Clipping:How veterans' salaries decline; a classification system
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Tuesday, January 22, 1889 |
|---|---|
| Text | [quoting O. P. Caylor] There is something radically wrong with the present system of professional baseball. I wish others could see it as I do. There is no use denying the fact that dissatisfaction of no small or insignificant nature is slowly but surely creeping into the ranks of the best players in the profession. This is bound to bear fruit in time that will not be healthful to the game. I have touched upon the subject before, but it cannot be too often brought to the attention of the “magnates.” Something must be done or confusion will follow. The way things now stand, the longer a player stays with a club and the more faithful he has been in his work the less he is rewarded; whereas a new man coming in from another association reaps the reward of his own figures. I have in mind three players of a certain club whose releases could not be purchased for $8,000. If they were to be transferred to another club their combined salaries would be nearly $10,000 as salaries go. Yet these men are asked and expected to play for less than $6,500, while newcomers and ordinary outfielders far their inferior are receiving at least from $300 to $600 a year more, whereas they are not worth as much as either of the players named by $500. Take a club like the St. Louis club. There's Boyle—a boy who never got $2,000 a year in his life, I suppose. He is worth three Cudworths to the club, and two Fullers; yet I'm willing to stake my reputation as a prophet that both Fuller and Cudworth are to receive higher salaries by 30 per cent than Boyle. There is King, who practically won the club the championship last year. Suppose King belonged to Louisville and St. Louis wanted. If Louisville would release him St. Louis would willingly agree to pay him $3,500. When tony Mullane was a member of the Toledo club and the Cincinnatis wanted him they paid him $2,000 in spot cash advance and agreed to pay him $3,000 more during the season. Had he played he would have gotten it. Now he is lucky if he gets $2,000. My argument is not that Mullane was worth $5,000 or that Kind is worth $3,500; nor yet that the three players I have mentioned are worth $9,000. The point I make is against the inequality of the salaries paid as to new players and old and faithful men. It is hurting the reserve rule and I think the time for classification must come. As it now stands, the longer a player stays with a club the less he gains by it, while the opposite should be the case. And here comes in my old theory—a general classification. Let us make a commission on classification. Let it be composed of Nick Young, Wheeler C. Wikoff, Comiskey, Anson and A. G. Mills, John b. Sage or George Wright. Let these men meet next September and divide up every player in the League or Association into five classes. Make the salaries $3,000, $2,500, $2,000, $1,500 and $1,000. I believe there is just that difference among players. Let long service, good condition and good conduct go with qualifications of play in making up this class. The players worthy to be classed “A” are not more than two to a club in my opinion, and some clubs have none of that calibre. When you get down to about class C the players might average four to a club. Merit and demerit should have a large influence in putting a player into his class and keeping him there. |
| Source | Pittsburgh Dispatch |
| Tags | |
| Warning | |
| Comment | Edit with form to add a comment |
| Query | Edit with form to add a query |
| Submitted by | Richard Hershberger |
| Origin | Initial Hershberger Clippings |
Comments
<comments voting="Plus" />