Yoshinobu Yamamoto got $325 million 12 years from Dodgers (+posting fee)

[baseball_gal_aly]

8 minutes ago, ptatc said:

Why shouldn't the owners of a business make a profit? That just isn't realistic. 

I don't make money on my hobbies. Do you?  They're net negative cashflow. 

Sports teams are a hobby for billionaires and they should be expected to run at a loss. They're not like regular businesses. 

If an owner isn't in it to win championships every year then they need to sell. 

I want owners that are in for a short time and willing to sacrifice a sizeable portion of their fortune to win a championship, and if they can't do it, sell to someone else willing to do the same. 

Edited December 23, 2023 by baseball_gal_aly

[Tnetennba]

1 minute ago, ptatc said:

Why shouldn't the owners of a business make a profit? That just isn't realistic. 

Like I said, that is my personal belief, not one I expect anyone else to espouse. It is also specific to sports team ownership.

I am 100% on the side of labor and believe in people over profit.  I also believe that billionaires shouldn't exist. These are my beliefs, but I'm well aware that it's not how the business of baseball or sports work. We live in a capitalist society, my anti-capitalist ideals just that, ideals.

[ptatc]

3 minutes ago, baseball_gal_aly said:

I don't make money on my hobbies. Do you?  They're net negative cashflow. 

Sports teams are a hobby for billionaires and they should be expected to run at a loss. They're not like regular businesses. 

Sports teams are not hobbies for the owners. To expect them to run at a loss is not practical or realistic. 

You might think they should be hobbies but they aren't. They don't spend billions to lose money. 

[ptatc]

3 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

Like I said, that is my personal belief, not one I expect anyone else to espouse. It is also specific to sports team ownership.

I am 100% on the side of labor and believe in people over profit.  I also believe that billionaires shouldn't exist. These are my beliefs, but I'm well aware that it's not how the business of baseball or sports work. We live in a capitalist society, my anti-capitalist ideals just that, ideals.

That's fair. Everyone should stick to their ideals. 

[baseball_gal_aly]

3 minutes ago, ptatc said:

Sports teams are not hobbies for the owners. To expect them to run at a loss is not practical or realistic. 

You might think they should be hobbies but they aren't. They don't spend billions to lose money. 

As the saying goes, if you want to play, you have to pay. 

If you can't handle a fire, get out of the kitchen. 

Edited December 23, 2023 by baseball_gal_aly

[Lip Man 1]

7 minutes ago, ptatc said:

Why shouldn't the owners of a business make a profit? That just isn't realistic. 

They absolutely are entitled to a profit, they take some risks (when they aren't being supported by tax payer dollars) so they certainly should get some.

But...

Especially in situations where, like the Sox, public funds built them a stadium and they have sweetheart leases, they also have a responsibility to do everything in their power to win in my opinion. When does "making a profit" turn into outright "greed?"

No one with a straight face can claim many owners including JR are doing that.

As far as revenue discrepancies, if you haven't already, read The Lords of the Realm by John Helyar. You'll get a real education as to how owners are, in fact, hiding large revenue streams. Forbes, a reliable business magazine, has said the past few years have seen MLB, which is now a 10 BILLION dollar a year league, make record profits.

After reading that along with Helyar's book, and the specific examples I wouldn't trust an owner who says anything along the lines of finances as far as I could pick them up and throw them. 

[Lip Man 1]

7 minutes ago, ptatc said:

Sports teams are not hobbies for the owners. To expect them to run at a loss is not practical or realistic. 

You might think they should be hobbies but they aren't. They don't spend billions to lose money. 

Some owners have publicly come out and said that they are in the past.

[Chicago White Sox]

24 minutes ago, baseball_gal_aly said:

Until I see the books, yes. 

If they're going to be secretive about how much they're making I'm going to assume they're hiding massive profits like those with bank accounts in the Cayman Islands and such.

But let’s pretend we’re rational people here for a second.  The regional TV money that teams get is out there for a lot of clubs.  Have you tried researching this at all or do you just naturally assume everything is a conspiracy?  Also, just from a logic standpoint, do you actually believe a market the size of Milwaukee would have a TV contract the same size one one in LA?

[baseball_gal_aly]

7 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

But let’s pretend we’re rational people here for a second.  The regional TV money that teams get is out there for a lot of clubs.  Have you tried researching this at all or do you just naturally assume everything is a conspiracy?  Also, just from a logic standpoint, do you actually believe a market the size of Milwaukee would have a TV contract the same size one one in LA?

I think that even with the amount they're spending, the Dodgers are raking in massive profits and the teams that don't spend like that are profiting even more. 

I think there are certain ownership groups that don't give a rat's ass about winning and are content taking their dividend from their share of the team at the end of each season. 

Instead of punishing teams for spending money, let's punish them for not spending a certain amount. 

Edited December 23, 2023 by baseball_gal_aly

[Tnetennba]

1 minute ago, Chicago White Sox said:

But let’s pretend we’re rational people here for a second.  The regional TV money that teams get is out there for a lot of clubs.  Have you tried researching this at all or do you just naturally assume everything is a conspiracy?  Also, just from a logic standpoint, do you actually believe a market the size of Milwaukee would have a TV contract the same size one one in LA?

A lot of that regional TV money is in jeopardy thanks to cord-cutting too. The available TV dollars are not a level playing field across the board. 

[baseball_gal_aly]

5 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

A lot of that regional TV money is in jeopardy thanks to cord-cutting too. The available TV dollars are not a level playing field across the board. 

This is something that is going to erode regional fandom over time, but I think those revenue streams could be recreated by offering a 30 team package on one exclusive platform, like NFL Sunday ticket on Youtube.

I'm sure AppleTV would pay a ton of money to offer one team or league packages, outside of the national games. 

Also, I think that the loss of regional team money will be made up for by legalized gambling. 

 

Edited December 23, 2023 by baseball_gal_aly

[Tnetennba]

1 minute ago, baseball_gal_aly said:

I think that even with the amount they're spending, the Dodgers are raking in massive profits and the teams that don't spend like that are profiting even more. 

I'm as anti-owner and anti-owner profit as anyone, but genuine question, have you ever taken a course in economics? There is a lot of assumption in your argument, some not very grounded in fact. 

The Dodgers are likely raking in profit despite what they are spending. I doubt even the A's or Pirates or any ownership group is actually losing money. I'd imaging they are pocketing quite a lot. But that doesn't mean they have the extra revenue to spend like the Dodgers do. It's simply not realistic to argue that. The sheer number of interested spectators in the greater Los Angeles area dwarfs that of Milwaukee, even with two teams in the LA area.

Owners making bank across the board does not mean they have the same spending power as the Dodgers or Yankees. Should every owner spend every dollar they make? I say yes. But saying the Brewers can spend like the Dodgers is absurd, and you start to lose credibility.  It's a simple matter of massive revenue discrepancies between two very different market sizes.

[Tnetennba]

2 minutes ago, baseball_gal_aly said:

This is something that is going to erode regional fandom over time, but I think those revenue streams could be recreated by offering a 30 team package on one exclusive platform, like NFL Sunday ticket on Youtube.

I'm sure AppleTV would pay a ton of money to offer one team or league packages, outside of the national games. 

Also, I think that the loss of regional team money will be made up for by legalized gambling. 

 

MLB has to want that first. They are still too tied to cable dinosaurs.

[baseball_gal_aly]

14 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

I'm as anti-owner and anti-owner profit as anyone, but genuine question, have you ever taken a course in economics? There is a lot of assumption in your argument, some not very grounded in fact. 

The Dodgers are likely raking in profit despite what they are spending. I doubt even the A's or Pirates or any ownership group is actually losing money. I'd imaging they are pocketing quite a lot. But that doesn't mean they have the extra revenue to spend like the Dodgers do. It's simply not realistic to argue that. The sheer number of interested spectators in the greater Los Angeles area dwarfs that of Milwaukee, even with two teams in the LA area.

Owners making bank across the board does not mean they have the same spending power as the Dodgers or Yankees. Should every owner spend every dollar they make? I say yes. But saying the Brewers can spend like the Dodgers is absurd, and you start to lose credibility.  It's a simple matter of massive revenue discrepancies between two very different market sizes.

Yes I have taken a course in economics, but I don't believe that's how the world actually works. 

I think conventional economics is a lie. The actual way things work is very different. 

https://pitchforkeconomics.com/episode/is-econ-101-a-lie/]

This is a venture capitalist, straight up telling you that it's all a scam. 

 

 

Edited December 23, 2023 by baseball_gal_aly

[caulfield12]

2 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

I'm as anti-owner and anti-owner profit as anyone, but genuine question, have you ever taken a course in economics? There is a lot of assumption in your argument, some not very grounded in fact. 

The Dodgers are likely raking in profit despite what they are spending. I doubt even the A's or Pirates or any ownership group is actually losing money. I'd imaging they are pocketing quite a lot. But that doesn't mean they have the extra revenue to spend like the Dodgers do. It's simply not realistic to argue that. The sheer number of interested spectators in the greater Los Angeles area dwarfs that of Milwaukee, even with two teams in the LA area.

Owners making bank across the board does not mean they have the same spending power as the Dodgers or Yankees. Should every owner spend every dollar they make? I say yes. But saying the Brewers can spend like the Dodgers is absurd, and you start to lose credibility.  It's a simple matter of massive revenue discrepancies between two very different market sizes.

It's pretty amazing what the Brewers have done vis a vis the hifher-spending Cubs and Cardinals over the last decade or so.

Even then, they inevitably lost Stearns to the Mets and Counsell to the Cubs...and are in the verge of rebuilding if they end up dealing Burnes.

 

[caulfield12]

4 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

MLB has to want that first. They are still too tied to cable dinosaurs.

And satellite providers.

Right now...the majority of big streaming sites are losing money and will have to cut back, merge/consolidate or simply disappear from existence.

[baseball_gal_aly]

Also since we're all White Sox fans, i suggest we read this book. 

I haven't read it yet but I want to, hopefully I can find it at a library. 

https://beltpublishing.com/products/rethinking-fandom-how-to-beat-the-sports-industrial-complex-at-its-own-game

Imagine how it would break sports if fans all collectively decided to root for the name on the back of the jersey instead of the name on the front. 

Edited December 23, 2023 by baseball_gal_aly

[Tnetennba]

3 minutes ago, baseball_gal_aly said:

Yes I have taken a course in economics, but I don't believe that's how the world actually works. 

I think conventional economics is a lie. The actual way things work is very different. 

Like for example, raising the minimum wage has been proven repeatedly to improve lives at no cost to employment. 

https://pitchforkeconomics.com/episode/is-econ-101-a-lie/]

This is a venture capitalist, straight up telling you that it's all a scam. 

I agree with you on all of that. It is a scam, and ownership profits far outweigh the cost of labor or the value of said labor. I work for myself and have lived those realities. I know it all too well.

I'm simply arguing that the realities of market size create discrepancies in available cash flow, despite small market teams receiving competitive balance subsidies from luxury tax. Team revenues are not an even playing field, and no amount of idealism, my own included, negates that.

 

[baseball_gal_aly]

2 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

I agree with you on all of that. It is a scam, and ownership profits far outweigh the cost of labor or the value of said labor. I work for myself and have lived those realities. I know it all too well.

I'm simply arguing that the realities of market size create discrepancies in available cash flow, despite small market teams receiving competitive balance subsidies from luxury tax. Team revenues are not an even playing field, and no amount of idealism, my own included, negates that.

 

Nobody is expecting teams to not go through rough stretches, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask them to do everything possible to maximize a competitive window. Those last 3-5 years. 

And also, if the players they've signed are still good they can salary dump them for nothing but payroll relief if necessary. 

In the current model, I think that fans of smaller market teams would be fine with some lean years in return for a 3-5 year window where ownership does everything possible to try to win a championship. 

The contracts don't exist in a vacuum, they can be dumped if necessary to another team trying to win. 

Like the Sox window ended, but if they would have signed Harper in 2019 like they should have, I don't think they'd have an issue dumping that contract if things went south like they ended up doing. 

Edited December 23, 2023 by baseball_gal_aly

[ptatc]

1 hour ago, baseball_gal_aly said:

The issue is that the MLBPA is misguided and only cares about the contracts for the Ohtani, Trout and Harper type players and not the majority of their union. They have shown repeatedly that they're willing to sell out the young players and minor leaguers in order for the top 10 players to get 400+M contracts. 

Welcome to union life. Been part of one for nearly 30 years. 

[ptatc]

58 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

They absolutely are entitled to a profit, they take some risks (when they aren't being supported by tax payer dollars) so they certainly should get some.

But...

Especially in situations where, like the Sox, public funds built them a stadium and they have sweetheart leases, they also have a responsibility to do everything in their power to win in my opinion. When does "making a profit" turn into outright "greed?"

No one with a straight face can claim many owners including JR are doing that.

As far as revenue discrepancies, if you haven't already, read The Lords of the Realm by John Helyar. You'll get a real education as to how owners are, in fact, hiding large revenue streams. Forbes, a reliable business magazine, has said the past few years have seen MLB, which is now a 10 BILLION dollar a year league, make record profits.

After reading that along with Helyar's book, and the specific examples I wouldn't trust an owner who says anything along the lines of finances as far as I could pick them up and throw them. 

Until you see the books, your whole discussion is supposition. 

Evenso, as was stated earlier what incentive is there when you know you can't compete with the high revenue teams. You said to have a better chance at the playoffs. That's true but the odds really won't improve that much unless they really spend. 

You like to use JR as an example and look at some of his repvious quotes comparing MLB and NBA ownership. The NBA is much more viable with cost certainty due to the salary structure. 

[nrockway]

3 hours ago, baseball_gal_aly said:

I wouldn't mind a cap and floor system as long as it's like the NFL where the floor is like 88% of the cap. 

The NFL is king because all revenue is league revenue and it gets split evenly amongst the 32 teams. I have no clue why every sports league isn't run this way. 

I don't follow the NFL so I don't really know the rules, but that sounds pretty nice. Especially considering the roster sizes are comparable to MLB compared to NBA.

[Eminor3rd]

2 hours ago, wrathofhahn said:

12 years for a pitcher is insane.

The dodgers have spent a ton of money on Ohtani and Yamamoto but Ohtani won't even pitch next year due to tommy john and has a history of arm trouble. Yamamoto is small, throws hard, and now is signed for 12 years.

These contracts are way too risky. People act like the Dodgers are winning it all because of these moves but they are all guys who are huge injury risks or never healthy.

The other guy Glassnow he's averaged like 12 starts the last four years. I liked the trade for them but the extension means yet another injury risk

I will say that I agree, he got more than I expected, and I’m very high on him. 

That said, I’ve come to believe that when we talk about “years” in these types of deals, we’re just not thinking of it correctly. The important number is the total investment; the more years you can spread that investment out, the bette for the team. At the end of the day, the bidding drove the price to 1m over the previous record for a pitcher, it might as well have been a 20 year contract — you work the depreciated cost into your budgeting at the time you sign. The NPV of the contract actually goes down if you spread it out.

Looking at it that way, it reframes how you think about the White Sox and their idiosyncratic spending limits. Jerry Reinsdorf insistence on avoiding the “risk” of a long term deal but paying market AAV on shorter ones is just another way he’s spending his own money inefficiently. 

[South Side Hit Men]

4 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Increase the odds of getting to the post season where anything can happen.

Over a 162 game regular season talent usually wins out, more talent, the better your chances. 

Yet the Dodgers only won over the 60 game season, because it limited their exposure to their seemingly annual high priced domestic violence suspensions and limited wear and tear on their pitching staff.

With the same manager and top heavy payroll philosophy, I’ll be very surprised if they win more than one World Series under Ohtani’s contract, baring say more owner 102 game lockouts for pandemics, CBA negotiations, or some new concocted owner scam.
 

3 hours ago, Tnetennba said:

Like I said, that is my personal belief, not one I expect anyone else to espouse. It is also specific to sports team ownership.

I am 100% on the side of labor and believe in people over profit.  I also believe that billionaires shouldn't exist. These are my beliefs, but I'm well aware that it's not how the business of baseball or sports work. We live in a capitalist society, my anti-capitalist ideals just that, ideals.

It’s a Kleptocracy, not Capitalism. MLB Owners largely socialize their capital costs on taxpayers, and privatize the profits.

These same owners are also not held to American anti-trust laws as all other businesses including the NFL and NBS are subject.

[baseball_gal_aly]

1 hour ago, South Side Hit Men said:

Yet the Dodgers only won over the 60 game season, because it limited their exposure to their seemingly annual high priced domestic violence suspensions and limited wear and tear on their pitching staff.

With the same manager and top heavy payroll philosophy, I’ll be very surprised if they win more than one World Series under Ohtani’s contract, baring say more owner 102 game lockouts for pandemics, CBA negotiations, or some new concocted owner scam.
 

It’s a Kleptocracy, not Capitalism. MLB Owners largely socialize their capital costs on taxpayers, and privatize the profits.

These same owners are also not held to American anti-trust laws as all other businesses including the NFL and NBS are subject.

It really doesn't matter, as anti-trust laws have been mostly ignored for the last 45 years.