Acuna Matata: Braves Give Ronald Acuna $100 Million

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

For 8/100 the Braves lock in the 3rd player in MLB history to hit 40 HRs in a season before turning 22 years old.

40/30 with the potential to be 40/40.

Highway robbery for the Braves...

 

It's obviously a solid investment for the Braves, but those counting stats overstate the matter! Acuña actually took a little step back in the batting department this year from 2018, a 143 OPS+ down to 119. He may still wind up closer to Justin Upton than Mike Trout, which would make that contract seem a bit more reasonable.

[Mike Sixel]

It's obviously a solid investment for the Braves, but those counting stats overstate the matter! Acuña actually took a little step back in the batting department this year from 2018, a 143 OPS+ down to 119. He may still wind up closer to Justin Upton than Mike Trout, which would make that contract seem a bit more reasonable.

No chance. Salaries keep going up....

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

No chance. Salaries keep going up....

By this source, average salary has basically leveled off the last 4 years (technically even dropped a tiny bit the last 2 years):

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/236213/mean-salaray-of-players-in-majpr-league-baseball/

 

The top salaries kept rising, but that's only a tiny handful of players -- and it's not clear when someone will eclipse Trout.

[Mike Sixel]

By this source, average salary has basically leveled off the last 4 years (technically even dropped a tiny bit the last 2 years):

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/236213/mean-salaray-of-players-in-majpr-league-baseball/

 

The top salaries kept rising, but that's only a tiny handful of players -- and it's not clear when someone will eclipse Trout.

I guess I'm assuming a guy like this is a top player..... Also, of course the average is steady, there are more rookies playing than ever. Veteran salaries are not dropping.... But then, sports reflects the world, and salaries are stagnating over all, while profits are up.....

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

By this source, average salary has basically leveled off the last 4 years (technically even dropped a tiny bit the last 2 years):

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/236213/mean-salaray-of-players-in-majpr-league-baseball/

 

The top salaries kept rising, but that's only a tiny handful of players -- and it's not clear when someone will eclipse Trout.

 

Trout is a multi-generational player, and as such is out side the rules of the norm.  Babe Ruth (a similar multi-generational player) was the highest paid player in the league for 13 straight years.  He made $80k a year at his peak (both 1930 and 1931)--no other player matched or eclipsed that for 18 years, when Joe DiMaggio became the first 6-figure player in 1949.  Even then, you have to go all the way to 1960 to find the first year where, going forward, the highest paid player in the league always made more than Ruth in 1931.

 

In fact, if you look at what Ruth made, compared to the rest of the country, he's the equivalent of a player making $60M today.  To suggest that Harper (who has only one season over 5 WAR), or Machado (only one season removed from a 2.4 WAR season) should be getting multiple offers for obscene amounts of money misses the reality of the current environment--owners have figured out it's better to get a fraction of the production for an even smaller fraction of the cost.  If you're looking for someone to blame, look no further than Billy Beane, who demonstrated that analytics and derivatives can build successful teams.

[Mr. Brooks]

Trout is a multi-generational player, and as such is out side the rules of the norm. Babe Ruth (a similar multi-generational player) was the highest paid player in the league for 13 straight years. He made $80k a year at his peak (both 1930 and 1931)--no other player matched or eclipsed that for 18 years, when Joe DiMaggio became the first 6-figure player in 1949. Even then, you have to go all the way to 1960 to find the first year where, going forward, the highest paid player in the league always made more than Ruth in 1931.

 

In fact, if you look at what Ruth made, compared to the rest of the country, he's the equivalent of a player making $60M today. To suggest that Harper (who has only one season over 5 WAR), or Machado (only one season removed from a 2.4 WAR season) should be getting multiple offers for obscene amounts of money misses the reality of the current environment--owners have figured out it's better to get a fraction of the production for an even smaller fraction of the cost. If you're looking for someone to blame, look no further than Billy Beane, who demonstrated that analytics and derivatives can build successful teams.

What numbers are you using to say that Ruth's salary, compared to average US salary, would be $60M today?

 

By my math, that's way off.

 

Average US income in 1930 was $1368, which means Ruth made 58.48 times the average US salary.

 

The average salary today is roughly $56,516, depending on which source you use.

 

Multiplying $55,516 by 58.48 gets us $3.3M, or a little more than 5% of your figure.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

It isn't talked about enough how agents do not have the same incentive structure as players while the players are still pre-arbitration. In many ways, it is in the best interest of the agent to sign an extension now rather than wait until arbitration, much less free agency.

 

Agents get paid on commission... that said, they only advise. The player still signs the contracts. I think the agents have less authority in these matters than what people think. 

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

What numbers are you using to say that Ruth's salary, compared to average US salary, would be $60M today?

By my math, that's way off.

Average US income in 1930 was $1368, which means Ruth made 58.48 times the average US salary.

The average salary today is roughly $56,516, depending on which source you use.

Multiplying $55,516 by 58.48 gets us $3.3M, or a little more than 5% of your figure.

 

In 1931, Ruth made $80,000 out of a total of about $13.1B made in the US.  Apply that percentage to the about $10.2T made in the US in 2018, and the total comes to around $60M.

[Mr. Brooks]

In 1931, Ruth made $80,000 out of a total of about $13.1B made in the US. Apply that percentage to the about $10.2T made in the US in 2018, and the total comes to around $60M.

That's not a meaningful way to compare, because the population is nearly 3x what it was in 1931.

It needs to be adjusted to reflect per capita, which is what my data does.

[laloesch]

 

The braves are rolling in money. They could burn it, they have so much. They aren't taking any risk here.

 

With Sun Trust park having opened a few years ago, they really are.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

What numbers are you using to say that Ruth's salary, compared to average US salary, would be $60M today?

By my math, that's way off.

Average US income in 1930 was $1368, which means Ruth made 58.48 times the average US salary.

The average salary today is roughly $56,516, depending on which source you use.

Multiplying $55,516 by 58.48 gets us $3.3M, or a little more than 5% of your figure.

Inflation being metric perhaps? Your dollar's purchasing power has declined far more than incomes have risen. 

[Mr. Brooks]

Inflation being metric perhaps? Your dollar's purchasing power has declined far more than incomes have risen.

You're saying the average American had more purchasing power during the great depression than they do now? Because that doesn't seem very depressing, if true.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

That's not a meaningful way to compare, because the population is nearly 3x what it was in 1931.
It needs to be adjusted to reflect per capita, which is what my data does.

 

It doesn't need to be, no.  In 1931, Babe Ruth's percentage of all American income was equal to a person making $60M today.  It's perfectly meaningful, perhaps just not in a way you find compelling.  That doesn't make it any less true or accurate.

[Mr. Brooks]

It doesn't need to be, no. In 1931, Babe Ruth's percentage of all American income was equal to a person making $60M today. It's perfectly meaningful, perhaps just not in a way you find compelling. That doesn't make it any less true or accurate.

Everybody's percentage of all income was way higher in 1931, than today, because there were far less people. It has no meaning whatsoever if it's not adjusted per capita.

But this is getting way off topic.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

It doesn't need to be, no.  In 1931, Babe Ruth's percentage of all American income was equal to a person making $60M today.  It's perfectly meaningful, perhaps just not in a way you find compelling.  That doesn't make it any less true or accurate.

By this logic (Ruth's 1931 salary is equivalent to $60 mil today), the average American's salary in 1931 is equal to a person making over $1 mil annually today. I'd question the meaning or accuracy of that claim.