14 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

 

FFS players, that's a fair deal.  Take it.  Just make the 14 team play-off the structure Garfein laid out yesterday, and I am fine wiht it.  

1 minute ago, ChiSox59 said:

FFS players, that's a fair deal.  Take it.  Just make the 14 team play-off the structure Garfein laid out yesterday, and I am fine wiht it.  

I don't think anyone on either side is worried about what we are fine with.

3 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said:

FFS players, that's a fair deal.  Take it.  Just make the 14 team play-off the structure Garfein laid out yesterday, and I am fine wiht it.  

Pretty sure the MLB was 100% opposed to what they called the "gimmick" playoff structures.  No ghost wins or anything else odd.  They want a pretty straight up 14 team playoff with no additional benefits for top teams other than the lack of play ins.

10 minutes ago, ptatc said:

That's the key. There is no guaranteed 7-8% earnings. When contracts are not guaranteed, they may not get it.

Remember the Manny rumors dies he go for the guaranteed 300 million from san Diego or the 285 guaranteed with incentives to go to 325. He went with the 300 guaranteed.  Why? It's guaranteed,  injuries don't play a factor, poor play doesn't matter.

Revenue splits are fixed in other leagues. So yes, players are guaranteed to get those values.

The problem here is that MLB isn't willing to give the players much of anything.  They seek to offset any increases in their offer.  

So, somewhat more money, but control of rules changes, plus more playoff teams meaning more TV money.   Would additional TV money completely cover any increases in the contract?

Is there an equivalency between sports?

Baseball players have a very long season with lots of games, football much less. Shouldn't baseball players be the highest paid athletes in any sport? 

Or is it the physical nature of football?

Profits for the teams?

Maybe each sport is so different we shouldn't compare? 

7 minutes ago, Texsox said:

Is there an equivalency between sports?

Baseball players have a very long season with lots of games, football much less. Shouldn't baseball players be the highest paid athletes in any sport? 

Or is it the physical nature of football?

Profits for the teams?

Maybe each sport is so different we shouldn't compare? 

The value of the players in each sport is and should be determined by how interested people are in the sport and how much they'd pay to see it. This is the "If baseball doubled their ticket prices, they wouldn't double revenue" problem we discussed months ago - you can't arbitrarily say one is worth more than the other based on anything other than the market. The only diversions from that are what controls the league puts on player movement (i.e. the drafts and rookie contracts, arbitration, revenue sharing so that teams are profitable even if they're bad, and the luxury tax). 

38 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Revenue splits are fixed in other leagues. So yes, players are guaranteed to get those values.

The players as a whole yes. But they also can get cut as an individual and not make the money. Many players are cap casualties in the NFL because only the stars make the big money.  The middle class players lose their money.

The MLB will never have a revenue split because the players won't agree to a hard cap so the owners won't open the books.

The guaranteed contract is a better deal for the players as they all get their money with no possibility of losing it for any reason including getting cut which is so common in the NFL.

Which market are you thinking of? If you use the local  market the player is in then a player in New York or Los Angeles might be worth more than if the same player played in Cincinnati or Minneapolis. 

Nationally it probably doesn't matter.

 

11 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

The value of the players in each sport is and should be determined by how interested people are in the sport and how much they'd pay to see it. This is the "If baseball doubled their ticket prices, they wouldn't double revenue" problem we discussed months ago - you can't arbitrarily say one is worth more than the other based on anything other than the market. The only diversions from that are what controls the league puts on player movement (i.e. the drafts and rookie contracts, arbitration, revenue sharing so that teams are profitable even if they're bad, and the luxury tax). 

Revenue sharing negates this somewhat. As players in a smaller market are supplemented by money larger markets. However, in general you are correct as it's the more fans want to see a player or team the Revenue increases whether by ticket price or advertising revenue. 

The reason why professional athletes and actors make more money than us teachers. They bring in revenue and we cost tax payers money.

1 minute ago, ptatc said:

Revenue sharing negates this somewhat. As players in a smaller market are supplemented by money larger markets. However, in general you are correct as it's the more fans want to see a player or team the Revenue increases whether by ticket price or advertising revenue. 

The reason why professional athletes and actors make more money than us teachers. They bring in revenue and we cost tax payers money.

Let's see, do I note that baseball players cost the taxpayers money, or that teachers seem necessary to generate "any economic activity at all"? Actually, both.

57 minutes ago, poppysox said:

I don't think anyone on either side is worried about what we are fine with.

Lol, clearly.  I actually kind of liked Garfien's 14 team proposal. ITs better than any 12 team scenarios I've heard.  But I don't think its what MLB has in mind.  

But seriously, assuming $700K min salary is still on the table, $50M bonus bonus pool, $228M CBT increasing $2M a year.....if players don't take that, I think its fair to say they're being greedy.  

7 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Let's see, do I note that baseball players cost the taxpayers money, or that teachers seem necessary to generate "any economic activity at all"? Actually, both.

I may generate economic activity but not for myself. ?

I of course do not disagree but that is not the way of the world.

16 minutes ago, ptatc said:

The players as a whole yes. But they also can get cut as an individual and not make the money. Many players are cap casualties in the NFL because only the stars make the big money.  The middle class players lose their money.

The MLB will never have a revenue split because the players won't agree to a hard cap so the owners won't open the books.

The guaranteed contract is a better deal for the players as they all get their money with no possibility of losing it for any reason including getting cut which is so common in the NFL.

I'm not going to keep going back and forth on this, but a guaranteed contract that lowers average earnings by 15% league wide is not better than non-guaranteed contracts that guarantees an average salary 15% higher league wide. 

Is hearing basically nothing today a good thing?

3 minutes ago, Bob Sacamano said:

Is hearing basically nothing today a good thing?

Man I hope they just freakin’ figure it out and declare victory…both sides. Let’s go! We need trades and signings and see some games soon! 

 

 

If they reach a deal this week you guys can thank me for declaring the 2022 season canceled in a 2AM doompost yesterday morning.....

Hopefully the reverse jinx works like a charm. 

I declared baseball over for 3 years and it didn't happen. 

 

just FYI I'm poking fun at myself. 

Edited March 9, 20224 yr by Jack Parkman

How can this possibly be true when owners have spent the last 2 years complaining about how broke they are?

5 minutes ago, maxjusttyped said:

How can this possibly be true when owners have spent the last 2 years complaining about how broke they are?

Not true.

3 minutes ago, oldsox said:

Not true.

What’s not true?

Has Jerry spent the last two years complaining about being broke?  No.  Why?  Because they are not broke.

 

1 hour ago, Texsox said:

Which market are you thinking of? If you use the local  market the player is in then a player in New York or Los Angeles might be worth more than if the same player played in Cincinnati or Minneapolis. 

Nationally it probably doesn't matter.

 

Matt Rodgers?  Pat Mahomes?  Josh Allen?   Imagine two of those markets in the majors, and KC barely competes historically...other than 2014-15...going back nearly thirty years.

40 minutes ago, oldsox said:

Not true.

Tom Ricketts - "Here's something I hope baseball fans understand," Ricketts said. "Most baseball owners don't take money out of their team. They raise all the revenue they can from tickets and media rights, and they take out their expenses, and they give all the money left to their GM to spend.

"The league itself does not make a lot of cash. I think there is a perception that we hoard cash and we take money out and it's all sitting in a pile we've collected over the years. Well, it isn't. Because no one anticipated a pandemic. No one expects to have to draw down on the reserves from the past. Every team has to figure out a way to plug the hole."

"The scale of losses across the league is biblical," Ricketts said.

Bill DeWit- "The industry isn't very profitable, to be honest," DeWitt said on 590TheFan in St. Louis. "And I think they [the players] understand that. They think owners are hiding profits. There's been a bit of distrust there.

"It's a bit of a zero-sum game. They have by far the best deal of any players in any sport."

DeWitt echoed comments made recently by Chicago Cubs owner Tom Ricketts, who said the league doesn't make a lot of cash because owners put most of their revenue back into their teams.

Rob Manfred- “We actually hired an investment banker—a really good one, actually—to look at that very issue,” Manfred said. “If you look at a purchase price of franchises, the cash that’s put in during the period of ownership and then what they sold for, historically, the return on those investments is below what you get in the stock market, which looks like the end of the stock market was a lot more risky.”

An MLB spokesperson told Forbes on Friday that their business has been barely breakeven recently. “During the last 5 years, based on the audited financial statements shared with the MLBPA, cumulative industry EBITDA is $208 million or an average of $42 million per year,” per MLB’s statement. The league says free cash before capital expenditures, which has averaged $334 million annually, was negative each of those year, primarily from interest payments. Forbes’ profits estimates have skyrocketed in recent years, with salaries essentially flat since 2015 and revenue up well over $1 billion.

Just because Reinsdorf hasn't been crying poor personally doesn't mean the owners and Rob Manfred haven't spent the last 2 years doing so.