MLB 2023 Season

[Cobra Mgr]

DSG loses in court to MLB.

I "like" the audacity of a corporation saying they should pay less cause things didn't turn out the way they thought. I wonder if Sinclair Broadcasting reduced the price of their streaming packages cause the economy got "sick" due to covid.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

DSG loses in court to MLB.

I "like" the audacity of a corporation saying they should pay less cause things didn't turn out the way they thought. I wonder if Sinclair Broadcasting reduced the price of their streaming packages cause the economy got "sick" due to covid.

Even if COVID did not happen, this still would have been a terrible investment.
The numbers for linear TV are not what one would call a growth industry.
Sports still drives linear TV but even those numbers are falling.

When Disney purchased Fox in 2019. In order to get the deal done, they had to sell their RSNs which were branded as Fox Sports since US regulators did not want one company owning ESPN/ABC and the Fox Sports RSNs.
That is when they became the Bally Sports brand.

Disney knew RSNs were on the decline and also needed cash, so they were all too happy to find a buyer for them.
Fox had already been shopping them around for several years before they put themselves up for sale.

Sinclair made a very poor business decision to purchase them and use debt to do so.
Now they are an albatross

It is now left to us sports fans to see how exactly this mess will play out in terms of how to keep consuming games.

[Boomcoach]

I feel no sympathy for Bally. They bought the rights, then seemed to do their best to keep anyone from watching the games, so no wonder they didn't make as much from the properties!

[Cobra Mgr]

Max Scherzer doesn't get it.

If MLB was satisfied w/"normal" they wouldn't change the rules. They don't want "normal". They want the new to become "routine". And they are willing to break these eggs to get to the omelette. That's why they can't let the ump have discretion. Cause their individual discretion leads to arbitrary rules taking away uniformity. So grow up.

[cephasjames]

Umpire discretion is partially what led to game lengths increasing despite there being enforceable rules on the books to speed things up.

[Boomcoach]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Max Scherzer doesn't get it.

If MLB was satisfied w/"normal" they wouldn't change the rules. They don't want "normal". They want the new to become "routine". And they are willing to break these eggs to get to the omelette. That's why they can't let the ump have discretion. Cause their individual discretion leads to arbitrary rules taking away uniformity. So grow up.

What happened to the practice of someone else going out to take the first of the warm-up pitches when the catcher has re-armor himself? If he wants his 8 warm-up pitches that is an easy (and dare I say, traditional) solution.

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by Boomcoach

What happened to the practice of someone else going out to take the first of the warm-up pitches when the catcher has re-armor himself? If he wants his 8 warm-up pitches that is an easy (and dare I say, traditional) solution.

Yep. This is a solution in search of a problem. If the catcher is hitting third, then the backup needs to have his shinguards on, ready to hop out there.

[Cobra Mgr]

He's like a lot of spoiled people who think they are speaking from a stand of common sense, when the reality is they think rules are made for others. They think they are special and should get leeways.

[Le Grande Orange]

If Oakland stays on its current pace, it will finish the season 34-128, which would break the '62 Mets for worst record in a 162-game season.

Kansas City is on pace to finish 49-113.

[kq76]

I long thought salary floors were stupid (if a team wants or needs to have a low payroll, then let them; it does necessarily mean they'll suck, the Rays sure don't), but these As are seriously testing my thoughts on that.

The diehard As fans that go to their games deserve better as do the opposing team's fans at their road games. Yeah, I want my team to win, but I also don't want to watch my Jays whoop on some team that is so obviously inferior.

I like that MLB has some sort of mechanism that doesn't give teams revenue sharing if they're not trying hard enough (I forget the details, but that was the gist of it that I got last I looked into it), but if that is how it's supposed to work, it's clearly broken.

I don't know. How do you force a team to try harder? What level is good enough? Should a certain winning % (.400?) determine whether you qualify or not?

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by kq76

I long thought salary floors were stupid (if a team wants or needs to have a low payroll, then let them; it does necessarily mean they'll suck, the Rays sure don't), but these As are seriously testing my thoughts on that.

The diehard As fans that go to their games deserve better as do the opposing team's fans at their road games. Yeah, I want my team to win, but I also don't want to watch my Jays whoop on some team that is so obviously inferior.

I like that MLB has some sort of mechanism that doesn't give teams revenue sharing if they're not trying hard enough (I forget the details, but that was the gist of it that I got last I looked into it), but if that is how it's supposed to work, it's clearly broken.

I don't know. How do you force a team to try harder? What level is good enough? Should a certain winning % (.400?) determine whether you qualify or not?

Because the leagues don't make winning profitable. I've long said 1) tanking can be prevented by instead of having the worst record from last year picking 1st, having the worst record from the last 3 years pick first. And 2) take shared revenue & dish out each team's share based on their record. So in a 30 team league the 30th team gets half a share, the 15th a full share, the champion a share & a half.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by kq76

I long thought salary floors were stupid (if a team wants or needs to have a low payroll, then let them; it does necessarily mean they'll suck, the Rays sure don't), but these As are seriously testing my thoughts on that.

The issue with a salary floor is that the MLBPA won't allow one, because they see permitting that as opening the door to a salary cap, something they are steadfastly against.

Originally Posted by kq76

I like that MLB has some sort of mechanism that doesn't give teams revenue sharing if they're not trying hard enough (I forget the details, but that was the gist of it that I got last I looked into it), but if that is how it's supposed to work, it's clearly broken.

Eleven teams are disqualified from receiving revenue sharing due to their rated market size (both New York teams, both Chicago teams, both Los Angeles teams, Toronto, San Francisco, Washington, Philadelphia, and Boston).

Texas and Atlanta are just below the threshold.

Oakland is partially disqualified from receiving revenue sharing, with it only eligible to receive 25% of any calculated amount in 2022, 50% for 2023, 75% for 2024, and fully eligible for 2025. This means for the current season it is only receiving half of the amount of revenue sharing income it would otherwise have been entitled to receive this year. That perhaps explains its bare bones performance so far — it doesn't have the money.

However, the new CBA contains a section which states unless the club has signed a binding agreement for a new stadium (be it in Oakland or elsewhere) by Jan. 15, 2024, it will be fully disqualified from revenue sharing eligibility for the 2024 and subsequent seasons.

If Oakland wants revenue sharing money, it will have to have a new stadium agreement in place within seven-and-a-half months.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

And 2) take shared revenue & dish out each team's share based on their record. So in a 30 team league the 30th team gets half a share, the 15th a full share, the champion a share & a half.

That expressly works against the stated purpose of revenue sharing, which is to help smaller market teams. Your idea would give the bigger market teams even more money.

It might be interesting to take the rated market size of each MLB team from 2017–2021 and compare it to the team's performance, and then do the same for 2022 and 2023. (Note there were small changes to the market ratings between the 2017 and 2022 CBAs, with the notable one being Texas falling below 100 which meant it was now eligible to receive revenue sharing.)

[kq76]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

...

Oakland is partially disqualified from receiving revenue sharing, with it only eligible to receive 25% of any calculated amount in 2022, 50% for 2023, 75% for 2024, and fully eligible for 2025. This means for the current season it is only receiving half of the amount of revenue sharing income it would otherwise have been entitled to receive this year. That perhaps explains its bare bones performance so far — it doesn't have the money.

However, the new CBA contains a section which states unless the club has signed a binding agreement for a new stadium (be it in Oakland or elsewhere) by Jan. 15, 2024, it will be fully disqualified from revenue sharing eligibility for the 2024 and subsequent seasons.

If Oakland wants revenue sharing money, it will have to have a new stadium agreement in place within seven-and-a-half months.

Ahh, I re-read some old articles and it seems MLB made a special case out of the Athletics. Their receiving of revenue sharing was gradually phased out over a 4 year period starting in 2016 apparently because everyone felt they weren't doing enough to win back then. So it wasn't something that applied to everybody like I thought.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by kq76

Ahh, I re-read some old articles and it seems MLB made a special case out of the Athletics. Their receiving of revenue sharing was gradually phased out over a 4 year period starting in 2016 apparently because everyone felt they weren't doing enough to win back then. So it wasn't something that applied to everybody like I thought.

Either that, or to pressure the team to get some sort of stadium deal done, whether that be in Oakland or somewhere else. Or perhaps to get the club sold to more agreeable owners.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

That expressly works against the stated purpose of revenue sharing, which is to help smaller market teams. Your idea would give the bigger market teams even more money.

Only if the bigger market teams win. The dirty secret in team sports is that winning titles takes away from profits since winners demand more salary. Besides, look at the MLB standings now. Do we really think revenue sharing is helping Oakland & KC? Is it preventing the Dodgers & Yanks from making the playoffs? The problem isn't money. The problem is competence in the front office & incentive to win. Spending $ doesn't equal victory. Spending it wisely gets dubs.

[pilight]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

That perhaps explains its bare bones performance so far — it doesn't have the money.

They had $900,000,000 to spend on a new stadium in Las Vegas. They're choosing not to spend it on the team they have now.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Only if the bigger market teams win. The dirty secret in team sports is that wiBesides, look at the MLB standings now. Do we really think revenue sharing is helping Oakland & KC?

If it means preventing an operating loss, then yes, it is achieving part of its purpose. Teams which are losing money are obviously going to have even less available to spend on players.

Unfortunately, MLB does not publish either its team revenue figures nor the amount being dispersed via revenue sharing, so we are somewhat in the dark as to the actual financial status of clubs. The closest we have are the annual Forbes analyses, but that posts revenue figures net of revenue sharing. I wish it posted gross revenue figures so we could see its estimates of revenue sharing amounts.

Originally Posted by pilight

They had $900,000,000 to spend on a new stadium in Las Vegas. They're choosing not to spend it on the team they have now.

Exactly. It has to set some money aside to pay for at least part of the stadium, as well as all the moving costs if indeed it relocates to Las Vegas.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

If it means preventing an operating loss, then yes, it is achieving part of its purpose. Teams which are losing money are obviously going to have even less available to spend on players.

Unfortunately, MLB does not publish either its team revenue figures nor the amount being dispersed via revenue sharing, so we are somewhat in the dark as to the actual financial status of clubs. The closest we have are the annual Forbes analyses, but that posts revenue figures net of revenue sharing. I wish it posted gross revenue figures so we could see its estimates of revenue sharing amounts.

Of course we don't know. Cause they are lying about what they are making. Remember when the MLB talking about contracting & had to go before Congress? They "turned over" their books to show they were losing $. But the MLBPA told Congress those weren't the numbers the union was required to be given in negotiations & attempted to hand them over. And the owners threatened the union w/lawsuits because their agreement said the players could never share that info outside.

What does that tell us.......?

That MLB is lying about how dire the situation is for low market teams. Billionaires aren't going to spend billions to buy businesses that have no chance of making serious profit. They aren't preventing losses. They are preventing huge gaps in profits between teams. And if teams have it guaranteed they will make $ no matter what, what is the incentive to spend on better employees to get better? To the owner, the extra revenue from ticket sales & merchandise is not worth the extra salary they have to pay players to bring that $ in. Owners want welfare homes that allow them more ways to pick consumers wallets in order to "justify" salary increases. Smaller capacity to drive up ticket prices. Larger takes on the parking revenue. Extravagant luxury boxes to charge to corporate accounts. Special packages for swimming pools, bars in the outfield. And even then, they still aren't forced to put that $ back into the team (see Marlins).

Don't let the spin MLB puts out fool you. Every, EVERY FRANCHISE is making profit. When winning is tied to profit, then you will see a drastic change in how owners run their franchises.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Of course we don't know. Cause they are lying about what they are making. Remember when the MLB talking about contracting & had to go before Congress? They "turned over" their books to show they were losing $. But the MLBPA told Congress those weren't the numbers the union was required to be given in negotiations & attempted to hand them over. And the owners threatened the union w/lawsuits because their agreement said the players could never share that info outside.

What does that tell us.......?

The only thing more shady than professional sports accounting is Hollywood accounting.

That said, the revenue figures are likely accurate. Those are harder to manipulate. It's the expenses which get helped with things such as depreciation of player contracts or inflated general & administrative costs. As Paul Beeston famously said, "Anyone who quotes profits of a baseball club is missing the point. Under generally accepted accounting principles, I can turn a $4 million profit into a $2 million loss, and I can get every national accounting firm to agree with me."

Do remember that about ten years ago the financial statements for several MLB clubs covering the 2007-09 seasons were leaked to Deadspin. There are selected other examples of financial statements out there, going all the way back to 1945. (I've saved all the ones I could find.)

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

That MLB is lying about how dire the situation is for low market teams.

There's a difference between having a profit and having the resources to compete with a club making two, three, or four times as much revenue. That isn't a new issue; it goes all the way back to professional baseball's earliest days.

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Billionaires aren't going to spend billions to buy businesses that have no chance of making serious profit.

And yet major billion dollar, multinational corporations have been flushing money away with disastrous ad campaigns and pushing certain political positions, and rather than correcting course, they double down on those campaigns and politics, even as sales and stock prices fall.

Profit doesn't seem to mean what it used to mean.

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

And if teams have it guaranteed they will make $ no matter what, what is the incentive to spend on better employees to get better?

Nothing is guaranteed. Revenue sharing gets recalculated every year. The current formulas, which go back to the 2007 CBA, use an weighted average of the last three years of local revenue.

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

And even then, they still aren't forced to put that $ back into the team (see Marlins).

Blame that one on the voters who agreed to pay public money to build the stadium for the club. Taxpayers footing the bill for the stadiums/arenas/parks used by private sports teams is a uniquely American phenomenon..

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

When winning is tied to profit, then you will see a drastic change in how owners run their franchises.

Feel free to explain how a club earning $80 million in revenue can adequately compete with a club earning $400 million in revenue.

The reason why the 40-man reserve limit was created was to prevent wealthier clubs from buying up all the best players, something which they had been doing.