SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Jul 24, 2018 15:48:53 GMT -5
I like the idea of being better able to retain homegrown talent as it rewards teams that invest in amateur scouting and player development, something that should be affordable for any MLB franchise. So how about a tax based on Free Agent signings and trades only and base it on the amount over the median pay by position for the player. E.g. if the median for a SS is $5mm/yr, there is no tax to sign a F.A. shortstop for an AAV of $4mm but a $1mm/yr tax to sign him at $6mm.
Of course I'm not sure how the F.A.s would react (actually I'm pretty sure I know since it would suppress their markets). But the point is to figure out how to let a team keep its talent. Probably need to have a smaller tax on homegrowns as well to put more money in the till for distribution but it should be less than that for "outsiders".
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jul 24, 2018 16:06:56 GMT -5
I like the idea of being better able to retain homegrown talent as it rewards teams that invest in amateur scouting and player development, something that should be affordable for any MLB franchise. So how about a tax based on Free Agent signings and trades only and base it on the amount over the median pay by position for the player. E.g. if the median for a SS is $5mm/yr, there is no tax to sign a F.A. shortstop for an AAV of $4mm but a $1mm/yr tax to sign him at $6mm. Of course I'm not sure how the F.A.s would react (actually I'm pretty sure I know since it would suppress their markets). But the point is to figure out how to let a team keep its talent. Probably need to have a smaller tax on homegrowns as well to put more money in the till for distribution but it should be less than that for "outsiders". There's no way to do this that doesn't punish players.
|
|
|
Post by ghostofrussgibson on Jul 25, 2018 19:50:19 GMT -5
Go to a hard cap with both a salary cap ceiling and a floor. Make that cap number a % of revenue or some pre-determined figure. Players would be assured of earning their piece of the pie, while teams couldn't blow others out by spending more (incurring penalties). Puts teams on a level playing field, not unlike the NFL.
|
|
|
Post by sparkygian on Jul 26, 2018 1:03:48 GMT -5
I like the idea of being better able to retain homegrown talent as it rewards teams that invest in amateur scouting and player development, something that should be affordable for any MLB franchise. So how about a tax based on Free Agent signings and trades only and base it on the amount over the median pay by position for the player. E.g. if the median for a SS is $5mm/yr, there is no tax to sign a F.A. shortstop for an AAV of $4mm but a $1mm/yr tax to sign him at $6mm. Of course I'm not sure how the F.A.s would react (actually I'm pretty sure I know since it would suppress their markets). But the point is to figure out how to let a team keep its talent. Probably need to have a smaller tax on homegrowns as well to put more money in the till for distribution but it should be less than that for "outsiders". There's no way to do this that doesn't punish players. I don't understand how only taxing players acquired by trades (I suppose that to make this detail work, only trades of players who've lost their rookie status) or free-agency would be subject to the penalty tax if the team is over the salary cap. Contracts of players who've never played for any other team but the one they're re-signing with would not subject the team to any tax or penalties, even if the team is over the cap. I can't see how this sort of re-structuring would harm any of the entities involved. Player contracts should stay the same, and for home-town players I could imagine a possibility of them even increasing if teams no longer have to worry about paying taxes. Small market clubs would be better able to afford to keep a good core of their own system's players, without having to pay penalties for going over the cap, especially since most small-market teams don't spend a lot on free agents. Big market teams would be encouraged to keep their own players if there is a difference in cost between free agents, and home-town players. Fans would be happy knowing that their team's players that they've enjoyed following from the beginning, have a better chance of sticking around long-term, like the way it used to be. There will always be a market for free agents, and trades. It's very unlikely that teams will be able to build a world series capable team with only home-grown talent. Obviously free agent signings would likely decrease by some small amount that could even small enough to be insignificant. It would also be easy to implement a new system like this, I think. Once a season is officially over, then the new rules would go in effect, and every new contract would be subjected to the new rules. So all new contracts are applied to the team's total salary, but only the new contracts of home developed players wouldn't incur any tax or penalty if that new contract puts a team over the salary cap.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 27, 2018 6:08:29 GMT -5
Go to a hard cap with both a salary cap ceiling and a floor. Make that cap number a % of revenue or some pre-determined figure. Players would be assured of earning their piece of the pie, while teams couldn't blow others out by spending more (incurring penalties). Puts teams on a level playing field, not unlike the NFL. The revenue model of the NFL is very different from that of the MLB. The bulk of NFL revenues are from national TV contracts, while the bulk of MLB revenues are from gate receipts and local TV contracts. That means local market size matters a lot more in MLB, which is why you have a much greater disparity in spending between big market and small market teams.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 27, 2018 6:25:28 GMT -5
The TV deals seem to be the biggest issues with the MLB versus the NFL and NBA. If the TV deals were for the whole league it would solve the biggest issue facing baseball. Not saying I want that, as it would take away one of the Red Sox greatest advantages. It just doesn't make much sense either. If every team got equal TV money it would go a long way towards fixing baseballs biggest issue.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jul 27, 2018 9:38:23 GMT -5
The TV deals seem to be the biggest issues with the MLB versus the NFL and NBA. If the TV deals were for the whole league it would solve the biggest issue facing baseball. Not saying I want that, as it would take away one of the Red Sox greatest advantages. It just doesn't make much sense either. If every team got equal TV money it would go a long way towards fixing baseballs biggest issue."Small market" owners aren't compelled to spend the revenue sharing money they receive now. That has to be addressed before we start giving them even larger handouts.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 27, 2018 10:48:19 GMT -5
The TV deals seem to be the biggest issues with the MLB versus the NFL and NBA. If the TV deals were for the whole league it would solve the biggest issue facing baseball. Not saying I want that, as it would take away one of the Red Sox greatest advantages. It just doesn't make much sense either. If every team got equal TV money it would go a long way towards fixing baseballs biggest issue."Small market" owners aren't compelled to spend the revenue sharing money they receive now. That has to be addressed before we start giving them even larger handouts. The rules state it has to be spent, and it has to be spent on players, front office people or on field improvements. I have no idea if they enforce that, but it doesn't matter. The issue is that it isn't enough to level the playing field. Look at the Marlins, 40 to 50 million doesn't even allow them to have a payroll of 120 million without losing tens of millions in one season. While the Red Sox can spend 240 million and likely still make a 100 million in profit. You say handout, but the better teams can't make money without the other teams. If ever team had enough revenue you could install salary floors like Basketball and Football. You can't do that right now because not all teams have enough money. I used to think the Marlins was all about a bad owner, but the market is more responsible than the owner. Not that he was a good owner, but he wasn't as bad as he seemed either. They had firesales because they lost 10's of millions in one year. Not like he was making a 100 million a year and had a firesale. It's why the new owners of the Marlins had no choice but tear the team down, they didn't have the revenue needed.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jul 27, 2018 11:09:49 GMT -5
"Small market" owners aren't compelled to spend the revenue sharing money they receive now. That has to be addressed before we start giving them even larger handouts. The rules state it has to be spent, and it has to be spent on players, front office people or on field improvements. I have no idea if they enforce that, but it doesn't matter. The issue is that it isn't enough to level the playing field. Look at the Marlins, 40 to 50 million doesn't even allow them to have a payroll of 120 million without losing tens of millions in one season. While the Red Sox can spend 240 million and likely still make a 100 million in profit. You say handout, but the better teams can't make money without the other teams. If ever team had enough revenue you could install salary floors like Basketball and Football. You can't do that right now because not all teams have enough money. I used to think the Marlins was all about a bad owner, but the market is more responsible than the owner. Not that he was a good owner, but he wasn't as bad as he seemed either. They had firesales because they lost 10's of millions in one year. Not like he was making a 100 million a year and had a firesale. It's why the new owners of the Marlins had no choice but tear the team down, they didn't have the revenue needed. Citation needed.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 27, 2018 11:32:57 GMT -5
"Small market" owners aren't compelled to spend the revenue sharing money they receive now. That has to be addressed before we start giving them even larger handouts. The rules state it has to be spent, and it has to be spent on players, front office people or on field improvements. I have no idea if they enforce that, but it doesn't matter. The issue is that it isn't enough to level the playing field. Look at the Marlins, 40 to 50 million doesn't even allow them to have a payroll of 120 million without losing tens of millions in one season. While the Red Sox can spend 240 million and likely still make a 100 million in profit. You say handout, but the better teams can't make money without the other teams. If ever team had enough revenue you could install salary floors like Basketball and Football. You can't do that right now because not all teams have enough money. I used to think the Marlins was all about a bad owner, but the market is more responsible than the owner. Not that he was a good owner, but he wasn't as bad as he seemed either. They had firesales because they lost 10's of millions in one year. Not like he was making a 100 million a year and had a firesale. It's why the new owners of the Marlins had no choice but tear the team down, they didn't have the revenue needed. Yeah look at the Marlins. Loria just made $1 billion after losing those $10s of millions. How can he eat?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jul 27, 2018 11:55:11 GMT -5
The rules state it has to be spent, and it has to be spent on players, front office people or on field improvements. I have no idea if they enforce that, but it doesn't matter. The issue is that it isn't enough to level the playing field. Look at the Marlins, 40 to 50 million doesn't even allow them to have a payroll of 120 million without losing tens of millions in one season. While the Red Sox can spend 240 million and likely still make a 100 million in profit. You say handout, but the better teams can't make money without the other teams. If ever team had enough revenue you could install salary floors like Basketball and Football. You can't do that right now because not all teams have enough money. I used to think the Marlins was all about a bad owner, but the market is more responsible than the owner. Not that he was a good owner, but he wasn't as bad as he seemed either. They had firesales because they lost 10's of millions in one year. Not like he was making a 100 million a year and had a firesale. It's why the new owners of the Marlins had no choice but tear the team down, they didn't have the revenue needed. Yeah look at the Marlins. Loria just made $1 billion after losing those $10s of millions. How can he eat? If the Marlins are so unprofitable, why did someone just buy them for $1.2 billion?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 27, 2018 16:41:49 GMT -5
The rules state it has to be spent, and it has to be spent on players, front office people or on field improvements. I have no idea if they enforce that, but it doesn't matter. The issue is that it isn't enough to level the playing field. Look at the Marlins, 40 to 50 million doesn't even allow them to have a payroll of 120 million without losing tens of millions in one season. While the Red Sox can spend 240 million and likely still make a 100 million in profit. You say handout, but the better teams can't make money without the other teams. If ever team had enough revenue you could install salary floors like Basketball and Football. You can't do that right now because not all teams have enough money. I used to think the Marlins was all about a bad owner, but the market is more responsible than the owner. Not that he was a good owner, but he wasn't as bad as he seemed either. They had firesales because they lost 10's of millions in one year. Not like he was making a 100 million a year and had a firesale. It's why the new owners of the Marlins had no choice but tear the team down, they didn't have the revenue needed. Citation needed. For stating facts?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 27, 2018 16:46:08 GMT -5
The rules state it has to be spent, and it has to be spent on players, front office people or on field improvements. I have no idea if they enforce that, but it doesn't matter. The issue is that it isn't enough to level the playing field. Look at the Marlins, 40 to 50 million doesn't even allow them to have a payroll of 120 million without losing tens of millions in one season. While the Red Sox can spend 240 million and likely still make a 100 million in profit. You say handout, but the better teams can't make money without the other teams. If ever team had enough revenue you could install salary floors like Basketball and Football. You can't do that right now because not all teams have enough money. I used to think the Marlins was all about a bad owner, but the market is more responsible than the owner. Not that he was a good owner, but he wasn't as bad as he seemed either. They had firesales because they lost 10's of millions in one year. Not like he was making a 100 million a year and had a firesale. It's why the new owners of the Marlins had no choice but tear the team down, they didn't have the revenue needed. Yeah look at the Marlins. Loria just made $1 billion after losing those $10s of millions. How can he eat? Look at the agreement and what he owed people, he didn't make anywhere close to that. If you really want to make statements like that do some research. He can for sure eat, but he didn't come close to making a billion dollars.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 27, 2018 16:49:38 GMT -5
Yeah look at the Marlins. Loria just made $1 billion after losing those $10s of millions. How can he eat? If the Marlins are so unprofitable, why did someone just buy them for $1.2 billion? New owners thinking they can do a better job, also they will make money in the long run when they sell the team. That just doesn't help the yearly revenue though. It just gives the new owners incentives to just keep a low payroll, not lose money and sell the team in 20 years.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 27, 2018 16:52:00 GMT -5
Fun fact the Marlins had 280 million in debt when the deal happended, almost twice what Loria paid for the team.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Jul 27, 2018 18:55:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 27, 2018 19:15:25 GMT -5
Fun fact the Marlins had 280 million in debt when the deal happended, almost twice what Loria paid for the team. Having debt isn't the same as losing money. A simple example: Everyone with a mortgage has debt. Many with a mortgage are making money, while continuing to pay the minimum on their mortgage because the interest rate is so low. Borrowing money and keeping debt on the books does not mean Loria was losing money.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 27, 2018 19:52:25 GMT -5
Fun fact the Marlins had 280 million in debt when the deal happended, almost twice what Loria paid for the team. Having debt isn't the same as losing money. A simple example: Everyone with a mortgage has debt. Many with a mortgage are making money, while continuing to pay the minimum on their mortgage because the interest rate is so low. Borrowing money and keeping debt on the books does not mean Loria was losing money. Thanks for pointing out the obvious. My point was that the new stadium created more debt, but didn't increase revenue after the first few years. Litterally making the Marlins revenue stream worse not better. He wasn't just sitting there not spending money and taking risks to improve the team. Multiple articles stated the Marlins lost 10's of millions in 2017, which is why the new owners had a firesale.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 27, 2018 19:58:14 GMT -5
If I had to guess that includes revenue sharing and it makes sense. Payroll is not even close to the only expense a team has. The information I'm going by was articles explaining why Jeter and company had to have a firesale. Saying the team lost 10's of millions in 2017 and that would like double in 2018 if they just kept the team intact due to salary increases. Which makes zero sense for new owners that just paid 1.2 billion for the team, given that the team had no chance of truly competing.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Jul 28, 2018 10:37:14 GMT -5
If I had to guess that includes revenue sharing and it makes sense. Payroll is not even close to the only expense a team has. The information I'm going by was articles explaining why Jeter and company had to have a firesale. Saying the team lost 10's of millions in 2017 and that would like double in 2018 if they just kept the team intact due to salary increases. Which makes zero sense for new owners that just paid 1.2 billion for the team, given that the team had no chance of truly competing. And the sources for those articles you're remembering were either Jeter or someone from his ownership group. I think it's pretty gullible to take those articles at face value. I don't buy for a second, and the facts certainly don't back it up, that even though MLB is rolling in money (including a $50MM lump sum this off-season to each team), that this franchise would be bleeding money the way they want you to believe.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 28, 2018 15:07:41 GMT -5
If I had to guess that includes revenue sharing and it makes sense. Payroll is not even close to the only expense a team has. The information I'm going by was articles explaining why Jeter and company had to have a firesale. Saying the team lost 10's of millions in 2017 and that would like double in 2018 if they just kept the team intact due to salary increases. Which makes zero sense for new owners that just paid 1.2 billion for the team, given that the team had no chance of truly competing. And the sources for those articles you're remembering were either Jeter or someone from his ownership group. I think it's pretty gullible to take those articles at face value. I don't buy for a second, and the facts certainly don't back it up, that even though MLB is rolling in money (including a $50MM lump sum this off-season to each team), that this franchise would be bleeding money the way they want you to believe. Just to give you some facts because you don't seem to understand the numbers. For that 2016 season you were posting numbers for the Phillies had the largest profit in the game. 325 million in revenue, 104 million payroll equaled 87.7 million in profits. Red Sox were in top 5, 435 million in revenue, 208 million payroll and they had profits of about 75 million. So why do you have a hard time believing that the Marlins in 2017 with revenue around 220 million and a payroll of a 110 million would lose 10's of millions of dollars? The Rays and A's the two teams closet to the Marlins in revenue had payrolls of 76 million and 73 million. The Marlins were 34 and 37 million above those two teams and the A's make more revenue. It makes perfect sense when you look at the numbers. Also the Marlins more than likely have more debt because of the new stadium, yet its not giving them added revenue. Do you really think new owners just made up lies and did a firesale that pissed off the few fans they had for no reason? The Marlins have now had three owners and all three had to have firesales. That 50 million you talk about was a one time payment. You can think its all on the owners, but our owner once owned the Marlins. MLB overall has a ton of revenue, but the top teams dominate it. That's the whole issue with baseball. The top teams can make tons of money with payrolls over 200 million, yet the bottom teams can't even afford payrolls of a 100 million.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 28, 2018 15:15:07 GMT -5
Name a single owner to lose money overall on a baseball team, including the sale of the team. The increase in franchise value HAS to be counted. The owners sure count it when they're considering buying a team.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 28, 2018 15:23:46 GMT -5
Name a single owner to lose money overall on a baseball team, including the sale of the team. The increase in franchise value HAS to be counted. The owners sure count it when they're considering buying a team. What does that have to do with yearly payroll? Are you trying to say owners should what do like reverse mortgages on the team? You keep making that point, which is correct owners make money when they sell teams. Yet we are talking about the problems of the economics of baseball, not if buying a team is a good investment.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jul 28, 2018 16:09:30 GMT -5
The TV deals seem to be the biggest issues with the MLB versus the NFL and NBA. If the TV deals were for the whole league it would solve the biggest issue facing baseball. Not saying I want that, as it would take away one of the Red Sox greatest advantages. It just doesn't make much sense either. If every team got equal TV money it would go a long way towards fixing baseballs biggest issue. "Small market" owners aren't compelled to spend the revenue sharing money they receive now. That has to be addressed before we start giving them even larger handouts. This is an important point and one that needs to be expanded on. How about a reality check? This is not capitalism at its finest, it's not even capitalism. MLB has created a welfare state for the well to do. It's not the only one of that model, of course. I could list a few dozen examples without breaking a sweat. And it's easy to understand the motivation in something as entertainment-driven as Major League Baseball. Bare-knuckled competition taken to its logical endpoint leaves one team standing with all the players they need to insure that monopoly in perpetuity rounded up in one place. The obvious logic to subsidizing teams when you want to create the semblance of a balanced playing field does have serious implications however, and those never, ever, get surfaced. The law of unintended financial consequences is always in play. That's where the underbelly of MLB ownership makes its living, hiring the best tax lawyers and accountants to siphon off the money into all sorts of dubiously related enterprises. I'd argue that the gold the owners are mining thanks to MLBAM will only make that problem worse, not better. If we accept that baseball needs to level out that playing field using welfare payments for the market-needy, then the answer to those shenanigans is simple: draconian regulations in the form of unannounced and hyper-intensive team audits surfaced on the web for all to see. The recipients of those payments have to open their books, and if they persist in bad behavior they're thrown out of the club. Accounting - and the US has the greatest accounting office the planet has ever seen so the models are in place - is the way it's done with non-profits, with grant funding, with Medicare with Social Security, and more. Regulate or die, there is no other choice. That baseball will not do that with the wealthy (or pseudo-wealthy) owners is just another example of what a rich kids' club looks like. They defer endlessly to the con-men (mostly men) even as the paying customers get stiffed over and over again. The Lords of the Realm have for the most part been disgusting in their deference to the criminals in their ranks. They know how to get rid of them, but they won't even sniff at that truth.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jul 29, 2018 11:31:12 GMT -5
Accounting - and the US has the greatest accounting office the planet has ever seen so the models are in place - is the way it's done with non-profits, with grant funding, with Medicare with Social Security, and more. Regulate or die, there is no other choice. That baseball will not do that with the wealthy (or pseudo-wealthy) owners is just another example of what a rich kids' club looks like. They defer endlessly to the con-men (mostly men) even as the paying customers get stiffed over and over again. I don't know. As long as we're dreaming, why not just make the teams publicly owned?
|
|
|