
The major-league average salary in 2009 was not quite $3 million.
All that means is for every guy like Mark Teixeira ($20 million), there are about 42 guys like Joe Saunders ($475,000).
Teixeira was 0 for 7 against Saunders in the regular season.
Teixeira was 2 for 6 against the Angels left-hander in the ALCS, but were those two non-RBI singles in Game 6 really worth 42 times the compensation?
This is why some of us are not imploring Arte Moreno and Tony Reagins to throw $180 million packages at Jason Bay or Matt Holliday or — worse still — trade good young players to Toronto for Roy Halladay, and then give him a new multiyear deal of more than $100 million (a conservative estimate; it could grow to Sabathiaesque proportions if the Yankees get involved).
Sure, the Yankees won the World Series, and paid handsomely for it with a pricetag of $201 million. They’d been averaging $200 million the four previous years while winning as many WS as the Washington Nationals.
If you have the money I prefer Teixeira to Joe Saunders. Let’s not pretend that Moreno can’t spend it. Of course if they can find a Bobby Abreu bargain out there that’s always nice too.
No one is trying to compare Mark Teixeira to Joe Saunders. I am comparing Mark Teixeira to 42 Joe Saunders.
Using Wins Against Replacement, Saunders is 1.2, a $5.4 million value. Tex is an excellent 5.1, or a $23.4 million value — which means yes, he was an excellent value for the Yankees, as long as someone else has to pay for it.
But Teixeira is not 42 times better than Joe Saunders. That is my point.
It stands to reason then that Mark Teixeira isn’t overpaid, but rather that Saunders is underpaid, correct? I mean, only one team is putting even 60% of their profit back into their rosters and less than half the league puts in 50%, which implies that teams are actually committing highway robbery with regard to the players. The key to the entertainment of baseball–the players–are being undervalued at their minimum salaries.
I mean, what’s more ridiculous: the Yankees putting 54% of their profit back into their roster, or the Marlins putting 26% of theirs into player salaries? The idea that an organization can pocket 75% of its profits and leave some crumbs for the actual product is really upsetting.
The Yanks are ruining baseball,period! Something has to be done to not allow certain rich area clubs to dominate baseball.
I,for one has lost much of my enthusiasm for the game because of it .
I have been a fan of the Angels since Wrigley Field days in 1948 and still enjoy the memories,however,it has become too much about $$$ for me to think of it as pro ball…….bring back the old days.