MLB Collusion?

[da_big_kid_94]

One's an anomaly ...two's a coincidence ... there and four are more than just 7. Strasburg, Stanton, Lincoln and Tabata within 48 hours of the calculated "Super II" deadline and from teams that are getting revenue sharing money if I'm not mistaken. Hmmmm.

[Todd Zola]

I just think it is teams that most need to save money making absolutely sure the super-two percentage has passed. I honestly don't see collusion, just everyone aware of the same time-line.

[Captain Hook]

Not sure what the point or the question is?

The callups are just teams avoiding the days of service for the players so they don't lose a year of arbitration eligibility. There will be plenty of callups for the rest of the year - for various reasons:
1) Players who are ready and proved it in the minors;
2) Players who need to be tested against better competition;
3) Players who will DRAW extra attendance
4) Players who can help a MLB club in a pennant/wild card race

[da_big_kid_94]

Point is this - jury is still out on Tabata and Lincoln - but I think the fans of the Nationals and Marlins would have like to have seen these guys in their respective team lineups a little sooner than now. I know there will be plenty of call ups the rest of the year - but don't you find it just a bit curious that there were three high profile call ups within two days of each other when they get immunity from Super II - and how odd there was no mention of any of them prior to the past weekend? These teams are telling their own fans we really don't care too much about you - we're interested in squeezing another year of player control out of these guys - even though we're getting money from MLB that can partially, if not totally offset such arbitration awards. This revenue sharing plan was supposedly designed to alleviate the burden on these clubs for situations such as this - doesn't seem to be happening. What they REALLY seems to be saying is we can't put our best possible club on the field until after the Super II deadline has passed. If there was no such thing as Super II? Some of these guys may have actually broke camp with us ... like Jason Heyward.

[Todd Zola]

I certainly agree that the system is not accomplishing what was intended, but to me the word collusion is not apropos. The clubs are "gaming" the system to save some cash and the timing to realize this is pretty well documented.

The way it is working out, the "super-Twos" are either of the Heyward variety, players that can help a team compete and offset any loss with playoff money or players that are not in the long term plans of the team anyway, so the fact they have Super Two status is moot.

[da_big_kid_94]

I certainly agree that the system is not accomplishing what was intended, but to me the word collusion is not apropos. The clubs are "gaming" the system to save some cash and the timing to realize this is pretty well documented.

The way it is working out, the "super-Twos" are either of the Heyward variety, players that can help a team compete and offset any loss with playoff money or players that are not in the long term plans of the team anyway, so the fact they have Super Two status is moot.

If you look at it that way, I agree. I'm looking at the other side - an enterprise with anti trust protection that faces no penalty and admits by it's actions that it is trying not to put it's best team on the field, or compete to the best of it's abilities, and yet gets compensation for going against the very issue they are getting the compensation for. Want to kill our game real fast? Demonstrate there are franchises willing to make less than their best efforts to win on a consistent basis.

[viper]

I can't guess on the Marlins motivation aside from saving super-two money because they have a history of being cheap. To date, the Nationals have not opened the pocket books but there is no history saying they might not do it. Local sites have estimated holding Strasburg back until June 8 could be a $17M savings. That could pay for a couple of pretty good pieces. Assuming they sign Harper for about 2012-2013, the Nats may be becoming just enough of a player in the free agent game to get some "just below top tier" players interested. They have had a number of 3, 4 & 5 starters but with Strasburg and Jordan Zimmermann they may legitimate #1 & #2 pitchers. I am biased to Zimmermann but I think he has that makeup. They definitely need a Werth-like RF and either Dunn or a Dunn-like 1B but both are attainable.

Hey, I'm optimistic but I don't see it as a pipe-dream.

[Skin Blues]

They think this gives them a better chance of winning in the long-term. The money they save on Strasburg and Stanton (and it will be measured in the multi-millions, trust me) can be used to buy other talent when the teams are more competitive. The entire 2015 season (or whatever year it will be) is more valuable to them than the first 30% of the 2010 season. It's the same as teams that all of a sudden decide to trade their best players for prospects that won't contribute to the MLB team, at the trade deadline. The Super-Two may be a dumb rule that doesn't achieve what was intended, but it's not collusion.

I think a bigger issue is arbitration consistently not giving fair market value to young players that aren't UFA eligible. We all know Tim Lincecum was worth more than the $23M two-year deal he signed in his arbitration years. John Lackey signed a new contract in the off-season as well, and will be getting $33M over that same time-frame. Raise your hand if you think John Lackey is $10M better than Tim Lincecum. I know, I know... Lincecum signed the contract willingly and there weren't any arbiters involved, but the precedent has been set.

[viper]

as far as collusion goes, the rules create this June callup situation. The next players agreement may change things but the current one will always cause early June callups. The Giants miscalculated on Lincecum and the cost is suggested to be over $15M. That is a lot of money for what amounts to one or two additional starts

[Todd Zola]

They think this gives them a better chance of winning in the long-term. The money they save on Strasburg and Stanton (and it will be measured in the multi-millions, trust me) can be used to buy other talent when the teams are more competitive. The entire 2015 season (or whatever year it will be) is more valuable to them than the first 30% of the 2010 season. It's the same as teams that all of a sudden decide to trade their best players for prospects that won't contribute to the MLB team, at the trade deadline. The Super-Two may be a dumb rule that doesn't achieve what was intended, but it's not collusion.

I think a bigger issue is arbitration consistently not giving fair market value to young players that aren't FA eligible. We all know Tim Lincecum was worth more than the $23M two-year deal he signed in his arbitration years. John Lackey signed a new contract in the off-season as well, and will be getting $33M over that same time-frame. Raise your hand if you think John Lackey is $10M better than Tim Lincecum. I know, I know... Lincecum signed the contract willingly and there weren't any arbiters involved, but the precedent has been set.

Except the system is designed to keep the salaries low for the first 5 or 7 years of their MLB lives. Lincecum is getting market value for a player of his caliber with the service time he has. Same with Lackey, the argument he is overpaid aside.

The point is you are not compensating just production, but production in terms of service time.

It's the system.

You can disagree with the system, but then you will have the richer teams signing the younger players and not just the veteran free agents. The present system is not perfect, but it is better than a team having a rotation of Lincecum, Greinke, Felix, Lester and Jimenez.

[da_big_kid_94]

It's the system.

You can disagree with the system, but then you will have the richer teams signing the younger players and not just the veteran free agents. The present system is not perfect, but it is better than a team having a rotation of Lincecum, Greinke, Felix, Lester and Jimenez.

No question. I just have a problem with teams who are getting revenue sharing money running up the white flag every time an arbitration case comes up. P.S. - it's actually 5 high profile call ups in 24 hours - forgot about Jake In Baltimore.

[Skin Blues]

They think this gives them a better chance of winning in the long-term. The money they save on Strasburg and Stanton (and it will be measured in the multi-millions, trust me) can be used to buy other talent when the teams are more competitive. The entire 2015 season (or whatever year it will be) is more valuable to them than the first 30% of the 2010 season. It's the same as teams that all of a sudden decide to trade their best players for prospects that won't contribute to the MLB team, at the trade deadline. The Super-Two may be a dumb rule that doesn't achieve what was intended, but it's not collusion.

I think a bigger issue is arbitration consistently not giving fair market value to young players that aren't FA eligible. We all know Tim Lincecum was worth more than the $23M two-year deal he signed in his arbitration years. John Lackey signed a new contract in the off-season as well, and will be getting $33M over that same time-frame. Raise your hand if you think John Lackey is $10M better than Tim Lincecum. I know, I know... Lincecum signed the contract willingly and there weren't any arbiters involved, but the precedent has been set.

Except the system is designed to keep the salaries low for the first 5 or 7 years of their MLB lives. Lincecum is getting market value for a player of his caliber with the service time he has. Same with Lackey, the argument he is overpaid aside.

The point is you are not compensating just production, but production in terms of service time.

It's the system.

You can disagree with the system, but then you will have the richer teams signing the younger players and not just the veteran free agents. The present system is not perfect, but it is better than a team having a rotation of Lincecum, Greinke, Felix, Lester and Jimenez.

I always thought an arbitrator was supposed to decide on fair market value. Maybe I'm just not up on the rules. What guidelines do they use to determine "market value for players with his service time" if players with his service time aren't available in the market? The only market there is, is the UFA market, and it would make sense to use that as a salary guideline. If they really cared about teams not being stacked with talent they'd institute a salary cap. Clearly, they do not care about that whatsoever, and the almighty dollar rules. I've always thought that the arbitration process was a bunch of BS but if it's actually in the rules to give arbitration-eligible players 50% of their actual market value then maybe I'm mistaken.

[Todd Zola]

I always thought an arbitrator was supposed to decide on fair market value. Maybe I'm just not up on the rules. What guidelines do they use to determine "market value for players with his service time" if players with his service time aren't available in the market? The only market there is, is the UFA market, and it would make sense to use that as a salary guideline. If they really cared about teams not being stacked with talent they'd institute a salary cap. Clearly, they do not care about that whatsoever, and the almighty dollar rules. I've always thought that the arbitration process was a bunch of BS but if it's actually in the rules to give arbitration-eligible players 50% of their actual market value then maybe I'm mistaken.

It's not just baseball, all company's salary structures are based on both quality of work and length of employment. At least in baseball, you indeed get paid more for better production. In many corporations, the compensation for quality of work is minimal compared to the number of years you have been with the company.

With arbitration, each side submits a figure (player and club) and then they argue why the player is and is not worth the respective amount and the arbitrator decides on one or the other. There is no compromise.

Using Lincecum as an example, he submitted an request of 13 million. CC Sabathia got something like 20 million as an annual salary. So could his representation asked for 20 MIL and argued he is better than CC? Sure. The squad would have then used what other top pitchers for in arbitration as their precedent and tacked on a few bucks as Lincecum is better and argued based on precedent, as compared to other arb-eligible pitchers, this is what Lincecum is worth.

But since Lincecum's side opted for 13 MIL, they must have determined that the precedent argument would win over the "as good as CC" argument.

In layman's terms, the player has no leverage as he can't quit Home Depot and go work for Lowe's instead. The collective bargaining agreement keeps the player in the club's control through the early part of their career. The club is not obligated to offer anything more than the minimum salary, but unless they want to totally piss off the player, they indeed offer more, which is why there is in effect a market value for younger players and a second market value for veterans, even if they are similar in production.

Many teams elect to sign players to long-term deals that wipe out the arbitration years and maybe the first free agency year or two.

If you were to total up the likely salaries of the player from arbitration and free agency, the total value of the actual contract will be LESS.

The club saves money, but since the money is guaranteed, it risks the player getting injured or perhaps not playing as well as anticipated, but mostly injury.

The player loses money, but has a few years of security and will get paid even if they happen to get hurt.

[Skin Blues]

Well that to me is a flawed arbitration system. But what do I know? Service time shouldn't be a factor. Did it matter for Ichiro or Hideki that they didn't have any MLB experience? Clearly he is the best pitcher in the league, had been voted as such for two consecutive seasons, and deserves as much money as the top pitchers in the league. I find that argument infinitely more compelling than "we'll just estimate that he's X amount better than Bryan Bullington who got Y amount of dollars in arbitration 6 years ago". But anyway... this is just something that's bothered me for a while so I'm just ranting to myself. Carry on.

[Todd Zola]

Well that to me is a flawed arbitration system. But what do I know? Service time shouldn't be a factor. Did it matter for Ichiro or Hideki that they didn't have any MLB experience? Clearly he is the best pitcher in the league, had been voted as such for two consecutive seasons, and deserves as much money as the top pitchers in the league. I find that argument infinitely more compelling than "we'll just estimate that he's X amount better than Bryan Bullington who got Y amount of dollars in arbitration 6 years ago". But anyway... this is just something that's bothered me for a while so I'm just ranting to myself. Carry on.

My view is while this may be a flawed system, a different system would have "bigger flaws."

Other than perhaps a cap.

I won't belabor this any more. Unless someone wants to propose a better system and I may try to point out the flaws

[viper]

service time is a factor only to the extent when a player is eligible for arbitration. The basic players agreement says you can not go to arbitration until after your third season in the major. I guess the thought is that it takes that long to truly determine a players actual "value" - whatever that is. An exception is make for a small number of 2nd year players who have the most service time when all players with two years of service are considered [I think it is the top 19%]. History says that somewhere around late May is the date where these "super-twos" are differentiated from the remaining two-year players. Hence, many teams delay the start date for stud-like players until after that date. There is no way to actually guarantee the actual date. I guess it could be June 20th in two years when Strasburg, Stanton & others reach that point. Two years ago, the Giants brought up Lincecum around May 20th [someone can find out exactly when]. The super-two cutoff date was 2 days later. Oops! That made Lincecum eligible for arbitration after two and not three years. When discussing the Strasburg timing, a Nats blog writer estimated that this error cost SF about $19M. Now the Nats brought up Storen early but MRs don't demand as much plus Storen signed immediately after being drafted and at a bit under slot This early call-up may have been viewed as a reward. Capps is signed for two year and Clippard is probably next in line so Storen may not be the closer when his first arbitration takes place after the 2011 season. Based on his skills, IO think he is at least even money to be the closer before then. Still, his dollars won't be anything like Strasburg's would be.

[Trav The Ump]

I've been following this thread and have not weighed in as I'm not educated enough about it to feel that I can contribute meaningfully. I have one question, with the MLB draft being supremely flawed by not being a world wide draft, seemingly not having age limits and teams not being able to trade picks wouldn't almost all of this be made moot by going to an NFL style system forcing players to be out of high school 2-3 years before becoming draft eligible?

Harper is 17! Had he finished high school and than went and played college ball a couple of years you could weigh him against others at the same age etc. Yet he's being drafted versus guys who are finishing college careers etc. I just find it really weird and with so many guys that don't sign I just don't much care about the MLB draft because I'm never sure if the guy will ever be on that team anyways.

I assume most players finish high school at 17-18 and than did two years of college they would be 19-20 and be able to step in to the bigs and start playing. You could remove this silly super two thing and just go by years of service as a pro, majors or minors after signing a contract (NHL style).

I'm sure I've missed many points in this post but I just don't much care about the MLB draft and having guys restricted playing in the bigs for money makes a lot of business sense in the current landscape, but not in the business sense of the Nationals could have had 8 more sellouts this year, how many more jerseys, hats and concessions during Strasburg starts? MLB's job is to entertain the fans with the best product, they are not currently doing that because of this super two thing.

[viper]

For the fans, MLB and the teams are in the entertainment business. To that end, bringing up young players makes sense. Except for the local team's fans, if a young guy is overused doesn't matter. Fan want to see the best that each team has. For the teams, it is more than entertainment - it is a business and, to that end, there are a lot of factors we recognize but don't necessarily truly comprehend.

I know that Nats situation better because I live in Northern Virginia but I'm sure each team has a similar situation to the following. The Nats have a pitcher named Jordan Zimmermann. Lats year he was a rookie and looked to be a legitimate #2 starters. He had season ending shoulder surgery. The prognosis was he might be available in late 2010. The fans here would love to see him back later this year so they could see him and Strasburg pitching. I hope to hell, he isn't back until next year. I want to feel as comfortable as possible that he is 100% healed and that he doesn't overdo it to impress. More casual fans want him back as soon as possible. This is probably off-topic however.

[da_big_kid_94]

I always thought an arbitrator was supposed to decide on fair market value. Maybe I'm just not up on the rules. What guidelines do they use to determine "market value for players with his service time"

Delete the last part of your statement and you get to the problem in a nutshell - the service time allows you to open the door to arbitration. Once in that door, it means nothing. Most arbitrators in business perform in the manner in which you describe. Welcome to baseball - it's either your number or my number - no compromise - and this is the system the damn owners gave away in the first place!

[da_big_kid_94]

I've been following this thread and have not weighed in as I'm not educated enough about it to feel that I can contribute meaningfully. I have one question, with the MLB draft being supremely flawed by not being a world wide draft, seemingly not having age limits and teams not being able to trade picks wouldn't almost all of this be made moot by going to an NFL style system forcing players to be out of high school 2-3 years before becoming draft eligible?

Harper is 17! Had he finished high school and than went and played college ball a couple of years you could weigh him against others at the same age etc. Yet he's being drafted versus guys who are finishing college careers etc. I just find it really weird and with so many guys that don't sign I just don't much care about the MLB draft because I'm never sure if the guy will ever be on that team anyways.

I assume most players finish high school at 17-18 and than did two years of college they would be 19-20 and be able to step in to the bigs and start playing. You could remove this silly super two thing and just go by years of service as a pro, majors or minors after signing a contract (NHL style).

I'm sure I've missed many points in this post but I just don't much care about the MLB draft and having guys restricted playing in the bigs for money makes a lot of business sense in the current landscape, but not in the business sense of the Nationals could have had 8 more sellouts this year, how many more jerseys, hats and concessions during Strasburg starts? MLB's job is to entertain the fans with the best product, they are not currently doing that because of this super two thing.

I look at it this way, Trav;

• Agents get huge dollar amounts for untested players
• If said player signs a major league contract as a result of the draft, he's a member of the MLBPA, whether he starts in the minors or not
• The MLBPA will start rumblings about collusion at the drop of a hat when guys like Jermaine Dye can't get a big buck major league deal - but they are oddly silent when situations such as this come about - situations that obviously have impact on the ability of their rank and file to earn
• Remarkable how none of these guys had enough talent (with the exception of Heyward) to start the year at the major league level, but they all ripened within 48 hours of each other after the Super II deadline passed.

[da_big_kid_94]

Breaking News: Cleveland call up top prospect Carlos Santana. Debut set for friday against Nats, report EPNdeportes.com.

Game 59: Manager Manny Acta said before tonight's game that catching prospect Carlos Santana could be in the big leagues before the All-Star break. Then he added that Santana "will be here between today and Sept. 1." Acta said the Indians have been receiving good reports on Santana's defense from Class AAA Columbus manager Mike Sarbaugh.

"We've heard a lot more positive things," said Acta. "The kid has played very well."

GM Mark Shapiro said recently that the Indians wanted Santana to improve on controlling the running game. He has a strong arm, but his transfer (moving the ball from his glove to his throwing hand) needs work. His arm action can get long as well. "He's young. He's got a cannon and he wants people to see it," said Acta. "Sometimes he gets a little long (throwing motion) because of it. He does fine during the drills, but it changes during the game."

First quote from Twitter, second from Cleveland.com. Talk about saying one thing and doing another.Now it's an even half dozen in 4 days. When Major League owners start to do the same thing for no apparent reason, history tells us there's a reason - we just don't see it yet. And again - another lower echelon team seemingly going nowhere in 2010.

[Todd Zola]

Happens every year, there just happen to be more youngsters ready this season.

[da_big_kid_94]

Happens every year, there just happen to be more youngsters ready this season.

No, it doesn't ...and they all happened to blossom within 72 hours of each other? Didn't know they were all drawing fertilizer from the same source.

Edit: Actually - it's possible it does happen every year - but not the way one might think - some further investigation is in order

[Todd Zola]

I guess my "question" is what exactly did these clubs say to each other in that secret collusion meeting?

Hey, I have an idea. Why don't we all delay calling up our prized prospects until after the super-2 deadline has passed so we all can save 15 MIL per player.

Maybe it is the connotation of COLLUSION that I am stuck on.

I don't see how they are doing anything wrong within the present system and I don't see how acting collectively makes the action any easier to pull off.

Now, if they got together and all decided to call up crappy prospects and give them ample service to help quicken the clock for the others, okay.

But honestly, the word collusion has a negative connotation that these clubs are in cahoots to do something underhanded and I just don't see the underhanded nature of what they are doing.

[Todd Zola]

FWIW, this same time frame last season, Schlereth, Wieters, Hanson, McCutchen and Beckham were all called up.

[Skin Blues]

I think somebody needs to learn what collusion means. They're using a loophole in the rules to save money, they're not having secret meetings and bribing other teams to keep prospects in the minors.

[da_big_kid_94]

I think somebody needs to learn what collusion means. They're using a loophole in the rules to save money, they're not having secret meetings and bribing other teams to keep prospects in the minors.

I'm quite familiar with the definition of the term, thanks.

[da_big_kid_94]

After further investigation, I present the following for your perusal;
• The sources of data used were the Baseball America annual rankings for each individual franchise from the 2007-2010 season (to date) combined with ESPN’s MLB Debut site (http://espn.go.com/mlb/debuts) and the date of their actual call up from MLB.Com archival transactions from May-July of each of the aforementioned seasons.
• Using the general rule of thumb that a maximum of 127 days of services in one’s inaugural year makes one ineligible for Super II status, we come up with the following dates:

o 2007 Season – 5/24/07
o 2008 Season – 5/23/2008
o 2009 Season – 5/21/2009
o 2010 Season – 5/27/2010

The prospects evaluated were;

o Called up AFTER that season’s Super II date AND
o Were on the BBA Top 10 list of prospects for ANY Major League team (didn’t mean they were stars – just included in BBA’s Top 10 prospects for each tem ). This list will herein be known as the BBA Top 300 prospects list.

• 2007 - 11 Top 300 prospects called up between May 1-July 31 (1 May 9, June 1, July). Of those 11, 9 were called up to teams playing .500 ball or better at the time of call up, 1 was called up to fill a spot created by a trade and one by a last place team.

• 2008 – 16 Top 300 prospects called up between May 1-July 31 ( 4 May, 6 June, 6 July) . Of those 16, 13 were called up to teams playing .500 ball or better at the time of call up, 1 was called up to fill a spot due to injury and two were called up by last place teams.

• 2009 - 24 Top 300 prospects called up between May 1-July 31 (6 May, 9 June, 9 July) Of those 24, 13 were called up to teams playing .500 ball or better at the time of call up, 1 was called up to fill a spot due to retirement and six were called up by last place teams.

• 2010 – 7 Top 300 prospects called up between May 1-July 31 (1 May, 6 June) – all seven called up by teams playing less than .500 ball and six of them within 3 days of each other.

Of those 7 brought up this year, none were ranked lower that 4th on their respective team's Top 10 list. It's been mentioned here that these teams are just using a loophole to save money. I find fault with that premise. Now it may have something to do with the economy or other factors - that I do not know. However, the money allegedly "saved" will not materialize until 2014. Yet all of the teams involved in this season's call ups have qualified in the past (and most likely will in the future) for income from MLB revenue sharing. They will be getting monies over the next several season to offset these potential arbitration costs in 2013 - only they won't need it then. So they get to bank the money used to offset such costs while delaying the expense another year. That's not saving money - that's double dipping.

These players weren't brought up now to help any of their teams win this year - they were brought up to maybe draw a few more fans in the seats and push back their arb years. In prior years, have such call ups happened? Surely they have - but look at why. Over the prior three years, the majority were called up by teams with winning records. It is not unreasonable to assume that the call ups had something to do with helping the team win now. Everyone knew Strasburg was coming - but the other Fab 5 weren't brought up to replace injured players or to help towards a pennant drive - yet they pretty much had jobs waiting for them when they were called up. These jobs weren't open at the start of the season? These players couldn't provide help then? It appears not if they were arbitration eligible they weren't.

These teams are telling us they really don't care about fielding their most competitive rosters at all times. They're not in it to win - they're in it for the money - and if they just so happen to win, that's nice. And yet we all sit back and say ; "Well...what do you expect? it's _____". But this to me is pretty blatant.

[viper]

I'll trust your numbers because they seem correct and I certainly don't want to do all that research. But I'm not sure I totally agree with all your conclusion. Your last sentence appears to say the proves collusion. It may show that all these teams understand the financial implications of bring up a super-stud before June 1 but I don't see how that is collusion.

Strasburg is the only one of the bunch who will generate additional revenue solely because of his presence in a game. That is the nature of pitchers. And even you seem to be willing to understand why a player straight out of college should probably learn a bit about what it is like to pitch every five days. [side note at the end]. The other spring training hyped pitcher is still in the minors for Cincy. They did bring up Leake, who never started a game in the minors, and, in spite of a nice start, the jury may still be out on that decision.

The biggest factor in the "how soon" to bring up a player is probably if that team is in contention. The Braves started the season with Heyward. They wanted his bat and they knew they had a good chance for post-season play. Possy stayed down mostly because the Giants retained a good catcher in Molina. Posey came up and is at first. If the Giants corners both were doing real well, I wonder if he would have been called up when he was. Lawr may be able to answer that. Cleveland and the playoffs were two words never used in the same sentence so the nature of the arbitration beast was the driving call for Santana to stay down.

Whether this current arbitration system is a good one is open for debate. That "collusion" among the management of the 30 baseball teams is the reason players come up in June and not earlier just doesn't pass the smell test.

[side note] The Nats have said Strasburg will be going every 5 DAYS , not GAMES, before the all star break. God, I hope they are right. In my group with season tickets, I have a pair for the June 18 game. That is 5 days from today. There is an off day on Monday so the 5th game after today in Saturday. TBS has changed their schedule to show the Friday game instead of a better game. Fox has changed their Saturday schedule asking the Nats to move from a 7:05 start to a 4:30 start to be shown by Fox. I hope the Nats do not bump his start a day for Fox. They have reason not to do it as that would reduce his home starts by two prior to the all star break. And as we agree, a Strasburg start mean extra revenue. Finally, by moving the start to Saturday, Strasburg would start against the Oreos in Baltimore thus helping DeAngelos pocketbook. He and Selig totally screwed the Nats by giving DeAngleos the Nats television rights. Helping that SOB owner is something I would love not to do. I like the Orioles as a team but their ownership and what he did to the Nats potential TV revenue leaves a very bitter taste in almost all Nats fans mouths. Given MLB has forbidden the Nats to even have the potential to make big TV revenue might help understand why they need to delay the arbitration date of players like Strasburg.

[da_big_kid_94]

The biggest factor in the "how soon" to bring up a player is probably if that team is in contention.

That one sentence alone speaks volumes. It begs the question - given the set of circumstances - none of these teams were at .500 at the time of the call ups. So if that's the prime factor (and to be fair, that's is what Viper wrote - it's not a given), then why call them up now? Why not either next year in spring training or at the start of this year? Because these teams want to have their cake and eat it too. They get money from MLB and delay arbitration on these players (which, if you think about it, is no guarantee they'll be arbitration noteworthy in 3 years) and they get away with putting an inferior product on the field. The earliest that Super II decision can have an impact on the team's finances is 2014 - not now ... but three years from now.And they're getting money NOW to offset those costs - which may or may not come to pass - but the money's here now and it's real. Like we say about young phenoms - a lot can happen in three years.

I can see waiting for players to be ready for the majors. That's a tried and pretty much true developmental position and I accept that. But what did these players (with the exception of Strasburg) do in the last two months that made them more ready for the majors now then they were in spring training?

Now, are the numbers I supplied definite proof of anything? No. If I went further back , would I find different numbers? Maybe, maybe not. What it seems to indicate (note I said seems, not proves) is that there is something very different going on this from recent prior years - and it doesn't fit the pattern.

[Todd Zola]

kid -- I agree with just about everything you offer, except the contention this falls under the guise of collusion. I just see each club acting independently of each other is all.

NOTE - I AM WRITING THIS SENTENCE AFTER WRITING WHAT I WROTE BELOW IN AN EFFORT TO EXPLAIN WHY I DO NOT THINK THIS IS COLLUSION, BUT AFTER DOING SO, I CAN DEFINITELY SEE AN ARGUMENT FOR SOME COLLUSION, BUT WITH A CATCH, see below

The money received from MLB is not just to offset a higher salary from arbitration, but is also supposed to be used to retain one's own free agent eligible players as well as sign outside free agents. The money (in theory) can also be used to support scouting and the minors. So if a club is actually putting the luxury tax money, etc. into the MLB payroll, they would still be financially prudent to save the potential millions by delaying arbitration eligibility on their better players.

The cycle would be something like (making up numbers, the point is the same regardless of actual)

2007 $40M in house for payroll, $20M from MLB, delay Arb on Smith
2008 $40M in house for payroll, $20M from MLB, delay Arb on Jones
2009 $40M in house for payroll, $20M from MLB, delay Arb on Adams
2010 $40M in house for payroll, $20M from MLB, delay Arb on Walker

But breaking down 2010, they are spending $60M. Let's say Smith costs $5MIL because he is still not arb eligible. That's $55IL on the rest of the team. If he were arb eligible, maybe he would get $15MIL, leaving $45MIL for the rest of the team.

Again, the numbers are irrelevant, the fact that the money saved in arbitration could be used to better the rest of the roster is what is in play.

After 2010, the same idea holds true, the money saved on the arb eligible layer could be put back into their team.

Are all teams actually putting both the MLB money and the saved arb money back into their teams?

I don't know, creative bookkeeping is involved, but the fact some teams have low payrolls for an extended period of time and a crappy developmental system suggest that if they are funneling the money to non-payroll elements of the club, they are doing a piss-poor job of where they are investing the money.

So after writing the above, I can see how the collusion amongst the lower-tier clubs be something along the lines of "hey, let's keep pocketing some of this money we are supposed to be investing in our club's development and payroll until they catch on and don't believe our creative accounting of where we are spending the money."

Kid -- if this was your angle, sorry, I was fixated on the act of delaying the arbitration, not the resultant act of what is done with the saved money. While I am not going to say they are in cahoots, I think a plausible argument can be made that they are.

Though that begs the question, why isn't Scott Boras making that argument?

[da_big_kid_94]

That is mostly what I was trying to convey, Todd. I agree there is no set rule about what teams may or may not do with its revenue sharing money - but if the concern of all these clubs is about arbitration? There's already a possible relief present - they just may not want to use it - their call - but then they don't get to bitch about it later. The press pitch that Pirate management and Manfredi justifying what they do with the money without having to open their books to verify it is hilarious. It bothers me that any enterprise that depends totally on public support for it's income and is free from any sort of oversight due to its anti-trust exemption can get away with this sort of thing. Can I prove it's collusion. Nope - just like it says in the first line of the sig. However, based on past history for clubs such as the O's, Royals, Pirates, Marlins, etc. and the tendency to repeat the same mistakes over and over ad naseum, I find it difficult to believe that they all came up with the same brilliant idea independent of each other.

Baseball needs its integrity in order to survive. It's why, IMHO, Pete's never going to get in the hall. It may be hypocritical - but it's all baseball has. Give the impression you have ownership that is more focused on making its paper rather than on the fan fronting that paper, and you have trouble. And that means our game could be in trouble too.

I agree with most of the scenarios you envision - but why would Smith cost $5 mil if he's not arb eligible? Only way I could see that happening if he pulls a Jason Bay and signs away his arb years.

As for Boras making the argument? I think he was last year by quoting the Madden column - he just screwed up. Also, I don't think he could make the argument if his client hadn't signed a major league contract after he was drafted because the union would have no standing to complain.

[viper]

As far as cheap clubs go, the proof in the pudding is how they handle players as they approach free agency.

My observations [which do not mean they are correct] has been that the Marlins trade away their most expense free agents to be. Will this continue now that they will get a new park. Their problem has been even when they had these young cheap studs, the fans seldom came to the stadium. 10K would be a great crowd. The old joke about "a guy calling to ask when the game started and being asked when he could be there" applies. They have won it all and then dealt every one away. It will be interesting if that continue with the new park.

The Pirates have always amazed me. They seem like Kansas City was to the Yankees back in the 50s - and I was there. About every seemingly good players has been dealt. Will new ownership do the same or will things change?

I really don't follow Kansas City all that much but I do recall dealing away beltran when he was at his heighth. I can't recall what they got.

The Orioles are close and I am very biased against their owner. He is cheap. I can't recall the pitcher but several years back they were decent and needed a free agent pitcher. The GM essentially signed a player but the owner nixed that deal claiming a bad medical report. That pitcher almost immediately signed with Seattle and I believe had a very good season. They did sign Markakis for a longer term deal to avoid arbitration. They also brought up Wieters just after the Super-two date passed.

You didn't mention the Nats but I will. Storen was the one top rookie brought up early but MRs will not break the bank. If he becomes the closer things may change. The speculation is that the early call-up was payment for a quick & early signing plus he is good. Strasburg really needed a little minor league time to get used to the grind. He may have been called up in early May but the Nats are not contenders so money management is a factor. The Lerners have been called cheap by some in Washington. Signing Strasburg for the highest dollars ever sort of negates that thought. Now they have to deal with Harper who will probably get the biggest signing bonus for a non-pitcher. If they sign AJ Cole [Miami bound] they will pay a lot and he is a 4th rounder.

[Skin Blues]

All I see are teams acting independently from one another while maximizing their own profits. It's not a difficult concept to grasp that requires multi-team involvement. Not only do I not see any evidence of collusion, there's no evidence that collusion would even help in the first place.

[Todd Zola]

while maximizing their own profits

This is the key -- they are MAXIMIZING PROFITS at the expense of having the BEST 25 PLAYERS on the field from opening day.

Why should there be ANY PROFIT for a business not "successful" or at minimum, not trying to be as successful as possible?

Teams are saying "we can't make the playoffs, so instead of spending more money to get a few more wins, let's pocket some profit."

Is this right? Shouldn't teams try to win as many games as possible?

For the record, I am not an advocate of a wealthy owner being obligated to spend their own money on their team. For me, that is completely discretionary. But I do feel they should pump the money generated from owning the team back into the team, until the team is doing as well as possible, then they can keep the leftover as profit.

[Todd Zola]

I just did a little reading on the term collusion. Insert your own wikipedia joke here, but they describe TACIT COLLUSION which could be what is happening here.

Cliff Note's version is the parties do not have to be in actual contact, but if they both independently agree to the same thing which results in favorable situation, and they had a choice to do something else, that is tacit collusion.

From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_collusion

Tacit collusion is best understood in the context of a duopoly and the concept of Game Theory (namely, Nash Equilibrium). Let's take an example of two firms A and B, who both play an advertising game over an indefinite number of periods (effectively saying 'infinitely many'). Both of the firms' payoffs are contingent upon their own action, but more importantly the action of their competitor. They can choose to stay at the current level of advertising or choose a more aggressive advertising strategy. If either firm chooses low advertising while the other chooses high, then the low-advertising firm will suffer a great loss in market share while the other experiences a boost. However if they both choose high advertising, then neither firms' market share will increase but their advertising costs will increase, thus lowering their profits. If they both choose to stay at the normal level of advertising, then sales will remain constant without the added advertising expense. Thus, both firms will experience a greater payoff if they both choose normal advertising (however this set of actions is unstable, as both are tempted to defect to higher advertising to increase payoffs)

The example they use is if A and B both advertise at a normal pace, they each earn $50.

If A or B is aggressive, then the aggressor earns $80 while the other $0

If BOTH are aggressive, both earn $15.

The implication is if one is aggressive, the other will be forced to follow suit. There will not be situation where one is and the other isn't. So while they may not actually discuss it, both firms realize advertising at a normal rate will maximize their profits.

I believe this scenario can be extended to what MLB does. It is not an exact parallel, but close enough for me to not dismiss the notion of tacit collusion.

[viper]

Another thing is that all MLB teams are not playing with the same deck with respect to available funds. The Yankees would probably never keep a player in the minors in order to delay arbitration. It is a combination of their team always being in the hunt but even more so that, due to their revenue sources, money is less a concern. Florida, Kansas City, Pittsburgh & Washington combined may not create as much revenue as the Yankees.

[da_big_kid_94]

Tacit collusion is best understood in the context of a duopoly and the concept of Game Theory (namely, Nash Equilibrium). Let's take an example of two firms A and B, who both play an advertising game over an indefinite number of periods (effectively saying 'infinitely many'). Both of the firms' payoffs are contingent upon their own action, but more importantly the action of their competitor. They can choose to stay at the current level of advertising or choose a more aggressive advertising strategy. If either firm chooses low advertising while the other chooses high, then the low-advertising firm will suffer a great loss in market share while the other experiences a boost. However if they both choose high advertising, then neither firms' market share will increase but their advertising costs will increase, thus lowering their profits. If they both choose to stay at the normal level of advertising, then sales will remain constant without the added advertising expense. Thus, both firms will experience a greater payoff if they both choose normal advertising (however this set of actions is unstable, as both are tempted to defect to higher advertising to increase payoffs)

The example they use is if A and B both advertise at a normal pace, they each earn $50.

If A or B is aggressive, then the aggressor earns $80 while the other $0

If BOTH are aggressive, both earn $15.

The implication is if one is aggressive, the other will be forced to follow suit. There will not be situation where one is and the other isn't. So while they may not actually discuss it, both firms realize advertising at a normal rate will maximize their profits.

I believe this scenario can be extended to what MLB does. It is not an exact parallel, but close enough for me to not dismiss the notion of tacit collusion.

It gets even worse if each decides to SLASH advertising to a hostage customer (as with MLB) - they INCREASE profits while the customer has no alternative unless the contract specifically provides relief in such an instance..

[Guest]

The Orioles are close and I am very biased against their owner. He is cheap. I can't recall the pitcher but several years back they were decent and needed a free agent pitcher. The GM essentially signed a player but the owner nixed that deal claiming a bad medical report. That pitcher almost immediately signed with Seattle and I believe had a very good season

Aaron Sele I think.

[Skin Blues]

while maximizing their own profits

This is the key -- they are MAXIMIZING PROFITS at the expense of having the BEST 25 PLAYERS on the field from opening day.

Why should there be ANY PROFIT for a business not "successful" or at minimum, not trying to be as successful as possible?

Teams are saying "we can't make the playoffs, so instead of spending more money to get a few more wins, let's pocket some profit."

Is this right? Shouldn't teams try to win as many games as possible?

For the record, I am not an advocate of a wealthy owner being obligated to spend their own money on their team. For me, that is completely discretionary. But I do feel they should pump the money generated from owning the team back into the team, until the team is doing as well as possible, then they can keep the leftover as profit.

Well if we went the route of disallowing this strategy, there would be no stars-for-prospects trades. There are many many situations where teams trade money or assets for another asset that won't pay dividends for many years down the road, and there's nothing wrong with that. I don't think this should be any different. They should, and probably will, get rid of this silly rule at the next chance. Teams collecting revenue sharing money while continuing to suck and not investing in the future is a separate issue entirely.

[Trav The Ump]

I may be mildly off topic here, but isn't what is at the core of this problem is us, the baseball consumer/ fan, wants our team to always try and win? No matter what, we want to field the best team and have a hope of winning. With the examples stated currently baseball has mandated "well if you're not going to make it, simply don't try and make some extra money instead". In our beliefs, the hardcore baseball fan who is willing to partake in online more or less anonymous board posts, we don't understand that yes baseball is a business and it seems evident that teams are not always in it to win. I am not disparaging us the fans, simply stating that if we were GM's of real teams Carlos Santana just as easily could have worked on his throwing to 2B while playing 1B for the Indians while Branyan was recovering.

The issue than of course becomes a scale or tipping point of teams deciding to go for a championship or simply try again next year. I think what Kid's numbers have shown is a number of teams simply cashed in their opportunity this year coming out of spring training. Heyward is a great example as the Braves are obviously trying to win, kudos to them. Yet others just put no effort whatsoever into the "chance" of making the playoffs.

I'm in my late 20's and I can't ever remember the Royals or Pirates being any good. One thing I wouldn't mind some data on is the Twins. Weren't they notorious for being cheap the last 10-15 years? What is their track record on something like this? They are very much a homegrown and I would say successful franchise in today's world.

I might be wrong, but just my thoughts.

[da_big_kid_94]

I may be mildly off topic here, but isn't what is at the core of this problem is us, the baseball consumer/ fan, wants our team to always try and win? No matter what, we want to field the best team and have a hope of winning. With the examples stated currently baseball has mandated "well if you're not going to make it, simply don't try and make some extra money instead". In our beliefs, the hardcore baseball fan who is willing to partake in online more or less anonymous board posts, we don't understand that yes baseball is a business and it seems evident that teams are not always in it to win. I am not disparaging us the fans, simply stating that if we were GM's of real teams Carlos Santana just as easily could have worked on his throwing to 2B while playing 1B for the Indians while Branyan was recovering.

The issue than of course becomes a scale or tipping point of teams deciding to go for a championship or simply try again next year. I think what Kid's numbers have shown is a number of teams simply cashed in their opportunity this year coming out of spring training. Heyward is a great example as the Braves are obviously trying to win, kudos to them. Yet others just put no effort whatsoever into the "chance" of making the playoffs.

I'm in my late 20's and I can't ever remember the Royals or Pirates being any good. One thing I wouldn't mind some data on is the Twins. Weren't they notorious for being cheap the last 10-15 years? What is their track record on something like this? They are very much a homegrown and I would say successful franchise in today's world.

I might be wrong, but just my thoughts.

Fair enough comment, Trav - but they aren't "earning" some of the money they are receiving. In fact, it's being given to them BECAUSE they are such schlubs. One can look at it and say ; "Well where's the incentive for us to get better? MLB wants to subsidize us - why put that money in jeopardy rather than in the bank?"

Edit: and, although it may be a legal stretch and an extreme viewpoint - if the phrase "collusion" doesn't do it for you? How about "fraud'? One possible interpretation can be that these teams are not willing to field their best possible rosters at all times, and, are in fact, conceding their seasons from the start for refusing to promote these types of players in order to protect financial windfalls. Since they have anti-trust exemption based on the premise or expectation of fair and balanced competition, there's no oversight here - and they may very well be defrauding their fans and advertisers. And before anyone says;" Well, just look at the teams we're talking about?" I refer you to the 2010 San Diego Padres.

[Todd Zola]

Well if we went the route of disallowing this strategy, there would be no stars-for-prospects trades. There are many many situations where teams trade money or assets for another asset that won't pay dividends for many years down the road, and there's nothing wrong with that. I don't think this should be any different. They should, and probably will, get rid of this silly rule at the next chance. Teams collecting revenue sharing money while continuing to suck and not investing in the future is a separate issue entirely.

I don't think it would get rid of futures trades at all. There can be a balance between trying to win as many games as possible and being realistic about the ultimate goal of winning the World Series.

And no, it is not a separate issue ENTIRELY. It is a separate issue MOSTLY.

The connection is the money saved from delaying arbitration is added to the pool the team does not invest back into the team. If teams funneled the savings back into the team, the rule would not be silly as that was its genesis but teams have elected to abuse that.

[da_big_kid_94]

You didn't mention the Nats but I will. Storen was the one top rookie brought up early but MRs will not break the bank. If he becomes the closer things may change. The speculation is that the early call-up was payment for a quick & early signing plus he is good. Strasburg really needed a little minor league time to get used to the grind. He may have been called up in early May but the Nats are not contenders so money management is a factor. The Lerners have been called cheap by some in Washington. Signing Strasburg for the highest dollars ever sort of negates that thought. Now they have to deal with Harper who will probably get the biggest signing bonus for a non-pitcher. If they sign AJ Cole [Miami bound] they will pay a lot and he is a 4th rounder.

I gave the Nats a pass here, viper, because of their unique ownership situation. Especially considering that the teams I am taking to task here were part owners of that franchise not so long ago.

[Skin Blues]

I guess I kind of assume that this "field a bad team all the time and roll in the revenue sharing cash" strategy is not as fruitful as actually trying to win. I'm starting to feel like I'm wrong. maybe teams invest so little in scouting and other areas that they continue to make small amounts of money from ticket sales and rev sharing. I guess those owners would rather make minimal profits than take some risks. But are teams like the pirates and royals really making much money? I blindly assume they're amongst the least profitable teams in baseball. Maybe there needs to be a rule that if your team sucks horribly for 5 or 10 years in a row, you get relegated to AAA for a season and a good owner gets a team in MLB.

[Todd Zola]

I am not nearly as versed in this as other forum contributiors, FWIW, this is one of the rare threads I have contributed to in recent years that was not fantasy related, but part of the problem is the creative bookkeeping that takes place to mask profits. But when you add up the logical revenue streams for MLB clubs, even the "poorer" clubs, and then add up the logical operating costs including team payroll, there is quite a discrepancy that most feel cannot be accounted for in organizational development of players alone. The clubs obviously contend they are re-investing the money back into the clubs.

[da_big_kid_94]

I guess I kind of assume that this "field a bad team all the time and roll in the revenue sharing cash" strategy is not as fruitful as actually trying to win. I'm starting to feel like I'm wrong. maybe teams invest so little in scouting and other areas that they continue to make small amounts of money from ticket sales and rev sharing. I guess those owners would rather make minimal profits than take some risks. But are teams like the pirates and royals really making much money? I blindly assume they're amongst the least profitable teams in baseball. Maybe there needs to be a rule that if your team sucks horribly for 5 or 10 years in a row, you get relegated to AAA for a season and a good owner gets a team in MLB.

These figures reflect only the 2008 season but they give you a good idea:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/33/bas ... 39113.html

Glass bought the Royals 8 years prior for $96 million. It's currently worth $314M.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/33/bas ... 39965.html

Nutting bought the Pirates in 1996 for $92M. 2008 value was $288M. Both of these investments have tripled in worth since being obtained, one in 8 years, one in 12 - and, as you said - they are not exactly paradigms of success.

[da_big_kid_94]

It's only one article -and I know this is an old thread - but I think it's on point;

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100823/ap_ ... s_finances

Many excellent points - but a few worth repeating here;

The Pirates made nearly $29.4 million in 2007 and 2008, according to team financial documents, years that were part of a streak of futility that has now reached 18 straight losing seasons. The team's ownership also paid its partners $20.4 million in 2008.
The documents offer a rare peek inside a team that made money by getting slightly less than half its income (about $70 million) from MLB sources — including revenue sharing, network TV, major league merchandise sales and MLB's website. The team also held down costs, keeping player salaries near the bottom of the National League, shedding pricier talent and hoping that untested prospects would blossom.

By 2010, the Pirates had baseball's lowest opening-day payroll — $34.9 million or just $2 million more than in 1992, the club's last winning season. The Pirates run of consecutive losing seasons is now the worst in the history of major American pro sports teams. They lost their 83rd game of the year Saturday to the Mets.

And to me,this one is the best (italics mine);

Still, Pittsburgh fans have long complained that the club's various owners have been more interested in profits than performance, and top sports economists who reviewed highlights of the team's statements wondered if it now makes more money losing than it could by winning.

"If they won and were forced to increase their payroll from $34 million to $75 million or $80 million ... how profitable would they be?" Berri said. "There's a ceiling in terms of gate revenues."

Economist Roger Noll, a Stanford University economist, said: "Probably the Pirates would be less profitable if they tried to improve the team substantially."

Again - only one article - but ....wow. Also - one other point - a quick line in the article stated the Pirates had a press gaggle on Sunday for the beat writers to discuss these documents and this story. Guess what organization wasn't invited to that little gathering? If you said AP (The organization that published the documents in the first place from a source)? You win one of Stan Lee's last No-Prizes.

[da_big_kid_94]

Ok ...make it two articles;

http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2010/08/23/mlb- ... xid=si_mlb

Yesterday, the AP obtained a copy of the Pittsburgh Pirates' financial records and published a story about their profit margins in the past few years. The team responded by opening their books to local reporters to explain where the money had gone. Then, early this morning Deadspin posted a ream of financial documents belonging to the Pirates, Marlins, Angels, Rays and Mariners with a promise of more to come in the next few days.

The Marlins were warned by the Player's Association earlier this year that the club's big profit margins and low spending were in violation of the league's revenue-sharing agreement.

[da_big_kid_94]

Ok, Ok ... just one more .....for now;

http://bizofbaseball.com/index.php?opti ... &Itemid=39

And look at this one;

The club with the most operating income has also been one of MLB’s longest running receiver of revenue-sharing, the Florida Marlins. The club, which received $47,982,000 in revenue-sharing in 2008 is shown to have an operating income of $39,214,000 (the following year dips dramatically due to new stadium investment).

The tables included in this article make for some fascinating reading.

[roche]

If you compare the Deadspin lists to Forbes' annual valuation of baseball teams which comes out every year, the lists are virtually identical. This isn't a new revelation here. This info has been out there and the people involved in the business of baseball all know it. Revenue sharing is exactly what it says, sharing revenue. In order to win the public relation battle over the players in their labor dispute, the owners' spin is that revenue sharing allows small-market teams to compete. The reality is that revenue sharing is designed to allow all owners to make a similar profit. If you throw out the outliers teams at the top and bottom, most MLB teams have similar operating incomes (profits).
The Marlins take this to the extreme. They make the biggest profits and have some of the lowest payrolls. However, let's not forget that the Marlins do have 2 world series in their short history from expansion in 1993. In the same time frame, how many other teams have won 2 world series? (the answer is 2, Yankees with 5 and Red Sox with 2). I wouldn't categorize fans of the Marlins as long-suffering. I would happily accept finishing last for 8 years and win it all in the 9th. Better than a sham race for mediocrity every year.


As well, the Pirates' payroll for 2010 is $35 millions (lowest). If their owners were to spend all of their $15 million profit on player salaries, that would just get them to $50 million, 28th in MLB. How many wins does that buy? What's the diff between a 65-wins season vs a 70-wins season? They both still spell mediocrity.


Why can't owners make a profit?

[da_big_kid_94]

No one is saying they are not entitled to make a profit - but how does revenue sharing come under the umbrella of operating income? When some of that money goes to offset owner's loans instead of player salary and development, it cheapens the product they put on the field. Why are they then deserving of making a profit - if it were purely a free market situation, these teams would have been dead and buried a long time ago. You bring up the Marlins and their championships - in both of those instances, what did they start to do almost before the engraving of the trophy was done? They started to tear down these championship teams. Why? Because they couldn't compete? I think they had two world championships to go to the contrary view.

And revenue sharing isn't profit - it's a subsidy that allegedly allows them to "compete" with bigger clubs - how are they doing that when they don't spend it all on improving their clubs? The Forbes stuff has all been guesswork in the past - very well thought out guesswork - but just estimates - and they are the first ones to admit it - (which, IMHO, is why MLB was always so quick to downplay those numbers - because they were a little too close to the truth). The Deadspin documents show where some of the money is going - even after Manfredi and the Pirate front office swore up and down that all of the revenue sharing was going to player development.

It's possible the extra $15 mil (if that is truly all it was) may only get them to 70 wins - problem with that is, we'll never know - and the Pirates and other such organizations are telling us not only are they happy with that notion - but they are wiling to keep doing it and let the poor sucker fan pick up the tab. There are good players and bad players - there are great teams, mediocre teams and bad teams - but you'd like to think all of these teams were giving their best efforts to remain competitive. Some of these documents indicate otherwise.

[roche]

From the Deadspin list, the Marlins spend the most on player development, $30 millions annually which is 50%-100% more than the rest of the teams on the list. When this crop of young players matures, the Marlins will contend.
Now, there is no doubt that Jeffrey Loria is a carpet-bagger but I wouldn't be so quick to paint the Pittsburgs and KCs with the same tar brush. Yes, the Pirates did turn a profit of $15 millions thanks to revenue sharing but their total revenue was only $145 millions (lowest in MLB with the Marlins). By contrast, the Yankees had revenue of $441 million which means that they can afford a $200 millions payroll. The Pirates can't.
There is also the issue of equity. The Pirates franchise is worth the least in MLB and is appreciating at a lower rate than other teams. The owners of the Pirates should turn a profit annually since they won't be cashing in as much when they sell later.
If ARod can earn $33 millions , I'm not sure why the Pirates' owners can't earn $15 millions.
In the end, it's billionaire owners writing cheques for each other. Why should that matter to us?

All the talk about being competitive, etc is just marketing talk to appease the fans. Small market teams cannot compete over the long term with the big revenue of large-market teams. It is possible to small market teams to win once in a while but their window is very small. I don't see the Rays staying on top very long. Their core will become too expensive very quickly and they won't be able to afford them. Player development is a giant crap-shoot so there is no guarantee that the RAys will have replacements in place when their young stars leave for more money elsewhere.
That's life in a small market.

[da_big_kid_94]

Again ...key word ...earn - did the Pirates EARN it - or did they take it from MLB because they stink. That's not earnings - that's a subsidy. I'm not expecting ROI for the Pirates to match that of the Yankees - but to TRIPLE the original investment in only 12 years!?!?! Name one other investment that gave a return CLOSE to that magnitude in that time frame - that wasn't a baseball team.
As for the fans - who do you think is putting up all that money? Or course it's talk to appease the fans in those towns - what else are they going to say in KC and Pittsburgh? "Thanks for the support, suckers. We don't intend to improve our on the field product one bit - but please ...keep those ticket sales brisk. And one day? We'll be a team you can be proud of again."
it may be life in a small market - but no one forced them into that small market, They went voluntarily and are now soaking MLB and the fans for revenue sharing to offset costs not associated with improving the franchise. The Pirates may have realized $15 million dollars in profit - but they sure didn't earn it. The poor destitute Marlins took in $49 mil while screaming poverty so someone other than themselves would pay for a new stadium. Need I say who that some one is?

As for why it should matter to us? People raised the roof about the integrity of the game with steroids. Want to try playing out humble little game knowing that three or four entire teams are phoning it in from Day 1 of the schedule? This isn't Major League and you don't find Willie Mays Hays in real life.

[roche]

Again ...key word ...earn - did the Pirates EARN it - or did they take it from MLB because they stink. That's not earnings - that's a subsidy.

They earn it just by existing and fielding a team. How is that different than regular people who show up for work, do a crappy job and still collect the same paycheck every week? I'm not disputing that the Pirates are a crappy organization with a very ineffectual front office. I do think that they have a right to a profit. Without the subsidy/revenue sharing, the Pirates is a money-losing business venture. If their partners (the other owners) choose to share their profit, I don't have any issues with that. People who don't like it can vote with their feet.

As for why it should matter to us? People raised the roof about the integrity of the game with steroids. Want to try playing out humble little game knowing that three or four entire teams are phoning it in from Day 1 of the schedule?

Name me one major professional sport where every single team starts the year on an equal footing. Football (hello Lions, Browns...), basketball (nope, Clippers et al), hockey (Panthers, Thrashers, lots of bottom feeders here), European soccer (only a handful of teams can win).
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

[da_big_kid_94]

Name me one major professional sport where every single team starts the year on an equal footing. Football (hello Lions, Browns...), basketball (nope, Clippers et al), hockey (Panthers, Thrashers, lots of bottom feeders here), European soccer (only a handful of teams can win).
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

You know as well as I do that situation doesn't exist. But the difference is the Lions and Browns are trying but they keep screwing up, the Clippers have bad ownership, etc, etc etc - but none of those franchises get any money other than the money they make from selling their product. You can not say the same thing about major league baseball teams. Revenue sharing was not created to enhance profit - it was put in place to lessen market place financial gaps and attempt to close the gap in MLB competitive advantage. as i said earlier in this thread - you hold off on promoting a uber prospect until after his Super II date; you delay his arbitration another year; you're collecting monies that are supposed to go towards offsetting those costs now - and you get them for an extra year. And you may never need those monies for that purpose three years for now. So you divvy them up amongst the owners? That's not what that money is for. You talk about the people doing crappy jobs day in day out- see anyone giving them any extra money over and above their salaries for being such dregs? And they can get fired - try firing a baseball franchise. Especially with anti trust protection.

And if I understand what you are saying (which I may not be), you are implying the Pirates are entitled to a profit simply by fielding a team - regardless if that team is trying to win or not - or that ability has no bearing on how that team is selected. Does that view (if I'm correct) extend to the integrity of the game as well?

[roche]

But the difference is the Lions and Browns are trying but they keep screwing up, the Clippers have bad ownership, etc, etc etc - but none of those franchises get any money other than the money they make from selling their product. You can not say the same thing about major league baseball teams.

Actually, there is revenue sharing in all of these sports. It's only the mechanism of sharing that differs.

In the NFL, about 2/3 of the revenues for all of the teams in the league is from the massive television contracts totalling $3.7 billions per year. This $3.7 billions is divided equally among all 32 teams. This means that the giant New York TV market gets the same as the tiny Green Bay market. The sad-sack Lions get the same TV money as the perennial powerhouses. In baseball, local TV money is not shared which leads to huge disparity in revenue between big and small-markets teams. The NFL has better parity because more of their revenue is shared which allows small market teams to compete.

"The NBA’s plan is based on market performance, with the amount of shared revenue a team receives depending on a complex formula created by business consultant McKinsey & Co. Among the performance criteria is the value of a team’s media deal in relation to its market size and the number of team sponsors in relation to the size of the local corporate base. Teams that are losing money but not meeting market performance standards may not receive any shared revenue." There is nothing in the formula about winning or losing. It's all about how well a team is exploiting all of its income streams to maximize revenue.

The NHL also shares revenue. http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=162356 Again, the formula has nothing to do with wins and losses.

The Pirates have 2 huge problems to overcome on their way back to being contenders. The biggest is an exceptionally inept front office. This is a problem that is fixable and the owners do shoulder the entire blame for this one. The second is the size of their market. Revenue sharing is the answer to the second problem. Without revenue sharing, the Pirates' payroll would be even lower.

[da_big_kid_94]

Actually, there is revenue sharing in all of these sports. It's only the mechanism of sharing that differs.

In the NFL, about 2/3 of the revenues for all of the teams in the league is from the massive television contracts totalling $3.7 billions per year. This $3.7 billions is divided equally among all 32 teams. This means that the giant New York TV market gets the same as the tiny Green Bay market. The sad-sack Lions get the same TV money as the perennial powerhouses. In baseball, local TV money is not shared which leads to huge disparity in revenue between big and small-markets teams. The NFL has better parity because more of their revenue is shared which allows small market teams to compete.

League Think was Rozelle's greatest legacy - he saw what was coming 30 years before baseball did - but all they are sharing is a national television contract - that's not a subsidy, like baseball revenue sharing - each teams shares equally regardless of ratings or market size. In baseball, some teams pay a tax that contributes to that revenue sharing - all do not share equally. Which, I suppose, makes "revenue sharing" a misnomer since some clubs take a loss on it.

"The NBA’s plan is based on market performance, with the amount of shared revenue a team receives depending on a complex formula created by business consultant McKinsey & Co. Among the performance criteria is the value of a team’s media deal in relation to its market size and the number of team sponsors in relation to the size of the local corporate base. Teams that are losing money but not meeting market performance standards may not receive any shared revenue." There is nothing in the formula about winning or losing. It's all about how well a team is exploiting all of its income streams to maximize revenue.

Yes, but do not overlook the fact that those teams' books are open to scrutiny - people like McKinsey & Co can actually look at their books and say that they are right or wrong in many instances - can't do that in MLB.

The NHL also shares revenue. http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=162356 Again, the formula has nothing to do with wins and losses.

But there are also clear rules as to how that money is collected and disbursed and in that article did you see how many of those bogeys were tied directly to individual team performance - neither of those situations apply to MLB. The NHL went on strike for a year+ and no one noticed - they knew they had to do something drastic - and I'll bet that process wasn't in place before the strike came.

The Pirates have 2 huge problems to overcome on their way back to being contenders. The biggest is an exceptionally inept front office. This is a problem that is fixable and the owners do shoulder the entire blame for this one. The second is the size of their market. Revenue sharing is the answer to the second problem. Without revenue sharing, the Pirates' payroll would be even lower.

The front office of the Pirates has been a clusterf**k for years - you'll get no argument here. As for the second part of the answer, I would disagree and I would cite the example of the MLBPA jumping all over the Marlins last year for not spending enough money on salary. MLB revenue sharing money goes into a black hole, and all we had is MLB's word that they were doing the right thing with that money - until now. If you can't afford the team, sell - or make them sell like in the Texas or Chicago cases. You're supposed to make a profit by working hard and providing a product people wish to see - there's no divine right to it - and that includes standing there doing nothing with you hand out waiting for MLB to put something in it.

[roche]

but all they are sharing is a national television contract - that's not a subsidy, like baseball revenue sharing - each teams shares equally regardless of ratings or market size.

My friend, you are very much mis-informed.
Sharing the TV money equally is exactly a subsidy for the small market teams. On the free market, there is no chance that the Bills can get the same TV money as the Giants. Furthermore, by sharing equally, you remove the incentives for small market teams to work harder at extracting money from their market.
In addition to sharing the TV money, revenue from attendance is shared 60%-40%.
Finally, the NFL has supplemental revenue sharing which started in 2006. In 2010, the NFL's wealthiest teams are projected to pay the 10 clubs that generate the least revenue $220 million in subsidies. The Vikings with the lowest revenue in the league will receive an extra $20 million.
The actual total of all shared revenue league-wide is $6.5 billion annually.
Teams (and fans) in big markets are subsidizing small market teams in a big way in the NFL.
There is no league in the world that does not share revenue.

The problem with MLB has to do with not enough sharing. Give the Pirates and all of the other bottom feeders an extra $100 million in revenue sharing and then we'll see if they still suck every year. (The Marlins' owner is a crook so lets leave him out of the discussion)

[da_big_kid_94]

If you say so, bubeleh.