Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Sat Sep 20, 2014 7:03 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: New MLB National TV Deal
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:14 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 10:28 am
Posts: 1080
Starting in 2014 each MLB team will get about $50 million dollars, compared to this seasons $23.7 million. This will be an additional $26.3 million dollars the Pirates will have to spend. Every other team will have additional money as well which in the long term will probably make salaries crazier then they already are. My question is though, would it be worth trying to sign a bigger name FA, or more likely taking one one via trade, knowing that we will have much more money to spend?

At the deadline this year it was stated no way would the Pirates be capable of paying a Hanley Ramirez due to his insane contract. But if you look at it they would have one full season of paying the huge contract with their limited resources where in 2014 they will have much more to spend.

Just a thought for the offseason....the financial climate is about to change so we will have more money to throw around if we can get someone that is signed to what appears to be a larger contract now....it may not be that huge in 2 or 3 or 4 years, comparatively.

Here is a link to the article discussing this....
http://www.piratesprospects.com/2012/10 ... rates.html


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: New MLB National TV Deal
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5686
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
Mister Pittsburgh wrote:
Starting in 2014 each MLB team will get about $50 million dollars, compared to this seasons $23.7 million. This will be an additional $26.3 million dollars the Pirates will have to spend. Every other team will have additional money as well which in the long term will probably make salaries crazier then they already are. My question is though, would it be worth trying to sign a bigger name FA, or more likely taking one one via trade, knowing that we will have much more money to spend?

At the deadline this year it was stated no way would the Pirates be capable of paying a Hanley Ramirez due to his insane contract. But if you look at it they would have one full season of paying the huge contract with their limited resources where in 2014 they will have much more to spend.

Just a thought for the offseason....the financial climate is about to change so we will have more money to throw around if we can get someone that is signed to what appears to be a larger contract now....it may not be that huge in 2 or 3 or 4 years, comparatively.

Here is a link to the article discussing this....
http://www.piratesprospects.com/2012/10 ... rates.html


The highlighted portion is the "key" to the analysis. New contract demands should go up with more dollars in the system. Existing contracts became by "default" - undervalued. The problem is that there are at least 26 other "richer" teams who will also be looking to trade for "undervalued" contracts.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: New MLB National TV Deal
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:49 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 11:28 pm
Posts: 2170
Looks like more money in Nutting's pockets...

_________________
0 straight losing seasons


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: New MLB National TV Deal
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:50 pm
Posts: 3879
Location: Glenshaw, PA
Ryann wrote:
Looks like more money in Nutting's pockets...


Yep, team record payroll and max amateur spending, that Nutting sure is cheap! The tiredest of the tired.

_________________
Well NH did get Cutch signed, but what have you done for me lately?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: New MLB National TV Deal
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:41 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:40 am
Posts: 69
all the new tv deal means is more over paid average players.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: New MLB National TV Deal
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 11:44 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 6162
Location: Keystone State
BigdaddyK wrote:
all the new tv deal means is more over paid average players.


This has been the problem with baseball for decades. I don't mind Pujols and A-Rod type contracts because as obnoxious as they are, they are the best players in the game. It's the guaranteed contracts of these average to below-average players that ruins everything. Owners have nobody to blame but themselves.

_________________
The Bucs are going all the way, all the way this year!


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: New MLB National TV Deal
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 11:56 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
bucco boy wrote:
BigdaddyK wrote:
all the new tv deal means is more over paid average players.


This has been the problem with baseball for decades. I don't mind Pujols and A-Rod type contracts because as obnoxious as they are, they are the best players in the game. It's the guaranteed contracts of these average to below-average players that ruins everything. Owners have nobody to blame but themselves.

The problem lies with the decision to offer such contracts to average players in the first place. I see nothing wrong with forcing a baseball organization to fulfill the promises they make to a player on the day an employment contract is signed. If long-term guaranteed contracts are a problem, then teams should stop offering them.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: New MLB National TV Deal
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 6162
Location: Keystone State
Willton wrote:
bucco boy wrote:
BigdaddyK wrote:
all the new tv deal means is more over paid average players.


This has been the problem with baseball for decades. I don't mind Pujols and A-Rod type contracts because as obnoxious as they are, they are the best players in the game. It's the guaranteed contracts of these average to below-average players that ruins everything. Owners have nobody to blame but themselves.

The problem lies with the decision to offer such contracts to average players in the first place. I see nothing wrong with forcing a baseball organization to fulfill the promises they make to a player on the day an employment contract is signed. If long-term guaranteed contracts are a problem, then teams should stop offering them.


Did you not read my last sentence?

_________________
The Bucs are going all the way, all the way this year!


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: New MLB National TV Deal
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 1:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5686
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
I continue to believe that the focus on the dollars paid to "average" players or "below average" players somewhat misses the key issue. The key to the analysis involves the percentage of a particular team's revenue devoted to a particular player.

Let's take an "average" free agent player . . . we'll call him Neil Walker. In analyzing what is an appropriate salary for Neil Walker, the Yankees may conclude that he is worth investing 2% of their $500,000,000 yearly revenue (hypothetical number). That would bring Neil Walker $10,000,000 per year. To match that number, the Pirates would have to devote 6.7% of their $150,000,000 yearly revenue (again, hypothetical number). If the Yankees devote 40% of revenue to player salary, they can afford to spread $200,000,000 over a 24 player roster. In contrast, if the Pirates devoted 40% of revenue to player salary, they can only afford to pay $60,000,000 over a 24 player roster.

To the Yankees, paying $10,000,000 to an average player like Neil Walker is not "overpaying;" they are only devoting 2% of thier total revenue to him.
To the Pirates, paying 6.7% of total revenue to an average player presents a real economic hardship. While certainly "affordable," such a salary hamstrings their ability to pay for other players.

So . . do the Owners have themselves to blame? Yes. But . . . a key component to the analysis of whether a team is "overspending" involves a calculation of a player's salary to the total generated revenue. Simply looking at contractual dollars and cents is to assume that MLB is one "true" and "fair" market. That is an assumption which is fundamentally mistaken. Another part of the problem for lower revenue clubs involves the fact that MLB continues to play only minor lip service to the marked economic disparity between those at the top of revenue production and those at the bottom of revenue production.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: New MLB National TV Deal
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 1:57 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 5575
No. 9 wrote:
So . . do the Owners have themselves to blame? Yes. But . . . a key component to the analysis of whether a team is "overspending" involves a calculation of a player's salary to the total generated revenue. Simply looking at contractual dollars and cents is to assume that MLB is one "true" and "fair" market. That is an assumption which is fundamentally mistaken. Another part of the problem for lower revenue clubs involves the fact that MLB continues to play only minor lip service to the marked economic disparity between those at the top of revenue production and those at the bottom of revenue production.


All well said, #9, as usual.

However, perhaps the sentence(s) in bold are the most truthful and therefore key?

There are, in fact, two markets: 'true' market and 'fair' market.

'True' market is what a team can pay, relative to their wealth. 'Fair' market would be compared to all the teams in pursuit.

Therefore, 'fair' market would be closer to 'actual' value ('intrinsic value' or average) while 'true' would be 'instrumental value' (conditional/relative value).

Granted, that would still place 'fair' market values as 'greater authority' to 'true market' (and support claims of 'inflation' or 'overpaid'), but as everyone over 10 years old knows, life is not fair.

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: New MLB National TV Deal
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
bucco boy wrote:
Willton wrote:
bucco boy wrote:

This has been the problem with baseball for decades. I don't mind Pujols and A-Rod type contracts because as obnoxious as they are, they are the best players in the game. It's the guaranteed contracts of these average to below-average players that ruins everything. Owners have nobody to blame but themselves.

The problem lies with the decision to offer such contracts to average players in the first place. I see nothing wrong with forcing a baseball organization to fulfill the promises they make to a player on the day an employment contract is signed. If long-term guaranteed contracts are a problem, then teams should stop offering them.


Did you not read my last sentence?

I did, but I think the blame is more squarely on the owners' employees (i.e., the GMs).

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: New MLB National TV Deal
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5686
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
NS -
Good points. I would need some more time to think through your commentary but you raise good points. Whenever I read that an agent comment that his client left one team for another because the new team was willing to pay "fair market value" for his client, it makes me cringe. Using the numbers below, the Pirates might conclude that a particular player is worth devoting 4% of its total revenue to the player while the Yankees may conclude that the same player is only worth 1.5% of its total revenue. In that situation, the Yankees can offer more money - even though they value the potential contributions of the player less than the Pirates. While I am admittedly engaging in speculation, I'm betting that a particular team focuses less on the dollars of a particular contract and more on its total realistic payroll given (a) anticipated revenue streams and (b) the percentage that one particular player would take up of that payroll. I'd use the Albert Pujols sitaution as an example. The Cardinals concluded that they couldn't devote that much of its revenue to one player and hope to remain competitive. In contrast, the Angels could spend the extra money because of their new TV deal and the extra revenue generated. In short, the Cards were actually willing to spend a greater portion of its revenue than the Angels. Not that I blame Pujols . . . all he cares about is the bottom line. Its just the "rules" that MLB plays by. If they wanted an "even" playing field from a financial standpoint, they'd try to best emulate the NFL model. Its clear that MLB doesn't want that and it wants to ensure that its big TV markets are in the best position to buy the best players and be in the best position to be competitive year-in and year-out.


NSMaster56 wrote:
No. 9 wrote:
So . . do the Owners have themselves to blame? Yes. But . . . a key component to the analysis of whether a team is "overspending" involves a calculation of a player's salary to the total generated revenue. Simply looking at contractual dollars and cents is to assume that MLB is one "true" and "fair" market. That is an assumption which is fundamentally mistaken. Another part of the problem for lower revenue clubs involves the fact that MLB continues to play only minor lip service to the marked economic disparity between those at the top of revenue production and those at the bottom of revenue production.


All well said, #9, as usual.

However, perhaps the sentence(s) in bold are the most truthful and therefore key?

There are, in fact, two markets: 'true' market and 'fair' market.

'True' market is what a team can pay, relative to their wealth. 'Fair' market would be compared to all the teams in pursuit.

Therefore, 'fair' market would be closer to 'actual' value ('intrinsic value' or average) while 'true' would be 'instrumental value' (conditional/relative value).

Granted, that would still place 'fair' market values as 'greater authority' to 'true market' (and support claims of 'inflation' or 'overpaid'), but as everyone over 10 years old knows, life is not fair.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: New MLB National TV Deal
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:50 pm
Posts: 3879
Location: Glenshaw, PA
No. 9 wrote:
I continue to believe that the focus on the dollars paid to "average" players or "below average" players somewhat misses the key issue. The key to the analysis involves the percentage of a particular team's revenue devoted to a particular player.

Let's take an "average" free agent player . . . we'll call him Neil Walker. In analyzing what is an appropriate salary for Neil Walker, the Yankees may conclude that he is worth investing 2% of their $500,000,000 yearly revenue (hypothetical number). That would bring Neil Walker $10,000,000 per year. To match that number, the Pirates would have to devote 6.7% of their $150,000,000 yearly revenue (again, hypothetical number). If the Yankees devote 40% of revenue to player salary, they can afford to spread $200,000,000 over a 24 player roster. In contrast, if the Pirates devoted 40% of revenue to player salary, they can only afford to pay $60,000,000 over a 24 player roster.

To the Yankees, paying $10,000,000 to an average player like Neil Walker is not "overpaying;" they are only devoting 2% of thier total revenue to him.
To the Pirates, paying 6.7% of total revenue to an average player presents a real economic hardship. While certainly "affordable," such a salary hamstrings their ability to pay for other players.

So . . do the Owners have themselves to blame? Yes. But . . . a key component to the analysis of whether a team is "overspending" involves a calculation of a player's salary to the total generated revenue. Simply looking at contractual dollars and cents is to assume that MLB is one "true" and "fair" market. That is an assumption which is fundamentally mistaken. Another part of the problem for lower revenue clubs involves the fact that MLB continues to play only minor lip service to the marked economic disparity between those at the top of revenue production and those at the bottom of revenue production.


By this analysis, wouldn't the extra $26.7 million for Pittsburgh be more valuable than it is for NYY? The Pirates will increase their revenue by a greater percentage than NYY, does that make this helpful for small revenue teams in actual practice?

_________________
Well NH did get Cutch signed, but what have you done for me lately?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: New MLB National TV Deal
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 3:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5686
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
It certainly adds a greater percentage to the Pirates' total revenues than to the Yankees' total revenues. If the Bucs' revenues this year totalled $150,000,000 then an additional 17% will be added to the coffers. For the Yankees (assuming $500,000,000 in revenue), it only adds 5.2% in revenue. Let's say the Yankees pocket the extra cash and the Bucs use all $26M on player salaries. The gap would go from $200M/$60M to $200M/$86M. Certainly helpful but . . . if other higher revenue teams use the influx of case to increase player salaries, the net benefit to the Pirates will not likely be as great as some would think.

Barrys Dopers wrote:
No. 9 wrote:
I continue to believe that the focus on the dollars paid to "average" players or "below average" players somewhat misses the key issue. The key to the analysis involves the percentage of a particular team's revenue devoted to a particular player.

Let's take an "average" free agent player . . . we'll call him Neil Walker. In analyzing what is an appropriate salary for Neil Walker, the Yankees may conclude that he is worth investing 2% of their $500,000,000 yearly revenue (hypothetical number). That would bring Neil Walker $10,000,000 per year. To match that number, the Pirates would have to devote 6.7% of their $150,000,000 yearly revenue (again, hypothetical number). If the Yankees devote 40% of revenue to player salary, they can afford to spread $200,000,000 over a 24 player roster. In contrast, if the Pirates devoted 40% of revenue to player salary, they can only afford to pay $60,000,000 over a 24 player roster.

To the Yankees, paying $10,000,000 to an average player like Neil Walker is not "overpaying;" they are only devoting 2% of thier total revenue to him.
To the Pirates, paying 6.7% of total revenue to an average player presents a real economic hardship. While certainly "affordable," such a salary hamstrings their ability to pay for other players.

So . . do the Owners have themselves to blame? Yes. But . . . a key component to the analysis of whether a team is "overspending" involves a calculation of a player's salary to the total generated revenue. Simply looking at contractual dollars and cents is to assume that MLB is one "true" and "fair" market. That is an assumption which is fundamentally mistaken. Another part of the problem for lower revenue clubs involves the fact that MLB continues to play only minor lip service to the marked economic disparity between those at the top of revenue production and those at the bottom of revenue production.


By this analysis, wouldn't the extra $26.7 million for Pittsburgh be more valuable than it is for NYY? The Pirates will increase their revenue by a greater percentage than NYY, does that make this helpful for small revenue teams in actual practice?

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: New MLB National TV Deal
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 3:28 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:46 am
Posts: 3612
Location: Economy, PA
Absolutely, if they are sharing in the new deal equally, it narrows the gap somewhat for the lower revenue teams, on a percentage basis.

Cutch has to have a sore backside from kicking himself in the ass so many times.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: New MLB National TV Deal
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5240
Location: Pittsburgh
Mister Pittsburgh wrote:
Starting in 2014 each MLB team will get about $50 million dollars, compared to this seasons $23.7 million. This will be an additional $26.3 million dollars the Pirates will have to spend. Every other team will have additional money as well which in the long term will probably make salaries crazier then they already are. My question is though, would it be worth trying to sign a bigger name FA, or more likely taking one one via trade, knowing that we will have much more money to spend?

At the deadline this year it was stated no way would the Pirates be capable of paying a Hanley Ramirez due to his insane contract. But if you look at it they would have one full season of paying the huge contract with their limited resources where in 2014 they will have much more to spend.

Just a thought for the offseason....the financial climate is about to change so we will have more money to throw around if we can get someone that is signed to what appears to be a larger contract now....it may not be that huge in 2 or 3 or 4 years, comparatively.

Here is a link to the article discussing this....
http://www.piratesprospects.com/2012/10 ... rates.html

Every team in baseball will be getting the extra money. Salaries will rise, and the net effect on the Pirates payroll respective to the rest of baseball will be zero.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: New MLB National TV Deal
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:37 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:21 am
Posts: 5575
sisyphus wrote:
Every team in baseball will be getting the extra money. Salaries will rise, and the net effect on the Pirates payroll respective to the rest of baseball will be zero.


The only possible upside is that the extra money might/should be able to allow 'smaller market' teams to use said funds to retain their better players.

Granted, they will probably have to overpay for those top players, making the post-sum of the 'extra money' zero and leaving no spare funds for additional FA acquisitions (as you say), but...

Perhaps a small shimmer of light??? Better to remain mediocre than to bottom out every 4-6 years???

_________________
Rage, rage against the regression of the light.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Corsair, Google [Bot], StarlingArcher, tprothro and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits