Well OK Boris. But you are backing up Capitalism with a catastrophic insurance plan. That ain't pay as you go.
Besides I can't think of a single 100K dental procedure. Lots of them involved for the rest of the parts.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/7/2019 7:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 2/7/2019 7:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/7/2019 7:01:00 PM (view original):
Bryce Harper can sign in the Australian league for all I care. I am not a fan of the guy.

me neither, but I am still curious to see where he signs. If he signs with one of teams I like, I could become a bigger fan. (I doubt he will sign with either Yankees or the Giants, my 2 favorite teams)

If he signed with the Yankees, would that be the most talented outfield in baseball history?

I don't know about most talented, but certainly it would be up there for most powerful! Of course, they would suck defensively. Who would play CF? Did you see where Aaron Judge said he'd be willing to switch positions if the Yankees signed Harper. I think he meant 1B, but who knows.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/7/2019 9:28:00 PM (view original):
I haven't ran any actual numbers, but I'm not sure any player is worth $35M/year. Saying that, I think he's worth more than Harper simply because he can play SS adequately if needed.

of course, if someone is willing to pay him $25 million a year, one could argue he is worth it, but I agree. $35 million a year to play a game does seem excessive.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/8/2019 11:18:00 AM (view original):
Being able to afford and it being good business are two entirely different things. The question is does Harper bring in $40M/year worth of production. The market is saying no so far. Just because teams can afford to give him that doesn't necessarily mean that they should.

its not just production. Does Harper put butts in the seats? Does he bring more viewers to television? Based on production alone, I doubt $35 million a year makes sense, but if a player brings in more revenue, whether its tickets sold, or merch sold, or whatever, it may be worth it.

Posted by wylie715 on 2/8/2019 12:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/7/2019 9:28:00 PM (view original):
I haven't ran any actual numbers, but I'm not sure any player is worth $35M/year. Saying that, I think he's worth more than Harper simply because he can play SS adequately if needed.

of course, if someone is willing to pay him $25 million a year, one could argue he is worth it, but I agree. $35 million a year to play a game does seem excessive.

It’s weird that people question whether or not players should make so much to “play a game” but no one ever questions whether the owners should make so much for hosting a game.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/8/2019 1:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 2/8/2019 12:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/7/2019 9:28:00 PM (view original):
I haven't ran any actual numbers, but I'm not sure any player is worth $35M/year. Saying that, I think he's worth more than Harper simply because he can play SS adequately if needed.

of course, if someone is willing to pay him $25 million a year, one could argue he is worth it, but I agree. $35 million a year to play a game does seem excessive.

It’s weird that people question whether or not players should make so much to “play a game” but no one ever questions whether the owners should make so much for hosting a game.

Newsflash: professional sports are a "for profit" business.

Why should anybody question how much money the owners make?

Posted by tecwrg on 2/8/2019 1:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/8/2019 1:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 2/8/2019 12:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/7/2019 9:28:00 PM (view original):
I haven't ran any actual numbers, but I'm not sure any player is worth $35M/year. Saying that, I think he's worth more than Harper simply because he can play SS adequately if needed.

of course, if someone is willing to pay him $25 million a year, one could argue he is worth it, but I agree. $35 million a year to play a game does seem excessive.

It’s weird that people question whether or not players should make so much to “play a game” but no one ever questions whether the owners should make so much for hosting a game.

Newsflash: professional sports are a "for profit" business.

Why should anybody question how much money the owners make?

Way to miss the point.

Its not that that we should question owner revenue. It’s that we shouldn’t question what players make “to play a game.”

Side note - glad you still pop in once and a while, tec. These are always more interesting when you’re involved.

Posted by laramiebob on 2/8/2019 12:44:00 PM (view original):
Well OK Boris. But you are backing up Capitalism with a catastrophic insurance plan. That ain't pay as you go.
Besides I can't think of a single 100K dental procedure. Lots of them involved for the rest of the parts.

Oh I agree with you. I think that part is broken. We 100% agree

Posted by bad_luck on 2/8/2019 1:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/8/2019 1:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/8/2019 1:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 2/8/2019 12:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/7/2019 9:28:00 PM (view original):
I haven't ran any actual numbers, but I'm not sure any player is worth $35M/year. Saying that, I think he's worth more than Harper simply because he can play SS adequately if needed.

of course, if someone is willing to pay him $25 million a year, one could argue he is worth it, but I agree. $35 million a year to play a game does seem excessive.

It’s weird that people question whether or not players should make so much to “play a game” but no one ever questions whether the owners should make so much for hosting a game.

Newsflash: professional sports are a "for profit" business.

Why should anybody question how much money the owners make?

Way to miss the point.

Its not that that we should question owner revenue. It’s that we shouldn’t question what players make “to play a game.”

The issue is opportunity cost. You spend $35m per year you lock up a significant part of your cap.

Posted by cccp1014 on 2/8/2019 1:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/8/2019 1:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/8/2019 1:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/8/2019 1:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 2/8/2019 12:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/7/2019 9:28:00 PM (view original):
I haven't ran any actual numbers, but I'm not sure any player is worth $35M/year. Saying that, I think he's worth more than Harper simply because he can play SS adequately if needed.

of course, if someone is willing to pay him $25 million a year, one could argue he is worth it, but I agree. $35 million a year to play a game does seem excessive.

It’s weird that people question whether or not players should make so much to “play a game” but no one ever questions whether the owners should make so much for hosting a game.

Newsflash: professional sports are a "for profit" business.

Why should anybody question how much money the owners make?

Way to miss the point.

Its not that that we should question owner revenue. It’s that we shouldn’t question what players make “to play a game.”

The issue is opportunity cost. You spend $35m per year you lock up a significant part of your cap.

There’s no cap.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/8/2019 1:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/8/2019 1:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/8/2019 1:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 2/8/2019 12:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/7/2019 9:28:00 PM (view original):
I haven't ran any actual numbers, but I'm not sure any player is worth $35M/year. Saying that, I think he's worth more than Harper simply because he can play SS adequately if needed.

of course, if someone is willing to pay him $25 million a year, one could argue he is worth it, but I agree. $35 million a year to play a game does seem excessive.

It’s weird that people question whether or not players should make so much to “play a game” but no one ever questions whether the owners should make so much for hosting a game.

Newsflash: professional sports are a "for profit" business.

Why should anybody question how much money the owners make?

Way to miss the point.

Its not that that we should question owner revenue. It’s that we shouldn’t question what players make “to play a game.”

I won't question what the players make. If they can find someone to overpay for their services, more power to them.

I will question the willingness of owners to overpay players. There's too much money out there that is foolishly spent.

I was reminded of this the other day when I saw a reference to Jacoby Ellsbury, reminding Yankee fans that technically, he's still on the roster and collecting $21m a year.

Posted by wylie715 on 2/8/2019 12:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/8/2019 11:18:00 AM (view original):
Being able to afford and it being good business are two entirely different things. The question is does Harper bring in $40M/year worth of production. The market is saying no so far. Just because teams can afford to give him that doesn't necessarily mean that they should.

its not just production. Does Harper put butts in the seats? Does he bring more viewers to television? Based on production alone, I doubt $35 million a year makes sense, but if a player brings in more revenue, whether its tickets sold, or merch sold, or whatever, it may be worth it.

Yes, by production I meant more than just stats on the field. I should have been more clear, but I was responding quickly. I meant will he produce enough revenue and wins to justify the salary.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/8/2019 1:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 2/8/2019 1:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/8/2019 1:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/8/2019 1:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/8/2019 1:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 2/8/2019 12:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/7/2019 9:28:00 PM (view original):
I haven't ran any actual numbers, but I'm not sure any player is worth $35M/year. Saying that, I think he's worth more than Harper simply because he can play SS adequately if needed.

of course, if someone is willing to pay him $25 million a year, one could argue he is worth it, but I agree. $35 million a year to play a game does seem excessive.

It’s weird that people question whether or not players should make so much to “play a game” but no one ever questions whether the owners should make so much for hosting a game.

Newsflash: professional sports are a "for profit" business.

Why should anybody question how much money the owners make?

Way to miss the point.

Its not that that we should question owner revenue. It’s that we shouldn’t question what players make “to play a game.”

The issue is opportunity cost. You spend $35m per year you lock up a significant part of your cap.

There’s no cap.

There is no "league cap" as in basketball or football, but there is a cap. The cap is whatever ownership is willing to allow the organization to spend on players.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/8/2019 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/8/2019 1:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/8/2019 1:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/8/2019 1:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 2/8/2019 12:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/7/2019 9:28:00 PM (view original):
I haven't ran any actual numbers, but I'm not sure any player is worth $35M/year. Saying that, I think he's worth more than Harper simply because he can play SS adequately if needed.

of course, if someone is willing to pay him $25 million a year, one could argue he is worth it, but I agree. $35 million a year to play a game does seem excessive.

It’s weird that people question whether or not players should make so much to “play a game” but no one ever questions whether the owners should make so much for hosting a game.

Newsflash: professional sports are a "for profit" business.

Why should anybody question how much money the owners make?

Way to miss the point.

Its not that that we should question owner revenue. It’s that we shouldn’t question what players make “to play a game.”

I won't question what the players make. If they can find someone to overpay for their services, more power to them.

I will question the willingness of owners to overpay players. There's too much money out there that is foolishly spent.

I was reminded of this the other day when I saw a reference to Jacoby Ellsbury, reminding Yankee fans that technically, he's still on the roster and collecting $21m a year.

That’s the way the system is set up though, mostly to the owners’ benefit. No one says, “wow the Red Sox got a deal when they were only paying Ellsbury $2.4m in his best season because he wasn’t allowed to shop his services.”

So yeah, that contract went bad for the Yankees. But, on the other hand, they pull in a billion a year and only have to pay Aaron Judge $600k and won’t have to pay him fair market value for another 4 seasons, when he’ll already be past (or close to passing) his prime.