Jan 17, 2012, 1:55 PM EDT
Yesterday and today the site has been overrun with posts about arbitration-eligible players and teams avoiding hearings with one-year contracts, which has led to an incredible number of comments basically complaining about the money players are paid.
That’s not an uncommon sentiment expressed in the comments section here year-round, but it’s particularly prevalent today as the usual complaining about overpaid athletes combines with some confusing aspects of the arbitration process.
I’m certainly not going to disagree with the notion that, say, Juan Carlos Oviedo getting $6 million seems like an awful lot for a non-elite reliever, but it’s also important to remember how the economics of baseball tend to work. There are some exceptions, of course, but in general team payrolls are directly related to team revenues, so if you think players are paid too much you’re basically saying that owners should pocket more.
And does anyone really want to make that argument?
- David Price surrenders nine consecutive hits to the Yankees in the worst start of his career 14
- Video: Jorge Soler homers in his first major league at-bat 12
- Adam Wainwright has a “dead arm” 29
- HBT Daily: Alex Gordon and the Royals keep on rolling 12
- And That Happened: Tuesday’s scores and highlights 43
- Mariners extend general manager Jack Zduriencik’s contract 14
- Money, money, money (and Bud Selig’s nirvana) 16
- These days, the correlation between payroll and winning is historically weak 61
- The Cubs grounds crew was short staffed because the Cubs were trying to avoid Obamacare (247)
- Forgiveness for Pete Rose? Not in this lifetime (144)
- Cuban outfielder Rusney Castillo to sign with the Red Sox for $72 million (96)
- Great Moments in Drug Testing and Punishment: The NFL Edition (94)
- A pitch clock in Major League Baseball? No thanks. (92)