Found it - 2007+ future payrolls
Cheat posted this most excellent table back in the day, perhaps someone else can update and format it:
http://www.southsidesox.com/story/2006/12/7/163834/066
One-line diaries are prohibited on South Side Sox. Give your diary a bit more thought, then give it another shot. If you have nothing to add to your proposed diary, then it probably belongs as a comment under another appropriate thread.
The minimum is 300 characters.
SouthSideSox is a community driven site. As such, users are able to express their thoughts and opinions in a FanPost, such as this one, which represents the views of this particular fan, but not necessarily the entire community or SouthSideSox editors.
0 recs |
17 comments
Comments
that's old
by larry on Sep 28, 2007 12:59 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Pablo is wrong
by bhoov on Sep 28, 2007 5:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Uhhhh, yeah - I gotta agree with ya Ozzaroo
Why are you going to bring four or five guys out of here -- the Konerkos, the Garlands, the Buehrles, the Pierzynskis, the guys with contracts -- if we can bring Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, Roberto Clemente, and these guys have the same year they did this year, we're wasting our money then.''
by ChicagoPete on Sep 29, 2007 8:45 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree with Ozzie
They are dead.
by tailgater on Oct 3, 2007 12:00 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Viva Jose!
I think hitting and pitching performances would see a dramatic rise in quality if every player got a nice base salary of maybe $200,000 (more dough than what 80% of average American schmoes make).
Everything else would be based on incentives - wins, hits, innings pitched, plate appearances...whatever. You could still make $10 million, but you'd actually have to earn it. Have a bad year and you've got to squeeze by on a corporate VP's salary.
With this new and improved system, we'd see some really good baseball. The Sox/Cubs series alone could end up with a few actual deaths on the field...and I'm all for it.
by tailgater on Oct 3, 2007 12:17 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Awww, 'gater,
If we make a bad signing decision, we eat it. If it's a good one, we benefit. Personal responsibility and accountability, bro - the American Way. And lawyers to exploit the loopholes if it's a bad decision - also the American Way.
by winningugly on Oct 3, 2007 11:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
probably not illegal
but the union would never agree to it.
by larry on Oct 3, 2007 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yup - you are correct
Legal beagle, do you think MLB could be in danger of Congress changing the exemption if the drug stuff isn't addressed more forcefully? Wouldn't that be a kick?
by winningugly on Oct 3, 2007 11:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
not really
by larry on Oct 3, 2007 11:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Liberal? Me?
I know my thought on actually being paid to perform your job well is very "old school," and thanks to the players union and the dollar-driven owners it has gotten way out of hand.
However, I still maintain that if you could dissolve the union and start over with reasonable salaries, a ball player would accept $200,000 (hell, even less) to play ball. Yes, even "Barry" and "The Rocket" and even the psychotic "Big Z" would learn to accept much less than what they have become accustomed to. Why? Because they would continue to earn a handsome salary for playing a game.
Otherwise, particularly in the case of someone like Big Z, if he chose to leave baseball, he would no longer be pointing at the sky and talking to God. Instead, he'd be wearing a headset and saying "Would you like fries with that"?
by tailgater on Oct 3, 2007 2:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh, for pete's sake
by The Wizard on Oct 3, 2007 2:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's the point
Even the very cerebral Japanese told us to shove it after Hiroshima got blasted. It took Nagasaki to get them to finally cave.
By the way, Chicago is a prime nukes target thanks to it being a huge transportation hub, not to mention having a sizeable population.
Like Barney Fife always said, "Nip it, nip it, nip it in the bud." Hence why American Republican leadership scares the crap out of most of the world. Ronald Reagan was kind of a doof, but nobody f***ed with him.
by tailgater on Oct 3, 2007 2:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
re
no they aren't
a very very very tiny percentage of the population is nuts in every country...
by The Wizard on Oct 3, 2007 2:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Um, baseball, anyone?
'cause we have a lot of the tiny, tiny nutballs (me included) posting on this site.
by winningugly on Oct 3, 2007 2:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I tried not to comment on political figures
my point was we shouldn't base our actions on a few nutjobs who can't really hurt us
anyway, that's my last comment on the subject
:p
by The Wizard on Oct 3, 2007 2:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I tend to be leery
The average Joe in most every country wants to live a life like you and me...free, easy and playing well with others...it's the twisted leadership (who control the military) who you have to watch out for.
I am now coming down from my soapbox...at least for now.
So, how about those Sox, huh?! Let's bring back Rowand...yeeeeees!
by tailgater on Oct 3, 2007 3:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heavily incentive laden deals aren't unheard of
I think the CBA rules state you can't link the incentives to performance like HRs or RBIs, but PAs are ok.
by ChicagoPete on Oct 4, 2007 9:29 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

by 



















