The Major League Baseball Player’s Association has initiated a grievance proceeding against the Athletics, Marlins, Pirates, and Rays regarding those teams’ spending of revenue sharing dollars, according to a report from Marc Topkin of the Tampa Bay Times.
This general issue has been percolating for some time, even as additional concerns have arisen as to the pace of free-agent signings over the 2017-18 offseason. The MLBPA reportedly engaged with the league office over the Miami and Pittsburgh organizations’ spending earlier this year.
At the time, MLB and the teams at issue rejected the idea that there was any issue worth exploring further. Clearly, the union disagrees and also feels that two other organizations’ practices merit examination. Per Topkin, the complaint relates to spending both last year and over the present offseason.
Revenue-sharing dollars — which will be phased out for the A’s under the current Basic Agreement — are required to be spent for improving the MLB performance of recipient clubs. That doesn’t necessarily mean it all must go to player salaries, but though teams are required to report on how they use the money. And as JJ Cooper of Baseball America notes on Twitter, successive collective bargaining agreements have tightened the permissible uses.
Enforcing the provisions relating to these funds falls in the domain of commissioner Rob Manfred. He can issue penalties, require the submission of a two-year plan, and even order changes with that plan (“after consultation with the Players Association”).
As Topkin notes, it is not immediately clear what the MLBPA is seeking in relief. The collectively bargained provisions do seem to give the union an interest in ensuring the provisions are followed, though, and perhaps the situation is seen as drastic enough to merit a test of their meaning before an arbitrator.
In a statement to the Times, the league confirmed receipt of the grievance but stated that MLB “believe[s] it has no merit.” Pirates president Frank Coonelly responded with a combative tone, issuing a statement labeling the action “patently baseless” (via MLB.com’s Adam Berry, on Twitter). Rays owner Stuart Sternberg defended his own organization in less strident terms (via Topkin, on Twitter).
Well then
Good. These teams get money from revenue sharing and don’t even use it
Nobody can accuse the Rays of not spending money to improve their team. They may not splurge on free agents, but they know how to stretch a dollar and win at the same time. Better than any other team!
They’ve been to the ALCS once in franchise history.
Just because they’re misers doesn’t mean they aren’t violating the league’s revenue sharing arrangement. Rays fans have been complaining for years that the owners pocket the checks and never spend on players.
It amazes me how people can see an 87 win Rays or Pirates or A’s team and call them winners, but if the Yankees win 87 games they are in desperate need of a rebuild and the manager needs to be fired because it is the worst season ever. The Rays are not winners because they hung around the periphery of the division lead for several years after spending their first 10 years in or around last place. At best, they are a middling team. If that is the best they and others can ever strive for, then the system is broken and needs to be fixed.
You seem to be forgetting that NY has a payroll of well over 175M every year. It’s common sense to assume they will have better teams than the rays who have payrolls from 60M -80M. Move the Yankees out of NY and they are irrelevant. All I’m saying is Oakland, Miami and TB have no fans show up to their games. Where does the revenue for these teams come from with crappy TV deals and terrible attendance? The owners just supposed to throw millions at the team if they aren’t profiting?
What? The only people say yanks are in need of a rebuild is the NY press. Notice how even their fans just scream spend spend spend. Problem is not attendance but TV contracts when the Yanks make almost 100X more than a small market team. Changes to TV shared contracts is needed to fix the problem.
The NY Press? You mean the people whose job it is to follow around the team on a year long basis constantly reporting on their status and forming conclusions based on their direct observations? It’s much better to accept the opinion of a fan who watches some games and read some stats.
We all know that the NYY does not have a patient fan base. Who can blame them? When you’re team is that historically established and wealthy, it’s expected to win more than 87 games per year. It’s annoying when some yanks fans refer to their recent reboot as a “rebuild.” But hey, they’re yanks fans. What should we expect.
So please name another business where the customers are supposed to show up and spend money and only then is the business owner is supposed to provide a quality product.
Your argument is just silly.
Tesla?
The grievance is based on a specific provision of the CBA that requires teams that receive revenue sharing to spend it on improving the team on the field. That means a) player salaries or b) player development.
The latest CBA limits the amount that clubs can invest in player development as far as player acquisition through the draft or international signings.
These four clubs get millions through revenue sharing, and are accused of not spending that money on players. Half the teams in mlb are net payers, and they put a third of their local revenue into revenue sharing. The payees are required to spend it on players.
oakland has a strong fanbase, they just had no real areas without superprospects or a strong group of prospects that needed to be filled immediately
I think you know more about rocket ships than baseball. Stick to it
Apple
Core issue.
Give the Rays a 250 Million dollar cable contract and see how they spend.
The Rays are nearing a $1B TV deal. I bet you nothing changes.
Not sure how you fix that. Baseball is losing more and more interest by the day, putting teams like the Marlins or Ray’s on national games that go to the Yankees will only hurt baseball further
He is talking about a $250 million plus per year TV deal like the Yankees or Dodgers.
You really need to stop reading junk news. Baseball had more people watch it than ever in history between TV, streaming, and live ticket sales. Revenue was up over $2 billion. 6.5 million people participated in amateur baseball in 2017. Baseball has never been healthier in its entire existence.
Yes, but you have to spend your food stamps on food- it’s the law.
And not things like soap or toilet paper. It’s silly.
So if you are getting SNAP assistance you can buy food that creates feces but nothing to wipe your behind?
Good question sir…but that is what slivers of pumice and chunks of tree bark are for if you have the time to scavenge…
The point of revenue sharing is for the team’s that receive it to put it back into the team. The Rays on average have gotten $30-40M/year from revenue sharing. Revenue sharing covered roughly half of their 2017 payroll. The Rays profited around $30M in 2017 and that’s before revenue sharing is added. The owners will likely make over $60M for 2017 and they started their 2018 season by slashing payroll.
I guess payroll is the only thing owners pay for.
The Rays had $205 million in in total revenue including revenue sharing in 2017 according to Forbes. That should mean that end of season MLB payroll is about $100-105 million if they are spending on MLB payroll at the same ratio that other teams are.
It was $100,355,005 according to Cots MLB Contracts last season.
I don’t think the MLBPA has a case right now. At the end of the season if it is still at the $80 million its at today, then maybe they have an argument.
Great analysis!
They do use it. AND if they did not have it there would be an even further distance between the haves and have-nots.
Spending not quite the operative word here….trouble is that they DON’T spend and blame it on other factors.
Tony Clark almost as annoying to me as Goodell…
Amazing people blame Tony Clark for trying to make Athletics Marlins Rays, Pirates better teams by actually spending the revenue sharing money they pocket.
Amazing.
The Rays are one team that is not pocketing the money. For 2017 they had an end of season MLB payroll of $100 million not including insurance and bonuses with total revenue of $205 million. That is right at 50%. They are spending their money on MLB payroll in the same ratio that other teams are.
If they end the 2018 season with the same $80 million in MLB payroll that they have today, then maybe there is an argument that they are pocketing some money, but they started 2017 with a $70 million payroll, so it’s far too early to talk about them. Come back in November.
I’ve been very critical of Tony Clark for a while, but he certainly doesn’t deserve any heat here.
I just had to laugh at your comment saying he’s trying to make those Teams better though. He’s not. Whether or not they get better is irrelevant – he wants their money, for his guys. That’s it. Those teams maybe getting better, is a consequence of what he is trying to do, that’s all.
And that’s okay.
The A’s _lost money_ last year with a $90M payroll. They’re also in the process of being phased out of revenue sharing.
Operating in the red + declining income = lower payroll.
Good thing we have a farm system that ranks at least in the top 8.
They also offered Duensing more than he took from the cubs, and Watson went with the Giants on an equivalent offer. Pay Arrieta? Why? He’d not make the team a surefire contender by any means, and most likely we’d end up with a very overpaid pitcher we can’t get rid of. Lynn? Cobb? Not worth the minimal improvement.
If the A’s have a low payroll, there are reasons, and they certainly tried to get more than they did.
I’m not an A’s fan so if you k now more than me I will call certainly bow to it but I believe they are being phased out of sharing because it has been a known issue that they need to move out of their stadium or even city possibly for quite a long time.
That’s an overly simplified version but yes I’d say that’s the gist of it.
The A’s are also in a top 5 media market. The awful TV contract that they signed in 2014 that pays them just $43 million per season (compared with $150 million for the Giants), combined with an even more awful stadium with little opportunity for corporate, luxury box, and sponsorship sales means their revenue is in the bottom 3.
They need a new stadium and a new TV deal.
Tell ya what, why don’t we just give the revenue sharing money directly to the MLBPA in return for their promise to shut the hell up about not making enough money?
So you would rather see the rich fat cat owners get it??
I’d rather see teams spend the money at their discretion according to how they see a path to winning, not according to the Union who just want to see their millionaire members get richer.
“I’d rather see teams spend the money at their discretion according to how they see a path to winning”
The Rays, Oakland, Pirates see a path to winning by selling prospects before they get expensive because they “can’t afford” them.
You might make an exception for the Marlins, sold less than a year ago but they still had (have) a terrible history of that.
These teams are always near-zero factor in FA, even if the two biggest teams NYY/LAD/etc. etc. are all out for obvious reasons. Some things never change, and MLBPA is sick of it. Good.
Good luck, Tony Clark. Everyone likes to blame you because the Yankees, Dodgers, can’t overpay for mediocre FA’s this year…. Even after Red Sox shelled out $110M for JD, and Pads $144M Hosmer
If the money was strictly their team revenue I could agree with you. But they’re getting the money from other teams for the expressed purpose of helping them be more competitive.
Saying millionaires, who actually have a marketable skill, are greedy but billionaire owners, who are mostly trust fund babies, are fine to pocket welfare payments from the large markets is silly.
Your argument is a joke.
The MLBPA may have a legitimate grievance against the Pirates. They had $265 million in total revenue including revenue sharing in 2017, but their season-ending MLB payroll was only $109 million plus bonuses and insurance. That puts MLB payroll at about 42% of total revenue.
With the A’s who are at $59 million in MLB payroll as of today they certainly have a valid argument.
The Rays were right at 50%, so no way they can argue they are not spending the revenue sharing money on payroll.
Then the MLBPA can put that money in a sort of “widows and orphans fund” they can use to pay unsigned free agents what they deem to be their fair market value and offer the players to “needy” teams who will only have to pay ML minimum on one-year contracts. This prevents teams from pocketing revenue sharing dollars while raising their talent level and keeping skilled veterans employed.
This is fruitless.
But the poor owners need more money
Poor owners is an oxymoron. However some others look at their teams as a profit center only. That doesn’t take into account they will end up making billions when they eventually sell.
Please show your math. Which owner has made one billion, let alone billions, when they sold?
Literally all of them
forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2017/09/27/miami-marl…
Loria bought the Marlins for a shade over $100 M and sold them for $1.2 Billion.
Does the name Frank McCourt ring a bell?
Thanks. Didn’t realize Loria bought-in at such a low price.
Looks like McCourt bought for about $370m and sold for an even $2.0b, making a nifty $1.63b.
Awesome point dude. OK, hundreds of millions instead of billions. That really damages the point the previous poster was making?
I wasn’t trying to damage his point that owners are making out fine, I was just stunned at the notion owners were making billions on sales, and trying to get a better understanding of the scope. A few posters were kind enough help do that, and I thankful to them for the help in articulating the figures.
McCourt bought the team for $431 million,and $400 million of that purchase price came from highly leveraged loans…so he only paid $31 million out of pocket.Yeah…the POS made out big time,just like Loria did with the Marlins and Sterling did with the Clippers in the NBA.
If you believe his excuses to not pay Miami Dade County the money from the sale of the team he was contractually obligated to pay, Loria took on $400 million in debt and lost money on the sale of the Marlins.
LMAO!!!!!
McCourt also spent $100 million in upgrades to Dodgers Stadium and paid a tax bill of $460 million on the sale. So he ONLY pocketed $1 billion.
#sarcasm
and McCourt still owns the parking lots!
Ha! I saw he retained 130 acres when I was researching his purchase/sale figures, but had no idea it was adjacent parking.
How are these teams decreasing payroll despite the fact that revenue sharing is ment to increase it ? Either spend it or don’t give it to these teams. Problem solved. They have gotten away with this for years now
This is a failure of the CBA which apparently didn’t require accountability on the part of recipient teams. This will be an issue until the current agreement expires. How did no one one the MLBPA side demand those funds be held in a separate account and ONLY used to spend on free agents?
Why is it up to the players to make sure the owners don’t act like greedy children? Could the owners police their own?
If Congress weren’t so broken I’d suggest they make a neutral party commissioner in exchange for MLB’s anti trust exemption. If an owner doesn’t compete year after year then force them to sell the team. Unless they want to build their own stadiums.
“How did no one one the MLBPA side demand those funds be held in a separate account and ONLY used to spend on free agents?” (sic)
It was not intended that competitive balance funds be used only on free agents. Rather, those funds were to be used to pay the salaries of a team’s own FAs and anyone they might trade for as well. IOW, Tampa wasn’t necessarily expected to make competitive offers for Arrieta and JDM but it was expected to use those funds to pay Longoria and Odorizzi rather than trading them for payroll relief.
Go back and read the article. Each CBA has gotten more and more specific about the things that revenue sharing can be spent on. The level of accountability has increased with each CBA and its extremely strict today.
Because even that would be meaningless.
Let’s talk lotteries for a moment. Many states advertise that all proceeds from the lottery (that aren’t paid out to winners of course) are invested back in education. And that’s exactly what they did. Story time over!
Except no. What they ALSO did was estimate the proceeds they would get from the lottery based on the previous years’ take, and then appropriate that much less funding for schools in their budget, moving any surplus to their general funds. Every lottery dollar went to schools. And it had no impact whatsoever on overall school funding.
Back to baseball-land, owners would be sure to spend their revenue sharing dollars on free agency or whatever it is you force them to spend it on. They’d just do it by spending less of their TV revenue, ticket revenue, etc on it. Unless revenue sharing dollars is more than they spend on payroll TOTAL, you won’t make a dent.
If you really want to solve the issue you need a payroll floor, which you can decide for yourself if you think is a good idea.
Not possible until there is a 100% revenue share. With some teams over $500 million in revenue after paying out a share and some teams under $220 million after receiving revenue sharing, what would an equitable floor be? Maybe a floating scale based on total revenue of $260 million for the Yankees and Dodgers and $100 million for the Rays, Marlins, and A’s? That is the same percentage of revenue.
It can’t be done until they share revenue more evenly.
PA signed a contract. Next time get a salary floor put into the agreement
Isn’t it in that contract that the teams have to spend revenue sharing $’s? So, if they don’t, the teams are the ones breaking the contract.
Yet that’s what I was saying for years MLB needs a salary floor just as much if not more than a salary cap! Just a few of these owner are strictly here just for business only!
You cannot set a salary floor with the level of revenue disparity we see in baseball today. The Marlins, Rays and A’s are at or under $210 million in total revenue including revenue sharing while the Dodgers and Yankees are over $500 million after contributing to the revenue sharing pool.
Share income equally like they do in the NFL and NBA and you can set a salary floor. Until then MLB and the MLBPA will have to come up with other solutions.
This is so ridiculous. How is a small market team with poor attendance supposed to field a competitive team when NY, BOS, and LA markets can outspend them by 100%?
They shouldn’t be punishing teams with a disadvantage but then reward the higher end teams with increased luxury tax thresholds every year.
Don’t even blame the owners for this issue because market size and attendance figure more into payroll than how much money an owner can funnel into a team over long periods of time.
If there was a salary cap then this problem wouldn’t exist but that would mean that $30 mil a year contracts wouldn’t exist and the MLBPA doesn’t want that. They have to choose between high end players not getting huge AAV contracts or their average player losing large amounts of money.
So what you’re suggesting is… the big market teams should have to share some of their revenue with the small market teams; that way the competition can be a bit more balanced and the small market teams can have some more money to sign free agents? That’s a good idea.
No, they should have to share 50% of their TV revenue and more than 32% of ticket sales revenue with the visiting team.
The Yankees and Dodgers are earning more than $300 million per year just from local TV, before they sell a single ticket. The Rays and Marlins have total revenue of around $205 million including any revenue sharing they receive.
Lmao. There are $30m and even $40m year contracts in the NBA. John Wall will make $46m in the final year of his four year $170 million contract extension. ($207M, 6 years)
The NBA salary cap for the 2017-18 season was set at $99M
NBA Luxury tax line is $119M. The Cleveland Cavaliers’ payroll this season, with the luxury tax bill is about $190 million after a flurry of moves at trade deadline.
If LeBron James resigns with the Cavs next year, their entire payroll, is currently projected to hit $300M, with Luxury tax payments. (teams can go over the cap to resign their own players but they have to pay a higher Luxury tax bill as repeat offenders — 44 percent)
This is your idea of a perfect system? NBA Max contracts are routinely hitting $30M a year, and some even $40M!
nba.com/article/2017/07/01/nba-salary-cap-set-2017…
espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22420673/cavaliers-face-30…
The MLBPA needs a new representative. The problem with everything happening this offseason is internal (the players and Boras sold themselves too high) and they’re blaming everybody else.
No the fatcat owners need to be held responsible for ruining the integrity of the game by tanking seasons and getting richer by doing it.
But the fatcat owners are only using the rights and options made available to them by the CBA.
Instead of whining over how comfy spring training buses are, perhaps the MLBPA should have actually paid attention to things and hired economic and financial consultants to make sure they could get the best arrangement possible.
This coming from someone who is 100% pro-labor and pro-players. I want the players to have more money and more rights, but if they don’t, its their own fault. That’s literally what negotiations are for.
Well the owners are violating the cba by their use of the revenue sharing that was negotiated into the contract. So thats why the greivance has been filed.
I haven’t read the CBA but I dont think there is any specific requirement that a team spend anything beyond the revenue sharing amount itself.
Thus, if a team receives 40 mil from revenue sharing and their payroll is 50 mil, they are satisfying their obligations to spend. It doesn’t matter (based on current rules) that they are spending $0 dollars outside of revenue sharing.
That’s just my belief though. I could be wrong. It would be great if we got definitive reporting on what the CBA required, in its entirety.
Read my post below, with the citation of the clause. I think the players have a point there. At least, they will have to prove their point because it seems that they have the burden of the proof. Tough fight.
If thats the language in the cba then it would make this greivance baseless and the mlbpa need to fire their lawyers. But i doubt thats the case.
That’s the way I understand it, too. There is no rule stating how much they have to spend on payroll, so long as they are spending all of the revenue sharing money on payroll they are meeting the rule.
As I stated above, why is it up to the players to ensure competitive balance in the league for a monopolistic organization that receives public subsidies?
I think you should rethink what it means to be a ‘business’ as opposed to a monopolistic cartel which is what MLB is.
The CBA is between only the players and the owners. Those are the only two parties that have the direct power to change the collective bargaining agreement. My point is only that if the current CBA sucks for players and benefits the owners, then the players have themselves to blame.
It’s like buying a car and then complaining about the financial terms of the loan. You should think about that stuff before you sign.
If you’re arguing that things should be done beyond the CBA, such as government intervention, I don’t necessarily disagree, but that is way beyond any point I was trying to make.
The MLBPA filing a grievance does not equal the Owners violating the terms. It means the MLBPA feel they have a case to be answered.
By your logic, I could sue you and you’re automatically liable for what I sue you for.
You’re absolutely right, Reflect.
If the MLBPA does not like the terms of the CBA, then they need to have done a better job negotiating before signing those terms.
It doesn’t make the Owners any less greedy, sure. But people need to be held accountable for what they put their signature to.
Thanks for clearing that up, captain obvious.
Ironically… the Phillies have the lowest payroll right now
I think the reason they weren’t thrown into the mix was because of the fact that they signed Neshek, Santana and Hunter for a relatively big sum.
Tampa, Miami and Pittsburgh have each cut a significant amount of salary over the past six months which is why the PA is so upset.
I feel like they just don’t like Oakland for some reason, because they are always under the umbrella despite ADDING salary in 2017-18
Phillies are a respectable franchise with hsitory of winning. Signing FA’s. (Heck, they signed Santana to a three year $60M contract early in the offseason)
Phils have history of signing FA’s signing their own players, or signing their players to extensions. They signed a 7-year, $85 million contract extension with Utley in 2007. They signed Cliff Lee and Ryan Howard to $100M+ deals. I’m sure I could find many more.examples of the Phill’s spending more than the other 3.teams combined., and this team is speculated as a serious thread for 2018, FA unlike the other 2.
Oakland: 7 YEARS!!!! We don’t know how to write these numbers. (Biggest contracts on books, right now is Brandon Moss 2 years $12M, Lowrie 3 year 23m. Oakland has never had an opening day payroll exceeding 86m…. .
Rays: We extended Longoria (twice) but had to trade him because he was getting too expensive entering his decline years. We are the best at convincing our Pitchers to take below-market extensions, however. (I still don’t know how they do it)
Marlins: Loria: I swindled the tax payers, back-loading Stanton’s contract with intention to never pay it. And Intention to never pay Miami, after team’s sale, because zero profits. MWHAHAHAHA!!
Pirates: As I’ve said, they’ve never had an opening day payroll at or above $100M.. Seldom in on any Fa’s… this season no excp.
A’s offered Duensing 2/10 and he went to the Cubs for 2/7, traded prospects for Piscotty and his 5/32 remaining, picked up Brandon Moss’ 2/12 in a salary dump to get Buchter, picked up Jed Lowries’ $6M option, and gave Khris Davis $10.5M in arbitration.
They also only get 50% of everyone else’s revenue sharing this year, so spending 125% of $20M comes to $25M
Piscotty = $6.4 YV
Moss – $6M YV
Lowrie – $6M YV
Khris Davis – $10.5M YV
=$28.9M
Looks like they spent that.
Good. As a Pirates fan this excites me. No one is saying the Pirates should be spending with the Red Sox and Dodgers, but there’s no reason they should be outspent every year by the Indians, Twins, and Brewers, when they are in similar markets.
Diggin’ that Ryan Braun contract are ya?
I’ve seen some really stupid arguments in this thread. And a couple of really smart ones. The MLBPA negotiated the CBA with the data they had in hand at the time. That data is old and useless. Advanced metrics have proven time and again that offering expensive multi-year contracts to players past 30 is a no-win with few exceptions.
If the MLBPA wants to fill the bank accounts of their FA membership, either buy those old farts some better vitamins or go to the next negotiation with a floor of coming away with team control of five years not six and walk out if they don’t get it. That one thing will make a huge difference. And honestly, it’s the right thing to do.
bucs, I’d go further:
1st year minimum salary: 700K
2nd year minimum salary: 1,05MM (50% increase)
3rd year minimum salary: 1.575MM (50% increase)
Arb 1
Arb 2
FA after 5 years
OR
1st year min salary : 700K
2nd year min salary 1.050MM (50% increase)
Arb 1
Arb 2
Arb3
FA after 5 years
But the big change I would make is this:
All minor league players become FA’s after 5 years – not 6 years.
Under the current system, a team can keep a player in the minors for nearly 6 years before he’s called up, and then exercise 6 – 7 years (if they play the service time game) of control, giving them potential control of a player for 12-13 years after they draft him. Draft him at 18, call him up at age 24, and he’s not an FA until the age of 30.
With MLB tending younger because of analytics, how the MLBPA didn’t see this as an issue going forward is a mystery.
If players want to see more money going forward, they better start negotiating for earlier MLB AND MiLB free agency, because it’s the only way they are going to see FA early enough to cash in as free agents as they have in the past.
But, hey, I guess the clubhouse meals are really good.
Well someone should tell the players union that until small market teams generate more money they aren’t going to spend more money simple as that.
It’s not the small market. It’s the fact this hear all teams got 50 mil from the sale of bam tech. These 4 teams also receive around 30 mil per year for on field performance. Aka payroll, clubhouse upgrades, equipment upgrades. The fact that all 4 of these teams have drastically cut payroll while still taking in an exorbitant amount of money from the other teams is why the grievance is being filed. I would love to see the financials of these teams to see where the money is being allocated
Teams don’t just fall out of the sky with small market/big market designations.
If a team exists in a small market like St. Petersburg, it is because that team chose to operate there.
So if your argument is that a competitive team can’t be fielded in St. Petersburg or Pittsburgh, then blame the owners who signed contracts to operate teams in St. Petersburg and Pittsburgh.
What about the mythical $50M BAM payout, that EACH team got for 2018??
Still nothing. That’s over 70% of the Rays’ 2017 opening day payroll. ($70M) and 75% of their 2016 opening day payroll ($66M) not including revenue sharing from other teams.
What do those 4 teams have in common?? They don’t draw, very difficult for them to make money, as a result they take their revenue sharing portions and line their pockets to stay afloat.
Read Forbes article on the finances of the Pirates. Very well run team with an incredible ROI, and great margins. I don’t disparage the owner but people are misinformed about small market business models and revenue sources.
The MLBPA can go and play
All they are concerned with is themselves!!! SMH
Where was their concern when the Marlins were in the process of being sold
Jeff Loria got away with highway robbery and shook down the taxpayer with that new stadium deal!!!!
#GimmeABreak and start your own league!!!
Also, the Pirates invested millions in renovating McKechnie Field, now called LECOM???
And they invested in a new training facility, they have done nothing wrong!
Time to relocate or disband these 4 franchises.
It’s too bad that we can’t get a peak at the real financial records of every team each year. Without facts it’s impossible to form any kind of rational argument for either side.
I would think the league and other owners would be screaming the loudest if teams weren’t reinvesting the shared money.
WE don’t need to see them, the people in charge of an investigation do. That is private info, that doesn’t need to become public knowledge. People just want to know that info so they can argue more. That is not a good reason to deprive a company of privacy.
People might want to know about their financials if you know, they’re crying to the state about building them a publicly financed stadium..
Good point and even better username.
Unless they see driving FA prices down as more important.
Since when is it right to tell others how to spend their money regardless of how they received it?
When it’s mandated in a signed contract that they spend that revenue sharing $.
This is rich. These owners get welfare payments from the other owners and corporate welfare from the public and you see no obligation to use that money in a productive fashion?
Do you have no standards for integrity?
How/ why are the A’s on this list? The other 3 sure but, they have constantly been at the bottom. In the sense of the rebuild id say they are around the Phillies. Just waiting on players to progress
Sour grapes fishing expedition
They are mad about this winter’s slow free agency and the realization of how badly they got rolled in the last CBA.
Milwaukee last year had a lower payroll than most of these teams. They didn’t complain then. The Astros (in the 4th biggest US city) carried a $50 million-ish payroll for years. They didn’t complain then.
Younger players are a better value. Older players are of little use to rebuilding teams.
It’s the union’s fault alone for agreeing to a structure that made the former ridiculously cheap in the hopes of tricking stupid owners into bad contracts for the latter.
Milwaukee has had a top 18 payroll 6 of the last 7 years.
Astros don’t receive revenue sharing
Miami payroll rank last 7 years-20, 26, 30, 29, 29, 7, 23
Pirates payroll rank last 7 years- 23, 25, 25, 27, 20, 25, 26
Miami and Pittsburgh have been conspicuous in their lack of spending the $ that they are contractually obligated to spend.
Serious question, where should the Pirates rank?
They are one of the smallest geographic markets and smallest TV markets because of the Ohio teams, Baltimore and Philly surrounding them. Their ticket and concession prices (and thus revenues) are lower than most teams.
Revenue sharing gives them extra money, not equal money.
Miami is a big city but it’s always been a low revenue team. A chicken vs egg debate can be had as to whether it would be a good baseball town if it ever had a good owner, obviously.
Pittsburgh has never been a good baseball town despite the fuzzy memories.
Also, the cable deal in Pittsburgh is pocket change compared to the deals in large market cities.
PS Pittsburgh used to be a good baseball city back before the Steelers and Penguins actually started winning. Steelers were horrible from their beginning until the 70’s and the Penguins were laughable until Mario came to town.
If you go by TV contract, attendance, revenue sharing % and $ spent on International FA’s, I believe the Pirates should have been keeping pace with the payroll levels of the Brewers and Reds.
OK.
The Pirates outspent the Brewers from 2015 until a month ago and have always been within Homer Bailey’s albatross contract of the Reds’ payroll.
Just a note, semi related. I live up near the PA/NY border reasonably close to Erie. When the Pirates are on Fox I rarely get to see the games because to Fox i’m in the New York City Market. but to the Pirates i’m in their Market (I get Root/AT&T Sports) So i’m still blacked out of MLB.TV so there is no way for me to watch the games with out breaking some law or terms of use. Its a pain in my butt..
Beware of the Cable Police !!!!
It was a very good baseball town from 2013-2015.
Honestly, I don’t even blame Nutting for what happened. I blame Huntington and his hubris regarding JA Happ’s 3/36 deal. “Pitchers should pay us to come here.” Come on. Huntington convinced himself that the Bucs could get Niese and Vogelsong to fill the Happ void, and while doing so took away what made Niese a moderately successful pitcher in the first place. Meantime Happ won 20 games with TO and the Bucs spent as much in 2016 as they would’ve had they re-signed Happ to begin with while losing 20 more games.
Sorry, that’s not on Nutting. The guy’s notoriously efficient with a nickel, but if I was going to complain about where he should invest, it would be giving Neal and Clint new contracts.
FWJBT- 2015: Pirates 88mil., Brewers $105mil. Pirates only higher in ’16. And that’s over the last 7 years. (Now 8)
Can’t cite a bad contract as a reason they spent more. Bottom line is they spent more. Brewers and Reds have also paid penalties on July 2nd International talent. Not only have the Pirates never done that, they’ve failed to even spend their entire pool.
I get it. You’re a fan. But the #’s don’t favor the Pirates, Marlins or Rays here. Other teams in similar financial situations have spent and competed.
Joe- Pirates get paid the same amount from the TV deal whether you can watch or not. Comparable deal to brewers, Rays and Reds. (Reds and Rays goes up next year)
FWJBT- correction>>__ 2016 Payroll- Brewers $98mil, Pirates $85mil. Pirates only higher in ’17.
And 2017. By a lot. $92 mill to $63 mill.
Fact is, over the past five years the Brewers have spent only $5.9 mill more than the Bucs on average. And we’re making a big fuss about that?
Add to that the Brewers were actually more competitive with their lowest payroll team (2017) than they’d been at any time in those same past five years.
Sportrac has the Pirates at $105 million and the Brewers at $100 million for 2015.
spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/2015/
Some of this is fair. I don’t blame him for Niese, who was decent the year before NH got him. But I hated the Vogelsong signing. And NH also deserves blame on Daniel Hudson, also a hubris based signing, as Hudson was bad the year before they signed and continued being bad since.
But, the Pirates were the ONLY team to call Seattle about Happ. Happ was Wade Miley before the Pirates got him. So, while I was on record at the time as wanting to keep Happ, I do understand the Pirates not wanting to pay big money for him.
It’s like finding an old piece of furniture for $5 that you spend time and money to fix into a nice piece and then being told you have to spend $500 to keep it.
It may very well be worth $500, but you’d likely feel less inclined to pay that price than someone else who only sees the finished product.
It’s not about where they rank.
It’s about spending the money that they receive through revenue sharing, some $ 40 million per season, on players. They’re pocketing the money and walking away with profits.
I get what you’re saying, but if you believe in Uncle Ray and Uncle Ray turns someone else’s trash into a prized possession, then why let someone else enjoy that prized possession instead of enjoying it yourself?
Look at what else went for around 3/$36 that year. Happ was a bargain.
wasn’t a statement about money, just complaining i can’t watch all the games lol 🙂
Great strategy by the MLBPA here. It will force these teams to disclose their books if they ever go on a trial.
I am curious about how these teams will defend themselves. Where is the 45 millions going? If they put it in their pockets, I don’t think they respect the spirit of the revenue sharing clause. Here is the clause:
“(a) A principal objective of the Revenue Sharing Plan is to promote
the growth of the Game and the industry on an individual Club
and on an aggregate basis. Accordingly, each Club shall use its revenue
sharing receipts (including any distributions from the Commissioner’s
Discretionary Fund) in an effort to improve its performance
on the field. The following uses of revenue sharing receipts are not
consistent with a Club’s obligation under this paragraph 5(a) to use
such receipts in an effort to improve its performance on the field:
payments to service acquisition debt or any other debt that is unrelated
to past or future efforts to improve performance on the field;
payments to individuals other than on-field personnel or personnel
related to player development; payments to entities that do not have
a direct role in improving on-field performance; and distributions to
ownership that are not intended to offset tax obligations resulting
from Club operations. Consistent with his authority under the Major
League Constitution, the Commissioner may impose penalties on
any Club that fails to comply with this subparagraph 5(a).
The Commissioner, in addition to other penalties he may impose for violations
of any aspect of this subparagraph 5(a), may require a Club to submit a plan for its financial performance and competitive effort for the
next two years. Such a plan must include a pro forma financial presentation
that specifies its attendance, revenues, payroll, player development
expenditures, non-player costs, and capital spending. The
Commissioner, after consultation with the Players Association, may
direct the Club to change aspects of its plan, including the level of
competitive effort reflected in the plan, or take other actions as he
considers appropriate (including escrow of a portion of a Club’s revenue
sharing payments).
The Association has the burden in any proceeding under the Grievance
Procedure of demonstrating that the Club’s use of its revenue
sharing receipts was in violation of this subparagraph 5(a). In any
such Grievance, the Arbitration Panel shall consider, among other
things: (i) the Club’s expenditures on scouting, player development,
and player payroll; (ii) the Club’s long-term strategy for improving
competitiveness; (iii) the uses that the Club has historically made of
revenue sharing receipts; and (iv) the overall financial position of the
Club.
Notwithstanding the above, if a Club’s Actual Club Payroll pursuant
to Article XXIII(C) is equal to less than 125% of its revenue
sharing receipts in a given Revenue Sharing Year, the Club shall have
the burden of establishing in any Grievance that its use of revenue
sharing receipts was consistent with this subparagraph 5(a).
TL;DR
I know. But, that’s the clause. It was only meant for those who are interested to read what this is all about instead of speculating about what’s been negociated.
tl;dr is basically teams receiving revenue sharing only have to spend 125% of revenue sharing receipts. That means they have to spend only a small amount of their own money, which is very unfair to the rest of the league.
So the MLBPA probably has no case, but at least this will bring awareness to the issue and push for a better system that requires owners to spend a significant portion of their own money in addition to revenue sharing, else they don’t receive revenue sharing at all.
To put this in objective/factual terms, the average revenue sharing receipt (for those actually receiving it) is about 30-40 million dollars per year.
125% of that is 50 mil.
That means such a team receiving 40 mil in revenue sharing would only have to spend 10 mil of their own money. You’re free to draw your own opinion but to me that is not an acceptable amount of investment or self-sufficiency for a team receiving money from the rest of the league.
The 125% is way too low.
Pretty sure I read some of them were getting 70 million. Anyways, hitting 125% is not set in stone. It is just the threshold where the burden of proof lies on the team or MLBPA
It’s what I thought, revenue sharing is covered by a joke of a rule that really doesn’t force owners to spend much of their own money.
It’s not what it says. It says that if you have a payroll of equal or less than 125% of the revenue sharing receipt, the team will have the burden of the proof. Otherwise, it’s on the players to establish the violation.
So what would the violation be if the owners are spending 50 mil total while receiving 40 mil in revenue sharing? Owners are still following the cba.
There isn’t a violation. I think the most likely out come is that the MLBPA loses but everyone gets upset and remembers this for the next CBA, and we end up with a much better system for revenue sharing. Or maybe MLB agrees to tighten up restrictions now in exchange for MLBPA agreeing to “play nice”.
Something between those two options. But this is going to be more of a protest than an actual lawsuit. Technically, the owners are following the rules. The issue is just that the rules suck.
At least the issue will be brought to light
I remember that thread you linked. Most times, I’ve ever been down-voted for calling Nutting the worst owner in MLB. I got 11+ down-votes repeatedly Lol
Does this comment really deserve 10 downvotes?
“Nutting is the worst owner in MLB— I don’t care if he’s a billionaire. I feel for Pittsburgh fans.
But there are better ways. (Than a hard cap)”
Also for harmlessly suggesting a system like NFL, which requires ALL teams to spend 89% of the $179M cap, so crap like this doesn’t happen, and maybe prevent some fire-sales.
Nutting and Fisher are the two worst owners! MLB should make them sell!!!!
Clearly you don’t remember Kevin McClatchy.
Do we not live in a free capitalist society? Every single person in this country should have the right to make as much money as they can and spend that money however they shall please. I’m sorry that I believe in a free economy.
Then don’t sign contracts that stipulate how you spend your $. These teams did..
We live in a free capitalist society, Every single person in this country should have the right to make/spend as much as they please, but not to make Pirates fans SUFFER!
I hate that the Pirates have never had a $100M payroll. They didn’t even sign 1 FA.
It makes me sad they pocket revenue money, even sadder for their fans. Sadly, the situation might be worse in Florida.
Actually, the Pirates did have a $100million payroll the last 2 years.
Not once with a 25-man Opening Day payroll at or above $100M.
Not once.
They came close last 2 years at $95M, $99M)
legacy.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/na…
Sorry was going by the 40 man
Who gives a crap about opening day payroll? They’ve finished the season >$100 million multiple times.
They finished season >$100 “million multiple times”?
You wanna do 40 man roster???
It was actually twice in their history >$100m (both $109m)
The last 2 times, lol
Don’t take my word for it. Follow the link:
legacy.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/na…
Np gozurman1, my bad should’ve specified^
Multiple = more than once.
signing a free agent takes a lot more than walking up to J-Mart and say i’ll give you $22M/year to play for us. A player has to actually want to play for the team.. maybe you can talk Lynn into signing with the pirates if you pay him $20M/year for 5 years, but at that price you take your chances with Nova.
I mean sure they can get over 100m opening day 25 man payroll easy.. But why would you want too when you got guys who have a fair chance at being just as good on a rookie contract?
That said, there where a few guys i would’ve liked to seen the pirates sign, Like Nunez, Watson, Dyson that went reasonably cheap… but really they filled those three positions with players I would expect to be near as good at a much smaller price tag.
Bingo. See the list of unsigned FA players that actually have some talent. See the list of players in camps on minor league contracts only. The Pirates and the other teams are not the only ones not go after FA this year. Teams are going for younger/hungrier/and cheaper players. Not just these 4 either. Pirates got rid of their 2 highest paid players a the best opportunity to get a return before losing both for nothing. Offensively Dickerson should be the equal to Cutch. Cole gave the team 3 players that help fill holes for this season. Not much in the way of anyone much better for 3B available than Moran.
Yeah personally i think the pirates did all right in the trades.. obviously not thrilled cause I mean its Cutch… Good Player and Great guy who wants to give him up and Cole.. i mean we know hes better than hes shown recently. but the patched up their biggest holes with players who should be decent.
It will be sweet justice for the Bucs if Moran turns out to be better than Moustakas.
I’m not sure I’d bet on it over the next 1 -2 years, but over the next 5 or 6 it actually could happen.
But each baseball team owner purchased a team that play in the MLB with 29 other teams that share revenue .There are rules that need to be followed. If someone franchises a Macdonalds., they can’t just do whatever they want, there are rules..
Well first off that’s not any definition of capitalism as it removes order.
Second, by your own logic there should be no revenue sharing at all.
I was not trying to define capitalism. Rather, express my feelings on the matter of this grievance.
I think revenue sharing is great for small market teams and for baseball to be more competitive within the league. However, forcing a team to spend that money on FA players is wrong. The A’s, for instance, have great rookie players and might want to sign them to long term deals. So, they have to save money instead of spending money on FA players. I don’t care if The Yankees spend 500 million for a year. They can do what ever they want with their money. But don’t penalize the Small market teams for wanting to save money.
Union has to appear energized after this dark winter.
Care to bet that more than a few larger-market teams aren’t all that disappointed about this? They don’t love subsidizing deliberately losing, and that’s more than just revenue sharing. The big market teams understand the value of a large league in key national markets, and they know they have to pay for that, but tanking teams are poor draws, and have institutional advantages from the CBA.
Every revenue sharing dollar should have to be used to improve the system and the players in it. Owners must allocate sharing dollars back into player development within two years of receiving or be forced to sell the team. Say 25% of those funds can go to upgrading the training facilities but the rest goes to the players from the bottom to the top of their system. This is not difficult, this is unearned money hence the name sharing not profit. I’m not going to debate different markets, TV deals and ownership. Owners should be held accountable to show where revenue dollars are being spent for the betterment of their organization.
“”Owners must allocate sharing dollars back into player development within two years of receiving or be forced to sell the team.'”
I disagree. You can’t really do that, but what you CAN do is reduce their future payments by 120 – 150% of what they don’t spend, depending on the dollar amount.
Instead of a luxury tax – call it the poverty tax – where if they don’t spend all the revenue sharing on players and player development they get penalized the same as teams that go over the lux tax.
So if the Pirates don’t spend their $40MM(?), and fall short by $10MM in a given year, they lose $12MM of their revenue sharing the next season.
Hit them with hard dollar penalties and it will change the behavior, the same way the heftier, hard dollar lux tax penalties are changing behavior at the top end of the pay scale.
“Patently baseless” is also the term describing any optimism concerning the Bucs’ chances to make the postseason.
MLBPA is just mad that they didn’t think that teams would be able to find cheap players that are more cost efficient than the average free agent. (exclusions for the obvious star free agent). many teams are focusing on internal options and trades with cheap contracts rather than overpaying for Cobb.
almost guaranteed teams are using the money where it needs to be used per the agreement.
There is no ‘fix’ for this other than rewriting the way contracts, free agents and revenue sharing, etc work completely and yeah that probably needs done.
For those mentioning a salary floor.. there is a indirect one.. its the league minimum salary times the number of players being paid.
the pirates haven’t signed a MLB free agent yet? yeah well.. they really don’t need one they where able to patch many of their wholes in trade, and will probably be a better team than they where in 2017 and probably 2016. Now they can take that revenue money extend the players they want to or put it into development (or where ever else that money is allowed to go) Of course they still might sign some one, but it wouldn’t be because of this.
however, i’d still like to see an investigation done, especially if they release it to the public just to see what the numbers actually are instead of guessing (cause none of us on the outside really know)
Glad you mentioned Cobb. I’m not even sure what he’s asking, but as regards the Pirates, if they were to sign Cobb, who gets shown the door? IMO, the weakest link in the current rotation is Nova, who’s also the only pitcher making >$10 mill. So you salary dump him to sign a FA? Like that makes sense…
The projections on Cobb are right in line with Taillon, Kuhl, Williams, Musgrove and Nova. Cobb is not a #1 or #2 TOR pitcher. He’s a nice add if you need to stablize a rotation, but not what the Bucs need at this point given what’s already here and what’s looming in AAA.
The only guy the Bucs should’ve paid for this year was Zack Cozart because Mercer is average at best. They can probably use Lucroy as well given Cervelli is a china doll.
Yeah as a pirate fan I’d like Cobb, but hes also a guy whose never had 30 starts or 180 innings. He isn’t worth 15+ a year until he does that a couple years. I’d think thats part of what teams are saying too. Pirates offer him a 2Y/25M deal with incentives to take him up to 15 if he gets 180innings and/or 30games. He gets paid decently + proves health and comes out of the contract at just 31 so should still be able to get a decent payday in free agency. But probably won’t happen and i’m okay with that too. If the pirates make a move for a starter it should be a LARGE upgrade (like Jake) or a semi-average (or better) lefty.
Zack would’ve been nice before Moran as he could slot there too when one of our prospects makes the move. Nunez makes more sense to me because he could slot 3rd/SS/2nd and do it good enough… or be an over all utility guy should our young guys bust out.
I’m all about Getting Lucroy especially with what some of the experts are saying he might get. Pirates should really jump out there make him a 3 year offer at 24M for 3 years with 2 option years.. pile on incentives for games caught, hits, CS% and that kinda of thing.. trade Cervelli to the nats for salary relief. They’d get a catcher who will hopefully be healthy, comparable on defense and has more bat potential. that costs less.
The Marlins were the only team out of the four that had a fair amount of quality talent on it. The team got sold to an ownership group that decided to blow it up. You would think part of the condition MLB would have put on the sale is the new group would try to field a winner.
The Rays and Pirates have been trending down. Spending big bucks on a couple of free agents is not going to help them. They are better served spending their money building up the farm and keeping cap space for when they start going up again.
The Athletics have always been frugal under the Billy Bean strategy. They always have been more of ‘have a bunch of solid players’ over ‘two or three superstars and some retreads’. All of their star the last few years were grown in house or they caught lightning in a bottle from obtaining a struggling young player from another team.
Good for the union. We saw yesterday the local TV contract pays $35M and the linked article states the Rays get $45M in revenue sharing. So they are basically taking the national TV money, gate/concessions revenue and the BAM payment and just taking it as profit less administrative expenses. This is not what revenue sharing is meant for.
Fans need to realize taking the side of billionaires instead of millionaire players, who actually have marketable skills, is dumb. Fans of these teams, and many others, should stay away from the games and show constant tanking by half the league will not be accepted. Especially for large market teams like Houston, Chicago and Detroit. Ridiculous.
You don’t think billionaires have marketable skills? Which ones?
The priority for the A’s should be better plumbing.
Much ado about nothing
I really hope something gets done. But you’re probably right.
If they won’t spend with literally all big market teams out anticipating the 2018 FA, you really think anything will happen?
Teams receiving free money should be required to report every penny! If it’s a small market, don’t cry about it. Owners are big boys and shouldn’t buy a team in a small market if they aren’t able to spend big.
WTH?
draysbay.com/2018/2/26/17054394/tampa-bay-rays-pay…
Rays are not thrifty when you break it down to % of $ spent on players to revenue.
I am a 22 game Rays season ticket holder that lives 50+m from the Trop in south St Pete. Stu wants to move the team closer to a majority of it’s fans that actually buys the tickets.
Exactly. All 30 teams should play in Manhattan.
good. . spend the revenues on rookies and player development. .. Not ON RETIREMENT PLAYERS LOOKING FOR HAND OUT SUCKERED DEALS
draysbay.com/2018/2/26/17054394/tampa-bay-rays-pay…
Rays are not thrifty when comparing % of money spent on players to team’s revenue.
People forgets you not only got players contracts, but the coaches, training staff, employees in works in the front office and in the stadium, plus all the expenses for other things yeah no one knows how a business is run.
Mike Scioscia makes more in 2018 ($6m) than Kevin Cash will make in 5 years managing the Rays (<$5 million)
When Andrew Friedman left the Rays to sign that five year $35m contract with the Dodgers, to become their new President of Baseball Operations, you want to know how much Friedman was making as Rays GM?
He was working without a contract.
legacy.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/al…
tampabay.com/sports/rays-manager-kevin-cash-will-r…
Stop trying to bring socialism to baseball. If you can’t afford to put a team on the field, the team either needs to move or fold.
BOOHOO perhaps some of these free agents should lower their asking prices as well and maybe just maybe these smaller market teams could afford to sign lets say some of the lesser players that already signed with other teams and these could be signed by the teams that are closer to contending it could be a trickle down effect but as long as some of these free agents dream of outrageous salaries and long term contracts that have not worked well in the past so these lesser market teams do not have a chance at signing many average to good players that are free agents Boo hoo players Association.
Should the MLBPA should start it’s own “revenue sharing” fund?
Have every player pay 10% of their earnings into a central fund that is then divided equally among the players. The math works out to about $500,000 extra per player per year.
Would this be fair? A good thing for the union to do?
If by “good” you mean makes sense, and mimics somewhat how a lot of unions work for contract based workers… sure. It by “good” you mean something that they’ll ever go for, probably not. If it doesnt help maximize length and AAV on the top handful of players the MLBPA isn’t really interested.
I just wonder if people would be as quick to share the player’s money.
The argument for revenue sharing is that the big market teams benefit by having the small market teams as opponents, etc. but the same could be said of the players.
The Bryce Harpers need the Wade LeBlancs using that same logic.
Also, people often say their concern isn’t for the big money players but the guys making far less. This would clearly help them. Doubling the minimum they earn.
If you’re one of the top earners, why would you do that? Why would you sacrifice what is likely millions of dollars you negotiated for?
I feel like this would be a re-distribution of the current size of the pie. Where as the MLBPA definitely wants the pie to be bigger.
There should be a cap floor. Do away with the ceiling. You should also be able to pay one “homegrown” and one “free agent” w/o it counting toward the cap. Yup I’m a NYY fan. Tired of these owners crying. The DEVIL RAYS have been playing in that cave for 20 years. And 8,000 per game. What a joke. You can’t afford your team? Move. Sell. Please stop b*tching.
That is what Stu wants to do to move closer to the fans that actually will go to games. I am a 22 game season ticket holder who lives 50+m NE away. Over half of the Rays season ticket holders live outside of St. Pete.
If the Rays have games where 8k fans show up you have to wonder how many actually live in St. Pete. The Trop is located in south St. Pete.
Rays sold 1.55mil tickets last season. Sell 1/3 more puts you over 2mil tickets sold.
draysbay.com/2018/2/26/17054394/tampa-bay-rays-pay…
All the small market teams should move to NYC. Cut into the Yankees billions. How would you like that?
yankees fan afraid of some competition from those who are ‘broke’? (note the quotes)
Can they have half of the Yanks tv market?
I hope that all the fans of whatever team Arrieta signs with bookmark this thread so they can return to it when the guy stinks up your park for $22 mill/year.
Grieve whatever you want, until there’s a cap/floor and actual financial balance it’s all bandaids. The low revenue teams are flat ass screwed if they sign even a mid size FA deal that doesn’t pan out.
Bingo. Look at the Pirates and Russell Martin. He signed for 5yrs $82 million. If the Pirates had signed him for that, they would be royally screwed right now. 2 more years of paying $40millon still and him not being able to catch and hit like he used to. Fans who chanted for the Pirates to sign him his last year in town would be the same ones to be screaming about how the Pirates were idiots for signing him to that contract. Said this in response to dazhk below as well.
Quite often, “low revenue” is a consequence of the Owners decisions. They are often self-inflicted due to their own personal restrictions placed on spending.
Look at the Pirates – estimated to be worth $1.25B, which would be 17th in the League. Effectively, right in the middle.
Bob Nutting is estimated to have the 10th highest net worth of all Owners in the MLB.
But they trade under the guise of a small market team, and cap spending accordingly. When in reality, the value is there, it’s just being used to create further personal wealth for Bob.
Bottom line is, the only reason why a team like the Pirates would be hamstrung by a medium-sized FA contract, is because their Owner makes it that way. Not the market, not the capital, but the Owner. Personal choice.
So you believe all owners should deficit spend out of their own pockets no matter how many large contracts belly up? Worth of a franchise does not equal cash flow. Not many owners put up their own money to pay players and are willing to personally underwrite bad contracts that are signed by their teams. Very few owners are in this only for the ego and lose money in the process. Every owner wants to make money on their investment.
Oh, I am 100% with you there. Everything has to make financial sense, and I don’t doubt for a second that every Owner is in the industry to make money.
It’s the split between profitability and success that has continually undermined Nutting’s ownership. While other owners are willing to forecast further profitability through success (the old spend to make philosophy), Nutting continues to approach the business ultra-conservatively, at the expense of the on field product.
Pittsburgh is far from a baseball mecca, however the city and the fans deserve a lot more than what they get. Nutting is literally sitting on the growth of the franchise to create further wealth – growth that is guaranteed and requires little to no risk whatsoever.
I expect that someone in a position to extract more out of the Franchise he owns, at least feigns an attempt at doing so.
MLB Owners are effectively handed a golden goose – something that, should they have the capital to purchase their slice in the monopoly, will continue to grow in value without any input from them whatsoever. It is almost impossible to lose money in ownership.
Even a marginal, slight trade off would allow Pittsburgh to be something other than a laughing stock.
The big money teams are not big money teams because their owners are more generous, it’s because they generate loads of revenue. Lots of teams, including the Pirates, don’t. The net worth of the owner or what someone guesses the team might sell for… these have little to nothing to do with the team’s actual cash flow. The Yankees aren’t a big money team because the Steinbrenners are really, really benevolent. It’s because the Steinbrenners own the revenue stream that erupts from one of the strongest brands in the entire sports universe. Nutting doesn’t.
It seems to me the MLBPA hasn’t got anything to warrant a suit, since the teams only have to spend 125% of what they’re receiving in extra funding and when that’s $40M, and all those teams have payroll above $50M they’re in the clear. If MLBPA wants a change they need to negotiate for it in the CBA, or should have before this year. Also, as a Pirate fan, I am disappointed in my teams’ business model, but if it’s within the league rules, there is not much I can do about it, except boycott spending on the team.
I personally wish this was brought up to include all teams in ML, because that’s who the MLBPA is really looking at, not just 4 teams from this year. They are trying to get a bigger piece of the pie, and that should come from all 30 teams, not just 4 teams that are marginally profitable.
It’s not what the CBA says. It says that teams need 125% of what they received if they want the burden of the proof to fall on MLBPA shoulders during a trial.
Keeping the money in your pocket is not allowed. So to me, the debate is: if a team doesn’t want to spend the shared revenues, should they get it? I don’t mind a rebuild, but if you get 5OM$ from other teams, you should invest it in baseball ops.
This is just the players trying to get more money. If the players can sway the owners to think that the luxury tax isn’t being used appropriately they will vote to ax it. Then the big market teams can spend more without consequence, i.e. bigger FA payouts. This will go nowhere pretty quickly. My guess is the teams their filing grievances on already had all their bases covered to prove the money was going where it was intended. You don’t bite the hand that feeds you. If they’re making profits, which they’re entitled to do, it’s coming from tickets and merchandise.
MLBPA did the same thing in at least 2010. No rules broken by at least the Pirates then.
Anyone else see this as a set up for a strike????
Not this in itself. The players are more upset that the teams finally realized it is not so smart to pay older FA a crap load of money over 5-10 year deals for hundreds of millions. It took a bunch of huge deals to not come close to getting the return on the investment that were paid out to guys in their 30’s. Still very happy that the Pirates never matched or beat out Toronto’s 5 year $82 million contract to Russell Martin. Said it then that the Jay’s would be throwing a bunch of that money into the toilet and now they are. They still have 2 years left and $40 million to pay him. Those kind of contracts are getting closer looks at now by ownership.
I agree with what you are saying but they (players and agents)have said all winter there is collusion amongst owners. That’s exactly what happened late 80’s into the early 90’s. This is just a start of the snowball effect. Owners are trying to be responsible with player signings,agents and players alike see this as them being cheap and pocketing the money. When the next contract is due end of 2021 there will not be labor peace!!!!
Good. Take Nutting down.
Spend nutting, win nutting.
The players really f-ked up; not just their deal, but the fan’s experience too. I imagine they put Tony Clark in to ride the PC wave, but they put him in a position to fail.
Clearly he wasn’t experienced enough (from a legal perspective) to navigate a negotiation against a group of seasoned attorneys looking to take as much from him as they could. He’s a well-spoken guy, but what common sense tells you a jock without litigation experience should battle team of lawyers? There are plenty of communicative people who hire attorneys so they don’t lose their shirts.
What were the players thinking? I don’t care about their salaries, but I DO care that competitive balance is shot. Manfred is being direct when he said tanking is a strategy to ultimately win (even if it’s not rational given multiple teams doing it defeats the effect). That said, it’s a straw man argument.designed to turn teams not trying into something besides what it means.
You simply can’t have this many teams laying down every year. It doesn’t just stink for those fans, even the good teams fan’s suffer. How many Yankee fans will enjoy a Yankee/ Rays game this year?
Manfred is also wrong here in that stepping on the throat of a badly matched competitor is ALWAYS a bad idea in business. If you give someone nothing to lose, you’ll empower them to hurt you. He had the chance to set the game back to where it was in the early 90’s and should have exercised more self restraint. He went way too far to the point where I feel he hurt his own cause.
Having so many teams tank is terrible for the sport. The WC is there to keep fans engaged all season, but now it’s just a short cash grab. As a Mets fan, our owners never max out the team, so any spring optimism is leveled by the fact that the Nationals can add three all-star pitchers on the cheap at any moment because the players have no other options.
Manfred pushing the pace-of-play narrative is a silly distraction technique to cover the lack of competitive balance (Not to mention the fact he’s steering the game toward legalizing the sport’s ultimate taboo… gambling),
His rationale of trying to cater to millennials (the reason given for everything, always) is a lost cause. It’s not because the games are too long (as he says), it’s due to the average fan being priced out of the ballpark the last 20 years (coupled with late TV start times). That’s led to millennials not being introduced to the game when it mattered. You will NEVER get them now… no matter how short the game is.
I’ve been a Mets fan for 30+ years because 1984 happened when I was 11 and the Yankees were bad at the wrong time. I got to go to games, watch games, meet the players… the previous owner knew how to run a team. Fandom is about an illogical connection to a team where they’re bascially ingrained in your blood. Being a Mets fan doesn’t jive with who I am. I essentially got lured in by a supermodel who turned into a soccer mom after I emotionally invested — I can’t leave even if it’s not what I signed up for. Everyone who’s not a Yankee or Cardinal fan knows what I mean. THIS is why the sport has survived 150 years and why you can’t engage millennials after they’ve already grown up.
Rather that be so desperate for cash and embarrassing the players, Manfred needs to step back and figure out how to make the game into what it was before money was the lead narrative. .
The NFL is almost all dead airtime and they don’t have the same issue. .
It doesn’t matter how you spend the money as long as you are still focused on winning. I HATED the Astros for acting like a small market team for years despite playing in the 4th largest city in America and the largest city in baseball with only one team. St. Louis has always been competitive despite being the 3rd smallest city in MLB. Small market or large market, just come up with a plan to WIN. The Mets have always spent money but never had a winning plan.