Comments for Are Some MLB Teams Profiting While Living on Welfare? at http://bizofbaseball.com , comment 1 to 6 out of 6 comments http://bizofbaseball.com Sun, 19 May 2013 06:50:21 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3782:are-some-mlb-teams-profiting-while-living-on-welfare&catid=26:editorials&Itemid=39#comment-1423 I agree that there is an issue in terms of player development, but then that points to poor investment in revenue-sharing dollars if it is being directed at that aspect. In other words, the Pirates are inept for not investing wisely in the drafting process, or they're inept in how they approach free agency. I would contend it's more the former than the latter, supporting your position that they have not drafted well. I don't agree with the last paragraph. There is already a sliding scale that pays more in revenue-sharing to the clubs that should need it based on local revenues. The system was adjusted in this most current CBA to incentivise clubs to invest in player talent. I'm not seeing that from a number of clubs over the current life of the agreement. Also, I don't see why they should be stuck at #27 in league wins. The Rays did not have this, nor have the Rockies, nor Twins, all of which have limited revenues but have been able to be competitive. In the case of the Rockies, they have been able to lock up talent, as have the Rays (Tulowitzki and Longoria) The system no longer allows the excuses that have been in the past for clubs that remain mired in a rut. Ultimately, that lays at the feet of ownership. The Marlins have been really sucking the life out of the system over the last few years, but I have to give at least a passing nod to Loria for making a go of it in 2003, which paid dividends in a World Series Championship. The Pirates don't seem much better now than they did when Littlefield and McClatchy were in the organization, and that's not a positive. When you rearrange like that, and the results are the same, that points to the Nuttings. - Maury Brown Fri, 04 Dec 2009 14:28:31 +0100 http://bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3782:are-some-mlb-teams-profiting-while-living-on-welfare&catid=26:editorials&Itemid=39#comment-1422 I agree with you that it increases their equity in the club, which certainly benefits them. However, paying that debt is necessary and also does help the club compete long term as he says. The problem the Pirates face right now in bettering the team is not cash flow. It is simply that there aren't the players that they could go out and purchase on the free agent market to make a real difference in their win total. This is due to years of poor drafting and player decisions, and spending $15M more on MLB payroll is not going to change that. The misconception around the press about the recent firesale of players was that the Pirates couldn't pay them once they entered free agency years. They probably could have paid them all (if they had locked up Bay in advance), but then they'd still have a losing team with no hope to obtain the pitching they were lacking to go with the offense. In that situation, with a bad farm system with practically no pitching ready to go in the minors, there's really only one way to go, and that is restock with prospects and try to do better on the next go round. It's obvious on a conceptual level that if a team like the Pirates is #27 on the revenue totem pole that no amount of revenue sharing is going to allow them to leapfrog other teams to allow them to have a league average payroll. Logically this means if the Pirates get the same amount of wins per dollar as the average team, they will always be #27 in the league in wins. This means they must get MORE wins per dollar to even get to .500 let alone compete for the playoffs. Getting more wins per dollar means means having a lot of players in their team controlled year, or being able to use those years as leverage to lock up their high value players early. That is the reality of MLB and 31% revenue sharing is not going to change that reality. If there were 80% revenue sharing like in the NFL, then the gap narrows enough so that low revenue teams don't have to act drastically different than high revenue teams. On the larger question of competitiveness, I think there should be a special pool of money to help small market teams retain their "franchise" players. If players want to leave, that's one thing, but for the Cardinals to not be able to keep Pujols, for example, only because the Yankees can offer him $30M/year and the Cardinals can't, despite having the 4th highest attendance in the league, is just a very sad situation that degrades the quality of the sport. - MarkInDallas Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:56:51 +0100 http://bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3782:are-some-mlb-teams-profiting-while-living-on-welfare&catid=26:editorials&Itemid=39#comment-1421 [b][quote]They are still paying for those mistakes although are trying to get out from under them and paying down the debt is something that will although them leeway in the future. [/quote][/b] Paying down debt increases the value of the club. It also increases its sale value, should the Nuttings ever wish to do so. The revenue-sharing policy is designed to create competitive balance at the roster level. I have no issue with clubs working on developing player talent; it makes sense. I do wonder about whether the excuse is given that money is all being funneled into that model, and yet there are calls for a cap when the revenue-sharing receivers choose that model, yet complain that they can't retain players when they hit free agency, or can't compete on the FA market. You can't have your cake, and eat it too - Maury Brown Fri, 04 Dec 2009 07:04:16 +0100 http://bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3782:are-some-mlb-teams-profiting-while-living-on-welfare&catid=26:editorials&Itemid=39#comment-1420 As Coonelly said, paying down debt is needed so the club is in a better position for the future. In 2003, because they had an expensive club that still were losers and losing attendance, the Pirates had to sell off Aramis Ramirez quickly for nothing. The reason was because of the debt they already had. They are still paying for those mistakes although are trying to get out from under them and paying down the debt is something that will although them leeway in the future. Right now, using more for MLB payroll is useless. They don't have the good players to spend it on. Flipping their vets for prospects lately has been so they can restock their depleted farm system now that the front office has a clue on drafting and player development. Of the teams receiving revenue sharing money who are making a profit, only the Royals are profiting less according to Forbes. Certainly making a small profit shouldn't be illegal nor against the CBA. Do you run your own budget so that a small disaster would put you on the street? - MarkInDallas Fri, 04 Dec 2009 06:37:47 +0100 http://bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3782:are-some-mlb-teams-profiting-while-living-on-welfare&catid=26:editorials&Itemid=39#comment-1419 You should probably note that Forbes' figures are net of revenue sharing estimates. Once you consider that, most of these teams would have posted operating losses without revenue sharing. - Charles F Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:15:46 +0100 http://bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3782:are-some-mlb-teams-profiting-while-living-on-welfare&catid=26:editorials&Itemid=39#comment-1418 [quote]Team President Frank Coonelly said the profit will be used to pay down the franchise's debt, which will help field a better team in the future. The Pirates have endured 15 consecutive losing seasons.... Coonelly add that the Pirates' actual profit was much lower,” taking into account annual interest payments of "over $5 million, maybe approaching $7 million" on the franchise's $100 million-plus in debts.”[/quote] Translation - "Ownership bought the team/built the stadium/whatever with a boatload of low interest debt, courtesy of Uncle Sam. Instead of reinvesting profits into the team, we are paying off those debts so that ownership will own the team free and clear." - Greg1 Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:06:58 +0100