MLB Lockout Thread

[DrungoHazewood]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

And the owners are making more money than ever before (taking 2020 out of the equation).  

At this point they're locked into those $175,000 a month Bugatti payments, you can't just expect them to take the car back to the dealer.  They'll take a bath on it.

[Tony-OH]

32 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Players want more money.  Owners don't want to give it.  

 

Yep, agreed that's the main crux of this argument. I could really care less how they split up the money. As a fan, I care about the competitiveness of the sport for all 30-teams and enjoying the game on the field. 

Again, this is why I think a system that makes profit sharing is so important. Make the game competitive for all and then share the profits with players on all teams. 

The problem is that the Dodgers, despite their $280 million payroll are way more profitable than the Tampa Bay Rays so the Dodgers owners are going to want a system that sees them paying out say 40-45% of their profits to the players when they would be paying a much bigger share than a team like the Rays.

AND, the reason why the Dodgers are so profitable is because of fan interest that allows them to make huge profits in TV revenue, merchandising, gate, sky boxes from corporations, concession, and fan advertising at the stadium. 

The reason why the fans are so interested? Because they are in the playoffs ever year now because they have a $280 million payroll when the next highest is $203 million.

So the Dodgers don't want anything that support competitiveness because that threatens their model. 

[Moose Milligan]

13 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

I don't know if that's true at all. Of course owners were rich before they bought their teams, that's why they were able to buy the teams, but no one buys a team to lose money.

But if you think fans aren't how the owners make money, then how do they make money? Without ratings, those big money TV contracts aren't coming in. Who creates the ratings? Fans.

Gate receipts, merchandising (huge cash cow), concessions, advertising within the stadium are all revenue streams driven by fans.

So how else do the owners make money if not from the fans. Are you suggesting that a team could have no fans and no interest and still turn a profit?

I'm pretty sure they look at these things as investments.  Over time, the value of an MLB franchise will increase, not decrease.  Or any sports franchise, really.

Of course the fans matter.  But to act like the owners are relying on fans for their sole source of income isn't accurate, I believe.  

[Moose Milligan]

3 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Yep, agreed that's the main crux of this argument. I could really care less how they split up the money. As a fan, I care about the competitiveness of the sport for all 30-teams and enjoying the game on the field. 

Again, this is why I think a system that makes profit sharing is so important. Make the game competitive for all and then share the profits with players on all teams. 

The problem is that the Dodgers, despite their $280 million payroll are way more profitable than the Tampa Bay Rays so the Dodgers owners are going to want a system that sees them paying out say 40-45% of their profits to the players when they would be paying a much bigger share than a team like the Rays.

AND, the reason why the Dodgers are so profitable is because of fan interest that allows them to make huge profits in TV revenue, merchandising, gate, sky boxes from corporations, concession, and fan advertising at the stadium. 

The reason why the fans are so interested? Because they are in the playoffs ever year now because they have a $280 million payroll when the next highest is $203 million.

So the Dodgers don't want anything that support competitiveness because that threatens their model. 

Profit sharing?  Sounds like socialism to me!

That's a joke, btw.  

I agree that profit sharing should be a thing.  But I also don't believe teams will be more competitive with it.  Bad decisions will be made no matter what.

[Tony-OH]

30 minutes ago, Frobby said:

And the owners are making more money than ever before (taking 2020 out of the equation).  

They may be since the prices of franchises are not going down. 

The owners are not the "good guys" in this situation. Despite my despise of Scherzer and the MLBPA for trying to get rid of anything that would make things more competitive for small market teams, I don't have some love of the owners like they are for the common fan.

As I've said, I do believe the small and mid market teams have more of interest in making things more competitive since that affects fan interest, but large market owners are only worried about making the most money they can while paying the players the least amount.

I think the one thing we can agree upon is that neither side really cares about the fans because they just take them for granted as long as their business models show that they can be profitable. 

I may be wrong, but I think fan interest in the MLB if they miss games because of work stoppage, coming off COVID, is going to be very hard to regain. This is not 2004 anymore. People have a lot more entertainment opportunities and although core baseball fans (45 years and older) will probably return because summertime without baseball would suck, I think they are going to see a major drop of fan attendance and support. 

[Can_of_corn]

22 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

At this point they're locked into those $175,000 a month Bugatti payments, you can't just expect them to take the car back to the dealer.  They'll take a bath on it.

Players have payments on sports cars, owners have payments on yachts.

[Tony-OH]

At the end of the day, it's February 7th and we should be talking about player moves and up coming player performance right now. 

We should be getting excited over a new season and whether the Orioles will finally start to improve on the major league field. 

Instead we're over here arguing over Billionaires and Millionaires trying to get as much money as they can for themselves.

Honestly, I've had my say on this and I'm done until they eventually figure this out. If they miss games though this year, I will remain disgusted with both side.

 

[Can_of_corn]

You are never going to have competitive balance in sports.

I don't recall anyone here complaining about how the Wizards are never a (really) good team.  I don't see anyone feeling bad for the Browns and their fanbase.

Some franchises are going to be predominantly good and some are going to be predominantly poor. 

It's that way in baseball and it's that way in sports that have more equitable footing when it comes to money.

[Moose Milligan]

7 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

They may be since the prices of franchises are not going down. 

The owners are not the "good guys" in this situation. Despite my despise of Scherzer and the MLBPA for trying to get rid of anything that would make things more competitive for small market teams, I don't have some love of the owners like they are for the common fan.

As I've said, I do believe the small and mid market teams have more of interest in making things more competitive since that affects fan interest, but large market owners are only worried about making the most money they can while paying the players the least amount.

I think the one thing we can agree upon is that neither side really cares about the fans because they just take them for granted as long as their business models show that they can be profitable. 

I may be wrong, but I think fan interest in the MLB if they miss games because of work stoppage, coming off COVID, is going to be very hard to regain. This is not 2004 anymore. People have a lot more entertainment opportunities and although core baseball fans (45 years and older) will probably return because summertime without baseball would suck, I think they are going to see a major drop of fan attendance and support. 

I don't disagree, but as a fan I'm also not taking this personally.

[Frobby]

3 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I'm pretty sure they look at these things as investments.  Over time, the value of an MLB franchise will increase, not decrease.  Or any sports franchise, really.

Of course the fans matter.  But to act like the owners are relying on fans for their sole source of income isn't accurate, I believe.  

Well, at the end of the day, almost all profit is tied to fan interest.   Why does the value of a franchise increase?   Because revenue is expected to increase.   Why is revenue expected to increase?   Pretty much all sources of revenue — TV contracts, gate receipts, advertising, internet — are tied to fan interest.   If fans dwindle, all those sources of revenue shrink eventually.   There have been two or three things propping up baseball despite some loss of fan interest (attendance, TV ratings) over the last decade.   First, their technology subsidiary MLBAM developed technologies that non-baseball enterprises wanted to buy, and that’s been worth billions.   Second, MLB hopped on the internet train pretty early and has realized a lot of revenue from that.   And finally, even though TV audiences are shrinking, networks are willing to pay a premium for broadcast rights because sports are the one thing people watch live and sit through the commercials (for the most part).   But those three things may not last forever, so stemming the tide of dwindling fan interest should be very important to the owners.

[Can_of_corn]

I think it is reasonable to assume that teams will find other ways to monetize their product.

Look at how well MLB did with MLBAM.

[Sports Guy]

This is also part of the issue.  The players really dislike Manfred.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

This is also part of the issue.  The players really dislike Manfred.

I would think this was part of an elaborate plan in which the Owners dump Manfred and bring in someone less odious to save the day in some sort of pre-planned move.

But that's giving ownership way too much credit.

[Tony-OH]

6 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

This is also part of the issue.  The players really dislike Manfred.

Well that is certainly understandable. Manfred is a total clown in every way.

[Tony-OH]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I would think this was part of an elaborate plan in which the Owners dump Manfred and bring in someone less odious to save the day in some sort of pre-planned move.

But that's giving ownership way too much credit.

Manfred is a total clown and shouldn't be running a Marathon gas station in rural Mississippi. Saying that, the players only care about more money and anyone on the other side would be lambasted by the million spokesmen for the players.