Fricking genius over here. I get being smarter than me, I mean clearly you are the smartest guy in the room. But Boras is a dummy? C'mon man. Take a teency step down from the high horse you are riding around on.
I did agree with Tempo on the quotes I read from Blake Snell. Definitely bad optics. I don't disagree with some of what he is saying but coming out with it that way doesn't seem to gain him much public support (nor any for other players) and this is exactly what the owners wanted when they started leaking all of this crap well before any offer was even discussed with the players.
Messy
really dude? You are so smart you need to personally attack to explain how the owners are coming up with this amount of cash? Boras is an aggressive and arrogant man who only cares about padding his bank account. His bank account has a vested interest in this. Mine does not. He will say anything to contort facts to fit his narrative. If he thinks the owners are going to print $5 billion a year he is out of his mind.
The 10 wealthiest owners are worth about $35 billion combined, before any losses from covid. So these owners are going to liquidate assets during a national emergency to make the PA happy, when every single player’s contract says the commissioner has the right to suspend operations ?
These numbers are all garbage. Do you realize that they don't share how much they actually make? I don't take any issue with people having different opinions, only when people act like their opinion is the only correct one. We don't know. The reporters don't know. The owners only know, and I don't trust them - at all. It is my belief that owning a team has been a printing press for money for some while and as business owners they should be on position to do what is needed this season. If they blew all of their profits then perhaps they should consider selling My opinion. Boras knows far more than we do, and I would say far more than the reporters do about the true economics.
I'm pretty sure I could do some digging and find out about how much a team makes a year since everything gets leaked.
What does puzzle me is a team like the Marlins whom gets zero attendees is still open for business. That profit sharing thing must be doing them a great service.
As you imply, the players benefit from keeping teams like the Marlins afloat. If every team that loses money goes bankrupt that is fewer jobs for players.
As far as the numbers being garbage, we know 70 million fans attend games and the average seat brings in about $50 with tickets, parking and concessions. On top of that are sponsors who will be cancelling sponsorships due to economic hardship. I’m sure employees at companies like Live Nation, Under Armor and Air Canada hope their companies suspend mlb sponsorships.
To assume there are profit margins in a post covid mlb world, I am stumped why anyone would believe that. Pre covid, sure some owners might profit 5 To 10% of revenue, but usually that funds future improvements or Investments in the team. Even if it is kept as cash on hand, It’s hardly enough to fund $5 billion in lost ticket revenue and sponsorships per year.
Do we know that an average seat brings in about $50?
Does the math you use for the numbers you site previously as costs the owners need to cover include the entire season or half a season? They don't need to pay the active players for the whole season - just for what is played, according to MLB owners' creative leaks.
Where is your information on how much owners profited in the past?
My largest point is that if you don't get to see their books you do not have any idea what their profits may be, in the past, nor in the future.
You also don't know what they have done with the monies they made in the past
Lots of assumptions.
Which is fine....they are assumptions, though, just like everyone else's.
Why do you think they always refuse to share their books? It has always been, and always will be, in the owners' benefit to show that they make far less than they actually do. Creative accounting is an art form, and sports owners employ some major artists.
The average ticket price is about $35. Parking, hotdog soda? Are we at $50 yet? Beer? Ice cream?
Teams also could lose $1 billion from reduced TV fees from fewer games and if there is a second wave in the fall, we could lose the post season. That would be close to another billion in losses.
Successful companies typically profit 5 to 10%. I doubt mlb profits are that high but you are right, we don’t know for sure.
One of the few publicly traded teams in pro sports are the Packers. In their 2019 /2018 annual report, their 2018 net profit margin was just under 9%. Their 2019 profit was much lower due to unusually large expenses, so 2018 give us a pretty good indicator of a better profit.
My best guess is the NFL is much more profitable than MLB. They both have gross revenues around 10 billion IIRC, but the NFL does that with a tiny fraction of games compared to baseball. With 10 times the amount of games, and financing the minor leagues, baseball is more expensive to operate than football IMO.
I saw that article through ESPN as well. I am still skeptical. Owners leaking as much info as they can trying to use the media to shape public opinion and force the hands of the players. I don't think it will work but we will see.
Some very interesting info in here.... The share most symbolic of the cooked books approach from MLB ownership is that they are listing the incoming draft player costs as $440MM when it really is going to cost $16MM this year.
Just share your books if you want the union to believe you. Something is rotten here....
Interesting ploy by the owners. They will do anything to find the bad guys....in this case it is now the highest paid players. Don't think this is gonna work but it is a much smarter approach then their planned leaks last few weeks...HardballTalk : MLB’s latest proposal could drive wedge in MLBPA constituency
Someone just paid $900K for a Mike Trout baseball card. I thought those things became worthless after people sold their farms for beanie babies.
My little brain cannot fathom a little piece of cardboard being equal to 40 acres of land in our currency system.
I've been screaming about cards and their prices being crazy. The whole industry seems to be gaining a bunch of speed and some idiot named Gary "Vee" Vatnerchuk. It's dangerous because the guy has mass public appeal. If he says "this is hot" the market goes crazy for that card. It's a lot of power for someone to be yielding in the industry.
i would expect a Superfractor of his to surface soon.
A Super of Lindor and Yelich each sold for 100K.
Card prices are crazy man. I'm looking to cash out soon!
I can't stand that dude. I followed him on Twitter/Insta for a couple months a while back and all he did was create content about creating content. 'You gotta create content, you gotta create content, you gotta create content!" ALL YOUR CONTENT IS IS TELLING PEOPLE TO CREATE CONTENT IN A LOUD VOICE TALKING EXTREMELY FAST.
MLPA indicates, clearly, that they don't buy the bullshit that MLB owners and their circus barkers (ESPN MLB lead shill Jeff Passan especially) have been pushing for an agenda. No proof of the crazy and inconsistent claims owners are making. No further cuts are going to be accepted.
The shill now leaks that MLBPA is going to counter with a hundred game schedule. Will be interesting to see that.
MLPA indicates, clearly, that they don't buy the bullshit that MLB owners and their circus barkers (ESPN MLB lead shill Jeff Passan especially) have been pushing for an agenda. No proof of the crazy and inconsistent claims owners are making. No further cuts are going to be accepted.
The shill now leaks that MLBPA is going to counter with a hundred game schedule. Will be interesting to see that.
the players are so out of touch and they are going to come out of this looking really poorly.
I don't blame them for their stance. We can see this is going to be a "sides" type of argument among fans. I say F the owners. Open your books if you are sincere. I know a few here agree. Also know that there are some who think the players are all assholes who shouldn't whine about making a large amount of money.
We will get to see it play out but we know which sides the both of us chose.
We also know we both do want to see baseball under the right conditions.
MLPA indicates, clearly, that they don't buy the bullshit that MLB owners and their circus barkers (ESPN MLB lead shill Jeff Passan especially) have been pushing for an agenda. No proof of the crazy and inconsistent claims owners are making. No further cuts are going to be accepted.
The shill now leaks that MLBPA is going to counter with a hundred game schedule. Will be interesting to see that.
the players are so out of touch and they are going to come out of this looking really poorly.
What incentive does JT Realmuto have to play if he is making peanuts on the dollar, in a compressed schedule where injuries are more likely and he is going to be a free agent after the season?
MLPA indicates, clearly, that they don't buy the bullshit that MLB owners and their circus barkers (ESPN MLB lead shill Jeff Passan especially) have been pushing for an agenda. No proof of the crazy and inconsistent claims owners are making. No further cuts are going to be accepted.
The shill now leaks that MLBPA is going to counter with a hundred game schedule. Will be interesting to see that.
the players are so out of touch and they are going to come out of this looking really poorly.
What incentive does JT Realmuto have to play if he is making peanuts on the dollar, in a compressed schedule where injuries are more likely and he is going to be a free agent after the season?
that attitude is going to really go over well with 30 million people currently unemployed and people stuck at home. it's not going to be a good look to say you won't work for a few million dollars to play 82 games regardless if that is a 60% pay cut. there is just no way to sell that attitude to the public.
MLPA indicates, clearly, that they don't buy the bullshit that MLB owners and their circus barkers (ESPN MLB lead shill Jeff Passan especially) have been pushing for an agenda. No proof of the crazy and inconsistent claims owners are making. No further cuts are going to be accepted.
The shill now leaks that MLBPA is going to counter with a hundred game schedule. Will be interesting to see that.
the players are so out of touch and they are going to come out of this looking really poorly.
What incentive does JT Realmuto have to play if he is making peanuts on the dollar, in a compressed schedule where injuries are more likely and he is going to be a free agent after the season?
that attitude is going to really go over well with 30 million people currently unemployed and people stuck at home. it's not going to be a good look to say you won't work for a few million dollars to play 82 games regardless if that is a 60% pay cut. there is just no way to sell that attitude to the public.
MLPA indicates, clearly, that they don't buy the bullshit that MLB owners and their circus barkers (ESPN MLB lead shill Jeff Passan especially) have been pushing for an agenda. No proof of the crazy and inconsistent claims owners are making. No further cuts are going to be accepted.
The shill now leaks that MLBPA is going to counter with a hundred game schedule. Will be interesting to see that.
the players are so out of touch and they are going to come out of this looking really poorly.
What incentive does JT Realmuto have to play if he is making peanuts on the dollar, in a compressed schedule where injuries are more likely and he is going to be a free agent after the season?
that attitude is going to really go over well with 30 million people currently unemployed and people stuck at home. it's not going to be a good look to say you won't work for a few million dollars to play 82 games regardless if that is a 60% pay cut. there is just no way to sell that attitude to the public.
Yawn, all things are not equal.
my original comment was that the players will come out looking poorly in this. so yea maybe it's not equal but it's hard to see that the playes are going to get any sympathy from the public with this stance. especially as other sports come back.
edit: so Realmuto was set to make $10 million this year. so the argument being made based on the current proposals is the difference for him in making $5 million or $4 million for half a season. Just no way that plays well with the public.
Agree with Cliffy. If I am Realmuto there is no way I am all in for discounted service time. The public can get riled up by the Owners but I would not let that bother me too much.
MLPA indicates, clearly, that they don't buy the bullshit that MLB owners and their circus barkers (ESPN MLB lead shill Jeff Passan especially) have been pushing for an agenda. No proof of the crazy and inconsistent claims owners are making. No further cuts are going to be accepted.
The shill now leaks that MLBPA is going to counter with a hundred game schedule. Will be interesting to see that.
the players are so out of touch and they are going to come out of this looking really poorly.
What incentive does JT Realmuto have to play if he is making peanuts on the dollar, in a compressed schedule where injuries are more likely and he is going to be a free agent after the season?
that attitude is going to really go over well with 30 million people currently unemployed and people stuck at home. it's not going to be a good look to say you won't work for a few million dollars to play 82 games regardless if that is a 60% pay cut. there is just no way to sell that attitude to the public.
Yawn, all things are not equal.
my original comment was that the players will come out looking poorly in this. so yea maybe it's not equal but it's hard to see that the playes are going to get any sympathy from the public with this stance. especially as other sports come back.
edit: so Realmuto was set to make $10 million this year. so the argument being made based on the current proposals is the difference for him in making $5 million or $4 million for half a season. Just no way that plays well with the public.
I think you are misinterpreting the 40% for a player up to 10 Mil. That would be 40% of his prorated salary, not 40% of his total salary, $2.44Mil according to this article:
And a guy like Trout who had a contract for $37.66Mil for the season, would get a prorated salary of $19Mil for 82 games would now instead get $5.75 Mil under the owners new proposal
Did MLB really suggest that Mike Trout, the best player in baseball, a paragon for what the sport can and should be, take a pay cut from his prorated salary of $19,065,843 to $5,748,577? It did. The proposed cuts would work on a sliding scale. Young players making minimum salaries would be the greatest beneficiaries, with their pay cut only 10% as opposed to the near 70% Trout would take off his prorated share. Compared to his full-season salary of $37,666,666, it would represent an 85% cut.
I think the public will side far more with players than owners under this proposal.
MLPA indicates, clearly, that they don't buy the bullshit that MLB owners and their circus barkers (ESPN MLB lead shill Jeff Passan especially) have been pushing for an agenda. No proof of the crazy and inconsistent claims owners are making. No further cuts are going to be accepted.
The shill now leaks that MLBPA is going to counter with a hundred game schedule. Will be interesting to see that.
the players are so out of touch and they are going to come out of this looking really poorly.
What incentive does JT Realmuto have to play if he is making peanuts on the dollar, in a compressed schedule where injuries are more likely and he is going to be a free agent after the season?
that attitude is going to really go over well with 30 million people currently unemployed and people stuck at home. it's not going to be a good look to say you won't work for a few million dollars to play 82 games regardless if that is a 60% pay cut. there is just no way to sell that attitude to the public.
Yawn, all things are not equal.
my original comment was that the players will come out looking poorly in this. so yea maybe it's not equal but it's hard to see that the playes are going to get any sympathy from the public with this stance. especially as other sports come back.
edit: so Realmuto was set to make $10 million this year. so the argument being made based on the current proposals is the difference for him in making $5 million or $4 million for half a season. Just no way that plays well with the public.
I think you are misinterpreting the 40% for a player up to 10 Mil. That would be 40% of his prorated salary, not 40% of his total salary, $2.44Mil according to this article:
And a guy like Trout who had a contract for $37.66Mil for the season, would get a prorated salary of $19Mil for 82 games would now instead get $5.75 Mil under the owners new proposal
Did MLB really suggest that Mike Trout, the best player in baseball, a paragon for what the sport can and should be, take a pay cut from his prorated salary of $19,065,843 to $5,748,577? It did. The proposed cuts would work on a sliding scale. Young players making minimum salaries would be the greatest beneficiaries, with their pay cut only 10% as opposed to the near 70% Trout would take off his prorated share. Compared to his full-season salary of $37,666,666, it would represent an 85% cut.
I think the public will side far more with players than owners under this proposal.
If that is the creative accounting that has been announced then I'd live off my nest egg too then.
No way that this is the monetary equation the owners came up with though?
MLPA indicates, clearly, that they don't buy the bullshit that MLB owners and their circus barkers (ESPN MLB lead shill Jeff Passan especially) have been pushing for an agenda. No proof of the crazy and inconsistent claims owners are making. No further cuts are going to be accepted.
The shill now leaks that MLBPA is going to counter with a hundred game schedule. Will be interesting to see that.
the players are so out of touch and they are going to come out of this looking really poorly.
What incentive does JT Realmuto have to play if he is making peanuts on the dollar, in a compressed schedule where injuries are more likely and he is going to be a free agent after the season?
that attitude is going to really go over well with 30 million people currently unemployed and people stuck at home. it's not going to be a good look to say you won't work for a few million dollars to play 82 games regardless if that is a 60% pay cut. there is just no way to sell that attitude to the public.
Yawn, all things are not equal.
my original comment was that the players will come out looking poorly in this. so yea maybe it's not equal but it's hard to see that the playes are going to get any sympathy from the public with this stance. especially as other sports come back.
edit: so Realmuto was set to make $10 million this year. so the argument being made based on the current proposals is the difference for him in making $5 million or $4 million for half a season. Just no way that plays well with the public.
I think you are misinterpreting the 40% for a player up to 10 Mil. That would be 40% of his prorated salary, not 40% of his total salary, $2.44Mil according to this article:
And a guy like Trout who had a contract for $37.66Mil for the season, would get a prorated salary of $19Mil for 82 games would now instead get $5.75 Mil under the owners new proposal
Did MLB really suggest that Mike Trout, the best player in baseball, a paragon for what the sport can and should be, take a pay cut from his prorated salary of $19,065,843 to $5,748,577? It did. The proposed cuts would work on a sliding scale. Young players making minimum salaries would be the greatest beneficiaries, with their pay cut only 10% as opposed to the near 70% Trout would take off his prorated share. Compared to his full-season salary of $37,666,666, it would represent an 85% cut.
I think the public will side far more with players than owners under this proposal.
today's Philly Inquirer has Realmuto making $4 million under the latest proposal. even if it's 40% of his prorated salary you are talking he will make $2 million. you think the public is going to side with a guy who will still make $2 million to play half a season? i don't see it.
MLPA indicates, clearly, that they don't buy the bullshit that MLB owners and their circus barkers (ESPN MLB lead shill Jeff Passan especially) have been pushing for an agenda. No proof of the crazy and inconsistent claims owners are making. No further cuts are going to be accepted.
The shill now leaks that MLBPA is going to counter with a hundred game schedule. Will be interesting to see that.
the players are so out of touch and they are going to come out of this looking really poorly.
What incentive does JT Realmuto have to play if he is making peanuts on the dollar, in a compressed schedule where injuries are more likely and he is going to be a free agent after the season?
that attitude is going to really go over well with 30 million people currently unemployed and people stuck at home. it's not going to be a good look to say you won't work for a few million dollars to play 82 games regardless if that is a 60% pay cut. there is just no way to sell that attitude to the public.
Yawn, all things are not equal.
my original comment was that the players will come out looking poorly in this. so yea maybe it's not equal but it's hard to see that the playes are going to get any sympathy from the public with this stance. especially as other sports come back.
edit: so Realmuto was set to make $10 million this year. so the argument being made based on the current proposals is the difference for him in making $5 million or $4 million for half a season. Just no way that plays well with the public.
I think you are misinterpreting the 40% for a player up to 10 Mil. That would be 40% of his prorated salary, not 40% of his total salary, $2.44Mil according to this article:
And a guy like Trout who had a contract for $37.66Mil for the season, would get a prorated salary of $19Mil for 82 games would now instead get $5.75 Mil under the owners new proposal
Did MLB really suggest that Mike Trout, the best player in baseball, a paragon for what the sport can and should be, take a pay cut from his prorated salary of $19,065,843 to $5,748,577? It did. The proposed cuts would work on a sliding scale. Young players making minimum salaries would be the greatest beneficiaries, with their pay cut only 10% as opposed to the near 70% Trout would take off his prorated share. Compared to his full-season salary of $37,666,666, it would represent an 85% cut.
I think the public will side far more with players than owners under this proposal.
If that is the creative accounting that has been announced then I'd live off my nest egg too then.
No way that this is the monetary equation the owners came up with though?
I think the plan was shared (as opposed to the many leaks the past few weeks which filtered out through the Passan Owner Mouthpiece) with the players. I read in a few spots and the details seemed to line up.
Who gives a shit who the public sides with? The public are generally morons. Why would and why should someone like JT Realmuto risk a a payday that will set their family up for generations over a salary he feels isn't fair?
Football players hold out over contracts they agreed to all the time and mouth-breathers don't get their panties in a bunch over that.
Comments
As far as the numbers being garbage, we know 70 million fans attend games and the average seat brings in about $50 with tickets, parking and concessions. On top of that are sponsors who will be cancelling sponsorships due to economic hardship. I’m sure employees at companies like Live Nation, Under Armor and Air Canada hope their companies suspend mlb sponsorships.
To assume there are profit margins in a post covid mlb world, I am stumped why anyone would believe that. Pre covid, sure some owners might profit 5 To 10% of revenue, but usually that funds future improvements or Investments in the team. Even if it is kept as cash on hand, It’s hardly enough to fund $5 billion in lost ticket revenue and sponsorships per year.
Does the math you use for the numbers you site previously as costs the owners need to cover include the entire season or half a season?
They don't need to pay the active players for the whole season - just for what is played, according to MLB owners' creative leaks.
Where is your information on how much owners profited in the past?
My largest point is that if you don't get to see their books you do not have any idea what their profits may be, in the past, nor in the future.
You also don't know what they have done with the monies they made in the past
Lots of assumptions.
Which is fine....they are assumptions, though, just like everyone else's.
That draft deal is scummy.
It has always been, and always will be, in the owners' benefit to show that they make far less than they actually do.
Creative accounting is an art form, and sports owners employ some major artists.
Teams also could lose $1 billion from reduced TV fees from fewer games and if there is a second wave in the fall, we could lose the post season. That would be close to another billion in losses.
An interesting article on baseball economics.
My best guess is the NFL is much more profitable than MLB. They both have gross revenues around 10 billion IIRC, but the NFL does that with a tiny fraction of games compared to baseball. With 10 times the amount of games, and financing the minor leagues, baseball is more expensive to operate than football IMO.
https://shareholder.broadridge.com/pdf/gbp/annual-report-2019.pdf
I don't think it will work but we will see.
Spitting is prohibited.
https://theathletic.com/1818308/2020/05/16/exclusive-mlb-proposes-medical-protocols-to-players-in-67-page-document?source=user-shared-article
The share most symbolic of the cooked books approach from MLB ownership is that they are listing the incoming draft player costs as $440MM when it really is going to cost $16MM this year.
Just share your books if you want the union to believe you. Something is rotten here....
https://theathletic.com/1821460/2020/05/18/salary-staredown-inside-the-high-stakes-negotiation-to-restart-the-mlb-season?source=user-shared-article
My little brain cannot fathom a little piece of cardboard being equal to 40 acres of land in our currency system.
Don't think this is gonna work but it is a much smarter approach then their planned leaks last few weeks...HardballTalk : MLB’s latest proposal could drive wedge in MLBPA constituency
i would expect a Superfractor of his to surface soon.
A Super of Lindor and Yelich each sold for 100K.
Card prices are crazy man. I'm looking to cash out soon!
If he's done other good thing's then great just stay out of the card industry.
He's like a Kardashian...
I don't know anything about his impact on collecting sports cards though.
MLPA indicates, clearly, that they don't buy the bullshit that MLB owners and their circus barkers (ESPN MLB lead shill Jeff Passan especially) have been pushing for an agenda.
No proof of the crazy and inconsistent claims owners are making.
No further cuts are going to be accepted.
The shill now leaks that MLBPA is going to counter with a hundred game schedule.
Will be interesting to see that.
I say F the owners. Open your books if you are sincere.
I know a few here agree.
Also know that there are some who think the players are all assholes who shouldn't whine about making a large amount of money.
We will get to see it play out but we know which sides the both of us chose.
We also know we both do want to see baseball under the right conditions.
edit: so Realmuto was set to make $10 million this year. so the argument being made based on the current proposals is the difference for him in making $5 million or $4 million for half a season. Just no way that plays well with the public.
The public can get riled up by the Owners but I would not let that bother me too much.
https://www.philliesnation.com/2020/05/how-much-would-key-phillies-make-under-new-mlb-proposal/
And a guy like Trout who had a contract for $37.66Mil for the season, would get a prorated salary of $19Mil for 82 games would now instead get $5.75 Mil under the owners new proposal
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/29229007/is-mlb-proposal-first-step-playing-ball-2020-beginning-end
Did MLB really suggest that Mike Trout, the best player in baseball, a paragon for what the sport can and should be, take a pay cut from his prorated salary of $19,065,843 to $5,748,577? It did. The proposed cuts would work on a sliding scale. Young players making minimum salaries would be the greatest beneficiaries, with their pay cut only 10% as opposed to the near 70% Trout would take off his prorated share. Compared to his full-season salary of $37,666,666, it would represent an 85% cut.
I think the public will side far more with players than owners under this proposal.
No way that this is the monetary equation the owners came up with though?
Football players hold out over contracts they agreed to all the time and mouth-breathers don't get their panties in a bunch over that.