Plenty of money

[ewen21]

 

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

And what has the MLPA done for them?

[Vanimal46]

And what has the MLPA done for them?

By that same logic, why isn't MLBPA doing anything for the National Softball Association?

[TheLeviathan]

 

And what has the MLPA done for them?

 

Nothing.  There are no "good guys" in this labor fight.   So you have to pick the best of what you're left with.

 

And it ain't the owners.

[ewen21]

 

By that same logic, why isn't MLBPA doing anything for the National Softball Association?

 

You are not using logic if this is the kind of connection you want to make.

 

 

 

 

[ewen21]

 

Nothing.  There are no "good guys" in this labor fight.   So you have to pick the best of what you're left with.

 

And it ain't the owners.

 

I chose neither the players or the owners.  I will say the owners do, however, put up the capital and take the risks.  I have seen a lot of people here saying there are no risks running a sports franchise but they are going to need to tell the six franchises that had a negative operating income last year.  That accounts for 20% of the league's franchises losing money.

 

At this point, there are risks in purchasing a major league franchise.  There seems to be a pervasive myth around here that there is no saturation in this industry.  EVERY market has a saturation point and market has it's own economy.  When you have an industry that raised the median salary by over 200% during a 15 year period not long ago in this environment it is foolish to think there isn't going to be a correction.

 

Ballplayers act like shareholders that aren't allowed to lose money.  Pay us when the money comes in, but when you lose money pay me anyway.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I chose neither the players or the owners.  I will say the owners do, however, put up the capital and take the risks.  I have seen a lot of people here saying there are no risks running a sports franchise but they are going to need to tell the six franchises that had a negative operating income last year.  That accounts for 20% of the league's franchises losing money.

 

At this point, there are risks in purchasing a major league franchise.  There seems to be a pervasive myth around here that there is no saturation in this industry.  EVERY market has a saturation point and market has it's own economy.  When you have an industry that raised the median salary by over 200% during a 15 year period not long ago in this environment it is foolish to think there isn't going to be a correction.

 

Ballplayers act like shareholders that aren't allowed to lose money.  Pay us when the money comes in, but when you lose money pay me anyway.

 

And owners soak us tax-payers to fund their money making operation, sell us on promises, and then go back on them.  They up our ticket prices, concession prices, and profit at enormous levels on media deals.

 

I won't, and can't, side with them.  At least the players are only indirectly soaking us.  The owners are extorting us and using our money to turn enormous profits.  Screw those guys.

[Vanimal46]

You are not using logic if this is the kind of connection you want to make.

... Still waiting for the light bulb to go off that MLBPA and MiLB are 2 separate organizations...

[Mike Sixel]

 

I chose neither the players or the owners.  I will say the owners do, however, put up the capital and take the risks.  I have seen a lot of people here saying there are no risks running a sports franchise but they are going to need to tell the six franchises that had a negative operating income last year.  That accounts for 20% of the league's franchises losing money.

 

At this point, there are risks in purchasing a major league franchise.  There seems to be a pervasive myth around here that there is no saturation in this industry.  EVERY market has a saturation point and market has it's own economy.  When you have an industry that raised the median salary by over 200% during a 15 year period not long ago in this environment it is foolish to think there isn't going to be a correction.

 

Ballplayers act like shareholders that aren't allowed to lose money.  Pay us when the money comes in, but when you lose money pay me anyway.

 

I feel really bad for the billionaires who inherited this awful situation of risk with no reward.....just awful.

[biggentleben]

 

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.

 

To be clear, the Dodgers and Cubs are talking about the luxury tax and a lack of desire to pass it. Seeing the Red Sox kicked all the way back into the second round this year was eye-opening to teams.

[biggentleben]

Not discussed here (yet) is something that I wrote a piece on today, something I found incredibly disingenuous at best and worthy of a lot of four-letter words at the worsst...

 

https://calltothepen.com/2019/02/21/mlb-free-agency-certain-owners-just-jerks/

[Mike Sixel]

So baseball subsidizes real estate, then the real estate money goes, um, not back to baseball....

 

Check out @craigcalcaterra’s Tweet:

[biggentleben]

Calcaterra's research is poor, to say the least. Yes, the team is paying money toward debts. However, they have had record payrolls over the last five years in 2 Opening Days (and the OD payroll has been above the level of that initial record-break in 2014 each of the last three seasons) and record year-end payrolls in 4 of the last 5 seasons, including the last three consecutively. There has been incredible spending on scouting, coaching, training, and analytics, most of which Calcaterra did not include as "baseball spending". The Liberty books are wide open, and while I'm not 100% in favor of how Liberty has been spending the money, his writing is misdirected at best and misleading at worst.

 

He's been getting absolutely roasted by Braves fans who are both in favor of Liberty to those who despise Liberty completely for this piece. That should tell you plenty.

[Mike Sixel]

Calcaterra's research is poor, to say the least. Yes, the team is paying money toward debts. However, they have had record payrolls over the last five years in 2 Opening Days (and the OD payroll has been above the level of that initial record-break in 2014 each of the last three seasons) and record year-end payrolls in 4 of the last 5 seasons, including the last three consecutively. There has been incredible spending on scouting, coaching, training, and analytics, most of which Calcaterra did not include as "baseball spending". The Liberty books are wide open, and while I'm not 100% in favor of how Liberty has been spending the money, his writing is misdirected at best and misleading at worst.

 

He's been getting absolutely roasted by Braves fans who are both in favor of Liberty to those who despise Liberty completely for this piece. That should tell you plenty.

It tells me most don't understand where the money is going, not to the team, but other parts of the business. Fans, as we all know, aren't the most rational beings.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

Calcaterra's research is poor, to say the least. Yes, the team is paying money toward debts. However, they have had record payrolls over the last five years in 2 Opening Days (and the OD payroll has been above the level of that initial record-break in 2014 each of the last three seasons) and record year-end payrolls in 4 of the last 5 seasons, including the last three consecutively. There has been incredible spending on scouting, coaching, training, and analytics, most of which Calcaterra did not include as "baseball spending". The Liberty books are wide open, and while I'm not 100% in favor of how Liberty has been spending the money, his writing is misdirected at best and misleading at worst.

 

He's been getting absolutely roasted by Braves fans who are both in favor of Liberty to those who despise Liberty completely for this piece. That should tell you plenty.

I'd say "absolutely roasted" is an exaggeration. Unless you have links to other discussions or other  information to share or there's a radio guy with a bone to pick that you heard.  

 

In the 45 comments below the article, it's slightly in favor of Liberty's property development, but no one's really roasting Calcaterra over his position on it, and the comment thread somehow devolves into a discussion Apple's iPad before page two (not unlike discussions here)

[biggentleben]

 

I'd say "absolutely roasted" is an exaggeration. Unless you have links to other discussions or other  information to share or there's a radio guy with a bone to pick that you heard.  

 

In the 45 comments below the article, it's slightly in favor of Liberty's property development, but no one's really roasting Calcaterra over his position on it, and the comment thread somehow devolves into a discussion Apple's iPad before page two (not unlike discussions here)

 

Search "F*** Craig Calcaterra" on Twitter...

 

The Twitter comments, Facebook comments, and blog articles written on this have nearly all ripped Craig.

[biggentleben]

 

It tells me most don't understand where the money is going, not to the team, but other parts of the business. Fans, as we all know, aren't the most rational beings.

 

That's just it. The money is being spent on aspects of the team. The significant increases in the spending in those areas combined with record payrolls definitely make Craig's point an odd one.

[cardsfan]

What I wonder is why television revenues keep increasing when you look at the post-season ratings which are down significantly from the 1970's and '80's. Its hard to believe that revenues are going to increase higher than inflation. The 10000 more strikeouts in the past decade isn't helping.

[Mike Sixel]

What I wonder is why television revenues keep increasing when you look at the post-season ratings which are down significantly from the 1970's and '80's. Its hard to believe that revenues are going to increase higher than inflation. The 10000 more strikeouts in the past decade isn't helping.

Because they are still better than tv stations doing their own shows, which require large investments in writers, directors, actors, etc, plus the risk the show is bad..... And sports ratings are dropping slower than general ratings. I'd argue it is a lack of ability to adjust in the networks behalf, to a changed world

[Mike Sixel]

650%......sure, there's risk.....even if the numbers are off by A LOT....that shows just one way how unfair the market is to players.

 

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/we-analyzed-the-value-of-international-signing-bonus-money/

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

Sure, the teams are taking "all the risk".....sure, there just isn't more money to spend on salaries....sure....

 

https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2019/04/10/every-baseball-team-is-worth-at-least-a-billion-dollars/

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2019/04/10/baseball-team-values-2019-yankees-lead-league-at-46-billion/#39fdb5f569b2

 

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

Sure, the teams are taking "all the risk".....sure, there just isn't more money to spend on salaries....sure....

 

https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2019/04/10/every-baseball-team-is-worth-at-least-a-billion-dollars/

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2019/04/10/baseball-team-values-2019-yankees-lead-league-at-46-billion/#39fdb5f569b2

 

The Owners are taking all the financial risks.  Literally 100% of them.  No player, on any team, pays for coaches, travel, lodging, food, equipment, marketing, stadium updates, etc.  They show up when they are required to, and collect their guaranteed, agreed-upon salary regardless of how either the business, or the player performs.  If the players want an equal percentage of profits, they need to contribute an equal percentage of investment, which means in bad years the players might lose money.  None of them are willing to do that, and until they do, I have zero sympathy for the argument that a bunch of (mostly) multi-millionaires accepting zero risk are somehow being cheated.

[Mike Sixel]

 

The Owners are taking all the financial risks.  Literally 100% of them.  No player, on any team, pays for coaches, travel, lodging, food, equipment, marketing, stadium updates, etc.  They show up when they are required to, and collect their guaranteed, agreed-upon salary regardless of how either the business, or the player performs.  If the players want an equal percentage of profits, they need to contribute an equal percentage of investment, which means in bad years the players might lose money.  None of them are willing to do that, and until they do, I have zero sympathy for the argument that a bunch of (mostly) multi-millionaires accepting zero risk are somehow being cheated.

 

Not even close to true. Players buy their own equipment, hire private coaches, and invest their livelihood and earning potential while in HS, college, and the minors. They are investing in their careers, and giving up lots of income in the process. Not even close to true the teams are taking "all the risk". 

 

Not even close to true. You are cool with the billionaires not taking any actual risk though, since it is literally impossible to lose money (since you can sell the asset) in owning a team? What risk, exactly, are they taking, because not one team in decades has decreased in value. I'm curious, really, what risk are they taking?

 

And, since most players don't make it, they are taking way more risk, giving up their earning years (or college years).....

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

Not even close to true. Players buy their own equipment, hire private coaches, and invest their livelihood and earning potential while in HS, college, and the minors. They are investing in their careers, and giving up lots of income in the process. Not even close to true the teams are taking "all the risk". 

 

Not even close to true. You are cool with the billionaires not taking any actual risk though, since it is literally impossible to lose money (since you can sell the asset) in owning a team? What risk, exactly, are they taking, because not one team in decades has decreased in value. I'm curious, really, what risk are they taking?

 

And, since most players don't make it, they are taking way more risk, giving up their earning years (or college years).....

 

I said financial risk, not occupational risk.  Players are not required to purchase their own equipment, or hire their own coaches; in fact, if they're part of a major league organization they are probably discouraged from doing so.  My post specifically referred to investment in the assets of a major league franchise, to which players do not financially contribute.  At all.

 

Yes, they do invest their time, but that does not mean they are investing in the organization.  For example, let's say you work as a window installer, and you install 10 new windows in someone's house.  Because of the new windows, they are able to sell the house for an extra $10,000.  Do you, as the installer, receive a portion of that extra revenue?  After all, your time invested, doing a job, is what created that value, right?  The answer of course is no, unless you specifically had an agreement with the owner that in addition to, or in lieu of, your pay, you would receive a cut of revenue.

 

As for players supposedly taking more risk since they spend all their time working to be ballplayers, and many don't make it, again, that is not a financial risk, it is a decision risk.  It's no different than someone accepting a contract job hoping to be offered a full-time role but not getting one.  When accepting this type of role, individuals need to weigh the opportunity cost, and decide accordingly, but simply giving your time to an organization does not make you a financial stakeholder in it.  If it did, any number of fans who have spent thousands upon thousands of hours following and contributing to a teams' success should receive part of the profits.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I said financial risk, not occupational risk.  Players are not required to purchase their own equipment, or hire their own coaches; in fact, if they're part of a major league organization they are probably discouraged from doing so.  My post specifically referred to investment in the assets of a major league franchise, to which players do not financially contribute.  At all.

 

Yes, they do invest their time, but that does not mean they are investing in the organization.  For example, let's say you work as a window installer, and you install 10 new windows in someone's house.  Because of the new windows, they are able to sell the house for an extra $10,000.  Do you, as the installer, receive a portion of that extra revenue?  After all, your time invested, doing a job, is what created that value, right?  The answer of course is no, unless you specifically had an agreement with the owner that in addition to, or in lieu of, your pay, you would receive a cut of revenue.

 

As for players supposedly taking more risk since they spend all their time working to be ballplayers, and many don't make it, again, that is not a financial risk, it is a decision risk.  It's no different than someone accepting a contract job hoping to be offered a full-time role but not getting one.  When accepting this type of role, individuals need to weigh the opportunity cost, and decide accordingly, but simply giving your time to an organization does not make you a financial stakeholder in it.  If it did, any number of fans who have spent thousands upon thousands of hours following and contributing to a teams' success should receive part of the profits.

 

Minor league players buy their own shoes, gloves, bats and other equipment. They pay for private coaches. They give up (opportunity cost) making money in other professions. All of those are financial risks. All of them.

 

Your analogy is not at all the same, since the players are literally the product.......If you think it's cool that billionaires that take no risk and make more money faster than the players, that's cool. But it's not factual that owners are taking risk and players are not. 

 

And, since owners cannot lose money, they are literally not taking risk. Indeed, teams rise in value than any other real investment, without fail. No failure in decades and decades. What financial risk are they taking?

[Mr. Brooks]

I said financial risk, not occupational risk. Players are not required to purchase their own equipment, or hire their own coaches; in fact, if they're part of a major league organization they are probably discouraged from doing so. My post specifically referred to investment in the assets of a major league franchise, to which players do not financially contribute. At all.

 

Yes, they do invest their time, but that does not mean they are investing in the organization. For example, let's say you work as a window installer, and you install 10 new windows in someone's house. Because of the new windows, they are able to sell the house for an extra $10,000. Do you, as the installer, receive a portion of that extra revenue? After all, your time invested, doing a job, is what created that value, right? The answer of course is no, unless you specifically had an agreement with the owner that in addition to, or in lieu of, your pay, you would receive a cut of revenue.

 

As for players supposedly taking more risk since they spend all their time working to be ballplayers, and many don't make it, again, that is not a financial risk, it is a decision risk. It's no different than someone accepting a contract job hoping to be offered a full-time role but not getting one. When accepting this type of role, individuals need to weigh the opportunity cost, and decide accordingly, but simply giving your time to an organization does not make you a financial stakeholder in it. If it did, any number of fans who have spent thousands upon thousands of hours following and contributing to a teams' success should receive part of the profits.

Not quite the same. The window installer can bargain with every potential customer in the state, and get maximum market price. They aren't drafted by the homeowner, and required to install windows for the minimum for three years, then at an arbitrated price for another three years before they are allowed to shop their skills on the open market.

 

I'd say the players take a huge financial risk the first six years of their careers.

If a player were to put up 15 WAR across their first three seasons, then suffer a career ending injury, they will have worked for 1/100th if their market value, with no equity. What is that if it's not a financial risk?

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

Minor league players buy their own shoes, gloves, bats and other equipment. They pay for private coaches. They give up (opportunity cost) making money in other professions. All of those are financial risks. All of them.

 

Your analogy is not at all the same, since the players are literally the product.......If you think it's cool that billionaires that take no risk and make more money faster than the players, that's cool. But it's not factual that owners are taking risk and players are not. 

 

And, since owners cannot lose money, they are literally not taking risk. Indeed, teams rise in value than any other real investment, without fail. No failure in decades and decades. What financial risk are they taking?

 

From what I've read at the first link below, it sounds like equipment is available at no charge, either through organizations or agents.  Therefore, if a player is paying for their own equipment, it's akin to any of us working at a company that provides free coffee, yet still going to Starbucks.  It's not a financial risk, it's a lifestyle choice.

 

Opportunity cost is also not the same as financial risk; in many cases they might be complete opposites.  If I deposit 100% of my paycheck into an FDIC ensured bank, rather than invest in shares of Amazon, I have taken the risk that Amazon won't go up.  That doesn't mean I've taken a financial risk, as my money is guaranteed to be there, in the exact amount I deposited, barring a complete and total collapse of the United States government.  It's the same deal for players; their wages will always be there, in the guaranteed amount, barring collapse of their organization.  There is no risk to their finances at all, generally speaking, only a perceived chance they could have earned more elsewhere.

 

Billionaires also do take risk.  Franchises are ephemeral things, with no intrinsic value, and no assurance that they will always be worth anything, let alone hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars.  50 years from now, baseball might only be played at semi-pro levels; owning the Twins might equate to owning a bunch of decades old trophies in terms of value.  The risk owners take is that their franchise will have long-term value, and while that may seem like a pretty low risk, ask anyone who owned Enron stock in the late 1990s about the potential risks of owning a long-term asset.

 

https://www.milb.com/about/faqs-business#15

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

Not quite the same. The window installer can bargain with every potential customer in the state, and get maximum market price. They aren't drafted by the homeowner, and required to install windows for the minimum for three years, then at an arbitrated price for another three years before they are allowed to shop their skills on the open market.

I'd say the players take a huge financial risk the first six years of their careers.
If a player were to put up 15 WAR across their first three seasons, then suffer a career ending injury, they will have worked for 1/100th if their market value, with no equity. What is that if it's not a financial risk?

 

In many cases, a window installer, or carpenter, or electrician is actually told where they have to work.  Until they gain seniority, they are in many cases limited to the jobs they can take, and their wages are capped.

 

It is not a financial risk to be paid less at the beginning of your career, until you have demonstrated a track record of performance.  Working for less than your market value, in hopes of in the future being paid more than your market value is simply a strategy to maximize career earnings.  If that seems like a bad strategy, the players are more than welcome to reject the possibility of a career where the minimum salary is approximately 30 times the overall wage, and 11 times the average household income.

[Mr. Brooks]

In many cases, a window installer, or carpenter, or electrician is actually told where they have to work. Until they gain seniority, they are in many cases limited to the jobs they can take, and their wages are capped.

 

It is not a financial risk to be paid less at the beginning of your career, until you have demonstrated a track record of performance. Working for less than your market value, in hopes of in the future being paid more than your market value is simply a strategy to maximize career earnings. If that seems like a bad strategy, the players are more than welcome to reject the possibility of a career where the minimum salary is approximately 30 times the overall wage, and 11 times the average household income.

I don't disagree with the last sentence in your post.

It's still not an apples to apples comparison, as there isn't one to pro sports.

The window installer can always go out on their own and get market value for their services at any time, if they truly are as talented as they think. The government hasn't specifically exempted his or her employer from monopoly laws (mlb), or minimum wage laws (milb).