Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 78
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    53,602
    Quote Originally Posted by mariner4life View Post
    In MLB if there is a huge spike in revenue there is no guarantee at all that it will trickle down to the players. And if it does how long will it take?
    That off-season.

    The agents are always aggressive about getting those revenue dollars. Every agent is.

    http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/J...-salaries.aspx

    MLB agents are ruthless. It's why you see fans shocked every off-season with the rate of inflation in free agency dollars. But it's maintained the same pace as the leagues inflation that was largely generated by tv deals.

    The agents are very good at getting dollars for their players.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    It's not like the MLB teams have a ton of NOI. You are talking about a billion dollar franchise (some are 2 and even the Yankees are 3) that NOI's $10-50M per year. I'd hope to make more than 1-5% off any investment that cost that much.

    According to this list
    https://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuation...rtreverse:true

    The average MLB franchise value was $1.54B
    The average MLB Operating income was $34.17M
    The average MLB revenue was $300.9M

    That's less than a 2.5% ROI. You are better off investing in bonds.

    The players get a very healthy share of the revenue in this capless sport.


    The NFL?

    https://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/list/

    Average NFL franchise value was $2.52B
    Average NFL franchise Operating income was $101.375M
    Average NFL franchise revenue was $411.125M (by the way the average NFL franchise is not paying out $193.23M in player payroll - in fact, no team is paying that much)

    The NFL teams are making way more, and a greater portion of the revenue is profitable for them.



    This is because baseball is a capless sport. It's a free market where players make a greater portion of the revenues because they are open for negotiation to receive more. All a cap does is suppress how much can be negotiated for from the players.


    Again, if you can provide me links to the contrary, that would be awesome. But we've been in this debate before and you didn't then either. Do I just have incorrect numbers from Forbes and other sites listing team payrolls or something?

    If you also want to do the other sports, we can, but I feel like it's kind of pointless and obvious.
    I don't have to provide anything. You made a claim and the burden of proof is on you to back up your claim which you haven't.
    I simply reject your claim do to lack of evidence.
    You couldn't prove to me that baseball players get a higher percentage of revenues so now you are using franchise values?
    Its not that complicated, show me a link or a study that supports your theory. Not your manipulated math to support the narrative you have believed for years.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2,244
    https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-...has-a-problem/

    Since 1995, MLB’s overall league revenues have increased nearly 650%, going from around $1.4 billion to over $9 billion in 2014. During that same time period, though, MLB payrolls have only increased by around 378%, from roughly $925 million in 1995 to just under $3.5 billion last year.

    So even though MLB’s television revenues have increased substantially in recent years, relatively little of this extra money is flowing to the players. Instead, teams are largely pocketing these additional revenues as extra profits, raising the league’s overall revenue without a corresponding increase in player payroll. As a result, the new television money is actually lowering the players’ share of overall league revenue on a percentage basis.
    Last edited by mariner4life; 01-03-2018 at 09:15 PM.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    53,602
    Quote Originally Posted by mariner4life View Post
    I don't have to provide anything. You made a claim and the burden of proof is on you to back up your claim which you haven't.
    I simply reject your claim do to lack of evidence.
    You couldn't prove to me that baseball players get a higher percentage of revenues so now you are using franchise values?
    Its not that complicated, show me a link or a study that supports your theory. Not your manipulated math to support the narrative you have believed for years.
    I don't know how much more proof you need.

    Forbes revenue data and player payroll data is public information, and the data shows that MLB players collect a greater portion of the revenue.

    This isn't the court of law, and I supported my claim with plenty of evidence when you called it into question. If the burden of proof has provided the evidence to support the claim, and the complainant doesn't provide contradictory proof, then the burden shifts. If you don't find the evidence sufficient, you are welcomed to challenge it. But at some point, an outside party is going to insist that you prove it otherwise, or my evidence will be accepted as the only evidence submitted.
    Last edited by Jeffy25; 01-05-2018 at 05:34 PM.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    53,602
    Quote Originally Posted by mariner4life View Post
    https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-...has-a-problem/

    Since 1995, MLB’s overall league revenues have increased nearly 650%, going from around $1.4 billion to over $9 billion in 2014. During that same time period, though, MLB payrolls have only increased by around 378%, from roughly $925 million in 1995 to just under $3.5 billion last year.

    So even though MLB’s television revenues have increased substantially in recent years, relatively little of this extra money is flowing to the players. Instead, teams are largely pocketing these additional revenues as extra profits, raising the league’s overall revenue without a corresponding increase in player payroll. As a result, the new television money is actually lowering the players’ share of overall league revenue on a percentage basis.
    You have yet to prove that other leagues are paying their players greater portions of revenues because of their caps. Ya know, our entire back and forth here.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    I don't know how much more proof you need.

    Forbes revenue data and player payroll data is public information, and the data shows that MLB players collect a greater portion of the revenue.

    This isn't the court of law, and I supported my claim with plenty of evidence when you called it into question. If the burden of proof has provided the evidence to support the claim, and the complainant doesn't provide contradictory proof, then the burden shifts. If you don't find the evidence sufficient, you are welcomed to challenge it. But at some point, an outside party is going to insist that you prove it otherwise, or my evidence will be accepted as the only evidence submitted.
    You have offered zero proof. We were discussing yearly revenue to yearly payroll. I guess you realized you couldn't back up your claim so you shifted the goalpost to franchise value?
    Again its not my job to disprove your claim but as a courtesy I will. Fan graphs has baseball players receiving close to 40% of revenues. The other 3 CBAs are legally obliged to give close to 50% of revenues. I can't simplify any better then that.

    You said baseball agents are ruthless and have maintained the same pace as the leagues inflation that was largely generated by tv deals. THIS IS FALSE!!!
    Did you not read this?
    https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-...has-a-problem/

    " Since 1995, MLB’s overall league revenues have increased nearly 650%, going from around $1.4 billion to over $9 billion in 2014. During that same time period, though, MLB payrolls have only increased by around 378%, from roughly $925 million in 1995 to just under $3.5 billion last year.

    So even though MLB’s television revenues have increased substantially in recent years, relatively little of this extra money is flowing to the players. Instead, teams are largely pocketing these additional revenues as extra profits, raising the league’s overall revenue without a corresponding increase in player payroll. As a result, the new television money is actually lowering the players’ share of overall league revenue on a percentage basis. "

    This crime against the MLB players would not exist in the other 3 sports. As there is a direct link between revenue and payroll. The NBA is a perfect example. There was a huge spike in revenue and by law the payroll had to correlate. The cap went from roughly 70 million to 94 million in one year.
    Last edited by mariner4life; 01-05-2018 at 08:30 PM.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    53,602
    Quote Originally Posted by mariner4life View Post
    You have offered zero proof. We were discussing yearly revenue to yearly payroll. I guess you realized you couldn't back up your claim so you shifted the goalpost to franchise value?
    Umm, no. I shared that in addition.

    Again its not my job to disprove your claim but as a courtesy I will. Fan graphs has baseball players receiving close to 40% of revenues. The other 3 CBAs are legally obliged to give close to 50% of revenues. I can't simplify any better then that.
    And it was just stated above
    Quote Originally Posted by Vinylman View Post
    The CBA numbers don't include ALL TYPES of REVENUE ... there is always a gap
    Which, yearly payroll and revenue numbers would indicate to be clearly true.



    You said baseball agents are ruthless and have maintained the same pace as the leagues inflation that was largely generated by tv deals. THIS IS FALSE!!!
    Did you not read this?
    https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-...has-a-problem/

    " Since 1995, MLB’s overall league revenues have increased nearly 650%, going from around $1.4 billion to over $9 billion in 2014. During that same time period, though, MLB payrolls have only increased by around 378%, from roughly $925 million in 1995 to just under $3.5 billion last year.

    So even though MLB’s television revenues have increased substantially in recent years, relatively little of this extra money is flowing to the players. Instead, teams are largely pocketing these additional revenues as extra profits, raising the league’s overall revenue without a corresponding increase in player payroll. As a result, the new television money is actually lowering the players’ share of overall league revenue on a percentage basis. "

    This crime against the MLB players would not exist in the other 3 sports. As there is a direct link between revenue and payroll. The NBA is a perfect example. There was a huge spike in revenue and by law the payroll had to correlate. The cap went from roughly 70 million to 94 million in one year.
    Maybe worth noting that the article linked it's annual league revenue from a link that is no longer published, but apparently stated that the MLB league revenue hit $9B in 2014, while other sites and links are showing it didn't reach that until 2016

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/...lb-since-2005/

    It's showing a consistent 43-45% of league revenue is spent on player payroll (from BP, which you can sort by each year rather easily)

    http://legacy.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/

    2010 - $2.82B vs $6.14B (45.9%)
    2011 - $2.88B vs $6.36B (45.3%)
    2012 - $3.02B vs $6.81B (44.3%)
    2013 - $3.20B vs $7.10B (45.1%)
    2014 - $3.46B vs $7.86B (44.0%)
    2015 - $3.76B vs $8.39B (44.8%)
    2016 - $3.91B vs $9.03B (43.3%)
    2017 - $4.10B - revenue numbers not yet known to the public

    Every time there is a big spike in revenue, the player payroll follows the following year with it's big spike.

    Just like in the capped sports, revenue isn't known until the following year. So it makes sense why payroll would drag a year or two behind.

    Not all 47% of revenue in the NFL is made available to the players. Relocation fees, expansion fees, and owners can take revenue off the top for things like G4 loans etc.

    MLB teams have these expenses as well.


    the issue the MLB has, if any, is that teams know that free agent players are largely bad investments long term. And that development is a much more efficient way to operate.

    If you honestly want to fix the MLB's revenue pattern. Open up revenue sharing so that less top revenue is concentrated to the top market teams and create a better paying arbitration system that would encourage higher pay for the first 6 years of control.
    Last edited by Jeffy25; 01-05-2018 at 09:30 PM.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    Umm, no. I shared that in addition.


    And it was just stated above


    Which, yearly payroll and revenue numbers would indicate to be clearly true.





    Maybe worth noting that the article linked it's annual league revenue from a link that is no longer published, but apparently stated that the MLB league revenue hit $9B in 2014, while other sites and links are showing it didn't reach that until 2016

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/...lb-since-2005/

    It's showing a consistent 43-45% of league revenue is spent on player payroll (from BP, which you can sort by each year rather easily)

    http://legacy.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/

    2010 - $2.82B vs $6.14B (45.9%)
    2011 - $2.88B vs $6.36B (45.3%)
    2012 - $3.02B vs $6.81B (44.3%)
    2013 - $3.20B vs $7.10B (45.1%)
    2014 - $3.46B vs $7.86B (44.0%)
    2015 - $3.76B vs $8.39B (44.8%)
    2016 - $3.91B vs $9.03B (43.3%)
    2017 - $4.10B - revenue numbers not yet known to the public

    Every time there is a big spike in revenue, the player payroll follows the following year with it's big spike.

    Just like in the capped sports, revenue isn't known until the following year. So it makes sense why payroll would drag a year or two behind.

    Not all 47% of revenue in the NFL is made available to the players. Relocation fees, expansion fees, and owners can take revenue off the top for things like G4 loans etc.

    MLB teams have these expenses as well.


    the issue the MLB has, if any, is that teams know that free agent players are largely bad investments long term. And that development is a much more efficient way to operate.

    If you honestly want to fix the MLB's revenue pattern. Open up revenue sharing so that less top revenue is concentrated to the top market teams and create a better paying arbitration system that would encourage higher pay for the first 6 years of control.
    Since 1995, MLB’s overall league revenues have increased nearly 650%
    The payrolls have increased only 378%. This is the reality and bottom line.
    I'm not seeing your one year delay or spike at all.

    If the NBA revenues were to increase 650% how much would the payrolls increase?
    I will give you a hint.
    650% lol

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Metroplex
    Posts
    1,533
    They don't need to ask for anything back. As Dave Cameron on Fangraphs discussed several weeks ago, a change to the system that actually rewarded young high talent players would draw from the available dollars that are now going to overinflated journeyman/long tenured players. In other words a 35 year old journeyman wouldn't be getting 10 or 15 million a year if that money is going to a 25 year old stud.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    53,602
    Quote Originally Posted by zookman65 View Post
    They don't need to ask for anything back. As Dave Cameron on Fangraphs discussed several weeks ago, a change to the system that actually rewarded young high talent players would draw from the available dollars that are now going to overinflated journeyman/long tenured players. In other words a 35 year old journeyman wouldn't be getting 10 or 15 million a year if that money is going to a 25 year old stud.
    What 35 year old journeyman is getting $10-15M in free agency right now?

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    30,214
    We saw some of this last year when players started taking the qualifying offer. I think teams are using their coffers to bring in elite talent, then waiting out the market for the lesser talent to come off their demands. It makes sense for teams, sucks for players.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    East of the Sun, West of the Moon
    Posts
    27,093

    Proposal: Change to Free Agency

    Quote Originally Posted by zookman65 View Post
    They don't need to ask for anything back. As Dave Cameron on Fangraphs discussed several weeks ago, a change to the system that actually rewarded young high talent players would draw from the available dollars that are now going to overinflated journeyman/long tenured players. In other words a 35 year old journeyman wouldn't be getting 10 or 15 million a year if that money is going to a 25 year old stud.
    Allowing players to escape restrictive team control 2 years earlier to take advantage of a free market is absolutely something the owners could use as a negotiating point in the next CBA.

    How many players end up playing through age 35? Let them make their bank when they are most productive and active.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Baseball Maverick: How Sandy Alderson Revolutionized Baseball and Revived the Mets
    I am that Daddy Cool

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Dugmet View Post
    Allowing players to escape restrictive team control 2 years earlier to take advantage of a free market is absolutely something the owners could use as a negotiating point in the next CBA.

    How many players end up playing through age 35? Let them make their bank when they are most productive and active.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    The small market teams are already at a disadvantage. The ability for them to have their developed players under control is their only lifeline.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Annapolis MD
    Posts
    14,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Dugmet View Post
    Allowing players to escape restrictive team control 2 years earlier to take advantage of a free market is absolutely something the owners could use as a negotiating point in the next CBA.

    How many players end up playing through age 35? Let them make their bank when they are most productive and active.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Then the small market teams really need a bone thrown their way, and if not a cap (because so many people here are against it) then what is it?

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    52,242
    What small market teams are having issues keeping players in FA, though? Looking through the best 10 or so FA each year dating back to 2014, I really can't find one major free agent a "small" market team lost in which the contract was probably in their best interest to not have (and I mean that simply because the contract looks bad right now). They may have dealt a few players, but in those situations, the team is recouping prospects.

    2014: Cano, Ellsbury, Choo, McCann, Santana, Tanaka
    2015: Price (traded at deadline), Heyward, Zobrist, Cueto (traded at deadline), Upton, Greinke, Davis (resigned with "small market" team), Zimmermann, Cespedes
    2016: Cespedes, Encarnacion, Bautista, Chapman, Fowler, Turner, Jansen, Melancon

    I am just having a hard time seeing where small market teams have issues with controlling their talent. Teams like Pittsburgh, Tampa, Milwaukee....they're not hemorrhaging talent in the free market. They occasionally have to trade a player right before the market, but again, a lot of these big deals to these kinds of players...they're not in the benefit of anyone to sign. We're two years past the great pitching class of 2015, and Cueto was awful last year, Price was awful last year, Zimmermann awful, Greinke was really good in his second year...but 3 of the 4 of those deals I'm sure using history (hell the Heyward contract, too), the teams would probably have a different feeling about those deals (SF may still think Cueto can bounce back, which I can see).

    Hell, the Padres and the Royals, two small market teams are two of the finalists on Hosmer.

    Yes the O's are set to lose Machado, but I think that he'd be testing FA in almost any situation (he's determined to hit the market).

    But I think it's largely a fallacy that small market teams are losing players because they can't retain them (the Marlins are their own beast). The players they lose tend to be players on their back end of their shelf life
    Last edited by 1908_Cubs; 01-07-2018 at 06:04 PM.
    We're From Philadelphia


    We. Fight.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •