I think I have a solution to eliminate holdouts, overpaid rookies, and if we are lucky, Drew Rosenhaus. I cannot take all the credit for this economic solution since it has been right under our noses for years.
Why not pay athletes based on performance? A real life fantasy.
Fantasy sports are tremendously popular. They give an Average Joe a chance to be a G.M. and coach. First by drafting the right players, building a winning team. Choosing who starts and who sits on the bench.
If a player scores a touchdown he earns money, hits a home run, wins an MVP, and so on. Teams can have the ability to set the amount an RBI will be worth each year or two. This will also prevent players from relaxing too much when they receive a big contract. Usually from a stellar year in a contract year.
Then when a player has a breakout year they will be rewarded - like Josh Hamilton, who is making just over league minimum at $396,830. And players like Barry Zito making $14.5 million, that's about $4.8 million for each win this season. Mike Hampton would probably have to take up two jobs just to pay his bills, if this system was in effect.
Today's Must Reads
The best player on each team would be the highest paid player on each team.
Here are some of the highest paid players on some teams - would you consider them the best on the team? In no particular order:
-
Jim Thome, White Sox, $15.66 million
-
Mike Hampton, Braves, $15.9 million
-
Torri Hunter, Angels, $16.5 milliom
-
Rafeal Furcal, Dodgers, $15.7 million
-
Eric Gagne, Brewers $10 million (second highest on team)
-
Jason Giambi, Yankees, $23.5 million ( second highest on team)
-
Pat Burrell, Phillies, $14.25 million
-
Steve Francis, Rockets, $16.4 million
-
Raef Lafrentz, Trail Blazers, $12.4 million
-
Kwame Brown, Grizzlies, $9 million
The NFL contracts are more complicated, with signing bonuses, and no guaranteed contracts. The NFL salary system needs an overhaul, with over-paid rookies, the rift between the owners and players and players union. The NFL looks to be heading to a strike if things do not change and the collective bargaining agreement isn't re-worked.
If I was an owner, I would not want to put a large sum of money in a first round pick. Remember Ryan Leaf, Todd Marinavich, Akili Smith? Since these busts were drafted the stakes are higher, and the amount a first round pick makes is much, much higher.
It is time for the owners to stop putting their money where the players agents' are, and put their money where it should be, where the athletes arms and legs are.
comments (4) write a comment »
write a new comment
about 1 month ago
The XFL had the same idea as you kind of are proposing where performance earns you cash. Unfortunately, seeing as how in the major sports the athletes are unionized, there is no way in hell they would negotiate for something like that. I believe the that the MLB has the best and the worst system. The rookie pay scale is a good thing because, well they aren't paying ridiculous money for a guy who hasnt proven himself, while on the other hand having no cap with a luxury tax starting at 200 mil or something like that is ridiculous.
And please add Starbury to your list, he is going to make about 21.9 mil next year.
about 1 month ago
In theory, you have a good point. But in theory, who deserves the money?
As is, in football, as you seem to think is the ideal system with very little guaranteed money, has a system where the owners bring in over 50% of the revenues. Because of this, the players have threatened to vote against a salary cap or go on strike.
Overpaid players are a fact of life. Players are paid for what they have and what management thinks they will be able to accomplish. Sometimes the management is correct (ie Magglio Ordonez), other times management could not be further from predicting the outcomes (ie Mike Hampton). However, marque players (ie Jim Thome, Ivan Rodriguez) who are overpaid 'stars' bring credibility to a franchise. They create corporate revenue and encourage fans to purchase seasons tickets.
In your 'pay as you play' model, a team could simply field a team of terrible and cheap players, which would cost them next to nothing, and reap the benefits of revenue sharing.
Furthermore, think of small market teams, which need to rely on internal development to succeed. Based on your formula, CC Sabathia would have been the most expensive pitcher in the majors. Presumably, Victor Martinez the most expensive catcher. And Grady Sizemore would have been among the most pricey outfielders. Based on the successes of those players during the 2007 season, one would assert that they would have been owned a combined $40M. Add in other above average contributors such as Rafael Perez, Ryan Garko, Jhonny Peralta, Fausto Carmona, Rafael Betancourt, and based on the production of these players, the Indians would have been one of the highest paid teams in the majors. Do you think the ownership group who struggled to pay for the sub $60M salary of the team in 2007 could have afforded $100M+?
Thus, a major flaw in your system. While it looks silly from a purely economic basis that a pitcher who will not perform at all is among the most pricey pitchers, that same economic system would congratulate an ownership group for the price of a Longoria, or Sizemore. A winning team is not made through throwing money at pieces of garbage, a winning team is made through scouting and player development.
about 1 month ago
also, it is not all about the numbers. Zach Randolph, a 20/10 producer, is worth far less to his team than Bruce Bowen, for example, whose numbers stagger nobody but who contributes in a lot of ways that don't show up in the box score. Jose Oquendo had a long career in the majors despite career numbers that probably pale in comparison to one average year for Albert Belle...his value was not well represented by his stats but it showed up in the win column.
Good thought but needs reworked.
from about 1 month ago
Drew, I think there could be a debate on the value of Randolph v. Bowen.
How good do you think a team of Bruce Bowen's would do? While teams would struggle to score 80 points against them, a team of Bruce Bowen's would struggle to crack 50, even against the worst defenders.
Conversely, a team of Zach Randolph's could put up 90+ points without breaking a sweat. Even against a team of solid defender's. While even the worst offensive teams would score 85+ I think the context of the player needs to be understood.
Clearly Bowen is more important to the Spurs then Randolph is to the Knicks, but it is also obvious that Duncan is more valuable to the Spurs then Camby is to the Nuggets.
write a new comment