if you are extremely average at absolutely the highest level of your profession, you're going to be making very good money no matter what you do, unless you are a lunch lady or something. that's not really the point though, is it? His '09 salary was "very good money." It's not about whether he makes a lot of money. If you're average for your job (even if that job is the highest level of your profession), it's not common to get a raise to 5-times your prior year's salary. It's the nature of baseball contracts, but I think Derwood's point is still fair. As you said though, it's the way baseball contracts work. Most employers don't get to pay someone who's average for the top level of the profession near minmum wage for that profession for 3 years. The only reason Theriot's contract escalated that much is because the rules allow him to be very underpaid to begin with. The arbitration process is designed to slowly let players get closer and closer to their true market value. So in some ways the fact that Theriot got that much of a raise this year shows how much baseball rules are unfair to players and not the other way around. the fact that he's now getting a "fair" contract (assuming that's what it is) shows that baseball rules are unfair? In many professions, you don't get paid your true value right away if you're really, really good. You have to establish that reputation and put some time in first. You may come out of school with great grades, but until employers see that put to work for a period of years, you're probably not getting paid what you're bringing in for the company. 3 years isn't a terribly long time to have to establish that performance, even in baseball.