Nola and Phils Agree to Extension

zambonir 2019-02-15 17:40:06 UTC #41

You'd rather have billionaire owners be happy?

Florida_Sunshine 2019-02-15 17:41:24 UTC #42

Andy,

We are talking on totally different levels here. This is looking too much like your daily arguments with AF. I wish no part of that, total waste of my time.

Florida_Sunshine 2019-02-15 17:42:00 UTC #43

A good deal is when nobody is happy.

bkeich 2019-02-15 19:26:16 UTC #44

What Florida said....

I would most like to see Players happy, then players again, then the owners, then the agents.

andyb 2019-02-15 19:38:49 UTC #45

Then don't respond. All I will say is you made a pretty bold statement that most of the risk on Nola's contract is on ownership. I showed the Phillies are making a healthy profit even with this contract offer. When teams are making a profit by definition there is less risk on a contract such as this. We are definitely talking on different levels here. The difference is you really have not defended your original premise. I acknowledge the risk on ownership. And even say that it would be much more for a smaller market team. There is considerable reward for ownership too by locking up a star player for contracts that will save them money and keep that star off the free agent market for 2 extra years.

None of this actually has anything to do with the current collective bargaining system. It is all about the risk of this contract. And by definition a team with considerable dedicated revenue streams and large profits is taking a smaller risk with this contract. We made $90 million last year. But even if our payroll goes up $90 million this year (which it could), we'll still probably have a healthy profit. We had 2.1 million attendance last year. We could easily get close to 3 million for a good team. That might be another $50 million in revenue if not more. It is nice to have a healthy revenue stream where it is hard to lose money even with a $200 million payroll.

zambonir 2019-02-15 19:49:36 UTC #46

But if the agents are happy the players are happy. I mean, it would be nice if everyone was equally happy or unhappy. Or if agents took a smaller cut (I know, I have one). But they usually earn it, whether because of their negotiating ability, their legal knowledge or the other revenue opportunities they provide.

Of course as a Phillies fan I'm happy Nola and his agent decided to play for less money in exchange for security.

As for no long-term contracts or guaranteed salaries, that would be a more viable idea if all players were also free agents.

Austinfan 2019-02-16 05:58:32 UTC #47

Exxon may make multi-billions, but each project must show an expected return above the company's hurdle rate, irrespective of total company profits.

In the same way, a well managed franchise balances risk and expected return on each contract, because there are opportunity costs, and no guarantee that expected WAR becomes actual WAR and actual fans in the seats spending money.

Nor do we know the total compensation going to players, looking at one year is always dubious, revenues and costs fluctuate year to year, the question is whether the TOTAL compensation going to ALL players over the LIFE of the CBA is at the level negotiated and expected by the players.

Florida_Sunshine 2019-02-16 09:39:41 UTC #48

Correct AF. There is the all important ROI that is what is looked at and it is naive and disingenuous to think Operating Income is the bottom line without realizing interest and taxes are yet to be deducted. I know you get it.

Florida_Sunshine 2019-02-16 12:19:23 UTC #49

You are correct because then the players would likely be extremely unhappy. There is an old axiom in negotiations that the best deal for all is when all parties are a little less than happy.