Reserve System/ Player Salaries (non-Phillies discussion)

[zambonir]

Well, then we'd have to define "elite" I guess. Freddy Galvis and Maikel Franco could both still end up making about $5 million a year on average if they can simply remain adequate players for another 3-4 years.

[baseballoldie]

And that article supports what is being said - revenues are up and players share is down.

[Florida_Sunshine]

I am trying to be open and candid. I feel too many shoot from the hip.

What was it, a $1,000 difference and salaries have gone up every year except for 2 minor discrepancies?

I would have to look at expenses too and I am not sure that is provided.

[zambonir]

The issue is not whether players are paid well or not compared to the average salary of other industries - the minimum salary of $555k for 2019 is a great salary compared to the average salary of the American worker. But that doesn’t mean it is a fair salary for the baseball industry. The relationship between owners and players is a zero sum game with regard to the revenues - any reduction in player salaries goes to the owners. It certainly doesn’t go to the public in the form of lower ticket prices. And it’s not truly a zero sum game because only the owners benefit from the increases in franchise values, which is their return on investment for being an owner.

That's the main thing for me. Also a lot of owners pocket money from ancillary revenue that's not considered part of the team (if they own related companies). Heck, I wonder if the Phillies cut of NBCSN Philly is considered team revenue (as opposed to the actual rights fee they get each year, though the two are obviously related).

I'm certainly not feeling sorry for the players who have already cleared all the system's hurdles, but there are a lot more people out there who just reflexively think they are "overpaid" ( as we will soon here the first time Machado strikes out in a big game) than there are people who care about the plight of rookie league players, or how service-time manipulation cost Maikel Franco money.

Everybody wants Nola to be paid though! Such a fine line between "overpaid bums" and "cheapskate owners."

[baseballoldie]

2021 could be a tough year in the world of sports - baseball’s CBA expires in 2021 and the NFL is looking like they are going to have issues

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/report-contracts-for-new-coaches-indicate-nfl-teams-preparing-for-2021-strike/ar-BBSb4NR?li=BBnba9I

[Florida_Sunshine]

I think this is a more collective thought process of those that just happen to make more money whether a business, or an individual in entertainment of some form.

What I have experienced first hand is that you make more money when you own versus when you are an employee. I have been both and in the same field. And most employees when given a choice of going out on their own or staying in the employ of "that rich bastard", choose the safety.

I say go for it if you can. If you can't, I really don't want to hear the complaining. And this is not directed at you zambonir.

[Florida_Sunshine]

Yes, maybe pick up another hobby?

[andyb]

The top agents don't work for the "players," they work for a small subgroup of players who garner a lion's share of salary.
The majority of ML players will never reach free agency, or if they do, are looking at one 2-3 year deal at the end of their career.

Agents get a flat percentage of all deals. So they make more money when players overall get a larger share of the revenue. They have no incentive to favor the star players over the regular players. You just buy the owners line completely. Why aren't the owners offering the players a larger share of revenue in exchange for harder salary caps? Because all they care about is what the players make in total. Agents work for everybody. That is how they get paid.

[Austinfan]

Most agents have no influence, there is a small group of superagents/agencies that control most of the top talent, so owners are wary of alienating them, and that gives them undue influence in negotiations.
So "agents" are not a homogeneous group.

Those superagents are more interested in big salaries b/c you make a lot more money off those deals per time spent - and they don't want the money spread out for two reasons even if the total is the same:
1) small agents have a better shot at garnering little guys b/c they'll give them more personal attention - big agents don't want to put resources into players with little financial upside
2) more money that goes to benefits, less to agents

[Austinfan]

There are two different issues (actually more but KISS):
1) Splitting the revenue between owners and players
2) splitting the revenue cut between players

(1) isn't as simple as make it a free market and players will get a bigger cut, it might end up a bigger cut of a smaller pie.
(2) isn't talked about by players, but benefits, minimum salary, higher and earlier arb payments help the marginal player, free agency the small % of elite players.

Much of what is stated as owner v player is really player v player.
The owner v player comes down to share of revenue (including defining revenue, etc).
Player v player comes down to how the player share is paid out.

[andyb]

So? There are like a dozen agents that control most of major league players. They all have stars and scrubs. They take the same percentage of each contract. Do they want to represent more stars? Sure. But that does not mean they don't represent everyone else. They still do that.

The top 10 agencies in 2012 represented 559 players. I guess there are 559 stars and a few hundred regular players out there for your theory to be true.

Top 10 Agencies

[Austinfan]

And whose interest do you think those agencies prioritize?
The big fish or the small fish.

[allentown]

How much capital and risk do the owners face in reality. The public finances and bears the major risk for the team's stadium, which is the primary capital outlay. A minimum revenue stream is provided by revenue sharing and the national TV contract, the internet contract, the merchandise contract, and other sale of rights by the league for electronic games, etc. The owners operate as a Congressionally-approved monopoly, with more ability to operate in a monopolistic way than any of the other major sports. The value of MLB franchises has sky-rocketed and all of the owners have done just fine financially. Pity for the owners is mis-placed. As monopollsts who extort the public to provide their place of business, they don't even qualify as true capitalists.

[Florida_Sunshine]

All players are not created equal in the eyes of an agent. They spend much more time catering to the stars. This is similar to a brokerage house and how they deal with clients.

[julio]

A few minutes ago, Austinfan posted:
This is

The top agents don't work for the "players," they work for a small subgroup of players who garner a lion's share of salary.

In reply, andyb's commented:

There are like a dozen agents that control most of major league players. They all have stars and scrubs. They take the same percentage of each contract. Do they want to represent more stars? Sure. But that does not mean they don't represent everyone else. They still do that.

The top 10 agencies in 2012 represented 559 players. I guess there are 559 stars and a few hundred regular players out there for your theory to be true.

Austinfan responded:

And whose interest do you think those agencies prioritize?
The big fish or the small fish.

This looks to me like 'moving the goalposts." it's not a response to andyb's point - which is that total agent revenue is a percentage of overall salaries paid. Working "harder" for the elite players doesn't benefit agents (as a group) unless they somehow expand the total pool of money going to players.

Austinfan - this is your opportunity to change the argument once again, and talk about what's really going on as agents competing against each other to land more of the top players, and thus expand their share of the overall "agents' percentage." This is a real dynamic, but it's different from what's been discussed here.

[Florida_Sunshine]

I don’t think anyone is pitying the owners. I just don’t pity the players as the example was brought up. Owners still make a huge capital investment, and there is no cookie cutter model to use as an example. Many owners participate in stadium costs too.

[allentown]

2021 could be a tough year in the world of sports - baseball’s CBA expires in 2021 and the NFL is looking like they are going to have issues

Just another reason the Phillies need to make a major post-season push in 2019 and 2020, rather than deciding 2021 is their year. If they lay their hopes and FA $ on 2021, they might just find themselves as the Montreal Expos: finally having a very good team in a strike season, where the strike prevents their success.

[Florida_Sunshine]

Was thinking the same thing. I don’t think we can rely on getting Trout and need to put our best foot forward now. If Trout does become available, we will have to figure it out then.

[allentown]

All players are not created equal in the eyes of an agent. They spend much more time catering to the stars. This is similar to a brokerage house and how they deal with clients.

I agree. I also agree that the agents drive a lot of the CBA negotiating process. However, in the end, each union member gets one vote and the negotiators of the deal need a majority of the players to approve. The votes of the big FA stars are a very small portion of the total vote.

[andyb]

I think the agents would be very open to having an NBA-like maximum salary if the players' share of total revenues increased. It would make their jobs easier (because stars would have simpler negotiations) while making themselves more money.

A good system would:
- Double the minimum salaries
- Get players in arbitration after 2 years
- Let players become free agents based upon service time OR age (say age 28)
- Increase the player share of revenues a bit (like 5% more)
- Give the owners the hard cap they wanted (but probably at like $250 million)
- Have a maximum salary of like 15% of the hard cap
- Share more revenues (at least 50% of local TV money, maybe as much as 75%).
- Make it harder for owners to hide revenue