Is it your business?

I suspect the players want to know as much as anyone, so they have benchmarks when they go after the next contract. Surely the agents want to know.

 

I have no problem wanting to know anybody else's salary, and I have no problem with anybody knowing mine, if they want to ask me for it. There are so many factors involved or that may be relative.

It is what it is, and most of the time, it is whatever the market will bear, or not.

 

For that knowledge to have context in baseball, you would necessarily need the team to open its books and those of related enterprises (such as regional networks).

 

OK, Drip, in the interest of openness, how much do YOU make?

 

We came thisclose to having a thread without an assclownish retort.
Football_Bat, what I make isn't relevant. If you were so interesting in what I make, you could have offered your salary as an example as another poster courageously did. Personally, I don't care what you make and you shouldn't care about my salary either.
That's the point of the thread.

 

His salary is $1 per year.

 

There's a difference between in the public being interested in an individual because they like the product that person is associated with, and the person being the actual product.

 

Not necessarily. If a team says it's only going to spend $60 million, say, and it spends $16 million on an always-injured, rarely productive, used-to-be-great centerfielder, then that affects how the team is going to perform.
Maybe the team is making enough that it could or should spend more than $60 million. But that's not the base of the issue. The base is the team is allocating a specific chunk for salaries, and how that money is divided among the players affects wins/losses.
Add in the fact that some players underperform because they're being petulant about their perceptions of perceived value -- and others choose not to show up for work for that very reason -- and we realize that salary information is part of the competitive landscape.

 

I thought the point of this thread was you asking it people have the right to know. If the thread was demanding secrecy on all things salary-based, you should have said.

By the way, if we limited all information in newspapers to what we thought people had a right to know and left out information that we thought was just none of their beeswax, newspapers would be even thinner and deader than they are now.

 

The point Ace is that no one has a right to know what someone else makes.

 

Not true in the case of public employees. Their salaries are public record, meaning people have a right to know what they make.

 

Pretty harsh stand when you are the one who instigated this thought-provoking thread.