- This topic has 445 replies, 34 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I’m not advocating that anyone gets less. In this day and age only if fans stopped coming and stopped watching major league baseball on TV would the cost of attendance go down. One of the major problems in the world is greed and we probably all have a bit of that in our DNA.
If salaries went down the only possible benefit to the fans would be a slower increase in costs. So I agree with Brian that the fans will always be the bottom line victim.
However, there could be changes that would alleviate the benefit to the most fortunate of the current system. The owners because of TV and particularly the big market owners. And secondly, the high paid players. Something like a progressive minimum to players before arbitration kicks in. Say an increase in minimum to players with a certain number of major league service and there could be several steps.
Also earlier free agency to players based on performance. Something like WAR to determine eligibility. I have always believed in “pay for performance”. Would probably tie that to a clause that would allow a team to match the free agency offer.
And I still believe that minor league salaries should be tied to overall increase in revenue. Something like owners 47%, players 47% and 6% of the increase in revenue go to raising minor league salaries. Not saying I believe that should be the percentages. Just an example.
Also, I don’t know how TV revenue is allocated but maybe a total pool divided in some way among the 30 teams. One of the reasons that the LA teams can spend so freely is a lucrative TV contract.
And I really hate to miss my trips to Burlington, NC and Danville, VA to watch Johnson City play. I’m not sure that move will benefit the game. Probably a boon to independent baseball though.
Among the things Manfred said:
— Won't play MLB spring training games w/o MLB players
— Missing games would be “disastrous” for the industry
— That MLB has made some concessions to players worth 100s of millions
— That return on owning a MLB team is less than the stock market— James Wagner (@ByJamesWagner) February 10, 2022
Fact checking Manfred… because of course, owners won’t share their books, they can say anything. However, observers can gauge based on franchise sale values, which are real…
https://t.co/tMSTYAjHT6 https://t.co/375AsNmega pic.twitter.com/D3CdAqrTy1
— Levi Weaver (@ThreeTwoEephus) February 10, 2022
Good example of flawed economic thinking by Weaver. All 30 MLB teams would have to sell for you to draw the conclusion that they would average 669% growth. Also you have to consider how much prestige of owning a professional sports franchise goes into the bidding to buy one. Most of those people are big ego people with lots of money.
The fact that the teams don’t go public and show their real profit indicates that none of them are really hurting. Also I don’t care for Manfried and not sure I trust any thing he says. Also he could provide details where concessions worth 100’s of millions have been made. That would make his statements more believable.
Example of selected stats to suppor probable bias. The only way solutions to problems become clear is to look at the whole picture and consider best solutions. Our culture has moved sharply away from doing that possibly due to the internet where everyone can pose as an informed expert.
It does not appear that Pitchbook looked at franchise sales when calculating their rates of return.
But on the sidebar of team sales only…. Looking at 20 years of franchise sales is a clear indicator of the health of the industry. It is not logical to assert that only the most wealthy/profitable teams changed hands. In fact, one could speculate just the opposite.
Whatever the sale conditions (resulting from bidding or ego trips or other), they are irrelevant. The sales price is the market value. Basic economics point out that the value of something is only what someone else will pay for it.
Remarks by ownership (including Manfred) regarding their finances do not pass the sniff test and are not credible without supporting data. After all, there is a good reason they don’t want anyone to know the details.
You cannot assume operating success from percieved value of the organization.
Apple is one of the most successful companies. Their profit percent for the trailing 12 months is 26.5% and that is real high for any enterprise. My wife and I have 6 grandchildren for whom we have established custodial college funds. 11 or 12 years ago when we established the funds I purchased Apple stock for each of them. Today those Apple stocks are worth more than 1300% higher than when we purchased them. The perceived value of Apple has increased that much. Their 3 yr average profit percent is 27%. They are projecting 8% for the current year.
Having said that I don’t believe the owners or many of the players are really that hard up. TV has changed that. And focusing on things other than the real problems are preventing them from being corrected.
1) Overpaid players who got a lucrative deal after free agency. Certainly some intangible value there but they are being paid much more than they are contributing. Love Arenado but did he contribute 60 times more than O’Neill in 2021?
2) Underpaid young stars and some getting near minimum salaries all the way up to arbitration.
3) Minor league salaries
4) Cut back in minor league franchises taking away pro baseball from smaller markets. That could result in continued fan interest.
Baseball is my favorite game and I only want what is best for the game. Fat cat owners and players making over 30 million a year doesn’t do a thing for the young players earning much less than their contribution.
5 Big market advantage. The Dodgers scooped up Turner and Scherzer for the playoffs. Could the Cardinals have won that game if they had not.
6 Fans have only one recourse. Stop attending games and stop buying TV packages.
Some sort of performance based pay – especially for young players would be nice.
It’s a tough nut to crack but it seems like there has to be a better way to pay players than what is happening now.
Being paid for perceived potential or for past performance is a dangerous way to allocate resources.
Inside The Numbers: Manfred Claims Investing In Stock Market Better Than Return On MLB Club Sales https://t.co/koRF9nwnXq via @ForbesSports
— Maury Brown (@BizballMaury) February 11, 2022
Some of the things Manfred and the owners say seem to indicate they forget that most people have access to a lot more information than they used to because of social media, for better or worse. This isn’t 1972. He seriously needs a better PR person.
As a full time investor, Manfred lost all credibility with that ludicrous comment about MLB clubs and the stock market….. I despise “fact checkers” due to their extreme bias, but someone should have “fact checked” his speech.
I don’t see how the negotiations are wrapped up anytime soon, plus 6 weeks of planning, including 4 or so weeks of spring training, which means we won’t have games until May 1, at the earliest in my opinion.
1) Increasing minimum salaries should be a no brainer
2) Big incentives for awards for 6 year and under players that don’t have a contract/extension
3) A bonus pool isn’t a bad idea in theory, there are just so many variables on how that would be divided up.Again isolated stats possibly intended to mislead. Nasdaq has averaged around 37.15% growth the last two years. The S&P has been a little less. The Dow only has 30 companies so is usually ignored in evaluating the market performance.
If the Cardinal payroll was 150 million and that represented 45% of their revenue then there is 55% of the revenue left for operations. The Cardinals have to have less than 18% cost to exceed the performance of Nasdaq over the last two years.
With the Covid shutdowns there is a good chance that their cost for management, scouting, stadium, parking spaces,spring training, minor league operations and other costs exceeded that. So Manfred can make a good case.
However, it is just another case of using selected stats to support a bias. Unfortunately only management knows the true figures and their reluctance to open their books leads one to suspect that they are doing better than they would admit. So we fans are isolated from the facts to determine what a fair settlement would be.
Maybe a bonus pool of a certain percentage of revenue to reward for performance of non-free agent players could level the playing field. You could also tie increse salary of the same players. Performance could be based on WAR which seems to be the best tool available however inacurate.
The problem, and it’s my big criticism of the players’ stance, is that they seem adamantly set against a revenue split. I can’t figure out why they think things will get vastly better without it, but for some reason they do. A salary cap and floor with full revenue sharing seems to help alleviate most of the players concerns. It wouldn’t be perfect but it would be a start. It may be hard for all the owners to agree to it though when some are making out nicely the way things are.
“…they seem adamantly set against a revenue split.”
Could it be as simple as they don’t trust the numbers?
It’s like your employer coming to you and offering profit sharing for the calendar year, as a motivator for maximum production, and then at years end you’re informed there was no profit to share.
Who you going to argue with? It’s their numbers. Sharing requires trust. It ain’t there.
Could it be as simple as they don’t trust the numbers?
That’s probably it, and I don’t blame them in one sense for it. Yet, every other pro sports league has found a way to make it work. Maybe in the past, the players felt they could get a bigger chunk of the pot without a revenue splitting agreement. It sure seems like those days are gone.
I am not so sure that basing player’s salaries on awards and WAR is such a good idea either. Do sports writers really want that responsibility? Will it be public information? Keeping someone out of Cooperstown is one thing but taking money out of his bank account is another. I know that currently there are some players who can earn bonuses based on awards but a bonus is a little different than your base salary.
And what about WAR? Do the people at Fangraphs or wherever want to be determining how much money a player makes? That seems like a lot of pressure.
WAR is not a subjective measure. It is a formula using hard and fast data. I don’t understand the concern that Fangraphs can affect anything – short of changing the definition on the fly, which would never be accepted.
Today’s meeting was less than an hour. Players reportedly unimpressed.
MLB presented a 130-page proposal, raising the minimum salary to $630,000 and the CBT to $222 million in 2026. The union's last proposal was a minimum salary of $775,000 and a $245 million CBT beginning now. So yes, spring training will be delayed.
— Bob Nightengale (@BNightengale) February 12, 2022
I don’t like the war/salaries idea because it doesn’t reward team play. Everything will be “what’s best for me”.
Nightengale say Spring Training is going to be delayed.
Ratsbuddy says the regular season is going to be delayed. And perhaps be in complete jeopardy.
I don’t like the war/salaries idea because it doesn’t reward team play. Everything will be “what’s best for me”.
That is certainly the downside of the use of an individual metric. Of course, the sum total of WAR correlates really well to team success, so there is some team incentive involved as well.
Productive outs can win ballgames. I’d rather not see players grip and rip when they should be moving runners into scoring position.
It happens too much already. Tying salaries to wOBA is just endorsing selfish outcomes vs situational hitting for the team.
WAR is not a subjective measure. It is a formula using hard and fast data. I don’t understand the concern that Fangraphs can affect anything – short of changing the definition on the fly, which would never be accepted.
Where are the WAR numbers going to come from?
Other than giving yourself up at the plate to move a runner along and the sac bunt – what are other ‘stat’ things a player could do on the field that would help his team but hurt his WAR?
I’m asking because WAR seems like a pretty solid stat to base bonus pool distribution on to me?
Would certain players ‘call in sick’ against pitchers they don’t hit well to ‘protect’ their WAR?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.