Another option for salaries would be to do something like the NBA.  Take a portion of the TV money and assign it to a pool for veteran players.  If a player has x years of experience, the first x million dollars come out of the pool.  If you're the Twins, you could end up paying a veteran the same as you would a rookie.  

 

I think that's how it works for the NBA....but I've been wrong before.

 

Pretty decent idea, whether the NBA does that or not. I know the NFL has a small performance pool also.......

 

I'd like to see teams that don't make the playoffs get more money in revenue sharing if they win more games....so, there is incentive for everyone to win more games. 

 

If you truly believe this paragraph then I stand by my earlier statement: You are out of touch with the dynamics of this business.  You're also, apparently, immune to facts.

 

Most of this paragraph is simply untrue and the rest of it misses the point.

OK, have it your way.  But name a single owner that levies a dollar is taxes on anyone?  Not charges, taxes...  But according to you, I am out of touch and immune to facts. OK fine. I'm funny looking too. 

 

Carl Pohlad was beloved owner and business man who built a banking empire, won 2 world series, kept Puckett by making him the highest paid player in the sport. What exactly has Jim Pohlad done or accomplished to deserve to be one of 32 MLB owners in the world?

Free market is driven by 2 simple principles: supply and demand.

MLB isn't a free market because demand is somewhat fixed on the production side: 32 teams x 25 roster spots. Also, Lux tax pulling down large contracts and cost control over 3 with team control for 6.

And supply is fixed on the consumption side: 30 teams in the league.

Demand has sky rocketed because of the availability of content (tv and internet). Everyone is making money. Still 30 teams.

Baseball is (pro sports are) actually a good example of why the free market has limitations. The market suggests that more teams should enter the market until profit is sufficiently depleted. But at that point, the product becomes watered down as talent is stretched over more teams. Eventually you'll have a cheaper less profitable product that people will stop watching. The owners even recognize the need for some level of competitive balance to ensure the viability of the resource for all interested parties. So they agree to share profits to keep the whole league strong. A redistribution of wealth for the common benefit of all.

But it's only socialism if the players want a share, right?

The owners don't have to share their books during negotiations. That should be your first ref flag.

Deserving has nothing to do with it. If you inherit grandpa's farm, good for you. I don't covet your inheritance. Its none of my business how rich you get, and its none of our business how rich Jim gets. 

 

 

 

Deserving has nothing to do with it. If you inherit grandpa's farm, good for you. I don't covet your inheritance. Its none of my business how rich you get, and its none of our business how rich Jim gets. 

 

a player risks not having enough money while he toils underpaid (by the owners) in the minors.....The players do a ton of work, starting as teens, to get there. They and their parents spend a ton of money (and risk it) on investing in camps, and equipment, and other things. As an investment in his future earnings.....

 

a player risks not having enough money while he toils underpaid (by the owners) in the minors.....The players do a ton of work, starting as teens, to get there. They and their parents spend a ton of money (and risk it) on investing in camps, and equipment, and other things. As an investment in his future earnings.....

Nope.  That is not the kind of risk we are talking about.   And it is not a risk like an owner takes in ongoing operations. I suppose you could say there are risks in everything, even crossing the street, but that is not the kind of risk we are talking about either. In the minors, 3500 people is a good crowd and tickets are $ 5.   No reasonable person would say that a MLB owner should have to guarantee a big salary to someone who is still unproven. In any field of endeavor, new hires do not get paid as much as senior management.

 

Nobody makes anyone play baseball instead of pursuing a different career. If you want to take your shot, fine with me, but I don't see why anyone else should guarantee you big bucks just because you participated. In the real world, you get paid for results. It has always been that way. 

OK, have it your way.  But name a single owner that levies a dollar is taxes on anyone?  Not charges, taxes...  But according to you, I am out of touch and immune to facts. OK fine. I'm funny looking too.

 

Many owners threaten politicians into tax levies. The building they are overcharging you to enter was also paid by taxpayers.

 

And they are lowering player salaries while upping your costs as a consumer.

 

Why you fall on the sword for them is beyond me, but I know the thanks you'll get for your loyalty. They'll raise your prices, blame the players, and laugh to the bank about suckers.

 

Nope.  That is not the kind of risk we are talking about.   And it is not a risk like an owner takes in ongoing operations. I suppose you could say there are risks in everything, even crossing the street, but that is not the kind of risk we are talking about either. In the minors, 3500 people is a good crowd and tickets are $ 5.   No reasonable person would say that a MLB owner should have to guarantee a big salary to someone who is still unproven. In any field of endeavor, new hires do not get paid as much as senior management.

 

Nobody makes anyone play baseball instead of pursuing a different career. If you want to take your shot, fine with me, but I don't see why anyone else should guarantee you big bucks just because you participated. In the real world, you get paid for results. It has always been that way. 

 

The players aren't paid by the minor league teams, so the attendance and ticket prices aren't relevant at all to what they are paid.

 

"take your shot" sounds an awful lot like taking a risk, and how is it different? They invest in coaches, camps, equipment, etc....often on salaries that don't actually cover the costs......it's significantly more risky to them than if a billionaire makes 10MM or 50MM or 100MM or more profit every year on their team.

Deserving has nothing to do with it. If you inherit grandpa's farm, good for you. I don't covet your inheritance. Its none of my business how rich you get, and its none of our business how rich Jim gets.

I'm not sure if you actually believe what you're saying or just spouting talking points.

 

I'm not the one claiming that inheriting wealth entitles one to not only a larger share of the pie, but also the knife that cuts it.

 

Nope.  That is not the kind of risk we are talking about.   And it is not a risk like an owner takes in ongoing operations. I suppose you could say there are risks in everything, even crossing the street, but that is not the kind of risk we are talking about either. In the minors, 3500 people is a good crowd and tickets are $ 5.   No reasonable person would say that a MLB owner should have to guarantee a big salary to someone who is still unproven. In any field of endeavor, new hires do not get paid as much as senior management.

 

Nobody makes anyone play baseball instead of pursuing a different career. If you want to take your shot, fine with me, but I don't see why anyone else should guarantee you big bucks just because you participated. In the real world, you get paid for results. It has always been that way. 

You seem to have several misconceptions.  I just went to a single A ballgame this year and tickets were like $12 with all above 7.  I also believe that your 3500 being a good crowd would not be true when you get to AA and above.  

Second point, no matter which career you pursue, the same thing happens that happens to ballplayers. Most companies can always find someone cheaper to do your job.  And if they can only do 90% of what you do, they are fine with it.  That is why many of us that worked in computers spent the last part of our career consulting, because no company wants to pay high salaries when they do not need to.  

That is what the players are fighting for. If you have looked their are still a number of FA's out there to be signed.  Now some may have too high expectations, but a lot of productive mid level players can be replaced cheaply.  Twins have 3 pitchers that this is the last year of their contracts.  If some of the AAAA type player (Stewart, Gonsalves, Littell) show they can do the job, do you expect the Twins to retain more than one of the three.  And because of the prices the Twins payroll will probably fall in this case next year.   

I do think we will see 2 changes for 2020.  

1. A pitch clock

2. A 26 or 27 man roster.  This will be to get the players association to give on some other issues. 

This should be Cleveland's last year of contention.  One of their starters is going year to year and if he has a great year this year, he will break the Cleveland bank next year. Then Cleveland will have to decide to rebuild on the fly or trade off the rotation for top minor leaguers to try keep the line moving.  The Cleveland farm system is not robust enough to fill in the blanks.

Moderator note - let's be a little less dismissive of the posts of people we disagree with here.