Profit to Owners

[Youboughtit]

I beleive baseball is extremely profitable. Both in value of franchise and yearly return. My question is are the owners like Dewitt trying to prove something by cutting payroll? Giving the appearance it is not making $ to help CBA negotiations so they can make even more. Just my opinion but I think there is an agenda to make baseball look broken. It is but not because of a cap. It’s 100% about full revenue sharing.

[rightthinker4]

I beleive baseball is extremely profitable. Both in value of franchise and yearly return. My question is are the owners like Dewitt trying to prove something by cutting payroll? Giving the appearance it is not making $ to help CBA negotiations so they can make even more. Just my opinion but I think there is an agenda to make baseball look broken. It is but not because of a cap. It’s 100% about full revenue sharing.

Owners don’t want revenue sharing. Why should the Yankees, Dodgers, Mets, Red Sox, etc., give money to teams that would pocket the money, and not try to build a competitive franchise.

[Youboughtit]

I beleive baseball is extremely profitable. Both in value of franchise and yearly return. My question is are the owners like Dewitt trying to prove something by cutting payroll? Giving the appearance it is not making $ to help CBA negotiations so they can make even more. Just my opinion but I think there is an agenda to make baseball look broken. It is but not because of a cap. It’s 100% about full revenue sharing.

Owners don’t want revenue sharing. Why should the Yankees, Dodgers, Mets, Red Sox, etc., give money to teams that would pocket the money, and not try to build a competitive franchise.

Because it’s the only way players will consider a cap. The floor will prevent them from pocketing it. Any cap will require a floor. The lowest floor of any sport is 82%. If the cap is $300m the floor will need to be $240 for players to approve based on the NHL NBA NFL MLS. Only needs 2/3 of owners to approve. Dewitt is one that always sides with the big markets.

[Bomber1]

I beleive baseball is extremely profitable. Both in value of franchise and yearly return. My question is are the owners like Dewitt trying to prove something by cutting payroll? Giving the appearance it is not making $ to help CBA negotiations so they can make even more. Just my opinion but I think there is an agenda to make baseball look broken. It is but not because of a cap. It’s 100% about full revenue sharing.

Owners don’t want revenue sharing. Why should the Yankees, Dodgers, Mets, Red Sox, etc., give money to teams that would pocket the money, and not try to build a competitive franchise.

Because it’s the only way players will consider a cap. The floor will prevent them from pocketing it. Any cap will require a floor. The lowest floor of any sport is 82%. If the cap is $300m the floor will need to be $240 for players to approve based on the NHL NBA NFL MLS. Only needs 2/3 of owners to approve. Dewitt is one that always sides with the big markets.

Just stop.

[Youboughtit]

I beleive baseball is extremely profitable. Both in value of franchise and yearly return. My question is are the owners like Dewitt trying to prove something by cutting payroll? Giving the appearance it is not making $ to help CBA negotiations so they can make even more. Just my opinion but I think there is an agenda to make baseball look broken. It is but not because of a cap. It’s 100% about full revenue sharing.

Owners don’t want revenue sharing. Why should the Yankees, Dodgers, Mets, Red Sox, etc., give money to teams that would pocket the money, and not try to build a competitive franchise.

Because it’s the only way players will consider a cap. The floor will prevent them from pocketing it. Any cap will require a floor. The lowest floor of any sport is 82%. If the cap is $300m the floor will need to be $240 for players to approve based on the NHL NBA NFL MLS. Only needs 2/3 of owners to approve. Dewitt is one that always sides with the big markets.

Just stop.

Facts. Last strike only 6% of players were millionaires. Now it’s 58%. They can withstand a lockout longer than the owners because of TV contract pressure. Owners loose billions with a B to cancel a season. Players contracts just get pushed back a year.

[Bomber1]

I said it before - if you believe the MLB salary floor will be $ 240 million you are delusional.

[Youboughtit]

I said it before - if you believe the MLB salary floor will be $ 240 million you are delusional.

Then there will be no cap. Players have all the power this time

[Whatashame]

The last strike was in the 90s, 30 years ago. It’s almost impossible to compare any financial data between the two eras. Any labor agreement that benefits the game will have a cap, a floor and some form of revenue sharing.

Even after extensive negotiations the agreement won’t be perfect. There’s going to be constant adjustments in future CBAs. Baseball can continue to kick this can down the road but the distance will continue to widen between the large markets and the smaller markets.

I thought/hoped the financial discrepancies would be addressed in the last CBA but it wasn’t. The game is in trouble now and the financials have to be addressed.

[Red7]

The gap between the haves and have nots has never been narrower. Unlike in the past, all these teams are owned by billionaires or billionaire groups whose financial security does not rest with the baseball team. With additional playoff teams, the competitive balance has never been better. When the two leagues were made up of 8 teams each, 4 teams dominated: the Yankees, Dodgers, Giants, and Cardinals with the Yankees on top by far. The Yankees haven’t won since 2009. The Dodgers have won twice since 1988, one being in a strike year. The Mets haven’t won since 1986.

Btw, the owners will get most, if not all, of their national TV money, strike or no strike. Local might be different. Owners are using “competitive balance” as a pretext for a power/money grab.

[Youboughtit]

The gap between the haves and have nots has never been narrower. Unlike in the past, all these teams are owned by billionaires or billionaire groups whose financial security does not rest with the baseball team. With additional playoff teams, the competitive balance has never been better. When the two leagues were made up of 8 teams each, 4 teams dominated: the Yankees, Dodgers, Giants, and Cardinals with the Yankees on top by far. The Yankees haven’t won since 2009. The Dodgers have won twice since 1988, one being in a strike year. The Mets haven’t won since 1986.

Btw, the owners will get most, if not all, of their national TV money, strike or no strike. Local might be different. Owners are using “competitive balance” as a pretext for a power/money grab.

The local deals are the only part that matters. Only way to competitive balance is full revenue sharing. Every other professional sport figured that out long ago. Cap will do nothing just like the soft cap did nothing. The players and 2/3 of the owners know this and that is why I hope for change this time. 6-8 owners may be out voted and forced into full revenue sharing and by full I mean 100% of everything.

[ICCFIM2]

The gap between the haves and have nots has never been narrower. Unlike in the past, all these teams are owned by billionaires or billionaire groups whose financial security does not rest with the baseball team. With additional playoff teams, the competitive balance has never been better. When the two leagues were made up of 8 teams each, 4 teams dominated: the Yankees, Dodgers, Giants, and Cardinals with the Yankees on top by far. The Yankees haven’t won since 2009. The Dodgers have won twice since 1988, one being in a strike year. The Mets haven’t won since 1986.

Btw, the owners will get most, if not all, of their national TV money, strike or no strike. Local might be different. Owners are using “competitive balance” as a pretext for a power/money grab.

I don't know about what you just said. Sure all the owners are billionaires. But there is a huge difference between having $4B of which $2.5B is team value like the Dewitts and Steve Cohen of the Mets worth $21B. Cohen can afford to lose $200M a year for a long time. The Dewitt's not so much. With the RSN system collapsing and future streaming revenues uncertain, I don't see either the players or the owners negotiating from a position of strength. Teams are getting smarter about not paying veterans into their late 30s. Therefore, with the exception of a very few elite players getting 10+ year contracts at free agents, players are getting kicked to the curb quicker. Owners are facing revenue shortfalls and a shifting fan demographic that is not favorable.

Labor negotiations are always hard to predict. But, if the owners remember anything about the last strike, attendance took an enormous hit and didn't recover until they collaberated to allow hitters to use steroids and break the HR records. They are not going to be saved by that again. So both sides have to figure this out. They both really set the stage on how to do so last time. Higher taxes on the high end payrolls offset by a larger pre-arb bonus pool. That then leaves the issue of an international draft in play to help the competitive balance. The wild card issue will be expansion and the potential economic windfall from that. Presumably the owners will want to pocket 100% of the money from the franchise fees while the players will want something. They are likely to get scraps.

If baseball was smart, they would set the franchise fee at $1.5B, take the $3B collected and use the interest on that $3B, $150M per year to both fund some revenue sharing and part of the pre-arb bonus pool. They would also require the sharing teams to increase their payroll accordingly. By doing it this way, the payroll tax could be lower due to the $150M of additional revenue sharing. This lessens the impact of an artifical cap. The players would also be effectively getting an increased floor and some additional bonus pool. It helps the high revenue - high spending teams by lowering their payroll tax, helps the lower revenue teams by giving them additional dollars while getting a bit more dollars into the pre-arb players hands. But, we will see if they make a mess of it.

[JuanAgosto]

The sport is dying and everyone with the ability to fix it cant see it through their greed.

Easy solutions:

1. Salary cap and floor. Limit crazy spending and force cheap organizations to improve their efforts.

2. Better marketing. The league has been awful at this.

3. Lower costs to attend games.

4. More exciting product. The 3 outcome style is boring.

[Youboughtit]

The gap between the haves and have nots has never been narrower. Unlike in the past, all these teams are owned by billionaires or billionaire groups whose financial security does not rest with the baseball team. With additional playoff teams, the competitive balance has never been better. When the two leagues were made up of 8 teams each, 4 teams dominated: the Yankees, Dodgers, Giants, and Cardinals with the Yankees on top by far. The Yankees haven’t won since 2009. The Dodgers have won twice since 1988, one being in a strike year. The Mets haven’t won since 1986.

Btw, the owners will get most, if not all, of their national TV money, strike or no strike. Local might be different. Owners are using “competitive balance” as a pretext for a power/money grab.

I don't know about what you just said. Sure all the owners are billionaires. But there is a huge difference between having $4B of which $2.5B is team value like the Dewitts and Steve Cohen of the Mets worth $21B. Cohen can afford to lose $200M a year for a long time. The Dewitt's not so much. With the RSN system collapsing and future streaming revenues uncertain, I don't see either the players or the owners negotiating from a position of strength. Teams are getting smarter about not paying veterans into their late 30s. Therefore, with the exception of a very few elite players getting 10+ year contracts at free agents, players are getting kicked to the curb quicker. Owners are facing revenue shortfalls and a shifting fan demographic that is not favorable.

Labor negotiations are always hard to predict. But, if the owners remember anything about the last strike, attendance took an enormous hit and didn't recover until they collaberated to allow hitters to use steroids and break the HR records. They are not going to be saved by that again. So both sides have to figure this out. They both really set the stage on how to do so last time. Higher taxes on the high end payrolls offset by a larger pre-arb bonus pool. That then leaves the issue of an international draft in play to help the competitive balance. The wild card issue will be expansion and the potential economic windfall from that. Presumably the owners will want to pocket 100% of the money from the franchise fees while the players will want something. They are likely to get scraps.

If baseball was smart, they would set the franchise fee at $1.5B, take the $3B collected and use the interest on that $3B, $150M per year to both fund some revenue sharing and part of the pre-arb bonus pool. They would also require the sharing teams to increase their payroll accordingly. By doing it this way, the payroll tax could be lower due to the $150M of additional revenue sharing. This lessens the impact of an artifical cap. The players would also be effectively getting an increased floor and some additional bonus pool. It helps the high revenue - high spending teams by lowering their payroll tax, helps the lower revenue teams by giving them additional dollars while getting a bit more dollars into the pre-arb players hands. But, we will see if they make a mess of it.

Most media I have heard has said the players have the owners begging at this point and will win huge but are still unwilling to budge on Cap unless full revenue sharing is done first

[12xu]

I beleive baseball is extremely profitable. Both in value of franchise and yearly return. My question is are the owners like Dewitt trying to prove something by cutting payroll? Giving the appearance it is not making $ to help CBA negotiations so they can make even more. Just my opinion but I think there is an agenda to make baseball look broken. It is but not because of a cap. It’s 100% about full revenue sharing.

Owners don’t want revenue sharing. Why should the Yankees, Dodgers, Mets, Red Sox, etc., give money to teams that would pocket the money, and not try to build a competitive franchise.

THe Yanks, Dodgers, Mets, Red Sox, etc., don't want revenue sharing because they would lose the enormous advantage they currently have.

[3dender]

I beleive baseball is extremely profitable. Both in value of franchise and yearly return. My question is are the owners like Dewitt trying to prove something by cutting payroll? Giving the appearance it is not making $ to help CBA negotiations so they can make even more. Just my opinion but I think there is an agenda to make baseball look broken. It is but not because of a cap. It’s 100% about full revenue sharing.

I'd bet the only agenda is for DeWitt's family to pad their portfolio.

At some point in the last decade BDW decided that a top-10-15 payroll was no longer worth it. I don't think any of us will ever know exactly why he decided that but my money's on mortality and estate planning.

[Hazelwood72]

The sport is dying and everyone with the ability to fix it cant see it through their greed.

Easy solutions:

1. Salary cap and floor. Limit crazy spending and force cheap organizations to improve their efforts.

2. Better marketing. The league has been awful at this.

3. Lower costs to attend games.

4. More exciting product. The 3 outcome style is boring.

Juan, I 100% agree. Couldn’t say it better myself.

And for those of you who don’t understand what the salary cap and floor mean for a sport, look at how exciting and interesting the National Hockey League has become. The richest franchises, Toronto, NY Rangers, Chicago, and Detroit are not guaranteed championships, and smaller market teams like Pittsburgh, Tampa, Denver, and our own BLUES have won The Cup in the last 10 years.