Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

Jake Odorizzi, What's going on w/ him?

jake odorizzi
  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#61 Dodecahedron

Dodecahedron

    Cedar Rapids Kernels

  • Member
  • 94 posts

Posted 14 January 2021 - 11:12 AM

 

I am never exactly sure what people are trying to argue where profits are concerned. So, what exactly is the argument? The common inference is that because MLB owners are rich that they should be willing to operate at break-even or even a loss. The other inference seems to be that because increases in team valuations have been very high they should be willing to operate at b/e or a loss. I guess the overlying inference is that we could afford elite FAs if only owners were willing to forgo profits. What exactly is the point of constantly point in pointing back at owner's profit?

 

Well, yes, they should operate the team at break-even. That's what I would do. Wouldn't you?

 

You are already a billionaire, you can already live whatever lifestyle you want. You have other ventures making money. Beyond keeping a reserve of funds for the team (which yes should probably be enough to operate the team for at least a full year -- heck, 5 years), why not operate the team as a break-even venture? This would zero out your taxes and be a heck of a lot more fun. In the United States, wages are 100% tax deductible.

 

Isn't sports about having fun? If running a team is a headache, sell the team! If counting beans is what drives you in life, stay in real estate.

  • DocBauer likes this

#62 Major League Ready

Major League Ready

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,416 posts

Posted 14 January 2021 - 01:58 PM

 

Well, yes, they should operate the team at break-even. That's what I would do. Wouldn't you?

 

You are already a billionaire, you can already live whatever lifestyle you want. You have other ventures making money. Beyond keeping a reserve of funds for the team (which yes should probably be enough to operate the team for at least a full year -- heck, 5 years), why not operate the team as a break-even venture? This would zero out your taxes and be a heck of a lot more fun. In the United States, wages are 100% tax deductible.

 

Isn't sports about having fun? If running a team is a headache, sell the team! If counting beans is what drives you in life, stay in real estate.

 

OK let’s go with sports should be fun and owners should be willing to invest with no financial benefit. Why does that not apply to players? Shouldn’t they be willing to work for free or perhaps what an average guy makes or 2X the average guy? By your logic why should a player get pad 100M or 200M or even 300M? They should play for fun right?

 

Let’s pretend for just a moment it makes sense that owners were willing to operate at break-even. Who here can tell me how that would benefit fans? Obviously, they cut prices but they could do that and still remain profitable by paying players less. The next nearest professional baseball league pays 1/8 of MLB so the players would still be here at ½ the pay. The question is specific to profitability. With all the belly aching about owners should be willing to operate at break-even. Who here can tell me why that would benefit fans?

  • rdehring likes this

#63 Dodecahedron

Dodecahedron

    Cedar Rapids Kernels

  • Member
  • 94 posts

Posted 15 January 2021 - 08:19 AM

You missed my point completely.

 

OK let’s go with sports should be fun and owners should be willing to invest with no financial benefit. Why does that not apply to players?

 

 

As I said, the owners are already billionaires. The players are not, for one. For another, putting together any team, sports or not, requires paying wages.

 

Let’s pretend for just a moment it makes sense that owners were willing to operate at break-even. Who here can tell me how that would benefit fans?

 

 

I suppose you could ask some Yankees fans this question.  


#64 Major League Ready

Major League Ready

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,416 posts

Posted 15 January 2021 - 12:29 PM

 

You missed my point completely.

 

 

As I said, the owners are already billionaires. The players are not, for one. For another, putting together any team, sports or not, requires paying wages.

 

 

I suppose you could ask some Yankees fans this question.  

 

And you completely ignored my question. How would fans benefit by owners operating a break-even model?


#65 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Billy G.O.A.T

  • Moderator
  • 16,023 posts

Posted 15 January 2021 - 12:40 PM

 

And you completely ignored my question. How would fans benefit by owners operating a break-even model?

 

I have stayed out of this discussion, but it's only 'break-even' if they look at it on a strict year-to-year basis.

 

The owners have all banked prior years and decades of earnings and increased equity in their investment that overall they aren't breaking even. These aren't publicly traded companies that have demanding shareholders requiring profits increase every single quarter . If they want to go out and spend more and take less profit for a year or several years they can. In fact plenty of teams regularly do, including the Twins.


#66 Major League Ready

Major League Ready

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,416 posts

Posted 15 January 2021 - 01:36 PM

 

I have stayed out of this discussion, but it's only 'break-even' if they look at it on a strict year-to-year basis.

 

The owners have all banked prior years and decades of earnings and increased equity in their investment that overall they aren't breaking even. These aren't publicly traded companies that have demanding shareholders requiring profits increase every single quarter . If they want to go out and spend more and take less profit for a year or several years they can. In fact plenty of teams regularly do, including the Twins.

 

Now we are adapting the argument and those does not work for debating financial theories. Your argument is they could afford to break-even or take less profit in certain years. I would not argue that point. Actually, I would say this is followed to some degree today. Obviously, practices vary by team.

 

I am addressing the specific position that owners should approach management as if their billion dollar investment is a hobby or that they don’t need to take a profit because their team valuation has increased. For starters, valuation are a product of forecasted profit and sustainability. The model you suggest would not be quite as detrimental but a break-even philosophy as proposed here would virtually wipe out the valuation teams have built over decades.

 

More to the point, I keep asking what is the value to fans? The assertion many have made here that this practice would allow the Twins to acquire high end free agents we can’t afford now. Of course, that position is horribly flawed. If invested as suggested, roughly $1.2B would be invested in players. The number of players is not going to change. Therefore, the average salary would go up by roughly $1.25M. Buying power would not change at all. As a matter of fact, the bigger market teams earn more profit. Therefore, the revenue disparity which is the actual problem (not profit) would be increased and the bigger market teams would be have an even greater advantage.


#67 Thegrin

Thegrin

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,152 posts
  • LocationRipon, CA

Posted 15 January 2021 - 04:56 PM

Oderizzi ? Oderizzi ! What's going on with Jake Oderizzi ? :)

  • Otwins and terrydactyls1947 like this

#68 tony&rodney

tony&rodney

    Ft Myers Miracle

  • Member
  • 351 posts

Posted 15 January 2021 - 05:19 PM

Odorizzi should get 3/$39-45 million. I hope he does for his sake, but I don'y envision the Twins signing him at those numbers. If nobody bites, perhaps the Twins circle back for a one year contract as high as $13-15 million. Falvine have their eyes elsewhere.


#69 rdehring

rdehring

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Member
  • 2,227 posts

Posted 16 January 2021 - 10:22 AM

 

Oderizzi ? Oderizzi ! What's going on with Jake Oderizzi ? :)

I to, Thegrin, see more comments to this post and click on it every day anticipating some news on what is happening with Odo. And what do I find, more of the debate over who is more/less greedy, the billionaire owners or millionaire players. 

 

Can we please have some news regarding Odo? I for one would love the Twins to sign him as their #3 or #4 starter. Don't care if it is a one year, two year or three year deal...just get it done.


#70 DocBauer

DocBauer

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 7,085 posts

Posted 16 January 2021 - 08:50 PM

Skipped a few posts and realized I didn't miss anything at all. (My apologies to posters).

This thread is about Oddo.

We got him for nothing.

He was solid in 2018.

He was great in 2019 and earned an All Star invite, FWIW, and finished well after a dip.

His 2020 was a NIGHTMARE of injury but just nickel and dime stuff in retrospect. So he's just some 31yo "afterthought" at this point?

Forgetting Bauer, who is better out there on the FA market? NOBODY other than possibly Tanaka. And there is a serious debate as to the Yankees, or a west coast team or a return to Japan. Agent hype? Maybe.

Oddo is NOT a number 1 and on a contendjng team not a #2. But he is a very solid #3 To compete with Pineda and often pitches like he was a #2. What's not to like at $12M-ish?
  • IndianaTwin, terrydactyls1947, wabene and 1 other like this
"Nice catch Hayes...don't ever f*****g do it again."

--Lou Brown




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: jake odorizzi