everyone together either so I don't know where you got that from

Having different ideals and values does not mean I am changing the language nor does it mean I'm wrong. It's what I believe. And it's just as valuable as your opinion despite what you seem to think. How am I changing the language? There are no specifics of what constitutes as greedy. Therefore, it's up to interpretation.

Look, its obvious you really want to be right anout this and cant accept anything different from your opinion. you want to argue something that really cant ve debates because its all opinion. There's no facts to back up your idea of greed, and there isn't for me either.

I respect your opinion. All I ask is that you respect mine. I never once said you were wrong, cause you aren't. Neither of us are. There is no one right answer. It's an open question up to interpretation.

mtf
12-02-2012, 03:04 PM
I didn't rearrange anything. I believe it is greedy, you don't

Our ideas of excessive differ.

See, you just said what I think is wrong. That's exactly what in telling you not to do. I said I think that putting money over other things is greedy. That's not wrong just cause you disagree. That's my opinion. Yours is different. I didn't group everyone together either so I don't know where you got that from

Having different ideals and values does not mean I am changing the language nor does it mean I'm wrong. It's what I believe. And it's just as valuable as your opinion despite what you seem to think. How am I changing the language? There are no specifics of what constitutes as greedy. Therefore, it's up to interpretation.

Look, its obvious you really want to be right anout this and cant accept anything different from your opinion. you want to argue something that really cant ve debates because its all opinion. There's no facts to back up your idea of greed, and there isn't for me either.

I respect your opinion. All I ask is that you respect mine. I never once said you were wrong, cause you aren't. Neither of us are. There is no one right answer. It's an open question up to interpretation.

That's all very diplomatic (well except for the part where you make assumptions about me), however it's still wrong when you say there's no facts to back up what greed is. You yourself said greed is defined as "excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions." and simply accepting a high offer is not conclusive evidence of such a desire. It's merely a common sense and practical approach to accepting a job offer.

It would be quite easy to just say that what everyone says is valid because it's just an opinion, but it's not actually true. If I said all football players were dangerous members of society because they play a physical sport, you could say that I'm very wrong and you'd be right. You can't simply claim something about a group of people and then say "well it's just my opinion, so i'm not wrong."

Jeffy25
12-02-2012, 03:54 PM
So because they are stupid and skip college to go pro and get paid (another greedy aspect) they should be rewarded?


That's not what I argued.

I argued that is the reason they don't have job skills, that's all.

Leach11
12-02-2012, 04:38 PM
You can't refute opinions. That's all this is. Just because you disagree and claim to refute what Isay, doesn't make it wrong.

I think that if they value money over anything else, it makes them greedy. You don't. Neither is wrong or right, it's just opinion.

Quit trying to fill your ego by winning debates that are really undebatable. There are no facts that we can use to support either side, it's all opinion. So what's there to debate? Nothing

You are right in saying that your opinion in this instance can't really be "wrong," but that isn't to say that one's opinion cannot be superior to another opinion. How we value a given opinion is based on the quality of argument that presents that opinion. If one supports their argument using facts and evidence and another has no such support, it usually indicates that the first argument is superior to the second. Clearly, in this particular situation, there are no real forms of evidence or facts that can be provided which prove one's argument. That does not mean we cannot determine which argument/opinion is superior. By looking at the rationality or logic behind one's argument/opinion, we (the public) can determine which argument is superior.

The thing about an opinion is that it is entirely meaningless within the individual and only establishes its value when it is presented within the public sphere. Once an opinion/argument is presented to the public, the public (in this case being the forum members) can then determine the validity of that opinion/argument.

Now in regards to your original question concerning whether or not athletes are overpaid and greedy, my response would be that we all live within a global liberal order and this order essentially forces those within it to adhere to a world where monetary gain rules all. It doesn't matter if you're a secondary school teacher, doctor, professional athlete, businessman, university professor, lawyer, veterinarian, or a wannabe communist reading some Karl Marx off of a MacBook while sipping on a Starbucks coffee, the almighty dollar rules over you as it defines your interests. Nothing can be accomplished in the modern world without monetary involvement. If your interest is helping starving children in African, you cannot, in any way, fulfill your interest without a source of money.

As one begins to accumulate more money, their interests begin to change and expand. The working-class man may not be interested in the $10 million mansion, but that is because his money situation does not allow for the $10 million mansion to be a conceivable interest. In other words, money, or rather a lack thereof, makes that reality so distanced from the working-class man that it has no real impact on his interests. Give the working-class man $100 million and 99 times out of a hundred his interests will be entirely reshaped by that monetary transformation. For this reason, it becomes very difficult to scrutinize professional athletes for their apparent "greed" and "selfishness" in regards to money as we (the general public) have, in most cases, not been provided with the possibility of garnering immense wealth and, therefore, we do not have the perspective that would grant us the ability to understand the situation.

I feel that the real target of your opinion/argument is the liberal economic order itself; an order which forces its subjects to adhere to a world of monetary rule. It is of my opinion that it is within the nature of people to act in their own best-interest and, as money currently rules over everyone's interests, it is thus acceptable on a human level that people will strive for as much monetary gain as possible.

jej
12-02-2012, 06:00 PM
That's all very diplomatic (well except for the part where you make assumptions about me), however it's still wrong when you say there's no facts to back up what greed is. You yourself said greed is defined as "excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions." and simply accepting a high offer is not conclusive evidence of such a desire. It's merely a common sense and practical approach to accepting a job offer.

It would be quite easy to just say that what everyone says is valid because it's just an opinion, but it's not actually true. If I said all football players were dangerous members of society because they play a physical sport, you could say that I'm very wrong and you'd be right. You can't simply claim something about a group of people and then say "well it's just my opinion, so i'm not wrong."

But there are facts to refute your last claim. You can prove its not true. You cant disprove my opinion. I think when these guys go after a couple extra million when they are already making $15 a year or more, its greedy. You disagee. That doesnt make me wrong like you keep claiming.

As I, and another poster said, there is no evidence or facts to back up our claims. Its all what we believe to be excessive or greedy.

"simply accepting a high offer is not conclusive evidence of such a desire"

Its not conclusive evidence for either side. i tend to believe that it is greedy, you dont. I dont get how you continuously miss that. ITS ALL OPINION. You may belive differently, but that doesnt mean mine is wrong.

What evidence have you used? Oh yeah, none. Neither of us have because there isnt any evidence to use. Its all about our opinion of greed. You arent going to change my mind or anything by acting superior. Truth is, both of what we are saying is opinion, neither better than the other.

I could do what you are doing and act as what you are saying is inferior just as you have because you dont posses any evidence either. There is no evidence. You cant prove whether or not they are greedy. Its all opinion. Do you disagree? Do you think there is evidence to support something that is 100% opinion and up to interpretation?

We both know what greed means. But we disagree on what to consider greedy, or more specifically, excessive desire. Or another definition of greedy rather than greed: Excessively desirous of acquiring or possessing, especially wishing to possess more than what one needs or deserves

Is that enough "evidence"?

mavwar53
12-02-2012, 06:39 PM
Yes and yes, but if someone is willing to give me a job and pay me more than I think I should be payed I'm not going to tell them to pay me less.

I think the least greedy players are in the NBA, because they will take less money to try and win a championship.

LechWalesa
12-02-2012, 06:52 PM
Yes and no some players really worker their *** off and they really respect the fans and the game while others just rely on talent and have little care of what we think or if they win. But we're gonna watch regardless of how much they make

I think this is a really ridiculous statement. Haven't read the rest of the thread, but I guarantee you the players who coast along on talent are few and far between. Very few players at the MLB level are half-assing it, or they never would have made it as far as they have (having to rise up through several divisions of minor league ball). Also, think about all the health risks that players take by using performance enhancing drugs (don't kid yourself, almost everyone is doing it). Not to mention that a lot of these guys can't even have a semblance of a normal life until well into their 30s and spend a ton of time on the road and practicing. It's not like working some office job where you can afford to not give a **** 'cause you probably won't be fired for bad performance anyway. The instant you lose focus, there's someone right behind you, ready to take your job.

I think part of the reason why salaries are so inflated is 'cause a lot of these guys are terrible with money due to the fact that their education took a backseat to their occupation. Just look at how many players go bankrupt after retiring. The numbers are shocking.

HowFit
12-02-2012, 07:00 PM
Geez, a lot of essays here...

mtf
12-02-2012, 11:20 PM
We both know what greed means. But we disagree on what to consider greedy, or more specifically, excessive desire. Or another definition of greedy rather than greed: Excessively desirous of acquiring or possessing, especially wishing to possess more than what one needs or deservesI cut out the rest of the post because there was nothing to respond to, it was just pointless whining that I won't acknowledge that your claim is an opinion instead of merely an incorrect understanding of the word greedy and your use of it in describing a group of people whom you don't know.

As for this newest definition you've decided to use (since your last one failed you) I'll begin by saying you still can't even find anything to indicate that such a "desire" exists. They're merely accepting the best offer made to them. Second, you say "more than what one needs or deserves". Who are you to say they don't deserve what they make? If you look at the number of tickets sold, advertising dollars brought in, projected extra games won, extra jerseys sold, and other forms of revenue these players may add to an organization, the owners clearly believe they deserve that much and that the owners will at least break even and perhaps even make a profit. Regardless of the potential revenue gains, the owners still feel that these people deserve the money and are willing to give it to them.

GasMan
12-02-2012, 11:39 PM
Except these players who take these big salaries aren't going where they don't want to play. They hand pick the few teams that they want to play for then let them know they're interested in playing there. The Pirates could have offered Pujols $300 million and he would have said no.

jej
12-02-2012, 11:55 PM
So now the definition of greed doesn't matter because it agrees more with me than you?

Whatever dude. You win. Does that satisfy you?

AB1984
12-03-2012, 12:09 AM
They deserve the money because it's a fair share of the revenue they generate. I hate it when people see a 9 figure contract and say I wish that money could go to teachers or fire fighters. If the player didn't get that contract the money would be in the owners pocket not going to teachers. And these guys pay an incredible amount in taxes so the money actually does trickle down to help pay cops, fire fighters, teachers, etc. So basically what i'm saying is that even though these guys are rich they are being paid by somebody even richer and that trickle down is actually good for the economy.

cssdmark
12-03-2012, 12:15 AM
If I own a business and you are employed by me. Say you generate $50 million in revenue a year for my business and I pay you $10 million a year for your services, are you overpaid? Does it matter whether you are creating weapons, computer chips or bottle tops or I am paying you for being the best hop scotch person, if you generate that much money for me, should you be compensated or should I pay you $7.65 per hr since it is only hop scotch even though you generate all that yearly revenue. Believe me if the owners were not making 100s of millions of dollars off these players, the sarlaries would not be that high

mtf
12-03-2012, 12:34 AM
So now the definition of greed doesn't matter because it agrees more with me than you?

Actually, my last post clearly explained how the definition you're quoting is in direct conflict with the argument you were trying to make.


Whatever dude. You win. Does that satisfy you?

Not really. I was never dissatisfied. I was merely taking the time to explain why you were coming to the wrong conclusions.

jej
12-03-2012, 12:40 AM
And I tried to explain how you were wrong in doing so.

mtf
12-03-2012, 12:43 AM
And I tried to explain how you were wrong in doing so.

Well when you make a compelling and accurate argument doing so, I'll be happy to consider it.

7chuck7
12-03-2012, 12:58 AM
How about this for one stupid movie. Based on this ARod is underpaid.

According to Forbes’ 2012 highest-paid actors, Mission: Impossible star Tom Cruise topped the list with $75 million between May 2011 and May 2012, which make him the highest-paid actor in Hollywood, thanks to the $700 million box office of the latest Mission: Impossible movie.

Cruise is ahead of the two actors who tied for second place on our list: Leonardo DiCaprio and Adam Sandler with $38 million. Twilight stars Lautner Taylor and his Robert Pattinson made the tenth place with earnings of $26.5 million each