Plenty of money

[Vanimal46]

https://deadspin.com/mlbs-luxury-tax-became-a-salary-cap-because-of-decades-1832200596

 

I concur with many things in this article.

[Mike Sixel]

 

 

https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2019/02/14/braves-think-their-fans-are-idiots/

[TheLeviathan]

Mike, the link doesn't seem to work.

[Vanimal46]

Mike, the link doesn't seem to work.

The Braves' FO quotes are eerily similar to Falvine. Striving for financial "flexibility" and spewing out unsubstantiated reasons why they can't increase payroll when they have the money to do so.

[Mike Sixel]

Mike, the link doesn't seem to work.

Fixed

[KirbyDome89]

That is why, when they do not appear to be doing things that will help the team win in the short term, they couch the moves in terms of “sustained success,” with the implicit promise that more winning will come later even if it doesn’t come now. That is why they explain seemingly cheap moves as moves that “maintain financial flexibility,” with the implicit promise that while money is not being spent now, it will be spent later. That is why, when they pass on a seemingly fantastic free agent, they focus attention to the potentially bad final years of a contract rather than focus on the early years in which a championship might be won, implicitly casting the free agent as sour grapes best not eaten.

 

EXACTLY the same thing going on here....

 

Hopefully more posters see this, it's a perfect summation of the frustrations a lot of us seem to feel.

[biggentleben]

It's also a very interesting take on the whole situation. From someone closely aware of the Braves situation, the team has mentioned multiple times over the offseason their intention to maintain flexibility to spend at a "significantly higher rate" at the trade deadline than they did in 2018, when they added roughly $7M in present year salary to push for the playoffs. The Braves do have a budget as they are a corporate-owned system with money line-itemed out for all to see in public releases. While not directly stated, the believed upper limit of spending would leave $25 million in payroll budget. A very slight increase in 2018 would leave $15 million available for 2019 spending. $15 million available at the trade deadline would be flexibility to pursue players like Cervelli, Dozier, Gennett, Schoop, Zobrist, Arenado, Frazier, Rendon, Dickerson, Ozuna, Hicks, Castellanos, Puig, K.Davis, Bumgarner, Cole, Kyle Gibson, Hamels, Harvey, Mikolas, Pineda, Wacha, Wheeler, Alex Wood, Betances, Cishek, Hirano, McHugh, Addison Reed, Strop, or Will Smith if their respective teams are out of the race and the need at their position is there. The ability to pursue multiple big-money guys is something a team with arguably the worst local TV deal in the game has to budget wisely for during the offseason if there are to be funds available.

[Mike Sixel]

Those numbers sounds like bunk. Their payroll was low from not competing, then they added over 120 million in revenue.... Just fifty percent of that gives them sixty million in " flexibility"....

 

On top of getting back to normal levels after dropping down.....

[TheLeviathan]

The similarities in these bad spin-jobs really do lend to the idea of collusion.  At the very least there is serious group-think happening.

[Vanimal46]

 

Then why have a luxury tax? I don't know how there wasn't a follow up question to this quote... The reporters let an 80 mph pitch down Broadway go untouched for strike 3.

[ahart10]

Raise pay in the minors and drop a level or two. Do they really need rookie ball, LowA, HighA, or so many rounds in the draft? If a team really wants to keep extra players let them stay at their ST facility and or pay them to play in Mexico or the Caribbean.

[Mike Sixel]

Raise pay in the minors and drop a level or two. Do they really need rookie ball, LowA, HighA, or so many rounds in the draft? If a team really wants to keep extra players let them stay at their ST facility and or pay them to play in Mexico or the Caribbean.

Couldn't disagree more on cutting teams.

[Vanimal46]

 

*Facepalm emoji*

 

Manfred is intentionally missing the point. It's the equivalent of someone pointing outside every time it's cold and saying "I thought we were in global WARMING."

[KirbyDome89]

 

*Facepalm emoji*

Manfred is intentionally missing the point. It's the equivalent of someone pointing outside every time it's cold and saying "I thought we were in global WARMING."

Wanting to win and trying to win aren't the same thing. 

[nicksaviking]

 

Then why have a luxury tax? I don't know how there wasn't a follow up question to this quote... The reporters let an 80 mph pitch down Broadway go untouched for strike 3.

 

I'm not a fan of many of today's sports reporters, but so far, whether it be the Twins front office or Manfred here, these guys aren't putting themselves in the position where they have to answer questions that they weren't already prepped for. Do we know where this Manfred quote came from? I can't believe it would have been from a presser, more likely from a MLB Twitter feed or from a sit down with some brown-noser who had to have his questions pre-approved.

 

Though I'd be all for if front officer personnel were required to be in the locker room and take questions with the manager and players after the games.

[Vanimal46]

Wanting to win and trying to win aren't the same thing.

Exactly. He's reframing the argument to something that can't be proven... The 'want' to win. A team like the Rays could sign a whole team of beer league softball players and say 'We want to win.' Who could prove otherwise? We don't know if the Rays really feel that roster is capable of winning.

[biggentleben]

 

Those numbers sounds like bunk. Their payroll was low from not competing, then they added over 120 million in revenue.... Just fifty percent of that gives them sixty million in " flexibility"....

On top of getting back to normal levels after dropping down.....

 

The Braves never really kept the salary structure artificially low during the rebuild, using their financial structure to bring in contracts other teams wanted to be rid of in order to acquire minor league players and/or additional draft picks. The team went into "rebuild" after the 2014 season, when their year-end payroll was $114.7M. The next three seasons saw them with year-end payrolls of $107.5M, $128.3M, $133.4M, and 136M. For what it's worth, the lowest number there would have been a franchise record if not for the 2014 salary, which was artificially inflated due to late signings.

 

The team had an Opening Day payroll of $122.6M and $118.3M in 2017 and 2018. They currently have $118.4M as the current Opening Day payroll based on projected 25-man roster. Before 2017, the team had exceeded a $100M Opening Day payroll 3 times in franchise history, including twice when their payroll placed them in the top 5 in the major leagues.

 

They added revenue on a place they owe money on and make significant debt payments on, if you're referring to The Battery. The Braves have their books open, yet people try to argue the same lines as with other ownership groups. Perhaps not EVERY owner is lying...

[biggentleben]

 

Couldn't disagree more on cutting teams.

 

Exactly. Teams are adding complex league teams all over the place right now, so obviously there's value in more lower-level teams as far as development is concerned.

[Mike Sixel]

Now the Cubs are saying they are out of money, and some fans are buying this BS.

[TheLeviathan]

Just to keep tabs we now have the Commish, Twins, Braves, Dodgers, and Cubs all marching out these talking points right?  Maybe there are others too.

 

Not good for the sport.

[ewen21]

 

Did I read a different article?  I don't want to be accused of defending the owners, I'm certainly of the belief the players need a bigger piece of the pie (specifically minor league players), but most of this article seems to suggest that the middle and bottom of the pack in baseball are not raking in hundreds of millions of dollars.  In fact, the Braves lost money for several years up to this one.  And half the profits came from the one-time Disney deal.  

 

If anything, this further illustrates the disparities in baseball and how much the media deals for the major markets like drive enormous profit margins for some while other teams float around break even and rely on increases in team value to justify them as a financial asset.

 

I read this and wonder how enormous the profits are for LA, NY, Bos, and the other markets with sweetheart TV deals.

SO a lot of the money the owners made didn't necessarily come from the baseball players.  In many successful cases it comes from how they operated other areas of the business.  Owners are not making money hand over fist in many cases, as seems to be the prevailing thought in this thread (at least up until your post).  Six teams had negative operating incomes last year:

https://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/#header:operatingIncome

 

The players just play the game.  The owners run the business, put up the capital and if they make money by doing deals that go beyond baseball then good for them.  They don't necessarily need to take that money and pump it into ballplayer salaries. I would like it if they did, but how about this for a concept..

What if players agreed to donate 2% of their salaries to guys in the high minors so they can make some money?  Maybe advocate for them a little more?

 

Seems to me a lot of people are advocating for the players to make every penny and I never hear BOO about minor league players

[Vanimal46]

Until the MLBPA also represents MiLB you're just talking to the clouds.

[Mike Sixel]

SO a lot of the money the owners made didn't necessarily come from the baseball players. In many successful cases it comes from how they operated other areas of the business. Owners are not making money hand over fist in many cases, as seems to be the prevailing thought in this thread (at least up until your post). Six teams had negative operating incomes last year:

https://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/#header:operatingIncome

 

The players just play the game. The owners run the business, put up the capital and if they make money by doing deals that go beyond baseball then good for them. They don't necessarily need to take that money and pump it into ballplayer salaries. I would like it if they did, but how about this for a concept..

What if players agreed to donate 2% of their salaries to guys in the high minors so they can make some money? Maybe advocate for them a little more?

 

Seems to me a lot of people are advocating for the players to make every penny and I never hear BOO about minor league players

We have a full thread for minor league players. And it's been mentioned over and over.

[Miggy's Little Helper]

 

SO a lot of the money the owners made didn't necessarily come from the baseball players.  In many successful cases it comes from how they operated other areas of the business.  

 

There's no basis in fact for this statement.  What baseball team is invested in something completely unrelated to the franchise or the MLB?

 

All franchise business is related to the MLB.  Team revenue is derived from the activity of baseball players.  We know that, because all you have to ask is, "How would the revenue of 'other areas of the business' be impacted without baseball players?"  For example, what does the development of BAMTech look like without having baseball games to stream?

[Riverbrian]

When they control the prime years and they do. The owners have the power.

 

Real Power is knowing when to leave a little something on the table. The power will be challenged.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Now the Cubs are saying they are out of money

Maybe they need a new stadium!

[markos]

 

SO a lot of the money the owners made didn't necessarily come from the baseball players.  In many successful cases it comes from how they operated other areas of the business.  Owners are not making money hand over fist in many cases, as seems to be the prevailing thought in this thread (at least up until your post).  Six teams had negative operating incomes last year:

https://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/#header:operatingIncome

Those numbers don't exactly pass the sniff test for me. For example, it says that Yankees only had $14M of operating income on $619M of revenue. Looking at their salaries for last year on spotrac, they paid ~$230M in player salaries. Round up, that is $300M. That leaves $305M that was spent on what exactly? They have zero debt. That $305M is more than the revenue of over half the teams in baseball. As a hypothetical, do the 5 Steinbrenner siblings (who are all listed with executive titles on team's front office page) each get $50M/year salaries, which would be an expense that would decrease the team's operating revenue but still be putting money into the owners' pockets? I don't know the answer to where the Yankee's money is going, but there is a lot of it that is going somewhere other than the pockets of the players. Further, their are ex-Yankee front office employees that mentioned that they would be in the black even with a $500M payroll (without the luxury tax).

[nicksaviking]

Both Manfred and Clark are playing the semantics game. It would be nice if Manfred would acknowledge that while it's possible that all clubs might be trying to win, not all of them are trying to win THIS YEAR. It would then be nice if Clark acknowledged that tanking to re-load has already proven to be a successful strategy as it worked for both the Cubs and Astros.

 

I'm cheering for the players in the next CBA, but I fear in doing so it will make me support a strike which I don't like. The owners need to concede so much more than billionaires are used to conceding.

[KirbyDome89]

 

The owners run the business, put up the capital and if they make money by doing deals that go beyond baseball then good for them.  

Not a single team on the list you linked decreased, or even stagnated, in value. Owners are using public tax dollars to fund private stadiums, which bump revenue and franchise value, which allow organizations to purchase either in part or whole their own cable networks. Profits can be funneled into media networks and income can be manipulated by teams controlling how much they pay themselves in "rights fees," employee salaries, ect.  Organizations are also subdivided where the divisions act as separate entities and one can pay the other for services. Yes, they're making money hand over fist....

[Vanimal46]

Just to keep tabs we now have the Commish, Twins, Braves, Dodgers, and Cubs all marching out these talking points right? Maybe there are others too.

 

Not good for the sport.

Add the White Sox to the list. Machado just isn't feasible because they need to save that money for prospects who haven't reached the majors yet... Or maybe they're trying to lock up players who have been a key part in them going 129-195 the last 2 seasons?

 

https://twitter.com/VinnieDuber/status/1097926779413716992?s=19