Just wondering… you’re an agent for a baseball player with stats like Babe Ruth in his prime. What’s your asking price? How does that compare with how much he actually made? (inflation adjusted)
I believe Ruth’s top salary was $80,000 around 1930 (Hoover was president, and when it was pointed out Ruth was asking for more than what Hoover made, Ruth said, “I had a better year than he did.”) Cost of living calculator puts that as just under $1 million, so Ruth was terribly underpaid compared to current salaries – he got about the same amount Jose Valentin got this year.
Of course, free agency plus the addition of TV right money have pushed up salaries. But with Alex Rodriguez getting over $20 million a year, Ruth would probably be able to ask $25-30 million.
Would Ruth be able to be Competive in today’s game though? How much has the game changed since then that someone like Ruth could suceed in the maner he did in his prime? My understanding (and it could be wrong) was that Ruth could hit them out of the park but could run the bases very well if it was an in-park hit.
Like DiMaggio used to say about himself, Ruth would walk into Steinbrenner’s office and say “hello, partner.”
Not necessarily an issue. Mike Piazza was a slow baserunner, but was considered one of the top of the game.
As to how the game was changed; that’s adding speculation to speculation. Probably Ruth would hit for lower average if he were around today.* As for home runs, do you use absolute numbers – which are very good – or relative numbers (i.e, how many he hit compared to others he played agains) – which would be mindboggling.
But assuming Ruth could put up the numbers now that he did in his career, he could demand to be the best-paid player in the game and get it.
Primarily because he’d be 111 years old*.
**Recycled from Cobb.
Pictures of Ruth are usually of him later in his career when he did get quite fat, but that is not how he was most of his career. He actually was a very good athlete for most of his career; see this picture of Ruth when he played for Boston. He was regarded as a good defensive outfielder with an excellent arm (not surprising given that he was a terrific pitcher) and he ran the bases fairly well, although he was probably too aggressive. He was funny looking, with a barrel chest, but he wasn’t a blob like John Goodman. He was, physically, sort of like a tall Kirby Puckett. Like Kirby, he fattened up badly starting in his mid 30’s.
Ruth’s basic skill sets are just as valuable today as they have ever been; he hit for a high average, hit a ton of homers, and drew a ton of walks. He was like Manny Ramirez squared with a better glove.
As to what he would earn, it depends. The modern equivalent to Ruth is not A-Rod, it’s Barry Bonds. Barry never made as much as A-Rod mainly because A-Rod just happened to be in the right place at the right time. Barry was once the highest paid player in baseball, but that was in 1993, when he signed his first contract with the Giants, which averaged about $7 million a year - a bargain by today’s standards. A-Rod happened to sign his contract at just the right time to take the Rangers to the cleaners; had he become a free agent in, say, 1997, or 2004, maybe he would not have made as much.
Assuming Ruth born in, say, 1970 would have played baseball and become the awesomely dominant player he was, I think the best we can assume is that he would have been one of the highest paid players in baseball, and MIGHT be #1, depending when he signed his contracts. So, he’d be making somewhere between $18 and $28 million, in all likelihood.
There’s a general upper limit to what a player can possibly be worth; under the current market structure, even with the average salary approaching $3 million, it’s difficult to justify paying anyone more than $20 million using any sort of logical, economic reasoning. Even Babe Ruth wouldn’t really be worth more than A-Rod is being paid. As great a player as A-Rod is his salary was something of a flight of fancy.
He hit it very far witha tree stump. His bats weighed 46 oz. Todays are swung much faster. His lifetime b.ave was 341. He wasnt just a blaster. He was a great pitcher too.
He would have to own the team.
Assuming the Ruth of today was the Ruth of back then, there’s no telling what a rich team like the Yankees or Red Sox would pay him today. It’s not like there are any active sluggers who can win batting titles, field, throw and run and also have a career pitching record of 94-46 with a 2.28 ERA. I don’t have a cite for this because I read it in a magazine article over ten years ago, but an old Yankees teammate said that Ruth was both fast and savvy on the bases and would’ve easily been baseball’s first 50-50 man (homers and steals) but management didn’t want Ruth stealing bases for fear that he could get hurt.