Barber: One less reason for Kyler Murray to choose A’s over NFL

Kyler Murray took another step toward breaking the hearts of A’s fans on Monday when he declared himself eligible for the NFL draft.

This does not mean that Murray, the electric two-sport athlete currently enrolled at the University of Oklahoma, has officially abandoned baseball. It means he’s keeping his options open, as he should. It means that the signing bonus of $4.66 million that the A’s paid him after making him the No. 9 overall pick in the 2018 MLB draft, and Murray’s reciprocal promise of showing up for spring training in February, are increasingly less meaningful.

Murray has 72 hours to change his mind on the NFL draft. And even if he doesn’t, he could still choose the Cactus League over the NFL scouting combine next month. The A’s, led by executive VP Billy Beane, have sent a delegation to steer Murray, a fleet center fielder, in that direction.

Meanwhile, everyone is lining up with an opinion on whether Murray should choose baseball or football. Here in the Bay Area, our opinions are predictably skewed. We want Murray to hit hardballs, not to get hit by defensive linemen, based purely on our own desire to see more of him.

A lot of the pro-and-con arguments come down to personal preference. One of them, though, is strictly objective. Or should be. And it’s bogus.

That argument goes like this: Kyler Murray should play professional baseball, because he stands to make a lot more money in that sport.

The basis of this theory is rooted in a couple of facts. One, unless you’re Tom Brady or Adam Vinatieri, you probably can count on a longer career playing baseball. And two, MLB contracts tend to be fully guaranteed, while almost all NFL contracts are not, meaning they go poof when a team decides to cut a player. The first point is probably overstated, but not false. The second is completely valid.

Despite all of that, playing Major League Baseball is generally less lucrative than playing in the NFL. And the profits are certainly less predictable.

To get a sense of Murray’s options, I looked at the MLB and NFL drafts in 2010 and added up the money all the draftees have made in their respective sports. I would have liked to use more recent databases, but I thought it would be fairer to baseball to go back eight years, because it can take ballplayers so long to advance through the system.

In theory, using 2010 should be advantageous for baseball. Bryce Harper and Manny Machado were among the top three picks, and Chris Sale was a first-rounder that year, too. Those are three legitimate superstars who have already made reams of cash. MLB had two supplemental picks woven into the 30 true first-round slots that year, so I included the top 32 players (providing nice symmetry with the 32 NFL picks).

Using “career earnings” figures from Spotrac.com, plus some quick research on individual signing bonuses when players didn’t show up on Spotrac, I found that the top 32 selections in the 2010 MLB draft have made, to date, a total of $270.4 million. That averages out to $8.45 million per man.

Not bad, huh, Kyler Murray?

Not unless you compare those numbers to the first-round NFL picks of 2010. Those 32 players have cumulatively made $1.66 billion, for an average of $51.2 million. The discrepancy is huge.

To make sure that wasn’t a fluke, I ran the same numbers for the 2007 drafts. That was a straight 30-man first round for MLB, and those players have earned a total of $585.6 million since then, an average of $19.5 million. That’s a testament to the increased earning power of baseball guys as they get into their 30s. But it still doesn’t approach the NFL draft choices of 2007, who have averaged $43.6 million each in salary and bonuses.

How can this be, when the reported salary numbers for MLB contracts seem so relentlessly inflated? And when all those deals are guaranteed, even if a pitcher’s arm falls off?

It’s because the path from amateur baseball to the major leagues is so arduous and unreliable.

In 2007, one of the years I examined, JaMarcus Russell was the first overall pick in the NFL. Russell is considered one of the biggest busts in football history. But he secured $39.4 million (again, using Spotrac data) before the Raiders finally gave up on him. That same year, the Chicago Cubs made Josh Vitters, a high school third baseman, the third overall pick in the MLB draft. Vitters got a $3.2 million signing bonus from the Cubs, and never made much more than that.

Consider another comparison, this one between a couple of local stalwarts. With the 10th pick in 2007, the Giants took Madison Bumgarner. That same year, the 49ers selected tackle Joe Staley at No. 28. Bumgarner was the higher pick, and he has helped the Giants win three World Series. The big lefty has made a total of $49.6 million with the Giants. Staley has earned $71.2 million with the 49ers.

Why the gap? Because Staley played in the NFL immediately after being drafted. He made $1.9 million as a rookie in 2007, and was drawing more than $11.5 million by Year 3. Bumgarner got an initial $2 million signing bonus, crazy stuff for a recent high school graduate. But by 2013, at which point he already owned two championship rings, he was making a relatively modest $1.775 million.

Am I being unfair when I compare MLB high school draftees with ready-made NFL draftees? Perhaps. But if you scan that 2010 baseball draft, the college picks include shortstop Christian Colon of Cal State Fullerton (to the Royals at No. 4), pitcher Barret Loux of Texas A&M (the Diamondbacks at No. 6), outfielder Michael Choice of UT-Arlington (the A’s at No. 10) and pitcher Deck McGuire of Georgia Institute of Technology (Blue Jays at No. 11). None of them has made more than the slightest ripple in the bigs. Loux never got so much as a cup of coffee.

So yes, you can make a vault full of money playing baseball, as Harper and Machado are probably about to do. But the risk of flaming out before you get to the top is much higher than in football. And if you do hit that MLB payday, it can take forrreeeevvveerrrrr.

I’m not arguing that Kyler Murray should play football. I’m just asking the sports world not to pretend that baseball is the more lucrative option.

The financial comparison actually makes the decision easier for the outfielder-slash-quarterback. If he is drawn to the laid-back feel of the diamond and put off by all of that unsolved head-trauma stuff in football, he should play baseball. If playing quarterback and making 300-pound opponents look foolish in front of 80,000 people is his idea of the sports pinnacle, he should play football.

In other words, Murray should do what he loves. It’s probably what he’ll wind up doing best. As someone who follows the A’s, I’d love to see him manning center field in that fabled new ballpark in Oakland. But I can’t begrudge the young man’s decision if he grabs some real money and plays in the NFL.

You can reach columnist Phil Barber at 707-521-5263 or phil.barber@pressdemocrat.com. Follow him on Twitter: @Skinny_Post.