Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email
Photo

What is the end game?

  • Please log in to reply
168 replies to this topic

#81 laloesch

laloesch

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,698 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 08:56 PM

Labor has no intrinsic value. A baseball player's worth is the culmination of various factors artificially imposed on their work. In our culture, we tend to treat these artificially imposed factors as natural. That is, we believe that the Market operates independently of human will, which is simply untrue.
It's tempting to say that valuation is a function of supply and demand, but I suspect it's actually a function of power. Right now, the owners have power to set the market, and the players want that power. This is the reason behind every labor dispute in modern history. Who sets the terms of work?
That said, player salaries have nothing to do with ticket prices, cable sunbscriptions, streaming sunbscriptions, merchandise and memorabilia prices--i.e. the costs we pay to be fans. Those prices are determined by teams and the league when considering what people will pay compared to the alternatives. Are they more likely to spend $50 for a ballgame or $18 for a movie? $200 for a jersey or some other toy?
My point: pay the players more, because their labor supplies the owners with virtually every cent of revenue.

I choose not to pay either of them PERIOD if i can help it because BOTH sides are spoiled self entitled rich elitists who collectively make rediculous huge amounts of money off hard working Americans for a silly game.

Edited by laloesch, 07 February 2018 - 08:58 PM.


#82 ThejacKmp

ThejacKmp

    Wing Commander

  • Members
  • 2,096 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 09:16 PM

 

Hitting arbitration sooner seems more than fair. Cutting years of team control would be pushing the pendulum even further in favor of large market teams. Maybe if it was accompanied by a hard cap but I can't see why the players union would (or should,) agree to a hard cap. 

Yeah, it would take the owners doing something like letting players hit free agency earlier.

 

One thing I've always thought would be interesting is a 6 years or 29 years old thing. That way teams would be incentivized to push players to the majors a bit faster and for the guys who make it to 27 like Garver, they have a shot at a contract.


#83 AlwaysinModeration

AlwaysinModeration

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Members
  • 1,917 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 09:18 PM

There have been many arguments persuasively made on here (and elsewhere) that it is just a confluence of events that led to this result.

I don’t know, I am still very suspicious. How do you go from the usual most signed by February to almost none signed in February. If the market were undergoing a natural resetting of prices, I would have envisioned a gradual change, not a sudden one. And why are the relievers all pretty much gone?

It seems just...very convenient.

#84 Sconnie

Sconnie

    Touch ‘em all!

  • Members
  • 3,815 posts
  • LocationNW Wisconsin

Posted 07 February 2018 - 09:21 PM

[*]There's a real market share problem in MLB. Their fan base is aging and baseball doesn't appeal to millennials in the way it appeals to us old people. They are getting great contracts now, but it's not hard to notice that the median age of it's fans continues to age. That's not good, as those fans won't live forever.

I think a very related market issue is that cable tv will soon go the way of CDs and DVDs, and VHS and Cassette tapes before them. They are all becoming obsolete by a changing consumption of media. The model of big cable tv contracts and bundled channel packages must change to an online al a carte model of some kind.

#85 twinssporto

twinssporto

    Throwin' Aspirins

  • Members
  • 1,454 posts
  • LocationTonka

Posted 07 February 2018 - 09:25 PM

 

I guess I don't get your anger. Sports is a billion dollar industry. It's not a game. It's very hard work. I'd rather that the players get paid more and owners get paid less. That's basically the only two options. Ticket prices aren't going down. Fans aren't going to get a discount. The game is incredibly popular now and that's because the players, not the owners, have made it so. Why on earth anyone would root for the owners to make more money is beyond me. 

Not sure if you were referring to me regarding anger but I intentionally wrote that I am neither for player or owner in my comments...I've mentioned this before but if you follow your logic all the way through why have owners at all?  The players can pool their own money and buy the teams outright thus eliminating the owners all together. 

 

It would be interesting to see how that model would play out.

On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.


#86 laloesch

laloesch

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,698 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 09:27 PM

End game?

Alienation of major league baseball fans looks like a real option.

I can watch H.S. ball, college ball, town ball, make a short road trip to minor league ball, even watch some little league if I want.

Love me some Target Field, but I can go to the other end of the light rail and watch the Saints for a fraction of the price, get much better seats for much less money, better selection of cheaper brew, etc.

Depends whether you are a baseball fan or a MLB fan only.

The greed vs. entitlement battle has no appeal to me.

That's why i like minor league ball and college sports. For the most part you don't have to deal with the political BS being inserted into athletic events as well as owners and players squabbling like whining babies over ludicrous amounts of money.

Now that i live in Charlotte i go to many Knights games (AAA white sox affiliate). They have a beautiful brand new stadium downtown. The sight lines are amazing, the food great, ticket prices are cheap and the beer reasonable. Not at all a white sox fan but i love the sport so i go.

Edited by laloesch, 07 February 2018 - 09:29 PM.

  • Monkeypaws likes this

#87 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,490 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 09:30 PM

 

The greed goes both ways. The owners do assume the risk, but the players are the draw for revenues for the most part. The fix, and others have stated this in other threads, is that players should be paid more earlier and then expect more reasonable contracts later in their careers. The owners look at Pujols, Miggy, Fielder, Crawford, et al. and now have enough data to realize those are stupid contracts. The players still want their piece of the pie, which they have every right to negotiate. The problem in arriving at "the fix" is that the union reps will have to be forward thinking. More Mookie Betts type arb salaries are a step in the right direction.

Longoria, Price an Shieldsjust packed them in when they played together in Tampa. Winning in Detroit brought out more fans than not winning and still havingMiggy, Verlander or Upton somewhere in the stadium


#88 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,490 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 09:34 PM

 

I think a very related market issue is that cable tv will soon go the way of CDs and DVDs, and VHS and Cassette tapes before them. They are all becoming obsolete by a changing consumption of media. The model of big cable tv contracts and bundled channel packages must change to an online al a carte model of some kind.

https://www.mlb.com/...games/subscribe

 

The league owns the internet rights.

 


#89 DocBauer

DocBauer

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,392 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 10:03 PM

I LOVE baseball and the Twins specifically. And let me state very clearly, I AM NOT TAKING SIDES in a players vs owners debate. In fact, I find it a bit silly to do so. What I do find interesting, however, is how some have vitriol to billionaire owners who OWN the teams vs players who are employees. Is this more a deep seeded "anger" towards haves and have nots? Right now, a utility baseball player who plays 5 season's, for example, will earn more money is his career than I will in a lifetime and be treated as a 1st class citizen on flights, hotel rooms, etc. And this is a "low earning" player. People talk about what a franchise is worth. Well, if it's worth that it's worth that when/if sold. It's not like that profit margin is stashed in a slush fund every single year. If any of us buys a stock or makes an investment that pays off, there may be dividends involved, but that big payday is when the stock/investment is sold.

I have NO PROBLEM with any player maximizing his earning potential! Conversely, I don't have a problem, overall, with a business owner maximizing profits and running a business intelligently. Now, I DO have a problem with any owner in an entertainment business pocketing money at the risk/loss of fair entertainment value. After all, these owners earn/earned their money elsewhere to begin with. They bought these franchises for anything from ego to being sports enthusiasts themselves. And I think ownership, as a collective, should hold certain owners accountable. But taking sides in a debate about billionaire owners and millionaire employees is kind of silly, IMO.

To the point that is supposed to be discussed!

On the field analytics are at an all time high. You don't think financial analytics aren't also being employed?

In 2017, 4 teams had payrolls of $200M or skirting it. The Royals were at the mean of $145M with several important players reaching FA. KC is paying a ton of money for Alex Gordon...a quality player in the past and a local Nebraska hero...to play LF and not hit, and not hit with power. Their window is probably closed and Hosmer is, reportedly, asking for 8 years at a huge salary. (Just one of their key players). What are they to do?

I don't buy collusion, though it's possible. Our own Twins, notoriously frugal, earned reputation or not, have offered a HUGE contract to Darvish, rumored to be the top offer thus far. I just don't see a conspiracy. I see teams being smarter about years and dollars. You think the Angels aren't holding out regrets for the Pujlos deal these days? I don't care what profession you are talking about, there are market corrections that take place. We are seeing one this year for various reasons.

Going forward, you want to fix this? Get rid of or lower arbitration years. Keep penalties in place, providing a soft cap, if not a hard cap. But also place minimum caps on teams. Other than non-guaranteed contacts, the NFL is so healthy for a reason. Yes, signing/roster bonuses and the such help offset this, but come on! If FO employees and coaches are guaranteed, then why aren't the players? And if you are an owner, and a member of the player's union, then do something for the milb players that are the supposed lifeblood for your organization! Except for bonus babies, they live in virtual poverty.
  • Blackjack, twinssporto and rdehring like this

"Nice catch Hayes...don't ever f*****g do it again."

 

--Lou Brown


#90 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Members
  • 15,204 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 10:22 PM

 

And if you are an owner, and a member of the player's union, then do something for the milb players that are the supposed lifeblood for your organization! Except for bonus babies, they live in virtual poverty.

 

This, if it wasn't said before, definitely needed to be said.Earlier I said taxpayers and fans lose in this, but minor league players are used as a pawn by both sides, neither of which give a rip about their best interest.  

 

So add them on too.

 

I'd be careful also, as others have suggested, to equate revenues with popularity.  

  • diehardtwinsfan, Oxtung, PseudoSABR and 2 others like this

#91 Sconnie

Sconnie

    Touch ‘em all!

  • Members
  • 3,815 posts
  • LocationNW Wisconsin

Posted 07 February 2018 - 10:25 PM

https://www.mlb.com/...games/subscribe

The league owns the internet rights.

indeed it does but the teams make their money from cable contracts. Currently streaming video is not an option for in market consumers, and the teams don’t get a large portion of their revenue from streaming.

#92 DocBauer

DocBauer

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,392 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 10:42 PM

This, if it wasn't said before, definitely needed to be said.Earlier I said taxpayers and fans lose in this, but minor league players are used as a pawn by both sides, neither of which give a rip about their best interest.  
 
So add them on too.
 
I'd be careful also, as others have suggested, to equate revenues with popularity.


Thank you Levi!

My dad and I were talking about this whole matter a few nights ago, FA, 2018, collusion, all of it. We all get wrapped up in prospects, drafts, rankings, possibilities, etc. But the one thing that has grated me for years is the milb system. And this is where I WILL fail against the players union. Does anyone actually pay attention to what these guys sign for past the first couple of rounds? ALL of the future MLB millionaires pass through the system to begin with. I honestly don't know, but does the union get kickbacks on contracts? Because if you ask me, if they really are a "players" union, then shouldn't they be looking at milb pkayers as well as bug FA contracts?

"Nice catch Hayes...don't ever f*****g do it again."

 

--Lou Brown


#93 prouster

prouster

    Ft Myers

  • Members
  • 382 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 10:52 PM

Is this more a deep seeded "anger" towards haves and have nots?


For me, yes.

Owners and ownership groups are unimaginably wealthy whether or not their teams make a profit. All of them are making money literally every moment of every day. Jim Pohlad could live comatose in an iron lung and still be rich on interest alone. I will begrudge them for hoarding wealth accrued on the backs of other people.

I will never begrudge a player for using his talents to earn a livelihood. Most aren't taking home 10, 15, 20 million a year. The league minimum is certainly a fine salary, but the majority of players earn it for a couple years and then wash out. MiLB is a separate issue that someone else mentioned, and I think the league's treatment of its minor leaguers is the worst thing about baseball since free agency was introduced--it's a stain on the league and a failure of the player's union.

To sum up, I don't feel bad for people who make a few million. However, I will always side with labor, because I think it's an attitude that needs to penetrate every aspect of our society.

#94 Oxtung

Oxtung

    If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence of tryin

  • Members
  • 1,979 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 11:00 PM

 

Thank you Levi!

My dad and I were talking about this whole matter a few nights ago, FA, 2018, collusion, all of it. We all get wrapped up in prospects, drafts, rankings, possibilities, etc. But the one thing that has grated me for years is the milb system. And this is where I WILL fail against the players union. Does anyone actually pay attention to what these guys sign for past the first couple of rounds? ALL of the future MLB millionaires pass through the system to begin with. I honestly don't know, but does the union get kickbacks on contracts? Because if you ask me, if they really are a "players" union, then shouldn't they be looking at milb pkayers as well as bug FA contracts?

 

I think everyone can agree that the amount MiLB players (and I'd throw in pre-Arb players as well) are paid is a travesty compared to the size of the revenue pot as a whole. 

 

My understanding of the situation is that while MiLB players are covered by the MLBPA they don't actually have votes within the union. In that case it is easy to see how things got to where they are today. One way or another they need voting rights, whether that is their own union or under the current MLBPA. Another option I suppose is outright free agency, though that would really hurt the Twins and other low revenue teams.


#95 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    G.O.A.T.

  • Twins Mods
  • 12,498 posts
  • Locationthe charred ruins of BYTO

Posted 08 February 2018 - 06:41 AM

 

I think a very related market issue is that cable tv will soon go the way of CDs and DVDs, and VHS and Cassette tapes before them. They are all becoming obsolete by a changing consumption of media. The model of big cable tv contracts and bundled channel packages must change to an online al a carte model of some kind.

I forgot to mention cord cutting when I posted my take.... this is a real problem for all sports along with all cable TV providers... but yes, this is also very valid.

  • HitInAPinch likes this

#96 ewen21

ewen21

    Chattanooga Lookouts

  • Members
  • 793 posts

Posted 08 February 2018 - 07:06 AM

 

But they are not charging more for TV contracts due to paying higher salaries.
Teams are going to negotiate the highest contract that someone is willing to pay them for the TV rights. They'd be doing that even if the players made minimum wage.

Like any for profit business in America, teams are going to try to make as much money as demand will allow.
And the players, like any workforce in America, is going to attempt to get as much of that pie as the demand for their services will allow.
Neither side is in the wrong, or greedy.

And nowhere did I ask you to defend anything.

Players get paid WAY too much and cable packages are ridiculous.

The money from those TV contracts helps enable players to be paid ridiculous amounts of money.

 

Sports in general is coming upon a salary bubble.You seem to be unwilling to concede on this one.Interesting.


#97 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,490 posts

Posted 08 February 2018 - 07:08 AM

 

indeed it does but the teams make their money from cable contracts. Currently streaming video is not an option for in market consumers, and the teams don’t get a large portion of their revenue from streaming.

If you are watching the cable company's product by streaming you are likely still paying for it. If there is not streaming available, the cable company wins

  • Sconnie likes this

#98 ewen21

ewen21

    Chattanooga Lookouts

  • Members
  • 793 posts

Posted 08 February 2018 - 07:14 AM

 

Thank you Levi!

My dad and I were talking about this whole matter a few nights ago, FA, 2018, collusion, all of it. We all get wrapped up in prospects, drafts, rankings, possibilities, etc. But the one thing that has grated me for years is the milb system. And this is where I WILL fail against the players union. Does anyone actually pay attention to what these guys sign for past the first couple of rounds? ALL of the future MLB millionaires pass through the system to begin with. I honestly don't know, but does the union get kickbacks on contracts? Because if you ask me, if they really are a "players" union, then shouldn't they be looking at milb pkayers as well as bug FA contracts?

Oh absolutely.This is an excellent point.I think minor league players should make more money for sure.

https://www.referenc...5c5db71342a3765

The average monthly salary for a triple-A minor league baseball player in 2014 is $2,150 per month. Players receive this pay for the five months of the baseball season, for a yearly average salary of just over $12,000.

 

That is shameful if you ask me.You have Yu Darvish thinking he should get 150 million dollars in guaranteed money and yet most guys in AAA are making just enough to get by.People are going to blame the owners, but where is the union in this?  


#99 Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,747 posts

Posted 08 February 2018 - 08:35 AM

Players get paid WAY too much and cable packages are ridiculous.
The money from those TV contracts helps enable players to be paid ridiculous amounts of money.

Sports in general is coming upon a salary bubble. You seem to be unwilling to concede on this one. Interesting.


1) Do you have any data to show that they are paid way too much?
Something that shows what percentage of other industries revenue goes to the workforce, in comparison to the percentage of the pie that athletes get?

2) Of course the money from cable packages helps enable rising salaries. I'm certainly not disputing that. But those prices are set by market demand. People are apparently willing to pay those prices. The rising salaries are the players getting their share of those rising revenues. The salaries are not the cause of the rising cable prices, they are the result.
I'm not sure what you are getting at here? Are you suggesting that, if owners were to pay the players less, they would just, out of the kindness of their hearts, turn down these huge bids from cable providers?

3)I have no idea when or if a salary bubble is going to burst. I'm not arguing anything involving that point, so I'm not sure what you are suggesting that I'm not willing to concede.
  • Twins33 and Oxtung like this

#100 mazeville

mazeville

    Chattanooga Lookouts

  • Members
  • 727 posts

Posted 08 February 2018 - 09:03 AM

 

There are a good number of posters on TD who don't want Darvish at 6 years. While I might disagree, I can certainly understand why others don't feel like paying 25+ M annually to a pitcher who will finish the contract at age 38. It's going to be ugly at the end. The same goes for Hosmer, if MN had a need at 1B, would anybody really want to give him at an 8th year?

 

There was a really good article already written about this. I agree that I would rather see revenue flow into the team rather than an owners pocket, but I also want that revenue spent wisely. I think the players should be making demands, and if I was Hosmer or Darvish I would be trying to get as much as I could too, but ultimately reality has to settle in. 

 

I agree that I'd personally rather the Twins spend their money wisely. I don't want this team in five years to be burdened with a horrible contract. I'm 100% sympathetic with that concern and have a tough time arguing against it.

 

But I just think that sometimes you have to bite the bullet and this is one such time. 

 

It would be a GREAT sign of faith in the current team. And it would send a strong message to fans: "When we say things are different, we mean it." 

 

Darvish would instantly make the Twins a legitimate contender. He would offset early concerns about pitching and would be some insurance against a decline by either Berrios or Santana -- struggles by either could basically doom the Twins' season as it currently stands. He is better than anybody available on the free agent market. 

 

And we DESERVE it. We've tolerated mediocre teams for too long. And we've watched other teams, even teams like Milwaukee, go all-in, signing and trading for big-name players in a bid to be competitive, while the Twins year after year basically go with what they have. We've given this team a brand new stadium only to watch it go on a long string of 90-loss seasons. We've been told to be patient for years.

 

Now this team is ready to contend. They just need to do it. They have no more excuses. Until they make a signing such as Darvish they will have the "cheap" label hanging around their necks like a great big hunk of concrete.

 

Just do it.

  • USAFChief and KirbyDome89 like this