Why are they not playing baseball ?

[scotgreb]

Not picking a side here but I have always felt that the capital that ownership has invested/ at risk is underappreciated. Of course, most have large unrealized capital gains in these franchises but it is still a very large amount of capital tied up in the "business" nonetheless. That capital could be deployed in infinite other productive assets. By comparison, players have nothing invested other than their talent -- which has no comparative value outside of baseball.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[ASF123]

The owners offer of $615k is a slap in the face.

Uh-oh. If an offer of 86% of asking price is a slap in the face, I've inadvertently slapped a bunch of eBay sellers in the face. Sorry about that!

[todeen]

Originally Posted by ASF123

Uh-oh. If an offer of 86% of asking price is a slap in the face, I've inadvertently slapped a bunch of eBay sellers in the face. Sorry about that!

I'm not sure your math is correct. Current minimum is $570k. Union asked for about $200k more, to a minimum wage of $775k. Owners offered $615, or $45k more than current salary. My math says they offered slightly less than 25% of asking. And yes, most sellers will be upset with just 25%.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by todeen

I'm not sure your math is correct. Current minimum is $570k. Union asked for about $200k more, to a minimum wage of $775k. Owners offered $615, or $45k more than current salary. My math says they offered slightly less than 25% of asking. And yes, most sellers will be upset with just 25%.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Its worse than that. Players make 570K and owners are offering 615K, thats roughly a 7.9% raise.

[ASF123]

Originally Posted by todeen

I'm not sure your math is correct. Current minimum is $570k. Union asked for about $200k more, to a minimum wage of $775k. Owners offered $615, or $45k more than current salary. My math says they offered slightly less than 25% of asking. And yes, most sellers will be upset with just 25%.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

You were responding to a post that stated "I see the owners have offered a $ 615,000 minimum salary and the players union is at $ 715,000," which seemed accurate from a quick Google check. If it's not, I stand corrected.

The players definitely have legitimate gripes, especially the need to raise salaries for early-career players, which of course raising the minimum would help with. I support the players on that. But at least from what I've seen the parties aren't actually that far apart on that issue. They're a lot further apart on other issues.

On the baseball websites I follow, the commentary is about 98% anti-owner, and often militant, exaggerated and ill-informed. I don't think that's helpful.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by scotgreb

Not picking a side here but I have always felt that the capital that ownership has invested/ at risk is underappreciated. Of course, most have large unrealized capital gains in these franchises but it is still a very large amount of capital tied up in the "business" nonetheless. That capital could be deployed in infinite other productive assets. By comparison, players have nothing invested other than their talent -- which has no comparative value outside of baseball.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

That is true, but do we, the fans pay to see the owners or the players?

I think also, realistically speaking, Teams nowadays aren't really used as a single source of income, as they once were. I am sure there are exceptions to this, but most of the owners, especially the ones that have entered the sport in recent years, are ones that are already established Billionaires. I think we're more likely to see the Steve Cohen, Art Moreno types rather than someone like Bill Veeck.

This also fuels my point concerning teams being competitive, and what the players are complaining about. The current luxury tax system allows the money to be redistributed to teams with lower payrolls, and the owners are simply just allowed, to pocket the money, rather than fielding a competitive team. Bob Nutting, who is worth over One Billion Dollars is a prime example of this. And While undoubtedly I'm sure some players, prefer to play under the lights of Chicago, NY, Boston or LA, He is perfectly capable of offering Carlos Correa or Freddie Freeman a fat contract, but chooses not to because he'd rather line his pockets.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Seven

This also fuels my point concerning teams being competitive, and what the players are complaining about. The current luxury tax system allows the money to be redistributed to teams with lower payrolls, and the owners are simply just allowed, to pocket the money, rather than fielding a competitive team. Bob Nutting, who is worth over One Billion Dollars is a prime example of this. And While undoubtedly I'm sure some players, prefer to play under the lights of Chicago, NY, Boston or LA, He is perfectly capable of offering Carlos Correa or Freddie Freeman a fat contract, but chooses not to because he'd rather line his pockets.

There's also the matter of how team "wealth" is determined. The Twins are considered a low money team but are owned by the Pohlad family who are (or were - haven't checked recently) one of the richest owners in the majors.