Welcome to Miami Hawk Talk!

This website is a fan-operated and fan-oriented site primarily about athletics at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio.

This website is not affiliated with Miami University, the Mid-American Conference (MAC), the National Collegiate Hockey Conference (NCHC) the NCAA, or any other collegiate or professional organization.

Major League Baseball

AORedHawk33AORedHawk33 Wealthy Alum
Curious to hear some of the baseball fans on here and their thoughts on what’s going on
«13456

Comments

  • dave67dave67 Wealthy Alum
    Is it past time that the Pastime has run out of time?
  • 2xHawk2xHawk Senior Barfly
    The whole thing is indicative of bigger problems that exist in MLB that were bound to come to a head when the current CBA expires after 2021.  

    The owners are too secretive about finances so when the players see franchise values skyrocketing, annual revenue increasing while total payroll is stagnant and owners cry poor it creates even more distrust.  

    I thought this piece did a good job of laying some of it out.  

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/06/15/dont-let-mlb-owners-cry-poor-they-can-afford-do-whats-right-baseball/

    What that article doesn't mention is that for some owners that 25 million loss may be a huge issue despite owning a team valued over a billion dollars because they are cash poor having leveraged themselves with stadium and development projects in areas surrounding stadiums that helped drive up their franchise value.  Again we and the players don't really know because the owners won't share that information.  You would think that ownership might have the foresight to develop a plan to help each other out through pooled money or loans to help cash poor franchises in the short term in order to avoid the long term losses that will come from a prolonged labor dispute.  That is unless they have learned from previous labor disputes that they don't have long term consequences, that despite whatever negative feelings they generate now among their customers that the revenue will continue to flow and franchise values will continue to rise.  Which leads us to the topic of risk.

    A common refrain in labor disputes is that the owners take all the financial risk so they should see a majority of the financial reward.  It's already a flawed argument but in the case of MLB you have ask what risk?  Is there a legitimate risk of losing your investment in the team or developments associated with when the return in franchise value is what it is?  If ownership is willing to burn an entire season over a relatively small amount of money is there long term risk?

    MLB desperately needs a neutral party to mediate their differences before it gets worse.
    Love_and_HonorMowchthechuck_2112
  • JohnnyMacJohnnyMac Wealthy Alum
    Deep six this season and let the Tigers draft #1 next year, too.
    Professor_Fatethechuck_2112
  • Professor_FateProfessor_Fate Wealthy Alum
    Don’t play this year or next. Make the players sit out a couple years and break the Union.
    AORedHawk33DICK
  • BonkBonk Off-Campus Slummer
    XLB.
    killgas20Quinoaburger
  • 2xHawk2xHawk Senior Barfly

    Don’t play this year or next. Make the players sit out a couple years and break the Union.

    I don't know if that's viable option for the owners.  They fear a grievance that would expose their finances to the players.  Both sides agreed to a shortened, pro rated pay season with no strikes or lockouts.  If they shut the players out of what both sides have already agreed to I don't think they win that fight, especially when the players have already played one of their biggest pieces of leverage publicly in the tell us when and where statement.  
  • MooreHawkMooreHawk Senior Barfly
    I think it's interesting how much it seems the public is on the players sides more than normal in a sports labor dispute. Primarily I think because the two things being associated with the players positions is that they want the full prorated salaries (which seems generally reasonable and they can claim that the MLB already agreed to it) and that they want to play more games (which baseball fans also want).
    DICK
  • AORedHawk33AORedHawk33 Wealthy Alum
    MooreHawk said:

    I think it's interesting how much it seems the public is on the players sides more than normal in a sports labor dispute. Primarily I think because the two things being associated with the players positions is that they want the full prorated salaries (which seems generally reasonable and they can claim that the MLB already agreed to it) and that they want to play more games (which baseball fans also want).

    I think the pendulum swung to the owners side this last week... the owners offered full prorated salary but the players want more games.
    Professor_FateDSnyder15
  • MooreHawkMooreHawk Senior Barfly

    MooreHawk said:

    I think it's interesting how much it seems the public is on the players sides more than normal in a sports labor dispute. Primarily I think because the two things being associated with the players positions is that they want the full prorated salaries (which seems generally reasonable and they can claim that the MLB already agreed to it) and that they want to play more games (which baseball fans also want).

    I think the pendulum swung to the owners side this last week... the owners offered full prorated salary but the players want more games.
    The longer it goes on, I think fans will tire out and just want a deal but the players are still asking for more games which fans support.
    DICKdave67
  • thechuck_2112thechuck_2112 Wealthy Alum
    edited June 19
    MooreHawk said:

    I think it's interesting how much it seems the public is on the players sides more than normal in a sports labor dispute. Primarily I think because the two things being associated with the players positions is that they want the full prorated salaries (which seems generally reasonable and they can claim that the MLB already agreed to it) and that they want to play more games (which baseball fans also want).

    The other part that I think makes the public more likely to side with players than usual is something 2xHawk points out above: due to secrecy of finances, the public doesn't believe the owners who are pleading poverty. They see the Cubs signing a TV rights deal for $8.3 billion, then see Tom Ricketts going out and saying teams are losing "biblical" amounts of money. Those two statements just don't make sense together, absent information about how thinly the Cubs (or whatever other team) is stretched otherwise. 

    I suspect the real reason we'll never see that information is because we'll find out every team is structured like the Dodgers were in the McCourt era, with a series of LLCs and LPs designed to park not only the cost of running the team itself, but also all related losses (including real estate development costs) in the "team" or its subsidiaries and hold all assets in other entities, such that the "team" is always losing money on paper.  (Thanks to this structure, Frank McCourt still owns the Dodger Stadium parking lots, even though Guggenheim owns the team.)
    2xHawkQuinoaburger
  • gentbaseball12gentbaseball12 Senior Barfly
    If you really think that a sport with an antitrust exemption and monopsony power that is heavily subsidized by state and local governments is a losing proposition for owners who leverage their team ownership to further enrich their other business ventures then I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you.
    redhawk11DICKAORedHawk33elpalitoQuinoaburgerLove_and_Honor
  • FredFred Dodds God
    edited June 19
    Baseball will likely be fine - though the fan base is declining a bit, there are probably enough die-hards and casual fans who want an occasional night out (post pandemic) to keep it going. I personally think both sides are at fault - the owners are somewhat greedy, but the players, in my opinion, seem like the most arrogant and least likable of all of the major sports.

    I watch baseball if it's on at B-Dubs, but otherwise lost interest (and I was at one time a big fan who had full-season tickets, and actually had some interaction with Commissioner Selig regarding realignment prior to the move of the Astros to the AL), due in part to:

    Excessively long and boring games. A couple of years ago I attended a Friday night Dodger-Pirate game and the first inning took just short of 30 minutes!  Instant replay reviews, visits to the mound, pitching changes, etc.... We left after 7 innings of this 4-hour marathon, but I felt bad for the families with kids who attended in part to see the post-game fireworks.

    Too many unwritten rules of player behavior. There was a dust-up a year or so ago in the 8th or 9th inning of a blow-out 7-0 game between the Orioles and Twins, in which a player got criticized for bunting for a base hit due to the fielding team utilizing a defensive shift. Statements were made like: "I assume when he got back to the dugout, the leadership there would remind him that this shouldn't happen.." etc....  If one can't bunt to beat a shift in a blowout game, is not fair to ask why the other team is bothering to shift in a blowout game? Should we just say the game is over and go home?
    AORedHawk33DICK
  • AORedHawk33AORedHawk33 Wealthy Alum
    MooreHawk said:

    MooreHawk said:

    I think it's interesting how much it seems the public is on the players sides more than normal in a sports labor dispute. Primarily I think because the two things being associated with the players positions is that they want the full prorated salaries (which seems generally reasonable and they can claim that the MLB already agreed to it) and that they want to play more games (which baseball fans also want).

    I think the pendulum swung to the owners side this last week... the owners offered full prorated salary but the players want more games.
    The longer it goes on, I think fans will tire out and just want a deal but the players are still asking for more games which fans support.
    Eh I don't know.  Players have a lot of egg on their face after the "Tell us when and where" stunt.  It is not about playing more games for the fans.. it's about making as much money as they possibly can.  They could care less about the 1 out of 4 people on unemployment and millions who have taken major pay cuts to keep a job.
  • thechuck_2112thechuck_2112 Wealthy Alum
    edited June 19

    MooreHawk said:

    MooreHawk said:

    I think it's interesting how much it seems the public is on the players sides more than normal in a sports labor dispute. Primarily I think because the two things being associated with the players positions is that they want the full prorated salaries (which seems generally reasonable and they can claim that the MLB already agreed to it) and that they want to play more games (which baseball fans also want).

    I think the pendulum swung to the owners side this last week... the owners offered full prorated salary but the players want more games.
    The longer it goes on, I think fans will tire out and just want a deal but the players are still asking for more games which fans support.
    Eh I don't know.  Players have a lot of egg on their face after the "Tell us when and where" stunt. 
    I don't see how anyone could come out of that thinking the players look bad.
    2xHawkredhawk11DICK
  • D_DayD_Day Wealthy Alum
    I'm still pissed about the 1994 strike!
    killgas20Professor_Fate
  • 2xHawk2xHawk Senior Barfly

    MooreHawk said:

    MooreHawk said:

    I think it's interesting how much it seems the public is on the players sides more than normal in a sports labor dispute. Primarily I think because the two things being associated with the players positions is that they want the full prorated salaries (which seems generally reasonable and they can claim that the MLB already agreed to it) and that they want to play more games (which baseball fans also want).

    I think the pendulum swung to the owners side this last week... the owners offered full prorated salary but the players want more games.
    The longer it goes on, I think fans will tire out and just want a deal but the players are still asking for more games which fans support.
    Eh I don't know.  Players have a lot of egg on their face after the "Tell us when and where" stunt. 
    I don't see how anyone could come out of that thinking the players look bad.


    Agreed.   The owners offered the players three proposals that were nearly identical each time ignoring the players stance that for whatever number of games are played they want the full pro-rated salary.  Only by saying tell us when and where did the owners make a serious proposal.

    MLB proposed 60 games.  The players countered with 70.  Meet at 65 and be done but the owners will probably counter with 61.
  • redhawk11redhawk11 Wealthy Alum
    I saw somewhere they 68 makes the lost sense mathematically. Let's just do that and play baseball.
  • AORedHawk33AORedHawk33 Wealthy Alum
    I might be wrong here, but I thought I saw that 60 was the only feasible option to wrap things up by November when the 2nd wave is expected, unless they played double headers
  • elpalitoelpalito Wealthy Alum
    "they are cash poor having leveraged themselves with stadium and development projects"

    Owners may be cash poor, but it likely isn't from building stadiums.
  • 2xHawk2xHawk Senior Barfly
    elpalito said:

    "they are cash poor having leveraged themselves with stadium and development projects"

    Owners may be cash poor, but it likely isn't from building stadiums.


    A lot of MLB stadium projects have had team investment of some kind in construction.

    As an example the Braves put up 230 million of the 622 million for their stadium and pay 6.1 million in rent annually.  The Braves and their development partner also put up another 400 million for an entertainment district next to the ballpark. 

    This is the type of cash poor situation that I was referring to. (while Liberty Media probably has cash reserves I doubt they would allow the team to run too far in the red annually)  The team likely has a lot of annual construction debt cost eating up their revenue right now. 

    Since announcing the new stadium and development in 2014 the teams value has gone from 730 million to 1.8 billion.  Pretty good to double your money in just 6 years I'd say.
  • DICKDICK Wealthy Alum
    edited June 20

    MooreHawk said:

    MooreHawk said:

    I think it's interesting how much it seems the public is on the players sides more than normal in a sports labor dispute. Primarily I think because the two things being associated with the players positions is that they want the full prorated salaries (which seems generally reasonable and they can claim that the MLB already agreed to it) and that they want to play more games (which baseball fans also want).

    I think the pendulum swung to the owners side this last week... the owners offered full prorated salary but the players want more games.
    The longer it goes on, I think fans will tire out and just want a deal but the players are still asking for more games which fans support.
    Eh I don't know.  Players have a lot of egg on their face after the "Tell us when and where" stunt.  It is not about playing more games for the fans.. it's about making as much money as they possibly can.  They could care less about the 1 out of 4 people on unemployment and millions who have taken major pay cuts to keep a job.
    This is millionaires vs Billionaires.  None of them ( players and owners) actually need to play, they have enough money without playing this year.  Of course, everyone wants to make the most they can. Baseball players have guaranteed contracts.  Despite knowing that fact, baseball ( unlike the NBA) did not carry pandemic insurance.  So they owed the players full year salaries whether the games were played or not.  The players gave the owners a big favor by agreeing to be paid only for the games they played.. but it was agree that they had to play the most possible games.  If that could not be agreed upon, the commissioner could impose the length of the season.  That all happened in March when spring training was shut down.  

    Players salaries are based strictly on regular season games.  There are bonus payments for teams who reach various levels of the postseason, but otherwise ownership keeps all the money from the postseason.  When they started negotiating to restart the season, the owners decided that by playing the fewest possible regular season games and the most possible post season games, they would be better off financially.  Also, even though the players gave them a huge gift in March, every offer they gave the players shortchanged the players on paying them 100% for the actual games played, and they kept offering fewer and fewer games.  The players said that we already got an agreement which we negotiated for in March that you have to pay us full pay for each game played. The commish then threatened to impose a 48 or 50 game season and the players said go ahead, we will play it, but we are going to sue you for breaking labor laws ( players had offered to play a max of 119 games, owners had offered a max of 72 games, now they were going to impose 48 or 50 games, players expected to win the lawsuit and get paid the difference).  Ownership panicked and backed down and came back with the 60 games with full pay offer, which is where we are. IMO, ownership went back on their word of promising to the play the most games possible, which is why the players are not backing down.  Therefore, I favor the players.
    Note...this is what I have been able to piece together from various sources.  I would not put my life on it that I have every fact exactly correct, but I did hear all this from a sportscaster or read it from a sportswriter.
    AORedHawk33elpalito
  • The_SackmanThe_Sackman Wealthy Alum

    MooreHawk said:

    I think it's interesting how much it seems the public is on the players sides more than normal in a sports labor dispute. Primarily I think because the two things being associated with the players positions is that they want the full prorated salaries (which seems generally reasonable and they can claim that the MLB already agreed to it) and that they want to play more games (which baseball fans also want).

    I think the pendulum swung to the owners side this last week... the owners offered full prorated salary but the players want more games.
    No one is siding with those old turds.
    mrgredhawk
  • Professor_FateProfessor_Fate Wealthy Alum
    Phillies closed their Spring Training facility in Clearwater, FL earlier on Friday. Followed by the Blue Jays closing up their facility just up the road in Dunedin, FL.

    As of Friday night (6/19/2020), MLB has closed all Spring Training facilities for deep cleaning and testing players and staff.

    https://sports.yahoo.com/report-mlb-revisits-bubble-plan-after-multiple-covid-19-diagnoses-impact-league-214047227.html

    This is a waste of time and energy. There’s no way you could trade for anyone this year. You trade for a player and that player brings COVID-19 in, that entire team could get closed out of a playoff run.

    It’s time to just close up shop and cancel the season.
  • thechuck_2112thechuck_2112 Wealthy Alum
    2xHawk said:

    elpalito said:

    "they are cash poor having leveraged themselves with stadium and development projects"

    Owners may be cash poor, but it likely isn't from building stadiums.


    A lot of MLB stadium projects have had team investment of some kind in construction.

    As an example the Braves put up 230 million of the 622 million for their stadium and pay 6.1 million in rent annually.  The Braves and their development partner also put up another 400 million for an entertainment district next to the ballpark. 

    This is the type of cash poor situation that I was referring to. (while Liberty Media probably has cash reserves I doubt they would allow the team to run too far in the red annually)  The team likely has a lot of annual construction debt cost eating up their revenue right now. 

    Since announcing the new stadium and development in 2014 the teams value has gone from 730 million to 1.8 billion.  Pretty good to double your money in just 6 years I'd say.
    The Braves are a REIT, not a baseball team. They’re the poster child for “owners actually don’t want to run a baseball team.”

    redhawk11
  • MooreHawkMooreHawk Senior Barfly

    2xHawk said:

    elpalito said:

    "they are cash poor having leveraged themselves with stadium and development projects"

    Owners may be cash poor, but it likely isn't from building stadiums.


    A lot of MLB stadium projects have had team investment of some kind in construction.

    As an example the Braves put up 230 million of the 622 million for their stadium and pay 6.1 million in rent annually.  The Braves and their development partner also put up another 400 million for an entertainment district next to the ballpark. 

    This is the type of cash poor situation that I was referring to. (while Liberty Media probably has cash reserves I doubt they would allow the team to run too far in the red annually)  The team likely has a lot of annual construction debt cost eating up their revenue right now. 

    Since announcing the new stadium and development in 2014 the teams value has gone from 730 million to 1.8 billion.  Pretty good to double your money in just 6 years I'd say.
    The Braves are a REIT, not a baseball team. They’re the poster child for “owners actually don’t want to run a baseball team.”

    The company that owns the braves also owns Formula One, 71% of Sirius XM and 33% of Live Nation (Ticketmaster). Their largest shareholder and chairman, John C. Malone, is also the largest private landholder in the US. Interesting bundle of assets there. 
    thechuck_2112
  • MUHawk84MUHawk84 Wealthy Alum
    Baseball needs to figure out how to not make itself a 6 team league, and end the season prior to the NFL season beginning.
  • DSnyder15DSnyder15 Wealthy Alum
    MooreHawk said:

    MooreHawk said:

    I think it's interesting how much it seems the public is on the players sides more than normal in a sports labor dispute. Primarily I think because the two things being associated with the players positions is that they want the full prorated salaries (which seems generally reasonable and they can claim that the MLB already agreed to it) and that they want to play more games (which baseball fans also want).

    I think the pendulum swung to the owners side this last week... the owners offered full prorated salary but the players want more games.
    The longer it goes on, I think fans will tire out and just want a deal but the players are still asking for more games which fans support.
    Snell: " I gotta get my money" (wants full year pay)..   Nope...players look greedy.   
  • dave67dave67 Wealthy Alum
    By the time they figure this out, they'll have to schedule all the games in domed stadiums because of the snow.
    killgas20
  • DICKDICK Wealthy Alum
    Hal McCoy says there is a strong rumor that there are 8 team owners which do not want to play and the commissioner needs 75% of the votes to approve a settlement.  8 is enough to block any settlement.
    MowchProfessor_Fate
  • redhawk11redhawk11 Wealthy Alum
    DICK said:

    Hal McCoy says there is a strong rumor that there are 8 team owners which do not want to play and the commissioner needs 75% of the votes to approve a settlement.  8 is enough to block any settlement.

    That's more than a rumor. That has been going around for a week. I've seen it reported as fact by a few different reporters.

    But, hey, it's the players' fault, right?

Sign In or Register to comment.