Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

Zulgad: Is MLB really making return about dollars and cents?

  • Please log in to reply
168 replies to this topic

#21 Nine of twelve

Nine of twelve

    Minnesota Twins

  • Member
  • 2,822 posts
  • LocationEarth, for the time being

Posted 16 May 2020 - 03:40 PM

 

I would love to see the league move towards a NBA type model where a salary cap is based on a percentage of league revenue. 

Rather than putting constraints on player salaries I'd rather see more extensive revenue sharing.


#22 Nine of twelve

Nine of twelve

    Minnesota Twins

  • Member
  • 2,822 posts
  • LocationEarth, for the time being

Posted 16 May 2020 - 03:51 PM

 

 

By the way, didn't the MLB use replacement players during the strike in 1995 and it was a colossal failure? Would you pay the same amount of money to attend a game at Target Field with a team full of AAAA talent?  

The strike was settled just before the season so no games were played with full rosters of replacement players. Some players who were signed as replacement players did make regular rosters after the strike.

  • SQUIRREL, Major League Ready and Vanimal46 like this

#23 ewen21

ewen21

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Member
  • 2,199 posts

Posted 17 May 2020 - 07:20 AM

 

Why do the players have to give in?

Why should they get anything more than a pro-rated salary? 

 

1. They don't work from home 

2. They are not an essential business

3. The lowest paid employee is going to be salaried at slightly over $277,000

 

Put all that against the current backdrop where over 30 million people are unemployed.Fans who loyally support baseball are the only reason why players make so much money.How about 33% for the players 33% for the owners and 33% reinvestment in the municipality?

 

If Ian Snell decides he doesn't want to play baseball then maybe he shouldn't have a job in baseball?Give a young guy his spot.

  • Tomj14 and Doctor Gast like this

#24 ewen21

ewen21

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Member
  • 2,199 posts

Posted 17 May 2020 - 07:34 AM

 

If owners take a big loss this year, payrolls will decline for 2021 and beyond.One way or the other the players will split this revenue loss.

Hello?

 

How long do the players think they could have ridden the gravy train?The minimum salary has increased by %500 since 1995.HOw far was this supposed to go?There is no such thing as a boom industry that goes on in perpituity.All things level out and deal with corrections.Companies Apple and Amazon are the only thing close and they don't pass the benefits along to the employees like baseball has.

 

Show some goodwill if you are a player. You make enough damn money and there are literally millions of fans who have no idea where their next paycheck is coming from.Baseball doesn't help us sustain life.If isn't service necessary to live daily life.As much as I love watching baseball, I could turn it off as fast as you can snap your finger.

And that is what people are going to do if the players pursue this and make it into a spectacle.I have about 10 friends who I have talked to or texted on this matter.I don't know anyone who is saying …"yeah but the owners"

 

Not a good look by the players.Not a good look at all.

This is a prime example of "jumping the shark"

  • Cap'n Piranha, DocBauer and Tomj14 like this

#25 ewen21

ewen21

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Member
  • 2,199 posts

Posted 17 May 2020 - 07:38 AM

One last thing.....

If we learn anything from this pandemic it is that safety and wellness isn't something that can be guaranteed.I don't know how Snell makes such a demand knowing full well that there are nurses, doctors, emergency workers, food service people, warehouse people, etc....etc.....forging forward through all of this.

 

It reflects poorly on every other player.If I am a major league player and I read what Snell said I am furious

  • Cap'n Piranha, DocBauer and Doctor Gast like this

#26 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    Getting Ready to Show Up to ST in the Best Shape of My Life!

  • Member
  • 13,449 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 17 May 2020 - 07:54 AM

Why should they get anything more than a pro-rated salary?


No players are saying otherwise. They agreed to a pro-rated salary. During those discussions, Scott Boras said the owners agreed to these conditions with the possibility of no fans in the stands. The owners backed out of the agreement. That’s what this is about.
  • bighat and Nine of twelve like this

#27 ewen21

ewen21

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Member
  • 2,199 posts

Posted 17 May 2020 - 08:04 AM

 

I enjoy the irony of a guy who, like me, would trade prospects for proven MLB talent almost every time, now says give the job to any willing minor leaguer. Don’t get lost in the tone of the message. The players have a right to push back 

They could push back all they want.As fans we could push back so much harder.We outnumber them and in the long run we can live without them.They can't live with out us.

  • Doctor Gast likes this

#28 ewen21

ewen21

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Member
  • 2,199 posts

Posted 17 May 2020 - 08:05 AM

 

No players are saying otherwise. They agreed to a pro-rated salary. During those discussions, Scott Boras said the owners agreed to these conditions with the possibility of no fans in the stands. The owners backed out of the agreement. That’s what this is about.

I am NOT talking only about money.Snell wants guaranteed wellness and safety.What a foolish demand to make right now.He's "risking his life"

 

Give me a break

  • Doctor Gast likes this

#29 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    Getting Ready to Show Up to ST in the Best Shape of My Life!

  • Member
  • 13,449 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 17 May 2020 - 09:35 AM

I am NOT talking only about money. Snell wants guaranteed wellness and safety. What a foolish demand to make right now. He's "risking his life"

Give me a break


Okay. This thread is titled Is MLB really making return about dollars and cents? So that’s what I’m discussing.

#30 ewen21

ewen21

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Member
  • 2,199 posts

Posted 17 May 2020 - 01:05 PM

How is it that Snell isn't making it about dollars and cents when he explictly mentioned "half salary"

 

It's even more annoying to hear him

http://www.espn.com/...lip?id=29175677

 

I understand this place likes to keep things simpatico with the ballplayers.I get that.

Isn't it also for the fans, though?  

 

I live about 90 miles up the line from NYC,The school district I work in is less than 60 miles from NYC.I know colleagues and students that have family and first responders working in and around NYC.This guy is trying to sell this "risking my life" baloney?

 

I surely hope he doesn't get a cent from the Rays this year

  • rdehring and Doctor Gast like this

#31 Sconnie

Sconnie

    Wooo!

  • Moderator
  • 5,979 posts
  • LocationNW Wisconsin

Posted 17 May 2020 - 07:25 PM

Hello?

How long do the players think they could have ridden the gravy train? The minimum salary has increased by %500 since 1995. HOw far was this supposed to go? There is no such thing as a boom industry that goes on in perpituity. All things level out and deal with corrections. Companies Apple and Amazon are the only thing close and they don't pass the benefits along to the employees like baseball has.

Show some goodwill if you are a player. You make enough damn money and there are literally millions of fans who have no idea where their next paycheck is coming from. Baseball doesn't help us sustain life. If isn't service necessary to live daily life. As much as I love watching baseball, I could turn it off as fast as you can snap your finger.
And that is what people are going to do if the players pursue this and make it into a spectacle. I have about 10 friends who I have talked to or texted on this matter. I don't know anyone who is saying …"yeah but the owners"

Not a good look by the players. Not a good look at all.
This is a prime example of "jumping the shark"

But MLB revenue grew at the same rate per quora. 1.4 billion to 8.0 billion from 1994 to 2013. Why should the players feel bad about that or not fight to get what they earned?

If owners assume the risk and keep the reward, then they shouldn’t be surprised when players don’t accept the risk on behalf of the owners.

https://qph.fs.quora...c77dbfd61bc1f-c

https://www.quora.co...seball-generate
  • glunn and DocBauer like this

#32 Halsey Hall

Halsey Hall

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,707 posts
  • LocationSilver Bay, Minnesota

Posted 17 May 2020 - 08:57 PM

I'm on the side of the fence of greedy players.Go play the game and get paid something. 

  • Sconnie likes this

he gone!


#33 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    G.O.A.T.

  • Moderator
  • 14,989 posts
  • Locationthe charred ruins of BYTO

Posted 18 May 2020 - 08:39 AM

 

No players are saying otherwise. They agreed to a pro-rated salary. During those discussions, Scott Boras said the owners agreed to these conditions with the possibility of no fans in the stands. The owners backed out of the agreement. That’s what this is about.

 

I'm not quite sure this is fair take... that agreement was based on no fans in stands and a relatively full season. That has changed... It also provided a loss cap if baseball was never played in 2020 as I understand it... 

 

Now that said, I'm really not a fan of how either side is handling this at the moment. I think baseball being played is good for the game and good for a distraction that we all so desperately need.

 

Greed is getting in the way of that though, and from my view it looks like it's on both sides. I can understand owners not wanting to lose money.. I'm not quite as thrilled about squeezing players so as to make money.. if there was a time to open the books, do a temporary revenue share for the sake of the sport, and simply break even in 2020 for the owners... now is the time to do that. Instead, everyone's playing hardball.

 

Baseball is dying sport. Any kind of work stoppage is a bad thing, and it's looking more and more like we'll see another one in a couple years too.

  • DocBauer, jkcarew and Doctor Gast like this

#34 Major League Ready

Major League Ready

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,198 posts

Posted 18 May 2020 - 03:35 PM

 

I'm not quite sure this is fair take... that agreement was based on no fans in stands and a relatively full season. That has changed... It also provided a loss cap if baseball was never played in 2020 as I understand it... 

 

Now that said, I'm really not a fan of how either side is handling this at the moment. I think baseball being played is good for the game and good for a distraction that we all so desperately need.

 

Greed is getting in the way of that though, and from my view it looks like it's on both sides. I can understand owners not wanting to lose money.. I'm not quite as thrilled about squeezing players so as to make money.. if there was a time to open the books, do a temporary revenue share for the sake of the sport, and simply break even in 2020 for the owners... now is the time to do that. Instead, everyone's playing hardball.

 

Baseball is dying sport. Any kind of work stoppage is a bad thing, and it's looking more and more like we'll see another one in a couple years too.

 

In order to tell if “it’s own both sides”… would it not make sense to look at how both sides would stand to profit. I see very little or any such logic being applied here or within the media. Any intelligent discussion on who is being greedy here starts with calculating the economic realities of playing without fans in the stands. It don’t have all the league numbers but we can’t estimate pretty accurately what it would mean to the Minnesota Twins franchise to play 82 games without Fans.

 

They would receive approximately 19M from their TV contract plus whatever they get from the national contract. My understanding is that would be roughly $5M for a half season. Most of their revenue is tied to attendance. (Gate receipts & Concessions) What other significant revenue do they have? Merchandise sales would likely by far less without fans in attendance. Would they top $40-45M in revenue without fans in attendance?

 

Players salaries for a half season $70M + taxes & Benefits = $78M/ Organizational salaries + Operating costs based on previous seasons would roughly $40M for a half season. I would assume they have found ways to trim operating costs and they must be assuming fans will be present at some point.

Perhaps there is revenue I am not aware of but it would need to be substantial if the Twins are going to have a chance to break-even.

 

Bottom line is I don’t see anyway playing games does not increase the losses teams have already incurred. Therefore, it would appear to me the owners are being anything but greedy. It sure looks like they are willing to take a substantial short-term hit in order to have baseball this season.

  • DocBauer and Tomj14 like this

#35 Sconnie

Sconnie

    Wooo!

  • Moderator
  • 5,979 posts
  • LocationNW Wisconsin

Posted 18 May 2020 - 07:04 PM

In order to tell if “it’s own both sides”… would it not make sense to look at how both sides would stand to profit. I see very little or any such logic being applied here or within the media. Any intelligent discussion on who is being greedy here starts with calculating the economic realities of playing without fans in the stands. It don’t have all the league numbers but we can’t estimate pretty accurately what it would mean to the Minnesota Twins franchise to play 82 games without Fans.

They would receive approximately 19M from their TV contract plus whatever they get from the national contract. My understanding is that would be roughly $5M for a half season. Most of their revenue is tied to attendance. (Gate receipts & Concessions) What other significant revenue do they have? Merchandise sales would likely by far less without fans in attendance. Would they top $40-45M in revenue without fans in attendance?

Players salaries for a half season $70M + taxes & Benefits = $78M / Organizational salaries + Operating costs based on previous seasons would roughly $40M for a half season. I would assume they have found ways to trim operating costs and they must be assuming fans will be present at some point.
Perhaps there is revenue I am not aware of but it would need to be substantial if the Twins are going to have a chance to break-even.

Bottom line is I don’t see anyway playing games does not increase the losses teams have already incurred. Therefore, it would appear to me the owners are being anything but greedy. It sure looks like they are willing to take a substantial short-term hit in order to have baseball this season.

revenue sharing from the league last year was approx 37M, so $18.5M less fan attendance across the league, so $9M as a guess.

Plus post season National TV contract and pride for winning the World Series again. Priceless

#36 lukeduke1980

lukeduke1980

    Pensacola Blue Wahoos

  • Member
  • 518 posts

Posted 18 May 2020 - 07:45 PM

 

Would I pay the same amount?No.But I would pay to watch the team below;

 

C: Jeffers

1B: Rooker

2B: Arraez if they can get him to cross ( I would think a 3 year, $15M contract would do it, since he's made only about $500k as a big leaguer)

SS: Lewis

3B: Maggi

LF: Larnach

CF: Wade (same as Arraez--offer him 3 and 9, and he probably crosses)

RF Kiriloff

 

Pitchers: Sands, Ober, Balazovic, Duran, Alcala, Jax, etc (Dobnak, Smeltzer and Thorpe could probably all be induced to cross too)

 

The Twins could put together a pretty decent roster for about $40M, and that's if they give those minor league guys $1M each, which means they could cover all salary costs with just the money from FSN.If we're assuming fans are back involved, the Twins could cut prices by 50 to 60%, and slowly raise those over the next few years as their player costs go back up.

I had a similar thought, each team puts together essentially a minor league roster to form one team.These players need to be developed, money should be less complicated.  

 

I'd still watch it.  


#37 Nine of twelve

Nine of twelve

    Minnesota Twins

  • Member
  • 2,822 posts
  • LocationEarth, for the time being

Posted 19 May 2020 - 06:03 AM

I know this is a complicated matter, but it really comes down to this: Will there be a net profit if a shortened season is played and can safety issues be satisfactorily addressed?

If yes, everyone gets something. If the owners have a net profit and the players have a net loss that's not right, and vice-versa. If that requires renegotiation then so be it. If it requires the owners to open their books then so be it.

If no, then wait till 2021.

  • SQUIRREL and DocBauer like this

#38 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    G.O.A.T.

  • Moderator
  • 14,989 posts
  • Locationthe charred ruins of BYTO

Posted 19 May 2020 - 07:49 AM

 

I keep seeing safety as an issue, so a bunch of 20 - 40 year old men are worrying about getting sick? In that age group dying of Covid is still less likely than if the you get the regular flu. So congrats to Snell and the rest on the fear mongering, that always helps.

the risk is a bit higher with the umpires and coaches... Tend to agree on the average player.. they really aren't taking on much in terms of risks, but they aren't the only ones on the field.

  • Tomj14 likes this

#39 Tomj14

Tomj14

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Member
  • 1,081 posts

Posted 19 May 2020 - 07:58 AM

 

the risk is a bit higher with the umpires and coaches... Tend to agree on the average player.. they really aren't taking on much in terms of risks, but they aren't the only ones on the field.

Coaches could wear N95, and the umps where those crazy mask with oxygen and what not.


#40 Major League Ready

Major League Ready

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,198 posts

Posted 19 May 2020 - 10:02 AM

 

https://www.skornort...lars-and-cents/

 

The owners have made their proposal to the players. The players association will now have to vote. 

 

The owners want to introduce a form of revenue sharing and a sort of salary cap. The players won't (and shouldn't) like that. 

 

 

Millionaires fighting against billionaires will be the story for many, but should the players just give in at this point? How might that play out when the current Collective Bargaining Agreement expires?

 

There are plenty of reasons for the players to be nervous about getting back on the field that are related to the pandemic... 

 

A salary cap would have very little impact on what teams spend in total. A VERY small percentage of players would be impacted. Of course, those are the players that are making $30+ million/year. Why are fans worried about those players? Are teams going to adjust their budgets because their highest paid player cost them a little less. I seriously doubt it. Most likely that money would be spent on players currently making more modest salaries. Why as fans would should we be upset if this happened.

 

Covid-19 related deaths for the population under 30 represent less than 1/2 of one percent of all deaths. This is not to say it's not a legit concern but this is about money. The players want to be paid for the remainder of the season as if things are normal. This is not a surprise. When players sign a contract they get every dime even if they play at replacement level (Chris Davis). They have come to expect every dime no matter what. 

 

The problem is when they want every dime and that will end up costing the owners 10s of millions, we are not going to have baseball this year. I find it very difficult to blame the owners for canceling the season if having a season is going to cost them 10s of millions beyond what they have already lost. 

  • Tomj14 likes this