Mike trout

Discuss current Major League Baseball here.
usnspecialist
Ex-GM
Posts: 6652
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 9:39 am
Location: Manama, Bahrain
Has thanked: 207 times
Been thanked: 776 times

Mike trout

Post by usnspecialist » Tue Mar 19, 2019 10:03 am

Honestly still underpaid at 12/430. He is worth an AAV of 40 and honestly thought he would get 10/400.
Randy Weigand

Havana Sugar Kings/San Fernando Bears: 32-50 (1608-1481)
Des Moines Kernels: 52-

League Champion- 34
JL Champion- 34
FL Champion- 36, 37
JL Southern- 34
FL Pacific- 37, 39
Wild Card- 33, 35, 36, 40, 43

Image

User avatar
Lane
GB: Vice Commissioner
Posts: 6767
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 8:18 am
Location: Los Angeles
Has thanked: 516 times
Been thanked: 700 times

Re: Mike trout

Post by Lane » Tue Mar 19, 2019 10:11 am

Yup. Especially considering how much he's gonna lose in California taxes.
Stephen Lane
Vice Commissioner / Historian
General Manager, Long Beach Surfers
Since 2026

Image


Ex-GM, Amsterdam Neptunes, 2025 EBA Champions

GoldenOne
Ex-GM
Posts: 3317
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2018 1:36 pm
Location: South Riding, VA
Has thanked: 728 times
Been thanked: 485 times

Re: Mike trout

Post by GoldenOne » Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:14 am

I'm just happy to see Harper get taken down a peg. Its even better that he was more or less saying how he wanted to recruit Trout to come play with him in Philly. How telling is that that Trout is re-upping 2 years before his contract is over and could have made a buttload of money playing for his hometown team and even he didnt want to go back to Philly. Have fun Bryce!
:celebrate2:
Brett "The Brain" Golden
GM: Nashville Goats 2034-2039 (The Plan® was working when I left!)
GM: Charlotte Cougars 2040-2052
GM: Rocky Mountain Oysters 2053-2057
2056 BBA Champions!

"Tonight, we take over the world!"
-- The Brain

User avatar
Lane
GB: Vice Commissioner
Posts: 6767
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 8:18 am
Location: Los Angeles
Has thanked: 516 times
Been thanked: 700 times

Re: Mike trout

Post by Lane » Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:20 am

the bigger question to me is why would he want to stay with the Angels who have done nothing to indicate that they're capable of putting together a team capable of winning the world series.
Stephen Lane
Vice Commissioner / Historian
General Manager, Long Beach Surfers
Since 2026

Image


Ex-GM, Amsterdam Neptunes, 2025 EBA Champions

agrudez
Ex-GM
Posts: 7681
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:30 am
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Mike trout

Post by agrudez » Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:25 am

The streets of Philadelphia are flooded with tears. Trout spends like 90% of his free time in the Philadelphia area (Eagles season tick holder, frequently at Sixers games, random sightings around the city, etc.) - I'm hoping that we keep being nice to him now that we're not all taking for granted that he'll sign with us as a FA (of course, all this realistically does amongst the Phillies fanbase is shift talk from FA signing speculation to trade package speculation, lol).
League Director: Kyle “agrudez” Stever*
*Also serves as chief muckraker
-Ron, 2025 media guide

Image

GoldenOne
Ex-GM
Posts: 3317
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2018 1:36 pm
Location: South Riding, VA
Has thanked: 728 times
Been thanked: 485 times

Re: Mike trout

Post by GoldenOne » Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:32 am

I'm willing to bet that if there are no Opt Outs, there might be a No Trade clause in there too. Or, at least a very limited one. If he really wanted to go back to Philly, he could have made it happen and still gotten paid. I love to go back and visit my hometown for friends and places to eat and things to do but there is zero chance I would ever move back there. Not even for $420M. (Well, maybe for $420M...)
Brett "The Brain" Golden
GM: Nashville Goats 2034-2039 (The Plan® was working when I left!)
GM: Charlotte Cougars 2040-2052
GM: Rocky Mountain Oysters 2053-2057
2056 BBA Champions!

"Tonight, we take over the world!"
-- The Brain

Spiccoli
Ex-GM
Posts: 1376
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 4:24 pm
Has thanked: 123 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: Mike trout

Post by Spiccoli » Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:22 pm

As great as Mike Trout is... I can't see paying a guy that much and for that long. It just doesn't make sense and seems like a desperation move for the Angels. Like they don't know what else to do. If they have ton's of young good talent who will be cheap for a few seasons, then ok, I see it. But otherwise? Just no

In baseball, you need depth over individual star talent. This isn't the NBA. You can pitch around Mike Trout if he's surrounded by crap... plus he only get's around 4 at bats a game. Maybe paying for a #1 pitcher? They're gold in the play-offs, but you have to get to the play-offs first. Also, they get hurt too easily.

Didn't they learn their lesson with Pujols? The Cardinal's got his Prime Years for a bargain... Then the Angel's paid Prime Money for average play.

I heard earlier today that the Angel's Owner paid $180 Million for the team in the early 2000's... guess that put it's in perspective.

Also, it happens almost every off season, some random guy goes off. Rarely do the high priced guys consistently tear it up in the play-offs.

Now, I'm not saying to be Oakland and never pay anyone... because that sucks as a fan to see everyone you like walk away.
Scott Piccoli GM Twin Cities

User avatar
Lane
GB: Vice Commissioner
Posts: 6767
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 8:18 am
Location: Los Angeles
Has thanked: 516 times
Been thanked: 700 times

Re: Mike trout

Post by Lane » Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:30 pm

Spiccoli wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:22 pm
As great as Mike Trout is... I can't see paying a guy that much and for that long. It just doesn't make sense and seems like a desperation move for the Angels. Like they don't know what else to do. If they have ton's of young good talent who will be cheap for a few seasons, then ok, I see it. But otherwise? Just no

In baseball, you need depth over individual star talent. This isn't the NBA. You can pitch around Mike Trout if he's surrounded by crap... plus he only get's around 4 at bats a game. Maybe paying for a #1 pitcher? They're gold in the play-offs, but you have to get to the play-offs first. Also, they get hurt too easily.

Didn't they learn their lesson with Pujols? The Cardinal's got his Prime Years for a bargain... Then the Angel's paid Prime Money for average play.

I heard earlier today that the Angel's Owner paid $180 Million for the team in the early 2000's... guess that put it's in perspective.

Also, it happens almost every off season, some random guy goes off. Rarely do the high priced guys consistently tear it up in the play-offs.

Now, I'm not saying to be Oakland and never pay anyone... because that sucks as a fan to see everyone you like walk away.
I see what you're saying, but as this contract and the Machado contract show, these top-tier players are good value for the money they make. If you look at strictly $/WAR, Trout should make upwards of $80 million per season.

The problem is that the Angels have not shown willingness nor ability to put a good enough team around Trout. There's so much money in the game that every team could afford to pay that Mike Trout contract AND fill out the rest of the team to be competitive. It's not really an either-or situation.
Stephen Lane
Vice Commissioner / Historian
General Manager, Long Beach Surfers
Since 2026

Image


Ex-GM, Amsterdam Neptunes, 2025 EBA Champions

User avatar
RonCo
GB: JL Frontier Division Director
Posts: 19752
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:48 pm
Has thanked: 1968 times
Been thanked: 2881 times

Re: Mike trout

Post by RonCo » Tue Mar 19, 2019 5:31 pm

I've never really understood why fans would rather their money go to owners than to the guys who play. But at present, the problem baseball has with salaries and contracts is all centered on the fact that owners make a billion gazillion dollars whether their team wins or not. All they're really doing is spending "just enough" to keep the fans from revolting. And fans are letting them do it, because the average fan doesn't really care to think through the situation.

I mean, yes, the rule of thumb is $8M/WAR today...but owners they don't pay that kind of number for at least four and generally six seasons....and that $8M doesn't seem to represent the full value of players--only the value that owners have actually used in salary. Part of the problem is that fans will rebel if Trout walks, but don't care that Aaron Judge made only $650K a year for the three seasons he's played so far (despite being "worth" $104M per that $8M/WAR thing across those three seasons). Think about that. Using only the $8M/WAR number, fans have paid the owners $104M for the fun of watching Aaron Judge play, and Judge has gotten about 1% of that revenue.

As far as the Angels putting a team around Trout, this deal doesn't make it any less likely. Trout was already making $34M a season. He'll make $36M AAV now, so the annual bump is nearly meaningless in context of their current payroll. But in the context of this note, and as other as other are insinuating, the mere fact of the existence of this contract is an indication of how much money is in the game, and the fact is also that the owners would far prefer to pay Trout/Harper/Betts/whoever $35M per for 10/12/15 years than have to pay all the other guys on the roster an extra $4-6M each...or more.

I mean, geez...Trout made $77M for his first seven seasons, but by that $8M/WAR number his value to the "company" was over a half-billion dollars. Yes. A half billion $ plus. Think about that. $500M in revenue, subtract $77M in salary, and Trout has _already made_ the club about $423M in profit. So, really, all they are doing with this contract is slowly paying him back something close to the value he's already created for them over the next 12 seasons while raking in the value he makes from this point forward.
GM: Bikini Krill
Nothing Matters But the Pacific Pennant
Roster

Ted
Ex-GM
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: Mike trout

Post by Ted » Tue Mar 19, 2019 7:13 pm

Ron, I follow you up until the last a paragraph. Mike Trout's surplus $$/WAR value I get. But that does not translate to 500M in revenue. As you noted, revenue is not tied to wins. That's just the money they "saved" on those wins over typical free agent prices. Nit picking, but I think you made a jump there that doesn't make sense (or I'm not following. but yes, the problem is that MLB teams have divorced revenue from fan attendance/winning, and the fans don't seem to care, and don't seem to care when a guy like Judge is getting the shaft (Even if the player were dumb enough to bargain that way).

This isn't exactly a new problem. Baseball fans follow franchises, not players, for the most part. Players have been getting the short end of the stick for ever. If tey want it to be any different, the union needs to negotiate for players to be played what they are worth, when they are worth it. i don't know that this will happen, because the players in control of the union are the rich stars, who want to protect their cash cow, which has been free agency. In other words, the union isn't doing a good job representing it's own players interests, and the owners are taking advantage of that. The union needs to get it's act together, and get fans on the player's side. That second part is ridiculously easy. All they have to do is during te next round, demand that player accused of domestic abuse, or violent crimes, or whatever horrible shit some of these jerks get away with, are suspended and reduced to minimum salary (with the overage held in a fund) while the case is being investigated, and if found guilty, immediately have their contract voided and have to pay back any bonuses. Boom. Everyone loves players for holding themselves accountable.

As far as fans not caring about winning, that's never really mattered either. See exhibit A, the Chicago Cubs are still a franchise and the more popular one in a two team city.
Ted Schmidt
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
Image

GoldenOne
Ex-GM
Posts: 3317
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2018 1:36 pm
Location: South Riding, VA
Has thanked: 728 times
Been thanked: 485 times

Re: Mike trout

Post by GoldenOne » Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:36 pm

#1 at the top of my question list when I get time hanging with a GM at a bar some night is - How much of a factor does fan interest play in determining whether you sign a guy or not? Harper, Trout, Machado....they sell tickets. They sell jerseys, they sell interest. Those teams will easily make their money back on those players well before their contract is up. I just want to know how much that actually plays into their plans.
Brett "The Brain" Golden
GM: Nashville Goats 2034-2039 (The Plan® was working when I left!)
GM: Charlotte Cougars 2040-2052
GM: Rocky Mountain Oysters 2053-2057
2056 BBA Champions!

"Tonight, we take over the world!"
-- The Brain

Ted
Ex-GM
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: Mike trout

Post by Ted » Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:40 pm

GoldenOne wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:36 pm
#1 at the top of my question list when I get time hanging with a GM at a bar some night is - How much of a factor does fan interest play in determining whether you sign a guy or not? Harper, Trout, Machado....they sell tickets. They sell jerseys, they sell interest. Those teams will easily make their money back on those players well before their contract is up. I just want to know how much that actually plays into their plans.
I'll see if I can find the articles, but this has been researched. The impact is actually pretty small and transient. It's like a one time medium-ish bump. Agents always act like those guys are big draws and they pay for themselves, but they really don't. Baseball fans just show up for the most part. And watch games on TV. They do this more when the team wins. With revenue being tied less and less to the gate, individual player signings have less and less impact.
Ted Schmidt
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
Image

Ted
Ex-GM
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: Mike trout

Post by Ted » Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:41 pm

Here's a good one. Of course it's Dave Cameron.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/big-ticket- ... ttendance/
Ted Schmidt
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
Image

GoldenOne
Ex-GM
Posts: 3317
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2018 1:36 pm
Location: South Riding, VA
Has thanked: 728 times
Been thanked: 485 times

Re: Mike trout

Post by GoldenOne » Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:50 pm

Might not get it from jerseys, etc. but an extra 500k people coming through the gates are going to spend a lot of $$ on food and beer and top of those extra ticket sales. Whatever the research says/shows, i'd still be interested in asking a GM how much something like that plans into their interest in a player. And to take it even further - how much do all the intangibles play into their thinking.
Brett "The Brain" Golden
GM: Nashville Goats 2034-2039 (The Plan® was working when I left!)
GM: Charlotte Cougars 2040-2052
GM: Rocky Mountain Oysters 2053-2057
2056 BBA Champions!

"Tonight, we take over the world!"
-- The Brain

Ted
Ex-GM
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: Mike trout

Post by Ted » Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:01 pm

GoldenOne wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:50 pm
Might not get it from jerseys, etc. but an extra 500k people coming through the gates are going to spend a lot of $$ on food and beer and top of those extra ticket sales. Whatever the research says/shows, i'd still be interested in asking a GM how much something like that plans into their interest in a player. And to take it even further - how much do all the intangibles play into their thinking.
It would be interesting to know what the GM's say. It would be even more interesting to know what they guys back around the turn of the century thought compared to now. 500k is the high end of the attendance bump. The median is probably closer to 300k. Still, let's use 500k. It's also pretty well demonstrated that these bumps don't last more than a year. The average cost of spending a day at the ballpark for 2 people was 77.92 in 2016. Let's say 80. So the best you are going to get is 40 million. That doesn't even pay for a number 3 starter or typical free agent outfielder. Really, these contracts don't make any long term impact on revenue in any meaningful way, and I'm going to guess almost every GM these days knows this. After all, the have access to their own books. It's even easier for them.
Ted Schmidt
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
Image

Ted
Ex-GM
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: Mike trout

Post by Ted » Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:07 pm

The part of this that isn't easy to figure out is how much signing a big name star contributes to the next TV contract. That's where the real money is. Base on how the attendance bump goes away almost immediately, I'd guess not as much as we think. It's really more the market size and how much the team wins. Certainly, signing these players affects that. And teams that spend to add players do win a bit more, so there's something there. But that's a much more difficult problem to figure out. Again, we can go back to the Chicago Cubs, who have been a very highly valued franchise for almost all of modern baseball history, despite losing forever, simply due to their media market.
Ted Schmidt
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
Image

User avatar
RonCo
GB: JL Frontier Division Director
Posts: 19752
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:48 pm
Has thanked: 1968 times
Been thanked: 2881 times

Re: Mike trout

Post by RonCo » Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:34 pm

I picked the WAR relationship to revenue only because of the rule of thumb. Admittedly, it's a simplified value, but at the end of the day revenue is revenue, and salaries come from fans (ins some fashion or another.

Ted's point about players "getting on the fan's side" is part of what I mean. They shouldn't have to. I cannot understand why the average fan would need the players to do anything special to demand that those players get a vast amount of the funds we pay into the pool of money that goes to baseball. Instead, we fall back on old tapes of thinking these guys are pampered babies if they complain about being exploited. Which I understand. The numbers are big. But, at the end of the day, these guys are almost universally underpaid when you take into account the revenue stream they create.

Fans seem to have no issue whatsoever with owners getting mega-rich, but have a player complain about their salaries while the owners are making bazillions, and fans call them whiners.

As both Randy and Stephen noted, Trout is being underpaid at $36M a year. Judge is deeply deeply deeply under-paid at $600K ... but the fact that the average person feels like they'd kill for $600K a year means no one cares that the owners are getting filthy rich on Judge's shoulders.
GM: Bikini Krill
Nothing Matters But the Pacific Pennant
Roster

GoldenOne
Ex-GM
Posts: 3317
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2018 1:36 pm
Location: South Riding, VA
Has thanked: 728 times
Been thanked: 485 times

Re: Mike trout

Post by GoldenOne » Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:51 pm

Man, you guys just love to kill a person's dream with all your fancy stats. :cool:

$40M to San Diego probably means a lot more than it does to someplace like Philly and the Cubs, but its still $40M. I'd also venture to say that a lot of those increased fans showing up for games may also be spending a lot more once inside. If I am going specifically because Bryce is now a Philly, I'm probably bringing my entire family and probably spending a little more than an average visit. I'm gonna bring the family and splurge a little since it might be the only game I go to all year and I want to "make it a memory."

Now, since its Philly, when Bryce is hitting .220 in mid June and decides he's going to just jog out this grounder, maybe you also see those increased attendance numbers start to wilt a little. :innocent:
Brett "The Brain" Golden
GM: Nashville Goats 2034-2039 (The Plan® was working when I left!)
GM: Charlotte Cougars 2040-2052
GM: Rocky Mountain Oysters 2053-2057
2056 BBA Champions!

"Tonight, we take over the world!"
-- The Brain

Ted
Ex-GM
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: Mike trout

Post by Ted » Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:52 pm

RonCo wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:34 pm
I picked the WAR relationship to revenue only because of the rule of thumb. Admittedly, it's a simplified value, but at the end of the day revenue is revenue, and salaries come from fans (ins some fashion or another.

Ted's point about players "getting on the fan's side" is part of what I mean. They shouldn't have to. I cannot understand why the average fan would need the players to do anything special to demand that those players get a vast amount of the funds we pay into the pool of money that goes to baseball. Instead, we fall back on old tapes of thinking these guys are pampered babies if they complain about being exploited. Which I understand. The numbers are big. But, at the end of the day, these guys are almost universally underpaid when you take into account the revenue stream they create.

Fans seem to have no issue whatsoever with owners getting mega-rich, but have a player complain about their salaries while the owners are making bazillions, and fans call them whiners.

As both Randy and Stephen noted, Trout is being underpaid at $36M a year. Judge is deeply deeply deeply under-paid at $600K ... but the fact that the average person feels like they'd kill for $600K a year means no one cares that the owners are getting filthy rich on Judge's shoulders.
To be clear, I agree with you Ron, about it being so somewhat odd that the players don't get enough love from the fans. But it's really not that hard to fix. They players have a union. That union should be directly presenting a case to the fans. It doesn't. It never has. all it ever does is prioritize stupid shit the richer players want at the expense of the rest of the player pool. The players have faces and are generally more public facing and that makes them easier to like/dislike. It would take very, very little to get the average fan to see thins from the players perspective. The players don't even try. Their agents don't try. Look at Scott Boras. Does he do ANYTHING to make us like his clients on a personal level? At all? This is a massive marketing/public relations failure on the part of the players and their union. Most informed fans are very pro-player/anti owner. Heck, if you sit down with them, most casual fans would instantly be so as well, if given just a teensy bit of data.

But, most fans want their team to win. Fans aren't complete idiots. They know huge FA deals haven't seemed to work out well. I don't think there are any fans out there that don't think Aaron Judge should get more. They probably just don't think about it at all. What they do get to think about is players like Bryce Harper and Manny Machado asking for potentially bad deals. Deals similar to ones that haven't worked well. And a bunch of other old players asking to be paid for past performance. This is all the media presents, and all the union and agents ever talk about. So fans "side" with the owners. Because they (fans) aren't dumb, and want to win. It's really not that complex.
Ted Schmidt
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
Image

agrudez
Ex-GM
Posts: 7681
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:30 am
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Mike trout

Post by agrudez » Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:15 am

Baseball is team over player for fans because of the disproportionately small amount of time you actually get to root for an individual relative to other sports. In basketball you get to see your team's star player for 90% of the game. In football you get to see your team's star player for 50% of the game (whether they are on offense or defense). In hockey you get to see your team's star player for 30-40% of the game (lower if offense, higher if defense) upwards of 100% (if it's a goalie). In baseball you only get to see your team's star bat for ~5.5% of a game's ABs (assuming ~4.5 ABs/player/game... and who cares about seeing them stand around in the outfield getting a tan) or a team's star pitcher for ~13.3% of a season's innings (assuming 6 IP/start, 1 start/5 games). It's a radical suggestion, but I really think baseball needs to invent new ways to get their best players more ABs. Maybe expanding the DH role to cover 1-2 more positions and then letting the team pick a current player in the lineup to get double ABs or something. So, like having SS and CF be pure defense from now on and then letting a team 'pinch hit' (without having to sub players in and out) their 1B, DH, LF, etc. for their spot in the order. That would also bring a fun strategic element to the game, too. Do you bring in your 40 HR guy with a runner on 2nd down 1 or do you bring in your .330 AVG guy? Or maybe giving managers X number of pinch hit opportunities per game that they can employ whenever to make it more situational.

It's also a sport where individual performance matters less and/or is less exciting. In basketball if a player scores 40 with good efficiency their team is probably going to win and you're probably having fun watching it. In hockey if a player scores a hat trick, same. Football if your quarterback goes off, same. In baseball, a 2 hit CG from a pitcher is boring. And a 2 HR game from a batter moves the needle for win chance, but not precipitously (unless they are 3 or 4 runs per). Now expand this to the internet highlight generation of sports fans. Watch some basketball highlights vs. baseball highlights. In the former every play is different and exciting - athleticism off the charts. In the latter you could show me the same highlight of a batter hitting the ball against a pitcher 10 times in a row and if I'm not paying close attention I might not notice. If you've watched 1 HR or 1 SO you've seen them all. The only exciting highlight in baseball is an athletic defensive play (diving catch, climbing a wall, etc.), but the "best" players generally are offensive minded so even those highlights are diminished because you don't know who the player in the clip even is 90% of the time.

That said, I don't think fans ever really side with the owners over the players. Look at the annual mutiny that happens in Florida when the Marlins put the screws to their fanbase. And ML players can't exactly cry poor, either. It sucks that they have to wait 6 years to get paydays, but once that period is over a #4 LHSP will get an 8 digit salary more than likely. Go talk to a NFL RB/OL/DL with an average career of 2.5 seasons or whatever of making a couple million in exchange for brain damage.

In the power ranking of sports-related atrocities (with worst listed first) I go...
1) Youth football still existing in its current form
2) Minor league baseball players being given starvation wages
3) NCAA exploiting college players
4) NBA basically forcing HS players to subject themselves to 1 year of NCAA exploitation
5) College and pro football still existing in its current form
6) Baseball players having salaries arbitrarily stymied during 'cost control' years
League Director: Kyle “agrudez” Stever*
*Also serves as chief muckraker
-Ron, 2025 media guide

Image

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “MLB Talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest