NFL

[VirtualSmitty]

Originally Posted by yourchoice

I'm not sure who said it where, and I hope I have am responding in context...but as for minor league baseball, those players (after receiving their signing bonus) don't get paid all that well. And, they do sell tickets, concessions, parking, etc. at the venues. I would guess most minor league teams are really close to break even - or even making a few dollars.

Single A ball gets paid around 20K, AA and AAA between 30-35k. The contracts are open to negotiation after a year, they don't make anywhere near the 400k MLB minimum but it's also tough to peg a definite salary range. Plus the trend in baseball is changing, quite a few teams are locking up young players early, skewing the salaries a bit. I think most minor league teams do at least break even, agree with you there.

[Starscream]

Originally Posted by Stephen

I'm not ignoring it. See?

MLB on the other hand is 30 separate businesses acting in their own best interests instead of what's best for MLB.

They are acting in their own best interest, which is to be competitive, sell tickets, and sell merchandise. Isn't that also what is best for the league too? In my eyes, teams acting in their own self interest is good for the sport.

[chippewastud79]

Originally Posted by Starscream

They are acting in their own best interest, which is to be competitive, sell tickets, and sell merchandise. Isn't that also what is best for the league too? In my eyes, teams acting in their own self interest is good for the sport.

Competition is good for sports, not putting a competitive team on the field in an effort to save money is hardly acting in the best interest of any one but the owner. See: Pirates, Bengals, Clippers

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Starscream

They are acting in their own best interest, which is to be competitive, sell tickets, and sell merchandise. Isn't that also what is best for the league too? In my eyes, teams acting in their own self interest is good for the sport.

But yet it appears that several teams own best interest is the bottom line in the accountant's ledger, not in the win/loss column. How is that good for the league?

[VirtualSmitty]

Originally Posted by Stephen

But yet it appears that several teams own best interest is the bottom line in the accountant's ledger, not in the win/loss column. How is that good for the league?

It's only a few teams. Again, what right does the league have to tell a team like the pirates how to run their organization? Fans keep coming, thats what's important. As long as ticket sales are there, merchandise sells, and people watch on TV, what does it matter? So what if the Pirates or Royals ownership pockets most of the money, the fan base doesn't care. The team is still profitable, which is good right? Why would the league complain as long as they are turning a profit and not on life support.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

It's only a few teams. Again, what right does the league have to tell a team like the pirates how to run their organization? Fans keep coming, thats what's important. As long as ticket sales are there, merchandise sells, and people watch on TV, what does it matter?

(Playing Devil's Advocate) What right then does MLB have to tell the Red Sox, Yankees, Phillies, Mets and Dodgers that they have to give up almost a third of their revenue (last time I checked revenue sharing was at 31%) to prop up these struggling franchises?

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

So what if the Pirates or Royals ownership pockets most of the money, the fan base doesn't care. The team is still profitable, which is good right? Why would the league complain as long as they are turning a profit and not on life support.

No offense, but baseball fans don't show up to root for the accountants. We want to see a semblance of a competitive team on the field.

[VirtualSmitty]

Originally Posted by Stephen

(Playing Devil's Advocate) What right then does MLB have to tell the Red Sox, Yankees, Phillies, Mets and Dodgers that they have to give up almost a third of their revenue (last time I checked revenue sharing was at 31%) to prop up these struggling franchises?

The franchises aren't struggling, that's where your going wrong. The few teams that are in tough financial shape actually use the money the money effectively. The teams that receive it that don't really need it pocket it. What is the MLB suppossed to do, tell a perfectly profitable franchise to change the way it operates because it's making money? Your argument doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by Stephen

No offense, but baseball fans don't show up to root for the accountants. We want to see a semblance of a competitive team on the field.

Wrong again Stephen. Baseball fans in many markets have shown they are willing to support their team with or without a winning product on the field. They don't come to root for accountants, they come to have fun at a game. I will say it again, the Royals and Pirates are making money being terrible, while the Marlins and Rays have good teams that go virtually unnoticed despite putting a winning product on the field. YOU might want to see a competitive team but that doesn't apply to every fan. Maybe if what you think rang true, fans would stop supporting teams like those two and they would be forced to improve to stay afloat.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

The franchises aren't struggling, that's where your going wrong. The few teams that are in tough financial shape actually use the money the money effectively. The teams that receive it that don't really need it pocket it. What is the MLB suppossed to do, tell a perfectly profitable franchise to change the way it operates because it's making money? Your argument doesn't make sense.

If they're not struggling, why share revenue?

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

Wrong again Stephen. Baseball fans in many markets have shown they are willing to support their team with or without a winning product on the field. They don't come to root for accountants, they come to have fun at a game. I will say it again, the Royals and Pirates are making money being terrible, while the Marlins and Rays have good teams that go virtually unnoticed despiteputting a winning product on the field. YOU might want to see a competitive team but that doesn't apply to every fan. Maybe if what you think rang true, fans would stop supporting teams like those two and they would be forced to improve to stay afloat.

Just so I'm clear, you're saying that win/lose, average attendance will remain the same in, "many of these markets?"

[Starscream]

Originally Posted by Stephen

But yet it appears that several teams own best interest is the bottom line in the accountant's ledger, not in the win/loss column. How is that good for the league?

Ask the Bengals, Lions, and Panthers. The Panthers especially. Jerry Richardson acted out of his own self interest this past season in preparation for the lockout. Made big cuts, hurt our competitiveness, but it set him up nicely in case there is no NFL this season. That's not just a baseball issue. He's not as cheap as the Pirates, but that's still cheap. See the quote below:

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

It's only a few teams. Again, what right does the league have to tell a team like the pirates how to run their organization? Fans keep coming, thats what's important. As long as ticket sales are there, merchandise sells, and people watch on TV, what does it matter? So what if the Pirates or Royals ownership pockets most of the money, the fan base doesn't care. The team is still profitable, which is good right? Why would the league complain as long as they are turning a profit and not on life support.

There are always exceptions to the rule, but as long as they are selling merchandise and bringing in fans, then it is good for baseball. Now, if all the teams acted like the Pirates, then it would not be good for baseball, but remember they are (along with a few other teams) the exception to the rule, just like the NFL has exceptions too.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Starscream

Ask the Bengals, Lions, and Panthers. The Panthers especially. Jerry Richardson acted out of his own self interest this past season in preparation for the lockout. Made big cuts, hurt our competitiveness, but it set him up nicely in case there is no NFL this season. That's not just a baseball issue. He's not as cheap as the Pirates, but that's still cheap. See the quote below:

I'm not going to defend Richardson's douchiness (for an example see here) but his teams have been successful in the last decade, as recently as 2008 (best record in the conference). The Bengals? They won their division last year. The Lions are starting to pull out of it, but was plagued by having inept people running the show (see: Millen, Matt).

Originally Posted by Starscream

There are always exceptions to the rule, but as long as they are selling merchandise and bringing in fans, then it is good for baseball. Now, if all the teams acted like the Pirates, then it would not be good for baseball, but remember they are (along with a few other teams) the exception to the rule, just like the NFL has exceptions too.

What's good for baseball (at least in terms of selling merchandise and people tuning in) is if the popular teams keep winning to keep the casual fan interested (just like the NBA). We've seen (in this own thread no less) what happens when those teams aren't represented in the playoffs/World Series.

[chippewastud79]

Originally Posted by Stephen

I'm not going to defend Richardson's douchiness (for an example see here) but his teams have been successful in the last decade, as recently as 2008 (best record in the conference). The Bengals? They won their division last year. The Lions are starting to pull out of it, but was plagued by having inept people running the show (see: Millen, Matt).

What's good for baseball (at least in terms of selling merchandise and people tuning in) is if the popular teams keep winning to keep the casual fan interested (just like the NBA). We've seen (in this own thread no less) what happens when those teams aren't represented in the playoffs/World Series.

I thought we were talking about how the owners spend (or don't spend) money on their franchise. The Bengals are notoriously cheap, spending little to no money on players. It is why players who get drafted there leave, and then come back to hang on for a few extra years. Its unfortunate that Mike Brown is only worried about the cash in his pocket when Art Rooney continues to put trophies in his office.

Getting lucky and finishing first in the division twice in the last 8 seasons isn't exactly a history success when they follow those years with less than 6 wins. Even a blind squirell....or something like that.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by chippewastud79

I thought we were talking about how the owners spend (or don't spend) money on their franchise. The Bengals are notoriously cheap, spending little to no money on players. It is why players who get drafted there leave, and then come back to hang on for a few extra years. Its unfortunate that Mike Brown is only worried about the cash in his pocket when Art Rooney continues to put trophies in his office.

Getting lucky and finishing first in the division twice in the last 8 seasons isn't exactly a history success when they follow those years with less than 6 wins. Even a blind squirell....or something like that.

Does reading comprehension escape you? Seriously man...

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

So what if the Pirates or Royals ownership pockets most of the money, the fan base doesn't care.

Originally Posted by Stephen

No offense, but baseball fans don't show up to root for the accountants. We want to see a semblance of a competitive team on the field.

Originally Posted by Starscream

Ask the Bengals, Lions, and Panthers.

Originally Posted by Stephen

...his teams have been successful in the last decade, as recently as 2008 (best record in the conference). The Bengals? They won their division last year. The Lions are starting to pull out of it, but was plagued by having inept people running the show (see: Millen, Matt).

That should about bring you up to speed. Now you can get back to constructing strawmen...