Most overpaid player in the league?

[Jehrico]

considering what the average major leaguer makes compared to the average american worker, I would say that they are all overpaid

 

I disagree strongly. They aren't average workers. They are unique elite workers in an industry with strong demand from the consumers. Practically anybody in the country could do what the average American worker does, there's a miniscule supply of labor for baseball players.

 

BS, they get paid to play a Sport.....and a ton of money at that. I agree with Derwood on this.

 

They're paid what the market allows them to be paid, just like every other profession.

They get paid what economics determine they deserve, but I don't think anyone deserves to be paid millions to play a game, economics or not. I would bet that just about every single one of these guys making a million or more would gladly take a 90% paycut if they were forced to choose between doing that, or going and finding a job in the real world. Almost all of these guys would gladly play this game for $100 grand a year if consumers weren't paying millions upon millions for them to provide this entertainment to us.

[Mark_R]

05 numeros:

 

Derek Jeter: (we'll be close and say 20 mil) .389/.450/.839

 

Carlos Beltran (17 mil): .330/.414/.744

 

Huh, guess Jeter isn't the most overpaid. His buddy on the other side of town is much worse.

 

ehhh, jeter's got a better park to hit in and beltran provides a lot more defensive value

 

i'd say it's awfully close, and that's only if you look ONLY at 2005. i suspect things will be different this year.

 

They might be different this year, you're right. But Beltran's struggles last year were astronomical given his "biggest FA in history" hype.

 

Is Yankee Stadium really that much of a hitter's park?

[TB_11]

05 numeros:

 

Derek Jeter: (we'll be close and say 20 mil) .389/.450/.839

 

Carlos Beltran (17 mil): .330/.414/.744

 

Huh, guess Jeter isn't the most overpaid. His buddy on the other side of town is much worse.

 

ehhh, jeter's got a better park to hit in and beltran provides a lot more defensive value

 

i'd say it's awfully close, and that's only if you look ONLY at 2005. i suspect things will be different this year.

 

They might be different this year, you're right. But Beltran's struggles last year were astronomical given his "biggest FA in history" hype.

 

Is Yankee Stadium really that much of a hitter's park?

 

2005 Derek Jeter OPS+: 121

2005 Carlos Beltran OPS+: 95

 

Random side note: Francis Beltran's middle name is LeBron. And I thought LeBron was the only one named LeBron.

[EastonBlues22]

Remeber also, only a fraction of all ballplayers become major leaguers because the number of major league positions is fixed. That doesn't necessarily mean there aren't other people out there qualified to do the job. There's prospects on most teams that could step in to the big show and do a respectable job if a starter went out. Consider the talent pool world wide (hello Cuba and Japan) and the number is even greater. Consider all exceptional athletes around the world who could play the game well if they just had an interest in it and the means to be trained in the sport and the number is potentially huge. (With more jobs, people would do a better job of recruiting and training talent for the sport). Just because a slot is blocked doesn't mean there aren't more people capable of doing the job out there.

 

Jacking up demand for a profession by capping the supply doesn't make the job intrinsically more valuable...it makes it artificially more valuable, and renders value comparisons with jobs that aren't capped virtually meaningless.

[Geech]

Remeber also, only a fraction of all ballplayers become major leaguers because the number of major league positions is fixed. That doesn't necessarily mean there aren't other people out there qualified to do the job. There's prospects on most teams that could step in to the big show and do a respectable job if a starter went out. Consider the talent pool world wide (hello Cuba and Japan) and the number is even greater. Consider all exceptional athletes around the world who could play the game well if they just had an interest in it and the means to be trained in the sport and the number is potentially huge. (With more jobs, people would do a better job of recruiting and training talent for the sport). Just because a slot is blocked doesn't mean there aren't more people capable of doing the job out there.

 

Jacking up demand for a profession by capping the supply doesn't make the job intrinsically more valuable...it makes it artificially more valuable, and renders value comparisons with jobs that aren't capped virtually meaningless.

 

Your economics are off. It's not the supply that's fixed, it's the demand. Fixing the demand wouldn't increase the cost of the players.

[EastonBlues22]

Remeber also, only a fraction of all ballplayers become major leaguers because the number of major league positions is fixed. That doesn't necessarily mean there aren't other people out there qualified to do the job. There's prospects on most teams that could step in to the big show and do a respectable job if a starter went out. Consider the talent pool world wide (hello Cuba and Japan) and the number is even greater. Consider all exceptional athletes around the world who could play the game well if they just had an interest in it and the means to be trained in the sport and the number is potentially huge. (With more jobs, people would do a better job of recruiting and training talent for the sport). Just because a slot is blocked doesn't mean there aren't more people capable of doing the job out there.

 

Jacking up demand for a profession by capping the supply doesn't make the job intrinsically more valuable...it makes it artificially more valuable, and renders value comparisons with jobs that aren't capped virtually meaningless.

 

Your economics are off. It's not the supply that's fixed, it's the demand. Fixing the demand wouldn't increase the cost of the players.

Howso? I thought the supply was what's available to be consumed by consumers (in this case it would be ballplayers and the entertainment value/service they provide) and the demand is how much the consumers desire/are willing to pay for the good/service.

 

If the market was flooded with good ballplayers, prices would have to become more competitive and consumers would be less inclined to pay a premium to be entertained (demand would wane...as would the average ballplayer salary).

[soccer10k]

Remeber also, only a fraction of all ballplayers become major leaguers because the number of major league positions is fixed. That doesn't necessarily mean there aren't other people out there qualified to do the job. There's prospects on most teams that could step in to the big show and do a respectable job if a starter went out. Consider the talent pool world wide (hello Cuba and Japan) and the number is even greater. Consider all exceptional athletes around the world who could play the game well if they just had an interest in it and the means to be trained in the sport and the number is potentially huge. (With more jobs, people would do a better job of recruiting and training talent for the sport). Just because a slot is blocked doesn't mean there aren't more people capable of doing the job out there.

 

Jacking up demand for a profession by capping the supply doesn't make the job intrinsically more valuable...it makes it artificially more valuable, and renders value comparisons with jobs that aren't capped virtually meaningless.

 

Your economics are off. It's not the supply that's fixed, it's the demand. Fixing the demand wouldn't increase the cost of the players.

Howso? I thought the supply was what's available to be consumed by consumers (in this case it would be ballplayers and the entertainment value/service they provide) and the demand is how much the consumers desire/are willing to pay for the good/service.

 

If the market was flooded with good ballplayers, prices would have to become more competitive and consumers would be less inclined to pay a premium to be entertained (demand would wane...as would the average ballplayer salary).

 

I would think it's the demand that is fixed. I look at demand as the number of roster spots on major league clubs. As you said, there are hundreds of minor leaguers that could step in if need be. But the demand for MLB roster spots is 25*30 = 750 positions. The supply is how many people want to play professional baseball.

[Geech]

In this case we're dealing with the baseball labor market, not the consumer leisure market.

 

In the labor market it's the demand that's fixed: owners want 25 major leaguers on each team and really can't deviate from that, although you do have some flow to and from the minors and mexican leagues, etc. Now, if this were a true free labor market, the players would have no choice but to accept the lowest competitive price available. The fixed demand would work against the players, because their options are relatively limited. If they want to play in the bigs, they need to deal with these owners.

 

The players' union adds another wrinkle. I'm not quite sure how all the complexities play out, but the point is that the fixed demand works against the players.

 

The consumer leisure market is a different story altogether. It does affect the baseball labor market, but only indirectly. The amount of business will determine just how much the team owners value talented ballplayers and that value will affect how much they're willing to pay. However even in this situation, the supply still isn't capped because baseball competes with other sports, or even completely different forms of entertainment. Consumers may watch basketball, football or go see a movie instead of watching a baseball game.

[EastonBlues22]

In this case we're dealing with the baseball labor market, not the consumer leisure market.

 

In the labor market it's the demand that's fixed: owners want 25 major leaguers on each team and really can't deviate from that, although you do have some flow to and from the minors and mexican leagues, etc. Now, if this were a true free labor market, the players would have no choice but to accept the lowest competitive price available. The fixed demand would work against the players, because their options are relatively limited. If they want to play in the bigs, they need to deal with these owners.

 

The players' union adds another wrinkle. I'm not quite sure how all the complexities play out, but the point is that the fixed demand works against the players.

 

The consumer leisure market is a different story altogether. It does affect the baseball labor market, but only indirectly. The amount of business will determine just how much the team owners value talented ballplayers and that value will affect how much they're willing to pay. However even in this situation, the supply still isn't capped because baseball competes with other sports, or even completely different forms of entertainment. Consumers may watch basketball, football or go see a movie instead of watching a baseball game.

I stand corrected.

 

So, how does that apply back to the previous discussion where they were arguing relative value of professions based upon the number of people who were able to perform each one?

 

Economics just ain't my game.