Jump to content

Players With Award-Based Bonus Clauses To Be Banned From Awards


BaltimoreTerp

Recommended Posts

Here's a simple solution to this whole supposed problem - let's let the market sort out how much players are worth.

Although the owners would absolutely hate the idea of free agency from the time players enter the league, that could actually end up being better for them. With a greater supply of players flooding the market, fewer ridiculous things would happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Although the owners would absolutely hate the idea of free agency from the time players enter the league, that could actually end up being better for them. With a greater supply of players flooding the market, fewer ridiculous things would happen.

I'd bet that if the draft and current reserve system weren't in place many or most good amateur players would sign long-term deals to allow them time to develop in one organization. And long-term deals for star-level players would be a given. Players want job security, owners want cost certainty and good players on their team for a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said anything about that Finley suggestion to make everyone a free agent every year. The market could certainly decide that long-term contracts were great in many situations. I'd bet that if the draft and current reserve system weren't in place many or most good amateur players would sign long-term deals to allow them time to develop in one organization. And long-term deals for star-level players would be a given. Players want job security, owners want cost certainty and good players on their team for a long time.

Yeah that's what I meant, just letting players be free agents when they enter the league, not necessarily only on one-year contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How late were you up, and what were you drinking when you wrote the above? :)

I wasn't drinking anything. I was just noticing how your scheme is wacko, that's all ;-)

I'm sure it all makes sense in your head, but I don't think it makes any sense out in the actual world.

That's utterly ridiculous, to compare "migrant farm workers" ...

You brought it up, not me...

(2) Piecework compensation has not been "tossed" when it comes to top level professionals. Doctors have set fees per office visit and surgical procedure;

For people who work their whole work week for an employer, sure it has. As for you doctors example, case-by-case performance is not how doctors get paid. Doctors don't get paid based on how well they "swing the syringe" or whether their first diagnosis was the right one. Doctors get paid for their AB's. They charge different prices based on the kind of AB it is. So, if you wanna copy how they do it, then you'd be paying a hitter different amounts based on how many guys were on base, and for how critical the situation was, and not based on whether they got a dinger or a single or a flyball out.

Normally, you make very thoughtful and analytic posts which are both interesting and educational.

Normally you do too, which is why this whole thing took me by surprise.

What central committee? Owners and players (through their union) would negotiate the value of each individual element of production.

The problem with central planning of an economy is *not* that the wrong guys are on the committee, or that they don't negotiate what prices and wages should be. The problem is that nobody is smart enough to do all that correctly. That's what the organic forces of the economy can do all by themselves. (FYI, this is one thing that both Adam Smith and Karl Marx agreed about.) There's just too many variables, and nobody knows what they all are, nobody can predict exactly how they're gonna interact, and nobody can predict all the unintended consequences of having people sit around a table and try to plan it out ahead of time. It just can't be done, because nobody knows enough to do it properly and then constantly adjust it properly, etc.

I believe that it would work extremely well by comparison to the current system... I seriously do believe my "hair-brained scheme" would work very well and be far superior to that which exists today.

If you say you are sincere about it, I believe you are sincere about it.

I still think it's wacko and would never work for several reasons. The most obvious one is that nobody in their right mind would go for it except for the owners. The owners would love it.

Look, it's like anybody else's "Master Plan" for how things are "supposed" to work better. Same thing whether it's just for the little society of the baseball world or for all of society. It doesn't matter whether it's the left-wing vision of society, or the right-wing vision of society, or the hippie-Woodstock vision of society. All of them would work great if everybody just went along with the idea and behaved exactly like the proponents of the system think that they "should" and if all the basic facets of it worked like the proponents claim they "will" work. They all fail because of the very same reason: people-things just don't work out the way you think they're "supposed" to, because everything is more complicated than the plan can cope with. So actual reality turns out to be way worse than the ideology people promised. It happens every single time. Which explains why the best solution is the one that the U.S. had for about 50 years, a system in which the left-wing and right-wing guys compromised about stuff, which left us at the 50-yard line, not the Left-30-yard-line or the Right-20-yard-line. That's when the U.S. defeated all it's enemies, both those on the left (like the Soviets) and those on the right (like the Nazi's). That's when the U.S. became the huge superpower: it was when we kept ourselves right smack dab in the middle (which the right-wing people now insist on falsely call "the left"). Doing that means a dynamic situation in which two sides compromise in a way that doesn't give too much to either side. Ever since we got away from that, it's been going downhill fast. In the case of your scheme, you can talk all you want about how fair and both-sided it is, but it's really not. It's really the most pro-owner scheme I ever heard, which is one of the several reasons the players would never buy it.

Now, how about my idea of making the owners charge different prices based on something like your scheme? The basic idea is that ticket prices, and the cost of a beer, rise-and-fall based on how the team played last week or last month. How about that? It's the exact same idea as yours, but this time it's bad for the owners, so my guess is that you don't like it. Do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another small thing to consider: Change in baseball happens at a glacial pace. Massive change only happens in response to massive crisis. The game is awash in money and in its best financial shape ever by many measures.

The reserve clause system lasted about 90 years and it didn't make any sense, and the players loathed it. I'm betting that the current system will be largely intact throughout my lifetime. The odds of a change anytime soon like MR is proposing are probably smaller than the odds of me being struck by a meteor at the same time I'm sucked up in a tornado.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You brought it up, not me...

There are no valid comparisons between migrant farm workers and my scheme except for the piece work method of determining compensation. To compare ballplayers earning an average of $3M (which would continue to increase under my scheme) and migrant workers earning a few tens of thousands (at best) is ludicrous. That's one of the reasons I asked what you'd be drinking. :)

So, if you wanna copy how they do it, then you'd be paying a hitter different amounts based on how many guys were on base, and for how critical the situation was, and not based on whether they got a dinger or a single or a flyball out.

You're deliberately making this more difficult than it needs to be. Up to this point, no one has proven that BA/RISP is a repeatable capability. Besides, it's captured in part by the bonus factor for team wins and finish.

Normally you do too, which is why this whole thing took me by surprise.

Are you really suggesting that this "whacko" scheme of mine has not involved a great deal of thought and analysis? I suspect that I've evaluated the drawbacks more thoroughly than you have.

The problem with central planning of an economy is *not* that the wrong guys are on the committee, or that they don't negotiate what prices and wages should be. The problem is that nobody is smart enough to do all that correctly.

We're not "centrally planning an economy". We're improving the incentives imposed by capitalism. Instead of players busting their gut in a contract season and then letting down once they have the security of a 5 year contract -- not that I've ever conceded they do to a significant degree -- we have players entering each game understanding that their compensation for the year is directly affected by every at bat they take, every ball they field, the efforts of their fellow players, and the appreciation of the fans in attendance. I don't expect that player motivation would be that markedly improved over what it currently is, but it would tend to be heightened.

That's what the organic forces of the economy can do all by themselves. (FYI, this is one thing that both Adam Smith and Karl Marx agreed about.) There's just too many variables, and nobody knows what they all are, nobody can predict exactly how they're gonna interact, and nobody can predict all the unintended consequences of having people sit around a table and try to plan it out ahead of time. It just can't be done, because nobody knows enough to do it properly and then constantly adjust it properly, etc.

Again, you're complicating it far more than it needs to be. A home run is worth something, and hitting 40 of them in a season gets taken into account when a player and his agent negotiate for his next contract, but no one has definitively established the precise value of that home run. All we would be doing is sitting down in advance of the season and negotiating the relative value of that home run (and every other chosen measurand) to develop an algorithm which would be used to apportion the compensation pool negotiated between the owners and the players. The algorithm developed has to be acceptable both to owners and the majority of players or it won't be approved. If it's not perfect, and it won't be, it can be tweaked before the next season. There's no need to adjust it properly, and you're selling the players and owners (not to mention the statisticians and accountants) greatly short when you argue that no one is smart enough to do it.

I still think it's wacko and would never work for several reasons. The most obvious one is that nobody in their right mind would go for it except for the owners. The owners would love it.

The owners might have greater difficulty accepting it than the players. The players will recognize that the owners are committing a certain percentage of revenues to the compensation pool, which the players will then divide up amongst themselves according to how they perform. The greatest contention is likely to be between pitchers, sluggers, and defensive specialists as to what an "equitable" algorithm consists of.

Now, how about my idea of making the owners charge different prices based on something like your scheme? The basic idea is that ticket prices, and the cost of a beer, rise-and-fall based on how the team played last week or last month. How about that? It's the exact same idea as yours, but this time it's bad for the owners, so my guess is that you don't like it. Do you?

It's nothing at all similar to my proposal, aside from the greater complexity, but it is whacky. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you really suggesting that this "whacko" scheme of mine has not involved a great deal of thought and analysis? I suspect that I've evaluated the drawbacks more thoroughly than you have.

I never said you didn't think about it a lot. I just said that I think it's wacko. You may believe that you've evaluated the drawbacks thoroughly. I think you missed the boat, that's all. To me, it's just somebody else saying, "If everybody would just do things my way, it would all be better."

We're not "centrally planning an economy".

Sure you are. You're deciding to pay players based on certain individual stats. You're motivating players to play for themselves, not for the win. You're inventing a centrally planned economic system that will distract people from focusing on winning baseball games.

All we would be doing is sitting down in advance of the season and negotiating the relative value of that home run (and every other chosen measurand) to develop an algorithm which would be used to apportion the compensation pool
See my previous comment. You're using some centrally-planned stat-based algorithm to decide who gets paid what. That's a perfect example of centralized planning of an economy.

Now, how about my idea of making the owners charge different prices based on something like your scheme? The basic idea is that ticket prices, and the cost of a beer, rise-and-fall based on how the team played last week or last month. How about that? It's the exact same idea as yours, but this time it's bad for the owners, so my guess is that you don't like it. Do you?

It's nothing at all similar to my proposal, aside from the greater complexity, but it is whacky. :)

It's *exactly* the same thing, all we're doing is changing the nouns:

  • Yours: The [owners] pay each [player] based on recent measurements of what that [player] is supposed to be providing.
  • Mine: The [fans] pay each [owner] based on recent measurements of what that [owner] is supposed to be providing.

They're exactly the same. The only thing that changes is who's income is being governed by recent performance. You don't mind paying players based on stats, why should you mind paying an owner based on stats?

At least my way, it's based on actually winning ballgames, which is really all that matters. Your wacko scheme puts individual accomplishment in front of winning ballgames. Who are you really? Some mutation of Ayn Rand who likes centralized planning? ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thought I wanted to add to this... If players were compensated completely based on their performance, it then follows that no one team could offer a higher salary than another (except for endorsement deals, which once again would encourage players to go to LA, NY, etc). If that is the case, then essentially the players don't have free agency, since it doesn't matter where they play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thought I wanted to add to this... If players were compensated completely based on their performance, it then follows that no one team could offer a higher salary than another (except for endorsement deals, which once again would encourage players to go to LA, NY, etc). If that is the case, then essentially the players don't have free agency, since it doesn't matter where they play.

I think you'd see teams finding ways around the rules. It certainly happened in the 1880s with that classification scheme. You'd have endorsement money, you'd have players "work" as consultants to related corporations like YES or MASN. You might have garden-variety payments under the table.

And yes, the big market teams would have many more endorsement opportunities so players would continue to gravitate there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you'd see teams finding ways around the rules... You'd have endorsement money, you'd have players "work" as consultants to related corporations like YES or MASN. You might have garden-variety payments under the table.

In other words, it'd be just like college football!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thought I wanted to add to this... If players were compensated completely based on their performance, it then follows that no one team could offer a higher salary than another (except for endorsement deals, which once again would encourage players to go to LA, NY, etc). If that is the case, then essentially the players don't have free agency, since it doesn't matter where they play.

No team is "offering" a salary at all. An organization invites players to play for their team for the upcoming season and the player either accepts or finds another team that wants him which he prefers. The players have absolute free agency, as does the team. The main way a team affects a player's compensation is by giving him more playing time. Surrounding him with other good players who make up a winning team and doing a better job of getting fans through the turnstiles would also help, but the main thing is assuring plenty of playing time.

Of course, it matters where they play. There are bonus "incentive" factors built into the algorithm for team wins, team finish, home attendance, and road attendance. Players will be playing to maximize their own stats, which of course they do already, but they would also have concrete incentives built into the algorithm to play for the benefit of the team and to provide the best entertainment value to the fans. The magnitude of the bonus factors assigned to each of these multipliers would determine how much each affected the total compensation.

Teams in the better markets would still be more attractive for most players, since they would have higher attendance and the players would have more opportunities for commercial endorsements, not to mention winning traditions, but it wouldn't be an overwhelming advantage. To preclude all the best players flocking to the strongest franchises, roster size reductions tied to certain thresholds for total team compensation would help keep the teams competitively balanced.

Players would also be attracted to teams with managers they liked, where their opportunities to get playing time were enhanced. Since plate appearances, innings played, and innings pitched are all part of the basic compensation formula, getting enough playing time could outweigh all the bonus factors. Better to be an everyday player for the worst team in baseball than to be a backup on the Yankees or Red Sox.

You may believe that you've evaluated the drawbacks thoroughly. I think you missed the boat, that's all.

I think that if you would set aside your prejudices and evaluate it fairly, you'd realize it's not wacko at all. It would be an order of magnitude improvement over the current system.

You're deciding to pay players based on certain individual stats. You're motivating players to play for themselves, not for the win. You're inventing a centrally planned economic system that will distract people from focusing on winning baseball games.

I don't believe that's true at all. There are incentives built into the concept to motivate players towards helping the team win, towards encouraging home and road attendance, and towards remaining on the same team for their entire career, or at least as long as is practical. These incentive factors are adjustable and could be set to encourage any desirable behavior we chose. Want to motivate players for wins? Set the wins factor so that each win equals a 1 percent multiplier over the basic compensation and a 100 win season would double the player's basic compensation level. Want to encourage behavior that builds attendance? Set the attendance factor so that each 100,000 paid admission equals a 3 percent multiplier over basic compensation. I don't pretend that these are actually the best values, but they can be tweaked again after every season until the desired behavior is encouraged at the optimum level.

You're using some centrally-planned stat-based algorithm to decide who gets paid what. That's a perfect example of centralized planning of an economy.

We're not "planning the economy", just the player compensation. The players association would negotiate with the owners for a percentage of total team revenue which was mutually acceptable to each side and submit a player compensation formula which was acceptable to the majority of the players. (Since the owners would be contributing a fixed percentage of revenue to the compensation pool, exactly how it was divided up would be of far more concern to the players than the owners. As long as the owners have an opportunity to field players that enable them to maximize the value of the percentage of revenue they don't have to put into the compensation pool, they wouldn't care about who got paid what.

And the players union negotiating how the total compensation pool should be divided among the players isn't that much different from my old machinists and aerospace workers union negotiating with my employer how much each category of union employee would be paid.

It's *exactly* the same thing, all we're doing is changing the nouns:
  • Yours: The [owners] pay each [player] based on recent measurements of what that [player] is supposed to be providing.
  • Mine: The [fans] pay each [owner] based on recent measurements of what that [owner] is supposed to be providing.

They're exactly the same. The only thing that changes is who's income is being governed by recent performance. You don't mind paying players based on stats, why should you mind paying an owner based on stats?

You're getting your economics all confused. I don't negotiate with Walmart how much I pay for a can of shaving cream or a case of Mountain Dew. I look at the price and compare it with that charged by Rite-Aid, then purchase it where it's cheapest or most convenient or I do without. Similarly, fans don't negotiate with sports teams or movie theaters over the price of admission. We check how much it is, and either decide it's worth it and purchase the tickets; or look for cheaper seats; or spend our entertainment dollar elsewhere. Fans have no intrinsic control of any resources in sports except the most critical -- we decide if we're going to buy a ticket at all or not. If too many of us refuse to buy tickets because the price is too high or the team stinks too badly, the owner has to reduce ticket prices and improve the team, or lose money and franchise value.

The current system is simply screwed up! Ballplayers are paid enormous amounts, not for how they perform, but for how they're expected to perform based upon how they've done in the past. That's OK for investing in stocks -- "past results are no guarantee of future performance" -- but it's perhaps the worst possible way in the world to contract for baseball players. When I was working in an aircraft factory, my employer and my union would negotiate how much I would be paid during the life of the contract, but I had no obligation whatsoever to continue working an hour longer than I wanted (aside from the courtesy of giving 2 weeks notice) and my employer didn't pay me at all if I was unable to work (aside from sick leave or workers compensation).

At least my way, it's based on actually winning ballgames, which is really all that matters. Your wacko scheme puts individual accomplishment in front of winning ballgames.

No, it absolutely does not! As I have described again and again, there are incentives based upon team wins, team finish, fan attendance at games, and player longevity with his current team. The extent to which those incentives motivate players -- as opposed to focus upon individual statistics -- will depend entirely upon the value set upon each of the bonus factors.

My system merely recognizes that players deserve to be compensated based upon their value to the team, and not on some inaccurate projection of that value based upon past performance. It's obviously the fairest and most practical method of determining compensation, and I can't understand why you're so thick-skulled about it!

Who are you really? Some mutation of Ayn Rand who likes centralized planning? ;-)

I'm her unacknowledged love child....

I think you'd see teams finding ways around the rules. It certainly happened in the 1880s with that classification scheme. You'd have endorsement money, you'd have players "work" as consultants to related corporations like YES or MASN. You might have garden-variety payments under the table.

You certainly might have teams doing that, but the roster size reductions based upon basic player compensation level for the preceding season would preclude the richer teams from stacking their rosters with all stars much, much better than the current luxury tax system does. The luxury tax hasn't stopped the Yankees from assembling a $200M payroll, although it may slow them down from reaching $300M.

Under my system, there's simply little reason for richer teams to offer incentives under the table, because they would already have incentives operating in the form of higher attendance, more wins (because they attract better players), greater likelihood of a high finish and playoff participation (for the same reason), greater opportunities for commercial endorsement contracts, a richer tradition (those Yankee pinstripes), better manager, better medical/training staff, better facilities, more travel perks, and a livelier night life scene (for the single players). Since rich owners get penalized in roster size if they succeed in stacking their team with too many good players, even if they do give under the table payments, it doesn't make any difference. The counterweight is already built into the system.

The thresholds for roster size limitations are based upon the players' prior seasons simply because that's a known factor entering the season. It obviously would be impractical to adjust the team roster size based upon players performance for the current season.

And yes, the big market teams would have many more endorsement opportunities so players would continue to gravitate there.

But again, it's so much less of a problem than it is now because of the roster size reductions which would be triggered by a total team compensation level exceeding certain thresholds above the

Another small thing to consider: Change in baseball happens at a glacial pace. Massive change only happens in response to massive crisis.

This is the crux of it.

Players already make more money than anyone could reasonably spend in their lifetime, or even the lifetimes of their children and grandchildren down to the umpteenth generation (assuming their incomes are wisely invested). Once a player passes a certain threshold, I think the money probably holds less incentive for them than the ego gratification of being among the highest paid players. Players have even had clauses written into their contracts which take into account how they rank on the baseball salary scale.

Most players presumably trust their agents, and this proposal would be absolute poison as far as the agents are concerned.Agents would be doing everything in their powers to torpedo this scheme before it could ever be taken seriously because it would utterly destroy their livelihoods. (Are you sure that you and rshackleford aren't panning this scheme because your agents of the agents? :) )

Owners might turn out to be big opponents, because of the unpredictable impact on their bottom lines. As you've pointed out, they're making money under the current system. I think my scheme would save them money; certainly it would greatly simplify their building of their team rosters; but it's difficult to project exactly what the results would be.

One thing which I have not analyzed at all would be the impact to teams' financial status of being mandated to contribute a fixed percentage of revenues rather than being able to adjust their budget by adding or dropping expensive players. For some teams, it would result in a higher percentage of revenue going into player compensation and a lower percentage for others; what does that do to their bottom lines? If it impacts them too much, then it affects the value of their franchise (as does the current revenue sharing and luxury tax). If we go affecting the existing values of teams, then we need to figure out how to compensate the owners of franchises losing value by taxing the owners of franchises gaining value.

Of course, we'd also have to develop a better way of determining the real value of sweetheart broadcasting contracts between teams and sports networks with interlocking ownership. One way would be to force teams to divest themselves of any ownership connections, but I think that a better way might be to require independent assessments of the values of broadcasting rights.

The game is awash in money and in its best financial shape ever by many measures.

The reserve clause system lasted about 90 years and it didn't make any sense, and the players loathed it. I'm betting that the current system will be largely intact throughout my lifetime. The odds of a change anytime soon like MR is proposing are probably smaller than the odds of me being struck by a meteor at the same time I'm sucked up in a tornado.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Migrant Redbird vs. rshackelford in an argument, RUN FOR COVER BREVITY!

Don't worry, man... I give up. The more he says about his "sensible" and "simple" Master Plan, the crazier and more complicated it gets. So, in the interest of not having it get even more crazy and more complicated, I will just say, "Um, sure, ok." ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...