Fangraphs: MLBPA Problem

[atomic]

I would say it would probably help the teams if they gave up a year of control for eliminating arbitration. Anyway unless you have a salary floor you aren't going to increase salaries by doing this. You probably would decrease it as some teams would get the best players and fans of the other teams wouldn't attend as many games.

Seems like the players are doing very well. It is just how they divide up the money the teams are willing to spend on players. If you make a star free agent at five years that just means less money for other players. If the player association were really a union they would just make it so all players get paid the same amount.

[weams]

I would say it would probably help the teams if they gave up a year of control for eliminating arbitration. Anyway unless you have a salary floor you aren't going to increase salaries by doing this. You probably would decrease it as some teams would get the best players and fans of the other teams wouldn't attend as many games.

Seems like the players are doing very well. It is just how they divide up the money the teams are willing to spend on players. If you make a star free agent at five years that just means less money for other players. If the player association were really a union they would just make it so all players get paid the same amount.

Do all union employee at the shop get paid the same? Or does seniority have something to do with that? It's as real a Union as you will find actually. A very closed one as well.

[hoosiers]

TV deals have killed the model.

That's an interpretation that needs some explaining.

Teams got smarter. Period. Stopped wasting $ on older players. Instituted a cap on the US draft. Instituted a cap on international spend. And started letting incremental TV revenues fall to profits.

TV deals did not kill anything - they've just increased owners' profits as the article says.

[Frobby]

Meanwhile, the average player salary crossed $4 mm for the first time, and is now about $4.25 mm. I don't think the public is going to be too sympathetic to their "plight" where salaries are "only" increasing at 10% per year the last two years.

If I were the MLBPA, I wouldn't try for major structural changes. I'd look to increase the league minimum to $1 mm or as close as I could get it. That will raise everyone else's salary. I'm a bit unclear as to whether the minimum MiL salaries are negotiated in the CBA, but if they are, I'd like to see the MLBPA make that a priority.

[weams]

That's an interpretation that needs some explaining.

Teams got smarter. Period. Stopped wasting $ on older players. Instituted a cap on the US draft. Instituted a cap on international spend. And started letting incremental TV revenues fall to profits.

TV deals did not kill anything - they've just increased owners' profits as the article says.

They killed the model of signing name players to put fans in the seats. Selling Tickets does not feed the beast now. Because they have the TV deal. I hope that explains my thoughts.

[Stotle]

I'm a bit unclear as to whether the minimum MiL salaries are negotiated in the CBA, but if they are, I'd like to see the MLBPA make that a priority.

This is absolutely spot on. Take care of the folks that help facilitate the developmental system that nurtures the future MLBers. Could pay for chunk of it (if not all of it) by slicing out a little piece of the MLB.tv/Network money.

[Plutarch]

Why is THAT a problem? Of course, it could be a all players in the Union are free agents every year. But they wouldn't like that either.

As I recall, during the initial push for free agency Marvin Miller's stance was that the players should be free agents every year - the owners would not accept that concept as they thought that players switching teams every year would decrease fan loyalty. Miller's back up position became the guaranteed contract (in most cases multi-year) after a set number of years. Years later Miller admitted that things worked out far better for the players under the back up proposal than they ever would have under the free agents every year model that he preferred.

[Tx Oriole]

I threatened the last time, they had a stoppage, that if they pull that crap again, I would turn my back on baseball.

I understand your frustration when players and their union have a work stoppage. I just can't turn my back on baseball. I like the game too much to not come back.

[hoosiers]

TV did not kill the model of signing name players to put fans in seats.

I think the article quite clearly says that front offices are generally smarter today and don't make POOR investments in post-peak age players.

I think it is an enormous and erroneous leap to read that second sentence, as explained in the article, and conclude that TV deals killed that model.

[Can_of_corn]

TV did not kill the model of signing name players to put fans in seats.

I think the article quite clearly says that front offices are generally smarter today and don't make POOR investments in post-peak age players.

I think it is an enormous and erroneous leap to read that second sentence, as explained in the article, and conclude that TV deals killed that model.

Signing stars to put fans in the seats is a flawed model to begin with. Unless you are talking about a Jeter or Ripken farewell tour a star player isn't going to move the dial, a winning team will.

If Trout get hurts opening day and the Angels somehow win 100 games is their attendance going to be appreciably lower?

[Redskins Rick]

I understand your frustration when players and their union have a work stoppage. I just can't turn my back on baseball. I like the game too much to not come back.

To me, both sides are wrong, both are greedy and want more than their fare share, and bottom line, the fans in the end, get the shaft.

TV money, just allows the owners to sign big names and not worrying about taking care of the ticket holders, who used to be the primary reason the bills were paid with.

[DrungoHazewood]

Signing stars to put fans in the seats is a flawed model to begin with. Unless you are talking about a Jeter or Ripken farewell tour a star player isn't going to move the dial, a winning team will.

If Trout get hurts opening day and the Angels somehow win 100 games is their attendance going to be appreciably lower?

Bill James wrote a piece in one of the early Abstracts, circa 1980, where he showed that there was little effect in attendance from a star pitcher like Nolan Ryan. It was common at the time (and can see it still is) to say that free agent deals were worthwhile because they drove attendance up. Winning or losing has always had a vastly larger impact than signings. I remember the 2nd coming of BJ Surhoff being heavily touted by on the Hangout by all six guys who bought season ticket packages because of his signing.

[weams]

Signing stars to put fans in the seats is a flawed model to begin with. Unless you are talking about a Jeter or Ripken farewell tour a star player isn't going to move the dial, a winning team will.

If Trout get hurts opening day and the Angels somehow win 100 games is their attendance going to be appreciably lower?

But it is enormous and erroneous for me to state that the TV revenues drive the profits now and that signings right before tickets go on sale are no longer of any importance.

[weams]

Bill James wrote a piece in one of the early Abstracts, circa 1980, where he showed that there was little effect in attendance from a star pitcher like Nolan Ryan. It was common at the time (and can see it still is) to say that free agent deals were worthwhile because they drove attendance up. Winning or losing has always had a vastly larger impact than signings. I remember the 2nd coming of BJ Surhoff being heavily touted by on the Hangout by all six guys who bought season ticket packages because of his signing.

The season ticket percentage may well have doubled over that.

[Frobby]

Per Forbes, the Orioles had $245 mm in revenue last year, $60 mm of which was ticket sales. http://www.forbes.com/teams/baltimore-orioles/ Plainly, gate receipts are not as important as they used to be, but still, 25% of revenue is not an afterthought.