Will there be a 2022 season?

[mvp 78]

With all their spending it's incredible that the Los Angeles Angels have MLB's longest current streak of consecutive losing seasons.

 

Not the Pirates. Not the Orioles. Not the Tigers. Not the Rockies.

 

The Angels.

 

Also have this generations greatest player.

[moonslav59]

All I can say is that I assume Forbes does their due diligence. Beyond that is pure speculation.

 

My point was about how "inclusive" is the Forbes report?

 

I doubt it counts profits from the cable company owned by the same owner, even though the revenue is tied directly to the team shown on the network.

 

Those numbers may or may not be public record or speculative.

[moonslav59]

It's a tough situation. There can be an enormous difference in revenue between the most lucrative big market areas and some of the more depressed smaller markets. It's not even close to being a level playing field. Maybe the best way to achieve more competitive balance ( if they really want that ) would be a total overhaul of the draft system , both foreign and domestic.

 

Since two teams are playing on the field, how about splitting gate and TV revenue 50-50 for each game between the two teams.

 

The Yanks would still make more, because they split 81 games of near top paying revenue, but the "poor market teams" also get some big paydays when they travel to NY and LA.

[moonslav59]

With all their spending it's incredible that the Los Angeles Angels have MLB's longest current streak of consecutive losing seasons.

 

Not the Pirates. Not the Orioles. Not the Tigers. Not the Rockies.

 

The Angels.

 

Stunning.

[mvp 78]

Since two teams are playing on the field, how about splitting gate and TV revenue 50-50 for each game between the two teams.

 

The Yanks would still make more, because they split 81 games of near top paying revenue, but the "poor market teams" also get some big paydays when they travel to NY and LA.

 

Yanks and Sox would be screwed as the O's/Jays/Rays were all bottom 5 in attendance last year. Pre-COVID, Toronto was still bottom 10 in the league.

[harmony]

Also have this generations greatest player.

Or two for the past four seasons.

[moonslav59]

Yanks and Sox would be screwed as the O's/Jays/Rays were all bottom 5 in attendance last year. Pre-COVID, Toronto was still bottom 10 in the league.

 

Yes, they'd lose a lot of money, but they'd still make way more than most teams due to getting half for games played at home and in BOS/NYY.

 

In a way, it seems fair that both teams should share the revenue of the games they play in, but teams that draw more fans would lose a lot under this scheme, and maybe lose some incentive to win and be viewable.

[Bellhorn04]

My point was about how "inclusive" is the Forbes report?

 

I doubt it counts profits from the cable company owned by the same owner, even though the revenue is tied directly to the team shown on the network.

 

Those numbers may or may not be public record or speculative.

 

Who knows, maybe all the teams fail to report all their revenue, so the numbers are all proportionately out of whack LOL

 

Now, Forbes also does market valuations for the teams. Those are real world numbers that could be compared to actual selling prices of franchises.

[moonslav59]

Who knows, maybe all the teams fail to report all their revenue, so the numbers are all proportionately out of whack LOL

 

Now, Forbes also does market valuations for the teams. Those are real world numbers that could be compared to actual selling prices of franchises.

 

To me, it's not so much about failure to report as it is about separate entities that make the owners money that is not under the team's finances.

 

The NESN- Fenway Group is a good example. While the Sox are not the only thing NESN broadcasts, it's clearly their number one money maker, and it is essentially owned by the group that owns the Sox, The money they make off NESN does not and really should not count as Red Sox revenue or profits, but it is a way the Sox owners make money off the Sox without it being counted as revenue.

 

I'm not sure if the Sox also have a separate concessions and merchandizing company handling that aspect of revenue generated by the team, but I think several teams do. That money would not be on any revenue ledger of teams that make it its own company.

 

These are the types of examples I'm talking about, but I also would not be surprised if owners do some book cooking, as well. That, however, was not what I meant by "hidden revenue and profits." (And "hidden" is not really a good word choice, since much is out in the open, but it's just not counted at MLB revenue by teams, or am I wrong?

[S5Dewey]

To me, it's not so much about failure to report as it is about separate entities that make the owners money that is not under the team's finances.

 

I'm not sure if the Sox also have a separate concessions and merchandizing company handling that aspect of revenue generated by the team, but I think several teams do. That money would not be on any revenue ledger of teams that make it its own company.

 

These are the types of examples I'm talking about, but I also would not be surprised if owners do some book cooking, as well.

There are also non-baseball related events that go on at Fenway that are not included in team revenue but are available to the owners simply because they own the large venue - which gives them an advantage over other venues. The Sox organization has become adept at scheduling top-rated performers to play at the park when the Sox are on the road. Dave Matthews, The Rolling Stones, Jimmy Buffett, etc. come to mind immediately.

 

I'm not suggesting that these events should be included in baseball revenue, only that they're a very nice money making 'perk' for the Fenway Organization that doesn't show up under baseball earnings and therefore isn't subject to baseball related taxes.

[notin]

There are also non-baseball related events that go on at Fenway that are not included in team revenue but are available to the owners simply because they own the large venue - which gives them an advantage over other venues. The Sox organization has become adept at scheduling top-rated performers to play at the park when the Sox are on the road. Dave Matthews, The Rolling Stones, Jimmy Buffett, etc. come to mind immediately.

 

I'm not suggesting that these events should be included in baseball revenue, only that they're a very nice money making 'perk' for the Fenway Organization that doesn't show up under baseball earnings and therefore isn't subject to baseball related taxes.

 

I don’t think the union too interested in the owners money from non-baseball events. And not every owner owns the stadium…

[Bellhorn04]

The point in question is the % of baseball revenues that teams put back into payroll.

[notin]

The point in question is the % of baseball revenues that teams put back into payroll.

 

The CBA really needs a clause that if your payroll is below your allocation from revenue sharing for X consecutive seasons, you should not be eligible to receive revenue sharing.

[Elktonnick]

The CBA really needs a clause that if your payroll is below your allocation from revenue sharing for X consecutive seasons, you should not be eligible to receive revenue sharing.

Chad Jennings has an interesting piece in the Athletic in which he proposes adopting a European Soccer style system of promotion and relegation for teams who finish last. His proposal while well thought out is admittedly impossible to carry out. It is however an intriguing idea nevertheless. If it where up to me I would implement such a concept but it isn't.

[moonslav59]

There are also non-baseball related events that go on at Fenway that are not included in team revenue but are available to the owners simply because they own the large venue - which gives them an advantage over other venues. The Sox organization has become adept at scheduling top-rated performers to play at the park when the Sox are on the road. Dave Matthews, The Rolling Stones, Jimmy Buffett, etc. come to mind immediately.

 

I'm not suggesting that these events should be included in baseball revenue, only that they're a very nice money making 'perk' for the Fenway Organization that doesn't show up under baseball earnings and therefore isn't subject to baseball related taxes.

 

Indeed, and technically, they should not be included in the bottom line of Red Sox revenue, but yes, the owners make more and more money as a direct result of owning the team, venue and or cable TV company (and more.)

[moonslav59]

So, ST'ing games are cancelled until March 18th.

 

A big area of disagreement seems to be the Luxury Tax with a wide gap between the last offers from both sides. It's easy to say, "spilt the difference," but that is not always as easy as it looks.

 

The players want:

$238M in '22

$244M in '23

$250M in '24

$256M in '25

$263M in '26

 

MLB wants:

$220 M in '22

$220M in '23

$220M in '24

$224M in '25

$230M in '26

 

Keeping up with just inflation, the amount would need to be $225M according to one article I read.

Here is one perspective:

https://www.knbr.com/2022/03/02/mlbs-competitive-balance-tax-proposal-was-even-worse-than-we-thought/

 

MLB’s offer was so detached from reality, so disingenuous and insincere, Rob Manfred had no choice but to lie about it in his press conference announcing canceled games.

 

“I think it’s important to look at the pattern of increases in the CBT thresholds in the last several agreements,” Manfred said. “I think the proposal we made is right in line with the agreements we’ve made in the past.”

 

Manfred was answering a question about why the CBT threshold hasn’t risen in reflection of the league’s revenue, or even in relation to general inflation. But even humoring him and limiting the conversation to previous collective bargaining agreements, Manfred’s defense still holds as much water as Scottsdale desert sand.

 

In the first eight years of the CBA, the luxury tax threshold increased by 52%, according to Baseball America Editor-in-Chief JJ Cooper. Over the past two CBAs, from 2012 on, it’s increased just 18%. And going from $210 million to $220 million is just a 5% raise.

 

And to answer the question Manfred fielded for him: in the last 10 years, the dollar has increased by a cumulative price of approximately 22% by inflation. If the CBT mirrored MLB revenue from 2003 to 2019, the CBT would approach $300 million, according to The Score’s Travis Sawchik.

 

I know the owners want to also radically increase the tax percentages for going over the limit and by more and more for going over y $20M or $40M, but could a compromise be to nearly give the players the cutoff they want as the second tier of the tax, but with the first tier taxes being relatively low but still substantial?

 

Something like this:

 

2022

$220-$235M: 15% tax

$235-250M: 50% tax

$250M+: 90% tax

 

2023

$222-$235M: 20% tax

$235-250M: 50% tax

$250M+: 90% tax

 

2024

$224-$240M: 20% tax

$240-255M: 50% tax

$255M+: 90% tax

 

2025

$230-245M: 25% tax

$245-260M: 66% tax

$260M+: 100% tax

 

2026

$235-250M: 35% tax

$250-265M: 70% tax

$265M+: 100% tax

 

The owners might never agree to this, but maybe something like this could bridge the gap: tax the gap minimally, then raise the tax rate significantly.

 

[Bellhorn04]

It's ridiculous that the tax thresholds are such a big issue. It only affects a few teams anyway.

 

It just shows what blockheads these guys are.

[S5Dewey]

I don’t think the union too interested in the owners money from non-baseball events. And not every owner owns the stadium…

 

 

Sorry, I guess I misread the room. I thought the discussion had (d)evolved into the owners and how they made money from baseball as well as outside of baseball and wasn't limited to how the ongoing labor issues. My bad.

Edited March 5, 2022 by S5Dewey

[Bellhorn04]

I don’t think the union too interested in the owners money from non-baseball events. And not every owner owns the stadium…

 

 

Sorry, I guess I misread the room. I thought the discussion had (d)evolved into the owners and how they made money from baseball as well as outside of baseball and wasn't limited to how the ongoing labor issues. My bad.

 

It's not your bad, or anyone's bad. We're all just spewing off in our own way LOL

[notin]

I don’t think the union too interested in the owners money from non-baseball events. And not every owner owns the stadium…

 

 

Sorry, I guess I misread the room. I thought the discussion had (d)evolved into the owners and how they made money from baseball as well as outside of baseball and wasn't limited to how the ongoing labor issues. My bad.

 

I think it is moving that way somewhat, and such owner-centric comments are somewhat relevant, maybe tangentially. But I think maintaining the baseball theme has to be somewhat essential around here, and therefore at a minimum they would benefit from some context…

[notin]

It's not your bad, or anyone's bad. We're all just spewing off in our own way LOL

 

Or that

[notin]

It's ridiculous that the tax thresholds are such a big issue. It only affects a few teams anyway.

 

It just shows what blockheads these guys are.

 

Of course they’re not a big issue. The only teams they affect are the ones that don’t care about them…

[notin]

The really weird part is how many people think the players are on strike and therefore being greedy. It’s kind of amazing how it drifts that way…

[Bellhorn04]

The really weird part is how many people think the players are on strike and therefore being greedy. It’s kind of amazing how it drifts that way…

 

The players aren't on strike, but if you think they're the greedy ones you can argue that they should accept the owners' latest offer.

 

I have mixed feelings, because it seems like the players are trying to make up for doing such a bad job in the last two CBA's.

[moonslav59]

It's ridiculous that the tax thresholds are such a big issue. It only affects a few teams anyway.

 

It just shows what blockheads these guys are.

 

More than a few teams share in the spreading out of those taxes collected, but yes, it's not all that much.

[Bellhorn04]

More than a few teams share in the spreading out of those taxes collected, but yes, it's not all that much.

 

And what is the real goal of the luxury tax? Is it to spread wealth or to suppress spending? Sure seems like it's the latter.

[Old Red]

And what is the real goal of the luxury tax? Is it to spread wealth or to suppress spending? Sure seems like it's the latter.

 

It’s the latter. If it was to spread the wealth there would be a tax on the bottom too.

[jad]

And what is the real goal of the luxury tax? Is it to spread wealth or to suppress spending? Sure seems like it's the latter.

 

What the goal is and what it does are two different things, no? It was supposed to bring 'competitive balance'. But what it actually does is allow a few teams to invest the minimum in their business and collect pure profits from higher-spending teams. The teams that insist on the lower threshhold are the ones whose bottom line depends on it, and as long as they are not required to re-invest that (e.g., in player salaries), they will continue their intransigence and put that tax money right into their wallets. Thus, the tax doesn't accomplish its goal at all, and keeps the investment of better teams lower than it would be otherwise, and doesn't allow players to negotiate for what the market says they're worth. A lose/lose situation. (or win/win if you're a scumbag owner)

[dgalehouse]

So, ST'ing games are cancelled until March 18th.

 

A big area of disagreement seems to be the Luxury Tax with a wide gap between the last offers from both sides. It's easy to say, "spilt the difference," but that is not always as easy as it looks.

 

The players want:

$238M in '22

$244M in '23

$250M in '24

$256M in '25

$263M in '26

 

MLB wants:

$220 M in '22

$220M in '23

$220M in '24

$224M in '25

$230M in '26

 

Keeping up with just inflation, the amount would need to be $225M according to one article I read.

Here is one perspective:

https://www.knbr.com/2022/03/02/mlbs-competitive-balance-tax-proposal-was-even-worse-than-we-thought/

 

MLB’s offer was so detached from reality, so disingenuous and insincere, Rob Manfred had no choice but to lie about it in his press conference announcing canceled games.

 

“I think it’s important to look at the pattern of increases in the CBT thresholds in the last several agreements,” Manfred said. “I think the proposal we made is right in line with the agreements we’ve made in the past.”

 

Manfred was answering a question about why the CBT threshold hasn’t risen in reflection of the league’s revenue, or even in relation to general inflation. But even humoring him and limiting the conversation to previous collective bargaining agreements, Manfred’s defense still holds as much water as Scottsdale desert sand.

 

In the first eight years of the CBA, the luxury tax threshold increased by 52%, according to Baseball America Editor-in-Chief JJ Cooper. Over the past two CBAs, from 2012 on, it’s increased just 18%. And going from $210 million to $220 million is just a 5% raise.

 

And to answer the question Manfred fielded for him: in the last 10 years, the dollar has increased by a cumulative price of approximately 22% by inflation. If the CBT mirrored MLB revenue from 2003 to 2019, the CBT would approach $300 million, according to The Score’s Travis Sawchik.

 

I know the owners want to also radically increase the tax percentages for going over the limit and by more and more for going over y $20M or $40M, but could a compromise be to nearly give the players the cutoff they want as the second tier of the tax, but with the first tier taxes being relatively low but still substantial?

 

Something like this:

 

2022

$220-$235M: 15% tax

$235-250M: 50% tax

$250M+: 90% tax

 

2023

$222-$235M: 20% tax

$235-250M: 50% tax

$250M+: 90% tax

 

2024

$224-$240M: 20% tax

$240-255M: 50% tax

$255M+: 90% tax

 

2025

$230-245M: 25% tax

$245-260M: 66% tax

$260M+: 100% tax

 

2026

$235-250M: 35% tax

$250-265M: 70% tax

$265M+: 100% tax

 

The owners might never agree to this, but maybe something like this could bridge the gap: tax the gap minimally, then raise the tax rate significantly.

 

 

Looks like you are spending more time on this than the actual negotiators are.

[dgalehouse]

And what is the real goal of the luxury tax? Is it to spread wealth or to suppress spending? Sure seems like it's the latter.

 

The luxury tax is just a gimmick in lieu of an actual salary cap. No doubt the owners would prefer a cap. At least most of them would.