Article: Mailbag: Looming Strike, Free Agent Issues, Pitch Clock

[yarnivek1972]

Perhaps a more important question than when the CBA expires is when does the current national TV contract expire. With ratings and attendance trending down, it is extremely likely that next contract will be a significant decrease. That’s still an enormous part of revenue. I think teams are being proactive reducing payroll because revenue is about to take a major hit.

[Doctor Wu]

As a baseball traditionalist, I hate the idea of using a pitch clock. But I also have to be a realist and I think it may become a permanent part of the game in the not too distant future. The times they are a-changing (apologies to Mr. Dylan) and I think if baseball wants to include a younger demographic as fans (those with shorter attention spans!), then they are going to have to make this and a few other changes to shorten the length of the games. Sigh. I don't want that to happen, but I just think it's inevitable.

Edited February 27, 2019 by Doctor Wu

[wabene]

Maybe they should study some film of when the games were half as long and implement rules to steer players behavior in the desired direction. A pitch clock could be part of it and also a delay of game warning followed by a penalty. The three biggest problems are TV, players idiosyncratic behavior and pitching changes. TV has made the prices skyrocket to the point where the last time this family of four went to a game we dropped $300. Ridiculous. If baseball does retract financially maybe that's not such a bad thing. The salaries, prices and profits are absurd. BTW I just made plans to catch a couple of Blue Wahoo games: $6 beers I checked.

[beckmt]

I agree with raising the minor league players salaries and maybe going to 4 years of arbitration for everyone.  There are ways to game every change, so I feel we need a minimum spend floor for major league talent, somewhere at the current time around $90 million a year.  That would prop up the floor, no way to fix the ceiling.  Analytics are starting to fix it, but older players just will not get good contracts any more.

[jmlease1]

 

I'm 100% on the players' side. They do all the work. They should get rewarded at least as fast as owner's revenue grows.

And, all a salary cap does is put more money in rich owner's hands, rather than player's.

 

Fair. All I want is a far greater degree of revenue sharing so teams can operate on a more level economic playing field. I think it's reasonable for payroll to increase proportionally with revenue, but without more equitable revenue sharing you end up with the Yankees making a profit at $350M in payroll while the Rays lose money at $180M. That's not healthy either.

[Kelly Vance]

The idea that players deserve a share of profits is a socialist concept that has no place in a capitalist industry.  It is naive and simplistic, as are most socialistic notions.  I have yet to see anyone advocating these socialist concepts say that a player should return some of his salary if he sucked one year, or is sick, lame or lazy. Nobody says a manager should return a paycheck if he has a bad two weeks. 

 

Players have only themselves to think about. Owners have risks and expenses that stretch far beyond even the big league club. There are hundreds of expenses that players are never concerned with. Minor league affiliates cost money, as do facilities, coaches, scouting and administration costs at all levels. There is payroll for employees, groundskeepers, bookkeepers, and a bad year can be caused by players and cost a franchise millions. And ownership takes the risk of all the possible downside. Players share none of the risk and none of the expenses. That is how capitalism works. With great risk, there is a reward. It is the way it has always been and for good reason. Without the possibility of a big reward, nobody would ever take the risk. It is basic economics. 

 

When baseball began, it was never anticipated that ballplayers would someday be instant millionaires.  That is a sad distortion of a great game and the fans are the ones who pay the price. In 1969, the minimum big league salary was $ 23,500. That would buy a modest house back then. You could take the family to the ball park without sacrificing something else. Ticket costs rise, more than any other single reason, to pay the players outrageous salaries. We get stuck with the tab.Same thing when the lefties say "lets tax corporations."  Sounds good to some, but it is ignorant of the reality that corporations don't pay the higher taxes, we do. Corporations pass the cost on to consumers. We pay those taxes by paying more for the product. 

 

 Major league baseball has lost all fiscal discipline. And I don't feel a bit sorry for millionaires who play a game for a living. 

 

[Supfin99]

 

The problem with this way of looking at things is the reality that many of these players are underpaid* prior to free agency.  There was always an unwritten understanding that while the players would not make full value prior to FA, they would be able to make up for it on the backend of their career.  Teams are now wising up to the approach, and not securing the long term contracts like before.

 

If you are a player, wouldn't you be upset with the system?  The problem is that even fixing the issue for the younger players (faster to arbitration, faster to FA) does nothing for the current veterans.

 

*Underpaid is relative -- I understand they all make more than most of us could dream of.

I agree with what you are saying.  I get why the players are mad but at this point it is kind of like screaming into the wind.  Clubs have adjusted, they don't want to play for declining years.  But players are still insisting on this.  That isn't going to work.  What they fight for is earlier forays into free agency.  This can happen in the next CBA.  A solution that also takes care of the service time issue at the beginning of players MLB career is a set amount of time from draft or signing.  Say 8 years after draft for a high schooler and 6 years for a college player.  This ensures that all players are free agents by 26 to 28 and have numerous years of prime earning years left.  It also motivates clubs to not mess around and get their best players to the majors as quickly as possible.

[Mike Sixel]

Perhaps a more important question than when the CBA expires is when does the current national TV contract expire. With ratings and attendance trending down, it is extremely likely that next contract will be a significant decrease. That’s still an enormous part of revenue. I think teams are being proactive reducing payroll because revenue is about to take a major hit.

The NFL just signed a new deal last year, with huge increases. It may be going down, but not as fast as other viewing is. I see no evidence of a correction yet.

[Mike Sixel]

Fair. All I want is a far greater degree of revenue sharing so teams can operate on a more level economic playing field. I think it's reasonable for payroll to increase proportionally with revenue, but without more equitable revenue sharing you end up with the Yankees making a profit at $350M in payroll while the Rays lose money at $180M. That's not healthy either.

I agree!

[yarnivek1972]

The NFL just signed a new deal last year, with huge increases. It may be going down, but not as fast as other viewing is. I see no evidence of a correction yet.

That’s the NFL. I haven’t looked at their ratings or attendance. But just by looking at yearly ratings for the World Series one can see the slide. As has attendance over the last 10 years. A slow and steady decline.

[ashbury]

The idea that players deserve a share of profits is a socialist concept 

Socialism? When the gubmint gets involved, I mean beyond the Antitrust Exemption to owners, I'll pay attention to the rest of your argument.

 

This is a capitalistic negotiation between partners in an asymmetric business relationship. Somehow, you've bought the billionaires' story that the millionaires are the bad guys.

[Mike Sixel]

Off the topic of politics......I think a pitch clock is needed, but they need to force batters to stay in the box too....no one wants to watch a player adjust his gloves between every pitch. Except maybe the glove companies.

[yarnivek1972]

The idea that players deserve a share of profits is a socialist concept that has no place in a capitalist industry. It is naive and simplistic, as are most socialistic notions. I have yet to see anyone advocating these socialist concepts say that a player should return some of his salary if he sucked one year, or is sick, lame or lazy. Nobody says a manager should return a paycheck if he has a bad two weeks.

 

Players have only themselves to think about. Owners have risks and expenses that stretch far beyond even the big league club. There are hundreds of expenses that players are never concerned with. Minor league affiliates cost money, as do facilities, coaches, scouting and administration costs at all levels. There is payroll for employees, groundskeepers, bookkeepers, and a bad year can be caused by players and cost a franchise millions. And ownership takes the risk of all the possible downside. Players share none of the risk and none of the expenses. That is how capitalism works. With great risk, there is a reward. It is the way it has always been and for good reason. Without the possibility of a big reward, nobody would ever take the risk. It is basic economics.

 

When baseball began, it was never anticipated that ballplayers would someday be instant millionaires. That is a sad distortion of a great game and the fans are the ones who pay the price. In 1969, the minimum big league salary was $ 23,500. That would buy a modest house back then. You could take the family to the ball park without sacrificing something else. Ticket costs rise, more than any other single reason, to pay the players outrageous salaries. We get stuck with the tab.Same thing when the lefties say "lets tax corporations." Sounds good to some, but it is ignorant of the reality that corporations don't pay the higher taxes, we do. Corporations pass the cost on to consumers. We pay those taxes by paying more for the product.

 

Major league baseball has lost all fiscal discipline. And I don't feel a bit sorry for millionaires who play a game for a living.

You can’t inject “real world” economics into pro sports. Technically, there are 30 independantly owned MLB teams. But, they aren’t independant at all. They are interdependant. No one is going to pay to watch the Yankees play 162 intrasquad games.

 

Pro sports leagues are less like McDonalds and Burger King and Wendy’s etc all competing to be number one and more like all the McDonalds competing to be the best McDonalds. At the end of the day, all the McDonalds want the other ones to do well. What is good for one is good for the brand. That’s why McDonalds has standards. If a specific store isn’t meeting expectations (say, with regards to speed of service) the corporate representatives suggest ways to improve. Because if one store struggles, maybe a potential customer who has been at a struggling store goes to Burger King when he is on vacation in a different city.

 

The parallel to sports (specifically baseball) is that if the Marlins are struggling maybe people don’t watch Marlins games. That doesn’t just affect the Marlins, because they have an opponent every night. Maybe fewer people watch them when they are on the road, playing YOUR team. Now your team’s revenue is affected. And so the entire brand suffers.

 

So, the remedy most leagues have put in to play to combat this is revenue sharing. I’m pretty sure that MLB shares by far the least amount of revenue of the major sports as a percentage of total league revenue.

[Major League Ready]

 

The idea that players deserve a share of profits is a socialist concept that has no place in a capitalist industry.  It is naive and simplistic, as are most socialistic notions.  I have yet to see anyone advocating these socialist concepts say that a player should return some of his salary if he sucked one year, or is sick, lame or lazy. Nobody says a manager should return a paycheck if he has a bad two weeks. 

 

Players have only themselves to think about. Owners have risks and expenses that stretch far beyond even the big league club. There are hundreds of expenses that players are never concerned with. Minor league affiliates cost money, as do facilities, coaches, scouting and administration costs at all levels. There is payroll for employees, groundskeepers, bookkeepers, and a bad year can be caused by players and cost a franchise millions. And ownership takes the risk of all the possible downside. Players share none of the risk and none of the expenses. That is how capitalism works. With great risk, there is a reward. It is the way it has always been and for good reason. Without the possibility of a big reward, nobody would ever take the risk. It is basic economics. 

 

When baseball began, it was never anticipated that ballplayers would someday be instant millionaires.  That is a sad distortion of a great game and the fans are the ones who pay the price. In 1969, the minimum big league salary was $ 23,500. That would buy a modest house back then. You could take the family to the ball park without sacrificing something else. Ticket costs rise, more than any other single reason, to pay the players outrageous salaries. We get stuck with the tab.Same thing when the lefties say "lets tax corporations."  Sounds good to some, but it is ignorant of the reality that corporations don't pay the higher taxes, we do. Corporations pass the cost on to consumers. We pay those taxes by paying more for the product. 

 

 Major league baseball has lost all fiscal discipline. And I don't feel a bit sorry for millionaires who play a game for a living. 

 

Some fans obviously think that baseball as an industry should not be subject to free market principals. Of course, had that been the case, nobody would have funded this league and we would not have baseball as we know it today.

 

Player compensation was adequate to attract all of the top talent and the public certainly did not think they were underpaid. Had player compensation remained commensurate with 1969 levels, players would earn roughly $161,000 on average. Of course, they make 25 times that amount.  I would say the industry has been incredibly kind to MLB players.  Too bad minor league players have not gotten a small piece of the pie. To be fair, the Nippon league pays about $600K/year on average so $161,000 would not be adequate to retain players. However, if they player compensation was one-quarter of today’s rate, I doubt the supply would be impacted.

 

What if at the end of this CBA the owners said we believe all of the teams that got stadium money should repay it. So, the league is going to take 10% of the revenue from each team and distribute it the states that funded stadiums. That would equate to about 1.3M per player on average. In other words, player compensation would have to drop to an average about $3M/player. Now that would be fair. The players would scream bloody murder but the public paying for stadiums so that players can be paid hundreds of millions is ludicrous.

 

Now what if the owners said we think MLB should help the homeless, veterans, battered women, etc and we are going to distribute another $750M or roughly $1M per player to help these people in needs. Now the average salary is $2M. Do we lose any players because they are unwilling to work for an average of $2M/annually?

[Major League Ready]

 

Socialism? When the gubmint gets involved, I mean beyond the Antitrust Exemption to owners, I'll pay attention to the rest of your argument.

 

This is a capitalistic negotiation between partners in an asymmetric business relationship. Somehow, you've bought the billionaires' story that the millionaires are the bad guys.

 

Name another industry where the employees demand guaranteed contracts and an equal cut of the revenue. Of course the equal cut premise makes no sense because the players are not paying the operating costs. If the owners and players split net operating income equally the players would be in for a huge compensation cut. 

 

Let's keep this in perspective. Teams are still willing to pay very high AAVs and they are willing to pay that for as long as the player remains productive. The players are stomping their feet because because they want extremely high AAVs regardless of if they perform and they want contracts that give them a couiple of years of additional compensation when they almost certainly will not earn it.   Again, a ludicrous concept in any other form of business. I find it difficult to support the premise hundreds of millions is not enough and top players should get an extra $40, 50, etc million after they no longer perform at a high level.

 

In all likelihood the money will be spent, it will just be redistributed to players who's production warrants the compensation.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Some fans obviously think that baseball as an industry should not be subject to free market principals. Of course, had that been the case, nobody would have funded this league and we would not have baseball as we know it today.

 

Player compensation was adequate to attract all of the top talent and the public certainly did not think they were underpaid. Had player compensation remained commensurate with 1969 levels, players would earn roughly $161,000 on average. Of course, they make 25 times that amount.  I would say the industry has been incredibly kind to MLB players.  Too bad minor league players have not gotten a small piece of the pie. To be fair, the Nippon league pays about $600K/year on average so $161,000 would not be adequate to retain players. However, if they player compensation was one-quarter of today’s rate, I doubt the supply would be impacted.

 

What if at the end of this CBA the owners said we believe all of the teams that got stadium money should repay it. So, the league is going to take 10% of the revenue from each team and distribute it the states that funded stadiums. That would equate to about 1.3M per player on average. In other words, player compensation would have to drop to an average about $3M/player. Now that would be fair. The players would scream bloody murder but the public paying for stadiums so that players can be paid hundreds of millions is ludicrous.

 

Now what if the owners said we think MLB should help the homeless, veterans, battered women, etc and we are going to distribute another $750M or roughly $1M per player to help these people in needs. Now the average salary is $2M. Do we lose any players because they are unwilling to work for an average of $2M/annually?

 

As posted above, this isn't like other capitalism....the teams depend on each other for their survival as a league. And, Congress has exempted them from certain anti competitive laws. And, like utilities, the barriers to entry are huge. It really isn't the same economic system as other businesses at all, so the conclusion that it should follow the same rules falls apart on its face. 

 

As for your CBA paragraph, that's a red herring meant to distract from real possibilities. It's a great technique, but not realistic at all. 

 

We agree that minor league players are under paid, but then the owners could just start paying them now if they wanted. They don't. That's on them 100%. The union has not set any price constraints on minor league pay. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Name another industry where the employees demand guaranteed contracts and an equal cut of the revenue. Of course the equal cut premise makes no sense because the players are not paying the operating costs. If the owners and players split net operating income equally the players would be in for a huge compensation cut. 

 

Let's keep this in perspective. Teams are still willing to pay very high AAVs and they are willing to pay that for as long as the player remains productive. The players are stomping their feet because because they want extremely high AAVs regardless of if they perform and they want contracts that give them a couiple of years of additional compensation when they almost certainly will not earn it.   Again, a ludicrous concept in any other form of business. I find it difficult to support the premise hundreds of millions is not enough and top players should get an extra $40, 50, etc million after they no longer perform at a high level.

 

In all likelihood the money will be spent, it will just be redistributed to players who's production warrants the compensation.

 

Name another industry where the employees aren't free to move inside the 30 companies for 8-10 years, thereby keeping their wages below fair market value for the beginning of their careers? If you want free market, then they need to be free agents from day one, no draft, no team control. Then we'll see what salaries are. Until then, it isn't a free market.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

You apparently did not understand the point. Microsoft and several other companies grew as much or more than MLB.  Compensation to their employees did not grow at 7X the adjusted rate of inflation. Businesses don't pay more or less because of changes in revenue. They pay an amount sufficient to attract and retain employees. Would MLB players go do something else if the average comp was 2.2 instead of 4.4M annually?

 

I think the part you miss in this is that MLB drafts employees. Due to competitive balance, they effectively restricted where employees can work during most of their careers as well as what they make in that timeframe. Like it or not, that necessitates a union and CBA. That's the only way around what is a blatant anti-trust violation, and if that exemption went away, baseball as we know it would be gone too.

 

Simply put, you cannot compare my employer (MSFT) to MLB... because in my industry, you don't have google, Microsoft, Apple, etc. defining a process to decide where I'm working. 

 

That's a pretty big difference, and it's why you're not comparing apples to apples. It's why a CBA exists (it has to). It's why players are effectively entitled to a share of the profits because owners and players have to negotiate things like pay, and that will always be centered around profits.

 

This has nothing to do with socialism vs. capitalism, and truthfully, both concepts fall short in this scenario due to the above reasons.

[Major League Ready]

 

I think the part you miss in this is that MLB drafts employees. Due to competitive balance, they effectively restricted where employees can work during most of their careers as well as what they make in that timeframe. Like it or not, that necessitates a union and CBA. That's the only way around what is a blatant anti-trust violation, and if that exemption went away, baseball as we know it would be gone too.

 

Simply put, you cannot compare my employer (MSFT) to MLB... because in my industry, you don't have google, Microsoft, Apple, etc. defining a process to decide where I'm working. 

 

That's a pretty big difference, and it's why you're not comparing apples to apples. It's why a CBA exists (it has to). It's why players are effectively entitled to a share of the profits because owners and players have to negotiate things like pay, and that will always be centered around profits.

 

This has nothing to do with socialism vs. capitalism, and truthfully, both concepts fall short in this scenario due to the above reasons.

 

I did not mean to dismiss the differences. My point was that employees don't get paid more in any other industry based on revenue growth which some contend they are entitled. Let's not forget the players portion is guaranteed and the premise of splitting proceeds is always done before covering operating cost. How does that make sense. If we look at Forbes and Statistica for 2017 (2018 N/A yet) the Twins had 261M in revenue, 108M in player payroll, and $23M in profit. Therefore, operating costs were roughly $130M which means the players portion of revenue after cost 82.4% and ownership's retained 17.6% of the available funds. That seems like a pretty good portion going to players does it not?

 

I would add that the current generation of players did not create this massive opportunity. To say they are responsible for this revenue and therefore deserve this massive payday fails to recognize the are the recipients of very good fortune of which they did not create.

[BrianTrottier]

 

The idea that players deserve a share of profits is a socialist concept that has no place in a capitalist industry.  It is naive and simplistic, as are most socialistic notions.  I have yet to see anyone advocating these socialist concepts say that a player should return some of his salary if he sucked one year, or is sick, lame or lazy. Nobody says a manager should return a paycheck if he has a bad two weeks. 

 

Players have only themselves to think about. Owners have risks and expenses that stretch far beyond even the big league club. There are hundreds of expenses that players are never concerned with. Minor league affiliates cost money, as do facilities, coaches, scouting and administration costs at all levels. There is payroll for employees, groundskeepers, bookkeepers, and a bad year can be caused by players and cost a franchise millions. And ownership takes the risk of all the possible downside. Players share none of the risk and none of the expenses. That is how capitalism works. With great risk, there is a reward. It is the way it has always been and for good reason. Without the possibility of a big reward, nobody would ever take the risk. It is basic economics. 

 

When baseball began, it was never anticipated that ballplayers would someday be instant millionaires.  That is a sad distortion of a great game and the fans are the ones who pay the price. In 1969, the minimum big league salary was $ 23,500. That would buy a modest house back then. You could take the family to the ball park without sacrificing something else. Ticket costs rise, more than any other single reason, to pay the players outrageous salaries. We get stuck with the tab.Same thing when the lefties say "lets tax corporations."  Sounds good to some, but it is ignorant of the reality that corporations don't pay the higher taxes, we do. Corporations pass the cost on to consumers. We pay those taxes by paying more for the product. 

 

 Major league baseball has lost all fiscal discipline. And I don't feel a bit sorry for millionaires who play a game for a living. 

 

I haven't posted in a long time, but had to sign in just to respond to this. Have you never heard of an ESOP, or even a worker cooperative? How can the idea of profit sharing be socialist, when the concept itself is centered around, and clearly interested in, the idea and growth of profit, that is, capitalist accumulation?

 

ETA: If you don't like money in the sport, boycott it. That's how free market economics should work, correct?

 

Edited February 27, 2019 by BrianTrottier

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I did not mean to dismiss the differences. My point was that employees don't get paid more in any other industry based on revenue growth which some contend they are entitled. Let's not forget the players portion is guaranteed and the premise of splitting proceeds is always done before covering operating cost. How does that make sense. If we look at Forbes and Statistica for 2017 (2018 N/A yet) the Twins had 261M in revenue, 108M in player payroll, and $23M in profit. Therefore, operating costs were roughly $130M which means the players portion of revenue after cost 82.4% and ownership's retained 17.6% of the available funds. That seems like a pretty good portion going to players does it not?

 

I would add that the current generation of players did not create this massive opportunity. To say they are responsible for this revenue and therefore deserve this massive payday fails to recognize the are the recipients of very good fortune of which they did not create.

 

The players contented they are entitled to that revenue growth because profit sharing is really the only way you can negotiate any of that to get around the anti-trust issues in play. I don't think it's that unreasonable for players to look at overall revenue as that target... and like it or not, the product on the field certainly drives a good portion of those revenues. I think it's a bit disingenuous to say that the current players haven't had any role in creating said fortune. That would be true for every generation fo players if that's the case. 

 

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

I did not mean to dismiss the differences. My point was that employees don't get paid more in any other industry based on revenue growth which some contend they are entitled. Let's not forget the players portion is guaranteed and the premise of splitting proceeds is always done before covering operating cost. How does that make sense. If we look at Forbes and Statistica for 2017 (2018 N/A yet) the Twins had 261M in revenue, 108M in player payroll, and $23M in profit. Therefore, operating costs were roughly $130M which means the players portion of revenue after cost 82.4% and ownership's retained 17.6% of the available funds. That seems like a pretty good portion going to players does it not?

 

I would add that the current generation of players did not create this massive opportunity. To say they are responsible for this revenue and therefore deserve this massive payday fails to recognize the are the recipients of very good fortune of which they did not create.

The current owners who inherited their money did not build the league either. Speaking of good fortune they did not create... ...

 

This isn't building widgets, it's entertainment. No one is paying this much money to watch high school players. There are less than one thousand qualified players on the planet, supply and demand would indicate that makes them early under paid.

[Riverbrian]

Do away with the draft. 

 

Watch what happens. 

[Kelly Vance]

 

I haven't posted in a long time, but had to sign in just to respond to this. Have you never heard of an ESOP, or even a worker cooperative? How can the idea of profit sharing be socialist, when the concept itself is centered around, and clearly interested in, the idea and growth of profit, that is, capitalist accumulation?

 

ETA: If you don't like money in the sport, boycott it. That's how free market economics should work, correct?

Honest questions deserve an honest answer.  Socialists and communists are similar in that they demand that they control the means of production. Not management.  With communists, they foster this illusion on the laborers (Workers of the World Unite) with Socialists it is  more about government being in control of the means of production. Again, not management. But show me an OAC that wants someone ELSE to be in charge, not her. These people just want control. 

 

In short, I am saying that players are not entitled to profit sharing because they don't assume the risks. They want GUARANTEED contracts. They get what the market sets for their value. That is Capitalism. Redistributing wealth is NOT

Edited February 28, 2019 by Kelly Vance

[Miggy's Little Helper]

 

The idea that players deserve a share of profits is a socialist concept that has no place in a capitalist industry.  It is naive and simplistic, as are most socialistic notions.  I have yet to see anyone advocating these socialist concepts say that a player should return some of his salary if he sucked one year, or is sick, lame or lazy. Nobody says a manager should return a paycheck if he has a bad two weeks. 

 

Players have only themselves to think about. Owners have risks and expenses that stretch far beyond even the big league club. There are hundreds of expenses that players are never concerned with. Minor league affiliates cost money, as do facilities, coaches, scouting and administration costs at all levels. There is payroll for employees, groundskeepers, bookkeepers, and a bad year can be caused by players and cost a franchise millions. And ownership takes the risk of all the possible downside. Players share none of the risk and none of the expenses. That is how capitalism works. With great risk, there is a reward. It is the way it has always been and for good reason. Without the possibility of a big reward, nobody would ever take the risk. It is basic economics. 

 

When baseball began, it was never anticipated that ballplayers would someday be instant millionaires.  That is a sad distortion of a great game and the fans are the ones who pay the price. In 1969, the minimum big league salary was $ 23,500. That would buy a modest house back then. You could take the family to the ball park without sacrificing something else. Ticket costs rise, more than any other single reason, to pay the players outrageous salaries. We get stuck with the tab.Same thing when the lefties say "lets tax corporations."  Sounds good to some, but it is ignorant of the reality that corporations don't pay the higher taxes, we do. Corporations pass the cost on to consumers. We pay those taxes by paying more for the product. 

 

 Major league baseball has lost all fiscal discipline. And I don't feel a bit sorry for millionaires who play a game for a living. 

 

Uh, in a word, no. 

 

Since when is every feature of capitalism resulting in labor making gains against capital now called "socialism"?  

 

Sorry your beloved market economy did a number on your expectation for perpetually low ticket prices to watch the top 750 baseball players on a planet of 7,500,000,000 ply their trade.  

[cardsfan]

Didn't see any comments on a minimum of 3 batters or the end of the inning in order to speed things up? The pitch or batter clock may still happen.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

I agree this is a ground-up, rather than a bottom-down, problem. The argument that you need to overpay in years and AAV for veterans because the owners got to underpay for them when they were coming up doesn't make economic sense for the owners. It is, however, the way that the system currently balances out the division of the pie.

 

I think the notions of (substantially) increasing the minor league pay at each level, increasing major league minimums, and decreasing length of time until arbitration, and length of service until free agency will resolve most of this - especially if coupled with a competitive requirement to spend a certain portion of revenue on salaries for each team, and a sprinkling of anti-tanking measures (throw all non-playoff teams into a total lottery system for first three rounds of draft order, teams that don't spend the "floor" of their revenue don't receive revenue-sharing). The players have turned the conversation so far, but this is going to be a devastatingly difficult CBA to negotiate.

this is a really good post! Any thoughts to working this up in a longer form? Maybe a blog post? I’d like to see this fleshed out and bit of debate in the forum

[Mike Sixel]

Do away with the draft.

 

Watch what happens.

Right? Salaries sky rocket.

[Mike Sixel]

Honest questions deserve an honest answer. Socialists and communists are similar in that they demand that they control the means of production. Not management. With communists, they foster this illusion on the laborers (Workers of the World Unite) with Socialists it is more about government being in control of the means of production. Again, not management. But show me an OAC that wants someone ELSE to be in charge, not her. These people just want control.

 

In short, I am saying that players are not entitled to profit sharing because they don't assume the risks. They want GUARANTEED contracts. They get what the market sets for their value. That is Capitalism. Redistributing wealth is NOT

It's not a free market though.... There are barriers to entry, there is the draft, team control, the fact that teams do better if there aren't less competitors,or all bad competition, etc.

 

There is no such thing as a truly free market anywhere on the planet, in any industry, frankly. And the thought that unfettered capitalism is somehow morally correct seems unlikely, just as pure communism is unlikely superior.

Edited February 28, 2019 by Mike Sixel

[Kelly Vance]

 

Uh, in a word, no. 

 

Since when is every feature of capitalism resulting in labor making gains against capital now called "socialism"?  

 

Sorry your beloved market economy did a number on your expectation for perpetually low ticket prices to watch the top 750 baseball players on a planet of 7,500,000,000 ply their trade.  

Nobody said any of that, including me. 

 

Its not about labor making gains... its about labor wanting to take management's money.  I'm saying no to profit sharing. MLB Ballplayers play for good wages and I don't feel sorry for millionaires ..... pampered millionaires at that ..... who want millions to play a game. I'd rather watch women's softball. 

Edited February 28, 2019 by Kelly Vance