Financial state of baseball: New Quotes from Brewerfan Agent39

[DHonks]

.

 

What? I never thought I'd see a Brewer fan argue for a seemingly uncapped system. Your concern of competitiveness will be moot and the Brewers will be back to being bottom rung feeder team if that was the case like it used to be. I guess you can put in a floor to help it (which NBA and NFL have too), but without the tax impeding the big markets they'd have more power than they already do.

 

I guess I don't follow at all how you think it's good for competitiveness to have some teams able to spend 250 mil while other like MKE can only spend 100. As opposed to the NBA and NFL who basically make everyone spend roughly the same. And if they do have situations that allow them to go way over in the NBA it has a massive tax penalty to help out the other teams, so it becomes pretty rare.

 

I've never heard a good argument for a capped system. I like the system in place (at the high end) where there's a luxury tax. If a team wants to exceed it, it's their own choosing and they pay taxes. Spending big money doesn't make someone a winner. The Cubs, Red Sox, Dodgers, and Angels spend massive sums every year, but only make the playoffs occasionally. I've loved seeing these teams (and others) spend recklessly and get little out of it.

 

And I'm talking about free agency. The NBA's system is a joke. Teams really can't better themselves in free agency in the age of super teams. The NFL is even worse. The only players that become free agents are guys with serious red flags (injuries, behavior/legal issues, old players) or complementary players. Star players don't become free agents.

[owbc]

Lots of good thoughts here.

 

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that from a revenue perspective, attendance doesn't matter like it used to. Most revenue is now tied into long-term TV contracts and corporate sponsorships and there is less incentive to sign players for the sake of putting people in the seats. Additionally, the fans understand the FA market as well as anyone else and don't want the big contracts either. MLB attendance in 2018 is likely to be the lowest since the 1990s--mostly because all live sports are losing attendance but also because of the large number of teams that are not trying to win in 2018. The pace of play initiatives are also critical to increasing attendance and interest in the sport over the long term. It is important that teams recognize the intangible importance of getting people in the ballpark to cultivate interest in the team, even if the tickets are free. Empty seats look bad on TV and lack of interest can snowball into irrelevancy if not taken seriously. Fortunately the Brewers are ahead of the curve and make it easy for fans to cheaply attend games. MLB needs to help by making baseball less boring and not letting the minority voice control the discussion. Selig was very good at this and was willing to be the villain in exchange for getting reforms through that later proved to be popular.

 

The Marlins situation is obviously a complete disaster and the biggest stain so far on Manfred's tenure as commissioner. How did they manage to downgrade from Loria? There are many parallels to the Dodgers' situation where Selig stepped in and took control, I wonder if Manfred will eventually do the same.

 

The big picture is that MLB's problems are easy to solve when compared with the NFL or college sports. The long term outlook of the sport looks good.

[DHonks]

The only fair free agency in pro sports is MLB.

 

I don't know if that's true. A baseball player can spend much of his 20's in the minors, come to the majors for six years through his prime and not get offered a big deal after "team control" is over. He'll make more than a "normal person," but not nearly as much as a NBA or NFL guy will get in his initial contract after being drafted.

 

Actually, the way baseball is set up if teams stop giving dumb deals to older guys who have no chance of living up to them, then I think the union has painted the players into a bad position. Only the guys who are brought up in their early 20's and therefore hit free agency before their "prime" years will have a chance at getting paid anywhere near what everyday players in other sports make.

 

Notice what I said.... the only fair "free agency" is MLB. Good NFL players don't reach free agency, and NBA free agency is also a joke. You misunderstood me as I never said anything about MILB. Minor leaguers are not free agents. Baseball needs to do far more for their minor leaguers.

[DHonks]

 

bingo. If this trend continues this is going to be a big point during the next CBA. MLB: the league that forces guys to play for league min for like 6 years operating on one year deals is not the best model for the players best interests.

 

What does make the MLB situation different to figure out than the other leagues is the minor league system and how to manage that control and development.

 

MLB players are paid the minimum for 2-3 years (usually 3), then see rapid acceleration. The average salary is $4 million and rising. Players do not make the league minimum for 6 years.

[MNBrew]

A couple thoughts:

 

- Just because franchise values have apparently soared doesn't change the cash flow until you sell, in which case the money made is with the seller, not the new owner. So to my thinking, that point has zero merit in any speculation regarding this winter's stoic FA market.

 

- Whereas there are only a very small handful of players making >$30MM per year currently, it's funny how back in the middle of last season, speculation regarding so many of the top FAs was that they'd be going for an AAV >$30MM per year. Where the heck did that come from? Certainly not from the salaries of players comparable to the subjects of said speculation! . . . Some of these guys are quite good, but there's no single pitcher on the FA market right now whose career production deserves to come anywhere close to Kershaw's currently salary. Also, for instance, JD Martinez had great power output at the perfect time, and he's a nice player but his overall career doesn't equate to a $30MM/yr. player -- really, for a guy with only two years with more than 30 HRs and a good slash line??? He's been a pretty good player for a few years but an elite player for only one. I wouldn't pay him $30MM+ for 6 years and I'm glad to see most any GM is smart enough not to, either.

 

Edit: Corrected a key typo.

 

Addendum: There's already speculation about Bryce Harper possibly being a $40MM/yr. player. Really? He's good but he's not that good. I mean, I'd take his 2015 & 2017, but the rest of his career is an ordinary version of good. To me he's far more hyped than his actual performance deserves -- as has been the case since he was drafted.

[DHonks]

The big picture is that MLB's problems are easy to solve when compared with the NFL or college sports. The long term outlook of the sport looks good.

 

This is well said. MLB is in good shape. The only major fixes I'd like to see are:

1) minor league pay

2) better revenue sharing (I don't care that the Yankees have an advantage. I just don't want them to have a $150M advantage. Do other teams complain that the Packers have an advantage as a non-profit that generates more revenue than most of them?)

3) salary floor linked to performance. A team should not generate a $60M profit while screwing over their fans and collecting massive revenue sharing (Marlins). If a team goes below a salary floor, they should lose out on some revenue-sharing funds or be downgraded in the draft. The game exists for the owners, players, and communities together--not just the owners.

 

Fear the Chorizo, Why pay younger unproven players more? Stars that made an immediate splash like Ryan Braun, Kris Bryant, Mike Trout, Stephen Strasburg, etc were all compensated VERY well early in careers, receiving tens of millions by year 3. That's better than most top NFL or NBA picks can say. Heck, NFL players are limited in earnings for their first 4-5 years based on rookie contracts, and the average NFL career is half of that. Also, don't forget NFL contracts aren't guaranteed. I just don't get your argument that MLB players need to be paid more than they currently are in seasons 1-3. MILB players need to get paid more, but I can't see how the MLB system is unfair.

[danzig6767]

 

Ya, that makes no sense to me to be angry at the owners. And how much does an owner personally profit anyway? Mark isn't the only guy making money off the Brewers. After whatever profit there is is split between everybody that gets something I think we would be surprised at how little Mark actually takes home. Oh, I'm sure it's a lot compared to 99% of the population but rather small compared to what we all think.

 

And if the owners aren't keeping the money, the players will. Don't we complain enough about how much these guys make? Look forward to utility infielders getting $20M a year.

1. I'd bet Attanasio has made a large amount of money of the Brewers already. Besides that, he only paid 225 million for the team. If he put the Brewers up for sale after the season, he'd easily get 600-700 million, maybe more given the skyrocketing value for sports franchises.

 

2. I don't begrudge owners making money, but i'd rather see the players who actually are the product fans go to see get a bigger cut compared to already billionaire owners.

[JosephC]

Key sentence in Passan's article is the first sentence in paragraph #4. "...jobless with pitchers and catchers reporting in less than a month." I honestly don't see how anyone could throw out the word "collusion" when the off-season hasn't come close to playing out yet. Completely ridiculous. Come the end of Februrary, if Darvish has signed for 90 million, Arrieta has signed for 75 million, Lynn has signed for 45 million and Cobb has signed for 40 million...that would be the time to write the collusion article.

 

My take on the free agent market (on December 29th) is summed up in post #31 on this page:

viewtopic.php?f=66&t=36121&start=20

And my thoughts haven't changed. I still think Arrieta, Lynn and Cobb will get paid much more than what people were expecting back in November, and if Darvish misses the mark it won't be by very much.

[MNBrew]

 

Ya, that makes no sense to me to be angry at the owners. And how much does an owner personally profit anyway? Mark isn't the only guy making money off the Brewers. After whatever profit there is is split between everybody that gets something I think we would be surprised at how little Mark actually takes home. Oh, I'm sure it's a lot compared to 99% of the population but rather small compared to what we all think.

 

And if the owners aren't keeping the money, the players will. Don't we complain enough about how much these guys make? Look forward to utility infielders getting $20M a year.

1. I'd bet Attanasio has made a large amount of money of the Brewers already. Besides that, he only paid 225 million for the team. If he put the Brewers up for sale after the season, he'd easily get 600-700 million, maybe more given the skyrocketing value for sports franchises.

 

2. I don't begrudge owners making money, but i'd rather see the players who actually are the product fans go to see get a bigger cut compared to already billionaire owners.

To my point above: Mark Attanasio hasn't put the team up for sale, so the value increase means nothing to the team's day-to-day finances. And when he sells the team, those proceeds go to Mark A., not the team, so again the day-to-day finances aren't affected.

[danzig6767]

This is well said. MLB is in good shape. The only major fixes I'd like to see are:

2) better revenue sharing (I don't care that the Yankees have an advantage. I just don't want them to have a $150M advantage. Do other teams complain that the Packers have an advantage as a non-profit that generates more revenue than most of them?)

Revenue sharing certainly helps smaller market teams who actually are trying to win. That said, i can see why it gets on the nerves of big market payers into the system when they see a number of teams/owners carry a small payroll and thus in effect, pocket that revenue sharing money for profits to the owner.

 

As for socalled collusion, i don't buy it. If anything is hurting free agents that isn't talked about much is analytics. GM spots are now filled all over the place with analytics driven guys and it's leading to two things.

 

1. Their studies show them more and more that contracts say 5 years and longer are often bad deals for the team, especially for free agents already approaching age 30 or 30 plus.

 

2. These GM's use all kinds of data to either try unearthing undervalued gems or use various data to determine that yea X high priced free agent is better than X lesser player, but not at 20-25 million per over 5-6 seasons. Simply big counting stats at the plate no longer have multiple owners fighting each other to open their checkbook in a bidding war.

[tmwiese55]

 

bingo. If this trend continues this is going to be a big point during the next CBA. MLB: the league that forces guys to play for league min for like 6 years operating on one year deals is not the best model for the players best interests.

 

What does make the MLB situation different to figure out than the other leagues is the minor league system and how to manage that control and development.

 

MLB players are paid the minimum for 2-3 years (usually 3), then see rapid acceleration. The average salary is $4 million and rising. Players do not make the league minimum for 6 years.

 

OK rephrase to minimum for a few years and then drastically below market value on one year deals for another few years after that. I just don't see how a team owning you almost inevitably during minor leagues while you get paid nothing and then owning for another 6 years at drastically below market value is a good thing for players. Previously the trade-off of being drastically overpaid later was a reasonable balance, if that goes away it will be a problem. And this setup is not letting players hit FA until their past their prime, that's not a problem in the other leagues. That's what we're talking about here.

 

NFL has it's own issue with not getting guaranteed contracts, they should have went on strike 15 years ago when the league was exploding.

[MNBrew]

The union may have counters to other ownership arguments but you sure can't come up with anything to counter Danzig's 2 points in Post #35.

 

Comparing unions & caps, the NBA should never enter any of these discussions. Any league whose teams trade guys for their contracts just so they can cut them -- pay them NOT to play -- proves the point that money matters more than the game and the vast majority of players playing it -- or even most of the teams.

[danzig6767]

1. I'd bet Attanasio has made a large amount of money of the Brewers already. Besides that, he only paid 225 million for the team. If he put the Brewers up for sale after the season, he'd easily get 600-700 million, maybe more given the skyrocketing value for sports franchises.

 

2. I don't begrudge owners making money, but i'd rather see the players who actually are the product fans go to see get a bigger cut compared to already billionaire owners.

To my point above: Mark Attanasio hasn't put the team up for sale, so the value increase means nothing to the team's day-to-day finances. And when he sells the team, those proceeds go to Mark A., not the team, so again the day-to-day finances aren't affected.

It's still an asset with a value to it.

 

If a person owns a company or companies instead of a pro sports team, that company/companies has a value towards that person's net worth. It's really no different.

 

Take Jerry Jones. He owns the Dallas Cowboys and it's valued at over 3 billion dollars. This is his main financial asset and thus he's a billionaire, even though he isn't selling the team currently.

 

Attanasio has a financial portfolio and part of that is his ownership of the Brewers, and the estimated value of the franchise. So given the franchise is easily worth more than double what he's paid for it, his net worth has gone up that much.

[ClosetBrewerFan]

Perhaps a salary floor (like a cap) is needed.

 

I'm not a fan of a "hard salary floor", but I think we need to discourage teams from tanking. What about penalizing teams that are below some team salary threshold AND have a low number of wins. This way young teams with low payrolls (like the Brewers last year) are not forced to go sign free agents they don't need (and block younger prospects) as long as they are winning. Or if a team has a low salary and are not winning they are encouraged to trade for more established players (with higher salaries). The penalty for not doing so could be a loss of draft picks or a drop in their draft order.

[superfly]

This is such a tough one for me because I can understand why the owners don't want to pay some of these guys for their diminishing performances in their 30's but I also get sick and tired of the owners making money hand over fist. It is absolutely disgusting with the Jeff Loria situation in Miami.

 

Uh...the owners own the company (team). They take the upfront risk in the hopes of achieving a return down the road. I wonder if you'd feel the same way if some day you owned a business and your employees/people from the outside looked at you and thought in such a shallow fashion.

[MNBrew]

1. I'd bet Attanasio has made a large amount of money of the Brewers already. Besides that, he only paid 225 million for the team. If he put the Brewers up for sale after the season, he'd easily get 600-700 million, maybe more given the skyrocketing value for sports franchises.

 

2. I don't begrudge owners making money, but i'd rather see the players who actually are the product fans go to see get a bigger cut compared to already billionaire owners.

To my point above: Mark Attanasio hasn't put the team up for sale, so the value increase means nothing to the team's day-to-day finances. And when he sells the team, those proceeds go to Mark A., not the team, so again the day-to-day finances aren't affected.

It's still an asset with a value to it.

 

If a person owns a company or companies instead of a pro sports team, that company/companies has a value towards that person's net worth. It's really no different.

 

Take Jerry Jones. He owns the Dallas Cowboys and it's valued at over 3 billion dollars. This is his main financial asset and thus he's a billionaire, even though he isn't selling the team currently.

 

Attanasio has a financial portfolio and part of that is his ownership of the Brewers, and the estimated value of the franchise. So given the franchise is easily worth more than double what he's paid for it, his net worth has gone up that much.

No arguments with any of that. My point is that that value isn't realized until he sells the team, which likely has little if any bearing on the team's revenues and payroll. The owner may make good money while owning his team, but that's different money than what the team's worth.

 

The players can point all they want to increased franchise values, but that's not revenue and therefore, as "hypothetical" money, can't go into players' salaries.

 

These days, even crappy players who somehow manage to last for a couple years in the majors often end up making multiple millions per year. If the players are peeved that the pot of gold actually may not be bottomless, I don't feel bad because it was only a matter of time before that wake-up call happened. Thankfully it's happening with the industry incredibly healthy, not collapsing -- which would be infinitely worse -- meaning that players & owners still stands to benefit very well if they can solve this without shooting the golden goose and damaging the game with a work stoppage.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Fear the Chorizo, Why pay younger unproven players more? Stars that made an immediate splash like Ryan Braun, Kris Bryant, Mike Trout, Stephen Strasburg, etc were all compensated VERY well early in careers, receiving tens of millions by year 3. That's better than most top NFL or NBA picks can say. Heck, NFL players are limited in earnings for their first 4-5 years based on rookie contracts, and the average NFL career is half of that. Also, don't forget NFL contracts aren't guaranteed. I just don't get your argument that MLB players need to be paid more than they currently are in seasons 1-3.

 

Kris Bryant made ~$650K in 2016 and won the NL MVP - and got to play his 3rd year of service time in 2017 at a "record" pre-arbitration deal of $1.07 million. He was also held back for at least 1 season in the minors solely because the Cubs didn't want to start his MLB service time clock. Bryant's 2018 salary of just under $11M is still way too low. Ryan Braun didn't get a $10M per season salary until his 7th big league season, 3 years after he won NL MVP. So even the immediate splash players don't get paid anywhere close to market value for their abilities. And those arbitration bumps after year 3 are nice, but they're still way below what they'd get on the open market if they hit free agency after say 4 years of service time, for example. Plus, many of the premier players in today's game will take things year by year to hit free agency, or negotiate a deal with their team to pay them well but not buy out any free agent years to avoid arbitration - they take that risk on their longterm health because the system doesn't pay them crazy money until they are free agents.

 

And I'm not saying every pre-arbitration player is the same, much like every veteran free agent isn't the same - I simply feel like the salary arbitration process needs to start sooner during a player's service time clock, and that clock needs to be shortened from 6 years down to 4-5. Shifting the MLB salary structure towards younger players is a good thing, IMO.

 

BTW, the average MLB career is about 5.5 years, which is obviously longer than the NFL but just so happens to be just short of an "average" career ever reaching free agency.

[pacopete4]

This is such a tough one for me because I can understand why the owners don't want to pay some of these guys for their diminishing performances in their 30's but I also get sick and tired of the owners making money hand over fist. It is absolutely disgusting with the Jeff Loria situation in Miami.

 

Uh...the owners own the company (team). They take the upfront risk in the hopes of achieving a return down the road. I wonder if you'd feel the same way if some day you owned a business and your employees/people from the outside looked at you and thought in such a shallow fashion.

 

None of these owners are going to lose money. None of them. Even that scum bag Loria made more money than he will ever be able to spend in a life time so spare me your soapbox moment about shallowness. Owning a pro sports team is a honor and should come with some responsibility to the product that the league puts out to its fans that pay to make all these owners as rich as they are. The feel sorry for me statements from owners ends when you talk about risk yet it’s a built cash cow. Hell, they don’t even fund their own stadiums. Tax payers do.

[FVBrewerFan]

 

Ya, that makes no sense to me to be angry at the owners. And how much does an owner personally profit anyway? Mark isn't the only guy making money off the Brewers. After whatever profit there is is split between everybody that gets something I think we would be surprised at how little Mark actually takes home. Oh, I'm sure it's a lot compared to 99% of the population but rather small compared to what we all think.

 

And if the owners aren't keeping the money, the players will. Don't we complain enough about how much these guys make? Look forward to utility infielders getting $20M a year.

1. I'd bet Attanasio has made a large amount of money of the Brewers already. Besides that, he only paid 225 million for the team. If he put the Brewers up for sale after the season, he'd easily get 600-700 million, maybe more given the skyrocketing value for sports franchises.

 

2. I don't begrudge owners making money, but i'd rather see the players who actually are the product fans go to see get a bigger cut compared to already billionaire owners.

 

And I would rather see tickets, parking, and concessions be more reasonable for fans instead of millions more for players and owners. But hey, thats supply and demand.

 

Speaking of which, that's why the Marlins situation doesn't upset me. They should draw 100 fans a game. Would send a message to Marlins and all of baseball. Or, fans still show up, meaning they have accepted the year down so what's the problem.

[DHonks]

Perhaps a salary floor (like a cap) is needed.

 

I'm not a fan of a "hard salary floor", but I think we need to discourage teams from tanking. What about penalizing teams that are below some team salary threshold AND have a low number of wins. This way young teams with low payrolls (like the Brewers last year) are not forced to go sign free agents they don't need (and block younger prospects) as long as they are winning. Or if a team has a low salary and are not winning they are encouraged to trade for more established players (with higher salaries). The penalty for not doing so could be a loss of draft picks or a drop in their draft order.

 

This is what I meant to say in another post. I don't mind low payrolls with success, but I don't like low payrolls where there's no intent to try. I fully agree with your comment.

[FVBrewerFan]

Why? It's a strategy. If a team is rebuilding, why not maximize the effect? Does it really matter if that team wins 70 games or 60? Heck, it would have been fine with me if the Brewers did that last year.

[ClosetBrewerFan]

It matters to the fans. They are putting on a product. They should be trying to win. I realize we dont have to show up to prove a point, but that is just bad for baseball.

[Patrick425]

None of these owners are going to lose money. None of them. Even that scum bag Loria made more money than he will ever be able to spend in a life time so spare me your soapbox moment about shallowness. Owning a pro sports team is a honor and should come with some responsibility to the product that the league puts out to its fans that pay to make all these owners as rich as they are. The feel sorry for me statements from owners ends when you talk about risk yet it’s a built cash cow. Hell, they don’t even fund their own stadiums. Tax payers do.

 

So are you saying there is no risk? It's an automatic, guaranteed money maker? Then every time a sports team is up for sale, every billionaire in the world should be lined up to buy it. I think when the Brewers were up for sale there were 3 or maybe 4 interested buyers. That's puzzling if its supposedly a no-risk money maker.

[pacopete4]

None of these owners are going to lose money. None of them. Even that scum bag Loria made more money than he will ever be able to spend in a life time so spare me your soapbox moment about shallowness. Owning a pro sports team is a honor and should come with some responsibility to the product that the league puts out to its fans that pay to make all these owners as rich as they are. The feel sorry for me statements from owners ends when you talk about risk yet it’s a built cash cow. Hell, they don’t even fund their own stadiums. Tax payers do.

 

So are you saying there is no risk? It's an automatic, guaranteed money maker? Then every time a sports team is up for sale, every billionaire in the world should be lined up to buy it. I think when the Brewers were up for sale there were 3 or maybe 4 interested buyers. That's puzzling if its supposedly a no-risk money maker.

 

Only so many people have enough money to buy these franchises and they have to have an interest in them as well. I'd love to hear about one owner who actually lost money because I can't think of any in recent years.

[dacbrewers]

Until baseball actually evens the playing field for what organizations can pay for on-field talent with both a salary cap and floor, there will always be the haves and have nots. To me, the solution includes:

 

1. more revenue sharing leaguewide, particularly revenues that are driven largely by market size (i.e., TV deals).

2. reducing the # of years of team control organizations have with rookie deals so players get paid for prime year production instead of waiting to reach free agency on the downside of their careers.

3. establishing an NBA-style salary cap tied to luxury tax penalties and a hard salary floor based on leaguewide revenues. Even a rebuilding team wouldn't have an issue meeting a salary floor if revenue sharing was increased and players reached arbitration/free agency a few seasons earlier in their careers than the current system allows.

 

#2. I think you hit on a very good point. It is a little ridiculous that a player has a minor league contract for 7 years (most don't last 7 years) and then gets called up and needs to sign a Major league contract. That's a long time to control a player. The team owns a player way too long. The players union should be looking out for the players. This needs to be addressed. Maybe they could tie draft rounds to total years of control. Example...1st to 5th rounders getting controlled longer.