Solve the baseball labor problem!

[minty green]

I'm basically a free-market kinda guy when it comes to simple economic problems. So if Tom Hicks wants to pay Alex Rodriguez $25 million per season, that's fine by me. Especially since A-Rod is practically the only star player for my beloved Texas Rangers who's actually earning his salary this year.

But on the other hand, there are a lot of really good players out there who don't have the major league service time necesary for free agency. Just because I know his stats, Texas CF Gabe Kapler currently has a .950 OPS (on-base% + slugging%), which is damn good even by major star standards. Yet I'd be surprised if he was making much more than $500,000 this year, despite an obvious transformation into a solid player last season. The Rangers are able to pay him this relative pittance, and lock him into the organization for the next few years, because MLB's contract with the player's union gives the teams a monopoly on a player's sevices for the first six or so years of his career. That's about as anti-competitive as it gets.

Then there's the whole issue of the draft, the tradition of trading players, unequal revenue streams, relocation, public financing, and the ridiculous inability to buy a Shiner Bock anywhere in the Ballpark at Arlington except for the itty-bitty cart behind center field. All of these issues demand resolution!

Next season presents the distinct possibility of another lockout or a strike. So how the heck can we solve this stuff, once and for all?

[tracer]

minty green wrote:

The Rangers are able to pay him this relative pittance, and lock him into the organization for the next few years, because MLB's contract with the player's union gives the teams a monopoly on a player's sevices for the first six or so years of his career. That's about as anti-competitive as it gets.
Pah. That's nothing. You shoulda seen how bad it was back before the 1970s, when all the players had to sign to a "reserve clause" year after year which, essentially, gave the owning team a monopoly on a player's services for his entire career.

[minty green]

I'm aware of the reserve clause. Long may its creators burn in baseball hell. But what should we do now, as opposed to 1970?

[DRY]

Not that either party is wholly in the right about this issue, but I tend to side with the players more than the owners. If the owners are truly losing money, they need to open the books and allow an independent audit to get the players' union to make concessions. If the owners are really losing money, the players SHOULD make concessions or risk killing the golden goose.

During one of the previous lockouts, I know there were senate hearings on the whole labor issue. One of the owners was quoted as boasting (I'm making the dollar figures up here, but I'll try to look up what they were and who said it and repost later): "I can take a five million dollar profit and turn it into a ten million dollar loss using generally accepted accounting principles and get every major accounting firm in the nation to agree with me."

:rolleyes: Wonderful.

I really don't blame A-Rod for his contract. For one, it wasn't as overpriced as others (Darren Dreifort being one...Dreifort's good, but he's being paid more on potential). Secondly, while A-Rod did take the most money offered to him, is that really so wrong? How many of you would leave your company for a significantly better salary, no matter how much you like your parking space or co-workers? I agree that some of the "I want to play for a winner" posturing was annoying, but is it really so wrong to take the money?

[astorian]

NONE of the owners ever "boasted" that he could create paper profits or losses.

Paul Beeston, currently Bud Selig's right-hand man, used to be an executive with the Toronto Blue Jays, and HE stated several years back that, as an accountant, he knew how easy it could be to make a profitable team look like a money-loser, or vice versa.... and he was NOT bragging, simply making an acknowledgement of a real problem: namely, that even if a team opened up its books to the players' union and PROVED that money was being lost, players would remain skeptical.

In any event, NOBODY has ever claimed that George Steinbrenner is losing money. What HAS been claimed is that numerous teams are unable to remain competitive under the present economic system. For those teams, the answer is simple: FOLD! NOBODY will miss the Montreal Expos or the Minnesota Twins, or the Marlins or the Devil Rays.

[minty green]

Contraction presents some pretty formidable problems, astorian. The owners are certainly not going to declare bankruptcy, since MLB teams are such great investments--demand for team ownership far exceeds supply, so there's always some rich fan who will come along in a few years and pay you way, way more than you paid for the team. That's probably true even for teams as crummy as the Expos and Royals.

And unless you just get the team to declare bankruptcy, you're talking about having to get the owners and the players to agree to a buyout. Fat chance. Although sentiment among the owners seems to be moving towards contraction, I doubt Steinbrenner and his ilk are going to be all that happy about writing big checks to their less successful comrades. And the player's union would never, ever, ever accept the loss of 52 major league jobs. Shoot, we're probably locked into the designated hitter forever just because the union likes having one more highly paid starting player on each American League roster. Eliminating 52 major league players altogether? Ain't gonna happen.

Relocating those teams, however, is an outstanding idea, IMHO. Pack up the Expos and Devil Rays and move them to wherever there are fans who actually want to support a team. Peter Angelos will fight like hell if somebody tries to move into northern Virginia, but Angelos is a negotiator by profession. Put some money on the table and he'll cave in a heartbeat. North Carolina, Tennessee, and northern California also present some pretty good options for relocation. Heck, I bet San Antonio would kill for a major league team.

[Typo Negative]

GM's need to grow some cajones and not let themselves be bullied by egomaniacal agents! There is a lot of talent out there, with young guys coming up every day. It should be a buyers market. GM's are running around acting as if they can't win without big money free agents. There are lots of teams who can't win after signing the free-agents.

The origanizations need to get better at scouting and developing young talent.

[PatrickM]

I am against folding teams. Its called "blaming the customer". Fans don't go to games in Montreal or Tampa Bay because the team stinks, has no apparent plan or hope for improving, because they play in unattractive facilities, and charge too much for the tickets and beer. And someone all this gets translated into the team not being supported by the local fans, as if the fans are obligated to support the local team - and more precisely, the team's owner - no matter how rotten the product is. Talk of folding teams is just empty sabre-rattling by the owners.

The solution is that real revenue sharing and salary caps must be implemented. The Kansas Citys, Minnesotas, Detroits and Montreals must be put on an equal competitive footing with the Yankees. Then, a hard salary cap can be put in place. The union's argument that no one ever accepted a limit on his wages is a specious argument. Everyone accepts a limit on their wages the minute they agree to work for someone else; the question always is not whether or not there is a limit on wages, but how high or low the limit is going to be.

[dantheman]

Originally posted by minty green
Peter Angelos will fight like hell if somebody tries to move into northern Virginia, but Angelos is a negotiator by profession. Put some money on the table and he'll cave in a heartbeat

He can fight, but if the team were to move to northern Virginia, he'd have no "legal" leg to stand on. He has geographic rights within a certain radius of Baltimore (75 miles?), and the proposed VA location is beyond that. This, of course, doesn't mean he wouldn't pitch a fit with the other owners, but no one would have to pay him diddly for the right to put a team there. Also - again, not positive, and someone please correct me - I think his geographic rights thing is only for teams in his own league; if the National League moved a team to the northern VA area, he'd have nothing to say about it, anyway; same would occur if they put it in D.C. itself (which is within that 75-mile radius). But the thing that gets me is this: Why fight it, anyway? Having a second team in the general area could potentially create a huge rivalry and therefore create more interest in the game among people from both specific metro areas (D.C. and Baltimore). After all, San Francisco and Oakland aren't terribly far from each other, and neither is drawing poorly (although I know Oakland's slowed down a little bit, but I'm not sure that's because of the city or because the team's slumping). Admittedly, those teams are in different leagues, but having an NL team in the D.C./Northern VA area would be fine with me. So IMO, he's just being incredibly greedy. :(

[dantheman]

Originally posted by PatrickM
I am against folding teams. Its called "blaming the customer". Fans don't go to games in Montreal or Tampa Bay because the team stinks, has no apparent plan or hope for improving, because they play in unattractive

When Montreal was successful (1981, 1994, for example), they still didn't draw many fans. It's not the fault of the fans exactly; they just aren't interested in baseball enough to support the team. Tampa Bay is a little different, because the team overspent and then stunk; therefore the fans rightly don't go to the games, by and large. But they do have a good chance of pulling themselves out of the mire.

[minty green]

I totally disagree with you about a salary cap, PatrickM. There's a giant difference between two parties freely agreeing to a salary through negotiations and having a maximum salary imposed by some "benevolent" third party. The only beneficiaries of a salary cap are the owners, who artificially reduce their labor costs, thereby increasing their profit margins.

The prices that owners charge the fans for tickets, concessions, and parking are essentially unaffected by player salaries, since those prices are determined by the demand of the fans and are presumably already set at revenue-maximizing levels.

Besides, the player's union would sooner die than accept a salary cap.

dan: Oakland's attendance is fairly low, and has been for the last decade or so. They've been talking about relocating somewhere else in northern California, although I can't remember exactly where.

[december]

The Texas Rangers have an obligation to pay A-Rod $252 million. Normally, in Baseball, these long-term contracts must be paid, even if the player is cut from the squad or injured. IANAA but would assume that the Rangers don't book a liability for the $252 millon. This accounting treatment invites baseball teams to spend money now that will have to be paid in the future. If future income declines, they could be in big trouble.

I am aware that these long-term contracts are often insured, to some extent, but presume that considerable risk remains with the baseball team.

[dantheman]

Originally posted by minty green
dan: Oakland's attendance is fairly low, and has been for the last decade or so. They've been talking about
relocating somewhere else in northern California, although I can't remember exactly where.

Can't disagree with you, but do you know where I could find those attendence figures? I did a quick Google search, but no luck. Does MLB have it on its site, maybe?

[tracer]

spooje wrote:

GM's need to grow some cajones and not let themselves be bullied by egomaniacal agents! There is a lot of talent out there, with young guys coming up every day. It should be a buyers market. GM's are running around acting as if they can't win without big money free agents. There are lots of teams who can't win after signing the free-agents.
Major-league baseball teams don't just sign free agents for the purpose of winning ballgames. They also sign them because of their star power, i.e. their ability to draw more fans to their stadiums and increase their TV ratings. How many more people do you think are watching Texas Rangers games this year just because Alex Rodrigues is now their shortstop?

[dantheman]

Originally posted by tracer
Major-league baseball teams don't just sign free agents for the purpose of winning ballgames. They also sign them because of their star power, i.e. their ability to draw more fans to their stadiums and increase their TV ratings. How many more people do you think are watching Texas Rangers games this year just because Alex Rodrigues is now their shortstop?

A whole horkin' lot more, probably. But it's a two-sided coin. GMs sign them partly to boost ticket sales, and the agents, knowing this, drive up the price accordingly. In a perfect world, we could hope the GM would say, "Ok, Player A will possibly yield this much in added revenue, so.... hmmm, we'll offer him no more than X dollars." But they become more fearful that another team will grab him (free market, which is okay), and what the agent does is play one team off the other. The poor GM wants the player so he can boost sales, but doesn't want to pay so much that the potential added revenue is negated by the salary itself.

Hmm, now I'm not sure what side I'm arguing on... :)

[minty green]

december: The Rangers were only able to acquire insurance for the first five years of A-Rod's contract, december. So yes, they took on considerable, uninsured risk. However, only the first seven years of the contract are guaranteed, so it's not quite as gigantic a commitment as the doomsayers claim.

tracer is absolutely right about the star value of some players, including A-Rod. The Rangers made it to 1 million in attendance more quickly this year than they ever have before, despite a terrible team and a hefty increase in ticket prices. Moreover, the splashiness of signing the most attractive free agent in baseball history certainly put the Rangers on the map for consideration by future free agents, who have all but ignored Texas in the past.

dan: No luck on a quick search for MLB attendance figures, although they've got to be out there somewhere.

[dantheman]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by minty green
tracer is absolutely right about the star value of some players, including A-Rod. The Rangers made it to 1 million in attendance more quickly this year than they ever have before, despite a terrible team and a hefty increase in ticket prices. Moreover, the splashiness of signing the most attractive free agent in baseball history certainly put the Rangers on the map for consideration by future free agents, who have all but ignored Texas in the past.[/b]

They're on that map as long as they do well. The problem with a huge free-agent signing is that all the pressure in the world is then on that team to succeed now, not down the road. The Rangers aren't doing well this season, and that's partially because they spent so much money on one guy instead of spreading it around to other areas, like pitching. So if the Rangers are bad this year - maybe a last-place finish - free agents won't look as favorably on them as they did immediately after the signing. Therefore the pressure on them to succeed is not only to recoup the money spent on the player but also to justify themselves to potential free agents in the years to come, to tell them, "See, we spent money and won. We'll spend money on you and win, too." (Also remember that he's only the most attractive free agent in baseball history now. This can change at any time.)

[PatrickM]

Originally posted by minty green
I totally disagree with you about a salary cap, PatrickM. There's a giant difference between two parties freely agreeing to a salary through negotiations and having a maximum salary imposed by some "benevolent" third party. The only beneficiaries of a salary cap are the owners, who artificially reduce their labor costs, thereby increasing their profit margins.



I disagree with you, Minty. There is no third party involved, benevolent or otherwise in the baseball labor wars. The parties involved are MLB and its 30 member ballclubs, and the MLBPA (ie, the union) with its member players, just like auto union negotiations are between GM (or Ford or Diemler-Chrysler) and the UAW.

And why is "artificially" reducing labor costs a bad thing? There is no free market for baseball players. The very work of a strong players union as a collective bargaining agent for the players skews the process away from a free market. In a true free market every player would be available as a free agent every year, and baseball labor costs would come to equilibrium and stablize at some point. The MLBPA in fact "artificially" creates scarity and constantly drives up salaries by limiting the number of free agents each year, and by having salary disputes arbitrated so that the market is set by the dumbest, highest salary awarded to thw worst player at that particular position. The union, through clever planning and argument, has sucessfully skewed the labor market so that player salaries constantly rachet up. I'm not quibbling with the union for doing so - their job is to get the most bucks for their member players and they have certainly done so. But by the same token, baseball management has a right to be able to determine what their labor costs are going to be so that they can plan and set their prices and earn a profit, just as the Ford Motor Company does.

[minty green]

You couldn't be more wrong in claiming the Rangers were unable to spend money on pitching last year, dan. Texas did everything it could to sign Mike Hampton and Mike Mussina, the only two top-line pitchers on the market Neither one wanted to come to Texas. Hampton passed primarily because he wanted to remain in the N.L., where he gets to hit. Mussina wanted to stay on the East Coast, close to his home. By the time A-Rod signed on with Texas, all the good free agent pitchers had already been signed to other teams. The next free agent signing season (assuming it doesn't get blown to pieces by a labor dispute) may be a very different story.

[dantheman]

Originally posted by minty green
You couldn't be more wrong in claiming the Rangers were unable to spend money on pitching last year, dan. Texas did everything it could to sign Mike Hampton and Mike Mussina, the only two top-line pitchers on the market Neither one wanted to come to Texas. Hampton passed primarily because he wanted to remain in the N.L., where he gets to hit. Mussina wanted to stay on the East Coast, close to his home. By the time A-Rod signed on with Texas, all the good free agent pitchers had already been signed to other teams. The next free agent signing season (assuming it doesn't get blown to pieces by a labor dispute) may be a very different story.

I didn't say they didn't try to do it, but the fact is they simply have zero pitching. If the team tanks this year (as it probably will), the number-one reason people will give for their demise will be the lack of pitching. Yes, it's not their fault that the high-caliber pitchers chose to go elsewhere, but when the team craps out, the next crop of free agent pitchers will still shy away from a team that wasn't as successful as predicted, no matter whose fault it primarily is. To be honest, if they couldn't have signed either of the two biggest names, they might have had a fighting chance this season if they had signed, say, two or three second- or third-tier pitchers. Because they, by and large, neglected pitching, their team's going into the toilet very quickly.

If I were a free agent, I would probably sign with a team that could pay me more than the average for my position AND field a competent team. I wouldn't (in an ideal world, mind you, since I'm not a player!) want a team to throw $300 million at me if no one else on the team could win games. Baseball remains a team sport; even the greatest offensive hitter isn't going to win games for you. But many players do seem content simply to get whatever they can; this is okay as long as they accept that the more money they take, the more pressure they place on themselves for the TEAM to win, not just for themselves to have great stats. If the team sucks, they're getting the blame.

[minty green]

Originally posted by PatrickM
And why is "artificially" reducing labor costs a bad thing? There is no free market for baseball players.But there should be a free market for baseball players. The current labor agreement certainly does not create a free market for any but the most experienced ballplayers. As you can probably tell from the second paragraph of my OP, I'm very much in favor of eliminating the restrictions on younger players that work against a free market. Imposing further impediments, such as a salary cap, only makes the market for ballpayers that much less efficient.

Besides, we've recently seen what salary caps do to the sports that adopt them. The NFL is absolutely horrible these days. Yeah, more and more teams are competitive these days, but that's because they're all equally boring. Give me the glory days of the 70's through mid-90's, when there was no salary cap and football giants roamed the land. C'mon, which would you rather watch, the '79 Steelers, the '92 Cowboys, or the '01 . . . shit, I can't even remember who won the Super Bowl this year. That says it all, I think.

There's plenty of blame to spread around for baseball's labor woes. The player's union, as you point out, has sacrificed the interests of junior players for the sake of big payouts for a handful of long-term veterans. I dislike both management and the union for their anti-competitive stands.
But by the same token, baseball management has a right to be able to determine what their labor costs are going to be so that they can plan and set their prices and earn a profit, just as the Ford Motor Company does.But they already DO have the right to determine what their labor costs will be. Nobody put a gun to George Steinbrenner's head and forced him to give Derek Jeter a $190 million contract. That's how the free market works.

[Milossarian]

As evidenced here, no one seems to have a definitive way to end the labor problems of MLB, and allow all teams an equal chance to compete for a championship.

But I am astounded by the sheer arrogance of those of you who say, "Can't compete with the Yankees, Mets and Dodgers? Fold, then."

You wait and see how much of a shit even people in New York give when they are part of some eight team, big-market, elite all-star league. The league loses its vitality in an instant if it is not truly national, and every team has a competitive chance.

I'm not sure if a salary cap is the answer, but I tend to think some form of salary cap is in baseball's future. The owners like that idiot in Texas can't be relied upon to police themselves. (Watch and see how many pennants Texas wins over the course of A-Rod's stay there. Let alone World Series championships. If the line is 1, I'll take the under.)

A cap that allows teams to overspend to keep their own free agents could be helpful. But it could still be abused by teams like the Yankees. Young stars that other teams developed would still look to be cherry-picked by a team like the Yankees, which would then be able to give them the mega-bucks a season or so down the road.

Revenue-sharing makes more sense to me (but still has problems). MLB owners need to realize that their livelihood lies not just in the strength of their team, but the strength of their league. I think baseball is by far the most shortsighted major American sport in this regard.

There should not be a situation where it is an absolute impossibility for some teams to get certain players.

[dantheman]

Originally posted by Milossarian
Revenue-sharing makes more sense to me (but still has problems). MLB owners need to realize that their livelihood lies not just in the strength of their team, but the strength of their league. I think baseball is by far the most shortsighted major American sport in this regard.

No arguments here. Baseball is a traditionalist sport, although that's changed a little over the past 15 years (going back to when the LCS was extended to seven games). Revenue sharing is the way to go, because right now each team feels it's an island or, if you will, an atoll that must support only itself to survive.

There is another major problem regarding the financial straits of MLB: signing bonuses paid to newly drafted players. There has been an increase in the number of first-round signees who are commanding massive, massive contracts, despite having little or no professional experience (Tim Kurkijan of ESPN went over this a few nights ago.) There's no inherent problem with tossing money at someone to play baseball, but more and more of these draftees are not panning out (anyone heard from Brien Taylor lately?) Team pays millions and millions to Joe Schmoe, 1B out of Highland High; Joe, because of the money invested in him, is promoted to the bigs sooner rather than later and doesn't develop. And then because of the pressure on him to perform at the major-league level, he stinks up the joint further and is burned out at age 24. An exaggerated scenario, yes, but it's becoming more and more prevelant in one form or another. (Plus you have the resentment factor on the part of the current players.)

[PatrickM]

Originally posted by minty green
Originally posted by PatrickM
And why is "artificially" reducing labor costs a bad thing? There is no free market for baseball players.But there should be a free market for baseball players. The current labor agreement certainly does not create a free market for any but the most experienced ballplayers. As you can probably tell from the second paragraph of my OP, I'm very much in favor of eliminating the restrictions on younger players that work against a free market.

My understanding is - and I might be wrong - is that the MLBPA consists of 1,200 members (30 teams each with a major league roster of 40 players). Players in the rest of Organized Baseball, who play for the 180 non-independent minor clubs comprising the National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues are non-union, and don't join the union until they are put on a 40 man major league roster. If they are demoted back to the minors and put off the major league roster, they are then also back out of the union.

If we're going to talk about what *should* be done, then MLBPA should spread its wealth, expand its membership to include and protect minor league players, and negotiate for career minor league players to get some benefits, like higher salaries and pensions. Taking the liberty of the inexact quote from memory, I think it was Earl Weaver who said that management was stealing from the non-union minor leaguers, that they needed them around for their prospects to play against but that they wouldn't pay them enough to make a good living, and that instead the parent club paid them in fools' gold by holding out the false hope that someday they would make the majors. I don't expect this reform to happen anytime soon. And obviously, I'm not talking about Brien Taylor or others who, as dantherman correctly points out, got big signing bonuses and are already set for life, regardless of whether or not they ever become major league stars.

What should be done - and which also will never happen - is that the various city governments that are subsidizing the big league stadiums should form a consortium and sumarily evict the freeloading billionaire team tenants and their millionaire ingrate players from their taxpayer built digs if they don't reach a settlement. Once use of the facilities is freed up, then the city governments can organize their own professional sports leagues, and impose reasonable player wages and set reasonable beer prices. The players will have nowhere else to go if they want to play. Obviously, many of the players are rich enough to quit, and that's ok, because as has been pointed out, there is plenty of available talent out there.

[pldennison]

According to CBS Sporstline (http://cbs.sportsline.com/u/baseball/mlb/teams/OAK/attendance.htm), Oakland is averaging, over 27 home games so far, 23,426 per game. Low, yes, but according to them attendance is up 41% from last year.

[minty green]

Ah, revenue sharing. Now there's a concept I can get behind to a much greater extent than is currently practiced. As Milo points out, the Yankees are going to have a hard time drawing a crowd if there's nobody to play against. Thus, owners should admit that other teams are directly responsible for much of the revenue their own teams bring in, whether it's through ticket sales or broadcast rights.

The hard part, of course, is determining how to share the revenue. I don't think a pseudo-socialist, throw-all-the-money-in-a-big-pot-and-divide-it-up approach is at all desirable, since that drastically reduces each team's incentive to maximize its profitability. On the other hand, teams share a much larger portion of ticket revenues with their visiting opponents, and also their income from local TV and radio broadcasts. Revenue from merchandise sales should remain entirely with the teams whose logos are on the stuff.

As for the big signing bonuses for draft picks, I agree that a lot of them seem pretty ridiculous. What's Mark Prior getting, something like $15 million. But once again, nobody's making the Chicago Cubs pay that much money for a guy who may or may not ever pitch an inning for them. My complaint is that the demand for such bonuses is preventing lower-revenue teams from drafting the best available talent. Then again, I'm not sure why there should be a draft at all. Many teams, including some low-revenue clubs like the Expos, have done a pretty good job of developing talented inrenational players, and international players are not subject to a draft at all.

Patrick M: "Impose reasonable player wages and set reasonable beer prices"? "The players will have nowhere else to go if they want to play"? Surely you jest. I mean, Cuba has a pretty good baseball team with just such a system, but then again our team full of minor leaguers still kicked their butts last year in the Olympics. ;)

[dantheman]

Originally posted by minty green
The hard part, of course, is determining how to share the revenue. I don't think a pseudo-socialist, throw-all-the-money-in-a-big-pot-and-divide-it-up approach is at all desirable, since that drastically reduces each team's incentive to maximize its profitability. On the other hand, teams share a much larger portion of ticket revenues with their visiting opponents, and also their income from local TV and radio broadcasts. Revenue from merchandise sales should remain entirely with the teams whose logos are on the stuff.

Just out of curiosity, how does the NFL handle this? I know that the two leagues are mostly incongruous, but revenue sharing does seem to work there. Anyone know how they split it?

But once again, nobody's making the Chicago Cubs pay that much money for a guy who may or may not ever pitch an inning for them.

No, no one's making them do it, except the agents for these kids demand a certain amount; if the demand's not met and the player is not signed, he simply re-enters the draft the next year (a la J. D. Drew). As it stands now, the kids can easily hold up a team if they don't mind waiting another year to play in the majors. (They can even sign on with an independent team, like the Newark team Jose Canseco's on now.) And if Team A drafts a player but refuses to sign him for what he demands (and the player won't sign for less than what he demands), and that player goes back into the draft the following year, then if ANOTHER team also refuses to pay that same kid, the teams are accused of collusion. Also, I would think that the MLBPA pushes for higher bonuses, too, and we all know how powerful of a lobby they are. So yeah, they are kinda sorta being forced to pay it - either they pay the $$$ now or the player's gone, perhaps even to a divisional rival.

My complaint is that the demand for such bonuses is preventing lower-revenue teams from drafting the best available talent. Then again, I'm not sure why there should be a draft at all. Many teams, including some low-revenue clubs like the Expos, have done a pretty good job of developing talented inrenational players, and international players are not subject to a draft at all.

The Twins have that problem this season. They have a nice low draft pick, but they probably won't be able to afford signing him. So they could lose that guy and get nothing from the first round (although they would get a compensation pick next year, IIRC).

The Expos' player development isn't all that international. They do have quite a few Latin players on their current roster, but what about Asian players? (Unless I'm forgetting something.) Also, even though international players are not subject to the draft, you still need to pay them. Ichiro, Sasaki, Nomo, et al are not cheap. The Mariners had to mortgage SafeCo to pay Ichiro's salary.

[minty green]

dan:

First off, I just spotted a rather important omission from my last post. The sentence should read:On the other hand, teams should share a much larger portion of ticket revenues with their visiting opponents, and also their income from local TV and radio broadcasts.As it stands now, they share only small portions of the gate with the visiting team, and nothing at all from local broadcast revenues. Sorry for any confusion.

The NFL has very broad revenue sharing, especially with merchandising and broadcast revenues. I'm not sure how they handle income from ticket sales, though. This is somewhat easier to accomplish for the NFL, since all of its broadcast contracts are nation-wide, while most broadcast revenue for MLB teams is from local deals. Still, as I noted above, NFL football blows chunks these days, and I'm not eager for baseball to follow in its footsteps.

I agree that the ability to hold a drafting team hostage by threating to wait a year and re-enter the draft is very harmful to low-revenue teams who can't afford to pay the bonus demands of the best prospects. If the draft is to remain--and I'm sure it will--something has to be done about that situation.

But as for the relationship between the players' union and draftees, forget about it. MLBPA is looking out for its own, and is apparently quite willing to screw the non-roster minor leaguers and draftees. Mark McGwire has been fairly vocal about the unfairness of this situation, but he's a voice of reason who isn't likely to sway too many self-interested union votes. I've seen quite a bit of speculation that the union will permit the owners to implement signing bonus caps and similar measures on draftees (something like the NBA now has) as a concession that gets them something else in return.

You may have missed it, but the amateur draft was earlier this week. The Twins had the first pick, and they took Joe Mauer, a high school catcher from Minneapolis. He's a good player, but they took him in large part because the best player available, rhp Mark Prior, was demanding $16 million, while Mauer "only" wanted $6 million.

As for the Mariners, Ichiro Suzuki wasn't quite as expensive as you're making him out to be. True, the M's had to pay his Japanese team $14 million for the right to negotiate with him, but Suzuki himself agreed to a contract for around $5-6 million a year. That's starting to look like a pretty good bargain.

And re: the Expos, their Latin players are precisely the international players I was thinking of. Only a couple of teams--especially the Dodgers--have done much player development in Asia, and serious baseball hardly exists other than in the Americas and Asia. Japanese and Korean players also tend to come to MLB by way of professional teams in their home countries, unlike Latin players. I think the explanation for that is that it's possible to make good money in the Asian leagues, whereas the Latin countries are generally so impoverished that it's much more lucrative for a promising kid to sign up with an MLB team and develop within their system rather than play for a dirt-poor local team.

[PatrickM]

Originally posted by minty green

Patrick M: "Impose reasonable player wages and set reasonable beer prices"? "The players will have nowhere else to go if they want to play"? Surely you jest. I mean, Cuba has a pretty good baseball team with just such a system, but then again our team full of minor leaguers still kicked their butts last year in the Olympics. ;) [/B]

I'm only jesting a little, Minty. In fact, we here in the U.S. of A already have wholly government sponsored pro sports teams that do quite well both in terms of performance and attendence. As exhibits 1 through 4, may I present the Florida State Seminoles, the Ohio State Buckeyes, the Nebraska Cornhuskers and the Penn State Nittany Lions. The state, through their wholly owned subsidiary universities, in effect pay the players through the barter system, providing scholarships in exchange for the player's performance. The player's salaries are capped via NCAA rules. Pro baseball is completely different than college football and college basketball, you say? It doesn't have to be, says I.

[minty green]

Yeah, but you can't even buy a beer at most college sports events these days, even for $5 each. I fail to see how that's an improvement on MLB. :) Besides, the price of tickets to major college sporting events ought to be a clear indication that a salary cap does not result in lower ticket prices for fans. Tickets to UT football games this fall are $40-45 each, despite the fact that the players don't (officially) earn a penny for playing.

Seriously, though, I don't mind in the least the idea of local governments getting involved in team ownership. Why not, when several teams are already owned by the public thanks to the magic of the stock market? There was actually a pretty good law review article on sports team IPO's a couple years ago in the Journal of Corporation Law.

But if governments are going to get involved in team ownership, they should play by the same free-market rules as the rest of the country (ideally) plays by.

[tracer]

Heck, major-league baseball and NFL teams are already subsidized by local governments, if only indirectly. Witness how easy it is for an NFL or MLB team to strong-arm their city into building them a new stadium.

[dantheman]

Originally posted by minty green
The NFL has very broad revenue sharing, especially with merchandising and broadcast revenues. I'm not sure how they handle income from ticket sales, though. This is somewhat easier to accomplish for the NFL, since all of its broadcast contracts are nation-wide, while most broadcast revenue for MLB teams is from local deals. Still, as I noted above, NFL football blows chunks these days, and I'm not eager for baseball to follow in its footsteps.

Hey, don't worry. I suspect we're on the same side, here. :)

While football's not that great due to this weird thing called parity, its quality isn't the issue here. And yes, the NFL has a national broadcast contract, while baseball's is largely local. But there are other outlets; each team currently has its own merchandising deal, and I'd have to think that spreading it around somehow (not equally, but somehow) would only benefit the game.

You may have missed it, but the amateur draft was earlier this week. The Twins had the first pick, and they took Joe Mauer, a high school catcher from Minneapolis. He's a good player, but they took him in large part because the best player available, rhp Mark Prior, was demanding $16 million, while Mauer "only" wanted $6 million.

Yep, that's just what I mean. Top picks feel they can demand things now, thanks at least a little to Mr. Drew. But who's to say Mauer won't be better than Prior? It's tougher than ever to fully gauge how well a player will do in the bigs. (I did hear about the draft, but I didn't follow it. It's just not that big of a deal; unlike other sports, draftees usually go to the minors first, and when they come up they're usually not expected to produce immediately. So it could be years down the road before the benefits are fully realized. So I dunno, the draft doesn't hold a lot of drama for me. I'll see how they do down the road, if they make it to the majors. :)

As for the Mariners, Ichiro Suzuki wasn't quite as expensive as you're making him out to be. True, the M's had to pay his Japanese team $14 million for the right to negotiate with him, but Suzuki himself agreed to a contract for around $5-6 million a year. That's starting to look like a pretty good bargain.

It is. You're right, it is. Ok, so maybe I was a little facetious! But with his success, foreign-born players will have more leverage to demand more money from the MLB clubs. Sure, they don't have to be drafted, but they still need to be signed as free agents. While signing international players is still in its infancy now, it's possible it'll be a full-blown free agency of its own, with scores of players coming from overseas, and not cheaply.

I think we're arguing the same points, really.

[Kyla]

There are a few roots to the A's problems. One is that they haven't been great in recent years, last year being an exception. Then the Giants went and built Pac Bell Park, which is more than a baseball draw - it's a tourist attraction. Non-fans who thought it might be fun to go to a game on a nice afternoon started choosing lovely Pac Bell over the Coliseum, whereas previously they would have gone to sunny Oakland over San Francisco's own little piece of the Arctic, Candlestick Park. Then Al Davis struck - when the Raiders moved back to Oakland, he made the city officials add seats (which don't get filled, but that's another story). The new creation is not very aesthetically pleasing.

The A's have been making noise about moving to Santa Clara. There are two obvious plusses for this plan: location, and money. It's only about 30 miles away from Oakland, so fans could still come to games, especially if BART ever expands to San Jose (ha ha). Also, Santa Clara is rich. Much richer than Oakland. There are twice as many people in San Jose as in Oakland, and some of them are millionaire computer people (this is Silicon Valley). In Oakland, the A's have to compete with the Warriors and the Raiders. In San Jose, there are only the Sharks. Unfortunately for the A's owners, there is a substantial roadblock: the Giants.

Back in the late eighties/early ninetines, the Giants were desperate to get out of Candlestick, and tried to move to Santa Clara themselves (their proposed plan was rejected by Santa Clara voters). During this process, MLB declared Santa Clara to be Giants territory. (Actually, they declared almost the entire Bay Area to be Giants territory, with the exception of the East Bay.) So, in a word, the Giants have to give the A's permission to move to Santa Clara. Which they will never do. It's the same deal that Peter Angelos has with Washington - no new team is gonna infringe on my MLB-given territory!

[Typo Negative]

Originally posted by tracer
Major-league baseball teams don't just sign free agents for the purpose of winning ballgames. They also sign them because of their star power, i.e. their ability to draw more fans to their stadiums and increase their TV ratings. How many more people do you think are watching Texas Rangers games this year just because Alex Rodrigues is now their shortstop? I tune to watch them get their asses kicked and to have a good laugh. A-Rod's signing did bring in more sales, but I think that was at least partly due to the promise of the team winning. Now when I watch Ranger home games on the tube, I see fans holding 'I want my money back' signs. It will be interesting to see if attendence drops off after the All-Star break.

But back to 'star-power'. I still contend that it should be a buyers market for the GM's if they had some sense and some patience. A-Rod's a star, and Piazza's a star and they have drawing power because of their ablity, but there are a bunch of guys waiting, and able, to take their place, IMHO. And I still believe that GM's are too often getting man-handled by superstar agents.

[DRY]

Originally posted by astorian
Paul Beeston, currently Bud Selig's right-hand man, used to be an executive with the Toronto Blue Jays, and HE stated several years back that, as an accountant, he knew how easy it could be to make a profitable team look like a money-loser, or vice versa.... and he was NOT bragging, simply making an acknowledgement of a real problem: namely, that even if a team opened up its books to the players' union and PROVED that money was being lost, players would remain skeptical.
OK, the quote must have been taken out of context, then, because it was definitely Beeston who made it. I agree that it's easy to manipulate the books, but I recall that in the last labor fight, the players union wanted an independent audit of the owners' books, and the owners refused to allow it. Seems to me that even if an independent review *proves* nothing, the owners should still be willing to allow it--if they're in fact losing money.

I don't see contraction as either a viable option nor a desireable one. A buyout won't happen, and if MLB *EVER* wishes to expand again, a potential new owner might very well be reluctant to invest in the new team's franchise fees, given the precedent of contraction.

One point re teams "losing" money. Even if a team loses money on the day to day operations, the owners rarely (if EVER) lose money when the team is sold. I don't believe any team has ever been sold for less than it was purchsed, even accounting for inflation.

I also disagree about the salary cap mentioned by PatrickM. Owners have consistently tried to tie in revenue sharing to a salary cap. That's an artificial association. One does not necessitate the other.

Further, some teams, like the Yankees, are unhappy with the revenue sharing plan currently in place. It seems the money given to smaller teams is supposed to be put back into player development (or some such), but instead is often pocketed by the smaller team's owners. Or so Steinbrenner has alleged, anyway.

On another note, I absolutely, positively agree with PatrickM re the union doing more for minor leaguers. This actually hurt then in a previous labor impasse when "scabs" like Rick Reed (who crossed the line because they were NOT being taken care of) were potential replacement players and "stuck" in the majors when the players came back.

dantheman, it's possible that Joe Mauer may end up being better than Prior, but Prior's the better bet. Hometown heroness aside, I suspect Prior goes first (and Texiera goes higher) if signing bonuses are "capped" a la the NBA.