Will there be a 2022 season?

[jad]

The poorer clubs will not want a straight cap, because then, they lose out on the 50% of the lux. tax that ends up in their coffers. If you want competitive balance, stop rewarding failure, bad business practices, and fiscal incompetence.

[Nick]

The poorer clubs will not want a straight cap, because then, they lose out on the 50% of the lux. tax that ends up in their coffers. If you want competitive balance, stop rewarding failure, bad business practices, and fiscal incompetence.

 

You have a valid point.

 

I always believed that small market teams opposed increase in luxury tax limit due to imbalance that it would create from on the field competitiveness.

 

I AM WRONG.

 

Small market teams don't want to raise the luxury tax limit because in doing so there would be much lesser payroll amount subject to the tax.

 

Players want to raise the limit, the higher the better. Owners, who many of them benefit from allocation of luxury tax back to them, would not want to raise the bar and decrease the amount subject to tax. It's taking money away from them.

 

Owners should

 

Increase minimum wage.

Increase the funding and number of eligible players for the pre-arbitration player bonus. Hell give it to top 150 with a $100M pot. $3.3M per year per team.

Award the said bonus pool to a metric, fWar as an example. Highest fWar player would get the most money, based on the ration of player fWar divided by total fWar for 150 players, multiplied by $100M.

 

Get the season started.

[moonslav59]

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.

 

Maybe both.

 

It only restricts spending on 4-8 teams a year, and I'm not sure it slowed the Dodgers down all that much.

[moonslav59]

The poorer clubs will not want a straight cap, because then, they lose out on the 50% of the lux. tax that ends up in their coffers. If you want competitive balance, stop rewarding failure, bad business practices, and fiscal incompetence.

 

The worst part is the "poorer clubs" don't spend the revenue sharing and tax benefits on player salary. It goes straight to their wallets.

 

This is why I think establishing a floor on player spending by team would be the best step for all concerned- in terms of making the league more competitive and balanced.

 

Then, raise the floor significantly, every year. If a "poorer owner," and I use the world cautiously, can't make enough profit, he can sell the team at an obscene profit and let someone else have a go at it.

[Old Red]

The worst part is the "poorer clubs" don't spend the revenue sharing and tax benefits on player salary. It goes straight to their wallets.

 

This is why I think establishing a floor on player spending by team would be the best step for all concerned- in terms of making the league more competitive and balanced.

 

Then, raise the floor significantly, every year. If a "poorer owner," and I use the world cautiously, can't make enough profit, he can sell the team at an obscene profit and let someone else have a go at it.

 

I agree with this mostly, and have been saying for a long time about having a hard cap on the bottom, and a hard cap on top would be the fairest, and best way to do things. Of course agreeing to what those numbers would be would be the biggest challenge.

[moonslav59]

I agree with this mostly, and have been saying for a long time about having a hard cap on the bottom, and a hard cap on top would be the fairest, and best way to do things. Of course agreeing to what those numbers would be would be the biggest challenge.

 

Yes, the cheap owners would be against the floor limit and the spenders against the top limits.

[Old Red]

Yes, the cheap owners would be against the floor limit and the spenders against the top limits.

 

Getting the bottom feeders to spend up would be the hard part, but that would be more money for the players.

[moonslav59]

Getting the bottom feeders to spend up would be the hard part, but that would be more money for the players.

 

They should stop piddling around with the Lux Tax and demand a floor limit.

 

There are only 4-6 teams that would be affected by a floor of about $50-60M. That's about the same that are affected by the Lux Tax Limit & Taxes.

 

Only 5-6 teams would have to increase spending, significantly if the floor was $70M.

 

Only 7 teams spent under $80M, last year. Setting it at $80M only needs 16 owners to say yes.

 

(IMO, the floor could be set at $70M and go up $6M a year for 5 years, ending at $100M when the deal expires.)

 

That would likely bring more money to the players than raising the lux limit to the levels they seek, and it would bring more balance and competitiveness to the game the owners claim is losing just that.

[moonslav59]

According to stevetheump.com, here's what teams spent, last year:

 

1 over $192M (LAD @ $235M)

 

8 teams $160-191M (NYY, BOS, LAA, PHI, SDP, HOU, NYM, WSH)

 

4 teams $135-150M (CC, TOR, STL, ATL)

 

4 teams $117-128M (SFG, CWS, MN, CIN)

 

1 team $90-117M (COL)

 

5 teams $80-90M (AZ, KCR, MIL, TX, DET)

 

3 teams $60-75M (OAK, SEA, TBR)

 

4 teams under $50M (MIA, CLE, BAL, PIT)

[moonslav59]

In 2004, the numbers looked like this:

 

$183M Yanks

$125M BOS

 

8 teams $81M to $101M (LAA, NYM, PHI, CC, LAD, ATL, SF, SEA)

 

5 teams $65M to $75M (STL, HOU, AZ, CWS, COL)

 

6 teams $50M to $60M (OAK, TX, SD, MN, BAL, TOR)

 

5 teams $40M to $47M (KCR, DET, MON, CIN, FL)

 

4 teams $28M to 36M (CLE, PIT, TBR, MIL)

 

The bottom 4 teams combined didn't outspend #1, then, either.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

If the owners get their way for a 14-team postseason and it leads to an agreement, ok. But I will never use the loathsome phrase Ghost Win, because there is no such thing as something that doesn't exist.

 

The first round will just be Double Or Nothing for the wild card teams -- they either beat higher seeds twice or go home.

[Bellhorn04]

Maybe both.

 

It only restricts spending on 4-8 teams a year, and I'm not sure it slowed the Dodgers down all that much.

 

I don't think it can be both.

[harmony]

The worst part is the "poorer clubs" don't spend the revenue sharing and tax benefits on player salary. It goes straight to their wallets.

Where is the proof that the revenue sharing and tax benefits go directly "to their wallets" of the poorer clubs?

 

Each franchise has distinct revenues and distinct expenses that are not limited to player payroll.

[Bellhorn04]

Where is the proof that the revenue sharing and tax benefits go directly "to their wallets" of the poorer clubs?

 

Each franchise has distinct revenues and distinct expenses that are not limited to player payroll.

 

What are these non-payroll 'distinct expenses' you speak of?

[Elktonnick]

The purported reason the Jeter quit was because the owner would not spend for players. The consensus among MLB analysts is that the owner was too heavily leveraged. Debt service is major expense for a number.ownership groups. Another major expense.which many seem to discount are player development costs.

[Bellhorn04]

If they really wanted to use the luxury tax as a way of spreading the wealth, they would lower the thresholds, lower the tax rates, and remove the other penalties. Then more teams would pay more tax and more money would go to the smaller market teams.

[Bellhorn04]

The purported reason the Jeter quit was because the owner would not spend for players. The consensus among MLB analysts is that the owner was too heavily leveraged. Debt service is major expense for a number.ownership groups. Another major expense.which many seem to discount are player development costs.

 

I don't know that anyone's discounting player development costs. Those would presumably be roughly the same for every organization.

 

Debt service expense is certainly one that would vary a lot. I believe that this particular expense is the one Hal Steinbrenner has been using to explain why the Yankees don't spend on payroll like drunken sailors the way they once did.

[moonslav59]

Where is the proof that the revenue sharing and tax benefits go directly "to their wallets" of the poorer clubs?

 

Each franchise has distinct revenues and distinct expenses that are not limited to player payroll.

 

They have spent the same or less while getting these infusions of revenue.

 

I guess one could argue they used the funds to improve player development or the fan experience in other ways, but where's the proof of that?

[jad]

"Debt service fees" is a peculiar phrase for business expenses. If I buy a Lexus, of course I consider my car payments as 'expenses'. However, if I buy a VW with cash, I don't compute 'the interest I WOULD have gained had I bought the car on time' as 'expenses'. This kind of accounting (where you do not re-invest in the business, but rather get rid of assets, or in the case of players, essentially refuse to acquire them) is not all that different from junk bonds.

[Bellhorn04]

"Debt service fees" is a peculiar phrase for business expenses. If I buy a Lexus, of course I consider my car payments as 'expenses'. However, if I buy a VW with cash, I don't compute 'the interest I WOULD have gained had I bought the car on time' as 'expenses'. This kind of accounting (where you do not re-invest in the business, but rather get rid of assets, or in the case of players, essentially refuse to acquire them) is not all that different from junk bonds.

 

I've never been a big fan of "Debt service fees" either. There are interest charges, which everyone understands, and there are up-front fees with a lot of loans.

 

Now, as a bean-counter it's impossible for me to resist pointing out that if you buy a Lexus and finance it, only the interest portion of the payments is an 'expense'. The full payment is, of course, an outflow of cash.

[Elktonnick]

I don't know that anyone's discounting player development costs. Those would presumably be roughly the same for every organization.

 

Debt service expense is certainly one that would vary a lot. I believe that this particular expense is the one Hal Steinbrenner has been using to explain why the Yankees don't spend on payroll like drunken sailors the way they once did.

Player development costs vary widely among teams. Orioles for many years refused to spend to heavily scout players in Latin America. The largest hidden cost in player development are non producing prospects ie a non productive farm system. Apparently the high player development costs were the reason behind Manfred's decision to eliminate the traditional minor leagues.

[harmony]

Absent revenue sharing, many franchises presumably generate revenues that exceed expenses.

 

Absent revenue sharing, could some franchises have expenses that exceed revenues? Where does franchise valuation fit into the calculation?

 

Might revenues vary widely among the 30 franchises? Should the MLB enterprise ignore those discrepancies?

 

Every answer raises three more questions.

[Elktonnick]

Absent revenue sharing, many franchises presumably generate revenues that exceed expenses.

 

Absent revenue sharing, could some franchises have expenses that exceed revenues? Where does franchise valuation fit into the calculation?

 

Might revenues vary widely among the 30 franchises? Should the MLB enterprise ignore those discrepancies?

 

Every answer raises three more questions.

According to Forbes, the Red Sox had an operating loss of 70m in 2021. Yet because of escalating land values Fenway Park itself is estimated to worth anywhere between 600m to 1 billion.

[moonslav59]

Absent revenue sharing, many franchises presumably generate revenues that exceed expenses.

 

Absent revenue sharing, could some franchises have expenses that exceed revenues? Where does franchise valuation fit into the calculation?

 

Might revenues vary widely among the 30 franchises? Should the MLB enterprise ignore those discrepancies?

 

Every answer raises three more questions.

 

And each answer to those 3 new questions would generate 3 or more added questions.

 

I'm not sure MLB should seek to totally even our revenue and profits across the board, but I do think making rules that allow smaller markets to compete, at times, is worthwhile.

 

I also think some owners need to be incentivized to get out of this business and allow another owner to take over.

 

It's the stingy, cheap owners that hurt the game more than the biggest spenders, IMO.

 

Maybe we should add 4 expansion teams to MLB, but move the bottom two teams to AAA every year for 1 year, like some soccer league do.

 

That would add some incentive to winning!

[dgalehouse]

It's a little too easy to criticize the small market owners. MLB is a very unique business. The teams are competing with each other , but having a competitive balance is important to maintaining fan interest. Without fan support , it all falls apart. There is a vast difference between the lucrative big market franchises and the struggling small market ones. MLB needs to do things to help level the playing field. It is not like that elsewhere in the business world. Walmart was not about to bail out K-Mart. You really can't even fairly compare MLB to the NFL or NBA. There are some important differences between those leagues. It is a tough situation , no matter how you look at it. You can't put all the blame on the small market owners. There is plenty of it to go around.

[Elktonnick]

And each answer to those 3 new questions would generate 3 or more added questions.

 

I'm not sure MLB should seek to totally even our revenue and profits across the board, but I do think making rules that allow smaller markets to compete, at times, is worthwhile.

 

I also think some owners need to be incentivized to get out of this business and allow another owner to take over.

 

It's the stingy, cheap owners that hurt the game more than the biggest spenders, IMO.

 

Maybe we should add 4 expansion teams to MLB, but move the bottom two teams to AAA every year for 1 year, like some soccer league do.

 

That would add some incentive to winning!

That is similar to what Chad Jennings proposed in the Athletic the other day. It will never happen but it's fun to contemplate.

[moonslav59]

That is similar to what Chad Jennings proposed in the Athletic the other day. It will never happen but it's fun to contemplate.

 

Yes, zero chance, but I think it would work well.

[moonslav59]

It's a little too easy to criticize the small market owners. MLB is a very unique business. The teams are competing with each other , but having a competitive balance is important to maintaining fan interest. Without fan support , it all falls apart. There is a vast difference between the lucrative big market franchises and the struggling small market ones. MLB needs to do things to help level the playing field. It is not like that elsewhere in the business world. Walmart was not about to bail out K-Mart. You really can't even fairly compare MLB to the NFL or NBA. There are some important differences between those leagues. It is a tough situation , no matter how you look at it. You can't put all the blame on the small market owners. There is plenty of it to go around.

 

Some small market teams have proven they can be pretty good for very long stretches without spending big, but some teams are poorly run and have stingy owners- a bad combo.

[notin]

It's a little too easy to criticize the small market owners. MLB is a very unique business. The teams are competing with each other , but having a competitive balance is important to maintaining fan interest. Without fan support , it all falls apart. There is a vast difference between the lucrative big market franchises and the struggling small market ones. MLB needs to do things to help level the playing field. It is not like that elsewhere in the business world. Walmart was not about to bail out K-Mart. You really can't even fairly compare MLB to the NFL or NBA. There are some important differences between those leagues. It is a tough situation , no matter how you look at it. You can't put all the blame on the small market owners. There is plenty of it to go around.

 

Why can't you compare MLB to the NBA or the NFL?

 

The Walmart/KMart analogy falls short on me. Those are rival businesses competing for your retail dollar. If KMart disappears (which they did), Walmart can still continue (which they are doing). If Amazon wipes out Walmart and every other retailer (which they are trying to do), Amazon won't disappear in the aftermath. But MLB needs multiple teams to produce a product. If 29 MLB teams collapse, and only, say, the Baltimore Orioles survive as the last remaining MLB team, they won't enjoy the same monopoly Amazon is striving for. Who are they going to play? Who outside of Baltimore will care?

 

MLB is one business competing for your entertainment dollar. It's a singular corporation, not 30 little corporations. And there are multiple corporations that have a heavily profitable division or divisions carrying several lesser profitable ones. The competition for the Red Sox isn't the Yankees. It's Netflix. It's HBO. It's MGM. It's the NBA. It's the NFL for part of the year. Heck, it's Jelle's Marble Runs if that spins your wheels. It's not other baseball teams; it's any other source that can divert your attention and ultimately your money elsewhere where you might find entertainment and satisfaction...

[notin]

Some small market teams have proven they can be pretty good for very long stretches without spending big, but some teams are poorly run and have stingy owners- a bad combo.

 

The Competitive Balance Tax has been an abject failure in its goal to produce more balance on the playing field. It's turned numerous owners into Max Bialystock, realizing they can make more money by producing a flop than producing a hit...