[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by NoOne

lgo...

Before I respond to the rest of your post, bear in mind I can safely say I have probably done more research on the financial side of the sport than just about anyone else here. I've got plenty of data in various files.

Originally Posted by NoOne

moneyball is about proper distribution not paying less for good talent... valuation change, but money spent remains the same. jsut shifts it around once it's adapted by all teams.

No, it's about getting value for money. It's about not overpaying for players. The crudest metric of this is simply club payroll divided by wins, which illustrates the 'payroll efficiency' of a club. If enough clubs follow this principle, then they are less likely to sign large contracts with larger number of players unless the club is convinced it can recoup that investment with revenue (which is derived, ultimately, from wins).

Originally Posted by NoOne

collusion is difficult to prove in court...

And yet the Players Association was able to do so. It received a $280 million settlement as a result of the collusion in the late 1980s, and saw to it that triple damages was put into every subsequent CBA as a deterrent.

Originally Posted by NoOne

so no reason to file a greivance for an assured loss in court.. but you're naive to think 30 billionaire don't rub elbows and speak to each other about things that they shouldn't. it happens every year... too much money is invovled not to do so.

Speculation and stereotyping. When you have solid data to present, please do so.

Originally Posted by NoOne

a lack of a filed grievance isn't a logical argument for anything... other than they haven't filed a greivance... that they have no way of winning. i.e. a waste of resources.

History demonstrates otherwise. The Players Association has already won three collusion case against the owners. If there is sufficient evidence of collusion, the PA would forge ahead.

Originally Posted by NoOne

they were severely underpaid..

Who was underpaid? Under what definition? Relative to what?

Originally Posted by NoOne

so revenues didn't have to grow as fast initially.

Revenue growth took the first jump forward after WWII, with the sharp rise in the popularity of the sport, along with the first wave of media (primarily broadcast television) contracts. Revenues grew afterward, but slowly. It wasn't until the late 1970s that revenue started to exhibit an almost exponential growth, driven by the rise in cable TV and the sharp increase in national broadcasting contracts. It's been growing almost exponentially ever since, with the exception of the 1994-95 strike which caused a drop, but revenue rapidly recovered.

Originally Posted by NoOne

and they have been strides over time in their CBA deals to get larger chunkgs..with an occasional step back or stagnation here or there i'm sure.

Saying "I'm sure" suggests you are speculating rather that offering commentary based on actual data. Again, I have data I can point to.

Originally Posted by NoOne

don't you know history? labor has been %@%$ on ... forever. you get paid peanuts and expected to be happy about it. we had ~sweatshops and child labor issues in america in the last century, lol.

We are discussing Major League Baseball. Try to tamp down the political commentaries and stick to baseball financial data.

Originally Posted by NoOne

yes, revenues cause higher contracts... and mlb set a record for revenue in 2017 and has had 15 straight years of increased revenue...

MLB revenue has increased every year since 1995.

Originally Posted by NoOne

...yet salaris ahve stagnated for ~5 years now

That is demonstrably and objectively false. The average salary for a major league player in five-year increments, as calculated by the MLBPA itself:

1992: $1,028,667
1997: $1,336,609 (+29.9%)
2002: $2,295,649 (+71.8%)
2007: $2,824,751 (+23.0%)
2012: $3,213,479 (+13.8%)
2017: $4,097,122 (+27.5%)

If 27.5% growth over the last five years is "stagnated", then you have an odd definition of the word.

Originally Posted by NoOne

with virutally no growth compared to the previous decade. *again, 15 straight years of revenue growth.

The data does not agree with your assertion. See reply above.

Originally Posted by NoOne

they deifnitely horde the money, if you know GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) and forget other acronym - you know accounting is the science of hiding money .. whether it was accouting in hs, act3100 or act6100 in grad school it was all the same nonsense of hiding money.

Long on accusation, short on evidence. How many club financial statements do you have on hand? I have a fair number, in varying levels of detail, from different decades. (I even have a few for minor league clubs.) There is MLB financial data out there; not much of it, admittedly, but it does exist.

Originally Posted by NoOne

"The MLBPA has access to the audited financial statements" -- refer back to the fact that "accounting "is one big lie to hide money.

The MLBPA has hired economists to scour the owners' books before. It can do so again if it thinks accounting shenanigans are being used to obfuscate the financial picture.

Originally Posted by NoOne

also, it is not a hotly debated topic that a local pro team in any sport provides economic growth.. any reputable economist has shown it's statisticaly insignificant to revenue growth in an urban area..

There are studies showing both. If you can cite the overall numbers for and against so that we may arrive at a possible consensus view, feel free to do so.

Originally Posted by NoOne

but just like climate change or tickle down economics, only the nutballs disagree with facts.

I note you have not presented any facts, but only allegations. Feel free to provide evidence to support your claims.

Originally Posted by NoOne

so, it's an american phenomenom? we are talking about mlb and not the canadian baseball league.

If you can point to numerous other countries/locales outside the United States which throw public dollars for the construction of building for privately-owned professional sports clubs, then I'll retract the comment. As far as I'm aware, the scenario described occurs mostly in the U.S.

Originally Posted by NoOne

everyhting i stated is reasonable and backed up with facts.

Your statement about player salaries having "stagnated" (your wording) is contradicted by the facts. For all other claims of yours, no substantiated evidence has been cited.

Originally Posted by NoOne

i didn't make anythign up. i even checked out the #'s.

Perhaps next time you should present those numbers so we may check your math. Your calculation vis-a-vis player salaries having "stagnated" over the last five years appears to have gone wrong. (4,097,122 divided by 3,213,479 equals 1.274980... Indeed, when one compares the 2007-12 time period to the 2012-17 time period, the latter saw growth which was double that of the prior five-year period.)

Originally Posted by NoOne

i really know what i'm talking about here. not jsut some angry rant and not liking billionaires..

Your commentaries appear to indicate otherwise.

Originally Posted by NoOne

Well, it is, but backed up with knowledge and expertise in the area.

Your comment vis-a-vis player salaries having "stagnated" (your wording) over the last five years appears to indicate otherwise.

Originally Posted by NoOne

in reality, baeball players are till underpaid..

Underpaid relative to what? Using what metric? It would be an interesting exercise if you would show your math here.


ETA: As if on cue, Forbes two days ago published the 2018 edition of its annual MLB club valuations report. It can be read here. I'll be digging through it myself later and adding its results.