The Pohlads May Still Be Planning to Sell the Twins

[NYCTK]

4 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

Shockingly, a Yankees-Dodgers Series had more viewers than an Oklahoma City-Indiana NBA championship.  I'm gonna go out on a limb and say I'll need a little more evidence than that to show that baseball's in great shape.

Can you share a comparison between the 2023 World Series viewership and the 2024 NBA finals?  I'll patiently wait.  

There's a name for cherry picking data to support your own beliefs and ignoring the data that doesn't...prop...propag....ack, I'll think of it...

I feel like you really, really miss the point. 

I admit I put zero thought into who was in each of those games, but mostly because it's irrelevant. No one's talking about the NBA being on life support because that would be ridiculous. Even though I find the sport unwatchable because of how it's a glorified 3 point contest. But if MLB is able to outdraw, or even comparably draw, eyes to it's product, how can anyone claim it's on life support? And that's just one point I used to paint this existential threat to MLB as overblown. 

I'm headed to the ballpark here shortly with about 42,000 of my closest friends to see a 22 year old phenom make his MLB debut. Some guy just yelled out of his truck "Lets Go Mets" at me. You'll have to excuse me if I'm not buying the narrative that MLB is on life support because the Pohlads only received $400 Million by selling off some of their investment property instead of $500 Million. 

[LA Vikes Fan]

2 hours ago, NYCTK said:

There already exists regulations in place that do this.

In order to hire a mid-high tier reliever in the offseason, the Twins would have to pay about $10M to that player. The Dodgers or Mets, due their luxury tax situation would have to pay about $20M in order to acquire that same player, the player getting $10M and another $10M going to the rest of the players through the funding of their programs and remaining totals going to the rest of the league.  

If a salary cap existed, there's friction league wide in those salaries, and that pitcher now might only get $7.5M. 

So, tell me again, why are we trying to save the billionaires money? 

I'd be with you if there were equalized revenues, but they're aren't. I live in LA. It's great that the Dodgers effectively have no spending limit because if their huge TV revenue and the fact they draw 50,000 plus fans a night at prices higher than most of the league. To the Dodgers, that luxury tax payment is simply a cost of doing business that does not meaningfully enter into the calculus of whether or not to acquire a particular player. Now arguably the Dodgers are also consistently good because they have the best farm system and organization, but we can't deny that the financial advantages give them a major leg up. That's also true to a lesser extent for the Yankees, Mets, Cubs, Phillies, Red Sox, Astros, and should be true for the White Sox but they are run by morons.  

I think a salary cap with a hard floor plus "Bird rights" like in the NBA could work. In other words, everyone has the same amount to spend, except that you can exceed the cap without penalty to sign a player that you've developed. There would have to be some guardrails to avoid gamesmanship. The amount of the cap  is tied to all MLB related revenues, including local TV money and you have to have better sharing of that local TV money. By doing that, you raise the cap available to play the players outside of the big markets.  This could be a little tough for the players at the top end although the salaries in the NFL and NAS suggest that the best players will be seriously paid.  Could be better for the players at the bottom by raising the basic payrolls of the Miamis, etc. This doesn't solve all the financial problems because a cap number and the cash spend can be very different depending on bonuses, guarantees, etc. just like in the NFL and NBA, but it would really help level the playing field IMHO.  

To me, that's the whole point.. You want to level the playing field so there is a more exciting product that raises overall media rights revenue, improves overall attendance, and raises fan engagement. I'm sure this idea has many holes but Baseball has a problem and this might help fix it. 

[nicksaviking]

2 hours ago, DJL44 said:

$3M minimum salary would be a good floor.

The owners are pushing for a hard salary cap because busting the union gives them a lot more money. If the salary cap didn't make them money, they wouldn't want it. It's that simple.

I think they are pushing for a cap because of their desire to expand. Las Vegas is going to make zero TV money, but supposedly oodles of new gambling/touristy/unknown revenue streams (I'm very skeptical). Meanwhile they want to expand into two more cities, which barely makes any sense because they'd be expanding into markets smaller than the current markets that are complaining (bogusly) that their profit margins aren't big enough any longer. BUT the two new markets will certainly see a huge spike in both TV and stadium/auxiliary income in the short and mid terms. On top of that, they'll be paying a significant expansion fee for the other owners to swim in.

So I'm guessing the big market owners are now amenable to significant revenue sharing since they'll also get an immediate influx of new money from these new locations. Likely not as much to offset what they send back to the smaller markets, but it may be close enough where they can FINALLY see the long term health of the sport, in the form of parity, will help them profit more in the long run.

Nothing else makes sense to me. The big market teams that try to win have NEVER wanted a cap, and now they do? They obviously know there can't be a cap without a floor within 90% of it and likely giving players somewhere between 48-55% of the gross revenue; there's no way they are successfully modeling it after anything other than what the other three major sports do. Their angle is money, as always, but if the MLBPA plays their cards right, they should come out better than ever since this cap has always been looked at as a Scarlet Letter. It's symbolically bad for the top players, but practically good for 90% of the players.

[Woof Bronzer]

35 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

I feel like you really, really miss the point. 

I admit I put zero thought into who was in each of those games, but mostly because it's irrelevant. No one's talking about the NBA being on life support because that would be ridiculous. Even though I find the sport unwatchable because of how it's a glorified 3 point contest. But if MLB is able to outdraw, or even comparably draw, eyes to it's product, how can anyone claim it's on life support? And that's just one point I used to paint this existential threat to MLB as overblown. 

I'm headed to the ballpark here shortly with about 42,000 of my closest friends to see a 22 year old phenom make his MLB debut. Some guy just yelled out of his truck "Lets Go Mets" at me. You'll have to excuse me if I'm not buying the narrative that MLB is on life support because the Pohlads only received $400 Million by selling off some of their investment property instead of $500 Million. 

Oh great, you made a point that you gave zero thought to, and now just dismiss it as irrelevant.  Nothing says "good faith" like "I'm just spitting out words, don't expect me to defend them." 

Also, some rube yelling "Let's Go Mets" has me convinced: the game is in fabulous shape and we don't need a salary cap.  

Great job all around, no notes!

[TheLeviathan]

2 hours ago, NYCTK said:

This is why I call you a duped fan spreading propaganda for the owners. You might be completely unaware but all the major leagues target a small minority in revenue sharing ~49%, although if I'm not mistaken, due to the unique nature of signup bonuses, et al, this figure in MLB is more like 55%. 

So...40% is, frankly, a terrible target that would only be sought by ownership reps. 

You should have asked for clarification rather than just straight up putting your foot in your mouth.

60% players, 40% owners.  The salary cap is merely a reflection of the revenue split.  It is irrelevant on the dollars players get.  Where it is relevant is on forcing organizations to be competent rather than just wealthy.

Baseball players, by refusing to give in to a salary cap, has been reaping a smaller percentage of revenue than their counterparts in salary cap leagues.  They are leaving money on the table.

[NYCTK]

Just now, Woof Bronzer said:

Oh great, you made a point that you gave zero thought to, and now just dismiss it as irrelevant.  Nothing says "good faith" like "I'm just spitting out words, don't expect me to defend them." 

Also, some rube yelling "Let's Go Mets" has me convinced: the game is in fabulous shape and we don't need a salary cap.  

Great job all around, no notes!

Give me evidence that isn't completely emotionally based that the sport is struggling. Or, as I was responding to, "on life support". 

[Trov]

This article makes sense, with the broadcasting contracts up in the air, and CBA expected to be a big issue, not many people would want to drop the kind of money it would take to buy the Twins.  I have a feeling how both of those situations work out will really reflect the value of a team. 

[DJL44]

4 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

The big market teams that try to win have NEVER wanted a cap, and now they do? 

They're tired of the Pirates making the most money by not competing and cashing revenue sharing checks. They want to limit the top-end salaries so the big market teams are the ones making the most profit. They're going to buy off the small market teams with windfall expansion dollars. They're also going to make sure that the floor guarantees profitability. The Pirates will still be profitable by cashing revenue sharing dollars, but they won't be the MOST profitable team.

[TheLeviathan]

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

That has nothing to do with a salary cap. If the owners want to share TV revenue more evenly that solves 90% of the problems. Share the media revenue 100% since that comes from merely existing in the league. Stop sharing in-stadium revenue to incentivize teams to sell out their stadiums (win games = more money). They can easily do this without a labor stoppage.

$3M minimum salary would be a good floor.

The owners are pushing for a hard salary cap because busting the union gives them a lot more money. If the salary cap didn't make them money, they wouldn't want it. It's that simple.

I don't think MLB thinks that parity is the biggest issue. The league maximizes revenues when the Dodgers and Yankees are in the playoffs every year. It isn't good for business to have a perennial contender in Milwaukee or Kansas City. They're using parity as a smokescreen to get the fans on their side when they lock out the players. If they get a salary cap, I'm guessing they'll set it up in a way that keeps the Yankees and the Dodgers in the playoffs.

Owners won't agree to share media revenues without other things coming into play.  Yes, sharing media revenues would do a world of good, but they aren't even agreeing to that amongst each other.  

The salary cap is merely devised by taking the percent of revenue allocated to the players and splitting it among thirty teams.  This is how the other leagues do it.  The cap itself is irrelevant....the negotiated revenue split is the issue.  Other player unions agreed to caps for increases in their portion of the shared revenue - baseball should do the same.  And demand an aggressive floor to make sure that money is spent.  

I've posted elsewhere but what you say/believe about parity and the issues with revenue disparities is simply not true.  Baseball gets to dodge parity questions because the nature of the game masks incompetence/competence/money when pure, random luck happens in the playoffs.

[Woof Bronzer]

1 minute ago, NYCTK said:

Give me evidence that isn't completely emotionally based that the sport is struggling. Or, as I was responding to, "on life support". 

No thanks.  When you use the emotionally based evidence like some guy yelling "Let's Go Mets," to make your case, but demand that others use cold hard facts, you are arguing in bad faith.  I get it, your team benefits from the current system and you don't want that to change.  

Have a nice day.  

[NYCTK]

1 minute ago, TheLeviathan said:

You should have asked for clarification rather than just straight up putting your foot in your mouth.

My foot is decidedly not in my mouth, but I think you should check your own: 

Quote

I want four things: 60/40 revenue split owners/players

That implies 60% owners and 40% players, 100% of the time. 

6 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Baseball players, by refusing to give in to a salary cap, has been reaping a smaller percentage of revenue than their counterparts in salary cap leagues.

I don't believe that's actually true. This reddit post breaks down why this Salary/Revenue comparison between leagues doesn't quite work apples to apples. 

 

I see flaws in the analysis, but the takeaway is...there are a lot of factors in play and at worst it's hard to argue that MLB players are receiving less of the revenue than NFL players, for example. 

There is literally no reason for MLBPA to give in to ownership requests for a salary cap. None at all. 

[Woof Bronzer]

6 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

I've posted elsewhere but what you say/believe about parity and the issues with revenue disparities is simply not true.  Baseball gets to dodge parity questions because the nature of the game masks incompetence/competence/money when pure, random luck happens in the playoffs.

Thanks for linking.  That chart is very illuminating.  I know there's a correlation between payroll and winning but the chart is even more stark than I would have guessed.  The problem is worse than I thought...

[TheLeviathan]

1 minute ago, NYCTK said:

 

That implies 60% owners and 40% players, 100% of the time. 

Cool....60% players/40% owners.  Now what's the excuse?

Salary Caps are irrelevant to player earning power.  Only the above negotiation matters on that front.  A floor, on the other hand, absolutely forces more money to players.

What the cap does is force teams to be competent, not just rich.  It's best for the league to force their owners to be competent rather than just rich.

 

 

[NYCTK]

28 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

No thanks.  When you use the emotionally based evidence like some guy yelling "Let's Go Mets," to make your case, but demand that others use cold hard facts, you are arguing in bad faith.  I get it, your team benefits from the current system and you don't want that to change.  

Have a nice day.  

What this tells me is you have no evidence to even suggest that the league is struggling outside of the fact that the Twins suck. 

B-b-but there's no parity! (please ignore the best team in baseball)

I ask everyone, if MLB is struggling so much like the doomsday prophets here wanna claim, how did the Pohlads allegedly receive around $400 Million for 20% of their ownership of the Minnesota Twins? 

[nicksaviking]

33 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

What this tells me is you have no evidence to even suggest that the league is struggling outside of the fact that the Twins suck. 

B-b-but there's no parity! (please ignore the best team in baseball)

You need more evidence than the decreasing money from TV rights teams are getting? Or that there are 300% fewer nationally broadcast games on ESPN and the network owned companies than there were ten years ago? Or that total MLB attendance peaked in 2007 at 79M and hasn't been within 8M of that mark since 2017? Or that the NBA has passed MLB in popularity and you have to go all the way up to the 50-64 demographic to find where baseball is still ahead (but losing ground)?  Or that Bobby Witt Jr could walk down main street in every American city and not get recognized?

The guy with the 339M payroll thinks there's parity. B-b-b-because of the B-b-b-Brewers!!!!!! Sure, you take the Brewers to win the World Series, I get the teams with top 10 payrolls. We'll see if your once every 20 year dream comes true. 

[Major League Ready]

3 hours ago, The Great Hambino said:

There is no team entering the season in the NFL knowing they have no chance to compete due to their revenue and payroll imbalance.  There are teams that have no chance, but those reasons have nothing to do with their market size.  

One thing the players should think about: there already is a salary cap in place for about two-thirds of the league - they just call it a luxury tax threshold.  And this is with no floor other than the sum of minimum salaries and the occasional empty threat of a grievance.

Might be time to AGGRESSIVELY push for a floor.  And I mean an actual floor like the NFL, not whatever pathetic non-offer offer the owners made that wouldn't have affected team behavior in any meaningful way

 

So, with the Twins rebuilding, would you want them to be required to sign veterans?  Those veterans inevitably block prospects.  There are only 26 spots available.  How do you set a floor where the Marlins and Pirates can still make a profit and have that floor push the Rockies to spend what they could afford? 

[nicksaviking]

16 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

So, with the Twins rebuilding, would you want them to be required to sign veterans?  Those veterans inevitably block prospects.  There are only 26 spots available.  How do you set a floor where the Marlins and Pirates can still make a profit and have that floor push the Rockies to spend what they could afford? 

Teams would be forced to pay the young players. Arb and pre-arb players get their fair share. And finally. Hopefully there isn't such a thing as arb and pre-arb players.

Joe Ryan SHOULD be making 25M this year.

[Vanimal46]

25 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

So, with the Twins rebuilding, would you want them to be required to sign veterans?  Those veterans inevitably block prospects.  There are only 26 spots available.  How do you set a floor where the Marlins and Pirates can still make a profit and have that floor push the Rockies to spend what they could afford? 

Rebuilding teams could sign veteran FAs to 1 year deals, they could trade for bad contracts and get draft capital in return, and other options available in pro sports. But there should be an expectation to meet a floor of spending every year. 

[Vanimal46]

The NBA model might be the way to go. Salary floor, soft salary cap with luxury tax on money spent over the soft cap. Soft cap determined by a percentage of league wide revenue. Implement a max/super max contract FAs can be offered… the current 12, 13 year contracts are absurd. 

[Major League Ready]

36 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

Teams would be forced to pay the young players. Arb and pre-arb players get their fair share. And finally. Hopefully there isn't such a thing as arb and pre-arb players.

Joe Ryan SHOULD be making 25M this year.

If that were the case, teams in the bottom half of revenue would go from being very disadvantaged to having not a prayer in the world.  Whatever level of parity we have today would be greatly diminished.  Teams like Milwaukee and Tampa would be completely screwed.

What if the Twins had not gone into rebuild and your concept was in place.  The Twins next year would have had Ryan/Ober/Duran and Jax in Arb2 and Jeffers in Arb3 and other members of the BP would have been Arb2.  There is absolutely no way the twins could afford those players so what you are lobbying for is good for players but it would destroy any chance the Twins or similar teams have of building a team and keeping it together. I heard the same type of stuff during the last CBA period.  Some fans are a lot more concerned about players maximizing their income than they are about maintaining a reasonable level of parity.

From your other posts you obviously understand the advantage the large revenue teams have so I don't understand why you would take this position.  The big markets have dominated the last 20 years and accelerating salary levels earlier would be devastating to the smaller markets.

[NYCTK]

1 hour ago, nicksaviking said:

The guy with the 339M payroll thinks there's parity. B-b-b-because of the B-b-b-Brewers!!!!!! Sure, you take the Brewers to win the World Series, I get the teams with top 10 payrolls. We'll see if your once every 20 year dream comes true. 

You take the Dodgers, and I get the other 11 playoff contenders. Then we'll see who's smart! 

Ridiculous argument man. 

 

[nicksaviking]

1 minute ago, Major League Ready said:

If that were the case, teams in the bottom half of revenue would go from being very disadvantaged to having not a prayer in the world.  Whatever level of parity we have today would be greatly diminished.  Team like Milwaukee and Tampa would be completely screwed.

No, they'd all be in the same boat because there would no longer be a 'bottom half of revenue'. Just like the other sports.

[nicksaviking]

2 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

You take the Dodgers, and I get the other 11 playoff contenders. Then we'll see who's smart! 

Ridiculous argument man. 

 

No, I'm specifically saying teams top 10 in payroll almost always win. You're the one saying that's not true because MLB is a magical and equal utopia. If there's no correlation between winning and payroll, why don't you take the bottom 10 teams and bet on them.

[The Great Hambino]

47 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

So, with the Twins rebuilding, would you want them to be required to sign veterans?  Those veterans inevitably block prospects.  There are only 26 spots available.  How do you set a floor where the Marlins and Pirates can still make a profit and have that floor push the Rockies to spend what they could afford? 

I assume any salary floor would come hand in hand with increased revenue sharing.  Players have resisted increased revenue sharing in the past because they had no reason to trust the owners to reinvest their revenue sharing funds into the roster.  In fact, it's salary suppression because it takes funds from those willing to spend and gives it to those that aren't.  If I'm the players, as long as you have a cap pegged to our acceptable % of revenue and a floor at our acceptable % of the cap, then share revenue however you please to make that happen.  There would no longer be a reason to oppose it.

I also assume a floor would come along with complete reform of the pre-free agency salary structure - higher minimums, fewer arb or pre-arb years, mechanisms to get rid of service time manipulation.

In reality, I could see this end up settling on a soft cap.  Both sides would be able to claim victory to some degree - the players fought off a hard cap, the owners won a cap of some kind.  Hopefully, both sides recognize the damage that lost games would do to their impending TV rights negotiations in 2028

[TheLeviathan]

55 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

The NBA model might be the way to go. Salary floor, soft salary cap with luxury tax on money spent over the soft cap. Soft cap determined by a percentage of league wide revenue. Implement a max/super max contract FAs can be offered… the current 12, 13 year contracts are absurd. 

Way too convoluted IMO.

The NHL probably has it best.

[TheLeviathan]

46 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

You take the Dodgers, and I get the other 11 playoff contenders. Then we'll see who's smart! 

Ridiculous argument man. 

 

On April 1st you get the bottom fifteen teams and I get the top ten teams in payroll.  

Who do you think gets a bigger payout from Vegas on that?  If it's me.  You're right.  If it's you.....then you should reconsider just how bad your argument is here.

And I think it's pretty damn obvious which that would be.  Shall we pull up the odds in Vegas from April and confirm?

[SteveLV]

A new CBA can and should put MORE money in the players pockets.  Would that satisfy you Mr. Mets fan?

Full revenue sharing, financial transparency, larger allocation to players' share, salary cap and floor, earlier FA accrual, and more money to MiLB players would be a great start.

The NFL is the Gold Standard for fair, competitive sports leagues. Look at the contract Parsons just got!

MLB is the worst.

You can be pro players and still want to see this come to fruition.  Whether it will actually happen is another issue entirely.  But it should.

[TheLeviathan]

1 minute ago, SteveLV said:

A new CBA can and should put MORE money in the players pockets.  Would that satisfy you Mr. Mets fan?

Full revenue sharing, financial transparency, larger allocation to players' share, salary cap and floor, earlier FA accrual, and more money to MiLB players would be a great start.

The NFL is the Gold Standard for fair, competitive sports leagues. Look at the contract Parsons just got!

MLB is the worst.

You can be pro players and still want to see this come to fruition.  Whether it will actually happen is another issue entirely.  But it should.

Well said, the problem with this argument is the strawman that anyone is defending owners.

You can want a salary cap, a floor, revenue sharing, redesigned arbitration/early career pay-outs....

AND

want more money for players.

They aren't even close to mutually exclusive.

[LA Vikes Fan]

1 hour ago, nicksaviking said:

Teams would be forced to pay the young players. Arb and pre-arb players get their fair share. And finally. Hopefully there isn't such a thing as arb and pre-arb players.

Joe Ryan SHOULD be making 25M this year.

This is the trade-off. Now, players in their first 6 years make relatively small salaries (for a pro athlete, not a regular human) and then some explode ,some get more modest raises, and some get to work at a used car lot. With a floor, arb and pre-arb players are likely to make more money unless you have a one star team where that guy gets 50% of the floor. The losers in a salary cap league are not the lower paid players, it's the highly paid players. A highly paid player has to take a little less so that better mid level players can be signed to make the team competitive - see Tom Brady in the NFL and Tim Duncan in the NBA, as compared to a Kobe whose unwillingness to reduce salary in his last years was one of the factors making the Lakers uncompetitive.  The other losers are the agents who represent the top tier because their % is worth less and they can't compete by making every big contract bigger than the last one. 

And that my friends, is why Bryce Harper goes off on Rob Manfred about a salary cap. He is protecting Bryce Harper's wallet and Philly's ability to sign other guys with big contracts and still pay him $30m a year. I have no problem with that, but let's not think he's a white knight protecting players as a whole.  It's the multi millionaires vs. the billionaires. Hard to get excited about picking a winner there, so I go with what I think will make the sport more fun. To me, that's a more competitive situation with more parity like the NBA and NFL. And what do they have that MLB doesn't have (other than much smarter owners)?  A salary cap and floor.  

 

[SteveLV]

Mr. Leviathan and I are in complete agreement.

Now let's get enough owners to exercise common sense and hire some NFL management to implement a new, fair and balanced system that the Players will also flourish under.

The tippy-top players may get less money, but if the 'rank and file' players and MiLB guys get more, the votes should be available to get this deal put together.