Pressing Carlos Silva Questions
by Jon Marthaler on Dec 21, 2007 2:47 AM EST
in News
Email
PrintCarlos Silva has signed a four-year, $48 million deal with Seattle.
I have a thousand questions, but here are the eight most pressing:
- Did the Johan Santana market just top $30 million per year?
- Is it possible that every semi-established pitcher in the league could legitimately demand $5 million in arbitration next year?
- Does the Mariners front office use fifties or hundreds to light cigars?
- Will we eventually remember Gil Meche as the beginning of the end for baseball?
- Where can I go to train to become a middle-of-the-pack major league pitcher?
- Does Greg Maddux sob himself to sleep, wishing he had been born ten years later?
- Did Boof just go out and buy two million bucks' worth of stuff, all on payment plans involving no interest and no financing for three years?
- Are the Twins uncompetitive financially even before the facade of the new ballpark rises?
Frankly, that's just stunning.
20 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
4.
- Darren Driefort and his 5 yr/$55M was the start or at least the one that floored me.
- Possibly. I know I won't be spending any money going to games if they jack the prices up to reflect the progression of salaries, I already only go to a handful of games because of it.
Let's see
This contract isn't so surprising to me. He got 12 mil a year, the last couple years, similar pitchers got 10 or 11 mil a year for 4 or 5 year deals.
- Hmm.. hard to say. What were they able to demand last year? It has probably gone up by a comparable 10%.
- Definitely.
- Yes
- That depends. Hitting up a 7/11 will get you there in the David Wells mold.
- Definitely.
- Haha, you said Boof.
- Yes. Wait, No!
PS
"We look to Boof to have a big year next year,'' Smith said.
I like Boof, more than probably almost anyone else here (I think his career can move like John Lackey's did, albeit with only a small chance he ever becomes that good) and I'm glad to see this for a lot of reasons.
Good questions
Talking Dollars and Nonsense
It has to make any guy in the minor league salivate.
It has to make Kyle Lohse laugh that the Twins sighed bigtime when he won arbitration.
All that can happen is that guys who make this kind of money tank.
Yes, Gil Meche performed admirably for the Kansas City Royals, but he didn't get them any higher up in the standings and he still was just a middle-of-the-order pitcher.
I'm sure Twins management are thinking tow things.....
(1) Let's not play any minor league guy until he's at least 30.
(2) A $150 million payroll in 2010 will still be at the bottom of the pack. Maybe we can ask the State for an extra half-cents in sales tax.
There's no crying in baseball, but seeing rising ticket and concession prices, and less fan-player interaction makes me sob just a bit!
by twintown on Dec 21, 2007 10:00 AM EST reply actions
Gil Meche
Now Silva getting $12 million a year seems nuts. His ceiling is 2007, and it seems like a lot of things have to break right to get those numbers.
Free-agent Frankenstein
So, the Sloweys, the Bakers, the Lirianos, pitchers that are under team control and potentially average to above average have just become extremely valuable, not just for what they can produce, but because of what you pay them.
It also means that ever small market team in America has become a kind of independent minor league operation for the big market boys. We bring 'em up and give 'em a shot, and they skim the best of the survivors into the super-bigs.
I know it's popular to hate taxes, but in this case, tax the hell out of the teams, tax the hell out of the owners and tax the hell out of the players. It's for the good of the game.
I agree with cooldude...
That signing wasn't that bad to me because he does have a very good ceiling. He can be a back of the pack #1 or a very solid #2 for most teams. You can justify that one.
I can't in my right mind justify signings like this, or Suppan's, or Lohse's, which I expect to be very similar to Carlos'.
by djskilbr on Dec 21, 2007 12:09 PM EST reply actions
frankly
I have to agree that the Twins may become nothing more than a farm team for the big boys. We Twins fans have to just hope that our youngsters can put together runs like Arizona and Colorado last year. After that we get to say good bye to our Hunter's, Santana's, Mauer's, and Morneau's.
The Twins are going to lose a gold glover, a cy young winner, and in too soon a time possibly an MVP. That has to signal that something is wrong with baseball economics. I don't think players should be treated like they were before FA but come on.
At the end of the day I blame the owners and baseball (who are one and the same) for paying these salaries. I blame the union for their part too. Of course they are all making plenty of money but it's us fans who get screwed. Most families already can't go to games, how much longer until only the very well off and businesses are left in the ballparks most nights?
It's just too bad. As a lifelong baseball fan I know I'll keep watching but I won't blame my kid if he has something better to do when he's older.
One and the Shame
I do, however, blame the owners for not having a respectable system to ensure fairness. There is a big problem when the salary disparity is so great, but in reality, only the Yankees actually have to pay a payroll tax. The payroll tax should be at a much lower level (say 25% of each dollar spent over the mean team salary in the previous year) and it should be distributed to the teams at bottom, as follows. Take the money in the pot, and allocate it to the bottom 10 teams in salary, based on how many more wins they had than 50. So, if the bottom 10 teams combine to win 750 games (just picking a nice round number in the right area), and the payroll taxes were $200 million, then a team in the bottom half that won 80 games gets 30 / 250 * $200m. That way each team has to try to win every game, every year, but the low pay teams still get some help. There should also be a tax on high draft bonuses, but that is another story all together.
Here's the issue ...
MLB allows teams to sell their broadcast rights & pocket the money - they split any national package, but radio rights & "local" tv rights go to the team, period. Obviously, the local TV & radio rights of the Yankees sell for a lot higher price than those of the Pirates.
I know the argument for this system - "the folks who buy the Yankees package are buying them to hear / see the Yankees play, not the opposition".
I also know the argument against it - - - "If we didn't show up, you'd have nothing to sell; people aren't going to pay that kind of $$$$ to watch the Yankees practice."
While it'll never happen ... OK, "never say never" ... all broadcast rights ought to belong to MLB & the revenue divided equally among the teams.
I dunno
I don't know why you say that. The NFL already divides all of its add revenue equally.
The NFL is a different animal
Baseball doesn't work that way. In the old days, there was one game on Saturday afternoon - the networks didn't cover all the games on that particular day, they just did one (or two). The $$$ to MLB wasn't that significant.
With the advent of cable / satellite TV, etc., there are stations & networks all over the US that are willing to pay $$$ to televise every game of "Team X's" season. Problem is, MLB doesn't treat that money like it's "NFL coverage" money, they treat it as "local radio $$$$" - - it belongs to the team that sells it.
There's a HUGE financial incentive for the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Dodgers (and a few others) to object to an even split of all broadcasting revenues . . . . . they use that $$$ to support higher payrolls (among other things); sharing would force them to give up that advantage.
The super-majority vote requirements for approving such things pretty much insures it won't happen - - - - the teams sucking in the $$$ will vote against.
I know
And all the same stuff applies for the NFL. I bet the owner of the New York giants wishes quietly to himself that he could sell his own tv rights.
Or maybe he doesn't, because the huge popularity of the parity NFL system has led to the entire league being ridiculously profitable. Perhaps even the big fish are able to make more than they would alone.
The really key difference is timing. Only in the last decade or so have sports franchises really figured out how to make revenues go through the roof. TV is far more lucretive than it was in the early nineties, so asking the Yankees to give up their 200 million dollar YES Network is a much bigger sacrifice than whatever scheme was in place for big market NFL teams in the early 90's.
The amazing thing about this though is that theoretically a commissioner could just make all this happen, if he (or she I suppose) wanted to with the "Best interest of the game" clause. What is the margin for removing a commisioner? If there is a higher or equal requirement of votes for removing the commisioner than for making a radical TV deal change, such a move could be done.
But it's probably wishful thinking. Revenue sharing it will be...
Personally, I'd like to see something like everything over about 95 million you pay 1 to 1 in luxury tax. Thus, say, for the Yankees to keep their 200 million dollar payroll, they'd only be able to actually spend about 147 million on player contracts, with another 52 million going to luxury tax. But then to enforce a floor, you'd have to say that any team that spends less than 50 million(or some other number, I haven't quite given the exact number as much attention as the number for the cap) in salary has to pay into the luxury tax pool until their salaries+luxury taxes = 50 million. Every team would receive a portion of the luxury tax money equal to their own equal share of the entire pool except for what they contributed. So, for example, the Yankees would receive their 1/30th share only from the contributions of the other 29 teams. A team that didn't pay any tax would just receive a full share (well, actually, slightly above a 1/30 share because of the teams above and below taking slightly less than their own shares of the pool due to the payout rule).
i'm not sure where this should be posted...
http://www.flotsam-media.com/2007/12/flotsam-data-special-tangiblizing.html
frankly, i couldn't believe little nicky punto didn't make the list.
Links
thanks
He'd do better if ATTEMPTS at sacrifices counted as much as successful sacrifices; he's had a few problems laying the bunt down.
It looks like he'll have to lean in front of some pitches if he wants his numbers to rise.
THAT IS NOT ALLOWED!!!
No, really though, that was enjoyable, thanks.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
