Major League Ready

I agree with 2,3,4,5. I don't see a problem with (6) the arbitration system. If you have a way around (2) the draft without making the league utterly dominated by the richest teams even more than they are today, I would love to hear it. We could easily compensate ALL MiLB players quite well without diverting a dime from MLB players or taking any more funding from ownership. Just quit giving enormous bonuses to unproven players. They are going to get rich if they make it so why are they given multi-million dollar signing bonus, especially given the number of them that fail. If you took 75% of that bonus money and added it to wages, you could give all MiLB players a $30K raise.

This is basically my point of view as well. However, there is a point that continues to be lost here and in the media. I want to see baseball this year. One side (players) would not make as much as normal. The other side (teams) are going to lose a boat load. If returning to play means extending those loses substantially, I can't blame owners if they were unwilling to increase loses substantially by playing. Then, we don't have baseball. Most of the public is going to blame the guys that wanted to payed in full while so many are financially devastated. The "they will find a way to make money" is truly a bury your head in the sand / uniformed point off view. They are not going to magically find new sources of revenue that will make up for 9 figure loses. Do you suppose they did not tap these others ways of making money previously because they were so profitable they just ignored these other sources?

Care to elaborate? Are you referring to their 1st three years or something more conceptual in nature?

Regardless of how much revenue it generates. They are still playing a game. Sure, they work hard on their game. I work hard on my golf game. It's fun. Short of the people who inherited wealth, the people whop accumulate the wealth consistent with a MLB owner work extremely hard. Anyone here who has had bottom line responsibility for a 9-figure business or even an executive position worked very hard for that success doing things a lot less fun than playing baseball. The point is they would play that game for an eight of what they are being paid because there is not an alternative for them that would pay better. That's also how a free economy works. If the owners were all as greedy as some of you make them to be, they could insist on making double what they are now. Sure the players could strike and the owners could find replacements. If Cole were a free agent with this new reality, would he refuse to go back to work for $200M instead of $300M and go get a job? MLB owners could definitely increase profitability within the limitations of anti-trust laws if they really wanted to do so. Let's compare relative greed during the pandemic. If owners, took the stance of players, they would be looking to make their normal 12% bottom line. Without looking it up, I think the average team makes a little over $40M year. Obviously, that not even remotely possible. Most business would have laid-off most of their employees. MLB owners have been very good to their employees so far. Owners are not asking for terms that would off-set some losses if they go back to playing. Most likely, those losses would be increased even under the terms they have proposed. If they pay full contracts their losses would be even greater. There is a big difference between making less than taking $100M out of you pocket.

Yes. Revenue increased and owners were willing to spend that revenue. They definitely could have retained more net earnings but the free market system worked. Owners wanted to win and they were willing to spend within the limits allotted by the growing revenue. Now that revenue has shrunk dramatically, some players (not all) are basically saying I don't care if the revenue is not there, I still want mine and a small percentage of fans site the revenue growth as you have here but still cant understand why they should not get every dime they would have with normal revenue. Most of the working world is going to turn hard on the players if this attitude persists. Most of the world understands that owners have been quite reasonable in terms of greed. I read somewhere the average net profit for teams is around 12%. That's healthy but not crazy. What would happen If owners decided to give a 1.5 billion dollars to charities, and take it out of player salaries player salaries. The average player salary would be roughly $3M instead of $4.4M. Would they lose any talent. Is there another league that would pay them more? Would they still make far more than 99.9% of the rest of the world. Would their Jobs still be far more fun than 99.9% of the rest of the world. This is the perspective of Americans who work hard to make a living when they hear players speaking out that they should still get "their money". Most people who work hard to make a living recognize just how fortunate MLB players are to receive this enormous compensation for a playing a game.

These kinds of revenue increases are anticipated and payroll budgets are adjusted accordingly. IE Arizona signing Greinke after landing their TV deal. There are many other examples but they pale in comparison to simply looking at the increase in MLB salaries as compared to any other industry in the United States over the past 25 years. It's not like MLB had trouble attracting players in 1995 when the average salary was $1.1M. According to this Forbes article, the average salary in 1995 was 1,110,766. Adjusted for inflation using this online tool that would equate to $1,621,718. Players earned an average of 4.4M in 2017 which is 270% of the rate paid in 1995 after adjusting for inflation.

Apparently, you completely missed my point or you would not believe this validates your point. Basically, I said most people are forming an opinion without any reasonable assessment of the financial facts. You are assuming those teams would be massively profitable without providing any validation of for your assumption they would be "massively profitable." How much do those teams make with fans in the stands? Now reduce revenue by gait receipts, revenue from concessions, and merchandise sold at games. What's the total? Forbes estimate for net profit has never exceeded $100M. Revenue from the sources cited above are obviously more than $100M. So, how will they be massively profitable?

It's not that hard to get a fairly reasonable estimate of revenues. I have tried to steer the conversation to what that revenue looks like because I don't know why anyone would comment strongly one way or the other without some idea of the financial realities. The Twins TV contract is less than 40M for the full year. They also get revenue from the league. Sconnie did offer a post earlier and estimated it would be around $9M for this half season. What other significant revenue do they have that does dependent upon fan attendance? Sounds like $30M plus on-line merchandise sales. Maybe they can get 6 weeks with fans in the stands at 1/2 capacity or something along those lines. There is just no way they break even if they play so the owners should be getting credit for being willing to play knowing they will add to already large losses. I could be wrong about them not playing if they have to take these additional losses. Reason being baseball economics are unique. Most businesses cant cut what they pay personnel and retain employees. However, MLB pays 8X that of the next highest paid professional baseball league. In this case, owners can just spend less and make it back over time. We will see many non-tenders. Goodbye Eddie next year. Teams could also spend far less in free agency. We shall see how it plays out.

Let's imagine for a moment this is any other business impacted by Covid-19 and reopening a business meant incurring even greater losses than staying closed. Would you suggest a business owner should reopen because you would want access to their product. Would you determine which businesses should open based on the relative wealth of the business owner? Some of you live in a fantasy world. The owners are not going to begin the season under a scenario which assures massive losses. I don't believe they can break-even based on a 50/50 revenue split. It appears to me they are willing to accept substantial loss. They are just trying to mitigate the losses. Sounds to me like they are being quite reasonable.

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.

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.

Beloit is an ideal small town for MiLB. Beloit only has 37,000 people but Janesville and Rockford are only 10 minutes from Beloit and they have a combined population of over 200,000. A nice facility should help them draw fans. This is good for the game.

This is marketing and economics 101. A town of 15,000 is just not big enough to sustain a MiLB team. There are a number of offerings small town residents would like to have that are not viable in a small town. I bet they would like to have a Home Depot too.

Minor league baseball is a nice source of entertainment for a small town. However, I think the relative impact is being dramatized here. Minor league teams have minimal impact as an employer. I would say jobs are more crucial to the relative health of a small town than one particular source of entertainment.

According to the CDC, there have been 459 deaths in the US of people 35 or less. While this is obviously not insignificant, it is most certainly not "of historic proportions, at least not for the age demographic of 99% of the players. The coaches and some of the training staff are actually the most at risk. https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku

I agree with the general sentiment that the players need the game more than the owners. However, I don’t believe fans are accurately assessing what each side will give up to play this season. Players will give up part of their salaries but they will be better off financially by playing. Obviously, they won’t get what they normally would have but $100K or $1M is better than $0. I don’t see a scenario where fans will be allowed to return soon enough or at levels that will allow the teams to break even. In other words, they have already agreed to a scenario where it costs them to have a season. That cost for the Twins is probably $20M+ over what they have already lost if the players we paid at full rate. The point at which I would blame this on the owners would be if they demanded a profit to resume the season. For example, if they wanted to recoup the losses they have already incurred. I would go so far as to say I even expect them to resume as long as the losses are modest. They have met that expectation. Some players are stomping their feet. Basically, they want every dime they would have got without a pandemic. However, I don’t think Blake Snell’s perspective is shared by all players. What I would like to see is the players given the option to play based on the 50 percent of revenue that has been offered. They should be given the option to sit out if they are so inclined. It should be noted that less than one half of one percent of Covid-19 deaths are people less than 35 years of age.

I have already said participation should be optional. However, to suggest the owners should just accept whatever additional loses result from playing the season while players receive full comp is not only extremely bias it's the kind of thinking that will assure we don't have a season. There are quite a few players who have already made far more than they can spend in their lifetime or their kids lifetime. I could see many of them opting to take no risk. However, anyone does not think this mostly about money, they are incredibly naive. If the owners would agree to pay full compensation, 90+ percent would play. I find prejudice in any form repugnant. The hatred some people demonstrate solely on the basis of someone being wealthy is no less distasteful than prejudice based in and other form. Judge the person by their actions not the size of their bank account. I bet their are plenty of owners who have no prejudice and treat people exceptionally well. We should all strive to do the same.

I guess I should not be surprised to see a fanatical response. Who is asking them to go back for "1% of what they earn". We get it ... your point of view is that players should not suffer at all as a result of a pandemic. Owner should just accept losses no matter how massive. The owners offer is perfectly reasonable. I don't expect the owners to incur even larger loses than they would by just cancelling the season. So, If rejected, I hope the league offers any player who wants to play the chance to play at the rate offered and then use replacement players to fill the roster. If you don't want to play, their are plenty of MiLB players who would love the shot.

I think you are right. Perhaps players should be allowed to opt out of this season if they don't want to assume the risk. Let MiLB players fill those spots. However, to say the owners should just eat whatever losses come from playing this season while players are guaranteed 100% of their normal compensation is an exceptionally prejudiced thought process. Just a thought ... There are a hole lot of people happy to go back to work for 1% of what the average MLB player earns.

Bravo! Finally someone looking at this logically rather than emotionally. I was listening to MLB radio yesterday and they were waxing on about how the players should not have to take anything less than full compensation. My first thought was along the same lines as your first sentence. Passing judgment without even knowing the numbers demonstrates a point of view developed from bias. Normally, we could estimate revenue pretty accurately. In this case, we don’t know when or if fans will be allowed to return. The Twins TV Revenue is roughly $40M/yr or roughly 15% of last year’s revenue. Of course, there are other sources outside of attendance but gate receipts have to be in the neighborhood of two-thirds of the team’s revenue. No fans equates to total revenue of less than $50M for the Twins. Am I missing something? Half of player salaries would be $70M plus whatever it costs for travel and other operating costs. There is no chance owners are going to accept an agreement that potentially increases what they have already lost this year. I don’t think the player’s hang-up is the 50% number. Best case scenario is fans return in limited number for what would be the last quarter of the season. Accepting a revenue split would mean players would very likely take a substantial pay cut. From an owner’s perspective, it is highly unlikely a 50% revenue share will produce any profit. I would assume their desire to play this year is motivated by long-term concerns starting with maintaining fan support.

I spent 25 years evaluating strategies for large companies. Never did one base their expectation or desire for profits on previous earnings, That concept gets batted around frequently by fans but it has no basis in reality in the real world. We could make the same type of statement about players. Their compensation is absurd relative to the rest of the world and we have no problem when they look to maximize their earnings. Somehow the same logic is not followed when assessing the actions of owners.

It does not sound to me like you see both sides at all. The Twins TV contract is under $40M/year. That won’t even cover costs for non-player employees, coaches, and other operating costs much less player costs. Most teams are going to lose a bundle without gate receipts if players demand full compensation. So, if you want to see baseball, you better hope players decide they are willing to get compensated based on this new reality.

Boston did not find a team willing to give more because 1 year of Betts is not worth more than they received. Also, consider Boston is not going to compete this year so how much value did Betts really hold for them? What they showed here is that they are not interested in being mediocre so they sacrificed in a year they won't compete to amke themselves better for several years yo come. Kind of like the Yankees did when they got Torres. They also reset the luxury tax which will position them nicely in pursuing free agents. They get 5 years of a guy who could be an all-star in Verdugo , a SS top 100 prospect, and a catching prospect that can play 2B/3B. He could be a very nice utility player. All of this for 1 year of Betts in a year they won’t compete. I guess it’s an F if you have a very short-term view and fail to consider Boston is not likely to compete this year. Long-term this deal was a solid B+ for Boston and an A- if Downs becomes an average regular. They get a solid A if he becomes an above average regular.

Analysts generally look at profitability as a percentage of various metrics. Revenue and Return on Capital being the most common. However, that has little to do with the point I was trying to make. Many people get upset without a solid basis for judgement. IMO, fans could save themselves some frustration if they were willing to make an objective comparison to other teams.

I think you may have missed the point. Including the level of profitability gives us a relative sense of spending capacity. It makes absolutely no sense for me to accuse you of being frugal if I don’t know your spending capacity. If we don’t know profitability, we can’t have a meaningful discussion on the Twins relative ability to spend. We also can’t have an informed discussion on the Twins relative willingness to spend.