Red Sox trade Hunter Renfroe in trade involving Jackie Bradley Jr

[moonslav59]

IMHO this situation is entirely on the owners. It takes a lot of arrogance for owners to sign some players to multi-million dollar contracts and then lock the players out under the guise of "We're not making enough money".

 

I agree 100%. The only argument in their favor are the owners (maybe about half) who never or hardly ever sign anyone to mega deals.

 

The system is set up to help richer and more profitable teams have a much better chance at acquiring top talent and winning more games.

 

Sure, even the low budget teams have rich enough owners who could spend way more, but nothing forces them to.

 

While they cry poverty and losing bottom lines, with their books kept in secret, I might add, the values of their franchises are growing exponentially. When they sell, they make millions or hundreds of millions. That is not part of their poverty cries.

[S5Dewey]

I agree 100%. The only argument in their favor are the owners (maybe about half) who never or hardly ever sign anyone to mega deals.

 

Sure, even the low budget teams have rich enough owners who could spend way more, but nothing forces them to.

 

And therein lies a part of the problem. There are owners who could use the COMPETITIVE Balance Tax to actually make baseball more competitive "but nothing forces them to". It brings the (I think) logical question of, 'If they're not going to use the CBT money to make their team move competitive then why should they get any of it?'

[moonslav59]

And therein lies a part of the problem. There are owners who could use the COMPETITIVE Balance Tax to actually make baseball more competitive "but nothing forces them to". It brings the (I think) logical question of, 'If they're not going to use the CBT money to make their team move competitive then why should they get any of it?'

 

Again, I agree 100%, and that is why I feel there should be a min budget line. If teams don't meet it, they lose the CBT and maybe pay fines like those who go over.

 

They won't spend unless forced to spend.

[dgalehouse]

MLB ballplayers are in a unique situation when it comes to labor/management relations. They have their union to represent them in negotiations with the owners . But they also have their own agents to negotiate their own personal contracts and to look out for them in general. Much different situation than that of Joe Machine Shop. I do agree that many owners are not willing to spend what it takes to give the players and the fans a high quality product.

[Swiharts Ghost]

MLB ballplayers are in a unique situation when it comes to labor/management relations. They have their union to represent them in negotiations with the owners . But they also have their own agents to negotiate their own personal contracts and to look out for them in general. Much different situation than that of Joe Machine Shop. I do agree that many owners are not willing to spend what it takes to give the players and the fans a high quality product.

 

Great post ! Question though ? How much money does a team like the Reds make with a playoff run of say A minimum of 3 games ? Is it 50 million ? 100 million ? Or much more ? .My thought is how can ownership ignore the financial windfall of an even short playoff run ? And wouldn’t a fan base of a say Mariners be spending a rediculous amount on merchandise ? .i only bring this up because it’s horrible business decision to tank in MLB ie leas fans in the seats of these long struggling fan bases ie huge short fall in revenue.

[S5Dewey]

Great post ! Question though ? How much money does a team like the Reds make with a playoff run of say A minimum of 3 games ? Is it 50 million ? 100 million ? Or much more ? .My thought is how can ownership ignore the financial windfall of an even short playoff run ? And wouldn’t a fan base of a say Mariners be spending a rediculous amount on merchandise ? .i only bring this up because it’s horrible business decision to tank in MLB ie leas fans in the seats of these long struggling fan bases ie huge short fall in revenue.

 

Because baseball teams are privately owned we don't know how much money they make with a playoff run. We can only speculate and our speculation is based on our own assumptions. We can probably assume that they don't lose money but we have no idea how much they will make. Any number we make up is a WAG.

 

From a financial standpoint tanking isn't a bad idea, especially for a team with a smaller fan base than say, the Red Sox or the Yankees. They can collect the Competitive Balance Tax, that money that gets returned to them by MLB to make baseball more COMPETITIVE, and pocket it with no risk of dealing with the issues that the bigger market teams face.

There's a big risk in paying big salaries in long term contracts to players based on prior performance knowing that these players will age out of their prime years. Paying these salaries is a gamble and the tanking owners are taking the more conservative strategy.

 

Minimum risk = minimum loss or minimum gain.

Large risk = maximum loss or minimum gain.

[Bellhorn04]

Because baseball teams are privately owned we don't know how much money they make with a playoff run. We can only speculate and our speculation is based on our own assumptions. We can probably assume that they don't lose money but we have no idea how much they will make. Any number we make up is a WAG.

 

I suppose a highly motivated accountant (not me) could take a stab based on ticket prices, attendance, TV revenues etc.

[moonslav59]

Even if the lose a few dollars every now and then, when they sell their teams, they make hundreds of millions of dollars.

[Bellhorn04]

Even if the lose a few dollars every now and then, when they sell their teams, they make hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

That's been the case up till now. Will it stay like this forever?

[S5Dewey]

Even if the lose a few dollars every now and then, when they sell their teams, they make hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

...which makes me wonder if owners aren't willing to take an occasional short term loss on the operation of the team since it's an investment.

 

The whole thing is mind-boggling to me when I stop to consider that they have a big income stream but in turn they also have big expenses. They deal in numbers of dollars that I can't begin to fathom.

 

But, to bring this back around to the original point(s), whether they make money each year or not the owners who are tanking are just waiting for the windfall when they sell the team.

That brings us to two reasons why MLB should stop the tanking. First of all, the owners are getting that money to make their teams more competitive (which they're not doing), and second, they are pocketing that CBT money while the value of the franchise skyrockets.

[S5Dewey]

That's been the case up till now. Will it stay like this forever?

 

Forever is a long time, but thus far there's been no sign of the value of a franchise going down.

[dgalehouse]

Great post ! Question though ? How much money does a team like the Reds make with a playoff run of say A minimum of 3 games ? Is it 50 million ? 100 million ? Or much more ? .My thought is how can ownership ignore the financial windfall of an even short playoff run ? And wouldn’t a fan base of a say Mariners be spending a rediculous amount on merchandise ? .i only bring this up because it’s horrible business decision to tank in MLB ie leas fans in the seats of these long struggling fan bases ie huge short fall in revenue.

I don't know how it works out financially for the owners , but I do think tanking is bad for the players, bad for the fans and bad for the game. There is nothing likable about a team not even trying to win. And if you are looking to alienate your fans , especially the younger fans , there is no surer way than to trade off their favorite players at the deadline.

[Bellhorn04]

Forever is a long time, but thus far there's been no sign of the value of a franchise going down.

 

No question.

 

It just seems like some of the 'underpinnings' of the game's popularity are a little shaky. We keep hearing about how young people find the game boring. We even hear a lot of the older folks saying they don't like watching the games as much anymore. You'd think at some point that's going to show up in the bottom line.

 

That's probably got a lot to do with why baseball has partnered up so enthusiastically with the gambling business.

[Bellhorn04]

I don't know how it works out financially for the owners , but I do think tanking is bad for the players, bad for the fans and bad for the game. There is nothing likable about a team not even trying to win. And if you are looking to alienate your fans , especially the younger fans , there is no surer way than to trade off their favorite players at the deadline.

 

On the other hand, the 2016 Cubs and the 2017 Astros showed how tanking can pay off in a championship a few years later.

[dgalehouse]

On the other hand, the 2016 Cubs and the 2017 Astros showed how tanking can pay off in a championship a few years later.

 

Could they have won a championship without the prior tanking ?

[moonslav59]

That's been the case up till now. Will it stay like this forever?

 

It doesn't have to be forever- just as long as the owner holds the ownership: 1-20/30 years?

 

I'd say YES!

 

These businesses are money-makers!

 

All of 'em!

[Bellhorn04]

Could they have won a championship without the prior tanking ?

 

Hard to be certain, but it sure looks like the tanking was a big factor.

[notin]

Hard to be certain, but it sure looks like the tanking was a big factor.

 

It helped Houston, as tanking allowed them to draft Correa, McCullers, and Springer with high picks (or, in the case of McCullers, a later pick financed by going underslot on the first rounder Carlos Correa)…

[harmony]

Any payroll floor should be calculated over a minimum of five seasons.

 

We all know the person who lives paycheck-to-paycheck instead of saving for the future. A requirement that a team spend each year to meet its revenues -- from revenue sharing or otherwise -- may preclude the club from saving for future big-ticket expenditures when the franchise is ready to contend.

 

A required minimum payroll each season would run the danger of relegating lower-budget teams to perennial mediocrity.

 

Or not.

[moonslav59]

Any payroll floor should be calculated over a minimum of five seasons.

 

We all know the person who lives paycheck-to-paycheck instead of saving for the future. A requirement that a team spend each year to meet its revenues -- from revenue sharing or otherwise -- may preclude the club from saving for future big-ticket expenditures when the franchise is ready to contend.

 

A required minimum payroll each season would run the danger of relegating lower-budget teams to perennial mediocrity.

 

Or not.

 

I disagree. They could easily meet a yearly budget and make money.

 

There is no 5 year on the top spenders.

[harmony]

I disagree. They could easily meet a yearly budget and make money.

 

There is no 5 year on the top spenders.

But those teams would have less money to spend later when the club is ready to contend.

 

The expired CBA had an incremental three-year luxury-tax calculation that impacted only the biggest spenders.

[Nick]

Football and Baseball teams have different business model. Football truly is more of 'non-competitive' competition from business standpoint. TV revenues are essentially shared equally among all 32 teams. Small market vs big market really does not exist. Games are essentially played for our national pastime of sports gambling.

 

Difference comes from stadium revenues in football. Teams such as Dallas has huge advantage over say Green Bay due to number of luxury suites and such.

 

There was a Forbes magazine article in mid 1980's that pointed out San Diego Padres had total revenue of $50M from all sources. The Yankees on the other hand surpassed that amount on LOCAL TV/Radio revenues alone. This disparity has not completely gone away.

 

I am all for imposing minimum player spending or eliminate revenue sharing altogether. Let these owners go bankrupt. There's always willing owner to step in and throw good money away. That's the nature of capitalistic society.

 

Tampa gets plenty of help from Sox and Yankee fans propping up their gate revenue.

[moonslav59]

But those teams would have less money to spend later when the club is ready to contend.

 

The expired CBA had an incremental three-year luxury-tax calculation that impacted only the biggest spenders.

 

Again, this is not convincing me. The teams that are at the bottom never are ready to contend.

 

Only the Astros have ever been near the "floor" as they "saved up" to spend big, later.

 

If the team is contending, they'll make more money and can spend extra.

[jacksonianmarch]

Again, this is not convincing me. The teams that are at the bottom never are ready to contend.

 

Only the Astros have ever been near the "floor" as they "saved up" to spend big, later.

 

If the team is contending, they'll make more money and can spend extra.

 

Most teams fall into the Astros model. Can be big spenders but will need to re-set once their window closes. Few teams fall into the Yanks/Cubs/Sox/Dodgers category where they have the resources (although clearly not the regular willingness) to outspend their competition on a yearly basis and stay competitive. Then there are the teams at the bottom. The Rays and A's found a way to compete by beating the system per se, but it has led to zero titles. The Royals had a flash in the pan that got them a title and another WS appearance, yet it took them 30 years to build and a year to tear it all down. The DBacks who have spent in the past but seem to be trending towards the Pirates as cashless bottom dwellers. Pirates built something that led to two playoff berths before resuming their time as doormats of the NL Central. The Marlins have won two titles when they spent then decided to blow it all up. They have recently made the POs. The Orioles have been a pile of s*** for 6 years running now and might be one of the worst teams in the history of baseball.

 

The moral of the story is that teams like KC, TB, Oakland, Pitt, ARI, BAL, MIN, CLE, MIA, and CIN make up 1/3 of the voting block. Their model of contention will be demolished if years of service get trimmed. If a salary floor was instituted, TB and Oakland would need to be contracted. The big dogs are entirely happy with shorter control. This means they get a shot at premium talent earlier. The guys in the middle are ambivalent since they can spend if need be and would be rewarded with more prime years. But there is no prayer of meeting the players halfway when 1/3 of the owners will essentially vote no to anything that involves shortening player control

[moonslav59]

Most teams fall into the Astros model. Can be big spenders but will need to re-set once their window closes. Few teams fall into the Yanks/Cubs/Sox/Dodgers category where they have the resources (although clearly not the regular willingness) to outspend their competition on a yearly basis and stay competitive. Then there are the teams at the bottom. The Rays and A's found a way to compete by beating the system per se, but it has led to zero titles. The Royals had a flash in the pan that got them a title and another WS appearance, yet it took them 30 years to build and a year to tear it all down. The DBacks who have spent in the past but seem to be trending towards the Pirates as cashless bottom dwellers. Pirates built something that led to two playoff berths before resuming their time as doormats of the NL Central. The Marlins have won two titles when they spent then decided to blow it all up. They have recently made the POs. The Orioles have been a pile of s*** for 6 years running now and might be one of the worst teams in the history of baseball.

 

The moral of the story is that teams like KC, TB, Oakland, Pitt, ARI, BAL, MIN, CLE, MIA, and CIN make up 1/3 of the voting block. Their model of contention will be demolished if years of service get trimmed. If a salary floor was instituted, TB and Oakland would need to be contracted. The big dogs are entirely happy with shorter control. This means they get a shot at premium talent earlier. The guys in the middle are ambivalent since they can spend if need be and would be rewarded with more prime years. But there is no prayer of meeting the players halfway when 1/3 of the owners will essentially vote no to anything that involves shortening player control

 

1/3 is not a majority.

 

One big compromise to shortening team control of players would be to set a minimum floor on team player budgets. Make it big enough, and maybe the players will lower their demands on the team control issue.

 

Maybe.

[jacksonianmarch]

1/3 is not a majority.

 

One big compromise to shortening team control of players would be to set a minimum floor on team player budgets. Make it big enough, and maybe the players will lower their demands on the team control issue.

 

Maybe.

 

Players don't want a salary floor because with a floor comes a cap.

 

1/3 is not a majority, for sure. But it only takes 6 teams in the middle ground who are currently rostered with mostly players under their first 6 years of control to make it a non-starter. I think you've got at least 6, maybe as many as 10 that would give a definite no based on how their teams are constructed right now

[mvp 78]

Miami spent in 2003?

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/majors/2003-misc.shtml

[notin]

Miami spent in 2003?

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/majors/2003-misc.shtml

 

Spent in 1997.

Fire sale in 1998.

That fire sale did bring in a couple of key players for the 2003 run…

[mvp 78]

Spent in 1997.

Fire sale in 1998.

That fire sale did bring in a couple of key players for the 2003 run…

 

I know about the 97 team. It was weird how Jacko framed it.

 

The Marlins have won two titles when they spent then decided to blow it all up.

[moonslav59]

Players don't want a salary floor because with a floor comes a cap.

 

1/3 is not a majority, for sure. But it only takes 6 teams in the middle ground who are currently rostered with mostly players under their first 6 years of control to make it a non-starter. I think you've got at least 6, maybe as many as 10 that would give a definite no based on how their teams are constructed right now

 

You can have a floor and a lux tax at the top.

 

There is no need to have a firm cap with a firm floor.