This thread is amazing.
This thread is amazing.
IF the Braves had a bigger payroll budgetOriginally Posted by Metaphysicist
IF the fans felt Liberty spent like some of the other "big pocket" owners
IF the Braves weren't at risk (like many of the other mid-market teams) of developing and then losing big portions of their homegrown talent solely because of budgetary concerns
IF MLB would enter the 21st century and institute a salary cap to control some of the ridiculous spending by 'certain' teams
then this thread would be irrelevant. Financially, MLB has screwed up rules and guidelines. Where else should we rant for or against then on a public forum? MLB isn't going to ever change anyway...just like Washington.
If we as posters only knew the true inside operations of the team we might not bitch so much.
We have been told countless times that Liberty does not take a single dollar from the Braves revenues. So where does it go? We know now that they have 372M ratholed somewhere to buy a new stadium.
If revenues are truly in the $225M area, why cant we have a $150M payroll?
Except for the Ueberroth Collusion Era, teams have spent about half of revenues on player salaries. I guess the other half covers other costs, and yes some of it is pocketed by owners. The idea that ownership does not take a single dollar from revenues is a myth. Occasionally, an owner will pay out of his own pocket for a player if he thinks the team has a chance to do something special. The teams that have done this in recent years probably include the Tigers and Phillies. Interestingly enough, the owner of the Indians has done this too in recent years. And I suspect the Royals spent above revenues in 2013.
Why do people continue to blame LM for the payroll? The Braves are in the middle of the pack as far as revenue goes, thus they are in the middle of the pack as far as payroll is concerned. You want to fix that then you need to drag your asses out to more games.
No owner will lose money on a team, so stop suggesting a new owner would increase payroll. If anything a new owner may be worse if he decides to mettle in baseball affairs.
sturg33 (11-26-2013)
That's the reality. Liberty might be a little more stingy than average, but they are within the range of normal financial behavior.
The Braves revenue was 225 million in 2012. Tied for 12th with the Nationals. The Braves starting payroll for 2013 was around 89 million which was 18th in baseball. With the money the Braves make there is no reason the payroll should not be in the 110 million range.
Will be interesting to see what the 2013/2014 numbers are. Especially since revenues should project to be greater when the new stadium comes along. But I suspect it will be more of the same if not worse.
I think the poster calling for a salary cap is missing the real problem; forcing the Yankees, Dodgers and Red Sox to spend less won't force teams like the Marlins and Astros to spend more. I've always thought that if we cap the maximum a team can spend, we also have to expect a strictly enforced minimum on how much teams spend to put together a payroll. If players had more competitive offers coming in, they wouldn't end up the same six cities year in and year out. All imposing a maximum cap would do is drive down salary, which would cause another labor shutdown. You have to fix the whole problem, not just discrimiate against the Yankees and Dodgers for doing what they think is necessary to win...
NFL has it right in that regard. Salary cap and floor are necessary.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
Except we do not have an owner. Well I guess you could realistically say anyone who owns a share of Liberty is an owner. however since the outstanding shares of Liberty are worth north of $10 Billion just how much do you think the earnings from the Braves contribute to earnings per share. Im math deficient but I can see it is something like a penny per share. So unless you think you can promote a position on the board of directors, find something else to cry about.
Given the importance of local tv deals in baseball (as opposed to football), the economics of parity are different. I think the local tv stream means that if you look at baseball globally (as opposed to looking at it from the perspective of the fan of a particular team), you do want the playing field to be somewhat tilted in favor of big market teams. How much I can't say. But absolute spending parity doesn't make sense for baseball.
Oh the irony of this thread is too much.
Never seen someone fly off the handle as quickly as AA. keep up the lulz.
for how many times he says he hates Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton and say all they do is play the victim/world against them card
AA follows their lead on that card pretty often it seems
it is pretty weird.
carry on though
Again, I urge everyone to read "The Lords of the Realm" by John Helyar. It's a history of baseball team ownership and although the book is over 20 years old now, it provides an accurate picture of how screwed up MLB is compared to the NFL. Problem is that the cat is out of the bag now--as many have pointed out--with the monstrous local television deals and good luck trying to get that revenue shared.
Yeah but he's leaving now so it doesn't matter.
The motley crew of posters on this board is what makes it awesome, imo. Cures the boredom.
thank you weso1!
How nice of you to shamelessly plug your clique.
Forever Fredi
Mad Dog Murph (11-26-2013)
If you believe Liberty is anywhere close to losing money on the Braves, I have a bridge to sell you in Cobb County.
My hope is that Liberty will pony up to re-sign this young group of players we have now. I think it might make business sense. In 2017 with the new stadium and trying to sell season tickets would you want to be losing Heyward, Freeman, and Simmons around that time. I wouldn't. Keeping them might take a payroll bump. Personally this year wouldn't be a great year to spend money any way. There is nothing I wouldn't want to lock myself into a long term commitment with what is available. I love Brian McCann, but in the long run we're better off given what it took to sign him.
This is the key. Make teams like the Marlins and Astros pay a set amount on payroll. If their salaries don't add up, make them pay the difference in equal increments to their division rivals. Force them to either spend money to make their own team better or pay to increase the gap between that team and its closest rivals. That would be a powerful incentive to at least attempt to compete.
Sports unions behave much differently than those in the real world. Groups like the MLBPA only care about getting the biggest maximum salary for their stars. You don't see the UAW or Teamsters allowing entry level members to earn minimum wage while pushing the higher ranking hourly employees towards high six figure salaries. If I were part of MLB management and wanted to force the PA to accept a salary cap I'd play it from this angle. Work on increasing salaries for those making at or near the league minimum rather than trying to force players to accept the absolute highest salary versus a slightly lower offer from a team that player prefers.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
