Low-market teams collect up to $80M before one ticket is sold

[SwissRedSoxFan]

Read this article!


http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/column...umblings091119


Well for each low-market team (Pittsburgh, Tampa, Florida):
Stop whining! The owners of those teams are to be blamed for those 35-45 payrolls. They just keep the money and don't give a ... for those fans who are so dumb and buy a seasoncard. They want to make money with their teams, and not just a few bucks. And thats the problem. Multi-millionairs are investing to win, because they don't care about the money...some other want to earn money.

My suggestion: Salary cap: Maximum 150 Million$. Minimum 75 Million$. That would solve problems.

[Los Bravos]

Salary caps have nothing to do with balance or competition. Salary caps are there to save owners from having to pay market value for players. Period.

Bud, the owners and their dimwitted lackeys in the sports press tried to tie caps and revenue sharing together for years and years. Revenue sharing is a perfectly good idea but it isn't intrinsically related to salary, no matter what they tell you.

Much of this "Small market teams can't compete" jazz is sheer mythology. If you have an ownership/mangement team dedicated to builiding a quality team that will draw fans, you will be successful. If you do that and you aren't successful, you're in the wrong city (looking at you, Marlins) and if you can't do that (hire good scouts and personnel, have a stable ownership situatuon), you probably won't win. That's competition.

[babaganoosh]

There's a lot of mention of revenues, but where are the expenses? They talk as though salaries are the only expense of a business. Nothing for game and front office staffing, travelling (team, scouts, etc.), stadium rental/ownership (including engineering, renovations, etc.), COGS, communications, marketing, etc.

Oh and don't forget the fact that for revenue to be shared...revenue has to be PUT INTO that pool. We're talking about a team losing over 30% of their NDLR for the base plan before they even get any money from the Central Fund.

Yes, teams like the Marlins do end up having a positive bottom line, the occurance of this is very rare. There are still probably at least a third of the league that isn't making a profit and continues to lose money even though they're spending.

[spark240]

Much of this "Small market teams can't compete" jazz is sheer mythology. If you have... (etc.)

Yes, "small-market" teams can, and occasionally do compete. Once in a while, they even win. Just as "large-market," or high-revenue teams can and do fail.

Still, postseason slots are much more likely to be occupied by high-revenue teams.

[Los Bravos]

"Can't" and "Won't" are two very different things.

[spark240]

"Can't" and "Won't" are two very different things.

Right... but if you're arguing that lack of success is due to owner stinginess, refusal to use what funds are available, that would suggest that the least-successful teams would be those with the largest differential between revenue and payroll, wouldn't it? I don't have figures handy at the moment, but I don't think that's the case. Despite a miserly owner and arguably other disadvntages, the Marlins (for example) have not been too bad (though, it's true, they have usually only "contended," and not actually made the postseason).

Actually, when I get around to collating the figures, I suspect that the non-winning teams with the biggest differential--the most available funds unspent--will not be "small-market" beneficiaries of "revenue sharing."

Salary caps have nothing to do with balance or competition.

I do agree that a salary cap is not a proper solution in any case.

[Los Bravos]

The Marlins do a good job of scouting, drafting and developing players. If they had a decent stadium situation (and the revenue decent attendance would provide) they might be able to make a go of their early step success and actually retain more of their players (as they have Hanley Ramirez, in what looks like a positive step, although it might be an isolated case.)

If not, then they need to be relocated to a city that will support a team.

All I'm really saying is that some ownerships simply don't put as much money as they can/should into the development of their team's talent, through any of the various methods available to improve their rosters. Too many of them are simply taking their share of the revenue and using it for other things, then crying about how they can't ever hope to compete.

[johnnypapa]

http://www.bcsfootball.org/other/sto...nsettling-omen


Boras is putting on the pressure at the right time....free agent signing period. It will be interesting to see how the free agent signings go this year. If Boras is even close to being right maybe teams (other than the Yankees) will be forced to spend more than they did last year to ease any suspicion of collusion. But if they dig in their heels and try and hold down spending.....well they are looking at another collusion charge.

[babaganoosh]

The following quotes are from the article posted above.

I called Manfred on Tuesday to ask his reaction to Boras' remarks. He responded by making apparent reference to a recent Boston Globe report in which Boras was quoted as saying that some teams are getting a combined $80 million to $90 million per season from revenue sharing and baseball's central fund — and spending little enough on payroll to turn handsome profits.

"Just like when he does a player negotiation he lies about the numbers in order to get the price up, now he's taken that to the macro-economic level and lying about industry numbers in order to get player (contract) numbers up," Manfred said. "There is no one club getting $80 or $90 million in combination from revenue sharing and Central Baseball. Not one."

Though the year is not over yet and the money hasn't been fully distributed, teams would be lucky to get 3/4 of what Boras is saying they make.

The money from baseball's central fund includes revenues from licensing, properties, national-television contracts and advanced media. According to the New York Daily News, each team received $35 million from the fund in 2008.

On Wednesday, however, two club presidents — Frank Coonelly of the Pirates and one American League executive who asked to remain anonymous — insisted that the $35 million figure is inaccurate. Yet, Boras claims the number will be higher — perhaps as high as $46 million — in 2009.

If how much each team received was $35 million in 2008 (which it wasn't), why would a 5% decrease in revenues in 2009 equate to more revenue being shared? Common sense dictates that if you take a certain percentage of a smaller number, the end result will be a smaller number. How lower revenues equals more revenue being shared is beyond me.

Boras said there is a way to settle the discrepancy — by requiring clubs in the next collective-bargaining agreement to disclose the amount of money they receive from the central fund and from revenue sharing.

The players' union is informed of the amounts each team receives, a major-league official said.

This is a discrepency that exists for Boras and he isn't employed by MLB (i.e. front office staff & players). Why should he be privy to all this information when he is really just an outsider looking in. He isn't looking for the numbers to be disclosed, he's just looking for the numbers to be disclosed to HIM so that HE can take advantage of it.

"The Atlanta Braves are No. 12," Boras said. "Their records are public. They're (owned by) Liberty Media. They're making $180 million. Their payroll is what? Around $100 million. Then you add $30 million (in expenses) for administration, the minor leagues, the draft, other things. So they're pocketing $50 million a year."

To say that a team spends $30 million in expenses less player salaries would be pretty absurd. That $30 million he's referring to is probably the most efficient team's "other expenses" (and these other expenses probably can't include anything below EBITDA). If any team is running on less than $30 million in operating expenses, I'd love to see how they operate because it just isn't possible. The expenses incurred are already greater than any revenue they receive from MLB.

I believe it was Alex Anthopoulos who said last year (with regards to Toronto signing Manny) that if they were to pay a player $20 million, they would need to make back AT LEAST $20 million in revenue from that player for the signing to make sense because the revenue received from revenue sharing and the CFC is already used up. So to make a profit, teams need to sell enough tickets to cover all their player payroll and all the other baseball operations expenses (under the generous assumption that revenue sharing and the CFC can even cover the business operations expenses).

So to sum up...Scott Boras is a moron.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

http://www.bcsfootball.org/other/sto...nsettling-omen


Boras is putting on the pressure at the right time....free agent signing period. It will be interesting to see how the free agent signings go this year. If Boras is even close to being right maybe teams (other than the Yankees) will be forced to spend more than they did last year to ease any suspicion of collusion. But if they dig in their heels and try and hold down spending.....well they are looking at another collusion charge.

All the difference in the world between a charge and proving collusion.
I don't know if there is any but because it appears that there is to some, does not mean it is so.
Anyone remember, months ago, player's union making a charge, a statement about collusion, owners shutting out Barry Bonds, not another word since.


I see you never said there was, only there may be another charge, I got that.

[KCGHOST]

The apologists for the big money teams always come up with the same song-and-dance. All the small guys have to do is be well run,
draft/acquire/development good talent, etc, and they can compete. Forgetting completely that the big money teams can do all those things too, plus have the opportunity at buying the best free agent talent. They also can outspend their mistakes.

Baseball is a cooperative where it is important that all parties enjoy fiscal health. It is also a zero sum operation (i.e. for every win there is a loss). If you have successful teams then you must have teams that aren't successful.

[johnnypapa]

All the difference in the world between a charge and proving collusion.
I don't know if there is any but because it appears that there is to some, does not mean it is so.
Anyone remember, months ago, player's union making a charge, a statement about collusion, owners shutting out Barry Bonds, not another word since.


I see you never said there was, only there may be another charge, I got that.

Right...I don't know if any collusion is going on. Though I will say that, in light of past practices, it wouldn't surprise me. I mean, why should I take as fact what Manfred or the owners say as opposed to Boras? I just think it will be interesting to see how the FA signings go if that is, in fact, hanging over the owners heads. The owners lost big time in the past.

http://www.bizofbaseball.com/docs/Br...r_Blunders.pdf

Take a look at the last two paragraphs. The owners had to shell out 280 million in 80s money. Also look who was one of the owners that was considered a ringleader for collusion.

As far as Bonds, imo, I think the union realized that an individual case and the fact of who that individual was would not be conducive to there cause so they dropped it.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Salary caps have nothing to do with balance or competition. Salary caps are there to save owners from having to pay market value for players. Period.

Bud, the owners and their dimwitted lackeys in the sports press tried to tie caps and revenue sharing together for years and years. Revenue sharing is a perfectly good idea but it isn't intrinsically related to salary, no matter what they tell you.

Much of this "Small market teams can't compete" jazz is sheer mythology. If you have an ownership/mangement team dedicated to builiding a quality team that will draw fans, you will be successful. If you do that and you aren't successful, you're in the wrong city (looking at you, Marlins) and if you can't do that (hire good scouts and personnel, have a stable ownership situatuon), you probably won't win. That's competition.

I think you are underestimating the relative success of the Marlins. Since 2003 the Marlins have had five winning seasons in seven and just one 90+ loss season. The have he one World Series title and have been competed into September for a playoff spot in a few other seasons. The fact that the y can do thsi with all the player personnel is pretty amazing. But if I were a Marlins fan I can see how this constant player turnover can make it difficult to really support or connect with the team. I saw this chart in Peter Gammons ESPN article yesterday. Since 2003 the Marlins have had more success than the NY Mets.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The apologists for the big money teams always come up with the same song-and-dance. All the small guys have to do is be well run,
draft/acquire/development good talent, etc, and they can compete. Forgetting completely that the big money teams can do all those things too, plus have the opportunity at buying the best free agent talent. They also can outspend their mistakes.

Baseball is a cooperative where it is important that all parties enjoy fiscal health. It is also a zero sum operation (i.e. for every win there is a loss). If you have successful teams then you must have teams that aren't successful.

That is certain true for on-field success. Some teams "have to" win and some teams "have to" lose. When it comes to making a profit it gets more dicey. Do some teams "have to" make money and do some teams "have to" lose money? I think back to Connie Mack's quote about the best team to have in terms of making money is to have a team compete in the first half and fade to fourth down the stretch. The hot starts helps with attendance and with the team finishing fourth you don't have to pay higher salaries. Or something like that. I wonder if any current teams think like Mack did?

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Right...I don't know if any collusion is going on. Though I will say that, in light of past practices, it wouldn't surprise me. I mean, why should I take as fact what Manfred or the owners say as opposed to Boras? I just think it will be interesting to see how the FA signings go if that is, in fact, hanging over the owners heads. The owners lost big time in the past.

http://www.bizofbaseball.com/docs/Br...r_Blunders.pdf

Take a look at the last two paragraphs. The owners had to shell out 280 million in 80s money. Also look who was one of the owners that was considered a ringleader for collusion.

As far as Bonds, imo, I think the union realized that an individual case and the fact of who that individual was would not be conducive to there cause so they dropped it.

Certainly the possibilityof collusion. I think the owners took such a beating before they would be reluctant to do so again, out of fear, or try to be more secretive this time. There is no secret when more than one party is involved, in any venture.

[Los Bravos]

I think you are underestimating the relative success of the Marlins.

No, I agree that they've been quite competitive on the field. They simply don't draw well. There is a discrepancy between the product they put on the field (which is generally good) and the attendance they draw, which is decidedly not good.

They've long blamed the stadium and they may be right. We'll see when they move. If they can't draw then, it's time to consider a relocation.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

No, I agree that they've been quite competitive on the field. They simply don't draw well. There is a discrepancy between the product they put on the field (which is generally good) and the attendance they draw, which is decidedly not good.

They've long blamed the stadium and they may be right. We'll see when they move. If they can't draw then, it's time to consider a relocation.

You hit the nail on the head. Marlins management has claimed for years that the ballpark was the cause of the low attendance. Speaking with Marlins fans seem to conform this. They all say the ballpark is far from downtown and the heat, humidity, and rain make taking in a Marlins' game not very fun. I think one key is what they do with Hanley Ramirez. If they sign him to a long term contract that may signal that there is a change in the Marlins management philosophy.

[SwissRedSoxFan]

It's in fact very simple:

There are owners who want to win at all cost.

And there are owners who want to earn money at all (sport-)cost.

[babaganoosh]

They've long blamed the stadium and they may be right. We'll see when they move. If they can't draw then, it's time to consider a relocation.

If they spend so much money on the stadium, how are they going to justify the move? Throwing in hundreds of millions, then after a few bad drawing seasons, just pack up and move out? If they build the stadium, I think they'll have to plant themselves there for quite a while before they can even consider relocating, draw or no draw.

[Los Bravos]

That's probably true. They had better hope to draw well (most new stadiums cause a several year spike in atttendance, so that will probably happen) or we'll be talking about them the same way in a few years.