A Realistic View at 2019: Part I

[harmony]

You sound like The Cooler!

:D:D

I found myself nodding while reading dgalehouse's post.

[Nick]

If it's about benefiting players then why not allow teams to remove 'dead money' off their books?

 

Pablo and Tulo are great examples. They are owed $17M and $19M by Red Sox and Blue Jays. Why not allow both teams to simply 'write it off' like a bad debt? Player union would go for it because both teams may spend that money on another player, a union guy.

 

I can hear Moon talk about competitive balance but who cares? Players certainly won't.

 

Let see, who can we sign for $17M without incurring penalty on it?

[jacksonianmarch]

Because the players will get cut instead of held on the roster due to the contract. The albatross of the contract usually keeps the player playing or at least on the roster. You don't see many Tulo's or Panda's with guys getting cut in the middle of a lucrative contract

[notin]

Because the players will get cut instead of held on the roster due to the contract. The albatross of the contract usually keeps the player playing or at least on the roster. You don't see many Tulo's or Panda's with guys getting cut in the middle of a lucrative contract

 

 

That would benefit the players. Panda/Tull/whoever getting released (and piid in full) would open up a spot Oman MLB roster for another player.

[jacksonianmarch]

That would benefit the players. Panda/Tull/whoever getting released (and piid in full) would open up a spot Oman MLB roster for another player.

 

But it will likely throw the highly paid player to the scrap heap unable to get the chance to return to prior performance. Which player is the union going to try and protect?

[moonslav59]

If you still pay the player who is booted off the tax budget, it only helps teams that are facing a tax.

 

It opens up nothing for those not close to paying the tax.

[notin]

But it will likely throw the highly paid player to the scrap heap unable to get the chance to return to prior performance. Which player is the union going to try and protect?

 

 

Exactly when did the union start caring about player opportunity? Their primary goal is and has always been player salaries...

[moonslav59]

Exactly when did the union start caring about player opportunity? Their primary goal is and has always been player salaries...

 

More about top paid player salaries, thinking the trickle down effect would take hold.

[notin]

More about top paid player salaries, thinking the trickle down effect would take hold.

 

 

Exactly.

 

Sandoval and Tulowitzki were released and the union didn’t make a peep...

[Bellhorn04]

If it's about benefiting players then why not allow teams to remove 'dead money' off their books?

 

Pablo and Tulo are great examples. They are owed $17M and $19M by Red Sox and Blue Jays. Why not allow both teams to simply 'write it off' like a bad debt? Player union would go for it because both teams may spend that money on another player, a union guy.

 

I think this idea has some real merit. It would take away one of the disincentives to spend.

[Nick]

If you still pay the player who is booted off the tax budget, it only helps teams that are facing a tax.

 

It opens up nothing for those not close to paying the tax.

 

Geez Moon,

 

Topic was helping players union.

 

You think Boras would be against my plan? f*** NO.

 

You really don't see the trickle down benefit for players?

[Bellhorn04]

Because the players will get cut instead of held on the roster due to the contract. The albatross of the contract usually keeps the player playing or at least on the roster. You don't see many Tulo's or Panda's with guys getting cut in the middle of a lucrative contract

 

On the other hand the Sox are paying $70 million plus for Rusney Castillo to entertain the PawSox fans, even though there's no tax hit.

 

When you've got that much money invested in something, you will want to recoup whatever value it has if possible.

[Nick]

But it will likely throw the highly paid player to the scrap heap unable to get the chance to return to prior performance. Which player is the union going to try and protect?

 

What the hell does it make difference to Tulo?

 

If he's still good, Yankees will provide him with an opportunity to re-establish himself.

 

After collecting $19M for two more years, he has chance to sign another contract.

 

I don't see your logic.

[moonslav59]

Geez Moon,

 

Topic was helping players union.

 

You think Boras would be against my plan? f*** NO.

 

You really don't see the trickle down benefit for players?

 

For a few players, because it may only help 1-3 teams who might sign 1-2 players, if they had tax relief.

 

I have acknowledged the trickle down benefit as being real, but I thin it pales when compared to my suggestions that greatly affect 50-80% of MLB players.

 

[notin]

The thing is, if MLB had a “contract forgiveness” against the luxury tax in some way , shape or form, I do agree it might only affect a few teams. Most teams will gamble on the player restoring enough value to be traded. Like half the Giants’ roster.

 

The “scrap heap” argument has zero merit. Not only would the union not care, but recent history has even proved it wrong, since Tulowitzki and Sandoval both found MLB jobs. A-Rod didn’t, however, but he was 40...

[moonslav59]

The thing is, if MLB had a “contract forgiveness” against the luxury tax in some way , shape or form, I do agree it might only affect a few teams. Most teams will gamble on the player restoring enough value to be traded. Like half the Giants’ roster.

 

The “scrap heap” argument has zero merit. Not only would the union not care, but recent history has even proved it wrong, since Tulowitzki and Sandoval both found MLB jobs. A-Rod didn’t, however, but he was 40...

 

All the union cares about is that the players still get paid.

 

Sure, taking some deadbeats off the luxury tax budget would allow the big spending teams to spend more and avoid heavy taxes, and this would halp a few players and maybe a few more with the trickle down effect, but I doubt this is something the player's union will make a priority.

 

[notin]

All the union cares about is that the players still get paid.

 

Sure, taking some deadbeats off the luxury tax budget would allow the big spending teams to spend more and avoid heavy taxes, and this would halp a few players and maybe a few more with the trickle down effect, but I doubt this is something the player's union will make a priority.

 

 

It would help Boston, New York, LA and SF, That's about it. The owners in the small markets need to find a way to stay competitive if they want to garner gate fees, and forgiving the egregious spending for a few teams doesn't accomplish that at all.

[moonslav59]

It would help Boston, New York, LA and SF, That's about it. The owners in the small markets need to find a way to stay competitive if they want to garner gate fees, and forgiving the egregious spending for a few teams doesn't accomplish that at all.

 

I'm not sure there is a good way to help small markets be highly competitive, even once in a great while. Spreading the wealth plans might help, but that's hard as hell to get an agreement on. Pooling all TV money and splitting it by 30 would do a lot, but many owners would just pocket the profit.

 

From the players point of view, they should go along with any ideas that make the game more viewable and exciting to watch. They should push hard for a much higher minimum wage and an earlier arb process. Expand the roster to 26 players, force the NL to use the DH and shorten the damn game times!

 

[notin]

I'm not sure there is a good way to help small markets be highly competitive, even once in a great while. Spreading the wealth plans might help, but that's hard as hell to get an agreement on. Pooling all TV money and splitting it by 30 would do a lot, but many owners would just pocket the profit.

 

From the players point of view, they should go along with any ideas that make the game more viewable and exciting to watch. They should push hard for a much higher minimum wage and an earlier arb process. Expand the roster to 26 players, force the NL to use the DH and shorten the damn game times!

 

 

While the MLBPA doesn’t want to hear it, lowering salaries could accomplish this. While the primary argument against it is “if the players don’t get the money the owners do,” this oft-repeated argument ignores a third option - namely the fans do.

 

If there was a cap and owners reduced salary, teams with lower attendance might be able to make ticket prices more affordable and enable more fans to actually attend a game. In the bigger markets, I don’t expect much. But if the teams in Minnesota or Kansas City or Milwaukee can be competitive on the field and be more affordable for fans, these teams could see an increase in attendance...

[Bellhorn04]

While the MLBPA doesn’t want to hear it, lowering salaries could accomplish this. While the primary argument against it is “if the players don’t get the money the owners do,” this oft-repeated argument ignores a third option - namely the fans do.

 

If there was a cap and owners reduced salary, teams with lower attendance might be able to make ticket prices more affordable and enable more fans to actually attend a game. In the bigger markets, I don’t expect much. But if the teams in Minnesota or Kansas City or Milwaukee can be competitive on the field and be more affordable for fans, these teams could see an increase in attendance...

 

But how much would you have to lower ticket prices in those cities to make a serious difference? Are the prices that high now?

[moonslav59]

While the MLBPA doesn’t want to hear it, lowering salaries could accomplish this. While the primary argument against it is “if the players don’t get the money the owners do,” this oft-repeated argument ignores a third option - namely the fans do.

 

If there was a cap and owners reduced salary, teams with lower attendance might be able to make ticket prices more affordable and enable more fans to actually attend a game. In the bigger markets, I don’t expect much. But if the teams in Minnesota or Kansas City or Milwaukee can be competitive on the field and be more affordable for fans, these teams could see an increase in attendance...

 

Increasing attendance while lowering the ticket price might likely be a zero sum gain.

[Slasher9]

But how much would you have to lower ticket prices in those cities to make a serious difference? Are the prices that high now?

 

honestly to me it's not just the ticket prices. the food/beer/parking prices at MLB ballparks is what kills bringing a family of 4 to multiple games a year.

[notin]

Increasing attendance while lowering the ticket price might likely be a zero sum gain.

 

 

Even if the gate revenue is the same, 30,000 people can eat more hot dogs than 15,000 people.

 

And there is the whole “increasing your brand” aspect of it...

[notin]

But how much would you have to lower ticket prices in those cities to make a serious difference? Are the prices that high now?

 

 

Not sure. What would you say as an accountant?

Edited February 6, 2019 by notin

[notin]

honestly to me it's not just the ticket prices. the food/beer/parking prices at MLB ballparks is what kills bringing a family of 4 to multiple games a year.

 

 

Absolutely true. Parking is typically independent from the team, so MLB has no power there. Concessions are certainly costly, but maybe if tickets are slightly less, the overall financial dent is more palatable...

[Slasher9]

Absolutely true. Parking is typically independent from the team, so MLB has no power there. Concessions are certainly costly, but maybe if tickets are slightly less, the overall financial dent is more palatable...

 

for some reason i am less triggered spending $60 per ticket instead of $50 but rage when i have to spend $15 for a beer instead of $5.

we need fan friendly pricing at every spot like Atlanta Falcons stadium.....

[Slasher9]

duplicate. apologies.

[notin]

for some reason i am less triggered spending $60 per ticket instead of $50 but rage when i have to spend $15 for a beer instead of $5.

we need fan friendly pricing at every spot like Atlanta Falcons stadium.....

 

No argument. MLB would help to keep their costs down. Although greedy owners not simply grabbing what they can and instead passing the savings of reduced salaries on to the customers is a huge step and possibly not a likely one...

[sk7326]

While the MLBPA doesn’t want to hear it, lowering salaries could accomplish this. While the primary argument against it is “if the players don’t get the money the owners do,” this oft-repeated argument ignores a third option - namely the fans do.

 

If there was a cap and owners reduced salary, teams with lower attendance might be able to make ticket prices more affordable and enable more fans to actually attend a game. In the bigger markets, I don’t expect much. But if the teams in Minnesota or Kansas City or Milwaukee can be competitive on the field and be more affordable for fans, these teams could see an increase in attendance...

 

These small market teams get almost $100M before a ticket is sold, and that does not count team to team revenue sharing. The players have almost nothing to do with what fans pay. That is entirely supply-demand.

 

Really things to change attendance wouldn't help all that much. It's local television that is the great unequalizer.

[S5Dewey]

Speaking entirely for myself (who else?) there are several things I take into account when I'm going to a game and one of them is whether I feel the organization is taking advantage of the situation. IMO MLB has taken advantage of their fans to an art form. Whenever possible I try to NOT buy food (or even beer) at the stadium. It's not because $8 for a beer, $5 for a hot dog and $4 for a bottle of water would break the bank for me, it's a matter of principle. It's because I refuse to be taken advantage of like that.

 

If they'd charge $5 for a beer, $2.50 for a hot dog, and $2 for that bottle of water I'd buy them there.. .and they'd still make money off me. As it is they get nothing. I know deep down that my little protest doesn't accomplish much but I feel better about myself for doing it.