Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

Plenty of money

  • Please log in to reply
147 replies to this topic

#141 Cap'n Piranha

Cap'n Piranha

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,228 posts

Posted 10 April 2019 - 04:09 PM

 

Sure, the teams are taking "all the risk".....sure, there just isn't more money to spend on salaries....sure....

 

https://mlb.nbcsport...illion-dollars/

 

https://www.forbes.c...n/#39fdb5f569b2

 

The Owners are taking all the financial risks.Literally 100% of them.No player, on any team, pays for coaches, travel, lodging, food, equipment, marketing, stadium updates, etc.They show up when they are required to, and collect their guaranteed, agreed-upon salary regardless of how either the business, or the player performs.If the players want an equal percentage of profits, they need to contribute an equal percentage of investment, which means in bad years the players might lose money.None of them are willing to do that, and until they do, I have zero sympathy for the argument that a bunch of (mostly) multi-millionaires accepting zero risk are somehow being cheated.


#142 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 30,050 posts

Posted 10 April 2019 - 04:12 PM

 

The Owners are taking all the financial risks.Literally 100% of them.No player, on any team, pays for coaches, travel, lodging, food, equipment, marketing, stadium updates, etc.They show up when they are required to, and collect their guaranteed, agreed-upon salary regardless of how either the business, or the player performs.If the players want an equal percentage of profits, they need to contribute an equal percentage of investment, which means in bad years the players might lose money.None of them are willing to do that, and until they do, I have zero sympathy for the argument that a bunch of (mostly) multi-millionaires accepting zero risk are somehow being cheated.

 

Not even close to true. Players buy their own equipment, hire private coaches, and invest their livelihood and earning potential while in HS, college, and the minors. They are investing in their careers, and giving up lots of income in the process. Not even close to true the teams are taking "all the risk". 

 

Not even close to true. You are cool with the billionaires not taking any actual risk though, since it is literally impossible to lose money (since you can sell the asset) in owning a team? What risk, exactly, are they taking, because not one team in decades has decreased in value. I'm curious, really, what risk are they taking?

 

And, since most players don't make it, they are taking way more risk, giving up their earning years (or college years).....

It's been a fun year so far, GO Twins. 


#143 Cap'n Piranha

Cap'n Piranha

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,228 posts

Posted 10 April 2019 - 04:23 PM

 

Not even close to true. Players buy their own equipment, hire private coaches, and invest their livelihood and earning potential while in HS, college, and the minors. They are investing in their careers, and giving up lots of income in the process. Not even close to true the teams are taking "all the risk". 

 

Not even close to true. You are cool with the billionaires not taking any actual risk though, since it is literally impossible to lose money (since you can sell the asset) in owning a team? What risk, exactly, are they taking, because not one team in decades has decreased in value. I'm curious, really, what risk are they taking?

 

And, since most players don't make it, they are taking way more risk, giving up their earning years (or college years).....

 

I said financial risk, not occupational risk.Players are not required to purchase their own equipment, or hire their own coaches; in fact, if they're part of a major league organization they are probably discouraged from doing so.My post specifically referred to investment in the assets of a major league franchise, to which players do not financially contribute.At all.

 

Yes, they do invest their time, but that does not mean they are investing in the organization.For example, let's say you work as a window installer, and you install 10 new windows in someone's house.Because of the new windows, they are able to sell the house for an extra $10,000.Do you, as the installer, receive a portion of that extra revenue?After all, your time invested, doing a job, is what created that value, right?The answer of course is no, unless you specifically had an agreement with the owner that in addition to, or in lieu of, your pay, you would receive a cut of revenue.

 

As for players supposedly taking more risk since they spend all their time working to be ballplayers, and many don't make it, again, that is not a financial risk, it is a decision risk.It's no different than someone accepting a contract job hoping to be offered a full-time role but not getting one.When accepting this type of role, individuals need to weigh the opportunity cost, and decide accordingly, but simply giving your time to an organization does not make you a financial stakeholder in it.If it did, any number of fans who have spent thousands upon thousands of hours following and contributing to a teams' success should receive part of the profits.


#144 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 30,050 posts

Posted 10 April 2019 - 04:29 PM

 

I said financial risk, not occupational risk.Players are not required to purchase their own equipment, or hire their own coaches; in fact, if they're part of a major league organization they are probably discouraged from doing so.My post specifically referred to investment in the assets of a major league franchise, to which players do not financially contribute.At all.

 

Yes, they do invest their time, but that does not mean they are investing in the organization.For example, let's say you work as a window installer, and you install 10 new windows in someone's house.Because of the new windows, they are able to sell the house for an extra $10,000.Do you, as the installer, receive a portion of that extra revenue?After all, your time invested, doing a job, is what created that value, right?The answer of course is no, unless you specifically had an agreement with the owner that in addition to, or in lieu of, your pay, you would receive a cut of revenue.

 

As for players supposedly taking more risk since they spend all their time working to be ballplayers, and many don't make it, again, that is not a financial risk, it is a decision risk.It's no different than someone accepting a contract job hoping to be offered a full-time role but not getting one.When accepting this type of role, individuals need to weigh the opportunity cost, and decide accordingly, but simply giving your time to an organization does not make you a financial stakeholder in it.If it did, any number of fans who have spent thousands upon thousands of hours following and contributing to a teams' success should receive part of the profits.

 

Minor league players buy their own shoes, gloves, bats and other equipment. They pay for private coaches. They give up (opportunity cost) making money in other professions. All of those are financial risks. All of them.

 

Your analogy is not at all the same, since the players are literally the product.......If you think it's cool that billionaires that take no risk and make more money faster than the players, that's cool. But it's not factual that owners are taking risk and players are not. 

 

And, since owners cannot lose money, they are literally not taking risk. Indeed, teams rise in value than any other real investment, without fail. No failure in decades and decades. What financial risk are they taking?

Edited by Mike Sixel, 10 April 2019 - 04:29 PM.

It's been a fun year so far, GO Twins. 


#145 Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 7,642 posts

Posted 10 April 2019 - 05:38 PM

I said financial risk, not occupational risk. Players are not required to purchase their own equipment, or hire their own coaches; in fact, if they're part of a major league organization they are probably discouraged from doing so. My post specifically referred to investment in the assets of a major league franchise, to which players do not financially contribute. At all.

Yes, they do invest their time, but that does not mean they are investing in the organization. For example, let's say you work as a window installer, and you install 10 new windows in someone's house. Because of the new windows, they are able to sell the house for an extra $10,000. Do you, as the installer, receive a portion of that extra revenue? After all, your time invested, doing a job, is what created that value, right? The answer of course is no, unless you specifically had an agreement with the owner that in addition to, or in lieu of, your pay, you would receive a cut of revenue.

As for players supposedly taking more risk since they spend all their time working to be ballplayers, and many don't make it, again, that is not a financial risk, it is a decision risk. It's no different than someone accepting a contract job hoping to be offered a full-time role but not getting one. When accepting this type of role, individuals need to weigh the opportunity cost, and decide accordingly, but simply giving your time to an organization does not make you a financial stakeholder in it. If it did, any number of fans who have spent thousands upon thousands of hours following and contributing to a teams' success should receive part of the profits.


Not quite the same. The window installer can bargain with every potential customer in the state, and get maximum market price. They aren't drafted by the homeowner, and required to install windows for the minimum for three years, then at an arbitrated price for another three years before they are allowed to shop their skills on the open market.

I'd say the players take a huge financial risk the first six years of their careers.
If a player were to put up 15 WAR across their first three seasons, then suffer a career ending injury, they will have worked for 1/100th if their market value, with no equity. What is that if it's not a financial risk?
  • Mike Sixel likes this

#146 Cap'n Piranha

Cap'n Piranha

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,228 posts

Posted 11 April 2019 - 09:14 AM

 

Minor league players buy their own shoes, gloves, bats and other equipment. They pay for private coaches. They give up (opportunity cost) making money in other professions. All of those are financial risks. All of them.

 

Your analogy is not at all the same, since the players are literally the product.......If you think it's cool that billionaires that take no risk and make more money faster than the players, that's cool. But it's not factual that owners are taking risk and players are not. 

 

And, since owners cannot lose money, they are literally not taking risk. Indeed, teams rise in value than any other real investment, without fail. No failure in decades and decades. What financial risk are they taking?

 

From what I've read at the first link below, it sounds like equipment is available at no charge, either through organizations or agents.Therefore, if a player is paying for their own equipment, it's akin to any of us working at a company that provides free coffee, yet still going to Starbucks.It's not a financial risk, it's a lifestyle choice.

 

Opportunity cost is also not the same as financial risk; in many cases they might be complete opposites.If I deposit 100% of my paycheck into an FDIC ensured bank, rather than invest in shares of Amazon, I have taken the risk that Amazon won't go up.That doesn't mean I've taken a financial risk, as my money is guaranteed to be there, in the exact amount I deposited, barring a complete and total collapse of the United States government.It's the same deal for players; their wages will always be there, in the guaranteed amount, barring collapse of their organization.There is no risk to their finances at all, generally speaking, only a perceived chance they could have earned more elsewhere.

 

Billionaires also do take risk.Franchises are ephemeral things, with no intrinsic value, and no assurance that they will always be worth anything, let alone hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars.50 years from now, baseball might only be played at semi-pro levels; owning the Twins might equate to owning a bunch of decades old trophies in terms of value.The risk owners take is that their franchise will have long-term value, and while that may seem like a pretty low risk, ask anyone who owned Enron stock in the late 1990s about the potential risks of owning a long-term asset.

 

https://www.milb.com...aqs-business#15

Edited by Cap'n Piranha, 11 April 2019 - 09:15 AM.


#147 Cap'n Piranha

Cap'n Piranha

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,228 posts

Posted 11 April 2019 - 09:25 AM

 

Not quite the same. The window installer can bargain with every potential customer in the state, and get maximum market price. They aren't drafted by the homeowner, and required to install windows for the minimum for three years, then at an arbitrated price for another three years before they are allowed to shop their skills on the open market.

I'd say the players take a huge financial risk the first six years of their careers.
If a player were to put up 15 WAR across their first three seasons, then suffer a career ending injury, they will have worked for 1/100th if their market value, with no equity. What is that if it's not a financial risk?

 

In many cases, a window installer, or carpenter, or electrician is actually told where they have to work.Until they gain seniority, they are in many cases limited to the jobs they can take, and their wages are capped.

 

It is not a financial risk to be paid less at the beginning of your career, until you have demonstrated a track record of performance.Working for less than your market value, in hopes of in the future being paid more than your market value is simply a strategy to maximize career earnings.If that seems like a bad strategy, the players are more than welcome to reject the possibility of a career where the minimum salary is approximately 30 times the overall wage, and 11 times the average household income.


#148 Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 7,642 posts

Posted 11 April 2019 - 01:36 PM

In many cases, a window installer, or carpenter, or electrician is actually told where they have to work. Until they gain seniority, they are in many cases limited to the jobs they can take, and their wages are capped.

It is not a financial risk to be paid less at the beginning of your career, until you have demonstrated a track record of performance. Working for less than your market value, in hopes of in the future being paid more than your market value is simply a strategy to maximize career earnings. If that seems like a bad strategy, the players are more than welcome to reject the possibility of a career where the minimum salary is approximately 30 times the overall wage, and 11 times the average household income.


I don't disagree with the last sentence in your post.
It's still not an apples to apples comparison, as there isn't one to pro sports.
The window installer can always go out on their own and get market value for their services at any time, if they truly are as talented as they think. The government hasn't specifically exempted his or her employer from monopoly laws (mlb), or minimum wage laws (milb).
  • Mike Sixel likes this