The MLB lockout is lifted!

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

1 hour ago, ThirdGen said:

You are assuming they pull all the profits out (dividends) every year and have a cash call whenever they don't make money.  That's why I mention we don't know all the ins and outs of cash, and dividends are reinvested.  But I seriously doubt that is the case- typically partnerships like this retain the profits, which is why the value increases so quickly.  Sports franchises aren't known for their liquidity, just because the value increases doesn't mean cash increases, and cash is needed to pay dividends.  Investors know they won't see their return until the team is sold (or their portion) but they will be buried in cash when that happens.

Owning a sports franchise is a vanity investment.  No one does it to expect annual cash flow personally, it's done for the many perks of ownership, and yes, a shitload of money on the way out.

The retention of profits are not one of the primary drivers in the increase of franchise valuations. 

This has moved away from being an industry of which the profits are reinvested. I don't pretend to know what the distributions are like, or what that process entails, but I am confident in saying those profits aren't reinvested in the organization in the way you are implying.

[poppysox]

1 hour ago, Texsox said:

Do you think the players would honor other picket lines?

Of course, they would honor the picket lines Texsox.  The players are the little guys well deserving of our support.  The owners are the bad guys deserving of our scorn.  This is true of all employees and all owners.  

[Dick Allen]

42 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

A-Rod as well…largely because there aren’t many billionaire players yet.  They can be part of an ownership group, but usually not the lead investor, Wayne Gretzky, for example.

Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, LeBron, etc.  You’re talking numbers in the mere handfuls with the necessary capital.

As some point though, it really doesn't matter if you're a billionaire, or you simply have enough money to do whatever you want the rest of your life. I know most want to leave their kids something, their grandchildren something., and many players if not most, will be able to do that even if they "retired" at 35.

The fact is, we are the stooges. We throw money at both the owners and the players. We don't retire at 35. We don't complain we have to make a few lifetimes of what most who really fund this endeavor for 6 months of work. All to be enertained. And when they can't decide how to split the money we throw at them, the entertaining stops. Maybe it's time the fans looked at themselves in a mirror.  

Both parties suck in many ways.

Edited December 20, 2021 by Dick Allen

[Tnetennba]

1 hour ago, Texsox said:

In the end the players will gain a little, the owners will lose a little. The game will go on. 

This is the ultimate outcome, and it's incredibly frustrating as fans because little changes for us either way.

[caulfield12]

29 minutes ago, poppysox said:

Of course, they would honor the picket lines Texsox.  The players are the little guys well deserving of our support.  The owners are the bad guys deserving of our scorn.  This is true of all employees and all owners.  

Why are you so bitter towards players and sympathetic towards owners.

This is like being on the side of Mr. Potts in It’s A Wonderful Life.

Are you also more sympathetic towards banks and mortgage lenders than individual customers…or for-profit universities and student-loan originators?

Aren’t the fans or taxpayers the ones who suffer the most, in the end?  

Or should we all become minor league baseball owners?  Now, for a select few A teams, like Clinton or Burlington, that might have been possible to do with a few million.  Of course, without teams now, those markets are worth less than zero.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_Supply_Stadium

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Hendricks

I guess we can applaud multi billion dollar companies financing stadiums so that pretty soon there will be no professional baseball played in Iowa, except Des Moines.  That would mean the elimination of five markets…all because of Ayn Rand and “market forces.”

Edited December 20, 2021 by caulfield12

[Texsox]

19 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Why are you so bitter towards players and sympathetic towards owners.

This is like being on the side of Mr. Potts in It’s A Wonderful Life.

Are you also more sympathetic towards banks and mortgage lenders than individual customers…or for-profit universities and student-loan originators?

Aren’t the fans or taxpayers the ones who suffer the most, in the end?  

Or should we all become minor league baseball owners?  Now, for a select few A teams, like Clinton or Burlington, that might have been possible to do with a few million.  Of course, without teams now, those markets are worth less than zero.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_Supply_Stadium

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Hendricks

I guess we can applaud multi billion dollar companies financing stadiums so that pretty soon there will be no professional baseball played in Iowa, except Des Moines.  That would mean the elimination of five markets…all because of Ayn Rand and “market forces.”

Sorry.

The owners screw over taxpayers while pocketing huge profits in a protected monopoly. They should be required to pay back any economic incentives they received from profits when selling the team. 

The folks that deserve the biggest raises aren't a part of these negotiations. They are the office workers, stadium crew, sub contractors, etc. The second most deserving group are the fans that pay for all this. 

When elephants fight it's the grass that gets trampled.

You missed my posts where I said I don't care which side wins, they both suck. 

[poppysox]

10 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Why are you so bitter towards players and sympathetic towards owners.

This is like being on the side of Mr. Potts in It’s A Wonderful Life.

Are you also more sympathetic towards banks and mortgage lenders than individual customers…or for-profit universities and student-loan originators?

Aren’t the fans or taxpayers the ones who suffer the most, in the end?  

Or should we all become minor league baseball owners?  Now, for a select few A teams, like Clinton or Burlington, that might have been possible to do with a few million.  Of course, without teams now, those markets are worth less than zero.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_Supply_Stadium

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Hendricks

I guess we can applaud multi billion dollar companies financing stadiums so that pretty soon there will be no professional baseball played in Iowa, except Des Moines.  That would mean the elimination of five markets…all because of Ayn Rand and “market forces.”

Where do you get that I am bitter about any of it?  I have a very strong opinion that the players and owners already make ridiculous money and they will continue to do so.    If the players achieve major concessions from the owners it will be the fans that pay those higher costs.  

[Jack Parkman]

2 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

This is not even true since the 1980’s, with much higher worker productivity leasing to tepid salary increases…at best.  Now it’s more a calculus of how much they can exploit workers until a breaking point is reached, with older workers frequently retiring involuntarily after 55+ and the Millennials increasingly likely to take their services elsewhere.  Part of it is salary-based, part of it is how owners value their contributions.  (cue arguments from those who assert this youngest generation is lazier, e-sports-sports addicted and prefers to stay at home rather than working diligently to “get ahead”) 

Very true. 

Employers will keep taking until there is no more to take. 

Edited December 20, 2021 by Jack Parkman

[Eminor3rd]

3 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Oh wow, thank you so much for telling us all what the real narrative is.

I root for labor in negotiations. It's not a difficult concept to understand. I root for Kellog workers, truckers, starbucks, amazon and baseball players all the same. Every fight won by labor is a fight won by the guys who deserve a larger piece of the pie IMO. It's really as simple as that.

I care about teachers unions, nurses unions, warehouse unions, trucking unions. I don't stop caring about the fight for greater workers rights, protections, and earnings because the earnings are more than I make. You're either pro-union or you're not. It's really that simple. 

There's actually nothing more absurd than telling someone else what they should and shouldn't care about under the guise that they're "too stupid" to understand what is "actually" happening.

Yes, mindless generalizations. Exactly what I meant by “childish” and “beneath us all.”

That sort of Neanderthal-level simplification is precisely what tilts me about this conversation. “You’re either union or you’re not” is some of the dumbest shit I’ve ever seen. Can one “be” pro-union and consider any given union demand as an overreach, or is that to high-brow? Or would that thought, by definition make someone “anti-union”? If you want to see an example of a union being allowed to bury its own members and ruin tens of thousands of careers by doing EXACTLY what it wanted to do, look into the story of the Bethlehem Steel corporation. That’s one real world example of what happens when you insist things are as simple as “always push on one direction no matter what.” 

Everything requires context, and context shifts. Insisting things are black and white when they aren’t makes for easy platitudes, but it isn’t reality.

Also, if you don’t see the difference between a MLBPA labor (where the “labor” is only wealthiest fraction of the actual workers affected, and its interests are in direct opposition with the interests of the rest of the labor) dispute and a public teacher labor dispute (where the “labor” actually represents the bottom of the rung, and the market has provided no means of leverage for the workers involved), I don’t know what to tell you.

[Eminor3rd]

3 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

But this completely ignores the actual profits they have also generated on the ball club in that time. This is just raw investment to invest worth ignoring $$ and profits generated over that same 41 year window.

I will say that one of the things that would surprise almost every fan (it certainly surprised me), is how much smaller the profit margins are in sports than we assume. The revenue is massive and growing, but the operating costs are also massive and growing. The owners are getting rich off of long-term, illiquid asset growth. A VERY high percentage of the liquid profit goes back into the team, because doing so drives long-term value. A lot of that reinvestment is in the form of product improvements like stadium renovations, etc., but changes in payroll are part of it, too. 

[pcq]

The players do not need our sympathy and the owners do not deserve it.

[Chicago White Sox]

For the people on their high horse supporting the MLBPA, just know this is a group who cares about nothing but getting more money for its existing members.  Why bump up the minimum salary when the vast majority of current players are off their rookie contracts?  Who cares about the poor minor leaguers who sleep six deep in a rundown apartment unit and have to eat KFC and Domino’s seven days a week.  And fuck those poor LatAm kids who have to be subjected to disgusting predatory practices when the MLBPA can ensure that Max Scherzer is able to buy a few more Lambo’s.  No matter how you want to slice it, this is a fight between millionaires and billionaires.  Sure, the players probably deserve a larger share of the pie, but anyone losing an ounce of energy over this has all the wrong priorities in life.  Neither the owners or the MLBPA could give a fuck about the customers, minor leaguers, or non player personnel.  As such, people like Parkman & Ray Ray taking a hard side in a fight between the rich and the super rich is absolutely hilarious.

[Texsox]

51 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

For the people on their high horse supporting the MLBPA, just know this is a group who cares about nothing but getting more money for its existing members.  Why bump up the minimum salary when the vast majority of current players are off their rookie contracts?  Who cares about the poor minor leaguers who sleep six deep in a rundown apartment unit and have to eat KFC and Domino’s seven days a week.  And fuck those poor LatAm kids who have to be subjected to disgusting predatory practices when the MLBPA can ensure that Max Scherzer is able to buy a few more Lambo’s.  No matter how you want to slice it, this is a fight between millionaires and billionaires.  Sure, the players probably deserve a larger share of the pie, but anyone losing an ounce of energy over this has all the wrong priorities in life.  Neither the owners or the MLBPA could give a fuck about the customers, minor leaguers, or non player personnel.  As such, people like Parkman & Ray Ray taking a hard side in a fight between the rich and the super rich is absolutely hilarious.

The whole relationship between MLB and minor leagues is weird. I'm certain Barons owner Don Logan doesn't want MLB dictating what he has to pay his players. I doubt he can afford the level most fans, myself included, believe those guys should be earning. 

I also doubt all those MiLB owners want to sell their teams. All MLB really needs is a place for their draft picks to go and kill time until they are needed, if ever. Why have players under any MLB team's grasp if they aren't on a MLB 25 man roster?

I'd like to explore stopping affiliates. MLB teams draft players and either put them on the 25 and pay them or they get cut and become free agents and can go play anywhere. Let the player cut the best deal. Instead of a team holding him back in AA if he can find a AAA that will employ him, he can go. Make every baseball team independent.

The MLB draft become five rounds and after that everyone else is a free agent, eligible to sign with any team. 

Put another way, imagine if in June the team needs a right fielder ( easy I know) now imagine a world without affiliates. The best right fielder in AAA could be signed regardless of where he's playing. Why have talented players held back?

[Eminor3rd]

Here’s another way to look at it:

I think many would agree with me that one of the largest issues facing our nation today is the vastly widening “wealth gap.”

Every cent the players wrest from the owners widens the wealth gap. The “pie” that the owners/players are fighting over is the liquid operating revenue of each franchise. They are NOT fighting over the masses of illiquid wealth and equity that the owners hold. An increase in the percentage of the operating revenue that goes to the players is a decrease in the percentage of the revenue that goes to paying for everything that makes the game happen, which includes the money that pays for the salaries of every worker in the organization. I can tell you, firsthand, that the teams will not operate beyond their means for any significant period of time. I can also tell you, firsthand, that the bottom line is a direct input on the available player payroll in a given year. If the operating revenue is lower in favor of the player payroll, this means fewer seasonal workers, fewer salaried benefits, fewer infrastructure investments (which puts franchise money into the hands of local businesses), etc.

Note that I am NOT defending ownership with this argument. I’m simply illustrating that a “win” for the players union is not a “win for labor” in the sense that people imagine it is.

I am all for supporting better wealth distribution in this country. Wealth distribution between one-percenters is NOT that. Narratives that make the financial “struggles” of one-percenters seem like the struggles of the average person are PR campaigns. 

[Texsox]

2 minutes ago, Eminor3rd said:

Here’s another way to look at it:

I think many would agree with me that one of the largest issues facing our nation today is the vastly widening “wealth gap.”

Every cent the players wrest from the owners widens the wealth gap. The “pie” that the owners/players are fighting over is the liquid operating revenue of each franchise. They are NOT fighting over the masses of illiquid wealth and equity that the owners hold. An increase in the percentage of the operating revenue that goes to the players is a decrease in the percentage of the revenue that goes to paying for everything that makes the game happen, which includes the money that pays for the salaries of every worker in the organization. I can tell you, firsthand, that the teams will not operate beyond their means for any significant period of time. I can also tell you, firsthand, that the bottom line is a direct input on the available player payroll in a given year. If the operating revenue is lower in favor of the player payroll, this means fewer seasonal workers, fewer salaried benefits, fewer infrastructure investments (which puts franchise money into the hands of local businesses), etc.

Note that I am NOT defending ownership with this argument. I’m simply illustrating that a “win” for the players union is not a “win for labor” in the sense that people imagine it is.

I am all for supporting better wealth distribution in this country. Wealth distribution between one-percenters is NOT that. Narratives that make the financial “struggles” of one-percenters seem like the struggles of the average person are PR campaigns. 

So true.

[Eminor3rd]

2 minutes ago, Texsox said:

The whole relationship between MLB and minor leagues is weird. I'm certain Barons owner Don Logan doesn't want MLB dictating what he has to pay his players. I doubt he can afford the level most fans, myself included, believe those guys should be earning. 

I also doubt all those MiLB owners want to sell their teams. All MLB really needs is a place for their draft picks to go and kill time until they are needed, if ever. Why have players under any MLB team's grasp if they aren't on a MLB 25 man roster?

I'd like to explore stopping affiliates. MLB teams draft players and either put them on the 25 and pay them or they get cut and become free agents and can go play anywhere. Let the player cut the best deal. Instead of a team holding him back in AA if he can find a AAA that will employ him, he can go. Make every baseball team independent.

The MLB draft become five rounds and after that everyone else is a free agent, eligible to sign with any team. 

Minor league owners do not pay the players. The players are all employees of the MLB team.

Minor league owners DO, frequently, pay for the players accommodations. In the MLBs mafia takeover of the MiLB this past year, they accepted a greater responsibility of those accommodations in return for near total control over the league and its operating decisions. The MLB has since been making cursory improvements in those accommodations and trying to use them as positive PR.

[Texsox]

2 minutes ago, Eminor3rd said:

Minor league owners do not pay the players. The players are all employees of the MLB team.

Minor league owners DO, frequently, pay for the players accommodations. In the MLBs mafia takeover of the MiLB this past year, they accepted a greater responsibility of those accommodations in return for near total control over the league and its operating decisions. The MLB has since been making cursory improvements in those accommodations and trying to use them as positive PR.

I still like the idea of eliminating all MLB team control. Let the leagues pay them and let the players cut their best deal with any team. 

[Jack Parkman]

2 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said:

For the people on their high horse supporting the MLBPA, just know this is a group who cares about nothing but getting more money for its existing members.  Why bump up the minimum salary when the vast majority of current players are off their rookie contracts?  Who cares about the poor minor leaguers who sleep six deep in a rundown apartment unit and have to eat KFC and Domino’s seven days a week.  And fuck those poor LatAm kids who have to be subjected to disgusting predatory practices when the MLBPA can ensure that Max Scherzer is able to buy a few more Lambo’s.  No matter how you want to slice it, this is a fight between millionaires and billionaires.  Sure, the players probably deserve a larger share of the pie, but anyone losing an ounce of energy over this has all the wrong priorities in life.  Neither the owners or the MLBPA could give a fuck about the customers, minor leaguers, or non player personnel.  As such, people like Parkman & Ray Ray taking a hard side in a fight between the rich and the super rich is absolutely hilarious.

I don't see it that way. 

The players don't control the league, so they're fighting management in the same way that everyone else is. 

I take a hard stance for labor vs management, and I really don't give a flying fuck how much money labor makes. It's still labor vs management. Black and white. 

And at the same vein, I have the same contempt for small business owners that exploit their labor as I do for Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk. I don't really give a flying fuck how much management makes. 

It's about power dynamics. One side has all of the leverage, and the other has to fight for everything it gets. 

 

That being said, the other people that make baseball work beyond the MLB players and owners need to get paid a living wage, along with everyone else in this country. 

All of the things about the smaller people in this thread are completely valid and a bigger issue than the MLBPA vs MLB. 

Everyone in baseball except the owners should get a bigger piece of the pie. 

All the more reason to unionize. 

Edited December 20, 2021 by Jack Parkman

[caulfield12]

3 hours ago, Texsox said:

Sorry.

The owners screw over taxpayers while pocketing huge profits in a protected monopoly. They should be required to pay back any economic incentives they received from profits when selling the team. 

The folks that deserve the biggest raises aren't a part of these negotiations. They are the office workers, stadium crew, sub contractors, etc. The second most deserving group are the fans that pay for all this. 

When elephants fight it's the grass that gets trampled.

You missed my posts where I said I don't care which side wins, they both suck. 

This wasn't directed at you, btw.

[caulfield12]

1 hour ago, Eminor3rd said:

Minor league owners do not pay the players. The players are all employees of the MLB team.

Minor league owners DO, frequently, pay for the players accommodations. In the MLBs mafia takeover of the MiLB this past year, they accepted a greater responsibility of those accommodations in return for near total control over the league and its operating decisions. The MLB has since been making cursory improvements in those accommodations and trying to use them as positive PR.

Minor league owners would never have dreamed of getting involved in player accommodations...at least back in the 90s.  Maybe the wealthier AA and AAA teams that could leverage that housing to extract player appearances at schools, charities, hospitals and special events/promotions.  At best, I would go with Hispanic players with limited English to help with a landlord, and we all had a few rooms at LA Quinta due to a promotional tie in, but not for long term stays.

[caulfield12]

29 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

I don't see it that way. 

The players don't control the league, so they're fighting management in the same way that everyone else is. 

I take a hard stance for labor vs management, and I really don't give a flying fuck how much money labor makes. It's still labor vs management. Black and white. 

And at the same vein, I have the same contempt for small business owners that exploit their labor as I do for Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk. I don't really give a flying fuck how much management makes. 

It's about power dynamics. One side has all of the leverage, and the other has to fight for everything it gets. 

 

That being said, the other people that make baseball work beyond the MLB players and owners need to get paid a living wage. 

Right.  Whether you work as a front office member, groundskeeper or vendor, you have a number of realistic career opportunities or at least some decent options.  For professional baseball players, simply saying move to Mexico, Japan or Korea aren't realistic alternatives for the majority.

[Jack Parkman]

37 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Right.  Whether you work as a front office member, groundskeeper or vendor, you have a number of realistic career opportunities or at least some decent options.  For professional baseball players, simply saying move to Mexico, Japan or Korea aren't realistic alternatives for the majority.

And don't get me wrong, the MLBPA(and its counterparts in other sports) work for its top earners over the middle and lower classes in their ranks. For some reason, it seems to be a cultural thing. They'll argue that raising wages at the top sets the market for everyone else, but we know how that works in everyday life (hint: It doesn't) 

The stars are getting the largest piece of the pie and and the middle class is getting squeezed for team-controlled labor. 

At least from my perspective, I don't want the star players to get paid more. I do want the MLB lower and middle class to take most of the gains from the MLB deal. The top players are getting plenty. 

And for god sakes pay minor leaguers at each level a reasonable salary. Pay vendors a living wage. Minor leaguers should get paid just as much as if they had a decent job out in the regular world. 

And stop the exploitation of Latin American hopefuls. 

 

For the larger picture: 

 

Edited December 21, 2021 by Jack Parkman

[Texsox]

22 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

This wasn't directed at you, btw.

Sorry. 

 

[caulfield12]

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/32918902/report-mlb-payrolls-drop-4-percent-2015-levels

[Jerksticks]

I haven’t seen anything from the MLBPA about personally subsidizing everything when prices go up.  Was that announced yet and I missed it?

I’ve been busy reading “Basic Economics”.  Interesting read.  It explains nicely how when one of the costs of producing something goes up, owners usually personally cover the difference instead of raising prices or slashing costs in other areas.  It also says that thinking anything different is called trickle-down.  
 

Is there a Basic Economics 2: The Keys to Accumulating Zero Wealth coming out anytime soon?