Is Harper worth $500 Million?

[Rayzor]

That is a big number to get my mind around, is a ballplayer worth half a billion dollars
Going by his numbers against some of the best in the league current or former players, is he worth what his agent is asking?
What team (other than the Yankees) are willing to fork out $50M per?
He averages 32HR & 102RBI in 7yrs (927games)

Following players numbers at 25 yrs of age
Babe Ruth 29HR - 103 RBI (first 4 seasons as a pitcher)

Barry Bonds 25HR - 74RBI

Mike Trout 36HR - 98RBI

A-Rod 38HR - 122RBI

[Cobra Mgr]

To answer the question in the title.....No.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

To answer the question in the title.....No.

Exactly. I would go as far as to say that no player, past or present, is worth $500M, and I would also point out that before Harper gets a single dime, teams should pay Mike Trout what he deserves for being an all around better player with less attitude. But not even Mike Trout is worth $500M.

[Leo_The_Lip]

Babe Ruth once said -- in response to his $100,000 salary -- "No man who works for another man is overpaid."

Trout is a huge disappointment to the Angels and MLB in that he has done nothing to make himself more marketable to fans.

The old breakwinds who say Trout deserves more money remind me of the now thoroughly discredited feminist 'comparable worth' arguments from decades ago. Arguments that nurses 'deserved' higher pay than truck drivers (the most used example) is now considered ridiculous by reasonable thinkers.

[Westheim]

What has Harper done to deserve $500M, besides choking Jonathan Papelbon? (For which he should deserve a medal or something, but besides that…?)

[Ragnar]

You're worth whatever a team is willing to pay for your talent. The same could be asked about many QBs in the NFL. If you're afraid someone else will pay them the money if you don't, then yes, he's worth it.

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

You're worth whatever a team is willing to pay for your talent. The same could be asked about many QBs in the NFL. If you're afraid someone else will pay them the money if you don't, then yes, he's worth it.

Agreed. The very definition of value is the price one is willing to pay.

Look at Pujols...the Angels are going to eat stupid money, on a contract that they probably felt pretty good about, 7 years ago.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

You're worth whatever a team is willing to pay for your talent.

Precisely. The club has made the calculation that the revenue which will be generated from having the player on the club will be more than the cost in salary it is paying him.

[Cobra Mgr]

Be real. Would you really be ready to assume that in 2027-29, Bryce will still be a name that will draw $ into the treasury? That will offset the amount he will subtract from it? Some of you have what someone is worth confused with what someone is willing to pay. I don't have any ill will towards Harper & Boras trying to get that contract. I don't have any ill will towards any GM willing to offer that contract. But there have only been a handful of players in baseball history that have brought the production & popularity to merit a top dollar contract in an uninterrupted decade. Harper hasn't shown he can do it in consecutive seasons yet.

[Westheim]

Some more thoughts.

Originally Posted by dsvitak

Agreed. The very definition of value is the price one is willing to pay.

Depending on circumstances, and supply and demand.

A guy in torn clothes stumbling through the desert with $10,000 in his pocket would probably pay $10,000 for a bottle of water. If someone offered me in my comfy living room a bottle of water for $10,000 I would flip them off. And Harper isn't even the only grossly overvalued position player punk in this free agent class (Machado).

Who is even supposed to have that sort of coin? I know precisely two teams that don't give a lick about the luxury tax and would probably not even notice another $50M missing. But the Dodgers and Yankees don't appear to be close to dehydration. The Yankees already have Stanton and Judge - where does Harper even go? Either of these three is a bottomless well in centerfield, and they might combine to strike out 650 times.

He is a 7-year player that had one fantastic season, one great season, a few good ones, but since when is "good with spots of greatness" worth $50M?

There is NO way to recoup that investment with anything. The Yankees would not sell more hot dogs because they have Harper. But the hot dogs they do sell might experience a little price hike. What is the cost now for a family of four to attend a ballgame while everybody stares at the screen in their palms?

Harper has piled up 4 WAR per year (and not even half that in 2018) - so a WAR is now worth $12.5M? (Also, WAR is a useless fantasy stat all too easily manipulated into whatever someone wants to demonstrate, just as I did here, and yes, if that triggers you it makes me the merrier)

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Be real. Would you really be ready to assume that in 2027-29, Bryce will still be a name that will draw $ into the treasury? That will offset the amount he will subtract from it?

Unless the club is no longer a profit-seeking enterprise, then yes, it did. You can argue their calculation is poor and not accurate, but that is a different matter.

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Some of you have what someone is worth confused with what someone is willing to pay.

The two are connected. Then there's the point that the valuation one club has about a player can be very different from what another club has, since both clubs are in different financial positions and environments.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Unless the club is no longer a profit-seeking enterprise, then yes, it did. You can argue their calculation is poor and not accurate, but that is a different matter.

What?

The two are connected. Then there's the point that the valuation one club has about a player can be very different from what another club has, since both clubs are in different financial positions and environments.

Even if I were to accept that they are connected, that still doesn't make them the same.

[Leo_The_Lip]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Some of you have what someone is worth confused with what someone is willing to pay.

No, the only one confused here is you (I could add 'as usual' but that would be unkind).

Your argument is the same flawed logic as the Comparable Worth morons made years ago. You should read up on it before making more errors.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Leo_The_Lip

No, the only one confused here is you (I could add 'as usual' but that would be unkind).

Your argument is the same flawed logic as the Comparable Worth morons made years ago. You should read up on it before making more errors.

You seem to have "kind" confused.

[swoboda]

The answer is no, but IMO it is the wrong question.
I would phrase the question as should we as fans pay 500 million dollars to Mr. Harper?
Because one way or another either television rights or ticket prices we are the ones paying that money.
(Even owners who claim to lose money on operating expenses sell for greatly appreciated capital value and then the new owners recover the money from us)