Mark Cuban on Selig

[ukyah]

since signing bonuses are now part of the framework in mlb contracts, i'd like to see non guaranteed contracts in baseball. let them get the fruits of FA in the form of the large salary bonus up front and a nice non guaranteed salary. total nfl style.

[YouthofToday]

The salary cap/floor is not why Green Bay can exist. All TV contracts are shared amongst the 32 teams in the NFL. That is not the case in MLB. That is the reason.

[AngelsLakersFan]

then you can say goodbye to the green bay packers, because without the salary cap structure of the nfl no team in a small market like green bay would even exist, much less be one of the beacons of the league.

 

i'd like baseball to have a salary cap not because i give two craps about how much the players make, but moreso toward the fact that once shining franchises have become insignificant in this landscape.

 

This is just flat out not true. The argument is constantly proposed because it will drastically suppress player salaries, it's effect on competitive balance is marginal at best. Competitive balance is created through the sharing of league revenues, which the NFL does far more than any other league, and in turn the driving force behind balance in that league. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

since signing bonuses are now part of the framework in mlb contracts, i'd like to see non guaranteed contracts in baseball. let them get the fruits of FA in the form of the large salary bonus up front and a nice non guaranteed salary. total nfl style.

 

If contracts aren't guaranteed then it would only be fair to make players free agents at the end of every year, or to include opt out clauses after each year. Neither players or owners want that. It would probably also require the end of the three years of club control over player salaries.

Edited January 18, 2014 by AngelsLakersFan

[AngelsLakersFan]

The next CBA is coming up in a another two years I believe. With skyrocketing revenues, and player salaries lagging behind I would not be surprised to see a move to free agency after 5 years, and arbitration after 2. At some point the players have to stick up for themselves.

[Chimi]

If MLB got rid of guaranteed contracts, then they would have to put a hard salary cap in place. The player union would never agree to it. They have it too good right now.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

I believe baseball, with the exception of Miami, has some of the best owners of any sport. We also have probably the worst commissioner. He ignored steroids because it made him money then when the public found out he pretended to care. He's done everything in his power to make decisions that are best for the large market teams while giving the finger to small markets. He's done everything he could do to stall instant replay, all the while putting umpires in position to favor the money-making teams with every controversial call. The success baseball has seen during his tenure has not been of his doing and in certain cases came about in direct opposition to Selig. He's corrupt and he's done what he could to ensure corruption spreads in the league.

 

Let us not forget the arcane blackout rules for telecasts that he has saddled us with. In every other sport, blackouts only occur within 50 miles of the stadium if the game is not sold out. With baseball, any team can claim any city as a "home market" (outside of another MLB city) and their games are automatically blacked out there unless they are broadcast on the local regional Fox network - even if the viewer has paid extra for a subscription package. This includes replays of spring training games, as I found out last year when I tried to watch a replay of an Angels spring training game on MLB Network - only to get the message, "Program is not available in your area". In other sports, blackouts are meant to protect ticket sales. Since I am obviously not going to drive to San Francisco, Oakland, Anaheim, Los Angeles, San Diego or Phoenix if a game isn't on, baseball's agenda is not to protect home teams' ticket sales, but rather to force fans to watch specific channels. Drives me nuts when the Angels are in Boston, the game is only on NESN and FS West is showing a replay of a high school football game from last year.

 

Thanks, Bud.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Vegas Halo Fan

[AngelsLakersFan]

If MLB got rid of guaranteed contracts, then they would have to put a hard salary cap in place. The player union would never agree to it. They have it too good right now.

 

Well if they got rid of guaranteed contracts we would start to see tons of players making close to $40 mill per year. This is why the owners wouldn't want it either. I'd be surprised if we don't see a strike before the players agree to anymore significant concessions.

[AngelsLakersFan]

Let us not forget the arcane blackout rules for telecasts that he has saddled us with. In every other sport, blackouts only occur within 50 miles of the stadium if the game is not sold out. With baseball, any team can claim any city as a "home market" (outside of another MLB city) and their games are automatically blacked out there unless they are broadcast on the regional Fox network - even if the viewer has paid extra for a subscription package. This includes replays of spring training games, as I found out last year when I tried to watch a replay of an Angels spring training game on MLB Network - only to get the message, "Program is not available in your area". In other sports, blackouts are meant to protect ticket sales. Since I am obviously not going to drive to San Francisco, Oakland, Anaheim, Los Angeles, San Diego or Phoenix if a game isn't on, baseball's agenda is not to protect home teams' ticket sales, but rather to force fans to watch specific channels.

 

Thanks, Bud.

 

The blackout rules protect the regional sports networks and cable companies who are now the big drivers of teams revenue. Throwing out the blackout rules would be a complex legal nightmare. It would be nice to see the commissioner try and tackle this.

[ukyah]

This is just flat out not true. The argument is constantly proposed because it will drastically suppress player salaries, it's effect on competitive balance is marginal at best. Competitive balance is created through the sharing of league revenues, which the NFL does far more than any other league, and in turn the driving force behind balance in that league. 

 

 

perhaps, i'm not getting what you're saying, but without the balances in place in the nfl green bay doesn't have a franchise. 

 

competitive balance is not achieved through revenue sharing in the nfl. competitive balance is achieved through every team having the same player budget. revenue sharing may keep some teams financially solvent and that would apply to the small market teams like green bay. however, that being the case, revenue sharing has not created equal revenue streams across the league. the NYG, dallas, washington, new engalnd, etc make far more annual revenue than most of the other franchises. this statement is proven by the disparity that persists in individual franchise values and several other realities.

 

to your 2nd point regarding mlb players having unguaranteed contracts might as well be free agents every year; the signing bonus, as in the nfl, is what keeps that from being valid. give a big time mlb free agent a HUGE signing bonus, it's exactly what is done in the nfl.

 

it's a fact that many of the huge nfl contracts never reach their totality. many are cut, renegotiated for cap space and what have you. the total dollar value is for ego's sake, but it's the signing bonus and annual salary that really matter.

 

use the kershaw deal as an example, his salary this year is all signing bonus except for 4 million dollars, then an annual value of basically 30 million dollars. if that were an unguaranteed contract, how would that be equitable to signing one year contracts. if the dodgers want to keep him, they would have to pay him 30 million dollars.

Edited January 19, 2014 by ukyah

[Splint7438]

It would be so nice to see someone other than Boston, Yankees, mets or phillies on the game of the week. We should be able to watch every team at least three times over the course of a season. The NFL has a rule that each team has to have a national telecast at least once every three years. I think this is great policy. I think the Dodgers will be part of this eastern block rotation of teams. Especially if they are playing good baseball. We need to see more of the pirates, Indians, brewers, reds, giants, As. The only time we get to see these teams is usually when they are playing the Dodgers or Angels.

[Homebrewer]

MLB.TV is a wonderful thing.

[Inside Pitch]

perhaps, i'm not getting what you're saying, but without the balances in place in the nfl green bay doesn't have a franchise. 

 

 

I believe the point he is making is that the NFL's system works not because they put a cap on costs, but because they had shared profits more evenly than MLB.  It used to be that the Dallas Cowboys and small market team like GB essentially shared earned money -- the big difference being stadium revenue from PSLs and suites which isn't shared.

 

That shared wealth is what made the NFL into the financial powerhouse it is today -- it's also why the NFL has been unwilling to budge when it came to LA, funding a stadium means creating revenue for someone else....  It's a pay to play league from an ownership standpoint.

Unfortunately the system that made everyone so rich is now about to change....  They have been so successful at making they may end up shooting themselves in the foot -- and the cap may finally become more of an issue.

 

Here's a good read, http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/10/14/Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/NFL-revenue.aspx

Edited January 19, 2014 by Inside Pitch

[AngelsLakersFan]

perhaps, i'm not getting what you're saying, but without the balances in place in the nfl green bay doesn't have a franchise. 

 

competitive balance is not achieved through revenue sharing in the nfl. competitive balance is achieved through every team having the same player budget. revenue sharing may keep some teams financially solvent and that would apply to the small market teams like green bay. however, that being the case, revenue sharing has not created equal revenue streams across the league. the NYG, dallas, washington, new engalnd, etc make far more annual revenue than most of the other franchises. this statement is proven by the disparity that persists in individual franchise values and several other realities.

 

to your 2nd point regarding mlb players having unguaranteed contracts might as well be free agents every year; the signing bonus, as in the nfl, is what keeps that from being valid. give a big time mlb free agent a HUGE signing bonus, it's exactly what is done in the nfl.

 

it's a fact that many of the huge nfl contracts never reach their totality. many are cut, renegotiated for cap space and what have you. the total dollar value is for ego's sake, but it's the signing bonus and annual salary that really matter.

 

use the kershaw deal as an example, his salary this year is all signing bonus except for 4 million dollars, then an annual value of basically 30 million dollars. if that were an unguaranteed contract, how would that be equitable to signing one year contracts. if the dodgers want to keep him, they would have to pay him 30 million dollars.

 

Essentially all the money in the NFL is shared evenly between teams. While this is not totally true it is true enough. Teams have ~8 home games per year, and their national TV deals are all shared evenly, so teams could survive anywhere. This is why they don't need a team in LA, TV ratings here are fine for out of market teams already, so where is the benefit?

 

The salary cap is the final straw. It does prevent teams from outspending each other, but it is not that the teams don't have the money to keep up. The main effect it has is depreciating the players salaries.

 

Now if they were to make all contracts un-guaranteed it's hard to say how it would all play out. It's a huge concession for players because it has already been shown that long term contracts have players trading AAV for the stability of staying with one team for years. Players want to settle down, buy a house, raise their kids in the same place. They are going to want something in return.

 

Interestingly enough right now long term contracts are a benefit to the teams in the beginning, and become a benefit to the player in the end. Moving to non-guaranteed is kind of the opposite. 

 

Using the Kershaw deal as an example, he got $30 mill per year, but if that is not guaranteed he's going to be expecting a TON more per year. His total value was $210 million over 7 years - guaranteed. The thing is, the last two years of the deal the Dodgers will receive no benefit from him (he can opt out) but they will still be paying him around $60 million in those years (if someone doesn't want to pay him more). I think he'd have to get at least a $100 million signing bonus if they could void his contract at any time, while his salary would probably drop down closer to $20 mill AAV.

 

Fangraphs did a survey awhile back about how much Mike Trout would make on a one year contract. With the parameters given the result was $60 million (top ~5% bid amount) with an average around $40 million. If owners are not willing to pay these rates then what we will have a yet another distribution of wealth away from players and back to owners. This is such a drastic shift that I just can't see it happening.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

The blackout rules protect the regional sports networks and cable companies who are now the big drivers of teams revenue. Throwing out the blackout rules would be a complex legal nightmare. It would be nice to see the commissioner try and tackle this.

 

The truth? The only thing they protect is their right to lose me as a viewer. If my game isn't on I'm shutting the TV off and doing something else, not watching televised poker on the Fox regional affiliate. I'm no economist, but it seems to me that this equal less eyeballs on the product making it worth less. I'll bet you that if they stopped blacking out games to viewers hundreds of miles away, they would bag enough additional subscriptions for MLB Extra Innings to more than make up for any lost revenue. Of course, I don't expect Bud to do that much thinking, or to care about the people who actually pay the freight. It's an alien concept to me, increasing interest in the game by restricting access to it.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Vegas Halo Fan

[LAA Road Tripper]

The truth? The only thing they protect is their right to lose me as a viewer. If my game isn't on I'm shutting the TV off and doing something else, not watching televised poker on the Fox regional affiliate. I'm no economist, but it seems to me that this equal less eyeballs on the product making it worth less. I'll bet you that if they stopped blacking out games to viewers hundreds of miles away, they would bag enough additional subscriptions for MLB Extra Innings to more than make up for any lost revenue. Of course, I don't expect Bud to do that much thinking, or to care about the people who actually pay the freight. It's an alien concept to me, increasing interest in the game by restricting access to it.

Here's what I don't get about the lack of measurability of eyeballs watching an event. So Fox, CSN, etc. own the local rights to MLB teams. We really don't have the ability to count those viewers and associate them with the local broadcaster to compliment their numbers? We seem to be locked into a 1970's model in many ways. Good business is about knocking down barriers so goods are more easily available to more people. If I'm at the gym on Super Bowl Sunday, who is hurt by me watching the first quarter on my phone? Nielsen should be able to figure out I'm there and, in fact, it's even easier tracking that example than any sample size they use now. To me it's a complete lack of vision and collaboration by the networks and leagues. It's an absolute joke that Vegas has to put up with any blackout much less multiple ones.

[LAA Road Tripper]

By the way, I get that it's a legal quagmire. Just seems that creative minds can get past it now that we're into 2014.

[AngelsLakersFan]

The truth? The only thing they protect is their right to lose me as a viewer. If my game isn't on I'm shutting the TV off and doing something else, not watching televised poker on the Fox regional affiliate. I'm no economist, but it seems to me that this equal less eyeballs on the product making it worth less. I'll bet you that if they stopped blacking out games to viewers hundreds of miles away, they would bag enough additional subscriptions for MLB Extra Innings to more than make up for any lost revenue. Of course, I don't expect Bud to do that much thinking, or to care about the people who actually pay the freight. It's an alien concept to me, increasing interest in the game by restricting access to it.

 

Well I live in Anaheim, so if they were to end the blackout rules the first thing I would do is cancel my cable subscription and replace it with MLBtv. 

 

You are right the networks are trying to get into as many homes as possible. When they negotiate the right to televise your favorite teams they are negotiating the rights to show that team in a specific region. The problem is that cable carriers don't want to pay the fees to air the channel when there is not enough demand for it. The further away they are the less demand.

 

Places like Vegas are getting caught in the middle. It's close enough to a lot of markets that networks have purchased the rights to the city, but far enough away that not enough people there actually care enough to pay for it.

 

It's bullshit, I agree, but if they give you the option of buying these games specifically then they lose their ability to sell their channel to the cable carriers. In order for this to happen they will need to be compensated in some way. With the huge contracts they are signing right now I have my doubts that MLB wants to try and bite the hands that feed them.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

It's an absolute joke that Vegas has to put up with any blackout much less multiple ones.

 

Precisely my point. If they are paid for their programming, why do they care where the dollars come from? I'm not watching them at all if the game I want isn't on, so they are just driving me away to watch a competitor, which I don't get.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Vegas Halo Fan

[Bruce Nye]

I've always believed Selig had the biggest task in taking over.  Prior to him, there was no commissioner for a while.  The MLBPA has the most power in the sport.  So many things we don't like about baseball, were out of his control.

[nate]

MLBPA still has most of the power though.

[moccasin]

I agree with Cuban. From a business standpoint, Stern was the better commissioner by far.

But the NBA just seems too rigged for me. The draft, refs, everything seems to be oriented toward creating superstars and exposing its products to casual sport fans.

Baseball seems to be the hardcore fan sport now, which is pleasing to me, but ultimately not good for the sport.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

Baseball seems to be the hardcore fan sport now, which is pleasing to me, but ultimately not good for the sport.

 

In many ways baseball is becoming a niche sport. For a generation of young people raised on action-based video games, MMA and other fast and/or violent sports, I constantly hear the comment that baseball is "slow" and "boring". For me, one of the big appeals is that timing is determined by the frames on the scoreboard and not a countdown clock. The game sets its own pace. There are a lot of nuances of the game that the casual fan just doesn't get.

[Chimi]

Baseball being described as slow and boring has been going on a while now yet the sport has flourished over the past decade. Baseball will always be a cheap ticket for families to do something during the summer months. Most families can't afford to go to NBA or NFL games multiple times a season.

[eaterfan]

MLBPA still has most of the power though.

 

And steroids would still be a problem if Congress wouldn't have stepped in. Selig was powerless to get stiff penalties and any kind of real testing because of the MLBPA. Everyone rips Selig for not doing anything but what would you have liked him to do?

 

I am not a guy who thinks PED's are okay in baseball or should be made legal. I'm not a guy who thinks guys who have been reasonably suspected of PED use be admitted to the Hall of Fame. But I think it's really unfair to criticize Selig as the worst commissioner when he no other professional leagues in North America have near the testing policy MLB does.