Reasons to not believe owners about “lost money”?

[Sports Guy]

 

[forphase1]

I had to check the author and make sure that wasn't written by Tony Clark.  And quoting Scott Boras isn't exactly helping the credibility of the article.  I also love how they pointed out that even the poor teams in baseball made money in the 'not so distant past'.  Well duh!  No one is really claiming that pre-Covid teams weren't making money.  The question is how bad was 2020 for MLB teams, and more importantly what is the revenue going to look like for 2021?  This article was about useless in my opinion, unless you are one that thinks the owners are nothing but money grubbing liars, in which case it summed up such belief.  I'm not personally in that camp.

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, forphase1 said:

I had to check the author and make sure that wasn't written by Tony Clark.  And quoting Scott Boras isn't exactly helping the credibility of the article.  I also love how they pointed out that even the poor teams in baseball made money in the 'not so distant past'.  Well duh!  No one is really claiming that pre-Covid teams weren't making money.  The question is how bad was 2020 for MLB teams, and more importantly what is the revenue going to look like for 2021?  This article was about useless in my opinion, unless you are one that thinks the owners are nothing but money grubbing liars, in which case it summed up such belief.  I'm not personally in that camp.

I wouldn't dismiss everything Boras says out of hand. 

For the record I'm firmly in the owners are nothing but money grubbing liar camp.  At least the clear majority of them.

[forphase1]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

I wouldn't dismiss everything Boras says out of hand. 

For the record I'm firmly in the owners are nothing but money grubbing liar camp.  At least the clear majority of them.

As to Boras, no, but he certainly has his own agenda to promote.  Boras does a great job for his clients, in most cases, but quoting him as being an expert on the finances of MLB teams is questionable at best.

As to the owners, I believe the majority of them are business owners, and therefore expect/want to make a profit each and every year.  I certainly don't begrudge them of such, any more than I'm mad at Microsoft, Google, McDonalds or any other company that seeks to make money.  Some are better at it than others.  I don't think it's right for an owner to refuse to put a decent team on the field usually when not in a clear rebuild, and I expect the Os owners to open the checkbook when winning becomes a priority again.  But I also think the players union is WAY too strong and needs knocked down a peg or two.  I HATE guaranteed contracts and think they should have have performance clauses in them.  But that's a discussion for another time, and will never happen anyway.  

[Can_of_corn]

I don't begrudge them their profits.  I just think they have a long history of being untruthful when it comes to their profits and we should doubt the veracity of anything they say on the topic.

[Number5]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't begrudge them their profits.  I just think they have a long history of being untruthful when it comes to their profits and we should doubt the veracity of anything they say on the topic.

I generally agree with this sentiment, but in this situation it seems self-evident that the teams are truly losing money without fans in the stadiums.  It seems obvious on its face that if the teams were profitable with no fans in the seats, the owners would not be against playing the games without fans.  To argue otherwise would be to say that you believe the owners somehow value ensuring that the players don't get paid more that they value making money themselves -- which of course flies in the face of the very premise that the owners are money-grubbing.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Number5 said:

I generally agree with this sentiment, but in this situation it seems self-evident that the teams are truly losing money without fans in the stadiums.  It seems obvious on its face that if the teams were profitable with no fans in the seats, the owners would not be against playing the games without fans.  To argue otherwise would be to say that you believe the owners somehow value ensuring that the players don't get paid more that they value making money themselves -- which of course flies in the face of the very premise that the owners are money-grubbing.

Probably*.  But how much? 

If they play 162 and fans are in the seats for 130 does that mean they will be in the red for the season or just not as far in the black as if they played 130?

* I say probably since it might not be true of all teams and I can see where they would forgo a small profit in order to better position themselves for long term gains.

[Just Regular]

I wouldn't be shocked a CBA away if the institution of 162 never makes it back.

As I understand it, the impetus for the 154 to 162 move was the 10th team in each league necessitating the move from 22 * 8 to 18 * 9.   But that horse is out of the barn, past the gate and all the way into the light of town.

I saw Dombrowski after his hire give part of his reasoning for hopping back to one of the 30 that there had been (unsurprising) recent news for the Nashville Expansion he was affiliated with that a year or two of extra waiting would now be required.  But that that momentary delay was so instrumental for him gives me a clue some serious insiders see 30 to 32 not so very far away.

If the slice of the revenue pie is proper to them, I doubt even the MLBPA carries much about 162 in and of itself.

[Sports Guy]

41 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't begrudge them their profits.  I just think they have a long history of being untruthful when it comes to their profits and we should doubt the veracity of anything they say on the topic.

How anyone could disagree with this makes no sense to me.

[Sports Guy]

34 minutes ago, Number5 said:

I generally agree with this sentiment, but in this situation it seems self-evident that the teams are truly losing money without fans in the stadiums.  It seems obvious on its face that if the teams were profitable with no fans in the seats, the owners would not be against playing the games without fans.  To argue otherwise would be to say that you believe the owners somehow value ensuring that the players don't get paid more that they value making money themselves -- which of course flies in the face of the very premise that the owners are money-grubbing.

It’s evident that didn’t make as much money, so therefore “they lost it” compared to a normal year.

Its far from evident that they operated in the red last year.  For all the talk of no fans and how much that hurts, it also means far less support staff, maintenance, etc...less salaries for the players. The owners did save money as well as lost it.  
 

It’s all about how you want to spin the words.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

It’s evident that didn’t make as much money, so therefore “they lost it” compared to a normal year.

Its far from evident that they operated in the red last year.  For all the talk of no fans and how much that hurts, it also means far less support staff, maintenance, etc...less salaries for the players. The owners did save money as well as lost it.  
 

It’s all about how you want to spin the words.

I do think that a team like the Philies probably suffered an actual loss, and a team like the Rays just made less profit.

[foxfield]

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

 

 

50 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't begrudge them their profits.  I just think they have a long history of being untruthful when it comes to their profits and we should doubt the veracity of anything they say on the topic.

These two statements are similar but honestly could be miles apart.  I agree that ownership hasn't earned faith of fans, but you do not have to be an economist to understand the that losses in 2020 are real not just less income for all teams.

 

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, foxfield said:

 

These two statements are similar but honestly could be miles apart.  I agree that ownership hasn't earned faith of fans, but you do not have to be an economist to understand the that losses in 2020 are real not just less income for all teams.

 

But how do you define a loss?

Lets say they made 100M in 2019 and only made 20M in 2020 (totally making up those numbers).  Those numbers are interpreted 2 ways.

1) they lost 80 million

2) they made 20 million

How you choose to look at it is the question.

The owners want to make you believe they lost money...IE, their expenses are 100 million and they only brought in 80M, so they actually lost 20 million dollars in 2020.

I don’t buy that for a second.

[foxfield]

11 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

But how do you define a loss?

Lets say they made 100M in 2019 and only made 20M in 2020 (totally making up those numbers).  Those numbers are interpreted 2 ways.

1) they lost 80 million

2) they made 20 million

How you choose to look at it is the question.

The owners want to make you believe they lost money...IE, their expenses are 100 million and they only brought in 80M, so they actually lost 20 million dollars in 2020.

I don’t buy that for a second.

Less revenues are not losses.  Again, I do not trust ownership.  But in your scenario, They made money but made 80 million less.  I do not doubt at all that there are major league teams that lost money last year and I would have no real difficulty seeing the Orioles in that group.  

 

And by losses I mean less revenue than expenses.

[Can_of_corn]

23 minutes ago, foxfield said:

 

These two statements are similar but honestly could be miles apart.  I agree that ownership hasn't earned faith of fans, but you do not have to be an economist to understand the that losses in 2020 are real not just less income for all teams.

 

You think the Marlin's were actually in the red last year?