Agreement on 2021 rules/salaries/service time/contracts

Home The Cardinal Nation Forums Open Forum Agreement on 2021 rules/salaries/service time/contracts

Viewing 25 posts - 51 through 75 (of 95 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #149677
    Brian WaltonBrian Walton
    Keymaster

    Paid - Annual

    And so it begins. Owners want a reduction to 140 games. Players want 162 as planned.

    Also mentioned: The players feel expanded playoffs is worth more than the DH in the NL (which seems accurate). Therefore, the players turned down the package of the two.

    #149684
    Euro DandyEuro Dandy
    Participant

    Free

    Why believe Boras on this one, where he has no accountability to be honest and plenty of motivation to lie? Liberty Media, on the other hand, has tremendous accountability to the SEC, IRS, other federal agencies, share holders, etc., via required audits, quarterly reporting, 10-K forms, 10-Q Forms, etc., all where institutional fraud can and has placed perps behind bars.

    Liberty’s public filings showed the Braves group with a 2nd Quarter 2020 loss in operating income of $15MM, compared to a $23MM profit in operating income for 3rd Quarter 2019. That’s when games were played and they could include revenue from TV. “Operating income” is not “revenue” — it incorporates expenses. So it’s not a matter of “making lower profits” as some like to say.

    That was the good quarter. For 2nd Quarter 2020, Liberty reported the Braves group with a loss in operating income of $33MM compared to a $34MM profit in 2nd Quarter 2019.

    There’s not much to say about the other 29 teams, but when Boras blatantly lies about the one team with publicly filed data, you’d be smart not to believe anything else he has to say on the subject.

    #149733
    Avatargscottar
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    The MLB owners and players just can’t get out of their own way. They can’t agree on ANYTHING in a timely manner. It has to be by far the most dysfunctional professional sports league. It is a wonder they retain as many fans as they do.

    #149760
    Brian WaltonBrian Walton
    Keymaster

    Paid - Annual

    What amazes me is the number of people who seem repeatedly surprised, as if there is not a long pattern of behavior established.

    #149768
    Avatargscottar
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    I am not surprised but that doesn’t make it any less frustrating.

    #150052
    Brian WaltonBrian Walton
    Keymaster

    Paid - Annual

    Jayson Stark points out what is being said publicly (2021 season to start on time) and what most MLB insiders believe will actually happen (delays) are different.

    #150059
    Avatargscottar
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    Most of the people on MLB Radio think the season will start on May 1.

    #150170
    stlcard25stlcard25
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    After you read through the trade stuff, there are a couple of interesting votes there. First, 8/20 (40%) executives/insiders think spring training starts on time, and 10/20 (50%) think the season will be 162 games.

    Abother question was about whether the universal DH is here to stay. 18/20 (90%) said yes.

    https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/30572289/spend-big-lindor-bryant-get-dealt-gms-insiders-weigh-in

    #150297
    Avatargscottar
    Participant

    Paid - Annual
    #150807
    Avatargscottar
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    Jeff Passan basically slams the owners for their passiveness and timidity.

    #150813
    Euro DandyEuro Dandy
    Participant

    Free

    Yeah, it’s almost like the owners don’t want to lose millions of dollars.

    #150819
    Avatargscottar
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    The Padres don’t seem to be worried about it.

    #150825
    stlcard25stlcard25
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    Are they really losing millions of dollars, or are they “losing” money? It’s a real question I have as a non economics/business man. The argument that the teams are increasing in value quickly makes sense. Dewitt had $50m of the $150m IIRC into the Cards in 1995 and the team is now valued at $2.2B. That’s a huge gain that seems like could absorb a one year loss.

    Likewise, the Cards have been one of the most attended franchises over the years. Forbes estimated $138m in gate revenue last year, $383m in overall revenue and $72m profit. If that’s a normal year, scaled up from the purchase year, it’s possible the Cards have made something like $875M in profit since the team was purchased.

    Anyway, I understand that no business really wants to lose money any year. Still, how much of a hit would it really be on the ownership group if they, dayz decided to just absorb the entire year like nothing happened? Would it crush them? The numbers above tell me not, but perhaps Euro or someone else savvy could enlighten us.

    #150828
    Avatarforsch31
    Participant

    Free

    25, just as a 401k can increase in value, so can the value of the Cardinals. However, in both cases, you don’t see any cash in your pocket or bank accounts. The increase is totally on paper. To get it out of the 401k, you have to “cash it in” in some form. In order to get cash out of the increase in value of the Cardinals, they either need to sell the team or borrow money from the bank against the equity. If they borrow money, then they need to make loan payments so they incur additional outflow considerations.

    #150831
    Avatargscottar
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    There is also the school of thought that savvy businessmen would have stored away a portion of their profits they have raked in over the years into some kind of rainy day fund so they could withstand a down year.

    The bottom line is that none of us really know what the balance sheets look like. We can speculate about this how the owners are now destitute due to covid or they are really still making money or somewhere in between but we really don’t know.

    #150833
    Avatarforsch31
    Participant

    Free

    gscott, I would hope that the owners would have a rainy day fund. My post had more to do with the thought that the Cardinals would have more money to spend just because the team went up in value. Just as a person’s house can increase in value, so can the value of the Cardinals. Once again, the only way that means more cash to the owner is to either sell or borrow against the equity.

    #150834
    Avatargscottar
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    That is correct forsch. Having a reserve built up from previous profits is different than the value of the franchise.

    #150849
    Euro DandyEuro Dandy
    Participant

    Free

    The Padres don’t seem to be worried about it.

    They might be worried about it, but accept the risks to seize an opportunity.

    The last time Preller went on a similar transaction spree in 2015, it fell on its face. He has a much better base this time, so it might pay off. Most teams aren’t in a similar situation. That is what makes Passan’s whining off base, not to mention there is plenty of downside to committing $60 million to a guy with a spotty health and performance record the last few years who isn’t getting any younger. It makes sense that many teams wouldn’t jump on that.

    #150899
    Avatargscottar
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    Maybe so but I don’t think the Padres are the only team positioned to win. They are just being the most aggressive.

    As I stated earlier we really don’t know what the finances are for each MLB team. We are just making educated guesses, therefore, we really don’t know if the teams lost money last year or made less? There is a difference.

    It is also logical to assume that expanded playoffs will make most teams less aggressive since building a playoff team will be easier.

    Also, as Brian has pointed out, a GM/PBO is usually only as aggressive as the the owner will allow them to be. Apparently Mr. Fowler of the Padres has given Preller the green light.

    #150910
    Brian WaltonBrian Walton
    Keymaster

    Paid - Annual

    The last two years, the Reds were declared winners of the offseason.

    #150919
    Avatarmudville
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    It will be interesting to see how much activity this coming January brings. If it’s mostly about teams finding ways to reduce their exposure to losing money in 2021 because of expected reduced attendance, and in 2022 because of the coming labor dispute, then there won’t be much wheeling and dealing. In other words, January will not be the new December as suggested by Mozeliak. Teams that have been adding payroll, like the Padres and and the Blue Jays, could be considered outliers rather than bold, big spenders.

    #150930
    Euro DandyEuro Dandy
    Participant

    Free

    Maybe so but I don’t think the Padres are the only team positioned to win. They are just being the most aggressive.

    No doubt, but that wasn’t Passan’s point. How many of those teams need pitching as the main emphasis of improvement? How many of those teams would Darvish accept for a trade? How many of those teams should be lining up to commit nearly $60MM to a 35-year-old-next-season and recently questionable performer? To expect a bevy of teams to offer up prospects for the privilege of paying that guy nearly $60MM during a pandemic with unknown future consequences, and then complain about it not happening, is whining and financially illiterate.

    To put it another way, how would you feel if the Cards made the same deal for Darvish (comparable prospects)? I bet you wouldn’t like that albatross. I sure wouldn’t. Ditto for many of the other “contending” teams. And since there are so many near-term “non-contenders,” how many of them should want to make that deal? Even if the pandemic diminishes and fans start coming back, how many “extra” fans does Darvish pull in for anybody? For the vast majority, $60MM seems like a terrible investment in the current climate. Having the money to do it doesn’t make it smart.

    #150934
    Avatargscottar
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    To put it another way, how would you feel if the Cards made the same deal for Darvish (comparable prospects)? I bet you wouldn’t like that albatross.

    No I wouldn’t want Darvish on the Cardinals but not because of the contract. It would be because starting pitching isn’t our biggest need. If we could find a big bat for $60M then I would be for it, although in our case I still think striking next winter makes more sense.

    • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 2 days ago by Avatargscottar.
    #150936
    Avatargscottar
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    How many of those teams need pitching as the main emphasis of improvement? How many of those teams would Darvish accept for a trade? How many of those teams should be lining up to commit nearly $60MM to a 35-year-old-next-season and recently questionable performer?

    The Angels, Phillies, and Jays need more pitching and they all seemed primed to spend this winter.

    #150938
    jj-cf-stljj-cf-stl
    Participant

    Paid - Annual

    Since starting pitching was the SDP primary need, who should they have targeted instead of Darvish (and Snell)?

    Cots shows the Padres owe 3/52mil on Darvish (17.3mil AAV) and 3/40.8mil on Snell (13.6 AAV).

Viewing 25 posts - 51 through 75 (of 95 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

First-hand news and commentary on the St. Louis Cardinals™ and minor league system for over 20 years