Zulgad: Is MLB really making return about dollars and cents?

[old nurse]

 

Until a player reaches free agency, at which point everything about his wage is free market.  The fact that player wages prior to free agency are not free market has more to do with the fact that it is not economically feasible for there to be a second independent baseball league in North America, at least not one with anywhere near the ability to generate resources as MLB.  As such, the players lose free market access when they agree to abandon the free market.  If that is not acceptable to them, they are free to avail themselves of the vast free market of employment that is not professional baseball.

Luxury tax says you are wrong. It is a cap. Compensation also makes it not a free market. There is no free market.

[Major League Ready]

 

The players are not trying for more money than thier pro rated contracts. They are all negotiated in good faith.  You have a problem with that, quit watching and following baseball. No players=no game

 

Your bias is blinding you to a very simple reality. That reality is that if the owners only option is to lose far more by playing that equals no baseball this year. The owners likely lose more money by playing under their proposed terms than not playing at all. If the players feel they would rather earn nothing than to accept less than full-compensation (prorated) the owners are going to lose substantially more. When they are already facing an average loss of $127M, the prospect of losing substantially more likely means no baseball.

 

It's possible the owner's just decide to take it in the shorts to protect the long-term interests of the game. They can control spending relatively easily and they can get it back over the next several years.  The burden will land on free agents and non-tendered players over the next few years. Mookie Betts probably is going to wish he had taken Boston's offer.   

[old nurse]

 

Your bias is blinding you to a very simple reality. That reality is that if the owners only option is to lose far more by playing that equals no baseball this year. The owners likely lose more money by playing under their proposed terms than not playing at all. If the players feel they would rather earn nothing than to accept less than full-compensation (prorated) the owners are going to lose substantially more. When they are already facing an average loss of $127M, the prospect of losing substantially more likely means no baseball.

 

It's possible the owner's just decide to take it in the shorts to protect the long-term interests of the game. They can control spending relatively easily and they can get it back over the next several years.  The burden will land on free agents and non-tendered players over the next few years. Mookie Betts probably is going to wish he had taken Boston's offer.   

Your bias is causing you to not be cognizant of the fact that nobody really knows how much money these teams make. When they made the initial agreement in March MLB knew what the money would be. . It has been a long time since they have made financial mistakes. They were not operating blindly.

Betts will do fine. It is and has been lately the second tier free agents that have suffered. Odorizzi might be the one. 

[yarnivek1972]

I don’t think there is any way the MLBPA will let the owners get away with not paying players at all, even if there are no games. I suspect the unpires’ union will as well. I suspect many of the contracts teams have with security providers have provisions for some payment if there are no games. So, MLB is going to have expenses whether or not there are games. But at least if there are games, there is a chance to recoup some revenue.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

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

 

Sure. I can elaborate again... There's nothing free market about any professional sports as it's all blatantly anti-trust. Now to be fair, for competitive balance reasons, it has to be, but players get very little say in where they will work and how much they will make until they've finished their rookie deals. It's not like you or I, who can generally change employers on a whim and can offer our services to the highest bidder at any time. Players do not have that freedom (which is a foundational freedom to a free market), and they never will. 

 

That's why there needs to be a players association, because players don't get to bid their services to any team, their destination is controlled from day one. Their entry level wages are controlled too from the minor leagues all they way up to arbitration (and even arb is generally below market for their services). Again, for any professional sports to exist, there has to be a system like this or else the large market teams will suck up all the good players and pretty much kill the sport... so I don't have a problem with that... I do have a huge problem calling it a free market though. It's not... and in baseball's case, it's particularly unfair to minor leaguers who have not been represented well by their union.

[Major League Ready]

 

Your bias is causing you to not be cognizant of the fact that nobody really knows how much money these teams make. When they made the initial agreement in March MLB knew what the money would be. . It has been a long time since they have made financial mistakes. They were not operating blindly.

Betts will do fine. It is and has been lately the second tier free agents that have suffered. Odorizzi might be the one. 

Exactly? No, we don’t know exactly but someone skilled in Financials Assessment could estimate EBITA within =/- 5%. Virtually all MLB revenue is derived from taxable sources. Therefore, precise revenue can be derived by simply dividing tax payment by the tax rate. Player salaries are known precisely. Employee salaries can be estimated with relative precision based on taxes paid by the team. TV revenues are known with precision and league revenue sharing is also known.  

 

There are actually subscription based services that provide revenue and profit data for a variety of industries including MLB. They can’t get paid for poor information. I would also assume the players union has hired analysts to assess the profitability of all MLB teams. It’s just not that hard and I would assume they would use this information.

 

It takes very little financial acumen to ascertain the viability of playing without fans in the stands for any given team. Anyone who has taken anytime at all to educate themselves on our team’s financial sources understands that over half our revenue is derived from fans in the stands. It takes rather extreme disregard for logic to believe the team would not have a substantial loss without fans present.

[Major League Ready]

 

Sure. I can elaborate again... There's nothing free market about any professional sports as it's all blatantly anti-trust. Now to be fair, for competitive balance reasons, it has to be, but players get very little say in where they will work and how much they will make until they've finished their rookie deals. It's not like you or I, who can generally change employers on a whim and can offer our services to the highest bidder at any time. Players do not have that freedom (which is a foundational freedom to a free market), and they never will. 

 

That's why there needs to be a players association, because players don't get to bid their services to any team, their destination is controlled from day one. Their entry level wages are controlled too from the minor leagues all they way up to arbitration (and even arb is generally below market for their services). Again, for any professional sports to exist, there has to be a system like this or else the large market teams will suck up all the good players and pretty much kill the sport... so I don't have a problem with that... I do have a huge problem calling it a free market though. It's not... and in baseball's case, it's particularly unfair to minor leaguers who have not been represented well by their union.

 

Exactly? No, we don’t know exactly but someone skilled in Financials Assessment could estimate EBITA within =/- 5%. Virtually all MLB revenue is derived from taxable sources. Therefore, precise revenue can be derived by simply dividing tax payment by the tax rate. Player salaries are known precisely. Employee salaries can be estimated with relative precision based on taxes paid by the team. TV revenues are known with precision and league revenue sharing is also known.  

There are actually subscription based services that provide revenue and profit data for a variety of industries including MLB. They can’t get paid for poor information. I would also assume the players union has hired analysts to assess the profitability of all MLB teams. It’s just not that hard and I would assume they would use this information.

 

It takes very little financial acumen to ascertain the viability of playing without fans in the stands for any given team. Anyone who has taken anytime at all to educate themselves on our team’s financial sources understands that over half our revenue is derived from fans in the stands. It takes rather extreme disregard for logic to believe the team would not have a substantial loss without fans present.

 

You are using antitrust laws in the context of wages. This makes very little sense. Antitrust laws are designed for the protection of consumers not employees. Are wages typical of a free market? Initial 3 years? Absolutely not. Is arbitration typical of a free market? Not exactly but it seems to work pretty well. You concede the need for controlling where players go initial salaries and free agency is very typical of a free market so what exactly are you complaining about?

 

Player salaries have absolutely sky rocketed. MLB players might be the most fortunate group in the entire world. The increase in pay they have sustained over the past 30 years is incredible. Other industry simply don't continue to increase employee compensation this way. They retire at 35 with enough wealth to live very comfortably for the rest of their lives while never having a real job, at least not in terms of what most of would call work. Yet, some of you blindly take their side at every turn, even when some of them speak out about the need to "get theirs" in the face of a global pandemic.

[BD57]

Well, I personally think the "bias" that's showing in some comments here is believing "this year" is a fitting battleground for the otherwise constant "Players versus Owners Money Wars."

 

The usual "business model," where "fannies are in the seats at games" and buying tickets, hot dogs, beer, soda, popcorn, hats, jerseys, and so on, is out the window (and with it, the cubs are pocketing the money those fans spend for those things, which is available to pay - among other things - players) is not in play. 

 

The notion that the teams should just eat that lost revenue, but pay players as if they received it . . . .

 

Not a one of you would do that in your own business.

 

2020 is a "one off."  Owners & Players either "partner" in "putting on a show this season," or there will be no season.

 

They can go back to hating each other next year.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

 

Well, I personally think the "bias" that's showing in some comments here is believing "this year" is a fitting battleground for the otherwise constant "Players versus Owners Money Wars."

 

The usual "business model," where "fannies are in the seats at games" and buying tickets, hot dogs, beer, soda, popcorn, hats, jerseys, and so on, is out the window (and with it, the cubs are pocketing the money those fans spend for those things, which is available to pay - among other things - players) is not in play. 

 

The notion that the teams should just eat that lost revenue, but pay players as if they received it . . . .

 

Not a one of you would do that in your own business.

 

2020 is a "one off."  Owners & Players either "partner" in "putting on a show this season," or there will be no season.

 

They can go back to hating each other next year.

The owners and the players are leveraging this "one off year" against each other for their looming CBA negotiation next year. see also: http://twinsdaily.com/topic/37148-mlb-proposal-seeks-bigger-cuts-from-premier-players/?do=findComment&comment=966218

 

What does 2021 look like? Will it be business as usual, or will there be some softness in ballpark consumer demand?

 

Personally, I'm not comfortable going to a ballpark now, and I'm skeptical that something is going to change drastic enough to change that for me next year, but judging by how busy the bars are here in Wisconsin, that is clearly not the same for everyone.

 

On the other hand, I'm willing to spend on streaming, but MLB doesn't want my money as I live in Twins Territory, they want me to get cable which I refuse.

 

Maybe the revenue streams are changing for the teams and the market needs to be recalculated? This may not be a one-off year entirely.   

[The Wise One]

 

That has something to do with the Marlins being run both cheaply AND inefficiently as well.  And as rare as generational players are, there are always more of them.  I guarantee there is at least 1 player currently in the minor leagues who will make the hall of fame, and there are more in high school and college too.  The first year with none of the current major leaguers would be jarring, to be sure.  Every subsequent year will be less so, until eventually, all the difference is gone.

The point is that baseball is not going to permanently ban players. The rules are the same for all.. Ace or number 2 starting pitchers drafted and developed by the Twins. Count how many of them  perhaps on one hand the last 20 years.  Yes eventually, all players are replaced. Why throw away talent on a hissy fit by fans?  Management is smarter than that. Clearly there are people on this board have an issue with players making money. It is bizarre to me as what you are paying for is to see them play. If you do not want to see them get paid simply quit watching on television, quit buying stuff that is baseball related, and for goodness sake don't go to a game.  

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

US Labor laws and antitrust laws disagree with this statement. I mean, goodness even health insurance for most every person under 65 comes from their employer. It's not only in their best interest for employers to provide commensurate pay and benefits, its against the law to pay less than minimum wage, the OSHA administration is to enforce safe work environments for workers.

 

Americans do deserve minimum wage and a safe, harassment free work environment. Agreed, for most workers its a transactional relationship, but in this case, because of the monopsony/cartel institution, MLB is more than transactional. 

 

The real minimum wage is $0.  In a free society, no one is obligated to pay anyone anything, and that includes the owners vis-a-vis the players.  While US labor laws do require employers to provide a certain minimum standard (and I believe that is a good thing), that doesn't mean employees deserve that.  The only things we deserve are inalienable rights, and a nice working environment is not a right.  It is something the US government has decreed to be mandatory for anyone wishing to employ humans.  With that said, if a company was able to use robots to fulfill all work-related tasks, the obligation for that company to provide a nice working environment for humans no longer exists, which is why it is not a right.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

The players are not trying for more money than thier pro rated contracts. They are all negotiated in good faith.  You have a problem with that, quit watching and following baseball. No players=no game

 

You're continuing to miss my point.  I don't have a problem with the players attempting to get their pro-rated contracts, I'm saying it's a bad long-term move for the players to push the owners into a corner on pay right now.  It's potentially also a bad short-term move; if the owners don't concede, it's possible there's no season, and then the players get nothing above the $170M they already received.

 

It's also just silly to say no players=no game as concerns the current MLBPA; the majority of professional baseball players are not part of the MLBPA.  The owners would have no problem finding new players, while the players would have an enormously difficult time finding new owners.

 

Let's say the owners decide to start play in 2022 with only MiLB players and line-crossing MLBPA players.  The owners could set a salary cap of $40M/team ($1.2B total), and incrementally move that up until it hits say 35% of total revenue over the next 8 years.  The Twins would save something like $80M to $100M in payroll in that first year, all of which is 100% profit.  They could use that money to slash the cost of attending a game by 50 to 70% to start, all of which would make continuing to attend games very popular.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

Luxury tax says you are wrong. It is a cap. Compensation also makes it not a free market. There is no free market.

 

There is a free market: for free agents.  This past offseason, Josh Donaldson had absolutely no restrictions on which major league team he could play for.  It's true the majority of MLB players don't operate within a free market, but it's silly to say none do.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

I don’t think there is any way the MLBPA will let the owners get away with not paying players at all, even if there are no games. I suspect the unpires’ union will as well. I suspect many of the contracts teams have with security providers have provisions for some payment if there are no games. So, MLB is going to have expenses whether or not there are games. But at least if there are games, there is a chance to recoup some revenue.

 

What recourse does the MLBPA have, legally speaking, to compel enforcement of pay in this scenario?  The players agreed, back in March, that they would only get 4% of total pay (the $170M already distributed) if there is no season.  If the owners are looking at tens of millions in losses should games be played, compared to only millions in losses if there not, why wouldn't the owners simply assert the season can't be played, due to inability to guarantee health for all present?  In some cases, like where I live in Washington, the state will do it for the owners--MLB games can't have fans until phase 4 of our plan, and we're currently only in phase 1.  Since there has to be at least 3 weeks in between each phase, there's no way Seattle could have fans at a game in the beginning of July, even if there ceased to be any new cases of Covid-19.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

The point is that baseball is not going to permanently ban players. The rules are the same for all.. Ace or number 2 starting pitchers drafted and developed by the Twins. Count how many of them  perhaps on one hand the last 20 years.  Yes eventually, all players are replaced. Why throw away talent on a hissy fit by fans?  Management is smarter than that. Clearly there are people on this board have an issue with players making money. It is bizarre to me as what you are paying for is to see them play. If you do not want to see them get paid simply quit watching on television, quit buying stuff that is baseball related, and for goodness sake don't go to a game.  

 

Tell that to Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson.  I'm also not saying owners would ban players, I'm saying the owners could create their own CBA, and only employ players who agree to abide by it.  That could be the entire current membership of the current MLBPA, none of the current MLBPA, or somewhere in between.  Will some fans be turned off by this, and refuse to consume baseball?  Sure.  But the vast majority will pretty quickly, if not instantaneously move on, and care only that their favorite team is playing again.

 

I should also say, I'm not opposed to players getting paid, just the idea that they are somehow aggrieved by vicious parsimonious owners.  I'm also not on the side of the owners--I simply think if the players aren't careful, they will find out the hard way just how replaceable they are.  Painlessly replaceable?  No--getting rid of the current players will be like performing your own root canal for the owners.  But if the tooth is so painful it causes you to pass out, and is getting infected opening up  chance of death, a self-performed root canal might be the preferable option.  And that's what players, and some posters on this board, don't seem to understand; the owners are only going to put up with so much before the drastic option becomes the reasonable one.

[The Wise One]

 

Tell that to Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson.  I'm also not saying owners would ban players, I'm saying the owners could create their own CBA, and only employ players who agree to abide by it.  That could be the entire current membership of the current MLBPA, none of the current MLBPA, or somewhere in between.  Will some fans be turned off by this, and refuse to consume baseball?  Sure.  But the vast majority will pretty quickly, if not instantaneously move on, and care only that their favorite team is playing again.

Good lord. You have to go back 100 years to find a player they threw out. The initial comment was about permanently  throwing out the players who didn't play at a reduced rate of pay. Things zigged and zagged from there. 

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

Good lord. You have to go back 100 years to find a player they threw out. The initial comment was about permanently  throwing out the players who didn't play at a reduced rate of pay. Things zigged and zagged from there. 

 

Pete Rose played 100 years ago?  Also, if you read past my first sentence, you would have seen that I addressed what you were saying.  The owners will throw out players who don't play at a reduced rate of pay if that becomes their best option.  That should be obvious, since they do it every year.  Or did you think every player that retires does so with at least one contract offer for at least the amount they want?  When something gets too far out of balance, it goes not back to equilibrium, but out of balance to the other side.  The current situation is making player contracts, for at least this year and next, out of balance.  The players can do the smart thing and move back towards equilibrium themselves, or they can watch as the owners restructure in their favor.

[In My La Z boy]

 

Pete Rose played 100 years ago?  Also, if you read past my first sentence, you would have seen that I addressed what you were saying.  The owners will throw out players who don't play at a reduced rate of pay if that becomes their best option.  That should be obvious, since they do it every year.  Or did you think every player that retires does so with at least one contract offer for at least the amount they want?  When something gets too far out of balance, it goes not back to equilibrium, but out of balance to the other side.  The current situation is making player contracts, for at least this year and next, out of balance.  The players can do the smart thing and move back towards equilibrium themselves, or they can watch as the owners restructure in their favor.

Sad to say, but exactly this. Owners have 100% of the leverage. Players will cave or take their ball and go home. Their representation had better figure this out. Not sure they have yet?

[The Wise One]

 

Well, I personally think the "bias" that's showing in some comments here is believing "this year" is a fitting battleground for the otherwise constant "Players versus Owners Money Wars."

 

The usual "business model," where "fannies are in the seats at games" and buying tickets, hot dogs, beer, soda, popcorn, hats, jerseys, and so on, is out the window (and with it, the cubs are pocketing the money those fans spend for those things, which is available to pay - among other things - players) is not in play. 

 

The notion that the teams should just eat that lost revenue, but pay players as if they received it . . . .

 

Not a one of you would do that in your own business.

 

2020 is a "one off."  Owners & Players either "partner" in "putting on a show this season," or there will be no season.

 

They can go back to hating each other next year.

. Baseball is not like any other business. The fanny in the seat is about 30% of the revenue. For this 30 % for 1 year some people will think that teams will be in financial ruin without that money.  In the words of Sherman T Potter "Horse Hockey"  From  security that will not be needed  as much to ticket takers, cooks, servers, cleaners and whatnot that 30 % is not as free as TV, sponsorship and licensing money.  that make up the other 70% of revenue. For a business that operates on a somewhere near 20% profit margin and had a recent 50 million dollar windfall for BAMTECH  the notion it is somehow going to be hurt by paying the players a prorated salary is ludicrous.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

. Baseball is not like any other business. The fanny in the seat is about 30% of the revenue. For this 30 % for 1 year some people will think that teams will be in financial ruin without that money.  In the words of Sherman T Potter "Horse Hockey"  From  security that will not be needed  as much to ticket takers, cooks, servers, cleaners and whatnot that 30 % is not as free as TV, sponsorship and licensing money.  that make up the other 70% of revenue. For a business that operates on a somewhere near 20% profit margin and had a recent 50 million dollar windfall for BAMTECH  the notion it is somehow going to be hurt by paying the players a prorated salary is ludicrous.

 

I would doubt MLB is at a 20% profitability rate, as that would average out to about $70M per team.  Even if it is true, there are questions; is that 20% before taxes?  If so, that immediately shrinks to 15%.  Is that 20% profitability rate standard across all clubs?  Of course it's not, which means some teams can absorb fanless games due to their 30-40% profitability rate, while others will immediately go into the red due to their 2-5% profitability rate.  The owners will collectively bargain on this, because it's not in the interest of the Yankees/Dodgers/Red Sox to see 5-10 franchises fold.  It demonstrates the financials of MLB are not as sound as perceived, which lessens the value of all remaining franchises.  It reduces the interest in baseball as a whole, which reduces the revenue available from national media.

 

MLB's revenue this year, assuming an 82 game fanless season is down at minimum 60%, if not more.  There is no business whatsoever that would continue to pay full freight (as the players are demanding for any games played) while absorbing a massive hit to revenue.

[The Wise One]

 

Pete Rose played 100 years ago?  Also, if you read past my first sentence, you would have seen that I addressed what you were saying.  The owners will throw out players who don't play at a reduced rate of pay if that becomes their best option.  That should be obvious, since they do it every year.  Or did you think every player that retires does so with at least one contract offer for at least the amount they want?  When something gets too far out of balance, it goes not back to equilibrium, but out of balance to the other side.  The current situation is making player contracts, for at least this year and next, out of balance.  The players can do the smart thing and move back towards equilibrium themselves, or they can watch as the owners restructure in their favor.

Pete Rose was not banned as a player. He was banned 3 years after he retired. I thought I would be polite and not say anything about your error in calling him a banned player.  Players are the valuable thing. Managers, not so much

 

Whatever you say on the rest. Just  whatever. It started with a comment about banning players for life if they wouldn't play.I just goes downhill and more  (banned words and concepts) as this goes on.  It has gone from banning players for life who did not want play at a less than prorated contract to they get rid of players past their prime and some  banned word about balance. 

[The Wise One]

 

I would doubt MLB is at a 20% profitability rate, as that would average out to about $70M per team.  Even if it is true, there are questions; is that 20% before taxes?  If so, that immediately shrinks to 15%.  Is that 20% profitability rate standard across all clubs?  Of course it's not, which means some teams can absorb fanless games due to their 30-40% profitability rate, while others will immediately go into the red due to their 2-5% profitability rate.  The owners will collectively bargain on this, because it's not in the interest of the Yankees/Dodgers/Red Sox to see 5-10 franchises fold.  It demonstrates the financials of MLB are not as sound as perceived, which lessens the value of all remaining franchises.  It reduces the interest in baseball as a whole, which reduces the revenue available from national media.

 

MLB's revenue this year, assuming an 82 game fanless season is down at minimum 60%, if not more.  There is no business whatsoever that would continue to pay full freight (as the players are demanding for any games played) while absorbing a massive hit to revenue.

 

I would doubt MLB is at a 20% profitability rate, as that would average out to about $70M per team.  Even if it is true, there are questions; is that 20% before taxes?  If so, that immediately shrinks to 15%.  Is that 20% profitability rate standard across all clubs?  Of course it's not, which means some teams can absorb fanless games due to their 30-40% profitability rate, while others will immediately go into the red due to their 2-5% profitability rate.  The owners will collectively bargain on this, because it's not in the interest of the Yankees/Dodgers/Red Sox to see 5-10 franchises fold.  It demonstrates the financials of MLB are not as sound as perceived, which lessens the value of all remaining franchises.  It reduces the interest in baseball as a whole, which reduces the revenue available from national media.

 

MLB's revenue this year, assuming an 82 game fanless season is down at minimum 60%, if not more.  There is no business whatsoever that would continue to pay full freight (as the players are demanding for any games played) while absorbing a massive hit to revenue.

Profits were after tax.

It would be in the interest  of the high revenue clubs to have every low revenue team fail. If the 10 teams with the worst local contracts fail that would dramatically increase profits. Less teams, more available talent would lead to reduced payrolls. With revenue sharing you haven't got a clue who would be profitable and not as profitable. That is not the generic you.

[old nurse]

 

Exactly? No, we don’t know exactly but someone skilled in Financials Assessment could estimate EBITA within =/- 5%. Virtually all MLB revenue is derived from taxable sources. Therefore, precise revenue can be derived by simply dividing tax payment by the tax rate. Player salaries are known precisely. Employee salaries can be estimated with relative precision based on taxes paid by the team. TV revenues are known with precision and league revenue sharing is also known.  

 

There are actually subscription based services that provide revenue and profit data for a variety of industries including MLB. They can’t get paid for poor information. I would also assume the players union has hired analysts to assess the profitability of all MLB teams. It’s just not that hard and I would assume they would use this information.

 

It takes very little financial acumen to ascertain the viability of playing without fans in the stands for any given team. Anyone who has taken anytime at all to educate themselves on our team’s financial sources understands that over half our revenue is derived from fans in the stands. It takes rather extreme disregard for logic to believe the team would not have a substantial loss without fans present.

Sponsorships are not taxable. Nor is it public information what is spent on the administrative side of baseball. You can claim profit or loss, but you do not know.

[old nurse]

 

You're continuing to miss my point.  I don't have a problem with the players attempting to get their pro-rated contracts, I'm saying it's a bad long-term move for the players to push the owners into a corner on pay right now.  It's potentially also a bad short-term move; if the owners don't concede, it's possible there's no season, and then the players get nothing above the $170M they already received.

 

It's also just silly to say no players=no game as concerns the current MLBPA; the majority of professional baseball players are not part of the MLBPA.  The owners would have no problem finding new players, while the players would have an enormously difficult time finding new owners.

 

Let's say the owners decide to start play in 2022 with only MiLB players and line-crossing MLBPA players.  The owners could set a salary cap of $40M/team ($1.2B total), and incrementally move that up until it hits say 35% of total revenue over the next 8 years.  The Twins would save something like $80M to $100M in payroll in that first year, all of which is 100% profit.  They could use that money to slash the cost of attending a game by 50 to 70% to start, all of which would make continuing to attend games very popular.

The owners are the one pushing. 

Scab players will not work. It has been tried in football. It did not work. Minor league as a replacement, did not work, see all of the failed football leagues. 

[old nurse]

 

There is a free market: for free agents.  This past offseason, Josh Donaldson had absolutely no restrictions on which major league team he could play for.  It's true the majority of MLB players don't operate within a free market, but it's silly to say none do.

No overt restrictions.  Denial is a beautiful thing. If it is silly to say none, what is it to say there is a free market when there is not free markets for all? You are being very presidential.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

 

You are using antitrust laws in the context of wages. This makes very little sense. Antitrust laws are designed for the protection of consumers not employees. Are wages typical of a free market? Initial 3 years? Absolutely not. Is arbitration typical of a free market? Not exactly but it seems to work pretty well. You concede the need for controlling where players go initial salaries and free agency is very typical of a free market so what exactly are you complaining about?

 

Player salaries have absolutely sky rocketed. MLB players might be the most fortunate group in the entire world. The increase in pay they have sustained over the past 30 years is incredible. Other industry simply don't continue to increase employee compensation this way. They retire at 35 with enough wealth to live very comfortably for the rest of their lives while never having a real job, at least not in terms of what most of would call work. Yet, some of you blindly take their side at every turn, even when some of them speak out about the need to "get theirs" in the face of a global pandemic.

 

There is plenty written on anti-trust laws in terms of wages. That's hardly out of norm in our society and it's the precise reason why baseball has an anti-trust exemption. Anti-trust can apply to both worker wages as well as pricing. 

 

Your problem though is that you're lumping the entire thing into a free market. It's not. The draft isn't a free market. Minor league wages aren't a free market. Your initial service time is not a free market. Only free agency is. As I said before, MLB is not a free market. You're also confusing the results of a few against the sacrifice of many. Most professional baseball players never make it to MLB to retire at 35 with more money then they know what to do with. Only a few can do that. 

 

If you've read my posts in this thread, then you know that I'm not really on either side on this owner/player debate as I think both are foolishly using this situation as a reason to play hardball with the other group. They're ignoring an opportunity to get baseball back at a time where it would draw fans and instead fanning the flames of not one but two work stoppages in the next two seasons which will probably kill the sport as we know it...

 

I'm simply calling out the idea that you like it call this a free market. It's not.

[FishingMN]

Simple solution -

 

Players accept owners most recent proposal for 2020 pay.

 

Players are paid back the difference between prorated pay and 2020 pay over 3 years.

 

Win/win for both. Owners have reduced costs in 2020 and players eventually get the full amount that they are demanding. Owners can reduce future costs if needed to afford the payback.

[USAFChief]

I hope the owners force the union's hand, and break it.

 

We would all be much better off if the MLBPA didnt exist. Baseball will be just fine with a new crop of players. In a few years, there will be zero impact on level of play.

[Major League Ready]

 

Sponsorships are not taxable. Nor is it public information what is spent on the administrative side of baseball. You can claim profit or loss, but you do not know.

 

If you look at my statement, I said costs could be estimated within +/-5%. Frankly, I would expect a skilled analyst to come within 3%. 

 

The Twins had 269M in revenue for 2019.  Based on reported profit that means they had $250M in total cost. MLB payroll was $128.7M + 11.5% taxes and benefits for a total of $143.5M or a total of 57.4 of total cost. They also paid just shy of 12M + Payroll taxes in bonuses for the Amateur and International drafts. Therefore, we know the price cost for $166.8M or 66.67% of a $250M budget. Therefore, we only have to be within 15% on the remaining two-thirds of the budget to be +/- 5% of the total.

Of course, we also know the costs of MiLB players. We can easily estimate the costs of all other employees and contracts within +/- 10% which means we would be within 4% overall. There is also the possibility of getting tax records. I am not positive, if the freedom of information act would allow us to request tax records.  If this is possible, we could be quite accurate with an estimate for all other employees.

 

This is obviously not like having the exact numbers but +/- 4% is perfectly adequate for most of the conversation here.

[Vanimal46]

Here’s a really simple solution. Owners should open their books. Let’s see the full financial picture. I’m sure an agreement could come together quickly if there’s some transparency on both sides.