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

[laloesch]

  On 5/24/2020 at 2:35 PM, Sconnie said:

I appreciate your perspective, and I worded my statement poorly.

If organizations treated their employees the way they should, fair pay, fair hours, quality and safe work environment, etc, then why would workers choose to forego a portion of their pay in union dues? Why would they pay for something they already get for free?

If management fails to do their job, they earn a unionized workforce to leverage collective bargaining to earn what every human deserves in employment.

 

No worries. Yes i agree. But there comes a point where an organization and it's union become bigger then their own shoes and lose perspective on their roots.I'm not gonna play one side or the other because i'm sure their is blame on both sides for what has taken place so far in negotiations.

 

I just have a difficult time empathizing with players and owners making millions upon millions of profits all coming from you and I and our hard won wages. Part of the reason our cable bills and county taxes are so high is money being directly funneled to sports teams.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

  On 5/25/2020 at 3:02 PM, ewen21 said:

Who cares about prior to 1976? Prior to 1976 I was still wearing bellbottom jeans and most of the people here weren't even born. I also don't see any parallel between baseball and people working at Disney. Any veteran ballplayer with more than a few years in should be fine taking a half salary this year. The league minimum is $555,000 for a year of service. They also get a $100 dollars a day in cash to feed themselves. There are Disney employees that don't even make the meal money players get in a week. I couldn't quote your analogy because it was too offensive to me.

 

There is no logical reason why athletes and entertainers should make as much as they do. It is beyond absurd at this point and to take the stance trolls like Snell and Harper took is disgraceful against the current backdrop.

 

I am done with this discussion.

because there is one CBA in baseball and minor leaguers make Disney worker money. 99% of entertainers work at dinner theatres and theme parks for close minimum wage. But we keep hearing this idea that it’s not important. Importance and value are separate concepts.

 

Also because history is how we got here, and how “we” make decisions today will have ramifications for events in 2060, just like the decisions made in 1976 have ramifications for negotiations today. We’re making history right now.

[laloesch]

  On 5/24/2020 at 12:14 AM, ewen21 said:

Pretty much this, but even more so the players fail to see the big picture because of this "umma get mine!" mentality and it just won't play in the general population. Maybe with some stat heads and baseball addicts (which I am). Baseball might stand to get a huge shot in the arm by coming back and taking their salary loss just like millions and millions of Americans have. Public opinion and support would give them much more leverage than fighting for their dollars now.

 

To me this debate has nothing to do with rich vs. wealthy. It has to do with the players (once again) not getting it. A small fraction of baseball fanatics are going to get behind the players and that is what is happening here as I expected. The larger portion of society isn't going to and the people who are casual fans (and there are a lot of those) won't either.

 

Again, average player salaries have increased by over 500% over the last 20 years. How long is that supposed to continue? Forever? And let's be clear about this. The money has come out of our pockets. The more demands the players make and the more they get the more we are going to spend to watch baseball. I am not interested in spending any more money. There needs to be a correction in player salaries because it is totally stupid at this point.

I think it comes down to how far are they willing to push each other. Are they really gonna push it to the brink? It could very well reach a point where the owners just say screw it and shut down for good this season. They are not gonna lose 10's of millions of dollars for charity. It's a business and people need to realize that. That said both sides need to be humble in order to salavage the situation or they might lose some of the marginally profitable franchises forever.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

  On 5/25/2020 at 3:19 PM, laloesch said:

I think it comes down to how far are they willing to push each other. Are they really gonna push it to the brink? It could very well reach a point where the owners just say screw it and shut down for good this season. They are not gonna lose 10's of millions of dollars for charity. It's a business and people need to realize that. That said both sides need to be humble in order to salavage the situation or they might lose some of the marginally profitable franchises forever.

agreed, To this and MLR’s point, worst case scenario is a number of teams can’t absorb losses and the league destabilizes. Second worst is a lock out that turns off an already weakened (monetarily) fan base.

 

Negotiating between players and owners a stop gap solution is the best way for the league to survive.

 

But it’s not the players “fault”, it’s no one’s. Owners should be more prepared with cash reserves than the average player, who spent 6 years making peanuts and just over the last few years started making more money than most of us ever will, or the much more vast population of minor leaguers who are laid off, who make almost nothing.

[ashbury]

  On 5/25/2020 at 3:02 PM, ewen21 said:

There is no logical reason why athletes and entertainers should make as much as they do. 

If anything good comes out of this pandemic, it would be a dawning realization that market economics do not define anything bigger or more meaningful than a market equilibrium. We need a new economic theory that goes beyond mere free markets, or capitalism, or socialism, and covers important cases like how to put an economy on "Pause" for a few months (IMO, it has to start with bankers being part of the pause), and how to deal with a new world that requires fewer workers than ever before ("work or don't eat" should be passe by now), and the impact of higher and higher leverage over markets ("you didn't build that" infuriated those who benefit from this leverage), while not forgetting that market forces don't magically go away just because one wishes them to (health care, etc).

 

But, I digress. Back here in the real world, athletes and entertainers are the engine for very large revenues, based on a limited supply. People find what they do to be of value, in the free market sense at least. If ticket prices from the box office were lowered, smart guys would buy up the tickets and resell them to you if you're willing to outbid others. In other words, the money is there for the taking - who should get it? The scalpers? The team owners? The players?

 

[BD57]

 

  On 5/17/2020 at 1:54 PM, Vanimal46 said:

No players are saying otherwise. They agreed to a pro-rated salary. During those discussions, Scott Boras said the owners agreed to these conditions with the possibility of no fans in the stands. The owners backed out of the agreement. That’s what this is about.

"pro-rated salaries" would be an easy "fix" if all aspects of the season were "pro-rated" - such as, for example, "attendance at games" . . . but it doesn't sound like that's going to happen.

 

If there's no fans in the seats, then you don't have a truly "pro-rated" season.

 

While it sucks all the way around, this season - if there is one - is a "one-off" . . . figure out a way to get through it.

 

As for the health risks - based upon what we now know, the players parents and grandparents might be at some significant risk, there might be some team personnel who have some risk, there may even be a player here or there who has some real risk, but, by & large, the players won't have significant risk.

 

No, I don't want any of them to get it - not the players, not anyone around them, not their families . . . still, this stuff isn't "The Andromeda Strain."

[DocBauer]

I've stayed out of this conversation the last week or so for various reasons. The fact that an offer is actually being discussed and there is a real chance for baseball being played...though I haven't found exact details...lead me to catch up on this thread and comment. Again, I take no sides here. I have offered, and will offer, comment and opinion that could lead someone to believe that I indeed am on either side of the aisle. That is not the case. I simply try to look at the work, this situation, as logically as I can.

 

First, while a few players have made some comments that I can only describe as outrageous considering society and the world as a whole right now, attempting to attribute those comments and opinions to all players is also very wrong and outrageous.

 

Second, while the players will not make as much $ with baseball in 2020, they will not lose money. Unless they are mortgaged to the hip, in which case something is better than nothing. I have also objected to the arguement that they have to earn ever dollar they can as their career is so short. Every player has the ability to invest, seek out expert advice, and then find something else to do with their life after they are done playing, even if it doesn't involve earning hundreds of thousands or millions of $.

 

Thirdly, unlike the very old days of MLB, owners don't make a living/income from MLB. Until or unless they sell a franchise years down the road,the vast majority of owners may make money, but it is their other businesses that support their life and their families, albeit in a way none of us can understand or comprehend. So no-one should feel sorry for owners losing money in 2020 or suddenly hitting the skids. But at the same time, said owners are probably losing money in their other investments, and that's a very real thing in our society/world.

 

Why should we care? Maybe we shouldn't. Maybe it's not important. But we as fans, and the players who are paid by the owners, and the milb players, and the hot dog and beer guy who is hoping baseball comes back AT LEAST in 2021 to some sense of normalcy, we might care about the future of the game beyond 2020 and how stable it is.

 

Fourth, and part of point 3 as well as point 2, simple logic and intelligence should make it clear the owners ARE going to lose $ in 2020 regardless. Now, even without fans, there are some teams like N.Y. or L.A., etc, that might not due to media deals, merchandising and pure nation wide support. And maybe this profit sharing idea helps mitigate the losses of Minnesota, K.C. And others. I don't know the details. And while the financial numbers posted here by others in very intelligent arguments may not be 100% spot on, there seems to be a general truth to what is presented.

 

But is it so far fetched to believe the owners are willing to take a loss on their MLB franchises, mitigated by a new agreement, for the health of their sport for 2021 and beyond? Again, ego and fun is the reason these billionaires own these franchises. They spend massive amounts of $ to purchase these franchises and see profit from them, absolutely, but don't enjoy any huge payday until years later if and when they sell said franchise. The context is absurdly different, but still similar to any of us making an investment over time and cashing in years down the road.

 

In conclusion, it is up to both sides to find a solution that works for 2020, not just financially but logistically. If anyone wants to sit out and not play due to health concerns, I believe they have that right to do so. They forfeit their salary, but they should not be chastised or blackmailed from playing again. That crosses a line, financially, morally and legally I don't think anyone is really prepared to deal with.

 

Salary cap with a floor...something other sports have...be damned. BOTH SIDES have a lot to lose and so much to gain! And I'm not just talking about making $ or losing less. I'm talking about the health of the sport in 2021 and beyond, especially with another labor deal pending. It's easy to be flippant and say blow it all up, but that is just not practical for anyone involved.

 

Now, to me, the onus is on management at this juncture. And I don't just mean for 2020. Just be smart and act in good faith. There is greed and want from both sides. But maybe this is the perfect time for 20 owners, approximately, to show some backbone and step up to the plate...yes, an obvious pun...and challenge the other 10 owners, with or without Manfred, and look at the good of the future of the game. Cap, no cap, if you're willing to share more equitably for 2020 between yourselves, and the players, then why can't you do so going forward?

 

If the basic financial floor of MLB going forward was more balanced, the game grows as more teams can compete year to year. You're telling me that doesn't pique the interest of fans and TV watchers everywhere and gate receipts? Remember, there are watchers, listeners, beer and dog consumers, and jersey/hat purchasing fans across this country besides L.A. and N.Y. and Boston and Chicago.

 

I'm talking about long term investment in the sport itself. You're telling me there is no market for "game of the week" between the Dodgers and the Padres if both teams are competitive? ALL the various networks thrive on viewership. Point is, growing the sport. Perfect time for the owners to step forward for the good of the league and make it stronger. The players could only benefit with further growth as well.

[old nurse]

 

  On 5/25/2020 at 2:39 PM, ewen21 said:

I can't say it enough times.  Stop coming at me with the owners this the owners that.  Sell it to someone else because I don't care.  I don't care if the owners make ten trillion dollars every time they inhale.  I am sick of the players thinking they are entitled to more than they already have.  I am not a baseball owners fan.  I am a baseball fan.  Stop advocating for the players.  They have a union, lawyers and agents working for them.

 

1. The players have seen their salaries increase by over 500% in since 1990

2. They have guaranteed contracts even if they play like garbage

3. Millions of baseball fans have lost their jobs, have no income and would like to watch baseball again

4. Millions of baseball fans also "risk their lives" every time they go to work (if they are lucky to still have a job)

 

Enough.

I am one of those people at risk every day I work.  I don't really care if the owners lose a little money. For this year even they can still make money. Expanded playoffs will bring back more than enough money. The owners will find a way. Some star in an effort to make money will find a way with the owners to have fans for the playoffs and make people money virus or not. With the players they are still going to have a risk albeit not likely to be a lethal one. You, and others, begrudge the entertainers making money for providing you entertainment. That is what it is. The wealth of the country has shifted in the same manner for the owners. The teams will be fine in the short run as well as the long run. The Wilpons couldn't even bankrupt the Mets

[old nurse]

 

  On 5/25/2020 at 1:17 PM, Major League Ready said:

Regardless of how much revenue it generates. They are still playing a game. Sure, they work hard on their game. I work hard on my golf game. It's fun. Short of the people who inherited wealth, the people whop accumulate the wealth consistent with a MLB owner work extremely hard. Anyone here who has had bottom line responsibility for a 9-figure business or even an executive position worked very hard for that success doing things a lot less fun than playing baseball.

 

The point is they would play that game for an eight of what they are being paid because there is not an alternative for them that would pay better. That's also how a free economy works. If the owners were all as greedy as some of you make them to be, they could insist on making double what they are now. Sure the players could strike and the owners could find replacements. If Cole were a free agent with this new reality, would he refuse to go back to work for $200M instead of $300M and go get a job? MLB owners could definitely increase profitability within the limitations of anti-trust laws if they really wanted to do so. 

 

Let's compare relative greed during the pandemic. If owners, took the stance of players, they would be looking to make their normal 12% bottom line. Without looking it up, I think the average team makes a little over $40M year. Obviously, that not even remotely possible. Most business would have laid-off most of their employees. MLB owners have been very good to their employees so far.

 

Owners are not asking for terms that would off-set some losses if they go back to playing. Most likely, those losses would be increased even under the terms they have proposed. If they pay full contracts their losses would be even greater. There is a big difference between making less than taking $100M out of you pocket.

The players agreed to pro rated salaries. The owners will find ways to make profits. Relative greed? The prices for things over the years, facility funding throughout baseball shows you where the money manipulation has come. As there is nothing definitive set on how the playoffs work, the owners will find a way to make money.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

  On 5/25/2020 at 1:17 PM, Major League Ready said:

Regardless of how much revenue it generates. They are still playing a game. Sure, they work hard on their game. I work hard on my golf game. It's fun. Short of the people who inherited wealth, the people whop accumulate the wealth consistent with a MLB owner work extremely hard. Anyone here who has had bottom line responsibility for a 9-figure business or even an executive position worked very hard for that success doing things a lot less fun than playing baseball.

 

The point is they would play that game for an eight of what they are being paid because there is not an alternative for them that would pay better. That's also how a free economy works. If the owners were all as greedy as some of you make them to be, they could insist on making double what they are now. Sure the players could strike and the owners could find replacements. If Cole were a free agent with this new reality, would he refuse to go back to work for $200M instead of $300M and go get a job? MLB owners could definitely increase profitability within the limitations of anti-trust laws if they really wanted to do so. 

 

Let's compare relative greed during the pandemic. If owners, took the stance of players, they would be looking to make their normal 12% bottom line. Without looking it up, I think the average team makes a little over $40M year. Obviously, that not even remotely possible. Most business would have laid-off most of their employees. MLB owners have been very good to their employees so far.

 

Owners are not asking for terms that would off-set some losses if they go back to playing. Most likely, those losses would be increased even under the terms they have proposed. If they pay full contracts their losses would be even greater. There is a big difference between making less than taking $100M out of you pocket.

 

There is nothing "free market" about player wages. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

  On 5/25/2020 at 3:02 PM, ewen21 said:

 

 

There is no logical reason why athletes and entertainers should make as much as they do.  It is beyond absurd at this point and to take the stance trolls like Snell and Harper took is disgraceful against the current backdrop.

 

 

While in theory I agree, in reality it's not like ticket prices are going to drop substantially either. Professional athletes pay is a function of revenue generated, and it's negotiated in that capacity in large part because they do not get to chose their employer and for large parts of their career, they don't even get to negotiate their salary... 

 

But if this is what bothers you, then you would/should be bothered by the exorbitant amount you have to pay to go to a game... 

[In My La Z boy]

 

  On 5/25/2020 at 9:59 PM, ashbury said:

If anything good comes out of this pandemic, it would be a dawning realization that market economics do not define anything bigger or more meaningful than a market equilibrium. We need a new economic theory that goes beyond mere free markets, or capitalism, or socialism, and covers important cases like how to put an economy on "Pause" for a few months (IMO, it has to start with bankers being part of the pause), and how to deal with a new world that requires fewer workers than ever before ("work or don't eat" should be passe by now), and the impact of higher and higher leverage over markets ("you didn't build that" infuriated those who benefit from this leverage), while not forgetting that market forces don't magically go away just because one wishes them to (health care, etc).

 

But, I digress. Back here in the real world, athletes and entertainers are the engine for very large revenues, based on a limited supply. People find what they do to be of value, in the free market sense at least. If ticket prices from the box office were lowered, smart guys would buy up the tickets and resell them to you if you're willing to outbid others. In other words, the money is there for the taking - who should get it? The scalpers? The team owners? The players?
 

I am not sure why you or anyone would wish market forces to go away? And in this new economic theory you desire - which person among us is qualified, and noble enough to be the decider of this new system? You very assuredly suggest work or don't eat should be passe by now - but this is not the way human kind was built to be. Many passages in Proverbs - Thessalonians 3 - over 40 different Bible verses discuss the foundational system of work, as it relates to supplying our basic needs such as food.

Our world gets off track when these Bible principles are not followed by the commands of charity, and of selflessness. Free market principles, combined with nobility is an unstoppable force. Unfortunately for all of us, you cannot legislate morality. I wish we could. 
 

[Major League Ready]

 

  On 5/26/2020 at 12:48 PM, diehardtwinsfan said:

There is nothing "free market" about player wages. 

 

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

[Major League Ready]

 

  On 5/25/2020 at 3:10 PM, laloesch said:

No worries. Yes i agree. But there comes a point where an organization and it's union become bigger then their own shoes and lose perspective on their roots.I'm not gonna play one side or the other because i'm sure their is blame on both sides for what has taken place so far in negotiations.

I just have a difficult time empathizing with players and owners making millions upon millions of profits all coming from you and I and our hard won wages. Part of the reason our cable bills and county taxes are so high is money being directly funneled to sports teams.

 

This is basically my point of view as well. However, there is a point that continues to be lost here and in the media. I want to see baseball this year. One side (players) would not make as much as normal. The other side (teams) are going to lose a boat load. If returning to play means extending those loses substantially, I can't blame owners if they were unwilling to increase loses substantially by playing. Then, we don't have baseball. Most of the public is going to blame the guys that wanted to payed in full while so many are financially devastated.

 

The "they will find a way to make money" is truly a bury your head in the sand / uniformed point off view. They are not going to magically find new sources of revenue that will make up for 9 figure loses. Do you suppose they did not tap these others ways of making money previously because they were so profitable they just ignored these other sources?

[Richie the Rally Goat]

  On 5/26/2020 at 2:36 PM, Major League Ready said:

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

1) MLB has an exemption to the Sherman antitrust act

2) players are drafted

3) minor leaguers are exempt from minimum wage

4) minor leaguers play on minimally or non-negotiated contracts for up to 6 years or sometimes longer

5) major leaguers have 3 years of minimum salary (minimally negotiated)

6) major leaguers then go through 3 years of arbitration (more negotiation but still not “free”

7) now up to or sometimes after 12 years a player gets free agency, except there is still only one league (see #1)

 

How is this “free market” in any way shape or form?

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

  On 5/19/2020 at 12:03 PM, Nine of twelve said:

I know this is a complicated matter, but it really comes down to this: Will there be a net profit if a shortened season is played and can safety issues be satisfactorily addressed?

If yes, everyone gets something. If the owners have a net profit and the players have a net loss that's not right, and vice-versa. If that requires renegotiation then so be it. If it requires the owners to open their books then so be it.

If no, then wait till 2021.

 

So long as the players are being paid, they always have a net profit, as there are no costs associated with being a player (unless you count lost opportunity cost, but I think it would be hard to argue MLB players have more lucrative jobs elsewhere they are forgoing in order to play in the bigs).  In that sense, the owners are actually asking the players to reduce their profits for one year in order to offset the losses the owners would have to take in order for the players to have said profit.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

  On 5/22/2020 at 8:08 PM, The Wise One said:

Fernandez died in 16. There still is no replacement on the horizon for the Marlins. Not all players are easily replaceable. 2-4 years for pitchers you say. Certain players do not come around that often. 

 

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.

[Major League Ready]

 

  On 5/26/2020 at 3:22 PM, Sconnie said:

1) MLB has an exemption to the Sherman antitrust act
2) players are drafted
3) minor leaguers are exempt from minimum wage
4) minor leaguers play on minimally or non-negotiated contracts for up to 6 years or sometimes longer
5) major leaguers have 3 years of minimum salary (minimally negotiated)
6) major leaguers then go through 3 years of arbitration (more negotiation but still not “free”
7) now up to or sometimes after 12 years a player gets free agency, except there is still only one league (see #1)

How is this “free market” in any way shape or form?

 

I agree with 2,3,4,5. I don't see a problem with (6) the arbitration system. If you have a way around (2) the draft without making the league utterly dominated by the richest teams even more than they are today, I would love to hear it.

 

We could easily compensate ALL MiLB players quite well without diverting a dime from MLB players or taking any more funding from ownership. Just quit giving enormous bonuses to unproven players. They are going to get rich if they make it so why are they given multi-million dollar signing bonus, especially given the number of them that fail. If you took 75% of that bonus money and added it to wages, you could give all MiLB players a $30K raise.

[ashbury]

  On 5/26/2020 at 4:21 PM, Cap'n Piranha said:

So long as the players are being paid, they always have a net profit, as there are no costs associated with being a player (unless you count lost opportunity cost, but I think it would be hard to argue MLB players have more lucrative jobs elsewhere they are forgoing in order to play in the bigs).  In that sense, the owners are actually asking the players to reduce their profits for one year in order to offset the losses the owners would have to take in order for the players to have said profit.

This is similar to a profit-sharing approach. Which would be fine, except that it's never been offered during the good years.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

  On 5/23/2020 at 10:07 AM, old nurse said:

"Underwater" assets are not the player's fault.  Players sign a contract. Sometimes they are team friendly, sometimes not. When a team signs a new television contract, new stadium deal or anything else that jumps the revenue of a team the players do not universally share thw bounty, why should the player suffer the momentary downturn

 

I never said it's the players' fault, but you're fooling yourself if you think, right now, it's not the players' problem.  The players need to see the whole board--the owners have already lost billions in revenue; with no fans at games, they stand to lose billions more.  These are people who also have seen their other assets, in all likelihood, plunge in value/cash flow.  Asking them to just accept a loss in most cases probably means liquidating assets, or enacting cuts at other businesses in order to secure the liquidity necessary to continue payments.

 

It's also just silly to say the players don't get more when a team's revenue increases--the Twins are a prime example.  In 2009, the Twins payroll was $65M (according to Cot's).  in 2010 it jumped to $97M, and the next year, it was $113M.  In 1990, the minimum salary was $100k, and the average salary was $578K (according to baseball reference).  In 2018, that had increased to $545k and just under $4.1M; that's a 450% increase on minimum pay and a 600% increase on average salary, while the average American has seen only a 150% increase since 1990.

 

The minimum MLB salary is enough to put a player earning it easily in the top 5% of all earners, and probably closer to the 1% threshold than the 5% threshold.  The average MLB salary puts a player earning that comfortably in the top 0.1% of all earners.  Blake Snell, for example, even if he "only" received a third of his $7M salary would still be right around the top 0.1% of earners.

 

To answer your closing question, the players should consider "suffering" the momentary downturn because of the very real possibility I outlined that choosing not to cooperate with the owners could transform their momentary downturn into an extended, or even permanent, downturn.  The easiest way for any entity to increase profitability is to reduce expense, as every dollar saved is a dollar of profit, whereas every dollar created is only cents in profit.  The easiest way for the owners to reduce expense is to reduce player pay; therefore, the less painful, comparatively speaking, it becomes to not pay the current members of the MLBPA, the more attractive dissolving that relationship becomes.

 

The owners are under no obligation to the players to continue to pay them after 2021--the players ignoring that fact because they want to make more money this year is akin to taking your credit card company up on an offer of delaying payments; the bill will come due, and you'll lose more than you gained.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

  On 5/24/2020 at 2:35 PM, Sconnie said:

I appreciate your perspective, and I worded my statement poorly.

If organizations treated their employees the way they should, fair pay, fair hours, quality and safe work environment, etc, then why would workers choose to forego a portion of their pay in union dues? Why would they pay for something they already get for free?

If management fails to do their job, they earn a unionized workforce to leverage collective bargaining to earn what every human deserves in employment.

 

Humans don't deserve anything from employment--it is an agreement entered into by two consenting parties for which one side surrenders labor in return for the other side surrendering some other material benefit (almost universally monetary, but that doesn't need to be the case).  As such, if a prospective employee feels what is being offered is not commensurate with what is being asked, they are free to reject the offer, and attempt to secure a better deal elsewhere.  It is in the business' best interest to provide competitive compensation (which generally includes, safe working conditions, reasonable hours, and acceptable pay), else they will find themselves without employees.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

  On 5/25/2020 at 10:29 AM, old nurse said:

The average increase in the valuation of  a team versus the increase in player pay over the same time period? Another perspective is If you look at operating income there would would be a 400% + increase over the last 10 years. People who make a few million versus 30 people who make billions

 

Actually, the owners are worth billions, they don't make billions (unless you're defining the owners as a collective group, in which case the players should also be defined as a collective group; they then also make billions).

 

Furthermore, even if the owners were taken as a collective group, they don't make billions, they earn billions, which is a totally different thing.  For example, I am far better off spending $100k to make $200k, than spending $1M to make $900k.  I earned $700k more, but I actually made $200k less.

 

The owners have a far lower profit rate than the players--take a player making the minimum salary of $563k.  Let's say that player plays in California, and so loses about 50% of their revenue to taxes.  They can spend about 20% of their remaining pay (about $112k), and still have a "profit" margin of 30%.  To realize the same level of profitability, each MLB team would need to make $100M a year AFTER taxes--there's no way that's happening.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

  On 5/26/2020 at 12:48 PM, diehardtwinsfan said:

There is nothing "free market" about player wages. 

 

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.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

  On 5/26/2020 at 4:45 PM, ashbury said:

This is similar to a profit-sharing approach. Which would be fine, except that it's never been offered during the good years.

 

It's in no way a profit-sharing approach, it's the reality for anyone who trades their labor for monetary compensation.  As little to no investment relatively speaking (other than time) is generally required to perform most jobs, they are always profitable, unless the employee is spending beyond their means.  For example, if a brand new rookie ballplayer buys a $2M house on Lake Minnetonka, he might struggle to be profitable, but that is hardly the fault of MLB for not paying him more, anymore than an average worker not being profitable because he bought a Porsche while making $50k a year is the fault of his employer.

 

You know what would be a profit-sharing plan?  A salary cap where the the upper limit is pegged to a certain percentage of total MLB revenue, yet the players adamantly oppose that.

[Major League Ready]

 

  On 5/26/2020 at 5:19 PM, Cap'n Piranha said:

Actually, the owners are worth billions, they don't make billions (unless you're defining the owners as a collective group, in which case the players should also be defined as a collective group; they then also make billions).

 

Furthermore, even if the owners were taken as a collective group, they don't make billions, they earn billions, which is a totally different thing.  For example, I am far better off spending $100k to make $200k, than spending $1M to make $900k.  I earned $700k more, but I actually made $200k less.

 

The owners have a far lower profit rate than the players--take a player making the minimum salary of $563k.  Let's say that player plays in California, and so loses about 50% of their revenue to taxes.  They can spend about 20% of their remaining pay (about $112k), and still have a "profit" margin of 30%.  To realize the same level of profitability, each MLB team would need to make $100M a year AFTER taxes--there's no way that's happening.

 

I nice to see a reasonable and accurate representation of the financial realities. There is a lot of stuff thrown around here with no basis in reality. I read somewhere the teams collectively had a net profit before taxes of $1.2B. Players earned 4.4B before taxes. There are not many companies where one employee makes nearly as much as the entire company.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

 

  On 5/26/2020 at 4:35 PM, Major League Ready said:

I agree with 2,3,4,5. I don't see a problem with (6) the arbitration system. If you have a way around (2) the draft without making the league utterly dominated by the richest teams even more than they are today, I would love to hear it.

 

We could easily compensate ALL MiLB players quite well without diverting a dime from MLB players or taking any more funding from ownership. Just quit giving enormous bonuses to unproven players. They are going to get rich if they make it so why are they given multi-million dollar signing bonus, especially given the number of them that fail. If you took 75% of that bonus money and added it to wages, you could give all MiLB players a $30K raise.

 

I do have a desire to make minor league ball more equitable, and agreed there are solutions out there with minimal impact on MLB players and owners. I mean for the price of one year of one mid tier reliever you could change the lives of thousands of minor league ball players. But I digress, this isn't the point. 

 

I don't see all of these items as "problematic" as much as trying to define a market as "not free". Applying free market principles to a market that isn't free, is problematic.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

 

  On 5/26/2020 at 5:07 PM, Cap'n Piranha said:

Humans don't deserve anything from employment--it is an agreement entered into by two consenting parties for which one side surrenders labor in return for the other side surrendering some other material benefit (almost universally monetary, but that doesn't need to be the case).  As such, if a prospective employee feels what is being offered is not commensurate with what is being asked, they are free to reject the offer, and attempt to secure a better deal elsewhere.  It is in the business' best interest to provide competitive compensation (which generally includes, safe working conditions, reasonable hours, and acceptable pay), else they will find themselves without employees.

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. 

[Vanimal46]

 

This is what was leaked. What are the minimum players making, $100k?

[Richie the Rally Goat]

  On 5/26/2020 at 11:13 PM, Vanimal46 said:

https://twitter.com/jesserogersespn/status/1265416875539914753?s=21

 

This is what was leaked. What are the minimum players making, $100k?

looks like 40% at the lower tiers, 250k maybe

[old nurse]

 

  On 5/26/2020 at 4:56 PM, Cap'n Piranha said:

I never said it's the players' fault, but you're fooling yourself if you think, right now, it's not the players' problem.  The players need to see the whole board--the owners have already lost billions in revenue; with no fans at games, they stand to lose billions more.  These are people who also have seen their other assets, in all likelihood, plunge in value/cash flow.  Asking them to just accept a loss in most cases probably means liquidating assets, or enacting cuts at other businesses in order to secure the liquidity necessary to continue payments.

 

It's also just silly to say the players don't get more when a team's revenue increases--the Twins are a prime example.  In 2009, the Twins payroll was $65M (according to Cot's).  in 2010 it jumped to $97M, and the next year, it was $113M.  In 1990, the minimum salary was $100k, and the average salary was $578K (according to baseball reference).  In 2018, that had increased to $545k and just under $4.1M; that's a 450% increase on minimum pay and a 600% increase on average salary, while the average American has seen only a 150% increase since 1990.

 

The minimum MLB salary is enough to put a player earning it easily in the top 5% of all earners, and probably closer to the 1% threshold than the 5% threshold.  The average MLB salary puts a player earning that comfortably in the top 0.1% of all earners.  Blake Snell, for example, even if he "only" received a third of his $7M salary would still be right around the top 0.1% of earners.

 

To answer your closing question, the players should consider "suffering" the momentary downturn because of the very real possibility I outlined that choosing not to cooperate with the owners could transform their momentary downturn into an extended, or even permanent, downturn.  The easiest way for any entity to increase profitability is to reduce expense, as every dollar saved is a dollar of profit, whereas every dollar created is only cents in profit.  The easiest way for the owners to reduce expense is to reduce player pay; therefore, the less painful, comparatively speaking, it becomes to not pay the current members of the MLBPA, the more attractive dissolving that relationship becomes.

 

The owners are under no obligation to the players to continue to pay them after 2021--the players ignoring that fact because they want to make more money this year is akin to taking your credit card company up on an offer of delaying payments; the bill will come due, and you'll lose more than you gained.

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