MLB Lockout Thread

[TradeAngelos]

1 hour ago, MarCakes21 said:

If you want to look at good parity, go look at the NFL. I don’t think that’s a perfect structure either but it’s an example. There’s big and small markets all living under the same rules. There’s significantly more desire to remain relevant yearly. There’s 12 teams that make the playoffs, with the same total number of teams so we can’t complain about that.

Theres also a salary cap, hard and fast. You can play around with the rules in terms of bonuses but so many guys playing for league minimum. There’s no floor needed, because competition is desired by all.

Now, how does the MLB take the competitiveness (or lack there of) so all teams are spending at some desired ceiling with no floor needed.

Wont be solved this go around but that’s how the MLB should frame their stance. But then again, they’d also have to forgo guaranteed contracts while they’re at it

I wholeheartedly agree with ALL of this, but the NFL does in fact have a spending floor. It is over a 4 year rolling period average though not a single season. But it is 89% of the cap during that time.  Yet another reason why almost every single team has a chance to make playoffs year in and year out. 

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, forphase1 said:

Yes, buying and SELLING a team is highly profitable.  But running it day to day and year by year, that we don't know for sure.  Regardless, even if I make a smart investment and whatever I invest in gains significantly in value, I don't realize that gain until I sell it, and that increase isn't really an increase until I monetize it by sell it.  It does nothing to help me pay the bills, keep up payroll, expand my business, etc etc until the time I sell it.  

Pfft McCourt was a complete dumpster fire as an owner and he got a huge ROI.  It sure looks like you can suck the blood out of a team like a bloated tick and still sell for a large return.

[forphase1]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Pfft McCourt was a complete dumpster fire as an owner and he got a huge ROI.  It sure looks like you can suck the blood out of a team like a bloated tick and still sell for a large return.

Which still does nothing to change what I was talking about.  Yes, we all admit and agree that owning a team is a great investment as with almost 100% certainty you can turn around and sell it on down the road for an insane amount of cash.  No disagreement there.  But that doesn't say anything about the amount of profits, revenue, income, expenses, etc etc that are taking place DURING the ownership of said team.  The end is going to be a huge pile of cash.  Year to year, season by season, that's not quite as clear.

Edited March 2, 2022 by forphase1
Spelling

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, forphase1 said:

Which still does nothing to change what I was talking about.  Yes, we all admit and agree that owning a team is a great investment as with almost 100% certainty you can turn around and sell it on down the road for an insane amount of cash.  No disagreement there.  But that doesn't say anything about the amount of profits, revenue, income, expenses, etc etc that are taking place DURING the ownership of said team.  The end is going to be a huge pile of cash.  Year to year, season by season, that's not quite as clear.

Except the part where we have seen owners clearly sucking money from a team (McCourt being the easiest example) and still realising a huge profit on the sale.  Sure we don't have exact numbers but it was clearly a substantial sum.

We also have access to a fair bit of data to include the Braves data.

[Moose Milligan]

Is it true the players offered to negotiate during the season if need be?

[Daddy-O's]

I know it is fashionable to blame the owners for this mess, but the final offer was not completely unfair.  60% of the MLB players are making the league minimum and this last offer did raise the minimum salary significantly.  Also it is impossible to compare MLB to other sports that do not have guaranteed contracts. 

[seak05]

6 hours ago, forphase1 said:

Which still does nothing to change what I was talking about.  Yes, we all admit and agree that owning a team is a great investment as with almost 100% certainty you can turn around and sell it on down the road for an insane amount of cash.  No disagreement there.  But that doesn't say anything about the amount of profits, revenue, income, expenses, etc etc that are taking place DURING the ownership of said team.  The end is going to be a huge pile of cash.  Year to year, season by season, that's not quite as clear.

MLB however has totaled some 40 billion in cash revenue in the last few years, while cutting player salaries. As a sport it doesn’t have a cash problem. 

If some owners are cash poor, owners could increase revenue sharing. The NBA, which like baseball has local tv deals, has an over 50% revenue sharing. But mlb owners don’t want to revenue share. 

The equity in the team is also an asset, and owners could borrow against it to do things like make payroll. 

Owners however don’t want to use their equity, and they don’t want to revenue share. So instead they’ve told the cash rich teams they’re not allowed to spend profits as they see fit. 

(I think allowing richer teams to spend unfettered would be terrible for the sport, but solving the issue by only addressing the top end teams is both fundamentally unfair to the players….and is also terrible for the sport. My personal choice would be an increase in revenue sharing and a spending floor)

[OriolesMagic83]

12 hours ago, waroriole said:

 

43 billion ain't what it used to be.

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, Daddy-O's said:

I know it is fashionable to blame the owners for this mess, but the final offer was not completely unfair.  60% of the MLB players are making the league minimum and this last offer did raise the minimum salary significantly.  Also it is impossible to compare MLB to other sports that do not have guaranteed contracts. 

It’s an offer that does just enough to make it look good but it ignores the financial windfall the sport is going through.

The owners have no interest giving that up.

[Moose Milligan]

 

Not a coincidence, IMO. Have they been seen in the same room together?

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, OriolesMagic83 said:

43 billion ain't what it used to be.

I guess my questions are:

1.   What was revenue in the previous 5 year period before the last deal was signed?

2.  What were costs in both periods?

3.  What is expected in terms of revenues and costs for the next five years?

$43 bb the last five years doesn’t really tell me much.  

[dabirds]

Frobby, I agree with your questions.  Alot of people are confusing revenue with profit.  Not the same thing.  You have to factor in costs.

And I dont see how raising the cbt and installing a draft lottery for 5 picks has any effect on tanking.  The only way to stop tanking is with a salary floor (and I would penalize the first round pick if not met) and/or forcing the team to spend any revenue sharing on payroll.

Raising the cbt will just make the rich teams better and create more tanking scenarios.

 

[Frobby]

I’ve been reading up on the positions of the two sides, and I remain optimistic they’ll reach a deal pretty soon.   It’s a real shame MLB didn’t push these negotiations sooner.   But missing a material amount of games (say, more than 10-15) over the remaining differences doesn’t seem rational for anyone.   

[jarman86]

11 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

I wonder why the players haven’t introduced a floor?

I mean, if the owners are saying no, we aren’t going to up the CBT as much, why not see if you can make the bottom feeders spend more?  Seems to me that would accomplish what they are trying to do.

Because in next bargaining agreement, or even introducing it, you have the problem of negotiating the floor. Owners will always want to keep it as low as possible, regardless of increasing CBT, salaries, and profits. We already see the headache with the ceiling.

[jarman86]

11 hours ago, forphase1 said:

Sure I do.   But what is 'fair' is very subjective.  In don't believe the players are being treated unfairly under the recently expired CBA, so I certainly don't think an improved CBA is unfair to them either.   Do they want more money?  Sure,  we all do.   But too many,  in my opinion,  act like it's immoral how they are paid or that it's some kind of quest for justice to get more money transferred from owners to the players.  It's not my money and frankly I don't care if the guy at the plate is making $1 a game, $10,000 a game or $1M a game.   I'm going to sleep fine if they are swimming in cash or one paycheck from losing their house, like many folks.   The only time it really matters to me is if it prevents the team from doing other things as they are strapped for cash or in a Davis type situation where they are grossly overpaid.  But as a small business owner, I know outsiders usually are clueless about the real revenue situation and often simply look at total income without factoring in the numerous expenses and costs of doing business.   I don't think things are nearly as good as some media,  players,  and folks here claim,  but nor do I think it's as bad as Manfred and some in MLB claim.  Like most adversarial setups, the truth is almost always in the middle between what both sides are claiming.   Believing everything the owners put out is foolish.   But believing what the players and MLBPA put out is equally foolish.   Funny how polarized we are today when even something as trivial as player compensation is something that can bring out the ugly between those of us without any real skin in the game. 

So, I guess my question is two fold:

1.) will you be willing to pay $50 to watch the Delmarva Shorebirds a game? Nothing against Delmarva, but those guys aren't beating the Orioles more than 1 out of every 50 games.

2.) If you ARE the product and what people are paying to see, and your collective salary is dropping, and your boss is making loads of money off of you, would you not want your pay to be increased, whether you are being paid $1, $10, $1k or $10k?

I'm with you, I don't care what players get paid. And I do think they get paid too much. However, I look at the profits and I know that money isn't going back to me. It isn't going back to my ticket rep for the Os who does a great job and deserves a raise or promotion. It goes to the owners or players. And for me, I side with players.