2019-2020 Offseason Discussion

[fauowls44]

Daniel Zylberkan
@danzyl66
·
54m
What I still don't get is how the owners so quickly agreed to the original deal and then collectively said it was unacceptable 5 miinutes later

What I don't get is how either side can agree to something that is apparently so vague that they are arguing over it's real meaning almost 3 months later.

[tjfla]

Its gonna end up being 82 games(like it was proposed months ago)

All this crap is because the owners only wanna pay like 80-90%(Offered 50% then 75%) while the players want ALL salary for 50 games,82 games,114 games. These idiots dont realize that No season means 0%.

Play 82 games get paid and get thru the damn season!!!

[fauowls44]

Its gonna end up being 82 games(like it was proposed months ago)

All this crap is because the owners only wanna pay like 80-90%(Offered 50% then 75%) while the players want ALL salary for 50 games,82 games,114 games. These idiots dont realize that No season means 0%.

Play 82 games get paid and get thru the damn season!!!

The fact that the owners offered 75% means they are willing to do more. Probably anything other than 100% gets it done so they can claim a victory. All of this is so short-sighted on both sides that it is infuriating.

[tjfla]

The fact that the owners offered 75% means they are willing to do more. Probably anything other than 100% gets it done so they can claim a victory. All of this is so short-sighted on both sides that it is infuriating.

Exactly they are cool with paying 80-90% they just wanna pay less than 100% to say they won and players won't budge on it. Its like the 82 games it was proposed months ago and the latest proposals the games have 82 right in the middle!! 1 says 89 and other say 76 come on

Funniest part of all of this is owners want season to end before weather gets crappy in NY/Chicago/Boston/Minnesota/Cincy/Philly so they can play the games in home stadiums

Petty as hell

[Lee Stone]

I don't regard it as petty for the owners to decide how much they are willing to risk in this highly unusual and unprecedented situation. After all, they are only ones who stand to lose money.

[Nick]

I don't regard it as petty for the owners to decide how much they are willing to risk in this highly unusual and unprecedented situation. After all, they are only ones who stand to lose money.

????? What are you talking about? The players would lose money, the sponsors would lose money, the networks would lose money, but most importantly you alienate the fans most of whom have lost a bunch during this pandemic as well.

[fauowls44]

????? What are you talking about? The players would lose money, the sponsors would lose money, the networks would lose money, but most importantly you alienate the fans most of whom have lost a bunch during this pandemic as well.

There are no good outcomes here for anyone. They all lose, but they have to make the best of it. If they don't get a deal done, they do major damage to the sport...probably already have because of this nonsense.

[fish16]

Its gonna end up being 82 games(like it was proposed months ago)

All this crap is because the owners only wanna pay like 80-90%(Offered 50% then 75%) while the players want ALL salary for 50 games,82 games,114 games. These idiots dont realize that No season means 0%.

Play 82 games get paid and get thru the damn season!!!

They arent idiots. In what world does it make sense for them to play for anything less than the full prorated salaries that they already agreed to. why should the players be the one to withstand this risk of loss rather than the billionaire owners who own a forever appreciating asset. sorry revenues arent going to be what you thought they would be. tough shit, you also have an asset that will forever appreciate and there is no time limit on their ownership like there is on a players career.

- - - - - - - - - -

I don't regard it as petty for the owners to decide how much they are willing to risk in this highly unusual and unprecedented situation. After all, they are only ones who stand to lose money.

not making as much money is not nearly the same thing as not making money. you know the owners are losing money based on what? Because literally nobody knows how much money the owners are or arent making because, once again, THEY HAVE NEVER OPENED THEIR BOOKS. i would be willing to guarantee they either arent losing anywhere close to the money they are claiming or arent going to be losing money at all.

[Lee Stone]

????? What are you talking about? The players would lose money, the sponsors would lose money, the networks would lose money, but most importantly you alienate the fans most of whom have lost a bunch during this pandemic as well.

If you define losing money as having less than you started with, then the owners are the potential losers. The players may collect less than they would have in a normal season, but they are still getting paid.

[fish16]

If you define losing money as having less than you started with, then the owners are the potential losers. The players may collect less than they would have in a normal season, but they are still getting paid.

except that once again you fail to acknowledge that you have 0 actual clue about whether the owners are or arent losing money.

[Lee Stone]

except that once again you fail to acknowledge that you have 0 actual clue about whether the owners are or arent losing money.

As David Sampson points out, owners don't write themselves a check at the end of each season, they write a check to balance the team's books. If teams were about making money, there would be no $20-30 million annual salaries for players.

They don't own franchises as a business investment. They own them as toys, much like racehorses, yachts, and mansions by the sea. While baseball teams have skyrocketed in value, that isn't because of their profitability. It's because they are limited in number and the number of billionaires who can afford such toys has grown exponentially. All about supply and demand. It's fun to own a team!

[fish16]

As David Sampson points out, owners don't write themselves a check at the end of each season, they write a check to balance the team's books. If teams were about making money, there would be no $20-30 million annual salaries for players.

They don't own franchises as a business investment; they own them as toys, much like racehorses, yachts, and mansions by the sea. While baseball teams have skyrocketed in value, that isn't because of their profitability. It's because they are limited in number and the number of billionaires who can afford such toys has grown exponentially.

david samson is also a liar who continually lied about the marlins actual numbers in order to achieve his goal of getting a publicly funded stadium that he didnt have to put much of jeffrey loria's money into.

Also, most of these teams are in fact immensely profitable year to year. https://deadspin.com/mlb-confidentia...l-does-5615096. This idea that they arent is complete horseshit, and their ability to make that kind of money has only increased in the last 10 years as baseballs revenues have skyrocketed from 5.5 billion or so to close to 10 billion in 2018. to make it real simple- what you're saying is just regurgitated lying owner bullshit about their profits and losses

- - - - - - - - - -

Per the website, MLB profits are at record highs, with the average team operating profit rising 25% this past season to $50 million. The Astros had the highest profit at $99 million and only the Marlins lost money on an operating basis.

https://www.si.com/mlb/2020/04/09/yankees-dodgers-mlb-valuable-franchises-

This is from an SI article that was quoting a forbes piece. This idea that teams dont make money on a year to year basis is ridiculous and laughable. If they didnt make money on a year to year basis do you know how fucking quickly the owners would open their books?

[Nick]

You'll never convince me that Jeff Loria, who bought the Marlins for $158 million and sold the team for $1.2 billion 15 years later didn't make money on the deal.

[Lee Stone]

If a franchise owner did make a $50M annual profit on a $2 billion holding, that still would be a chicken shit return (2 1/2 percent). Shares of Facebook went up 12 times over the last six or seven years. That's the way owners get the cash to buy their toys.

[fish16]

If a franchise owner did make a $50M annual profit on a $2 billion holding, that still would be a chicken shit return (2 1/2 percent). Shares of Facebook went up 12 times over the last six or seven years. That's the way owners get the cash to buy their toys.

so now we've gone from the owners dont make a profit because samson says so to "even if they do make a profit its not a great return"? Just admit youre making shit up and being a billionaire owner apologist with no real information on their finances

- - - - - - - - - -

Also, a 2.5% yearly profit with the near certainty of an enormous ROI when they sell the team is a great return for guys who are doing this as a side business to however they actually made their money to be able to buy the team in the first place