And the off season begins (2018-19)

[moonslav59]

So much of baseball revenue and value can and is be easily hidden.

[jacksonianmarch]

A fair assessment, but what makes you think the new CBA will make it easier for big spending teams?

 

Because the concerns the players rallied behind for years have finally come to light and the stars or former stars are pissed about it. The grumbling from Kris Bryant and Evan Longoria is just the beginning. The guys who pull their strings (the agents) are feeding them all a line and come Dec 2021, they’ll be convinced they’re being held in a slavery type agreement even though they’re making 8 figures. The NBA went through this when their profits soared and now guys are making $40-$46 mil a year. It’ll happen in America’s pastime too

[moonslav59]

Because the concerns the players rallied behind for years have finally come to light and the stars or former stars are pissed about it. The grumbling from Kris Bryant and Evan Longoria is just the beginning. The guys who pull their strings (the agents) are feeding them all a line and come Dec 2021, they’ll be convinced they’re being held in a slavery type agreement even though they’re making 8 figures. The NBA went through this when their profits soared and now guys are making $40-$46 mil a year. It’ll happen in America’s pastime too

 

That's not was I was asking. Why do you assume the results of the new CBA will help the big teams.

 

Players could demand higher pay for the little guys, a better arb process and a system that forces the smaller teams to pay more not for the big teams to pay more.

 

A new CBA that helps the small to middle teams would likely help more players than one that helps just the big spenders.

 

[jacksonianmarch]

Because the current CBA was aimed squarely at NY, BOS, LA, and Chicago. It was promised that the taxes wouldn’t stunt contracts. By having the big boys sitting on the sidelines, owners weren’t as “generous” and contracts dropped. The only way to ensure contracts rise is to ensure the big boys are always in on the negotiations

[moonslav59]

Because the current CBA was aimed squarely at NY, BOS, LA, and Chicago. It was promised that the taxes wouldn’t stunt contracts. By having the big boys sitting on the sidelines, owners weren’t as “generous” and contracts dropped. The only way to ensure contracts rise is to ensure the big boys are always in on the negotiations

 

Are more players making less of just the top players, right now?

 

Using dropping average can be deceiving.

[Kimmi]

I fully expect the new CBA will feature mechanisms that guarantee a minimum share of revenue leaguewide to go to players. Right now, if I read correctly, baseball spends the lowest amount of their revenue on players (something like 42%). I mean each team got $50M from the new digital rights deal, and yet only TAMPA BAY has been genuinely aggressive this offseason trying to jump to the next level.

 

I also think if the league is going to keep a punitive luxury tax - then the players will push for eliminating salary arbitration (possibly accepting an actual salary cap depending on how it looks). Replace arbitration with a year of restricted free agency (offer sheets). It will be good for everybody in a lot of ways - the winter meetings being such a dud is bad for baseball.

 

I completely agree with the idea of requiring each owner to spend a certain % of the team's revenue sharing on payroll. Any owner who doesn't should not only forfeit the money, but should also be penalized by losing some draft slots, rather than penalizing the teams that actually spend.

[jacksonianmarch]

Are more players making less of just the top players, right now?

 

Using dropping average can be deceiving.

 

The dropping average has a lot to do with good players not seeing anything in FA last year and even the best players signing below expected deals. Heck, some good players coming off very good years were available into the last week of ST last year. The problem last off-season was the Yanks and Dodgers sitting out to reset. This offseason, the Yanks have dipped into the pool and are over the first threshold, but aren’t going all the way to the final threshold in preparation of future expenditures. It’s better for baseball when the Yankees are signing the best players to massive deals. When they’re dealing from their farm and filling out a pen, the offers get stunted. The Sox are now out of any bidding due to being against the final threshold. The cubs are at their max being up against the cap. LA has been muted in their FA search.

 

With all the money in baseball right now, the players expect to see a fair share of it. Tony Clark has said that the union expects a 50% share of revenues. Being under that by 8% and having some of the best FAs to hit the market in years not see record setting offers is troubling to the sport

[sk7326]

So much of baseball revenue and value can and is be easily hidden.

 

That will obviously be negotiated - the giant digital rights deal money which has resulted in nothing meaningful for the players is not at all hidden

[sk7326]

The dropping average has a lot to do with good players not seeing anything in FA last year and even the best players signing below expected deals. Heck, some good players coming off very good years were available into the last week of ST last year. The problem last off-season was the Yanks and Dodgers sitting out to reset. This offseason, the Yanks have dipped into the pool and are over the first threshold, but aren’t going all the way to the final threshold in preparation of future expenditures. It’s better for baseball when the Yankees are signing the best players to massive deals. When they’re dealing from their farm and filling out a pen, the offers get stunted. The Sox are now out of any bidding due to being against the final threshold. The cubs are at their max being up against the cap. LA has been muted in their FA search.

 

With all the money in baseball right now, the players expect to see a fair share of it. Tony Clark has said that the union expects a 50% share of revenues. Being under that by 8% and having some of the best FAs to hit the market in years not see record setting offers is troubling to the sport

 

This ... big time free agents not signing hype worthy deals is bad for the sport.

 

The winter meetings - the only real chance in the offseason for baseball to be near the front of the sports pages - becoming so news-less is bad for baseball. (think of the bump the NFL gets from that draft 4 months after the season has ended)

 

Agents obviously have vested interest here - but yes, record revenues not flowing to the players is a problem (if nothing else for increasing the odds of a work stoppage).

[Bellhorn04]

If the owners don't wise up, they're going to kill the golden goose.

[moonslav59]

The dropping average has a lot to do with good players not seeing anything in FA last year and even the best players signing below expected deals. Heck, some good players coming off very good years were available into the last week of ST last year. The problem last off-season was the Yanks and Dodgers sitting out to reset. This offseason, the Yanks have dipped into the pool and are over the first threshold, but aren’t going all the way to the final threshold in preparation of future expenditures. It’s better for baseball when the Yankees are signing the best players to massive deals. When they’re dealing from their farm and filling out a pen, the offers get stunted. The Sox are now out of any bidding due to being against the final threshold. The cubs are at their max being up against the cap. LA has been muted in their FA search.

 

With all the money in baseball right now, the players expect to see a fair share of it. Tony Clark has said that the union expects a 50% share of revenues. Being under that by 8% and having some of the best FAs to hit the market in years not see record setting offers is troubling to the sport

 

Top and good players getting paid through free agency is a vast minority of all the players in MLB. We are seeing record arb contracts and the minimum pay went up some in the last CBA.

 

My point is, if the players were smart, they'd push for a big min pay raise, a 26 man roster, more money for players going up and down from the minors, and a better ab system- maybe reaching it a year earlier. That would help the majority of players and not the select few who make big paydays when they reach free agency. They could also push for a high minimum budget for all teams. That would NOT help the teams like NYY, BOS, LAD & Chic.

 

Don't be so sure the next CBA is going to help big teams. The last one has caused some teams to reset and has made it much harder for rich and winning teams to build their farms. It could get worse- not better.

 

 

[moonslav59]

That will obviously be negotiated - the giant digital rights deal money which has resulted in nothing meaningful for the players is not at all hidden

 

Shell companies handle concessions and memorabilia sales.

 

Just the sky-rocketing rise in the value of each team, although not hidden, is perhaps the biggest cash cow owners reap.

 

Teams may claim to lose or make $10M a year for 10 years, then the owner sells the team for a $500M profit. The players see none of that money.

[sk7326]

Shell companies handle concessions and memorabilia sales.

 

Just the sky-rocketing rise in the value of each team, although not hidden, is perhaps the biggest cash cow owners reap.

 

Teams may claim to lose or make $10M a year for 10 years, then the owner sells the team for a $500M profit. The players see none of that money.

 

This is all true - and yet with this "hiding of money", the best measured amount of revenue going to the talent is way less than in any of the other American sports. So there is a lot here the union has to sift through. Right now the current state of the offseason is a bad thing for the sport, and there are good reasons to fix that.

 

On a previous comment - the best way to fix arbitration is to get rid of it entirely.

[moonslav59]

This is all true - and yet with this "hiding of money", the best measured amount of revenue going to the talent is way less than in any of the other American sports. So there is a lot here the union has to sift through. Right now the current state of the offseason is a bad thing for the sport, and there are good reasons to fix that.

 

On a previous comment - the best way to fix arbitration is to get rid of it entirely.

 

I didn't mean to imply baseball hides money better than other sports. My point was about how easy it is to manipulate the numbers to make it appear as if things are different.

 

As for arb existence, I'm not sure what is best, but my point was that if players were smart, they'd push for a plan that greatly raises the pay for the majority of players and not the select few (not that both cannot occur). My guess would be that forcing small market-small spending teams to spend more would be a big step. Maybe more profit sharing by big clubs would be needed- maybe not.

 

Raising the minimum pay by $500K would not put anyone out of business. Maybe step it up by $100K every year for the length of the new CBA. Maybe give significant step raises to second year and 3rd year players, but if you make that too steep, teams may cut them over their pay raises. Becoming a FA earlier would help players get paid more, but I think the arb process works pretty well. Maybe jjust start it a year or two earlier.

 

5-10 players getting mega deals every winter might bring up players' average wages, but if the vast majority of players keep getting the same, I doubt they stand for that system much longer.

 

 

 

[dgalehouse]

One thing the owners are benefiting from is the steady pool of talented , inexpensive young players from Latin America .

[cp176]

It has been an interesting discussion here for sure. Personally I am a capitalist. Socialism in baseball is likely not going to work.

[sk7326]

I didn't mean to imply baseball hides money better than other sports. My point was about how easy it is to manipulate the numbers to make it appear as if things are different.

 

As for arb existence, I'm not sure what is best, but my point was that if players were smart, they'd push for a plan that greatly raises the pay for the majority of players and not the select few (not that both cannot occur). My guess would be that forcing small market-small spending teams to spend more would be a big step. Maybe more profit sharing by big clubs would be needed- maybe not.

 

Raising the minimum pay by $500K would not put anyone out of business. Maybe step it up by $100K every year for the length of the new CBA. Maybe give significant step raises to second year and 3rd year players, but if you make that too steep, teams may cut them over their pay raises. Becoming a FA earlier would help players get paid more, but I think the arb process works pretty well. Maybe jjust start it a year or two earlier.

 

5-10 players getting mega deals every winter might bring up players' average wages, but if the vast majority of players keep getting the same, I doubt they stand for that system much longer.

 

 

 

 

Arbitration works for its intended purpose - to keep salaries down. There is nothing that system of qualifying offers and restricted free agency could not do better.

 

What the players will not agree to is a hard cap stars and scrubs system like the NFL has. But a deal where they get a larger cut of the pie is something they're going to get one way or another. The current numbers are not going to be tolerated. These are billion dollar franchises - nobody is going out of business. Quite the opposite.

[dgalehouse]

Interesting that many of the " small market " cities have larger populations than " big market " Boston . Maybe they should spend more and try to build a winning team and a bigger fan base .

[moonslav59]

Arbitration works for its intended purpose - to keep salaries down. There is nothing that system of qualifying offers and restricted free agency could not do better.

 

What the players will not agree to is a hard cap stars and scrubs system like the NFL has. But a deal where they get a larger cut of the pie is something they're going to get one way or another. The current numbers are not going to be tolerated. These are billion dollar franchises - nobody is going out of business. Quite the opposite.

 

I'm not saying they aren't going to ask for a bigger piece of the pie.Of course they will try. I'm thinking more about how they might (should) suggest it be distributed.

 

Of course, actual free agency would bring more money to the players than the current arb salaries, but arb players do make decent money compared to pre-arbs. If they created earlier arbs they'd see a big raise, too.

 

I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying; I'm just offering ideas on other possible outcomes of the next CBA, and I'm thinking it may not help the bigger teams as much as some seem to think it might.

 

 

 

 

[moonslav59]

It has been an interesting discussion here for sure. Personally I am a capitalist. Socialism in baseball is likely not going to work.

 

LOL.

 

I'm not suggesting or advocating Socialism in MLB. The better and best players deserve more money, and some deserve way more. They bring the fans in and to their TVs. They deserve it. The players union, however, has much more lower to mid-range paid players, and if the stood up as a group and demanded better pay for lower tier players, then the results might look different from past agreements.

 

Everyone assumes most players just want to see the luxury tax limit go up and up. Since only a few teams go near or over the limit and a relatively few amount of players sign big deals with those clubs, maybe they will look to other ways to improve their pay, their "share of the pie" but in a way that gives all players more earlier in their careers. This would help all players, especially those who only play a short time and then are gone, but also other.

[moonslav59]

Interesting that many of the " small market " cities have larger populations than " big market " Boston . Maybe they should spend more and try to build a winning team and a bigger fan base .

 

Population is not everything. Demographics play a big role. Places like Houston and Florida have a high population of people who have moved there as strong fans of other teams. They will never become an Astros fan. Maybe their kids might.

 

Other areas are more into football. Other areas are too poor to be able to afford tickets.

[harmony]

It has been an interesting discussion here for sure. Personally I am a capitalist. Socialism in baseball is likely not going to work.

Indeed. Mookie Betts should not be limited to a single employer for six MLB seasons and be forced to accept a league minimum salary for 2+ highly productive years.

[sk7326]

Indeed. Mookie Betts should not be limited to a single employer for six MLB seasons and be forced to accept a league minimum salary for 2+ highly productive years.

 

Listen, I think the draft should be abolished - I am with you. But the union has always supported veterans over non-members (guys in the minors) so you'll get rookie control of some kind. But I could see a form of restricted free agency instead of arbitration.

 

I could see something like the NBA - a soft salary cap where you can spend over the cap, but you pay tax and it is harder to make moves.

[notin]

It has been an interesting discussion here for sure. Personally I am a capitalist. Socialism in baseball is likely not going to work.

 

 

No socialism!!! Take away their health care!!

[Bellhorn04]

Interesting that many of the " small market " cities have larger populations than " big market " Boston . Maybe they should spend more and try to build a winning team and a bigger fan base .

 

The Red Sox financial advantage comes from their rabid fanbase, absolutely.

[Bellhorn04]

Indeed. Mookie Betts should not be limited to a single employer for six MLB seasons and be forced to accept a league minimum salary for 2+ highly productive years.

 

IMHO the present system is really not that bad - it's practical if nothing else. Having a total free agency system without a draft would be kind of an ugly mess, I think.

 

Talents like Mookie will get paid hugely over their careers.

 

The problem right now seems to be too many owners looking to put too much of the profits in their pockets and not in their teams, and that has to be addressed.

[sk7326]

IMHO the present system is really not that bad - it's practical if nothing else. Having a total free agency system without a draft would be kind of an ugly mess, I think.

 

Talents like Mookie will get paid hugely over their careers.

 

The problem right now seems to be too many owners looking to put too much of the profits in their pockets and not in their teams, and that has to be addressed.

 

I am realistic about the draft - it will always be there. That's fine. The union does these league minimum deals for pragmatic reasons - they will always prioritize members over non-members. (guys who are not in the big leagues yet)

 

But if you take the forbes team values (from last year, so we are underestimating) with the spotrac team payrolls, you get like 44% of the revenue going to the players, which is well below what other major sports have. (and that 44% is based on a revenue number which is almost certainly low) Among teams, the Yankees were 2nd to last (29%). Owners are not extending themselves at all on this front - and yes it is not good for the game.

 

For me the current system would be improved just by spending more on players - and possibly getting rid of arbitration for some sort of restricted free agency.

[sk7326]

The Red Sox financial advantage comes from their rabid fanbase, absolutely.

 

A rabid fanbase, and a team that owns its own TV outlet. Really it's local media which is BIG "non-equalizer". The NFL can do its hard cap without much trouble because the largest revenue source is the TV deal, which is handled at the national level.

[S5Dewey]

But if you take the forbes team values (from last year, so we are underestimating) with the spotrac team payrolls, you get like 44% of the revenue going to the players, which is well below what other major sports have. (and that 44% is based on a revenue number which is almost certainly low) Among teams, the Yankees were 2nd to last (29%). Owners are not extending themselves at all on this front - and yes it is not good for the game.

 

 

I keep hearing about what's "good for the game" and I don't understand what's being said. "The game" is prospering, with more money coming in than can be spent. The players are making millions and salaries are escalating. The owners are swimming in cash, and that's without considering the escalating value of the franchises when/if the owners sell those franchises.

 

So who's it not "good for"? Answer: The fans, who now have to tie up $1000 for a family of four to visit Boston for a couple of weekend games. It's great for everyone else!

 

But, as a local politician friend of mine would say, "We must like it. We put up with it".

[cp176]

I keep hearing about what's "good for the game" and I don't understand what's being said. "The game" is prospering, with more money coming in than can be spent. The players are making millions and salaries are escalating. The owners are swimming in cash, and that's without considering the escalating value of the franchises when/if the owners sell those franchises.

 

So who's it not "good for"? Answer: The fans, who now have to tie up $1000 for a family of four to visit Boston for a couple of weekend games. It's great for everyone else!

 

But, as a local politician friend of mine would say, "We must like it. We put up with it".

 

...and that just seems to be the way it is these days. It still amazes me how that ballpark sells out game after game after game.