Resuming CBA talks

[ChuckD]

When was the last time any of those teams seriously competed for a pennant?

I rest my case.

Have any of them moved? Case dismissed...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There's no rich person in the world that will buy a team if they can't make any money.

He did most certainly. He is just mad now that hes come down off his manic phase.

Its a pro SPORTS league. Think gambling industry and think about it for a little bit.

[Mel_13]

When was the last time any of those teams seriously competed for a pennant?

I rest my case.

Tampa Bay WON the American League pennant in 2008 and were in the playoffs as recently as, oh, this month.

Minnesota won their division as recently as last season.

Your case is weak on many levels.

[Mel_13]

50/50 is the only reasonable solution and compromise to get this thing over with. The players will still be paid more money under a 50/50 system than they ever received in a 57/43 system.

Do you have any factual foundation for either of these assertions?

[ElNono]

By the way, nobody has ever answered me on why can't the owners get 53%?

THAT HAS BEEN ANSWERED H... oops. That has been answered here, many times already. Owners can ask whatever they want, and so do players. Eventually, if they want to play the games, they're going to have to find a common ground.

You still haven't answered why owners wouldn't accept a 50%-53% band and elaborate why such band is so different from a strict 50/50 split...

[ElNono]

There's no rich person in the world that will buy a team if they can't make any money.

But they've been making money. And for those that have had problems, player offered to cover half the losses. So this point is really moot.

[ElNono]

Do you have any factual foundation for either of these assertions?

Been asking that question twice now...

[ElNono]

Tampa Bay WON the American League pennant in 2008 and were in the playoffs as recently as, oh, this month.

Minnesota won their division as recently as last season.

Your case is weak on many levels.

You and your silly facts getting in the way of his unfounded arguments...

[ElNono]

Report: David Stern Told ESPN and TNT That 82-Game Season Still Possible

[Birn]

Tampa Bay WON the American League pennant in 2008 and were in the playoffs as recently as, oh, this month.

Minnesota won their division as recently as last season.

Your case is weak on many levels.

I'm glad you brought up the TB Rays. You walked right into my argument. in 2009, the year after they won the pennant the owner of the Rays had to slash payroll since they could not afford to pay any high priced free agents. Evan Longoria is the only holdover from the all stars that were on that roster. Carl Crawford, Jason Bartlett, Ben Zobrist, Scott Kazmir, and Carlos Pena were all let go in free agency or traded for prospects. Why did that happen? Because the way MLB is structured there is no chance for small market teams to compete financially. Until MLB negotiates a better deal with the players union, the only contenders from here on out are going to be the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, White Sox, Rangers, Phillies, Mets, Braves and Giants. Once the Dodgers get their ownership in place they will be on that list as well. Those are the teams with deep pocket owners who will outspend everybody. That's great for the players but bad for small market teams with owners who aren't mega wealthy. In fact, TB Rays ownership has talked openly about the need to possibly relocate away from Tampa Bay. Don't be surprised to see them in another city in a couple of years.

It's certainly possible for a small market team to occasionally win a division le based solely on shrewd scouting and player development. However, once those players become stars those teams can no longer afford their services.

Thanks for allowing me to prove my point once again.

[Mel_13]

I'm glad you brought up the TB Rays. You walked right into my argument. in 2009, the year after they won the pennant the owner of the Rays had to slash payroll since they could not afford to pay any high priced free agents. Evan Longoria is the only holdover from the all stars that were on that roster. Carl Crawford, Jason Bartlett, Ben Zobrist, Scott Kazmir, and Carlos Pena were all let go in free agency or traded for prospects. Why did that happen? Because the way MLB is structured there is no chance for small market teams to compete financially. Until MLB negotiates a better deal with the players union, the only contenders from here on out are going to be the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, White Sox, Rangers, Phillies, Mets, Braves and Giants. Once the Dodgers get their ownership in place they will be on that list as well. Those are the teams with deep pocket owners who will outspend everybody. That's great for the players but bad for small market teams with owners who aren't mega wealthy. In fact, TB Rays ownership has talked openly about the need to possibly relocate away from Tampa Bay. Don't be surprised to see them in another city in a couple of years.

It's certainly possible for a small market team to occasionally win a division le based solely on shrewd scouting and player development. However, once those players become stars those teams can no longer afford their services.

Thanks for allowing me to prove my point once again.

You do realize that they only fell to an 84 game, 3rd place finish in 2009? And that they followed that up by consecutive playoff appearances in 2010 and 2011? And that they finished ahead of the Yankees in 2010 and ahead of the Red Sox in 2010 and 2011?

Yeah, you sure proved your point.

[ElNono]

You do realize that they only fell to an 84 game, 3rd place finish in 2009? And that they followed that up by consecutive playoff appearances in 2010 and 2011? And that they finished ahead of the Yankees in 2010 and ahead of the Red Sox in 2010 and 2011?

Yeah, you sure proved your point.

Not to mention that unlike the MLB, the NBA does have a salay cap.

[Birn]

But they've been making money. And for those that have had problems, player offered to cover half the losses. So this point is really moot.

That is just totally untrue. Please cite your source. You're confusing projected revenues with covering expenses. The players never offered to cover half of their losses. The players are trying to spin a reduction of BRI from 57% to 53% as a "giveback" in salaries. I have news for you...you can't give back something that hasn't been earned. How do they know that revenues will be over a Billion dollars in the future? There's still a TV deal that has to be negotiated in the next couple of years with ESPN and TNT. With the way our economy is tanking do you expect ESPN and TNT to s out the same kind of big bucks? I doubt it. They're business people too and they aren't going to pay the league a billion dollars if there's no decent return for them from advertisers. The players are idiots if they just assume that all future TV and marketing rights deals will always remain the same or will always grow. Once again, the players just repeatedly display their ignorance and stupidity when it comes to running a business.

Wise fools, my friend.

[Mel_13]

How do they know that revenues will be over a Billion dollars in the future?

I suppose the same way that you seem to know that the players will make more under a 50/50 split than a 57/43 split.

[Birn]

You do realize that they only fell to an 84 game, 3rd place finish in 2009? And that they followed that up by consecutive playoff appearances in 2010 and 2011? And that they finished ahead of the Yankees in 2010 and ahead of the Red Sox in 2010 and 2011?

Yeah, you sure proved your point.

Yep, I sure did. Here's a little piece quoted in Wikipedia:

"In 2011, Tampa Bay was eliminated in the ALDS by the Texas Rangers, three games to one. After the elimination, owner Stuart Sternberg expressed concern about the team's viability in Florida after the team's last playoff game failed to sell out; he has indicated he may relocate the team to another market, although he did not specify which market."

He can't sell out his stadium because they can't afford any high priced star players to put people in the stands.

One more time, I rest my case. Plain as day for you, my brother.

[baseline bum]

Once again, the players just repeatedly display their ignorance and stupidity when it comes to running a business.

Can't be any dumber than Holt bidding against himself for Jefferson and Bonner last summer.

[Mel_13]

Yep, I sure did. Here's a little piece quoted in Wikipedia:

"In 2011, Tampa Bay was eliminated in the ALDS by the Texas Rangers, three games to one. After the elimination, owner Stuart Sternberg expressed concern about the team's viability in Florida after the team's last playoff game failed to sell out; he has indicated he may relocate the team to another market, although he did not specify which market."

He can't sell out his stadium because they can't afford any high priced star players to put people in the stands.

One more time, I rest my case. Plain as day for you, my brother.

Have you ever been to Tropicana Field? I have.

Tampa's attendance problems have little or nothing to do with the quality of the team they're putting on the field.

You keep moving the goalposts, but the results remain the same.

[Birn]

THAT HAS BEEN ANSWERED H... oops. That has been answered here, many times already. Owners can ask whatever they want, and so do players. Eventually, if they want to play the games, they're going to have to find a common ground.

You still haven't answered why owners wouldn't accept a 50%-53% band and elaborate why such band is so different from a strict 50/50 split...

That's an easy one....let me indulge you...because the owners actually own the teams. I know you're going to find this really hard to believe but there would be no league without the owners. Also, the entertainment level of the league would not be anything without the players. Having said that, if there's any group that has the right to earn a higher percentage of revenues its the owners because they put forth their own assets and capital to make the league viable and make it possible for the players to earn salaries they will never see in their lifetimes. The answer is simple...the owners deserve a higher percentage because it is their league. However, in the spirit of compromise and good faith negotiations the owners and players should just split the baby and move on so we can enjoy some basketball. A flex band of 50% to 53% is not 50/50. Suppose the owners offered a flex band of 47% to 50%? The players would find that to be unacceptable of course. That would be no more unacceptable for them as it is for the owners. There's absolutely no basis at all anywhere that illustrates why the players need to have 53% except for just pure greed. The players are going to end up costing themselves more than just a couple of weeks of games. I guarantee these players will not miss the season. They're underestimating the owners when they threaten to cancel the season. It can and will happen unless the players start acting reasonable. I also find it hard to believe that you profess to be a Spurs fan and yet favor the players in these negotiations. You do realize you are rooting for the Spurs to never be profitable and ripe for relocation? You do realize that don't you?

[Mel_13]

There's absolutely no basis at all anywhere that illustrates why the players need to have 53% except for just pure greed.

Just as there's absolutely no basis at all anywhere that illustrates why the owners need to have 50% except for just pure greed.

[Birn]

Have you ever been to Tropicana Field? I have.

Tampa's attendance problems have little or nothing to do with the quality of the team they're putting on the field.

You keep moving the goalposts, but the results remain the same.

Nope. Just look at the facts. Attendance through 2008 was pretty decent for them. Why? They were compe ive and they had multiple all stars on their roster. In 2009, only Evan Longoria returned and everyone else was traded away or failed to re-sign. Fans lose interest when their favorite players are let go and the team fails to produce at a championship level. As a result, they just can't afford to sign any star players.

There's no way you're going to say with a straight face that Tampa Bay will compete for a championship each year in MLB's current system. The fact is they can't compete financially with the Yankees, Red Sox, Rangers, et al.

[Birn]

Just as there's absolutely no basis at all anywhere that illustrates why the owners need to have 50% except for just pure greed.

Then why don't both the owners and players get 50% each and they can both be greedy?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There is a basis for the players getting MORE than 57% because that is what free market forces demonstrated. The free market is the basis not an arbitrary number. At least in this country it is.

I love self-styled conservatives who turn on the free market the moment their corporate overlords are ever at risk.

[ElNono]

That is just totally untrue. Please cite your source. You're confusing projected revenues with covering expenses. The players never offered to cover half of their losses.

I'm being generous and using the NBA as the source. Their claim is that their last audited loss (10-11) added up to $300 millions. The NBA’s BRI in 10-11 was $3.817 billion, which at a 57/43 split ended up being $2.176 billion in salaries while owners received $1.641 billion in revenues. Each 1% of BRI amounts to $38.17 millions.

The union offered to come down 4%, from 57% to 53%, which means 4 * $38.17 millions = $152.68 millions, or a little over half the reported losses by the NBA.

Now show me your numbers.

The players are trying to spin a reduction of BRI from 57% to 53% as a "giveback" in salaries. I have news for you...you can't give back something that hasn't been earned. How do they know that revenues will be over a Billion dollars in the future?

They don't. That's why they're being flexible, and if the revenue drops they're willing to go all the way down to 50%. Now, if the revenue stays steady or, as it's been in the last few seasons, picks up, why shouldn't they get 53%? Why wouldn't owners be interested in offering a bonus if the league does well? After all, people pay to watch the players, not the owners.

[Mel_13]

Nope. Just look at the facts. Attendance through 2008 was pretty decent for them. Why? They were compe ive and they had multiple all stars on their roster. In 2009, only Evan Longoria returned and everyone else was traded away or failed to re-sign. Fans lose interest when their favorite players are let go and the team fails to produce at a championship level. As a result, they just can't afford to sign any star players.

Once again, the facts don't support your assertions. They're all here if actually care:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/TBD/

There's no way you're going to say with a straight face that Tampa Bay will compete for a championship each year in MLB's current system. The fact is they can't compete financially with the Yankees, Red Sox, Rangers, et al.

So, let's recap how you've moved the goalposts:

1. First, it was that teams couldn't compete financially. Shot down

2. Then it was that such teams hadn't competed for a pennant recently. Shot down twice.

3. Then it was that such teams, even when they succeeded, would still be likely candidates for relocation because they couldn't keep star players. Shot down.

4. Now you've moved the goalposts even further. Now teams must be able to compete for championships every year.

Hard to believe you actually typed that with a straight face.

[Mel_13]

Then why don't both the owners and players get 50% each and they can both be greedy?

What's your foundation for your assertion that 50/50 is a fair split? You've never answered that.