Breaking News: Baseball players, owners reach deal averting strike.

[linster]

Owners = Winner
Players = Winner
Fans = Losers

We keep seeing rising player salaries and rising ticket prices. Who knows what the owners are making since their books are not open. Why is it that the fans need to pay more and more every year? Yeah, they really care about the fans!

 

[linster]

Originally posted by: Cerebus451
I still find it funny that the reason there was no add-on to the revenue sharing to make sure the owners getting money spent it (by imposing a minimum team salary) was because the players flat out rejected it. The owners needed to hold out for a salary cap, but my guess is the networks that had fronted the owners money for broadcast rights came knocking looking for their money back.

Can someone educate me on why the players would object to a mininum team salary? I can't see why this would prevent them from making more money. Maybe I don't see it because I'm not greedy enough.

 

[MrDingleDangle]

Originally posted by: linster
Owners = Winner
Players = Winner
Fans = Losers

We keep seeing rising player salaries and rising ticket prices. Who knows what the owners are making since their books are not open. Why is it that the fans need to pay more and more every year? Yeah, they really care about the fans!

yep...while im glad there is no strike, i kinda wanted one because they need to do something to fix baseball...but i dont see that ever happening....

 

[MrDingleDangle]

how many teams are going to reach the luxury cap of $117 million?

what like 3 teams?

 

[blues008]

Let's go Sox!

The Yanks, Sox, Mets, and Dodgers maybe affected by the tax.

Well definitely the Yanks, not quite sure about the rest. But I don't think a luxury tax will stop George. Believe it or not, the owner of the Twins is the richest owner in baseball, George just chooses to spend more on his team. And with that in mind and how much money the Yankees spend on their draft picks and their players a luxury tax isn't going to help baseball.

 

[Harvey]

For the first time, players agreed to undergo mandatory testing for steroids, which will start next year on a survey basis.

That's a step in the right direction, but I won't be even a little interested, again, until they get rid of the Robo-players. Record breaking performances are only interesting if they're accomplished by human beings. :disgust:

 

[linster]

Originally posted by: blues008
Let's go Sox!

The Yanks, Sox, Mets, and Dodgers maybe affected by the tax.

Well definitely the Yanks, not quite sure about the rest. But I don't think a luxury tax will stop George. Believe it or not, the owner of the Twins is the richest owner in baseball, George just chooses to spend more on his team. And with that in mind and how much money the Yankees spend on their draft picks and their players a luxury tax isn't going to help baseball.

George spends more because he makes more. Let's not blame the Twins' owner for not forking over his own money. I agree, they really should have done something with the draft system. Let's stop these ridiculous signing bonuses to kids that haven't even pitched in a professional game yet.

 

[prontospyder]

that's good news!

 

[McPhreak]

Originally posted by: dieselstation
WHO CARES! FOOTBALL SEASON IS HERE!!

w00t!

 

[Chaotic42]

Boooo

I want a strike.

 

[spanky]

oh man.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: McPhreak

Originally posted by: dieselstation
WHO CARES! FOOTBALL SEASON IS HERE!!

w00t!

Double w00t!

I stopped watching baseball bout the same time I discovered football. Baseball was America's pastime...now it is either Football or basketball...I'd rather watch a sport I know hardly little about than baseball. I will tune in for the World Series out of obligation, but that's about it. When a sport can have someone sign a contract for more than the team is even worth something is terribly wrong. Baseball died when the likes of George Brett, Pete Rose and Ozzie Smith retired, now it is a former shadow of itself and has been corrupted by greed rather than love of the game.

 

[AmdInside]

Go Oakland!

Overall though, if Oakland were not in playoff contention, I would have preferred a strike. There are way to many problems with baseball. Its sad to see the small market teams (ie Kansas City) become the minor league teams for the big market teams (ie Yankees).

 

[SludgeFactory]

Originally posted by: linster
Can someone educate me on why the players would object to a mininum team salary? I can't see why this would prevent them from making more money. Maybe I don't see it because I'm not greedy enough.

They oppose it in principle because they also oppose the cap or any other restriction on salary. Plus, accepting a team minimum would go hand in hand with substantial revenue sharing, which they also don't like. Not sure that it would matter much, because the owner's proposed floor was $45 million, and very few teams are substantially below that at this point.

Revenue sharing is a big mess, because it's not just players vs. owners, there's also the high-revenue vs. low-revenue teams. Big sticking point: no one really knows how much the teams are making, and they don't want to tell The last thing they want is to open their books for the world to see, because then the lies they've been telling about several teams going broke will be exposed.

 

[Thrillhou]

Can someone educate me on why the players would object to a mininum team salary? I can't see why this would prevent them from making more money. Maybe I don't see it because I'm not greedy enough.

I think the players were looking at it like this. They thought that if there was a minimum salary then the owners may force a maximum salary on them.

The owners have the power to stop all of this outrageous spending. They can simply stop spending all the money that they are spending now. Stop throwing millions of dollars at rookies that have never pitched in the majors unless it is a sure fire bet. Stop signing multimillion dollar guaranteed contracts. And maybe do something to help promote the game so that they can win over more fans which will equal more revenue.

I think Oakland is the model franchise for the sport. They have a good approach to the game throughout the entire franchise and they basically make any theories as to the cause of the competitive imbalance made by Bud to be proved wrong. They are a team with a small market payroll yet they continue to be a very good and competitive franchise. Sure they lose good players to other teams that can afford a higher payroll, but they either get good players back in return or they go find their own good players.

 

[SludgeFactory]

Originally posted by: AmdInside
Go Oakland!

Overall though, if Oakland were not in playoff contention, I would have preferred a strike. There are way to many problems with baseball. Its sad to see the small market teams (ie Kansas City) become the minor league teams for the big market teams (ie Yankees).

KC baseball has a history of being a Yankee farm team, where do you think they got Roger Maris? I agree that there's a problem though.

 

[linster]

Originally posted by: SludgeFactory

Revenue sharing is a big mess, because it's not just players vs. owners, there's also the high-revenue vs. low-revenue teams. Big sticking point: no one really knows how much the teams are making, and they don't want to tell The last thing they want is to open their books for the world to see, because then the lies they've been telling about several teams going broke will be exposed.

Actually, the owners are required to open the books to the Players Association so I'm sure the players know exactly how much the owners are making or not making. I'm sure that wasn't an issue in the negotiations. I can't see why anyone with any sense can be opposed to revenue sharing. It is a necessity for a healthy and competitive league.

 

[SludgeFactory]

Originally posted by: Thrillhou

Can someone educate me on why the players would object to a mininum team salary? I can't see why this would prevent them from making more money. Maybe I don't see it because I'm not greedy enough.

The owners have the power to stop all of this outrageous spending. They can simply stop spending all the money that they are spending now. Stop throwing millions of dollars at rookies that have never pitched in the majors unless it is a sure fire bet. Stop signing multimillion dollar guaranteed contracts. And maybe do something to help promote the game so that they can win over more fans which will equal more revenue.

I think Oakland is the model franchise for the sport. They have a good approach to the game throughout the entire franchise and they basically make any theories as to the cause of the competitive imbalance made by Bud to be proved wrong. They are a team with a small market payroll yet they continue to be a very good and competitive franchise. Sure they lose good players to other teams that can afford a higher payroll, but they either get good players back in return or they go find their own good players.

You're right that the owners set salaries, but they would ALL have to stop spending to accomplish it (which has never happened in the past, at least not legally ). With Steinbrenner pulling in so much cash, I can't see him slowing down any time soon.

Oakland is great, they have the best GM in baseball. Totally agree that they are a model of how to do it, and they put some of these pseudo "small-market" teams to shame by fielding a terrific team on a low budget. It would be nice for them to be able to hold onto that pitching staff when free agency rolls around though.

 

[linster]

Originally posted by: Thrillhou
I think Oakland is the model franchise for the sport. They have a good approach to the game throughout the entire franchise and they basically make any theories as to the cause of the competitive imbalance made by Bud to be proved wrong. They are a team with a small market payroll yet they continue to be a very good and competitive franchise. Sure they lose good players to other teams that can afford a higher payroll, but they either get good players back in return or they go find their own good players.

Yes, Oakland is a model franchise. However, just because the Twins and the A's are defying the odds doesn't mean there isn't a competitve imbalance. When you have as great a revenue disparity as you do in baseball, the playing field is no longer even. The A's and the Yanks are playing a game where the Yanks have the fences brought in when they come to bat and the A's have the fences moved out when they bat. Can the A's still win the game? Of course, but they would have to get very lucky and play much better to do it. Revenue sharing is a must I feel for the good of the league.

 

[Cerebus451]

Originally posted by: MrDingleDangle
how many teams are going to reach the luxury cap of $117 million?

what like 3 teams?

Actually, according to this year's salaries, the Yankees are the only team spending that much. The Yanks are around $125 million, then there are 3 teams in the $100-$110 million range.

Not sure that it would matter much, because the owner's proposed floor was $45 million, and very few teams are substantially below that at this point.

There are 7 teams below the $45 million threshold, and the Reds are right at the threshold.

 

[SludgeFactory]

Originally posted by: linster
Actually, the owners are required to open the books to the Players Association so I'm sure the players know exactly how much the owners are making or not making. I'm sure that wasn't an issue in the negotiations. I can't see why anyone with any sense can be opposed to revenue sharing. It is a necessity for a healthy and competitive league.

Yeah, they have opened the books to the players in the past. Maybe they gave them the real numbers instead of the fake stuff they give the public. And maybe that's why the players fight so hard for their position, because they know there's no real financial problem for these teams.

The NBA opened their books to get a salary cap, and the players have since had to take legal action because they accused the owners of hiding revenues. There's a huge amount of distrust between players and owners in any league.

The players can't get past the fact that there are low-salary teams masquerading as "small-market" teams. Revenue sharing will take money from big spenders and give it to low spenders, who may or may not be cheap bastards. But the players figure that any change from the status quo is probably going to lessen their compensation.

I'm with you on the revenue sharing, the local TV money is out of control. I think everything would work with high revenue sharing and no salary cap. Players would still have high salaries (maybe not absolutely as high as with the current system but still close), and teams would be more competitive.

 

[linster]

Originally posted by: SludgeFactory

Yeah, they have opened the books to the players in the past. Maybe they gave them the real numbers instead of the fake stuff they give the public. And maybe that's why the players fight so hard for their position, because they know there's no real financial problem for these teams.

The NBA opened their books to get a salary cap, and the players have since had to take legal action because they accused the owners of hiding revenues. There's a huge amount of distrust between players and owners in any league.

The players can't get past the fact that there are low-salary teams masquerading as "small-market" teams. Revenue sharing will take money from big spenders and give it to low spenders, who may or may not be cheap bastards. But the players figure that any change from the status quo is probably going to lessen their compensation.

I'm with you on the revenue sharing, the local TV money is out of control. I think everything would work with high revenue sharing and no salary cap. Players would still have high salaries (maybe not absolutely as high as with the current system but still close), and teams would be more competitive.

As we've found out from the stock market, creative accounting can inflate numbers and I'm sure they can deflate numbers as well. I don't blame the players for not trusting the owners. I agree, no salary cap and high revenue sharing would solve many of the problems. However, nothing is being done to address the high ticket prices and the $5 hotdogs and beer. I can't get the image out of my mind with wealthy owners and greedy players in the negotiating room fighting to divide up the revenue from overpriced hotdogs and overpriced tickets. Sure, I can watch the game and listen to it for free, but it's not the same as getting the stadium experience. When will the fans get a voice in these negotiations.

 

[eplebnista]

 

[SludgeFactory]

Originally posted by: Cerebus451

Not sure that it would matter much, because the owner's proposed floor was $45 million, and very few teams are substantially below that at this point.

There are 7 teams below the $45 million threshold, and the Reds are right at the threshold.

Right, but not many substantially below.

Cincinnati 45,050,390
Pittsburgh 42,323,598
Florida 41,979,917
San Diego 41,425,000
Minnesota 40,225,000
Oakland 39,679,746
Montreal 38,670,500
Tampa Bay 34,380,000

A very rough estimate here, if you take the total dollars needed to get every team to $45 million and then average that over all 750 players, I get about a $50,000 increase per MLB player. What's the avg salary, like $2.3 million? Not a big raise, so the union doesn't care.

My point was that enforcing an annual $45 million floor has very little effect on raising player compensation or making teams more competitive in a given year. The way the Twins and A's (and any other successful low budget team) are structured is that they depend on the inexpensive above-average young player, who is available to the team at less than market value until they become free agent eligible. They have those players already at essentially a fixed rate and won't give them a raise other than arbitration, regardless of how much money they get from Steinbrenner. Adding just a few million in salary isn't going to increase team competitiveness much at all, it'll probably bring in one or two extra veteran players. Maybe the A's would make good use of the extra money over the short term, but then I don't think you'd need a floor to force them to spend their handout.

If you have to have a floor, then enforcing it as an average over a 5-6 yr period makes more sense to me, because teams would be able to build up with cheap, young players in the initial years and develop them, then greatly increase team salary when they have to start paying them and need to sign free agents for a pennant drive at the end of that rebuilding phase. But imagine how many teams would get it wrong and have results like the 2002 Mets when they were forced to have a high dollar team at the end of their rebuilding (and then bitch and whine about the system)

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see them go with high revenue sharing, maybe some long-term floor, and then these small-revenue teams can put up or shut up.

 

[jjones]

Too bad; I wanted to see another strike happen. That's been the only thing interesting about baseball; now it's back to zero interest in baseball. Glad football season's finally here.