2021 MLB Season thread

Briancuse

Living Legend
Joined
Feb 16, 2014
Messages
27,485
Like
33,603
They got 1.7 billion or really close think 1.5 billion.
They got revenue.
Here are the payrolls

Complete 2020 MLB Payroll List:

  1. New York Yankees($109.4 mil)
  2. Los Angeles Dodgers($105.7 mil)
  3. Boston Red Sox ($83.7 mil)
  4. Houston Astros ($82.5 mil)
  5. Philadelphia Phillies($78.1 mil)
  6. New York Mets ($76.6 mil)
  7. Chicago Cubs ($75.6 mil)
  8. San Diego Padres ($71.5 mil)
  9. San Francisco Giants($71.4 mil)
  10. St. Louis Cardinals($71.1 mil)
  11. Washington Nationals($67.4 mil)
  12. Los Angeles Angels ($66 mil)
  13. Atlanta Braves ($63 mil)
  14. Texas Rangers ($62.7 mil)
  15. Colorado Rockies ($61.8 mil)
  16. Arizona Diamondbacks($60 mil)
  17. Cincinnati Reds ($55.6 mil)
  18. Minnesota Twins ($55.4 mil)
  19. Toronto Blue Jays ($54 mil)
  20. Chicago White Sox($52.4 mil)
  21. Seattle Mariners ($48.9 mil)
  22. Detroit Tigers ($43.3 mil)
  23. Milwaukee Brewers($39.6 mil)
  24. Cleveland Indians($37.5 mil)
  25. Oakland Athletics($36.7 mil)
  26. Kansas City Royals($34.8 mil)
  27. Miami Marlins ($31.2 mil)
  28. Tampa Bay Rays ($28.3 mil)
  29. Pittsburgh Pirates($25.1 mil)
  30. Baltimore Orioles($23.5 mil)
Mets will soon be 2nd, when they pay Lindor, Conforto, Thor, perhaps sign one more free agent this year.
 

donniesyracuse

All American
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
4,826
Like
5,504
Here is an article from the Athletic. It is about how expansion is not coming soon for baseball, even though finances are really bad for the owners.

according to commissioner Rob Manfred
They can all cry poverty and sell their franchises for more than ever today.
 

Alsacs

Internet Man, Internet Hero or Internet Scout!!
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
55,782
Like
69,240
They can all cry poverty and sell their franchises for more than ever today.
If they lost money last year it was minuscule in the big picture.
The postseason money covered the payrolls of the low spending teams.
TV RSNs helped the big market teams.

They didn’t profit last year but the sport isn’t dying economically.
The NHL needs Gates way more than MLB. NHL doesn’t get the TV revenue in the USA that MLb teams do.

Teams aren’t spending because they want to keep salaries down and outside of the Padres and Mets don’t want to win at all costs.
Now Dodgers don’t need to spend but the other big market teams give me a break.
 

Knicks411

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
12,553
Like
10,181
If they lost money last year it was minuscule in the big picture.
The postseason money covered the payrolls of the low spending teams.
TV RSNs helped the big market teams.

They didn’t profit last year but the sport isn’t dying economically.
The NHL needs Gates way more than MLB. NHL doesn’t get the TV revenue in the USA that MLb teams do.

Teams aren’t spending because they want to keep salaries down and outside of the Padres and Mets don’t want to win at all costs.
Now Dodgers don’t need to spend but the other big market teams give me a break.


Another thing that blew my mind until I realized it a few years ago; unlike the other sports, the CBA in baseball doesn't agree on a revenue split. In baseball there is a lot more incentive for teams to try and lower costs, because that is actual savings. In the NBA, the players get X% of the revenue regardless
 

Knicks411

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
12,553
Like
10,181
No one is disputing that payrolls were reduced. Teams still lost tons of money. No one cleared a profit. You can dispute the 2.5 billion dollar number Manfred came up with. The real number is probably somewhat lower.

If you take 1.7 billion and divide it by 30 (this is not real; the league offices definitely get a piece of the revenue, maybe others as well), you get around 56.7 million per team.

Add in costs for airfare, hotels, meals, ground transportation, support staff, insurance, COVID testing, costs for 'spring' training, etc., etc., etc.

There is no way any MLB team cleared a profit. It is just a question of how many millions of dollars they all lost.


I guess it just depends on if you're looking at simply a net P&L for a calendar year and not marking to market the increase in franchise values. You could lose some money on paper, but if your franchise value keeps going up (and the Mets just went for a ton, so they probably still are!) then that can cover a lot of that in a manner of speaking.

I'd imagine a lot of teams took in less revenue than they paid out in 2020 for sure.

Forbes valued the Mets at $2.3 billion in July 2019. There was a pandemic between then and the sale to Cohen, and the deal was valued at around $2.475 billion, and didnt include SNY, so you're talking an increase of nearly $200 million in value from the Forbes valuation in a little over a year that included a pandemic that presumably resulted in losses
 

sutomcat

Former Iggy Winner. I used to be somebody special
Staff member
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
16,576
Like
63,863
I guess it just depends on if you're looking at simply a net P&L for a calendar year and not marking to market the increase in franchise values. You could lose some money on paper, but if your franchise value keeps going up (and the Mets just went for a ton, so they probably still are!) then that can cover a lot of that in a manner of speaking.

I'd imagine a lot of teams took in less revenue than they paid out in 2020 for sure.

Forbes valued the Mets at $2.3 billion in July 2019. There was a pandemic between then and the sale to Cohen, and the deal was valued at around $2.475 billion, and didnt include SNY, so you're talking an increase of nearly $200 million in value from the Forbes valuation in a little over a year that included a pandemic that presumably resulted in losses
Yes, values of the franchises have increased. But that doesn't help them pay the payroll.

If you have a house and on paper, it is worth 10% more than when you bought it, awesome. It doesn't help you much though if your mortgage is more than you can afford to pay each month.

Most of the player contracts are guaranteed. The owners can't reduce these because revenue is down by 40%. One area they can control, to some extent anyway, is how much they spend on new contracts (i.e. free agents). That is why the market is depressed and why the players who took the gamble to become free agents are going to, for the most part anyway, get burned this time around.

I am not pro owner. Don't have a dog in this fight.

Just saying when your revenues go down drastically and your costs increase (COVID costs the owners a lot of extra money), it is going to have an effect. The agents who are trying to set the prices for their players are living in fantasyland asking for record level money. It isn't going to happen. This is a very bad offseason to be a free agent.
 

Alsacs

Internet Man, Internet Hero or Internet Scout!!
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
55,782
Like
69,240
The owners have been on a spending freeze in free agency for multiple years.
Outside of a few the teams aren’t spending that much in FA.

Also MLB has a credit line of several billions with Bank of America available for teams if they need cash.

Most of these teams don’t want to spend in free agency.

As Knicks said their isn’t the same level of revenue sharing in MLB which is why the big market teams claim losses and use their RSNs they own to shelter money. The Red Sox owners can charge themselves whatever they want for broadcasting on NESN and then the payment isn’t eligible for the revenue sharing.

What is happening in baseball is teams are realizing what the Astros and White Sox did works. You completely bottom out and don’t spend anything and sell everything you have of value to other teams for prospects.
Then use the draft rebuild their farm system.

Once the White Sox didn’t trade for Tatis Jr. for James Shields and they didn’t win they realized the Astros strategy worked.
Baseball needs teams to actually want to try and win and just spend their money in manners to try and be competitive.
What the teams have done is freeze spending in Fa and they have knocked the middle class of players from getting decent salaries and just go young and inexperienced to keep money down.
Not because it helps the teams win but keep revenue spending down.
 

upperdeck

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
18,779
Like
15,869
so the reality is do you want fans like the Marlins where they have gotten 2 titles in 20 yrs sucked about 15 yrs and have no fan base, or be the yankees/dodgers spend a ton over 20 years and 1 win title and have fans who complain about not winning/spending more

if you paid the players way less and had a way lower Cap, imagine what would happen.. the Marlins and others would not have to sell the best players because they wouldnt go anyplace and more fans would have an interest in the game.

and the players would still be millionaires.
 

Alsacs

Internet Man, Internet Hero or Internet Scout!!
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
55,782
Like
69,240
so the reality is do you want fans like the Marlins where they have gotten 2 titles in 20 yrs sucked about 15 yrs and have no fan base, or be the yankees/dodgers spend a ton over 20 years and 1 win title and have fans who complain about not winning/spending more

if you paid the players way less and had a way lower Cap, imagine what would happen.. the Marlins and others would not have to sell the best players because they wouldnt go anyplace and more fans would have an interest in the game.

and the players would still be millionaires.
Teams can spend whatever they want.
Nobody is saying waste money.
Stop tanking multiple years.

Smart teams can compete without being FA spending kings.

The Dodgers barely spend money in FA and they spend a lot of money and try to actually win.
Now only the Padres and Mets have done this during this offseason.
To be fair the White Sox and Braves have spent as well.

Teams that could use a player to be competitive aren’t spending because they don’t care about winning.
 

Knicks411

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
12,553
Like
10,181
Yes, values of the franchises have increased. But that doesn't help them pay the payroll.

If you have a house and on paper, it is worth 10% more than when you bought it, awesome. It doesn't help you much though if your mortgage is more than you can afford to pay each month.

Most of the player contracts are guaranteed. The owners can't reduce these because revenue is down by 40%. One area they can control, to some extent anyway, is how much they spend on new contracts (i.e. free agents). That is why the market is depressed and why the players who took the gamble to become free agents are going to, for the most part anyway, get burned this time around.

I am not pro owner. Don't have a dog in this fight.

Just saying when your revenues go down drastically and your costs increase (COVID costs the owners a lot of extra money), it is going to have an effect. The agents who are trying to set the prices for their players are living in fantasyland asking for record level money. It isn't going to happen. This is a very bad offseason to be a free agent.


Yeah I agree with what you're saying, I do think most, if not all, teams, would show a loss on a net P&L basis for 2020. It was a brutal year. Just wanted to point out the ever increasing team values (which also should help them borrow money if necessary, though I haven't read too much about that happening. It's a pretty good environment to take out a loan right now).
 

donniesyracuse

All American
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
4,826
Like
5,504
and the players would still be millionaires.
Many of the sports best players on not millionaires because the system prevents them from reaching free agency when they are at the peak of their values.

The system is already significantly weighted in the owners' favor.
 

Knicks411

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
12,553
Like
10,181
I also think there's a part of me that has seen teams cry poor and try and cut spending for so long when they obviously weren't in bad financial shape that it's a boy who cried wolf deal where I'm inclined to think they are always full of it. Even though I can easily see how many teams would've taken a bath in 2020, my initial instinct is to always think they're lying
 

upperdeck

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
18,779
Like
15,869
which MLB players are not millionaires who play more than a few years?

I forgot that being a MLB player means you must get rich off it..
 

donniesyracuse

All American
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
4,826
Like
5,504
I forgot that being a MLB player means you must get rich off it..
If the market says so, then yes. If a sport generates billions of dollars, why shouldn't they?

I'm sure you would love to go back to pre-Curt Flood days.
 

upperdeck

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
18,779
Like
15,869
you mean back to the days where players made more like Avg people salaries.. you can do both.. cap salaries at 5 million, lower ticket prices by 75% and if owner make more because of that fine. we seem to except amazon/google etc pretty much doing that model..
 

donniesyracuse

All American
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
4,826
Like
5,504
you mean back to the days where players made more like Avg people salaries.. you can do both.. cap salaries at 5 million, lower ticket prices by 75% and if owner make more because of that fine. we seem to except amazon/google etc pretty much doing that model..
Owners are never lowering ticket prices regardless of the level of player salaries.
 

Alsacs

Internet Man, Internet Hero or Internet Scout!!
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
55,782
Like
69,240
you mean back to the days where players made more like Avg people salaries.. you can do both.. cap salaries at 5 million, lower ticket prices by 75% and if owner make more because of that fine. we seem to except amazon/google etc pretty much doing that model..
JFC
Go watch minor league baseball if that is what you want.
 

donniesyracuse

All American
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
4,826
Like
5,504
you mean back to the days where players made more like Avg people salaries..
Fernando Tatis Jr.’s skill set is far more scarce than the average person and he helps his sport generates billions of dollars.
 

upperdeck

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
18,779
Like
15,869
Fernando Tatis Jr.’s skill set is far more scarce than the average person and he helps his sport generates billions of dollars.
maybe.. But I watch a team more than a player. you really think people tune in to see him play if he isn't in the game their team is playing ?

If we are SU fans its been 20 yrs since he a must watch player in fball/bball and we still watch.

The last player that i tuned into watch was Nolan Ryan. so I guess its been awhile. Nothin Tatis does drives me to tune in.
 

donniesyracuse

All American
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
4,826
Like
5,504
maybe.. But I watch a team more than a player. you really think people tune in to see him play if he isn't in the game their team is playing ?

If we are SU fans its been 20 yrs since he a must watch player in fball/bball and we still watch.

The last player that i tuned into watch was Nolan Ryan. so I guess its been awhile. Nothin Tatis does drives me to tune in.
He gets paid what the already suppressed market dictates. He gets paid more than you and me because his skills are more scarce.

Generally, teams with better players will get more viewers and more spectators.

You’re okay with owner greed, but not player greed. I am not in favor of limiting the earning potential of exceptionally talented people just so hot dogs are cheaper.
 
Last edited:

NineOneSeven

2018-19 Iggy Hoops Leader Scorer
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
30,100
Like
41,757
Hopefully this year turns out way better than last and we get some fans in stands. I go to a few Indians' games a year. It's fun. They have a nice standing room only in right field. Perfect spot to hang with a few others. Especially on dollar dog night and when they have $2 miller lites from 5-7. Get a little lamby before the game.
 

Alsacs

Internet Man, Internet Hero or Internet Scout!!
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
55,782
Like
69,240
Was just watching PTI and they were talking about a new rule change being discussed for MLB and I really like it.

The DH would become universal in both leagues. However you would lose the DH in every game when your starting pitcher comes out of the game.
The DH then would either have to go into the field or the RP goes into the batting order in the spot the DH was in the lineup.

It would combine National league and American League rules.
Also it would reduce every team from using openers too much and make SP more important.
 

donniesyracuse

All American
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
4,826
Like
5,504
Was just watching PTI and they were talking about a new rule change being discussed for MLB and I really like it.

The DH would become universal in both leagues. However you would lose the DH in every game when your starting pitcher comes out of the game.
The DH then would either have to go into the field or the RP goes into the batting order in the spot the DH was in the lineup.

It would combine National league and American League rules.
Also it would reduce every team from using openers too much and make SP more important.
Watching pitchers attempt to hit does nothing for me.
 

NateW

Commonplace Barbarian
Joined
Dec 31, 2013
Messages
10,668
Like
14,906
Was just watching PTI and they were talking about a new rule change being discussed for MLB and I really like it.

The DH would become universal in both leagues. However you would lose the DH in every game when your starting pitcher comes out of the game.
The DH then would either have to go into the field or the RP goes into the batting order in the spot the DH was in the lineup.

It would combine National league and American League rules.
Also it would reduce every team from using openers too much and make SP more important.
What? Haha. No. Why so convoluted?

Just make DH universal and be done w it.

Starting pitching is still plenty important. There is absolutely nothing wrong with openers and bullpen games every once in awhile.

Game 2 of a playoff series just to move onto Happ? Meh, not so much, but that’s for a different thread.
 

Online statistics

Members online
145
Guests online
620
Total visitors
765

Top Bottom