Financial state of baseball: New Quotes from Brewerfan Agent39

[bill hAll Star]

Just hand every player the Super 2 status. You get a player for 7 seasons, unlimited options Day 1 starts his clock and runs continuously even as optioned, which you can make unlimited rather than the current way. Only part being, is his Minors stats he accrues counts towards the arbitration figures.

 

The one and only exception to this is September callups. A player/team are allowed 1 callup after a team has lost 81games and those days not count as a way to give fans in a lost season a chance to see their prospect play when a team wouldn't call him up otherwise.

 

So no 9 days and gain an extra year of team control. You have team control of a player 6.001 to 6.181 and like I said the clock runs whether in majors or minors once he plays first game in Majors.

 

A lot of this is interesting, but while this makes sense for Kris Bryant, a lot of teams would wait even longer to call their guys up so as not to start that clock of doom. There could be an advanced stats way of doing this, but PCL/Colorado Springs would be horrifying.

 

Say the Brewers called up Garrett Cooper (prior to the trade) in an emergency last year and started his clock. So their choices would be to cut him completely or to live with the fact that he was going to hit .330/.420/.600 in Colorado Springs and probably earn $5 million dollars for destroying the juiced up PCL/Colorado Springs while probably not being a good MLB player?

[istanbultaye]

Might work if the arbitration contracts were still split contracts, at least for the first 3 years of it or something. So if they get called up, they'd still make a bit more in AAA than they did previously, but not the 5m if they aren't cracking it in the majors.

[brooks_quichenick]

It’s pretty wild we call millionares underpaid.

 

It's even wilder that we defend the pocketbooks of billionaires over the millionaires (and tons of guys playing for league minimum) who actually perform on the field for us.

[McRibMcLove]

It’s pretty wild we call millionares underpaid.

 

It's even wilder that we defend the pocketbooks of billionaires over the millionaires (and tons of guys playing for league minimum) who actually perform on the field for us.

Thank god it's a caviar minimum wage... heaven forbid they have to raise families on the real minimum wage or the real average salary...

[brooks_quichenick]

It’s pretty wild we call millionares underpaid.

 

It's even wilder that we defend the pocketbooks of billionaires over the millionaires (and tons of guys playing for league minimum) who actually perform on the field for us.

Thank god it's a caviar minimum wage... heaven forbid they have to raise families on the real minimum wage or the real average salary...

 

You're preaching to the choir dude. I'm simply saying it's illogical and completely mind-numbing for fans to side with billionaire owners over the players. Really not a difficult concept to grasp.

[agent39]

http://natsgm.com/2018/02/14/the-joshua-kusnick-experience-24-collusion-part-2/

[Point Beer Is Best]

Older vets get the huge deals because they were underpaid during their prime. They were underpaid in their prime because teams have control over them for their first 6 years and can suppress their value. Their value is suppressed in order for teams with limited financial means to be able to afford a star player or two, albeit briefly. Those teams have limited financial means (when comparing to the other major sports leagues) because there is not a true revenue sharing agreement. There is not a true revenue sharing agreement because each team negotiates their own TV contracts, as opposed to the NFL where it is very easily done at the league level.

 

That last sentence, in my opinion, is the root of the issue. We can talk about early arbitration, salary floors and anything else to help even out the pay for the players, but that doesn't address the root cause. How will teams in smaller markets survive? Their whole business model depends on acquiring young, cost-controlled players for a reason. They are not on an even playing field economically. If the NY Giants offered a huge contract to a star free agent, the Green Bay Packers could easily match it (as well as any other team in the league for that matter). There is pretty much zero chance the Brewers could match an offer to a star player if the NY Yankees were in pursuit. The deals the teams have with the regional sports networks are their #1 source of revenue and cause of the disparity between the haves and have-nots.

 

The Luxury Tax was the first attempt at curbing the spending by the high-revenue teams, but with no penalties for tanking and no salary floor (which you cannot have without equal revenue sharing), you end up with this exact predicament. If the high-revenue clubs weren't going to spend like drunken sailors on free agents... who will? The small/mid-market franchises had to learn a long time ago that those types of deals were foolish. Looking back, it's almost hilarious how predictable this outcome should have been.

[DuWayne Steurer]

It’s pretty wild we call millionares underpaid.

 

It's even wilder that we defend the pocketbooks of billionaires over the millionaires (and tons of guys playing for league minimum) who actually perform on the field for us.

 

I don't think fans are defending the pocketbooks of billionaire owners. I think fans want their teams that they root for to build good teams. Spending willy-nilly on overpriced veterans when there are cheap and younger and often better options available is what's good for the team and a lot of fans understand that. It's not so much choosing a side, it's fans that understand what's best for the team in terms of wins and losses in the long run.

[Fear The Chorizo]

There is not a true revenue sharing agreement because each team negotiates their own TV contracts, as opposed to the NFL where it is very easily done at the league level.

 

That last sentence, in my opinion, is the root of the issue.

 

100% bingo - until there is a level playing field financially in terms of how team payrolls can be structured, in no way can there be accusations of collusion. With the disparity in resources being primarily due to market size and TV money teams in different market sizes have to run their organization in a cyclical manner from a payroll standpoint. I don't know if there is a perfect solution to make both big and small market teams happy with revenue sharing if the model is for teams to continue negotiating their own TV/media deals, but until that gets resolved all the bickering by players, agents, and owners is due to the CBA that they all negotiated with each other. At the end of the day it looks bad for all of them to complain about a system they created for themselves to operate in.

[Fear The Chorizo]

I think this offseason is definitely going to drive discussions on how to better the system for players to get paid/reach free agency younger. I think that should include organization control at the mlb level to be reduced by 1 season, but also for a tiered structure of organization minor league control depending on the age a player was initially drafted and/or signed into pro ball. Keep the minor league control the same as it currently is for players drafted from high school, but reduce it by a 2-3 years for players drafted after their junior or senior years of college - so a college senior that has MLB promise can't be stowed away in the minor leagues to the point where he won't be a MLB free agent until the back end of his prime.

 

reducing years of team control HAS to include significantly more revenue sharing across the league - otherwise small market teams become even more like graduated farm clubs for the big market clubs.

[JosephC]

http://www.espn.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/85013/real-or-not-special-edition-reasons-for-the-sloooow-hot-stove-season

 

2015-16 top 15 free agents: 113.5 WAR

2016-17 top 15 free agents: 81.7 WAR

2017-18 top 15 free agents: 67.1 WAR

2018-19 potential top 15: 116.8 WAR (over 2016-17 seasons)

[JackNicholson1974]

To every person continuing to complain about the players calling themselves "overpaid" I would love to move toward a system where players make the minimum for three years and then hit free agency. You cant have it both ways in that the "market" says a 30 year old player is really only worth "$x" when he wasnt able to use the advantage of the market when he was 25 years old.

 

Lets just go to full-on capitalistic structure, young players will get what they deserve, older players cant complain about what they get or dont get, fans cant sit around a call the millionaire players greedy or crybabys while paying to build billionaire owners free stadiums.

[brewcrewdue80]

Just hand every player the Super 2 status. You get a player for 7 seasons, unlimited options Day 1 starts his clock and runs continuously even as optioned, which you can make unlimited rather than the current way. Only part being, is his Minors stats he accrues counts towards the arbitration figures.

 

The one and only exception to this is September callups. A player/team are allowed 1 callup after a team has lost 81games and those days not count as a way to give fans in a lost season a chance to see their prospect play when a team wouldn't call him up otherwise.

 

So no 9 days and gain an extra year of team control. You have team control of a player 6.001 to 6.181 and like I said the clock runs whether in majors or minors once he plays first game in Majors.

 

A lot of this is interesting, but while this makes sense for Kris Bryant, a lot of teams would wait even longer to call their guys up so as not to start that clock of doom. There could be an advanced stats way of doing this, but PCL/Colorado Springs would be horrifying.

 

 

Say the Brewers called up Garrett Cooper (prior to the trade) in an emergency last year and started his clock. So their choices would be to cut him completely or to live with the fact that he was going to hit .330/.420/.600 in Colorado Springs and probably earn $5 million dollars for destroying the juiced up PCL/Colorado Springs while probably not being a good MLB player?

 

That is partly the point. You play a guy for game 1 through the season or game 161, It's 1 year on his clock. If you were the Cubs are you really sitting Bryant another full season?

 

You do make a good point to be hashed out on the AAA stats skewing a player's Arb when it counts his time down in the minors and stats. With all the analytics these days, I would expect you can get a decent idea on park factors to come to a dollar amount. Besides that, if Arbitration has the Team's number and the players number if you go to the Arbitrator. Often you get a deal somewhere in between vs the Roll the Dice decision to be handed to the player. 5.5mil or fighting for 6.6mil, with minors stats being a part of the equation, do you really want to gamble 1.1mil on that factor? Or say I'll take 6mil and settle?

 

I can see also AAAA players having a lot of success making money on this. So, maybe you write it in somehow how to determine that players arbitration. Also, you can of course just go the non-tender route to that kind of player who becomes a FA then, and can just sign elsewhere to what a team values him at.

 

My main idea is that you actually give a team 7years of control right from the start. No gaming it one way to get that or another to avoid Super 2. Super 2 just exists.

[madbad2000]

The debate is not mutually exclusive. I can be against both the players and the owners. I can even go granular and be with the Players on one topic and with the owners for another. The biggest problem I have is the continual focus of the players on the highest end contracts. It seems their strategy is to get the absolute most money as possible for the few top end players and then everyone below feeds a bit more off of that due to comps. The problem with that strategy is that it really only benefits the few at the top when you have a defacto cap (luxury tax) and we have a system that is not setup/incentivized for equal spending all the time (cap and floor). I find the use of collusion a tough sell in this case because it's quite obvious from the outside that things have changed in terms of the system, strategies being used and timing of this class. It has all converged into a unique off-season where value is being placed in other areas, much to the chagrine of the free agents that expected the status quo. With so many players in the union, you would think there would be more focus on diverting revenue across the board to help everyone out ON TOP OF the mega deals for those few elite players that get those deals. And for crying out loud, work to get your minor leaguers paid a living wage.

[jerichoholicninja]

There is not a true revenue sharing agreement because each team negotiates their own TV contracts, as opposed to the NFL where it is very easily done at the league level.

 

That last sentence, in my opinion, is the root of the issue.

 

100% bingo - until there is a level playing field financially in terms of how team payrolls can be structured, in no way can there be accusations of collusion. With the disparity in resources being primarily due to market size and TV money teams in different market sizes have to run their organization in a cyclical manner from a payroll standpoint. I don't know if there is a perfect solution to make both big and small market teams happy with revenue sharing if the model is for teams to continue negotiating their own TV/media deals, but until that gets resolved all the bickering by players, agents, and owners is due to the CBA that they all negotiated with each other. At the end of the day it looks bad for all of them to complain about a system they created for themselves to operate in.

 

Every NFL game is broadcast nationally on the same couple networks so their TV deal is with the league. Most MLB games are broadcast only locally on local stations so the deals are negotiated with the teams individually. I agree that is where the income disparity comes in but you can't really compare the NFL to MLB in that area because they aren't the same. I'd guess MLB TV deals work almost the same as the NBA or NHL but I know nothing about them. Maybe someone who does could explain how they work.

[young guns]

It's not so much choosing a side, it's fans that understand what's best for the team in terms of wins and losses in the long run.

For me its that the choice of picking the side of the owners and players is a false dichotomy. I choose the side of the fan. I want my team to be able to be competitive and be able to go to a game without taking out a mortgage. Paying aging free agents exhorbinant amounts of money does not make either of those possible.

[bill hAll Star]

It's not so much choosing a side, it's fans that understand what's best for the team in terms of wins and losses in the long run.

For me its that the choice of picking the side of the owners and players is a false dichotomy. I choose the side of the fan. I want my team to be able to be competitive and be able to go to a game without taking out a mortgage. Paying aging free agents exhorbinant amounts of money does not make either of those possible.

 

Is funneling Jake Arrieta's age 35 salary into Alex Bregman's current earnings really going to make it so that a family can afford a game?

[MoreTrife]

It’s pretty wild we call millionares underpaid.

 

It's even wilder that we defend the pocketbooks of billionaires over the millionaires (and tons of guys playing for league minimum) who actually perform on the field for us.

 

I don't think fans are defending the pocketbooks of billionaire owners. I think fans want their teams that they root for to build good teams. Spending willy-nilly on overpriced veterans when there are cheap and younger and often better options available is what's good for the team and a lot of fans understand that. It's not so much choosing a side, it's fans that understand what's best for the team in terms of wins and losses in the long run.

 

Yep.

[KeithStone53151]

Anyone see that the PA is keeping club officials out of the new camp? Apparently an assistant GM had to be escorted out. I'm with the players on this one. This shouldn't become a precedent where they can wait until spring and get a look at guys before signing. If a player wants to work out and it be seen by teams(Lincecum), that's the players choice. It would be a dangerous precedent to let club officials see these workouts.

[bill hAll Star]

It’s pretty wild we call millionares underpaid.

 

It's even wilder that we defend the pocketbooks of billionaires over the millionaires (and tons of guys playing for league minimum) who actually perform on the field for us.

 

I don't think fans are defending the pocketbooks of billionaire owners. I think fans want their teams that they root for to build good teams. Spending willy-nilly on overpriced veterans when there are cheap and younger and often better options available is what's good for the team and a lot of fans understand that. It's not so much choosing a side, it's fans that understand what's best for the team in terms of wins and losses in the long run.

 

I understand what's best in the long run as a fan also. It involves building a team with a lot of younger, cheaper players and then using the savings to bring in veterans to complete the team. The way it is currently constructed, all of the 2nd tier free agent list is "overpaid" but still very well worth it in the context of a team competing for a championship.

 

If your take is that all of these guys like Darvish, Arrieta, Cobb, Lynn, etc. are not worth it, then we should all be siding with the players and wholeheartedly cheering for all of the bigger markets to pay for these guys in the current system.

 

There are going to be market inefficiencies in almost any system. In this one, it's that veterans are generally overpaid. That doesn't mean they don't have a place on rosters where owners/GMs deem fit.

[Oxy]

Put a team in Jersey, and split the TV markets so that only 1 team can be broadcast to every area (unless buying the whole MLB package in order to get out-of-market teams--whose money is spread to ALL teams).

 

No team can broadcast to more than 15 million people within their "local" market--however those lines are to be drawn--and again only 1 team is allowed per 15 million people.

 

If the gerry-mandering of TV markets is too laborious/argumentative, then do away with all geographical "lines" based on tv providers and let every consumer pick their own team they get to follow. As soon as 2 million customers have picked a team, that team gets "capped" so that nobody else can get all their games unless buying the full MLB package whose revenues get shared. (I have no idea what that number should be--from 2 million or less to 10 or even 15 million--whatever the range is so that TV revenue is not egregiously different between the smallest market and the largest market)

 

 

Tell me where I am in error here? Technology has made it not-that- difficult to do something like this, and it seems to me like it would solve a lot of problems.

[MadScientist]

Put a team in Jersey, and split the TV markets so that only 1 team can be broadcast to every area (unless buying the whole MLB package in order to get out-of-market teams--whose money is spread to ALL teams).

 

No team can broadcast to more than 15 million people within their "local" market--however those lines are to be drawn--and again only 1 team is allowed per 15 million people.

 

If the gerry-mandering of TV markets is too laborious/argumentative, then do away with all geographical "lines" based on tv providers and let every consumer pick their own team they get to follow. As soon as 2 million customers have picked a team, that team gets "capped" so that nobody else can get all their games unless buying the full MLB package whose revenues get shared. (I have no idea what that number should be--from 2 million or less to 10 or even 15 million--whatever the range is so that TV revenue is not egregiously different between the smallest market and the largest market)

 

 

Tell me where I am in error here? Technology has made it not-that- difficult to do something like this, and it seems to me like it would solve a lot of problems.

 

 

Ok here's where you are wrong:

Since the Mets and Yankees have newish stadiums, no move to Jersey is possible.

With about 330 million people, 1 team per 15M = 22 teams. (+1 in Canada). Are you arguing franchises be moved out of the US?

The local / regional cable games don't just serve as a revenue, they essentially advertise the team to the people most likely to be able to get to the game. Also under the cable model, channels get money for all subscribers with access to the channel. Going a la carte, means the fans will have to pay a lot to get the games, because the cost isn't amortized over many viewers.

 

Fundamentally the issue isn't with who watches what games, it is where the money goes. There needs to be full sharing of local revenue, including networks owned by a team.

 

If the revenue sharing is in place, then work on things that will get a fair amount of money to the players, and things that will reduce the number of teams not trying to compete. I would think this set would make for a fair give and take for players and owners:

For players:

Double the base salary (including MiLB)

Shorter time to FA (4 yrs, arb after 2, with super two being any player with the team more than 50% of the year)

Guaranteed revenue percent (45-50%, but that includes payments from MLB to MiLB to cover increased player costs there)

 

For owners:

Hard cap

Either non-guaranteed contracts, or set contracts to have a maximum length of 3 years.

[jerichoholicninja]

Anyone see that the PA is keeping club officials out of the new camp? Apparently an assistant GM had to be escorted out. I'm with the players on this one. This shouldn't become a precedent where they can wait until spring and get a look at guys before signing. If a player wants to work out and it be seen by teams(Lincecum), that's the players choice. It would be a dangerous precedent to let club officials see these workouts.

 

That's true but I also think they don't want people to see that none of the big free agents are there or how few overall came. I'm sure it's only bottom tier and 4A guys that will go to this camp. Everyone else has their own trainers and offseason workouts. Why would JD Martinez risk getting himself hurt for free and take away whatever payday he's going to get? Missing spring training time will mean absolutely nothing for the majority of players, it may help them if anything keeping the pointless wear and tear off their bodies.

[Oxy]

 

 

Ok here's where you are wrong:

Since the Mets and Yankees have newish stadiums, no move to Jersey is possible.

With about 330 million people, 1 team per 15M = 22 teams. (+1 in Canada). Are you arguing franchises be moved out of the US?

The local / regional cable games don't just serve as a revenue, they essentially advertise the team to the people most likely to be able to get to the game. Also under the cable model, channels get money for all subscribers with access to the channel. Going a la carte, means the fans will have to pay a lot to get the games, because the cost isn't amortized over many viewers.

 

Fundamentally the issue isn't with who watches what games, it is where the money goes. There needs to be full sharing of local revenue, including networks owned by a team.

 

 

Nobody is moving anywhere. Yankees and Mets stay as they are. The numbers were completely made up, I don't know what those actual numbers would be. What I DO know, is that even the smallest markets in MLB are currently large enough to be viable--and yet the discrepency between the largest markets and the smallest markets is too big. Thus, the large markets are too large. Solution would be somehow breaking into those large markets with expansion. Put up a stadium in the Meadowlands, and another one around the new football stadium/entertainment complex going up in LA/INglewood for the Rams and Chargers and add 2 more franchises. The infrastructure is already in place in those locations. It seems like there should be a couple bored multi-billionaire baseball fans out there to make this happen.

[bill hAll Star]

 

 

Ok here's where you are wrong:

Since the Mets and Yankees have newish stadiums, no move to Jersey is possible.

With about 330 million people, 1 team per 15M = 22 teams. (+1 in Canada). Are you arguing franchises be moved out of the US?

The local / regional cable games don't just serve as a revenue, they essentially advertise the team to the people most likely to be able to get to the game. Also under the cable model, channels get money for all subscribers with access to the channel. Going a la carte, means the fans will have to pay a lot to get the games, because the cost isn't amortized over many viewers.

 

Fundamentally the issue isn't with who watches what games, it is where the money goes. There needs to be full sharing of local revenue, including networks owned by a team.

 

 

Nobody is moving anywhere. Yankees and Mets stay as they are. The numbers were completely made up, I don't know what those actual numbers would be. What I DO know, is that even the smallest markets in MLB are currently large enough to be viable--and yet the discrepency between the largest markets and the smallest markets is too big. Thus, the large markets are too large. Solution would be somehow breaking into those large markets with expansion. Put up a stadium in the Meadowlands, and another one around the new football stadium/entertainment complex going up in LA/INglewood for the Rams and Chargers and add 2 more franchises. The infrastructure is already in place in those locations. It seems like there should be a couple bored multi-billionaire baseball fans out there to make this happen.

 

How many Yankees fans that live in NJ would suddenly tune in regularly and root for the New Jersey franchise? Seems like something that may shift 30-40 years down the road if the Jersey franchise is lucky.

 

And, again, this is TV-based (currently). The TV infrastructure is the same in Inglewood as it is in Anaheim. I don't believe that the cable/dish companies would break it off just to break it off to make this strange baseball division of markets happy.