I can't understand it. He would be getting paid as much for 1 inning as ARod gets for 2 games. That sounds pretty royal to me.

I have read hundreds of comments and a number of articles. There are a few 'pay Mo whateve he likes', but in the by-and-large, people are stunned that he had to think for more then 2 seconds about this offer, and the word 'greedy' was used often.

When die hard Yankee fans start to say 'just let Mo go', you know that a lot of people are pissed. Mo is going to kill his own legacy. What the hell is going on with this guy?

I couldn't see losing Posada, but more bacause it was truly irreplaceable. Frankly, I'm ready to let Mo go. In a business where Owners can be cut-throat, this is an example of player insanity. Giving in to Mo would be a very bad example.

They did start at 3/$40. Then they upped the offer to 3/$45. I wonder if the better move would have been instead to offer 4/$50.

But overall, I agree with your sentiment. On one level, we can argue that A-Rod, Posada, and Mo are all overpaid (and I do not mean this in a philosophical way, but only from a baseball perspective). However, we can also consider their value on a relative scale. In that case, A-Rod and Jorge are, frankly, worth more than Mo, simply because of the positions they play and the level at which they play them.

The Yankees should stand firm here, no doubt.

We'll (ideally) never know if A-Rod could have gotten more than the Yankees' offer, but any fan can plainly see that Mo will not get anything close to 3/45 anywhere else. Is there any team in baseball right now (besides the Yankees) that needs a closer? Is there any team in baseball right now (including the Yankees) that could justify spending what Mo is asking? His skillset+age+salary simply don't fit anyplace else -- if the Mets needed a closer, I could see Omar making a big offer, but the Mets already have the highest-paid closer in baseball on their payroll. Angels? K-Rod. Dodgers? Saito? Tigers? Jones. Red Sox? Papelbon. Cubs? ...well, the Cubs might make sense, if they really don't like Dempster and don't feel Marmol is ready and aren't thinking of re-signing Wood with the intention of having him close out games...but can they justify adding Mo's insane, irresponsible salary while ownership is still in flux?

So where else can he go? Milwaukee? He's left himself out on a limb here, and it's almost a little sad. Instead of making ridiculous threats and demands, he and Cash and Hank should be thinking of ways for him to accept the Yankees' offer without looking like he caved. And then he should fire Cuza, because if Boras misread the market, Cuza (and Mo, sadly) ignored the market entirely.

As for Mo, I do think he's making a big mistake here. I'm unclear as to what he is seething about, unless he just doesn't like Hank. If he shops himself around he won't find a deal even close. If the Dodgers come even close to the Yankees deal, than that's even more reason we should be happy that Torre is gone. It shows that he'll convince his FO to be retarded in the name of getting "his guys." I love Mo, but my main motivation for signing him at this point is to keep Joba in the rotation. If Cash/Girardi would come out and say that Joba starts even without Mo, then I would be ok with letting him walk.

I agree, we don't "need" to attempt to interpret any player's intentions; I just meant that right now, the public probably perceives Mo as being somewhat greedy, and A-Rod as being somewhat selfless, and really, that's not an unfair perception, given the circumstances. If someone has advised Mo to hold out, that person is a fool and should be fired. If Mo has decided on his own to hold out, he is deluded and needs someone to step in and clarify the situation for him before his does real damage to his reputation. If, as 10 suggests, this is about something else entirely, something more insidious...then what? Where does he go from here?

In 1992, when Bud Selig took over as baseball's commissioner, the sport's gross revenues were $1.5 billion. Payrolls from that season added up to about $784 million, meaning 52.3 percent of baseball's money went back to the players. By 2001, the year following the bull-market offseason in which Alex Rodriguez signed his 10-year, $252 million deal, the money going toward players had increased to 56.1 percent, even with revenues at $3.5 billion.

Revenues didn't stop growing, jumping another billion dollars in the next four years. Salaries, though, nearly stagnated, and by 2005, owners were taking the majority of the profit, giving 48.7 percent back to players.

Today, the numbers are shocking. Baseball claims it will reap more than $6 billion in revenue this season, a number that nearly matches the mighty NFL. And yet the sum of the 30 MLB teams' opening day payrolls for 2007 was approximately $2,478,970,000 – about 41.3 percent of the gross revenues.

In contrast, the NFL paid its players $3.2 billion last season, more than 50 percent of its revenues.

So it's not necessarily that MLB players, individually, are underpaid. It's that compared to the percentages received by their predecessors, they are getting shortchanged big-time.

http://tinyurl.com/2kgumv

Overall, the system leads to gross inequalities in terms of player salary, often underpayment for current performce, and overpayment for past performance.

Worst of all (maybe), both "sides" are to blame. The owners have, in the end, made out pretty well (see 14 ). At the same time, the players--that is to say, the exalted fraternity of veterans--make out very well themselves. The only people who should want to change the system are the younger players who are not allowed to seel there services to the highest bidder until six years expire. But even they realize that if they stay in the league, there is a good chance for a big pay day in the future. Moreover, they would never want to cross the veterans, who also dominate the players unon.

So, as long as the owners make millions, and aging players can count on fat salaries because they bring "veteran presence" or "they did so much for the club in the past they deserve it" or simply "they paid their dues," there is little incentive to change the system.

In any case, I have a hard time getting worked up over how overpaid/underpaid people are--owners or players--when they make hundreds of thousands OR hundreds of millions of dollars playing a game.

"Today, the numbers are shocking. Baseball claims it will reap more than $6 billion in revenue this season, a number that nearly matches the mighty NFL. And yet the sum of the 30 MLB teams' opening day payrolls for 2007 was approximately $2,478,970,000 – about 41.3 percent of the gross revenues."

Interesting, but this does not prove that the owners are taking home more profit (though they probably are). It is possible that baseball teams spend a larger percentage of gross revenues on additional overhead (stadium renatals, staff, etc.) than do teams in the NFL. In other words, just because players take home 40% of gross income does not necessarily mean that owners take home all of the other 60%.

It would be interesting to see how much more (if any) teams spend on minor league and/or overseas development and scouting.

In general, though, you are almost surely correct.

If a plumber is making $80k/yr, that's a pretty good salary. To me, it doesn't matter if the owner is making a zillion. While many are born rich and handed over ownership (Hello H&H), many small business owners take great risks and work like dogs to make a successful business. I believe the part of Capitalism that rewards entrepreneurial success is a good one. I don't think 'rich' owners should 'abuse' the help, but I don't think comparing well paid employees to owners in right.

A baseball owner may be risking millions to buy a ballclub. Players have guaranteed salaries. I don't think what the owners make should be compared to what players make... but maybe compared to the price of tickets and going to a game.

At one time, the idea of unions was to insure 'fair' pay and conditions. I think the players union has far exceeded 'fair' by quit a bit.

How hard does the average American work to earn 40-50k annually? I think this should be considered when looking at ballplayers salaries. It's complicated, but it seems like many players make too much money. What, the average salary is close to $3m/yr?

I don't know. That seems like a good gig. I know they have special and unique skills, but so does a school teacher with 8 years of post HS education.

He's never mentioned publicly to my knowledge wanting an extravagant contract (unlike Arod who says he likes getting paid the most). He just wants some respect.

I suspect Mariano has already signed the paperwork and is off enjoying his off season. When he feels the Yankees have been hurt enough by the uncertainty he is causing (and it is hurting the Yankees to have to keep thinking about getting Cordero) he will send in his contract.

Rather than negotiating, I think he is punishing, and I don't see what's wrong with that. He had to be patient, and now we do too.

Additionally, what the "average American" earns in other occupations is irrelevant to what baseball players earn. Like other pro athletes, baseball players have special skills that are highly valued so they should be paid according to the demand in their specific market. What is relevant what percentage of the profits that employers of average Americans pocket rather than increase their incomes or provide necessary benefits.

There are many, many things wrong with that. One should only "punish" someone who has done something wrong--did the team do anything wrong by waiting until the end of the season to negotiate?

To "punish" because you have not been shown "respect" (whatever that means in this context) is petty and spiteful.

By "punishing" the Yankees now, he runs the risk of influencing other personnel moves. Thus, in a fit a spite Mo may actually hurt the team (and thus his team mates).

Behaving in this manner may have personal, practical ramifications. If I was the Yankees FO, I would seriously contemplate looking elsewhere for the closer (and think, 15 million/year saved on Mo helps offset A-Rod's salaray). If Mo really wants to stay with the and also make the most money, he should just sign the deal. If he really believes he can get more money by playing hardball, then he should do so. But if he thinks he is going to make the team "suffer" by making them sweat, he is running a silly risk for no practical gain.