CEOs earn 262 times pay of average worker

[BoberFett]

That's why I threw it in there.

If anybody who thinks CEOs (or their cronies) earn their pay through skill and hard work, read up on the Eisner/Ovitz debacle at Disney. Ovitz was president, not CEO, but whatever the position Ovitz was placed in his position due to WHO HE KNEW. For less than a year and a half of service to Disney, Ovitz was given a $140 million severance package. HE WAS PAID $300,000 PER DAY TO BE INCOMPETENT. If executive positions were simply jobs like any other as some of you think, he'd have been fired and escorted out by security, instead he was handed a blank check.

 

[smashp]

5:40 am Eastern standard time, going on 17 hour workday on a migration today.


Boy I guess I just need to work harder to become a CEO.


Guess im lazy. Thats the problem.

 

[BarneyFife]

The worst thing is when CEO's are complete disasters, leave a company, and then find a job within months because of their country club friends. In Japan, the guys that become president are lifers. For example the President and CEO of Toyota have worked for a combined 90 years there. The president of Honda started off at the bottom and took him over 30 years to become CEO. LOL@the stupid people who think that through hard work you can become CEO in America.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: smashp
No one can truely say,

A free Market, by true definition doesnt exist

Not with people like you and your minority party in congress coming in and inserting random sh!t into it, no.

Your ignorance and egocentrism are truly baffling to behold. Truly.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: smashp
No one can truely say,

A free Market, by true definition doesnt exist

Not with people like you and your minority party in congress coming in and inserting random sh!t into it, no.

Your ignorance and egocentrism are truly baffling to behold. Truly.

It shouldn't be surprising--they truly do believe the universe and everything in it revolves around them.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
A good logical way to decide on the actual worth of a job is this: how little could you pay and still motivate the right people to seek the job? Lots of people compete for $11M jobs. Could you pay $10M and still get the same group? Of course. Would basketball players bounce the little ball and throw it at the hoop for less than millions a year? Of course. Unchecked salary growth helps no one except the lucky few. LegendKiller also sounds knowledgeable in particular about how CEO salaries are often decided.

Would people watch idiots getting paid $10/hr play basketball, paying hundreds of dollars a game for tickets?

No.

Would the NBA owners make millions of dollars on top of the millions they pay out in salary?

No.


I thought lefties were big fans of labor unions. They should love Major League Baseball.

Of course they would. People don't watch or play sports for the bling. It's always amazed me that people pay so much for sports tickets (I sure wouldn't) because that's what you're doing-- watching idiots dribble a ball. It doesn't make it MORE attractive that the idiots are getting paid millions; it just wastes money.

If people didn't care which idiots were doing the dribbling, they could just head down their local high school or community college and watch crappy basketball.

Yet they don't. People pay a huge premium to see the best players in the world.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: zendari

If people didn't care which idiots were doing the dribbling, they could just head down their local high school or community college and watch crappy basketball.

Yet they don't. People pay a huge premium to see the best players in the world.

Fools and their money are easily parted.

 

[will889]

FWIW the best basketball is not played in the USA anymore.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CPA
the pie is not finite, so I've never understood why so many people get their panties in a wad over how much someone else makes legally.

the pie is finite. only so much can be produced or consumed at any given point.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Fact is, these overpaid positions are filled by friends of the board of directors. There are many people who likely be qualified to fill the position, but they don't know the right people. At least Bill Gates started Microsoft. It's more than you can say for some of these goons who get paid exorbitant salaries and then drive the company into the ground, only to be fired and given millions of dollars just to go away. I can't remember the last time I quit my job, and was handed several years worth of salary just to clear out my desk.

You are talking about the exeption, rather then the rule...if a company board of directors is willing to hire someone from the good ole boys network to serve as CEO, only for their selection to run the company into the ground, I am not sure how that exactly serves their best interest.

We live in a society where we accept ridiculous salaries for movie stars, media personalities and sports figures...yet those successful in corporate America are the ones some of you point at and call "whores" of the system...yet your jealousy is transparent. I would much rather see people rewarded financially for their hard work, career and educational achievements then their entertainment value.

And when people bitch about CEOs, they are usually referring to the Enrons and Worldcom scandals of the system...those are few and far behind.

The corporate executives I have worked for have all been tremendously talented, innovative and intense individuals...who put in hours that many of you simply cannot comprehend...and those people are worth every penny they earn.

 

[raildogg]

Living in excess is the American way. Being wasteful is very popular but being efficient creates animosity.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: CPA
the pie is not finite, so I've never understood why so many people get their panties in a wad over how much someone else makes legally.

the pie is finite. only so much can be produced or consumed at any given point.

I think he's referring to the idea that the economy is not "zero-sum". In other words, that if the economy were a game, everyone could win or lose.

Frequently this line is touted in response to critics of economic policies that allow for growth (or loss) to seemingly appear out of nowhere (or disappear). Profit is a good example. Where did the profit come from? Somehow wealth has been produced, but from what? Most economic theories do not even attempt to answer the question and merely state that the economy is not "zero-sum".

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
We live in a society where we accept ridiculous salaries for movie stars, media personalities and sports figures...yet those successful in corporate America are the ones some of you point at and call "whores" of the system...yet your jealousy is transparent. I would much rather see people rewarded financially for their hard work, career and educational achievements then their entertainment value.

I don't follow pro sports, don't listen to corporate music, and avoid most television and movies. They're whores also and I refuse to buy into media generated hype. So take your preconceived notions regarding my opinions and cram it right back up your ass.

That doesn't excuse CEOs who make massive sums of money at the expense of the company they're supposed to be directing.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Fact is, these overpaid positions are filled by friends of the board of directors. There are many people who likely be qualified to fill the position, but they don't know the right people. At least Bill Gates started Microsoft. It's more than you can say for some of these goons who get paid exorbitant salaries and then drive the company into the ground, only to be fired and given millions of dollars just to go away. I can't remember the last time I quit my job, and was handed several years worth of salary just to clear out my desk.

You are talking about the exeption, rather then the rule...if a company board of directors is willing to hire someone from the good ole boys network to serve as CEO, only for their selection to run the company into the ground, I am not sure how that exactly serves their best interest.

We live in a society where we accept ridiculous salaries for movie stars, media personalities and sports figures...yet those successful in corporate America are the ones some of you point at and call "whores" of the system...yet your jealousy is transparent. I would much rather see people rewarded financially for their hard work, career and educational achievements then their entertainment value.

And when people bitch about CEOs, they are usually referring to the Enrons and Worldcom scandals of the system...those are few and far behind.

The corporate executives I have worked for have all been tremendously talented, innovative and intense individuals...who put in hours that many of you simply cannot comprehend...and those people are worth every penny they earn.

I have worked at 4 fortune 500 companies in the last 5 years, an internship at a HDD manufacturer, another at a cruise company, a normal job at a conglomerate, and my latest job. Only at 1 job have I seen a CEO work and earn his dollars without f'ing the company up. During my grad degree I studied all of the companies in the book "Built to Last", of the 15 companies only 4 returned anything considered above normal, despite having *VERY* strong previous c-level success stories. Yet, some of the people who controlled those 11 other companies were the highest paid executives in the country, why?

Why should somebody who performs below their peers get anything more than a baseline salary?

The biggest problem is this. Once you get a CEO in and his buddies protect him, how can you fire him without causing the stock price to go down? Nobody wants that to happen, even though the guy sucks, the "shock" of a stock hit is worse. Thus, the apathy continues while the interlocked board keeps pumping the salary up.

I am not talking one or two CEOs. I am not talking Rigas', Ebbers, Koslowski, or Lay/Skilling, I am talking the vast amount of CEOs in the Fortune 500 performing WAY below what they should for their given pay. The marginal return just isn't there.

 

[MadRat]

CEO by committee. I bet you can elect an odd number of CEO's, for the sum in pay as one current CEO, and get the job done equally as well.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: MadRat
CEO by committee. I bet you can elect an odd number of CEO's, for the sum in pay as one current CEO, and get the job done equally as well.

I doubt that. A company needs a single strong leader to guide the company through a strategic vision. However, they should get paid for how that vision plays out, which is not currently the case.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
A good logical way to decide on the actual worth of a job is this: how little could you pay and still motivate the right people to seek the job? Lots of people compete for $11M jobs. Could you pay $10M and still get the same group? Of course. Would basketball players bounce the little ball and throw it at the hoop for less than millions a year? Of course. Unchecked salary growth helps no one except the lucky few. LegendKiller also sounds knowledgeable in particular about how CEO salaries are often decided.

Would people watch idiots getting paid $10/hr play basketball, paying hundreds of dollars a game for tickets?

No.

Would the NBA owners make millions of dollars on top of the millions they pay out in salary?

No.


I thought lefties were big fans of labor unions. They should love Major League Baseball.

Of course they would. People don't watch or play sports for the bling. It's always amazed me that people pay so much for sports tickets (I sure wouldn't) because that's what you're doing-- watching idiots dribble a ball. It doesn't make it MORE attractive that the idiots are getting paid millions; it just wastes money.

If people didn't care which idiots were doing the dribbling, they could just head down their local high school or community college and watch crappy basketball.

Yet they don't. People pay a huge premium to see the best players in the world.

Invalid argument exception, big-time. People being the best at dribbling basketballs does not imply million-dollar salaries. Give it up.

 

[nergee]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: MadRat
CEO by committee. I bet you can elect an odd number of CEO's, for the sum in pay as one current CEO, and get the job done equally as well.

I doubt that. A company needs a single strong leader to guide the company through a strategic vision. However, they should get paid for how that vision plays out, which is not currently the case.

It's played out in the Fortune 500 company I work for...in fact, every employee is evaluated on how well they did on their performance objectives as it relates to the "vision".....

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
A good logical way to decide on the actual worth of a job is this: how little could you pay and still motivate the right people to seek the job? Lots of people compete for $11M jobs. Could you pay $10M and still get the same group? Of course. Would basketball players bounce the little ball and throw it at the hoop for less than millions a year? Of course. Unchecked salary growth helps no one except the lucky few. LegendKiller also sounds knowledgeable in particular about how CEO salaries are often decided.

Would people watch idiots getting paid $10/hr play basketball, paying hundreds of dollars a game for tickets?

No.

Would the NBA owners make millions of dollars on top of the millions they pay out in salary?

No.


I thought lefties were big fans of labor unions. They should love Major League Baseball.

Of course they would. People don't watch or play sports for the bling. It's always amazed me that people pay so much for sports tickets (I sure wouldn't) because that's what you're doing-- watching idiots dribble a ball. It doesn't make it MORE attractive that the idiots are getting paid millions; it just wastes money.

If people didn't care which idiots were doing the dribbling, they could just head down their local high school or community college and watch crappy basketball.

Yet they don't. People pay a huge premium to see the best players in the world.

Ticket prices don't follow salaries - salaries follow ticket prices.

You should be a true hater of professional sports, not because the 'athletes are greedy' but because it is the one venue where business owners are use their collusive power to deny athletes their true value.

People pay to see spectacular results, and winning - this makes elite players legitimately worth millions of dollars a year, because they generate millions of dollars a year in ticket sales, advertising revenue, merchandise sales, etc.

Yet every league has restrictions on free agency, salary caps, draft systems and assorted other tools that owners use to prevent any sort of marketplace from taking over (a few athletes are able to cash in on this through unrestricted free agency). Worse, not only do teams screw the players, they screw the taxpyers; most stadiums and arenas are at least partly funded by tax dollars, with all benefit being retained privately (GWB and the Texas Rangers made out like bandits at the expense of Arlington and Texas taxpayers, this is what I like to call 'theft', though it was really an irresponsible giveaway by elected officials, to their buddies).

There's a reason baseball needs to be exempt from antitrust laws.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
A good logical way to decide on the actual worth of a job is this: how little could you pay and still motivate the right people to seek the job? Lots of people compete for $11M jobs. Could you pay $10M and still get the same group? Of course. Would basketball players bounce the little ball and throw it at the hoop for less than millions a year? Of course. Unchecked salary growth helps no one except the lucky few. LegendKiller also sounds knowledgeable in particular about how CEO salaries are often decided.

Would people watch idiots getting paid $10/hr play basketball, paying hundreds of dollars a game for tickets?

No.

Would the NBA owners make millions of dollars on top of the millions they pay out in salary?

No.


I thought lefties were big fans of labor unions. They should love Major League Baseball.

Of course they would. People don't watch or play sports for the bling. It's always amazed me that people pay so much for sports tickets (I sure wouldn't) because that's what you're doing-- watching idiots dribble a ball. It doesn't make it MORE attractive that the idiots are getting paid millions; it just wastes money.

If people didn't care which idiots were doing the dribbling, they could just head down their local high school or community college and watch crappy basketball.

Yet they don't. People pay a huge premium to see the best players in the world.

Invalid argument exception, big-time. People being the best at dribbling basketballs does not imply million-dollar salaries. Give it up.

It implies being paid (roughly speaking) *most* of the additional revenue that having you on a team generates.

Of course drafts and free agency restrictions prevent most players from making what they should, and gives great leveraging positions to the few players who are real free agents at any given time.

 

[Engineer]

One final point is apparantely the owners (ala shareholders) of many companies are starting to take notice, especially the big institutional owners (pension funds, etc). After some of the big reports of excessive CEO compensation circulated, several took steps and played a much more active roll in voting. The state of Minnesota, under it's pension funds, jumped in on several votes and called for investigations.

The United Healthcare (1.6 Billion dollar compensation package) CEO started the ball rolling that one.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
A good logical way to decide on the actual worth of a job is this: how little could you pay and still motivate the right people to seek the job? Lots of people compete for $11M jobs. Could you pay $10M and still get the same group? Of course. Would basketball players bounce the little ball and throw it at the hoop for less than millions a year? Of course. Unchecked salary growth helps no one except the lucky few. LegendKiller also sounds knowledgeable in particular about how CEO salaries are often decided.

Would people watch idiots getting paid $10/hr play basketball, paying hundreds of dollars a game for tickets?

No.

Would the NBA owners make millions of dollars on top of the millions they pay out in salary?

No.


I thought lefties were big fans of labor unions. They should love Major League Baseball.

Of course they would. People don't watch or play sports for the bling. It's always amazed me that people pay so much for sports tickets (I sure wouldn't) because that's what you're doing-- watching idiots dribble a ball. It doesn't make it MORE attractive that the idiots are getting paid millions; it just wastes money.

If people didn't care which idiots were doing the dribbling, they could just head down their local high school or community college and watch crappy basketball.

Yet they don't. People pay a huge premium to see the best players in the world.

Invalid argument exception, big-time. People being the best at dribbling basketballs does not imply million-dollar salaries. Give it up.

It implies being paid (roughly speaking) *most* of the additional revenue that having you on a team generates.

Of course drafts and free agency restrictions prevent most players from making what they should, and gives great leveraging positions to the few players who are real free agents at any given time.

No, that's not how salaries are fixed at all. Teams obviously try not to bankrupt themselves on payroll, but otherwise there is not much of a check except for the possible exception of team salary caps. If a salary cap is in effect, the players may make much less than what they bring in in revenue. Of course, people who pay inflated ticket prices are absolute suckers for paying what they pay now-- you'd think they were drug addicts.

The intrinsic value of dribbling a basketball is not the market value, either. These players could be paid much less and still do what they do. I think they should be paid less, much less.

In addition, the amount by which one player increases the overall earnings of a team is probably very hard to assess.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
A good logical way to decide on the actual worth of a job is this: how little could you pay and still motivate the right people to seek the job? Lots of people compete for $11M jobs. Could you pay $10M and still get the same group? Of course. Would basketball players bounce the little ball and throw it at the hoop for less than millions a year? Of course. Unchecked salary growth helps no one except the lucky few. LegendKiller also sounds knowledgeable in particular about how CEO salaries are often decided.

Would people watch idiots getting paid $10/hr play basketball, paying hundreds of dollars a game for tickets?

No.

Would the NBA owners make millions of dollars on top of the millions they pay out in salary?

No.


I thought lefties were big fans of labor unions. They should love Major League Baseball.

Of course they would. People don't watch or play sports for the bling. It's always amazed me that people pay so much for sports tickets (I sure wouldn't) because that's what you're doing-- watching idiots dribble a ball. It doesn't make it MORE attractive that the idiots are getting paid millions; it just wastes money.

If people didn't care which idiots were doing the dribbling, they could just head down their local high school or community college and watch crappy basketball.

Yet they don't. People pay a huge premium to see the best players in the world.

Invalid argument exception, big-time. People being the best at dribbling basketballs does not imply million-dollar salaries. Give it up.

It implies being paid (roughly speaking) *most* of the additional revenue that having you on a team generates.

Of course drafts and free agency restrictions prevent most players from making what they should, and gives great leveraging positions to the few players who are real free agents at any given time.

No, that's not how salaries are fixed at all. Teams obviously try not to bankrupt themselves on payroll, but otherwise there is not much of a check except for the possible exception of team salary caps. If a salary cap is in effect, the players may make much less than what they bring in in revenue. Of course, people who pay inflated ticket prices are absolute suckers for paying what they pay now-- you'd think they were drug addicts.

The intrinsic value of dribbling a basketball is not the market value, either. These players could be paid much less and still do what they do. I think they should be paid less, much less.

In addition, the amount by which one player increases the overall earnings of a team is probably very hard to assess.

Why should they be paid less?

Dribbling a basketball is arbitrary, but if fans want to pay high prices to see this, why should the dribblers not be paid based on this? Like it or not, there's only a dozen or so people in the western world who can do what Kobe Bryant does, and some of them are already playing other sports.

You seem to really lack an understanding of how sports salaries are set - players who are free agents have market power if either their skillset or their name can make money for their team, but no athlete has the sort of power that a CEO has to set their own salary.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
A good logical way to decide on the actual worth of a job is this: how little could you pay and still motivate the right people to seek the job? Lots of people compete for $11M jobs. Could you pay $10M and still get the same group? Of course. Would basketball players bounce the little ball and throw it at the hoop for less than millions a year? Of course. Unchecked salary growth helps no one except the lucky few. LegendKiller also sounds knowledgeable in particular about how CEO salaries are often decided.

Would people watch idiots getting paid $10/hr play basketball, paying hundreds of dollars a game for tickets?

No.

Would the NBA owners make millions of dollars on top of the millions they pay out in salary?

No.


I thought lefties were big fans of labor unions. They should love Major League Baseball.

Of course they would. People don't watch or play sports for the bling. It's always amazed me that people pay so much for sports tickets (I sure wouldn't) because that's what you're doing-- watching idiots dribble a ball. It doesn't make it MORE attractive that the idiots are getting paid millions; it just wastes money.

If people didn't care which idiots were doing the dribbling, they could just head down their local high school or community college and watch crappy basketball.

Yet they don't. People pay a huge premium to see the best players in the world.

Invalid argument exception, big-time. People being the best at dribbling basketballs does not imply million-dollar salaries. Give it up.

It implies being paid (roughly speaking) *most* of the additional revenue that having you on a team generates.

Of course drafts and free agency restrictions prevent most players from making what they should, and gives great leveraging positions to the few players who are real free agents at any given time.

No, that's not how salaries are fixed at all. Teams obviously try not to bankrupt themselves on payroll, but otherwise there is not much of a check except for the possible exception of team salary caps. If a salary cap is in effect, the players may make much less than what they bring in in revenue. Of course, people who pay inflated ticket prices are absolute suckers for paying what they pay now-- you'd think they were drug addicts.

The intrinsic value of dribbling a basketball is not the market value, either. These players could be paid much less and still do what they do. I think they should be paid less, much less.

In addition, the amount by which one player increases the overall earnings of a team is probably very hard to assess.

Why should they be paid less?

Dribbling a basketball is arbitrary, but if fans want to pay high prices to see this, why should the dribblers not be paid based on this? Like it or not, there's only a dozen or so people in the western world who can do what Kobe Bryant does, and some of them are already playing other sports.

You seem to really lack an understanding of how sports salaries are set - players who are free agents have market power if either their skillset or their name can make money for their team, but no athlete has the sort of power that a CEO has to set their own salary.

They should be paid less because what they do has little to no intrinsic value. They definitely should not (as you seem to think) be paid more. There is one king tiddly-winks player in the world, and he or she contributes about as much to the goals of our society as Kobe Bryant, despite being a little less well-known. Having a rare skill alone does not mean one should be paid millions; apparently even rabid sports fans agree with me in the case of the tiddly-winks player.

I don't lack understanding, it's just that illogical statements jump out at me as if they're in bold red letters. You said that players are paid most of what they generate in revenue for a team, which isn't true for several reasons. First, salary caps, the draft, etc. etc. etc. (as you allow) can prevent a player from receiving most of what they add in "value" to a team. Second, even when this is not true, player salaries are fixed before the period of performance-- not only can a player have a huge winning or losing streak, but the box office may fluctuate wildly due to other factors, affecting the amount by which the player adds "value". Thirdly, even if these facts weren't true, it may be impossible to get even a rough estimate of how much an individual player contributes to the bottom line for a team. What's your formula for doing this?

It may seem nit-picky, but unless you can explain these things, I will continue to believe that player salaries are based on nothing but market forces, and not on intrinsic value OR on how much they actually contribute to the profitability of a team.

In other news, stock in Yahoo Japan has reached over a million dollars a share (after which it fell precipitously IIRC).

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX


They should be paid less because what they do has little to no intrinsic value. They definitely should not (as you seem to think) be paid more. There is one king tiddly-winks player in the world, and he or she contributes about as much to the goals of our society as Kobe Bryant, despite being a little less well-known. Having a rare skill alone does not mean one should be paid millions; apparently even rabid sports fans agree with me in the case of the tiddly-winks player.

I don't lack understanding, it's just that illogical statements jump out at me as if they're in bold red letters. You said that players are paid most of what they generate in revenue for a team, which isn't true for several reasons. First, salary caps, the draft, etc. etc. etc. (as you allow) can prevent a player from receiving most of what they add in "value" to a team. Second, even when this is not true, player salaries are fixed before the period of performance-- not only can a player have a huge winning or losing streak, but the box office may fluctuate wildly due to other factors, affecting the amount by which the player adds "value". Thirdly, even if these facts weren't true, it may be impossible to get even a rough estimate of how much an individual player contributes to the bottom line for a team. What's your formula for doing this?

It may seem nit-picky, but unless you can explain these things, I will continue to believe that player salaries are based on nothing but market forces, and not on intrinsic value OR on how much they actually contribute to the profitability of a team.

In other news, stock in Yahoo Japan has reached over a million dollars a share (after which it fell precipitously IIRC).

Intrinsic value? What is the intrinsic value of a dollar? (hint: a paper dollar is worth about 1/5th of wiping your butt after you go to the bathroom).

You're quite right that contracted athletes, excepting performance bonuses are paid based on expected future performance (based on past performance), and sometimes this swings wildly in favour of either the player or team, depending on actual performance. There is however nothing strange about this, as many markets sell 'futures' (imagine owning the right to buy oil for $50/bbl in today's market).

Trying to tell me that the presence of salary caps makes salaries respond to market forces shows a clear lack of understanding. What it does is shift all marginal decisions to the few true free agents, possibly increasing their salaries to an unrealistically high portion of their expected revenue production.

In terms of estimating value, the popularity of a player can help estimate either increased ticket sales, or (if tickets already sell out) increased prices, and merchandise sales, while past performance can predict how many more playoff games you expect to play with a particular player in the lineup (playoff ticket sales being the major payoff for better team performance).

If people wanted to pay to watch spectacular tiddly-winks action, they would do so, and the best players would make money based on the popularity of the sport.