America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 5 years ago by Krazeehorse. 56 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
Bryce Harper $330mm
frankj1 Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
13 years
not too shabby.
MACS Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,599
That's ridiculous. #1 - way too much money. #2 - how is he supposed to stay as good as he is now for 13 years?

Sunoverbeach Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 14,588
Doesn't have to now. He's got a contract
dstieger Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
He doesn't have to
dstieger Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Yeah
frankj1 Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
one team thought he was worth 300mm for 10 years, but then another topped that.
Why is it ridiculous if two teams (and probably many more would have approached 250-300) were willing AND able to pay that?

America's Game, America's Marketplace.
Speyside Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
If you look at the sabermetrics Harper is not worth anywhere near this amount of money. Specifically his WAR is mediocre.
frankj1 Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
it's a business, and it's a marketplace with limited options to make an impact on the team you own.
fortunately for Harper, the only other potential big impact player available as a free agent signed last week.
Phillies had money to burn (still do) and he was the biggest star out there.

analytics are becoming huge in baseball, but sometimes the eye test tells the real truth. Big risk, he could fall on his face. But he might surpass what he has done so far too.

AND they could afford it!

just wait til Trout and Mookie hit the market...though other factors could cool it off by then.
DrafterX Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
I prolly coulda made that but I got stoned instead... Mellow
MACS Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,599
DrafterX wrote:
I prolly coulda made that but I got stoned instead... Mellow


I never coulda made that so I got stoned instead... Mellow
DrafterX Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
Stoned was good for a while... Looking forward to retiring so I can start again... Laugh
dkeage Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 03-05-2004
Posts: 15,135
DrafterX wrote:
Stoned was good for a while... Looking forward to retiring so I can start again... Laugh


Don't forget to breathe....Anxious
frankj1 Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
dkeage wrote:
Don't forget to breathe....Anxious

the key to life
8trackdisco Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 11-06-2004
Posts: 60,000
I think I recall an early 1980s Sports Illistrated cover with Fred Lynn kneeling with a bat in his hand, in an Oriole uniform with a caption to the effect of ....... Is anyone worth one million dollars a year.

Quit even bothering to look at what tickets cost, let alone go to a game.

Maybe I could pay or the ticket. As long as I didn't eat, drink, or bring a car there.
MACS Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,599
They charge ridiculous prices for parking, beer, hot dogs, cracker jacks, popcorn... so they can pay some douchebag 330 million.

Not with any of my money.
Speyside Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Frank, the smart big money teams didn't jump in this year. Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, and Cubs will be all in on Trout and Betts. They are difference makers though I doubt Betts ever reaches free agency, the Red Sox will lock him up before then.
Ewok126 Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 06-25-2017
Posts: 4,356
DrafterX wrote:
I prolly coulda made that but I got stoned instead... Mellow



I got stoned instead and dreamed I made that.

It was just as good. fog
frankj1 Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
Speyside wrote:
Frank, the smart big money teams didn't jump in this year. Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, and Cubs will be all in on Trout and Betts. They are difference makers though I doubt Betts ever reaches free agency, the Red Sox will lock him up before then.

so far Betts is happy going year to year until he's free...prolly assured of 28mm next year without signing long term.
Yanks kept/added important pitching and extended Hicks, but they weren't the biggest spenders coming into this year.
Sox were already top spenders.
frankj1 Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
MACS wrote:
They charge ridiculous prices for parking, beer, hot dogs, cracker jacks, popcorn... so they can pay some douchebag 330 million.

Not with any of my money.

they sure do charge, but that ain't the money needed to pay these players.

but why is he the douchebag for saying yes? like management are the good guys?

some of you guys are inconsistent when it comes to capitalism, supply and demand, what the market will bear, etc.
So conditioned to the ruling class keeping all the gold?

Screw 'em. They've had centuries on top due to fortunate birth.
ZRX1200 Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,477
Great deal......when the contract runs up the Mets will still be paying Bobby Bonilla for four more years.
shaun341 Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 08-02-2012
Posts: 8,826
Speyside wrote:
Frank, the smart big money teams didn't jump in this year. Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, and Cubs will be all in on Trout and Betts. They are difference makers though I doubt Betts ever reaches free agency, the Red Sox will lock him up before then.


Dodgers were in on Harper, offered short term deal. Cubs I believe made a run at Machado in the beginning but think the White Sox became the preferred Chicago team if he went there.

Sabermetrics don't have anything to do with stars contracts. Yeah they have to have decent numbers to be a star but selling tickets, jerseys and TV time is the only thing that matters. Citizens Bank used to sell out every night easily and the last few seasons they haven't been able to sell out at all. Guarantee they sell out every home game this year and for the foreseeable future now.



shaun341 Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 08-02-2012
Posts: 8,826
frankj1 wrote:
they sure do charge, but that ain't the money needed to pay these players.

but why is he the douchebag for saying yes? like management are the good guys?

some of you guys are inconsistent when it comes to capitalism, supply and demand, what the market will bear, etc.
So conditioned to the ruling class keeping all the gold?

Screw 'em. They've had centuries on top due to fortunate birth.


Nobody makes this kind of money in sports without owners getting them to this point. The only way to change the amount of money they make is by not watching on TV anymore. A large portion of the contracts are paid for through TV contracts with teams and the league. So in a way it is hypocritical to complain about athlete contracts and watch the sport on TV still.





Cereal City Cigar Smoker Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 03-30-2006
Posts: 14,587
shaun341 wrote:
Nobody makes this kind of money in sports without owners getting them to this point. The only way to change the amount of money they make is by not watching on TV anymore. A large portion of the contracts are paid for through TV contracts with teams and the league. So in a way it is hypocritical to complain about athlete contracts and watch the sport on TV still.


Yep, it's all about the Benjamins! I recall when Reggie Jackson had something like 25¢ for every ticket sold included in his contract.

I will argue one point you made above though: the owners don't get these athletes to their high salaries, their skills and perceived value to the organization gets them there. Television contracts are long term, so I'm not sure that not watching will have any effect in the short term. Not going to the ball park will impact the organization's bottom line to some extent, but keep in mind the accounting games that are played in pro sports. Specifically, people focus on whether or not a sports organization is profitable. Heck with profit! Does it have a positive cash flow? I would bet that the majority of sports organizations that "lose" money have a positive cash flow. Yes, you can lose money and still have lots of positive cash flow. The owners do this by how they expense player contracts.

IMO cities need to stop competing to finance the arenas. But that will never happen .....Not talking

My 3¢

c3s
JGKAMIN Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 05-08-2011
Posts: 1,388
Speyside wrote:
If you look at the sabermetrics Harper is not worth anywhere near this amount of money. Specifically his WAR is mediocre.

So far in his career he has had seasons of 5.2 (age 19!) and 3.7, 4.7 and 10 with a total of 27.4 WAR. Not too shabby. Based on what they value each WAR he has easily earned his money so far and since he’s only 26 will soon be hitting his prime. Besides, the reason these stars get their pay is because some schmuck that isn’t half the player pulls a big contract and a reverse domino effect occurs that the better players/agents start saying if so and so is worth this we’re worth twice and onward it goes. Harper could’ve pulled that $330mil for 10 years, so somewhat surprised he got it over 13.
shaun341 Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 08-02-2012
Posts: 8,826
Phillies sold 100,000 tickets yesterday.

Also, if what we do in the short term didn't effect long term then there would be no reasoning behind anything.
jespear Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 03-19-2004
Posts: 9,462
frankj1 wrote:
they sure do charge, but that ain't the money needed to pay these players.

but why is he the douchebag for saying yes? like management are the good guys?

some of you guys are inconsistent when it comes to capitalism, supply and demand, what the market will bear, etc.
So conditioned to the ruling class keeping all the gold?

Screw 'em. They've had centuries on top due to fortunate birth.




Sipping tea
Frankie T . . . You're hungry. You KNOW how you get when you get hungry. Here eat this snickers bar.
jespear Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 03-19-2004
Posts: 9,462
And as far as Bryce Harper . . .
Yeah, I'm happy he's here.
The $$$ means nothing to me. It was the owners money, not mine.

The city is abuzz.

frankj1 Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
thanks!
I feel much better now.
shaun341 Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 08-02-2012
Posts: 8,826
JGKAMIN wrote:
So far in his career he has had seasons of 5.2 (age 19!) and 3.7, 4.7 and 10 with a total of 27.4 WAR. Not too shabby. Based on what they value each WAR he has easily earned his money so far and since he’s only 26 will soon be hitting his prime. Besides, the reason these stars get their pay is because some schmuck that isn’t half the player pulls a big contract and a reverse domino effect occurs that the better players/agents start saying if so and so is worth this we’re worth twice and onward it goes. Harper could’ve pulled that $330mil for 10 years, so somewhat surprised he got it over 13.



The fact that they were able to spread it out over 13 years is surprising to me as well. Not sure what the present day value of the contract would be but he lost tens of millions I bet you by adding 3 years tot he contract.
frankj1 Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
jespear wrote:
And as far as Bryce Harper . . .
Yeah, I'm happy he's here.
The $$$ means nothing to me. It was the owners money, not mine.

The city is abuzz.


yup.

the weird thing is how easily the billionaire owners part with the money. Our leading capitalists become socialists when they enter the world of team ownership...to such an extent that they pool a lot of resources and negotiate artificial wage controls because they lose self control.

baseball does not have a salary cap per se, (I despise minimum and maximum salary restrictions) but they still found a way to artificially control their insatiable need to spend with salary taxes.

and Harper's deal only makes him the 14th highest paid player per annum in the game's history!

Z was right. worst deal evah was Bonilla/Mets.
jespear Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 03-19-2004
Posts: 9,462
frankj1 wrote:
thanks!
I feel much better now.


You KNOW I'm there for ya, buddy. ThumpUp
delta1 Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
nah...Orioles still owe Chris Davis $85 million for four more years...then deferred salary for 15 more years, until he's 51 years old in 2037, at average of $2.8 MM/yr...

Davis' numbers fell off a cliff after signing the contract... last year his BA was below the Mendoza line...he's 33 yrs old, so anybody think he'll ever hit 40+ HR again?

Mrs. dpnewell Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 08-23-2014
Posts: 1,373
Last year the Phillies drew very few fans. I remember watching the games in April and May and the place was almost empty. Last spring they had a special where you paid a total of $70.00 for all the April home games. It came out to around $5 a game and there weren't many takers. Since signing Harper, games are selling out left and right. I remember the last time the Phillies fielded a playoff team. For 3 or 4 years, most games where sellouts. If the Phillies put a playoff contender on the field, they'll fill the stadium every night. It's the Philadelphia way.

David
bassman45 Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 07-05-2009
Posts: 4,082
MACS wrote:
They charge ridiculous prices for parking, beer, hot dogs, cracker jacks, popcorn... so they can pay some douchebag 330 million.

Not with any of my money.




^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^
jespear Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 03-19-2004
Posts: 9,462
Mrs. dpnewell wrote:
Last year the Phillies drew very few fans. I remember watching the games in April and May and the place was almost empty. Last spring they had a special where you paid a total of $70.00 for all the April home games. It came out to around $5 a game and there weren't many takers. Since signing Harper, games are selling out left and right. I remember the last time the Phillies fielded a playoff team. For 3 or 4 years, most games where sellouts. If the Phillies put a playoff contender on the field, they'll fill the stadium every night. It's the Philadelphia way.

David


It was reported that in the first hour after the announcement was made, 100,000 tickets were sold.
The next day, they were close to 200,000.
As a fan, this 2019 Phillies line-up is going to be fun to watch.
frankj1 Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
jespear wrote:
It was reported that in the first hour after the announcement was made, 100,000 tickets were sold.
The next day, they were close to 200,000.
As a fan, this 2019 Phillies line-up is going to be fun to watch.

avg ticket price sold?

and yet, ticket sales are barely part of payroll. Probably have more impact on stadium maintenance.
frankj1 Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
Trout smashed the $$$ package.

Just heard (not snopsed) that The Angels payroll was 150mm/year and they take in 125mm from TV before they open the gates for Game 1.

So before this, the real question is why wasn't their payroll higher, why haven't they surrounded Trout with talent in an attempt to actually win a championship?

yeah, poor owners can't catch a break.
theosprey247 Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 11-25-2008
Posts: 512
frankj1 wrote:
Trout smashed the $$$ package.

Just heard (not snopsed) that The Angels payroll was 150mm/year and they take in 125mm from TV before they open the gates for Game 1.

So before this, the real question is why wasn't their payroll higher, why haven't they surrounded Trout with talent in an attempt to actually win a championship?

yeah, poor owners can't catch a break.



They were burned by big contracts given to Fat Albert and Josh Hamilton
frankj1 Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
theosprey247 wrote:
They were burned by big contracts given to Fat Albert and Josh Hamilton

better talent doesn't have to be the number one guy available, Fat Albert I get, but everyone knew Hamilton was a risk.

maybe better front office/scouting too.
But to have the very best guy for 5 years with nothing to show for it?
theosprey247 Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 11-25-2008
Posts: 512
Their pitching keeps breaking down. I think they lead the league in Tommy Johns
frankj1 Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
I defer to your knowledge of the Angels.

The Trout signing may mean that the Red Sox will lose Mookie Betts when he is eligible for free agency
Mr. Jones Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 19,359
The RICH PRICKS ...authorizing and paying that kind of salary to one man... obviously have TOO MUCH MONEY AND NO BRAINS....

THIS IS ONE OBVIOUS AREA WHERE freshman congress woman A.O.C. "CORTEZ"
IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT in her socialist ways of thinking.
frankj1 Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
Mr. Jones wrote:
The RICH PRICKS ...authorizing and paying that kind of salary to one man... obviously have TOO MUCH MONEY AND NO BRAINS....

...and no self control.

I'll laugh at every regular guy who gets mad at the players... until one of these pay checks bounces!
MACS Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,599
Put your money where your mouth is. If you don't like the obscene salaries of baseball players, don't go to games, don't watch it on TV, and don't buy merchandise. Otherwise... shaddup.
frankj1 Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
MACS wrote:
Put your money where your mouth is. If you don't like the obscene salaries of baseball players, don't go to games, don't watch it on TV, and don't buy merchandise. Otherwise... shaddup.

correct, absolutely an option that many should select.

but I do like baseball, and don't care how much they make, so I will watch games.

I do feel a little badly for real fans in cities with team owners who do not invest in trying to win. People complain about the players who get the fat contract and then mail in their performances...which can happen, but the same people don't complain about the owner who does not compete, who turns socialist and shares the pooled money with other owners and then mails in his performance... won't spend on the product that fans pay money to see, good players doing their playing. No fan pays to see owners do their owning.
tailgater Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
frankj1 wrote:
they sure do charge, but that ain't the money needed to pay these players.

but why is he the douchebag for saying yes? like management are the good guys?

some of you guys are inconsistent when it comes to capitalism, supply and demand, what the market will bear, etc.
So conditioned to the ruling class keeping all the gold?

Screw 'em. They've had centuries on top due to fortunate birth.



It's not inconsistent to express an opinion that $330/13 is too much money.
Nobody is saying it shouldn't be allowed. Or that the government or commish needs to stop it.
Simply that it's too much.

Truth is, it IS too much.
But at least it's guaranteed...


frankj1 Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
tailgater wrote:
It's not inconsistent to express an opinion that $330/13 is too much money.
Nobody is saying it shouldn't be allowed. Or that the government or commish needs to stop it.
Simply that it's too much.

Truth is, it IS too much.
But at least it's guaranteed...



can't really argue with this.

of course it is too much...in that it's sooo much money for simply having the ability to hit 100 mph pitches etc.
But apparently it's not the actual money that is too much but rather the adoration and value Americans place on sports that is too much and paves the road with gold for the players...as well as the owners.

as for no one saying should not be allowed, I think one could claim that salary caps and payroll taxes are artificial ways of limiting salaries and therefore a way for owners (and apparently many supportive fans) to say "only up to this much" is allowed.

How'd I do? This would be so much better as beer talk with pub food.
MACS Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,599
I do watch sportscenter... and I check scores on ESPN... so they're getting some revenue from me, albeit not directly out of my pocket.

I am also guilty of having a jersey or three... though I haven't bought one in at least 5 years.

I don't go to games (I've been to 2 NFL games and 1 MLB game), I will no longer buy merchandise, and I usually don't watch games on TV, but it is occasionally a guilty pleasure.
tailgater Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Harper was a bargain.

Looks like Trout will get $430MM

Mookie just shat himself.

frankj1 Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
tg wrote: Mookie just shat himself.


so did John Henry.

Shawn, watch all you want, the contract with MLB from the networks is a done deal.

Also, I need to clarify something I wrote above about the money the Angels get from TV revenue (125mm) yet only a payroll of 150mm...
that 125mm is from LOCAL TELEVISION only...does not include the owner's slice of the gazillons being cut up by all the teams.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>