Major League Ready

I addressed this long ago. Distribute revenue sharing based on spending. In other words, basically have the reverse of the CBT penalty. Tax a lack of spending and redistribute the revenue sharing to teams that are spending. This is the most direct way to deal with this issue. It also decreases the gap which a floor does not. A floor does not change spending capacity. This approach does not have any of the pitfalls associated with a floor.

You simply don't understand or refuse to acknowledge the point. The most salient point of this discussion is acquisition methodology. What practices / strategies have produced playoff teams. If a SP produces 1 WAR it has no relevance how that player was acquired.

I understand where you are coming from. Where we disagree is that I believe the owners interest is much more in alignment with fans. As I have said, this is not for altruistic reasons. It's because preserving the sport is in their financial best interest. This is not a hunch. I have worked with hundreds of companies and the vast majority are very focused on satisfying their customers. Players are demanding things that clearly illustrate they don't have parity or the best interest of the game in mind. It pisses me off they have the audacity to push for a much higher CBT threshold, less revenue sharing, and shorter control while trying to tell us they are worried about competitive integrity. These things very clearly widen the disparity between top revenue and bottom revenue teams. The owners tried to improve parity with increased penalties. Is this good for them financially? Of course, is it also good for the game? Of course. Which position better serves a Minnesota twins fan or the game in general? I most certainly am not naive. I spent a decade advising very large companies on similar / parallel issues. I fully realize their interest is the bottom line. My experience also leads me to the conclusion that players are focused only on getting a bigger piece of the pie and the owner's interest better align with fans.

They would replace bench roles that are generally very low paid players. Those bench roles would be replaced by a starter in the form of a DH and they would be paid the average of an American League DH. It would basically prolong careers of players who get paid quite well for their bat. Candidly, I am basically repeating what the various radio personalities on MLB network have suggested would happen. Guys like Nelson Cruz would be out of the league considerably sooner without the DH. This will provide those opportunities for several players. There are many players who remain very good offensively who become a defensive liability late in their career. This would obviously extend careers of high paid players. This is pretty obvious. I think people are going out of their way to discredit the value to players or the league for that matter when we all know this would be good players.

I completely agree it's fairytale. It was in response to a post that suggested higher player salaries are somehow beneficial to the game or fans. What either side makes is of no consequence to fans which this fairytale illustrates. Most people are employess and a whole lot of them feel they should be better compensated. Therefore, they align with the side with who, they identify. I don't hear any discussion in terms of the relative merit of MLB's offer. Prearb players were due a raise IMO. They were offered an increase of $150K or 26%. However, you can't only consider the league minimum. The bonus pool like any bonus needs to be considered in tot comp. Average comp to prearb players goes from $570K to $808K by my calculations. They also eliminated draft pick forfeiture which is obviously good for players. However, it will have some negative impact on lower revenue teams in terms of their ability to hold onto players. The universal DH which would mean replacing 10-15 jobs with much higher paying jobs. Net effect of something in the neighborhood of $100M to players. Good for the game but also good for players. Owners foot the bill. Expanded playoffs means more pay for players. Teams spend at least 85% of revenue on employees and operating cost. Therefore, the players benefit at least as much from the players from the TV revenue. More fans would be engaged which is good for the game, good for fans, good for players, and good for owners but the players fight playoff expansion as well. They also added a draft lottery. An international draft would also help level the playing field and improve parity. Denied by the players, why? Let's be clear, we don't have baseball because players refuse to play under these terms. How was the free agent market going before the lockout. Did the signings suggest veteran players were not able to negotiate great contracts? The average payroll has been around $140M the last few years. Therefore, the average player capable of making an opening day roster earned $5.38M. We have players making over $40M season. Scherzer would earn roughly 1.34M per game if he remained perfectly healthy and he would make $43M next year if he didn’t play at all. Sota turned down $350M. Does this sound like conditions under which employees should refuse to work?

The average income for players that made the opening day roster the last couple years is around $5.3M. How does it change the game or our experience as fans if they made $3M/year on average? I really don't understand what point you are trying to make. We agree player income has skyrocketed. Yet, even with the considerable increases proposed they are not willing to work for what equates to generational wealth in many cases. Which by the way your dollars pay their salary. So, while your income you utilize to pay those salaries has gone up 7X over the past 50 years, player's income has gone up 140X. That makes it pretty hard for an average guy to afford to go to a game. What if the owners all decided to provide free streaming and cut the price of attendance in half and adjusted spending on free agents to compensate? That would cut player compensation considerably. They could adjust free agent spending to maintain their profit level as well. Would that be bad for the game? Why should I care if top free agents get $175m instead of $350M. How does this change the game for fans? What would change the game would be to widen the gap in the CBT threshold. Yet, people seem to cheer for it to be raised. I fail to comprehend the logic. What would hopefully change or improve parity is an Internation draft which the players rejected. What would hopefully improve the game is the rule changes the players rejected. Now, IDK how effective these rule changes would be, but something has to be done and the union is an impediment. The only thing that makes sense as to why they are standing in the way is because these are bargaining chips and it irritates the hell out of me those potential improvements are rejected for bargaining position. The Players are clearly demonstrating a willingness to prioritize compensation over the game.

We could have also been playing ball had the players accepted the latest offer. Here are the facts... The players were not exactly starting from a bad place as evidenced by the contracts handed out before the lock-out. The average payroll has been around $140M the last few years. Therefore, the average player capable of making an opening day roster earned $5.38M. We have players making over $40M season. Scherzer would earn roughly 1.34M per game if he remained perfectly healthy and he would make $43M next year if he didn’t play at all. The premise that the existing salary for veterans or the free agent market was not adequate is absurd. In addition they qualifying offer was removed which obviously was a gain but once again only advantages the top 5%. The CBT increase is no doubt modest. Why are we not dead set as Twins fan on minimizing any further advantage held by top revenue teams? The raise to offered to prearb players was $150K on the minimum or 26% plus $30M in a bonus pool which equates to roughly 88K per full-time equivalent earning the minimum. This assumes 100 full-time equivalents are used to replace injured players. In other words, 4 players playing 4 games each are 1 FTE. I could be a little off on this but I was not about to track down the exact numbers for a point that will be ignored. That’s a total average increase of $238K and average of $808K and a raise of 41%. Of course they also offered a DH which would mean 10-15 jobs at an average around $10M so another $100M to players. The fact is that the players said we are unwilling to work under these terms where players turn down $300M contracts and the average minimum is double the average pay for an ER doctor. Anyone capable of sticking on a roster for 10 years as a bench player can retire at 34-35 and never work a day in the life. Those poor bastards. How can we expect them to work under these terms. If the union went away tomorrow, baseball players would still make ungodly money and we would have none of this chaos. Perhaps more importantly, the owners would not have to work around players to institute rule changes that are necessary to counteract the changes that have led to three outcome baseball. The premise that the players position has anything to do with parity or the long-term interest of the game is extremely naive. You can't ask for shorter control and a big raise in the CBT, and a reduction in revenue sharing and insist you are interested in quality of competition. Those demands were clearly not in the best interest of the game but the players are fighting for these changes in spite of the negative effect because it increases their income, and you know those $100M or $200M or $300M contracts just are not enough.

How is raising the CBT threshold good for the game. It widens the gap in parity and there can be no argument to the contrary. In 2020, we could have had more games. The last proposal was for 80 games as I recall but 80% of comp. They elected for 60 games at 100%. They had the audacity to go public with MLB promised prorated salaries. The memo that was leaked clearly showed they were purposefully misleading the public. They are not partners and therefore not due a percentage of revenue. Partners invest capital and there compensation varies based on the success of the business or this case individual team. US Household income has increased almost identically to the adjusted rate of inflation. Had MLB players income grown at the same rate they would be making 5% of what they make today. Yes, 5%. Yet, they are unwilling to play for the increases that have been proposed. What's wrong with an international Draft? I see that as a more equitable approach that promotes parity. The owner's last offer looked perfectly reasonable. I might add that if there was no union we would have baseball and players would still be the most fortunate group of players on the planet. They would still be making 100X that of the people paying their salaries. and top players literally make nearly 1,000X that of the average American income. Yet, they are unwilling to work. Finally, if you think the players are more concerned about the health of the game than owners you have lost your mind. Even it's purely financially driven, their interest is far more long term. Also do you really think athletes, with no business experience and for the most part no formal education are better equipped to determine what's better for this business than a group of 30 of the most accomplished business people in the country? There are 3 Harvard MBAs and a couple other MBAs. Several with degrees from Wharton and 28 of the 30 are as accomplished as it comes. Anyone here who believes they are qualified to stand in judgment better have some serious credentials.

If the context is acquisition strategies .... Glasnow was acquired for a SP (Archer) that by far the more established pitcher. Michael Wacha has not broke 1 WAR since 2017. 41 y/o Rich Hill had not broke 1 WAR since 2018. I really don't understand your point. Are these really the type of acquisitions you believe will produce a contender. Before you answer, we would all jump on a steal like Glasnow but that is a very rare case. I applaud the assessment method here where you are looking at the acquisition practice of playoff teams. It's a lot more telling if you take 2-3 years of these teams. If you do this the relative effectiveness of the various acquisition methods is very evident. Anyone who really wants to know could assemble the information relatively easily.

The Padres has a .633 win percentage in 2020. Granted it was a short season. They traded for 3 well established players and turned in a .488 win percentage. Musgrove was the best of the bunch and he has 1 year remaining. Blake Snell was once again a 2 WAR SP just like ever season outside his one outstanding season. Darvish was horrible the 2nd half last year. He could bounce back but he might be a liability. Point being they might just waste multiple seasons with the strategy they followed. Meanwhile, the rays got 2/3 of Snell's war back in a good role player (Mejia) and Patino is already in the majors. We will have to see if he reaches his potential, but he may have a higher career WAR or average WAR as compared to Snell. They also saved $29M over the next two years which could be used elsewhere. When Snell is gone in two years, the Rays will still have 3 years of control with Patino and two years with Mejia.

I would like to see the increase to prearb players be primarily distributed to all players as opposed to the current proposal by the MLBPA which would distribute 60% of the dollars to one percent of the players. These are the same players likely to go on a get contracts that produce generational wealth. How about looking out for all of the players for once. I would like to see the minimum go to: 1st year - 650K or 114% of current. 2nd year – 750K or 131% 3rd year – 855K or 150% Average annual is 750K or an increase of 31%. The bonus pool should be modest. For example, a player would double his salary if meeting the criteria that has been set. It’s great to give them a bonus it should be something along the lines of doubling their salary, not multiple millions. They will get the multiple millions if they establish that value.

He is not arguing semantics at all. You are both arguing for a given strategy. Chpettit19 as provided numerous examples that support a given strategy. You are insisting your strategy is better while providing no validation. The best form of validation is pretty straight forward. Look at playoff or 90 win teams with below average revenue for any season, preferably multiple seasons. How have the various means of acquisition contributed to those teams. I have posted these facts on multiple occasions. Acquisition of established top of the rotation pitching through free agency or trading for prospects is almost nonexistent. Trading established players for prospects has had a far greater impact. Players that were drafted or acquired as prospects far outnumber these other two methods combined. You have put a lot of effort into repeating this argument over and over. It would be great if you put a little of that energy into a meaningful / unbiased assessment of the relative effectiveness of acquisition methods. It's not hard to do with fangraphs. Take the 90 win teams with below average revenue from any season. List all of the players by WAR above whatever threshold you elect to use. I used 1.5 WAR. If you do this, there is absolutely no question of the value of building from within. The reason is pretty simple. 1 WAR in free agency cost $8M+. When you have half the revenue of top teams, by definition you must be more effective per dollar spent. The notion that trades for established pitching is a good bet is absurd if you actually look at the history of these trades. I listed numerous trades where established pitching was traded for prospects that had major roles in building playoff teams. Chpettit19 listed very recent trades for pitching that did not produce much. Show us validation. Show us your insistence there is no plan can be backed up by facts that validate your position. That would be what is known as a valid argument.

Good question Cody. I think there are quite a few variables in play. 1) Do they get a great offer for Arraez? I think that might trump everything. 2) How they intend to approach 2022. If it's all about retooling, they may want to give Martin that role ASAP. 3) Do they like Martin at a specific position or do they like him in a super utility role? 4) Is there a shuffle that allows Miranda take over at 3B sooner than later? Donaldson or Sano traded. 5) Even their belief in Lewis at SS could influence what they do with Arraez. Lewis could end up at 3B or Super Utility. Unless #1 happens, I think he is with us until at least the 2022 deadline when some of these questions have more clarity.

I had the same thought. However, I count 4 only if you consider Miranda's best position 2B and I think his future is 3B with the flexibility of playing 2B & 1B. Also, and maybe I have the wrong impression, but Steer's value is that he can play multiple positions. Julien's best position probably is 2nd but he is not great defensively at any position. It would seem his value will be defensive flexibility as well. The bigger IF dilemma IMO is more immediate in the form of Arraez. Polanco has 2B covered for the next 3 years with a 4th year option and there is a good chance Miranda will man 3rd for the next several years and Martin will be here soon.

I hear (see) this proclamation often but never with any proof of concept. In other words, it’s always grand proclamation with no evidence to support it. It sure would be great if someone would actually provide evidence supporting this assertion. First, we have to define established. Montas best two season accumulated 7.1 WAR so let’s use that as the standard. How many SPs were successful acquisitions for teams with below average revenue teams acquired for prospects? List them and I will name 4:1 in favor of players that went on to produce at least 7 WAR over two seasons where the player had never produced more than 1.75 WAR (half the standard) in any season. The three teams with by far the most success over the past 20 years are Oakland / Cleveland and Tampa. It is very clear their strategy / practices are the opposite of what you insist is essential. Yet, these three are the most successful small/mid market teams. Montas had produced .2 WAR when he was acquired for established players. Manaea was acquired for a rental while still a prospect. Bassit was acquired after 1 professional season with .7 WAR in exchange for 1 year of Jeff Samardzija. BTW … They got a guy named Semien in that trade as well. Cleveland acquired Clevinger / Bauer and Carrasco and Kluber were all acquired by trading established players for prospects. History suggests that trading for prospects has been far more important than trading for established top of the rotation SPs in terms of building a winner in a small / mid-market. It would be great if someone (anyone) would provide evidence to support this often-made claim.

Another omission is these calculations is the cost (bonuses) paid to prospects. In 2021 teams paid out $437M in bonuses. Why don't we quit paying the Mark Appels huge money for failing?. Let's give every player a 100K bonus. That would cost each team $3M leaving $11.8M. Let's take that money and pay every Milb player an extra $40K/year. That would cost roughly 7.2M leaving 4.6M to add to prearb players. If each team averages 9 prearb players that would equate to a raise of $511K to 1.08M or roughly a 90% increase.

We don’t need to have full disclosure to understand that the percentage of revenue the Braves spent on payroll was very low in comparison to other teams. They spent $153M on player salary with $568M. Of course, they also had player benefits and draft bonuses of roughly $28M but those inclusions are normally not considered when payroll percentage is discussed. The $153M is 27% or at least 15% below MLB average which equates to additional profit of $85M. Of course, the fact they won the WS also provides incremental revenue that should be accounted for when comparing to other MLB teams. These facts show “the folly” in using these numbers as representative of the league norm. What it may demonstrate best is that it’s fortunate for players almost all of the teams are owned by individuals. They would appear to be much more willing to spend than corporations. The argument about league minimums is equally ignorant. It suggests the players only ask for prearb players is a raise in league minimum. If you ask your employer for a 10% raise in your base salary and a bonus of 15% and another bonus of 20% is the ask 10% or 45%? The players are asking for a 36% increase in the minimum which would be substantial in itself. In addition, they are asking for a $115M bonus pool. Obviously, only 1% of players would be included but how it’s divided does not diminish the payout. (the total net increase paid to prearb players) The net effect is roughly a 56% increase for every prearb player on opening day rosters plus an allowance of 3 FTEs per team for injury replacement. They are also demanding the number of super-two to increase from 22% to 80%. There were 36 super twos in 2021 so that equates to roughly another 80 players getting arbitration. The average increase is roughly $1M a year so let’s call it another $80M or an additional 41% for a total increase of around of roughly $850M per pre arb player. Of course, the arbitration increase will also be seen in future years so the increase has a multi-year affect. Without the multi-year effect this brings the total ask to roughly 133%. The fact that players or fans would point to the league minimum as the ask for prearb players without considering the ask for the bonus pool and 3rd year arbitration illustrates either ignorance or extreme bias. The prearb ask itself is absurd. Then, we add a huge increase in the CBT, lowering revenue sharing and all of the other demands and you have a situation that is not getting resolved until players get realistic. I would bet they could get a 50% increase in league minimum if that was their actual ask for prearb players.

I think it's absurd any stadiums have been funded in the past 25-30 years. Given the increases in revenue it has become very viable for teams to fund their own stadiums but who benefited most? Had the teams assumed that expense, they would have reduced payroll by roughly the equivalent of their facilities cost just like any other business. In other words, they would not have been able to pay the average player $4M/year. The tradeoff would have been players would have been paid less and we tax payers would not have footed the bill for stadiums. How absurd is it that a business that can afford $300M contracts for a single employee is subsidized by tax payers that make 1/100 of those employees?

The Braves had $250M more in revenue than the Twins and spent $33M more than the Twins on Payroll. That will produce some profit but suggesting this example is representative of all teams is financial ignorance. The Brave simply don't spend like a very top revenue team. This is probably the difference between a team being owned by a corporation vs an individual.

The players showed in 2020 they would stick to their guns no matter what. The owners took the covid year losses and went on business as usual. If they all decide to recoup these losses, they could adjust their free agent spending over the next 2-3 years. 115 players made more than $10M last year. IDK exactly how many were past their arbitration years but it was probably 90%. Those players were paid a collective $2.13B. It would take a couple years for the owners to adjust but it is completely within their power to recoup these losses. A 200K increase in minimum salary won't prohibit a deal. That's roughly $80M but that's not the ask for prearb increases. They also are demanding another $115M in bonus pool + arbitration for 80% of 3rd year players which is another roughly $80M. I would be the owners would go for the $200K or 36% but the ask is well over 100% for prearb players. How it's divided up does not change the collective amount. My guess is that the two biggest holdups are the 80% arbitration and the increase in the CBT threshold is the biggest holdup. All of the teams outside to top 20 revenue markets have to be pretty tired of the advantage held by the top revenue markets. Those owners are not going to allow that gap to be increased. The arbitration demand completely changes the compensation framework not just for 3rd year players but all players. That alone would be an enormous ask. Combine it with all the other demands and we have a stalemate.

Wouldn't you say the issues that diminished ratings and the issues creating an impasse on a new CBA are mostly different issues? The universal DH will help a little and expanded playoffs would definitely keep more fans engaged. However, the changes in the game and the game itself not appealing to younger fans seem to be the problem and they are not part of this impasse. Of course, one could argue a prolonged work stoppage will drive fans away but history suggests they will return.

We have blown enough 1st round picks. He would have to demonstrate he is not at risk. Plus, the fact that he has Boras as an agent is just one more reason to avoid him. We would have never signed Buxton or Polanco if Boras was their agent.

What has that got to do with the adverse effect of raising the CBT threshold? What do you care more about, preventing teams from making a profit or preventing the further erosion of parity? It's one or the other in this case. I would add that I have provided an alternative distribution of revenue sharing that would provide greater opportunity for small market teams that are spending by redistributing those funds based on payroll spending. Fans of any team outside the top 5-7 teams promoting an increased CBT or taking away revenue sharing from low revenue teams makes absolutely no sense.

As a Twins fan or even a fan of the game, why would you advocate furthering the gap in parity. You seem to suggest that the top markets being able to spend more is somehow good for the fans. There would be two groups of winners if they significantly raise the CBT threshold. The top 5-6 teams in terms of revenue could sign an additional top free agent without penalty. Therefore, those few teams and their fans as would benefit as would a handful of players. The bottom 20 teams that will never spend at that level and their fans will be further disadvantaged. Why should we want to be more disadvantaged from a competitive standpoint so that some free agent gets $200M instead of $180M?

There are firms or teams within consulting firms that specialize in economic analysis of business models. This is a deep well that would require several pages to outline and explain all of the problems associated with comparing compensation between the leagues in the context of revenue split. Nobody wants to read 10 pages so here is what is believe it or not a brief summary. 1) The percentage that goes to players is not the same as player salaries which is the number often used to calculate the percentage going to players. MLB pays out roughly 9% of revenue for player benefits and signing bonuses. How does that compare to other leagues? The NBA has virtually no signing bonuses. 2) There are a myriad of differences in Operating Costs. a. Facilities costs – How much do MLB teams spend on construction costs compared to NBA and NFL teams. b. Facilities maintenance – I would assume it costs a lot more to maintain target field for 82 games as compared to 41 games for the Wolves or 8 games for the Vikings. c. Milb costs – The Vikings have a practice squad and the Wolves have a G-league team. MLB teams have substantially more cost in their Milb operations? d. Travel and Hotel – 82 games on the road vs 41 for NBA and 8 for NFL e. Non-plater employees – how do #of employees compare between leagues. The bottom line is that the normal practice in any business relationship is to find a metric that adjusts compensation fairly as variables change. Revenue is a terrible starting point because the amount available to pay players is not determined solely determined by revenue. It’s determined by Revenue less Operating Expense. If for example average operating costs for MLB is 38% and the NBA is 33% and the NFL is 30%, a 50% revenue split is much more favorable to the other league. Now, I don’t know what those percentages are and neither does the person who wrote this article. As a matter of fact, it does not appear the author understands these principals at all. A set percentage of revenue was a smart play for NBA and NFL teams when they made those deals. If you believe revenue will continue to make significant gains and operation costs will be relatively stable, operating expense as a percentage of revenue will decrease over time. Of course, that means net income as a percentage of revenue will increase. Right now I would not bet on MLB revenue increasing. We also are facing significant inflation. If Russia invades the Ukraine we could have 10% inflation. Hat combination would be very bad for owners. Quite a few of those owners have degrees from Wharton and MBAs from Harvard. Believe me when I say this has not escaped them. Another thing that is much maligned is that the percentage has gone down the last few years. There is a factor that seems to be completely ignored by those who write about this trend. That would be that teams have taken a small part of the available budget (Revenue – Operating Cost) and invested in Analytics Teams / Equipment / Specialized Coaches / etc. This is very common in every industry. Good companies find better ways to perform. They add certain skill sets and pay for them by reducing others. They invest in equipment that displaces others. MLB teams don’t reduce the number of people. They change where they are investing. It’s become well understood that these investments in baseball are yielding great results in identifying and developing people, Assuming you accept the industries conclusion these investments will yield better results than continuing to invest 100% of their available budget on players, would you prefer they take 3-5% of the available funds and invest in other areas or would you prefer they continue to invest 100% in player salary and not hire these other staff of buy the specialized equipment? Finally, we would have to assume players would accept some combination of NBA / NFL / NBA contract terms. I just don’t believe that is remotely true. IMO they have the best terms. No maximum length of contract is huge. The negotiations in free agency often come down to number of years. The players goal is to get paid as much as possible for as long as possible after they are no longer producing at a level equal to their compensation. Just think about what percentage of the big free agent deals are underwater the last couple years or even several years. Those other leagues have some terms the MLBPA would never go for. They have much more restriction in terms of years or even maximum amounts. MLB players would also never give up contracts being 100% guaranteed. I just don’t believe the combination of terms that exist is these other leagues would be accepted by the MLBPA. The one fact in this article that is the most telling is that team values are higher for NFL and NBA teams. The most influential determinant of company value is profitability. Perceived risk and the forecasted revenue growth also play a role in evaluation. However, it’s a pretty fair assumption that the revenue split in these other leagues is more favorable to ownership which might explain their willingness to make such an agreement.