Will there be a 2022 season?

[Bellhorn04]

They all are. And the ones who aren’t are planning on it…

 

Hey, I'm cynical too, but I try to base my opinions on actual evidence...

[jad]

Now they're all tax cheats too?

 

Hey, let's just dismantle pro sports completely. Then there will be no more rich sports team owners. Problem solved.

 

Get rid of big time college sports while we're at it. That's all driven by money and corruption too.

 

Let's not start on college sports--which are the biggest money-pits of sports. (Just read that Rutgers athletic department lost over $40million last year, and I believe UConn's losses were much greater the last time I checked). Much of it tax-supported either directly (student fees, direct state support) or indirectly (donations to athletics counting as 'charitable' deductions), even though the athletes are essentially un-paid (only the coaches and administrators get paid). Is this the model MLB longs for? ... (Oh ... I guess I did start, didn't I? My bad.)

[moonslav59]

So that's an annual 6% ROR for LAD and 6.5% for SDP.

 

Not really a monster growth rate for those franchises over 10 years.

 

Not as much as I expected but still a nice rate with not counting profits and side business profits.

[jad]

It's amazing, given that MLB franchises are struggling so much financially, that they so rarely get sold, and that MLB owners refuse to open the books for the MLBPA to examine-- I guess because they don't want to take unfair advantage of the players during negotiations by providing them with actual evidence.

[mvp 78]

Not as much as I expected but still a nice rate with not counting profits and side business profits.

 

You can do better elsewhere, but you can also do far worse. The risk at losing money on an MLB team is next to zero since it hasn't happened yet.

 

MLB teams are just status symbols for these old rich dudes. If you get rid of the 30 owners and replaced them with 30 other owners, I'm not sure anyone would notice the difference. If you replaced the 1200 players on each team's 40 man roster and replaced them with the next 1200 guys, the product would suffer immensely.

[mvp 78]

It's amazing, given that MLB franchises are struggling so much financially, that they so rarely get sold, and that MLB owners refuse to open the books for the MLBPA to examine-- I guess because they don't want to take unfair advantage of the players during negotiations by providing them with actual evidence.

 

Some people have stated that the second the CBA is agreed upon, the owners are going to announce a streaming deal with HBO that's going to give them $$$.

[S5Dewey]

Now they're all tax cheats too?

 

Hey, let's just dismantle pro sports completely. Then there will be no more rich sports team owners. Problem solved.

 

Get rid of big time college sports while we're at it. That's all driven by money and corruption too.

 

There's a very fine line between a tax cheat and someone who has the wherewithal to hire accounts who will "take a liberal view" of the tax laws and the attorneys to defend that view.

[notin]

Hey, I'm cynical too, but I try to base my opinions on actual evidence...

 

In court, I’d do the same. (Assuming I had any business being in a court room since I have the same amount of legal training as the average aardvark.). But on an anonymous message board with zero real world implications, I will vent my cynicism…

[notin]

There's a very fine line between a tax cheat and someone who has the wherewithal to hire accounts who will "take a liberal view" of the tax laws.

 

Or the financial wherewithal and influence to have those same laws modified for personal reasons. “Personal yacht fuel should be deductible. That’s only fair, right?”

[notin]

Let's not start on college sports--which are the biggest money-pits of sports. (Just read that Rutgers athletic department lost over $40million last year, and I believe UConn's losses were much greater the last time I checked). Much of it tax-supported either directly (student fees, direct state support) or indirectly (donations to athletics counting as 'charitable' deductions), even though the athletes are essentially un-paid (only the coaches and administrators get paid). Is this the model MLB longs for? ... (Oh ... I guess I did start, didn't I? My bad.)

 

 

And in many states, the highest paid state employee is a division I football coach or basketball coach. But we digress…

[notin]

Hey, I'm cynical too, but I try to base my opinions on actual evidence...

 

Also I have to wonder what you consider “actual evidence” given your admitted preference for “Ancient Aliens”

[mvp 78]

There's a very fine line between a tax cheat and someone who has the wherewithal to hire accounts who will "take a liberal view" of the tax laws and the attorneys to defend that view.

 

Uncertain tax position? That's what I felt every time I handed in a return to one of the partners at my firm.

[notin]

You can do better elsewhere, but you can also do far worse. The risk at losing money on an MLB team is next to zero since it hasn't happened yet.

 

MLB teams are just status symbols for these old rich dudes. If you get rid of the 30 owners and replaced them with 30 other owners, I'm not sure anyone would notice the difference. If you replaced the 1200 players on each team's 40 man roster and replaced them with the next 1200 guys, the product would suffer immensely.

 

 

I do think there is a very big gap between John Henry and the late Carl Pohlad…

[mvp 78]

Or the financial wherewithal and influence to have those same laws modified for personal reasons. “Personal yacht fuel should be deductible. That’s only fair, right?”

 

Most of these yachts are "owned" by LLC's. By using them as charters for a certain portion of the year, they are able to expense fuel from time to time.

[mvp 78]

I do think there is a very big gap between John Henry and the late Carl Pohlad…

 

If you replace a great owner with a terrible owner, the fans would notice. However, the overall impact on MLB would be minimal. Some teams would get a better owner than they have now.

[Bellhorn04]

You can do better elsewhere, but you can also do far worse. The risk at losing money on an MLB team is next to zero since it hasn't happened yet.

 

MLB teams are just status symbols for these old rich dudes. If you get rid of the 30 owners and replaced them with 30 other owners, I'm not sure anyone would notice the difference.

 

Disagree. There are good owners and bad ones. The Red Sox have a good one, and I think we've enjoyed significant benefits from it.

[Bellhorn04]

If you replace a great owner with a terrible owner, the fans would notice. However, the overall impact on MLB would be minimal. Some teams would get a better owner than they have now.

 

But it's fans who notice the differences in players too.

[moonslav59]

One problem with ownership is that some owners treat this as a hobby, and seek the fame of winning rings, and so maybe don't care as much about maximizing profits as other owners who are treating this like a 100% business venture. Teams like Pittsburgh doesn't seem to think winning will be worth the cost of adding higher player salaries. They are fine making a steady buck, even if some is through revenue sharing.

 

I will say that winning should help bring in much more revenue, but I remember the several World Series games not selling out- back in the day (I'm thinking Pitt and Bal.)

[notin]

Disagree. There are good owners and bad ones. The Red Sox have a good one, and I think we've enjoyed significant benefits from it.

 

I think he means the set of owners as a whole. Get 30 new owners and there will still be some good, some bad, and some teams will benefit from the change while some suffer. But the overall net effect will be nil.

 

Now if you replace the 1200 rostered players, the differences might be more noticeable…

[moonslav59]

I think he means the set of owners as a whole. Get 30 new owners and there will still be some good, some bad, and some teams will benefit from the change while some suffer. But the overall net effect will be nil.

 

Now if you replace the 1200 rostered players, the differences might be more noticeable…

 

It would be even worse than AAA ball, as many of the best AAA players are on the 40 man rosters.

[dgalehouse]

No Angry Grandpa Rambling, please…

 

This from a guy who says, " Have you ever passed on a chance to take a dig at people who don't see things your way?"

[Bellhorn04]

I think he means the set of owners as a whole. Get 30 new owners and there will still be some good, some bad, and some teams will benefit from the change while some suffer. But the overall net effect will be nil.

 

Now if you replace the 1200 rostered players, the differences might be more noticeable…

 

Yes, I get the point, but if we really want to go down the rabbit hole, the 1200 best players would be replaced by the next 1200 best players, so the difference might not be that noticeable after a while.

[mvp 78]

I think he means the set of owners as a whole. Get 30 new owners and there will still be some good, some bad, and some teams will benefit from the change while some suffer. But the overall net effect will be nil.

 

Now if you replace the 1200 rostered players, the differences might be more noticeable…

 

Yes.

[mvp 78]

Yes, I get the point, but if we really want to go down the rabbit hole, the 1200 best players would be replaced by the next 1200 best players, so the difference might not be that noticeable after a while.

 

After how long? The difference between AAA and MLB is light years. It would be noticeable to even casual fans.

[mvp 78]

This from a guy who says, " Have you ever passed on a chance to take a dig at people who don't see things your way?"

 

Well have you?

 

I certainly haven't.

[notin]

Yes, I get the point, but if we really want to go down the rabbit hole, the 1200 best players would be replaced by the next 1200 best players, so the difference might not be that noticeable after a while.

 

Unless the next 1200 are weaker fielders or cannot throw strikes…

[Bellhorn04]

Unless the next 1200 are weaker fielders or cannot throw strikes…

 

Of course they wouldn't be as good. But as we've said many times, the differences between players aren't that large. And it would be weaker against weaker.

[notin]

Of course they wouldn't be as good. But as we've said many times, the differences between players aren't that large. And it would be weaker against weaker.

 

The relative competition aspect is true. But even now, there is a large percentage of the current 1200 with weak fundamentals. That percentage is only likely to get bigger.

 

And while the greater number of pitchers with weak control might be offset by the greater number with weaker plate discipline, I think overall that would lead to a weaker product overall. I mean, if you already don’t like walks and strikeouts, this change won’t excite you much…

[Bellhorn04]

The relative competition aspect is true. But even now, there is a large percentage of the current 1200 with weak fundamentals. That percentage is only likely to get bigger.

 

And while the greater number of pitchers with weak control might be offset by the greater number with weaker plate discipline, I think overall that would lead to a weaker product overall. I mean, if you already don’t like walks and strikeouts, this change won’t excite you much…

 

Well, you're right. But the whole argument is kind of dumb IMHO.

 

Owners are different too, because they're actually human beings too.

 

Henry is BY FAR the best owner the Sox have ever had, and probably the best in baseball. Because he's not only wealthy but smart.

[mvp 78]

Of course they wouldn't be as good. But as we've said many times, the differences between players aren't that large. And it would be weaker against weaker.

 

It's noticeable. I've been to enough MiLB games to know that the product is fun, but not as good as MLB.