Is Giancarlo Stanton's Reported Mega-Contract Rational?
The Miami Marlins have signed Giancarlo Stanton to a 13-year, $325 million contract. If you don't know who Giancarlo Stanton is, he is a physical specimen and a freak of an athlete who finished second in the National League MVP voting this year. He had an average of .288 and hit 37 home runs this past season. I think Stanton is a tremendous player, but there is no way the Marlins made the right decision here.
I find it ridiculous when any team signs a player for more than seven years, and baseball seems to be the sport that does this the most often. There are so many unpredictable things that can happen over that time, I just don't think it's worth it to sign a player for that long. I especially think it is a horrible decision for the Marlins. They made this mistake a couple years back, when they put most of their money into four or five of their players and then they couldn't make a good enough team with the little amount of money they had left. The Marlins hadn't been very good before the news of this contract, and now I think this will make their team even worse. They don't have a lot of money to begin with as a franchise, and now they are putting most of it into just ONE player. There's no way they'll have enough money to put together a good enough team to compete. In the future when their prospects come up through the system and become really good players, they wont have enough money to keep them and they will end up going elsewhere.
I don't think it would be that much of a problem if they signed him for a lot of money if it was only like a four or five year contract. It's physically impossible for Stanton not to decline over those thirteen years. He could possibly reach his best season in his fifth year of the contract, and never hit more than 30 home runs a season again. It's just too risky for teams to sign players to such a long contract. I just really don't know what the Marlins were thinking here. I believe this decision will really hurt their franchise for years to come.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
International Olympic Committee opens door to joint bids and new sports events - indiatimes.com
International Olympic Committee opens door to joint bids and new sports events
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) is opening the door to many new possibilities, including holding events in more than one country. The President of the IOC, Thomas Bach, made these recommendations as part of his reform agenda, in an attempt to make the bidding process and the games more attractive and less costly. The Winter Games already allowed events to be held in a bordering country, but this change would be a first for the Summer Games. Another one of his proposals includes allowing more events, while still maintaining the same amount of athletes, and medal events. There was pressure for a change to the bidding process because of the troubled race for the 2022 Winter Games. Only a couple cities were left in the running after several others pulled out of the running scared by the reported $51 billion associated with the Sochi Games. Most of Bach's recommendations are expected to be passed.
From how the article is written, I sense that most of Bach's recommendations are very smart and should be put into use. I believe allowing the Olympics to be held in more than one country will definitely make the games and the bidding process more attractive. The reason why a lot of cities backed out of the running for the 2022 Winter Games was because they were scared by the large amount of money that it would cost them to host the games. The marginal costs for hosting the games would far outweigh the marginal benefits so there was no point for them to stay in the running. If events are now allowed to take place in more than one country, then it won't be as expensive for one country to host the games. Granite, there will still be one main location where the games will be held, and that country will have to pay the majority of the costs, but the expenses won't be quite as high if not all of the games are held there. The games will also become more attractive if they are being held in more than one country. It spreads the popularity around more if it isn't just limited to one country. I'm not quite sure how these recommendations will make the bidding process and the games less costly. Like I said, I believe it would make it less costly for the main country that is hosting the games because they don't have to take on the full burden of the costs, but I don't really see how it makes the games any less costly.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) is opening the door to many new possibilities, including holding events in more than one country. The President of the IOC, Thomas Bach, made these recommendations as part of his reform agenda, in an attempt to make the bidding process and the games more attractive and less costly. The Winter Games already allowed events to be held in a bordering country, but this change would be a first for the Summer Games. Another one of his proposals includes allowing more events, while still maintaining the same amount of athletes, and medal events. There was pressure for a change to the bidding process because of the troubled race for the 2022 Winter Games. Only a couple cities were left in the running after several others pulled out of the running scared by the reported $51 billion associated with the Sochi Games. Most of Bach's recommendations are expected to be passed.
From how the article is written, I sense that most of Bach's recommendations are very smart and should be put into use. I believe allowing the Olympics to be held in more than one country will definitely make the games and the bidding process more attractive. The reason why a lot of cities backed out of the running for the 2022 Winter Games was because they were scared by the large amount of money that it would cost them to host the games. The marginal costs for hosting the games would far outweigh the marginal benefits so there was no point for them to stay in the running. If events are now allowed to take place in more than one country, then it won't be as expensive for one country to host the games. Granite, there will still be one main location where the games will be held, and that country will have to pay the majority of the costs, but the expenses won't be quite as high if not all of the games are held there. The games will also become more attractive if they are being held in more than one country. It spreads the popularity around more if it isn't just limited to one country. I'm not quite sure how these recommendations will make the bidding process and the games less costly. Like I said, I believe it would make it less costly for the main country that is hosting the games because they don't have to take on the full burden of the costs, but I don't really see how it makes the games any less costly.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)