Financial state of baseball: New Quotes from Brewerfan Agent39

[Oxy]

 

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.

 

Yeah, that's the tricky part. The generations are too far removed now and the Giants and Dodgers have too much history established in their Cali locations to make a "move (in name only)" back to the NY area where they had a large fanbase already built in--but that would have worked great back in the 90s or so. Re-name/brand the Mets as the Dodgers, and put a team in the Meadowlands that takes the Giants brandname, and re-brand the teams in SF and LA to something more California oriented.

 

It's too late for that, and the Mets are already "little brother" to the Yankees, so another team would have to endure being 3rd tier at best for awhile. Then again, there are probably at least 5 organizations scattered from Pittsburgh to Tampa to Kansas City that are about on that level already.

 

 

The NFL did that very well when the "Browns" moved to Baltimore, but basically started a new franchise IN Cleveland that took the name and the history of the Browns--while all ownership and personnel moved to Baltimore to become the Ravens. Giants and Dodgers and the MLB should have done that instead of the outright move to the west coast.

[MadScientist]

 

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.

 

Yeah, that's the tricky part. The generations are too far removed now and the Giants and Dodgers have too much history established in their Cali locations to make a "move (in name only)" back to the NY area where they had a large fanbase already built in--but that would have worked great back in the 90s or so. Re-name/brand the Mets as the Dodgers, and put a team in the Meadowlands that takes the Giants brandname, and re-brand the teams in SF and LA to something more California oriented.

 

It's too late for that, and the Mets are already "little brother" to the Yankees, so another team would have to endure being 3rd tier at best for awhile. Then again, there are probably at least 5 organizations scattered from Pittsburgh to Tampa to Kansas City that are about on that level already.

 

 

The NFL did that very well when the "Browns" moved to Baltimore, but basically started a new franchise IN Cleveland that took the name and the history of the Browns--while all ownership and personnel moved to Baltimore to become the Ravens. Giants and Dodgers and the MLB should have done that instead of the outright move to the west coast.

 

The NFL did it within a couple of years of the Browns going to Baltimore, and the fans in Cleveland badly wanted a team. There is no push for a new franchise in the NY/NJ area. Just because the market is big doesn't mean it will split up magically in desired way. People are going to root for the team they root for. Unless they or the team the root for move, that won't change. The problem isn't really how big a market or how many fans one team has vs another, the problem is the flow of money, and that can be solved without trying to push people to be fans of teams they don't want to be fans of.

[Oxy]

The NFL did it within a couple of years of the Browns going to Baltimore, and the fans in Cleveland badly wanted a team. There is no push for a new franchise in the NY/NJ area. Just because the market is big doesn't mean it will split up magically in desired way. People are going to root for the team they root for. Unless they or the team the root for move, that won't change. The problem isn't really how big a market or how many fans one team has vs another, the problem is the flow of money, and that can be solved without trying to push people to be fans of teams they don't want to be fans of.

 

Market size IS the reason the flow of money is a problem. It seems to be begging the question. A team in Jersey and Inglewood would be good for every baseball fan in the country (including all of those in NY and LA) and the MLB as a whole--both fans and ownership--except for the ownership groups of the Yankees, Mets, Dodgers, Angels and probably Philly.

 

The question is whether a team in those locations would be good for the owners of those teams in those locations. I would say yes, as long as those owners run those clubs more like the Rays, Brewers, and Twins and not try to be like the Yankees or the Dodgers (Both the Mets and Angels have had this problem a little bit).

 

A Jersey team probably makes more sense than another LA team. It's hard to get from Jersey to the Bronx or Queens, making it more justifiable than a park between the Dodgers, Angels, and the ocean. Vegas would probably make more sense than Inglewood if the object was to cut into the SoCal market.

[MadScientist]

The NFL did it within a couple of years of the Browns going to Baltimore, and the fans in Cleveland badly wanted a team. There is no push for a new franchise in the NY/NJ area. Just because the market is big doesn't mean it will split up magically in desired way. People are going to root for the team they root for. Unless they or the team the root for move, that won't change. The problem isn't really how big a market or how many fans one team has vs another, the problem is the flow of money, and that can be solved without trying to push people to be fans of teams they don't want to be fans of.

 

Market size IS the reason the flow of money is a problem. It seems to be begging the question. A team in Jersey and Inglewood would be good for every baseball fan in the country (including all of those in NY and LA) and the MLB as a whole--both fans and ownership--except for the ownership groups of the Yankees, Mets, Dodgers, Angels and probably Philly.

 

The question is whether a team in those locations would be good for the owners of those teams in those locations. I would say yes, as long as those owners run those clubs more like the Rays, Brewers, and Twins and not try to be like the Yankees or the Dodgers (Both the Mets and Angels have had this problem a little bit).

 

A Jersey team probably makes more sense than another LA team. It's hard to get from Jersey to the Bronx or Queens, making it more justifiable than a park between the Dodgers, Angels, and the ocean. Vegas would probably make more sense than Inglewood if the object was to cut into the SoCal market.

 

Market size may have started the problem, but your 'solutions' simply won't do anything to solve the money problem. There's no clamoring for new franchises in those areas. Adding teams in the market area won't change fan's favorite team, it won't change how many people watch their games. If you try to prevent people from watching the team they want to watch, you are more likely to convince people to give up on baseball. A solution has to take into account the realities of people, not some abstract statistics.

[LouisEly]

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.

There is an age-old wisdom - "You don't make or lose money on anything until you sell it."

 

Many of them are "paper billionaires" - their value is based on stock that they own or perceived value of the franchise, not how much cash they have in the bank. Ask people (especially in Phoenix, Las Vegas, or Florida) what their house was worth in 2006... then ask them what it was worth in 2009. Ask me what my tech stocks were worth in 2000... and then in 2002. These things can change quickly.

 

Many of them (or the teams they own) take on huge loans to finance the construction of the stadiums. They have principle and interest to pay from the profits their teams generate. Yes, the teams are profitable... but stadiums are expensive to build and maintain. That has to be taken into consideration too.

 

The one thing they all have in common is that they all got to where they are by being very shrewd businesspeople. That will never go away.

[Oxy]

If people are more into the "sharing" side of things, I'd be WAY more into the Brewers and Twins combining organizations and flipping back and forth every other year as the Varsity "home" team, making the the other city the JVA team (as opposed to the AAA squad(s) being JVB and JVC teams).

 

Multiple World Series Championships for both the Twins and the Brewers, I'm telling ya.

[JCREW]

Does anyone know if there are published figures of teams' revenues and expenses? If not are there estimates out there? I would really like to see what sort of expenses teams have beyond personnel costs.

[KeithStone53151]

Does anyone know if there are published figures of teams' revenues and expenses? If not are there estimates out there? I would really like to see what sort of expenses teams have beyond personnel costs.

 

Teams are privately held and don't require published financials. Forbes has made estimates of team revenues, I've also seen that player salaries have steadily averaged 56% across all teams. I doubt anyone has any specific numbers on other expenses though. I for one would be extremely interested in seeing what team financials look like.

[Oxy]

 

Market size may have started the problem, but your 'solutions' simply won't do anything to solve the money problem. There's no clamoring for new franchises in those areas. Adding teams in the market area won't change fan's favorite team, it won't change how many people watch their games. If you try to prevent people from watching the team they want to watch, you are more likely to convince people to give up on baseball. A solution has to take into account the realities of people, not some abstract statistics.

 

Ignoring the statistics of demographics and just talking about the "realities of people", what is stopping small market teams from "sharing" with each other in order to combat the inherent advantages that large markets wield?

[JCREW]

Does anyone know if there are published figures of teams' revenues and expenses? If not are there estimates out there? I would really like to see what sort of expenses teams have beyond personnel costs.

 

Teams are privately held and don't require published financials. Forbes has made estimates of team revenues, I've also seen that player salaries have steadily averaged 56% across all teams. I doubt anyone has any specific numbers on other expenses though. I for one would be extremely interested in seeing what team financials look like.

 

Right. I'm aware they are privately held. I was just wondering if anything ever got shared during the last CBA negotiations or something like that. I suppose it would be pretty counter-intuitive for a team to let anyone see how much money they were withholding from the players or extorting from the fans.

(Italicized is half sarcastic)

[Thurston Fluff]

Does anyone know if there are published figures of teams' revenues and expenses? If not are there estimates out there? I would really like to see what sort of expenses teams have beyond personnel costs.

 

Teams are privately held and don't require published financials. Forbes has made estimates of team revenues, I've also seen that player salaries have steadily averaged 56% across all teams. I doubt anyone has any specific numbers on other expenses though. I for one would be extremely interested in seeing what team financials look like.

 

This seems to be a lot of the problem when it comes to collective bargaining in most businesses. I've always been suspicious of claims of poverty when they refuse to opens their books during negotiations. If they really weren't making much money one would think they'd be the ones who want to open them books.

[KeithStone53151]

Does anyone know if there are published figures of teams' revenues and expenses? If not are there estimates out there? I would really like to see what sort of expenses teams have beyond personnel costs.

 

Teams are privately held and don't require published financials. Forbes has made estimates of team revenues, I've also seen that player salaries have steadily averaged 56% across all teams. I doubt anyone has any specific numbers on other expenses though. I for one would be extremely interested in seeing what team financials look like.

 

This seems to be a lot of the problem when it comes to collective bargaining in most businesses. I've always been suspicious of claims of poverty when they refuse to opens their books during negotiations. If they really weren't making much money one would think they'd be the ones who want to open them books.

 

I wouldn't be overly surprised for clubs to open the books to specific PA people to prove their point(unless of course they are raking in dough in which case they won't show it)...but no way will the general public ever get their hands on baseball team financials.

[MoreTrife]

Saw this quote from C.C. Sabathia in an article in The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/02/the-issue-at-the-heart-of-mlbs-free-agency-debate/553841/?utm_source=feed). Total Captain Obvious moment. Can't believe it was ever any other way.

 

“When I was a free agent,” the 37-year-old said of the first time he hit the market, “you got paid for what you did. Now, guys are getting paid for what they can do throughout their contract … [General managers] are getting younger and smarter, and want to get more value out of a player.”

[McRibMcLove]

When do arby contracts become guaranteed? This week (I have a vague recollection its so many weeks before opening day)?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if there is collusion going on.... Agents are holding off signings until after teams are locked into all their arby contracts... Conspiracy Theory? sure, but its the only real FU that they can do to the owners right now by forcing them to spend money they might have saved by releasing a player instead of paying the arby amount...

[sveumrules]

Good look at the financial state of baseball by Ben Lindbergh over at The Ringer. Makes it sound like players' share of revenues have actually kept pace with the increased revenue...

 

https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2018/2/21/17035624/mlb-revenue-sharing-owners-players-free-agency-rob-manfred

[Samurai Bucky]

The MLBPA needs to get somebody to port "The Show" to the XBox platform. There will be a lot of sales which means a bigger chunk of change...

[istanbultaye]

The Show is developed by a Sony development studio, which is why it's been PlayStation exclusive since the beginning.

[stoutdude04]

The MLBPA needs to get somebody to port "The Show" to the XBox platform. There will be a lot of sales which means a bigger chunk of change...

 

Sounds to me like you need to get yourself a ps4...

[ewitkows]

MLBPA Files Grievance Against Four Teams Over Revenue Sharing Funds

 

The Major League Baseball Player’s Association has initiated a grievance proceeding against the Athletics, Marlins, Pirates, and Rays regarding those teams’ spending of revenue sharing dollars, according to a report from Marc Topkin of the Tampa Bay Times.

 

This general issue has been percolating for some time, even as additional concerns have arisen as to the pace of free-agent signings over the 2017-18 offseason. The MLBPA reportedly engaged with the league office over the Miami and Pittsburgh organizations’ spending earlier this year.

[JosephC]

Looking at the payroll tracker at Cot's, they have the following for 2018:

 

A's = 58.1 million (down from an average of 84.1 million from 2015-2017)

Marlins = 89.8 million (up from an average of 86.2 million from 2015-2017)

Pirates = 85.5 million (down from an average of 95.3 million from 2015-2017)

Rays = 77.0 million (up from an average of 70.9 million from 2015-2017)

 

Interesting they picked four teams and two of the four teams have a projected 2018 payroll that will be higher than the team's average payroll over the three previous seasons.

 

They should have filed a grievance against Milwaukee in 2016 as the Brewers had a 63.9 million dollar payroll that season after having run an average payroll of 98.9 million from 2013-2015. Math shows that cut was worse than any of the four teams just named.

 

But obviously this comes now only because players are upset that Arrieta, Lynn, Cobb and Moustakas are still unemployed. But instead of going after the big dog teams that can afford these 80+ million dollar contracts (or 200 million in Arrieta's case), they instead will go after the A's because apparently Oakland was such a likely candidate for Arrieta and his 200 million dollar demand.

[jerichoholicninja]

The MLBPA leadership is quickly turning into a joke. And will look like even more of a joke after next offseason when the $100M+ contracts are flying left and right.

[wallus]

It is clear the system needs to change a bit. I think players in year 2-6 of their careers need to get a significant raise. Yes I know this will ultimately hurt teams like the Brewers but they could raise it 25% without a ton of damage.

[CrewFanBrewMan69]

Agree. Raising salaries by 10-25% during arbitration years seems to be the most logical thing here. It makes the most sense to be the change that accomplishes the players goal(s) and not doing anything drastic like making FA come sooner (would hurt small markets most), going to hard caps/floors, etc. Maybe also add in that even though arbitration to players is going up 10-25% in real money only 80% (or some portion) of the salary of arbitration players counts towards the LT. Give teams a break/incentive for homegrown guys and a reason to pay them through arbitration.

[torts]

no, increasing during arbitration wont change anything, it'll just increase what they expect once they his FA. a solution would be reducing the number of years of arbitration and getting FA earlier in the players career.

[MoreTrife]

no, increasing during arbitration wont change anything, it'll just increase what they expect once they his FA. a solution would be reducing the number of years of arbitration and getting FA earlier in the players career.

 

Agreed but have to combine that with more revenue sharing or salary cap so small market teams can compete.