Is Bryce Harper Worth 10 Years/$400M?

[BigKen]

Yesterday, Bryce Harper informed the Washington Nationals that he wants a minimum 10 year, $400M contract when this contract is up in 2018. Should the Nats step up and give him an extension or a new contract for less than $40M a year? Where does it end? When does a league finally say 'NO". Players can't win games on their own, they need 8 other guys doing their job to be successful.

Is any player really worth $25,000 a game?

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Yesterday, Bryce Harper informed the Washington Nationals that he wants a minimum 10 year, $400M contract when this contract is up in 2018. Should the Nats step up and give him an extension or a new contract for less than $40M a year? Where does it end? When does a league finally say 'NO". Players can't win games on their own, they need 8 other guys doing their job to be successful.

Is any player really worth $25,000 a game?

Provided he puts up numbers somewhere between his 2015 and 2016 campaigns for the next two years, I could definitely see him getting that on the FA market.

He shouldn't get that as an extension with two years left on his current contract, though. I assume it's just a starting point for negotiations with the Nats.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Where does it end? When does a league finally say 'NO".

That'll happen when the teams are rolling in cash, which won't be any time soon.

Consider this, despite these outrageous contracts players are getting, MLB player payrolls currently represent a smaller percentage of MLB total revenue.

The teams have money to burn.

 

[Tai Chi≈Surfing]

Nope.

Shit like that will inevitably lead to players wearing corporate advertisement logos/slogans on their uniforms.

They'll become billboards to the highest bidder/sponsor......like in soccer & nascar.

And I'm not talking about basic equipment/uniform supply manufacturer logos (ie: nike/adidas/rawlings etc)......those are a given.

I'm referring to logos from fast food restaurants, insurance companies, breweries, big pharm/oil
yada yada yada....

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Shit like that will inevitably lead to players wearing corporate advertisement logos/slogans on their uniforms.

How so?

 

[Tai Chi≈Surfing]

How so?

c'mon now.

are you being serious?

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

c'mon now.

are you being serious?

Absolutely serious. Are you implying that MLB teams cannot afford these contracts, so they'll look to advertise on uniforms to augment revenues?

 

[Tai Chi≈Surfing]

IMHO...if the Nats don't win a WS title by the time his current contract expires in 2 yrs...I think he'll want outta there anyway. He's gonna get paid wherever he lands.

 

[Tai Chi≈Surfing]

Absolutely serious. Are you implying that MLB teams cannot afford these contracts, so they'll look to advertise on uniforms to augment revenues?

The way I see it, only a hand full of teams will be able to afford those extreme contracts by the time this new CBA is up in 4-5 yrs..but who knows where it's all going...other than possibly contracting some teams.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

The way I see it, only a hand full of teams will be able to afford those extreme contracts by the time this new CBA is up in 4-5 yrs..but who knows where it's all going...other than possibly contracting some teams.

Only a handful of teams have been able to afford the past extreme contracts. I guess I don't see how that's changing.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

IMHO...if the Nats don't win a WS title by the time his current contract expires in 2 yrs...I think he'll want outta there anyway. He's gonna get paid wherever he lands.

The only chance the Nats have of keeping him is if they extend him during the next season. Otherwise, he'll be too close to FA and I bet he'll take the risk to get there and once he does (assuming he performs), there will be a few teams ready to back up the Brinks Trucks. He'll be what, 26 years old?

 

[Tai Chi≈Surfing]

Only a handful of teams have been able to afford the past extreme contracts. I guess I don't see how that's changing.

And it's gonna get worse for the majority of teams...they'll have to start supplementing to get revenue coming in somehow. Basically all the owners have huge portions of their capital tied up in other things/ventures outside of baseball.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

And it's gonna get worse for the majority of teams...they'll have to start supplementing to get revenue coming in somehow. Basically all the owners have huge portions of their capital tied up in other things/ventures outside of baseball.

Owners of MLB teams are currently making, by far, the most money they ever have.

I'm thinking you're just reacting to the size of the contract(s) without having much of an understanding of current MLB finances. I can understand, but it's just not where you think it is right now. Teams have money to burn.

 

[The Q]

Owners of MLB teams are currently making, by far, the most money they ever have.

I'm thinking you're just reacting to the size of the contract(s) without having much of an understanding of current MLB finances. I can understand, but it's just not where you think it is right now. Teams have money to burn.

They really don't have many places to spend it either besides players with all the new restrictions in place.

 

[Tai Chi≈Surfing]

Owners of MLB teams are currently making, by far, the most money they ever have.

I'm thinking you're just reacting to the size of the contract(s) without having much of an understanding of current MLB finances. I can understand, but it's just not where you think it is right now. Teams have money to burn.

With the exception of a few, they don't have all that much to "burn"....and many owners will redirect the majority of their earnings share to invest in other avenues away from baseball.

 

[Cedrique]

Owners of MLB teams are currently making, by far, the most money they ever have.

I'm thinking you're just reacting to the size of the contract(s) without having much of an understanding of current MLB finances. I can understand, but it's just not where you think it is right now. Teams have money to burn.

Yeah, I agree. Baseball is the only sport without a salary cap, but they are the best at keeping competitive balance in the league. The best players, in their prime years are relatively inexpensive for the teams they came up with. Harper is probably going to get a ridiculous contract because he was able to perform at a high level in the majors at age 19, so the team that gets him will be hopeful that they aren't completely overpaying in the last couple years of a 10 year deal.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

With the exception of a few, they don't have that much to burn....

I'm thinking you're just reacting to the size of the contract(s) without having much of an understanding of current MLB finances.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Yeah, I agree. Baseball is the only sport without a salary cap, but they are the best at keeping competitive balance in the league. The best players, in their prime years are relatively inexpensive for the teams they came up with. Harper is probably going to get a ridiculous contract because he was able to perform at a high level in the majors at age 19, so the team that gets him will be hopeful that they aren't completely overpaying in the last couple years of a 10 year deal.

Yep. The Angels will be paying Trout $33MM for his two FA years that they bought, and that was with the extension discount.

 

[Tai Chi≈Surfing]

So..yeah anyhow.....I still see the day with MLB uniforms covered in various ads unfortunately in the not too distant future.

 

[The Q]

I don't know how many teams will spend 20% of their payroll on the guy. This new luxury tax is changing the game. the players didn't really get that.

I'm curious if these super contracts keep going up under the new CBA.