Player vs Owner

[Stradling]

I am sure most of us would tweak things if we had an easy button, but who do you side with?

First 10 years or so.

 We know that the owner controls the player for 4-5 years in the minors and then 5-6 years in the pros.  The owner controls if the player plays, if he gets paid the first several years, pays the player jack shit (below minimum wage in some cases) in the minors, and controls whether or not the player is traded and he has to uproot his life and move across the country to either a good situation or a worse situation. 

Free Agency

Then the player hits free agency.  He controls where he plays.  He controls the contract he accepts.  He can ask for and receive a no trade clause.  If you are a really good player, and you sign a long term deal then the owner pays you for your decline at a premium.  

Trying to create some discussion today, so pick a side.  

[T.G.]

I'm not picking a side.

Owners can run their teams as they best see fit.  It's up to me to support that team or not. I believe if you own a team, you have a responsibility to put a quality product on the field.  If you don't - I can take my time and money elsewhere.

Players deserve to get paid as much as they can for as long as they can.

Both have the opportunity to make a lot of money.  I'm fine with that.

So again, I won't pick a side.

[Stradling]

3 minutes ago, True Grich said:

I'm not picking a side.

Owners can run their teams as they best see fit.  It's up to me to support that team or not. I believe if you own a team, you have a responsibility to put a quality product on the field.  If you don't - I can take my time and money elsewhere.

Players deserve to get paid as much as they can for as long as they can.

Both have the opportunity to make a lot of money.  I'm fine with that.

So again, I won't pick a side.

Pick a damn side Nancy.  

[T.G.]

I'll pick on a case by case basis.

 

Yankees, Red Sox, A's, Dodgers, Astros, Mariners, Rangers:  I pick the players.

Angels:  Fans

Everyone else - Meh...

 

[kevinb]

As a business owner I usually would say the owner. But with professional sports I'd say I guess I side with the player. The owners are making major bucks but no one ever talks about it. The players are the ones who are made the villains for capitalizing on a free market and choosing the most money. If in the sports media they showed the income each sports owner made yearly I think people would have a better understanding and a better idea what's going on. The players are their own entity they must do what is right for themselves. This isn't about team this isn't about a fan base this isn't about anything other than capitalizing on the unique window they've created for themselves through out the hard work and talent they've had to endure and were given. When fans shit on players for signing with whatever team just for the money or call some agent the devil because he gets the player the most money or whats perceived the most money. Most fans and people would do the same thing. Fans constantly bitch about I would do this and that job for free if I was playing a game for money, and the fact is no you wouldn't, not when the guy next to you is making 15 mil. No one sells there house for free when you can make a million dollars on it. That's just not what we do. End of weird rant. Go players. That being said I hope the Angels sign all the good free agents for all $5 dollar salaries.

[Lou]

I really don't understand what the options are.  it doesn't seem as if there is an actual choice to make, but rather, it just illustrates how the current system is set up. 

[Dtwncbad]

My easiest answer is I could not pick a side.  It’s between them.

Force me to pick a side and I side with the players because:

Owners never share any of THEIR financial statements with the fans while the player contracts are always public.  Yet pretty much every single person that has owned a team multiplied their overall wealth many times over in owning a team.

So it is really, really hard to ever buy into any “ we can’t afford to pay that” ownership stance.

I have to believe with full disclosure of all the owner financials, the players could negotiate more salary.

Instead they have to negotiate somewhat blindly.

In today’s game, they are getting paid better than ever so I don’t feel “sorry” for the players at all.

But force me to break it down for fairness and the owners have the better deal due to the fact that they literally never have to disclose their financials. . . . Oh, except when they show the financials to a prospective buyer and somehow miraculously the team gets sold for hundreds of millions more than was expected. 

[Claude]

Owners and you already know why I feel this way. It’s unreasonable for fans to expect owners to play supermarket sweep each and every offseason and the trade deadline acquisitions. 

We have Pujols, Trout and Upton. Arte paid $20M just to acquire Ohtani. We of course need Cole and most likely will sign him. He’s going to cost a ton. I think Arte is spending and he will continue to do so but you know it will never be enough. 

The players continue to demand huge guaranteed money contracts but they often don’t deliver. I hope some day they develop salary cap and a more scientific incentive base salary structure so every player can have an equal opportunity to get paid based strictly on performance and not based on what they did 2-3 years ago.

The league will be better for everyone if every stat is compensated equally. 

@Stadling is correct when he mentions that the young players don’t get paid much. The older players many times get paid too much. They need to fix that. 

 

[Dtwncbad]

34 minutes ago, Calzone 2 said:

Owners and you already know why I feel this way. It’s unreasonable for fans to expect owners to play supermarket sweep each and every offseason and the trade deadline acquisitions. 

We have Pujols, Trout and Upton. Arte paid $20M just to acquire Ohtani. We of course need Cole and most likely will sign him. He’s going to cost a ton. I think Arte is spending and he will continue to do so but you know it will never be enough. 

The players continue to demand huge guaranteed money contracts but they often don’t deliver. I hope some day they develop salary cap and a more scientific incentive base salary structure so every player can have an equal opportunity to get paid based strictly on performance and not based on what they did 2-3 years ago.

The league will be better for everyone if every stat is compensated equally. 

@Stadling is correct when he mentions that the young players don’t get paid much. The older players many times get paid too much. They need to fix that. 

 

I am completely opposed to players getting paid  “Strictly on performance and not based on what they did 2-3 years ago.”

You are missing one gigantic element of their value.  They are entertainers.  They are stars.

A huge portion of “normal” baseball fans have way more interest in seeing known stars play than some guys who may have better stats.

And those stars earned that star power.  They deserve to financially benefit from their star power aside from stats.

Who do you think generated more revenue and profit for the Angels, Reggie Jackson or Juan Rivera?

Reggie had an OPS of .782 as an Angel for 5 years.

Juan Rivera has an OPS of .789 as an Angel over 6 years.

Your system would have Juan Rivera earn more money than Reggie Jackson in their Angel careers.

Thats crazy.

[UndertheHalo]

The players have their union.  I very strongly support workers rights to negotiate their share of the fruits of their labor.  I’ll always fall on that side of the discussion.  Period. 
 

As far as ownership.  As a consumer that spends my money on their product I expect that I get a good faith effort to deliver what I want.  Which is banners for my team.  Arte, I believe has done that in a way that I think is satisfactory.  So I have no issue with the way he’s acquired and retained players.  For other owners, I do think there’s a problem.  And it’s probably going to result in labor conflict.  It is what it is.  Obviously as far as the Angels the players they’ve paid haven’t worked out great in the last decade.  But that’s a separate issue. 

Edited November 6, 2019 by UndertheHalo

[Blarg]

Because of the obscene amount of money being tossed at these guys I can't see any scenario where the players are under paid for what they do. Even at rookie salary they are bringing home 10 years of hard work for the median salary of the average Joe worker in the US. Please wrap your heads around this. By the time they hit arbitration they have made 10 times more money than the average worker does during his entire career. 

I feel absolutely no empathy for the major league baseball players salary demands. 

[floplag]

I think its a bit of both, but, im going to side with the players more based on the fact that the initial control period should be shorter, controlling a guy till hes like 28 thru the bulk of his really productive years, is definitely in the owners favor.
But, that having been said, most players are so grossly overpaid its become monopoly money.   These guys that are insulted by more money than generations of families will ever see need a huge reality check 

[Mark68]

Players

Baseball, like all sports (except golf) is a young man's game. Yet the youngest players, who have the most ability, are underpaid because of how the system operates. Most players don't reach free agency until they are on the downside of their careers (see Pujols, Albert, et al). If players were actually paid according to their worth, the vast majority of their salaries would be earned prior to turning 30. After that age, teams tend to try to limit their risk during the decline of players' careers. 

[Tank]

40 minutes ago, floplag said:

I think its a bit of both, but, im going to side with the players more based on the fact that the initial control period should be shorter, controlling a guy till hes like 28 thru the bulk of his really productive years, is definitely in the owners favor.
But, that having been said, most players are so grossly overpaid its become monopoly money.   These guys that are insulted by more money than generations of families will ever see need a huge reality check 

while i agree that baseball players are overpaid compared to joe lunchbucket, i disagree with how greedy they are. i think we see far more of the "i deserved to be PAID" approach more in the NBA and NFL than we do in the MLB (though it happens occasionally).

[floplag]

21 minutes ago, Tank said:

while i agree that baseball players are overpaid compared to joe lunchbucket, i disagree with how greedy they are. i think we see far more of the "i deserved to be PAID" approach more in the NBA and NFL than we do in the MLB (though it happens occasionally).

No thats true, its far more prevalent in other sports, but i laugh every time i hear the whole "insult" from agents and athletes regardless of sport 

[Claude]

34 minutes ago, floplag said:

No thats true, its far more prevalent in other sports, but i laugh every time i hear the whole "insult" from agents and athletes regardless of sport 

I laugh when the expert media and everyday Joe’s prognosticate Cole’s salary to be 8/285M. I’m sure that the owners love having people that have zero personal financial risk in the matter come up with figures out of nowhere. 

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

14 minutes ago, Calzone 2 said:

I laugh when the expert media and everyday Joe’s prognosticate Cole’s salary to be 8/285M. I’m sure that the owners love having people that have zero personal financial risk in the matter come up with figures out of nowhere. 

Do you honestly think owners care or give even 5 seconds thought to what Jim Bowden or Joe Blow speculate someone will sign for?  These are billionaires running businesses not fans on a message board.  I'm pretty sure Arte/Eppler aren't basing any offer they make on the latest ESPN segment about what a player will end up signing for.

[Claude]

5 minutes ago, Catwhoshatinthehat said:

Do you honestly think owners care or give even 5 seconds thought to what Jim Bowden or Joe Blow speculate someone will sign for?  These are billionaires running businesses not fans on a message board.  I'm pretty sure Arte/Eppler aren't basing any offer they make on the latest ESPN segment about what a player will end up signing for.

Exactly what I think. Arte probably sits in his yacht and tells Eppler what his final budget is and spend wisely. 

[UndertheHalo]

That’s not true.  Arte is personally involved in some of these big deals.  Like face to face talks.  

[ScottT]

I'm in this for me  

[Fish Oil]

I'm on the owner's side. Let's reduce these salaries to a reasonable level so ticket prices can go back to where it doesn't cost $300 to take the wife to a game.

[TheUPSman]

As a union member for 30 years I'm all for someone getting the most of what they can, I'm all for the players getting theirs. That being said seeing Trout getting 400+ million to play baseball is a bit absurd and the idea someone soemday will crach half a billion is just crazy to think about. Which ultimately ends up on the fan when it comes to tickets and merch. 

[Claude]

17 hours ago, Mark68 said:

Players

Baseball, like all sports (except golf) is a young man's game. Yet the youngest players, who have the most ability, are underpaid because of how the system operates. Most players don't reach free agency until they are on the downside of their careers (see Pujols, Albert, et al). If players were actually paid according to their worth, the vast majority of their salaries would be earned prior to turning 30. After that age, teams tend to try to limit their risk during the decline of players' careers. 

I like how golfers get paid. If they play good they get paid good. If they play mediocre golf they get paid a base stipend to cover their hotels and travel expenses. If they play bad, they lose their PGA card and must go back to qualifying school to earn it back before they can start playing in tournaments again. Losers go home. 

[eligrba]

I support the side providing free front row parking.

[Stradling]

One on one baseball would totally suck.