MLB Owners crying "Poor" are not being honest

wolves82

Well-known member
How many of you know about MLBAM? MLBAM is "MLB Advanced Media", and it is the technology arm of the MLB.

Back around the year 2000, the 30 MLB team owners wisely invested $77 Million (about $2.5M per team) to get MLBAM going, and they developed a great streaming technology that powered MLB.tv. The technology was so good that they acquired rights to NHL live streaming and eventually sold a 33% share of MLBAM to Disney for $1.1 Billion in 2016. Money went to the MLB owners for a nice ROI.

Forbes calls MLBAM "the largest media company you have never heard of". As a limited partnership, they are not publicly traded but media industry experts assume MLBAM is over a billion dollars per year in revenue, easily. They power streaming services for Disney, HBO, ESPN and many more. They had a video game division, not sure if it is still alive. All owned in partnership by the MLB owners.

Oddly, I cannot find anything written in the last few years about MLBAM. Maybe they quietly sold it for a fortune? Or they continue to quietly produce huge revenues annually? Either way, if your Dolan, Nutting or Castellini ownership groups want to cry poor and not spend money on players, just know they are not being truthful.
 
 
How many of you know about MLBAM? MLBAM is "MLB Advanced Media", and it is the technology arm of the MLB.

Back around the year 2000, the 30 MLB team owners wisely invested $77 Million (about $2.5M per team) to get MLBAM going, and they developed a great streaming technology that powered MLB.tv. The technology was so good that they acquired rights to NHL live streaming and eventually sold a 33% share of MLBAM to Disney for $1.1 Billion in 2016. Money went to the MLB owners for a nice ROI.

Forbes calls MLBAM "the largest media company you have never heard of". As a limited partnership, they are not publicly traded but media industry experts assume MLBAM is over a billion dollars per year in revenue, easily. They power streaming services for Disney, HBO, ESPN and many more. They had a video game division, not sure if it is still alive. All owned in partnership by the MLB owners.

Oddly, I cannot find anything written in the last few years about MLBAM. Maybe they quietly sold it for a fortune? Or they continue to quietly produce huge revenues annually? Either way, if your Dolan, Nutting or Castellini ownership groups want to cry poor and not spend money on players, just know they are not being truthful.
The Braves are owned by Liberty media, a publicly traded company. They showed a profit of $104M OIBDA (operating income before depreciation and amortization).

Owners make plenty of money. Some choose to try to win others do not.
 
McDonald's makes alot of money. GM, Ford, Toyota, Apple, Coke-cola make alot of money. Should the employees of those companies ALL make $500,000 or more annually? Of course not. It's irrelevant what a business makes, and pro sports teams are no different. The "going rate" for a major league baseball player is $700,000 annually. That's the new major league minimum. After that, this is capitalism and it's between the team, and the player what they NEGOTIATE making. If they don't like what they are offered to play on a major league baseball team, then go do something else. No one is sentenced to play pro sports. Stop piling on ownership to just hand over money to players. This is the way business works.
And guess what, the owners are making money, however they set it up is up to them, they bought the team, they put up the original capital and are taking the risks. Now ANNUALLY, they may operate at a loss, just as many businesses do, but if they aren't selling, there's a reason for it.
 
All you need to know is that in the COVID year, NOBODY attended a game, bought a ticket, a hot dog or beer. NOBODY paid for parking, souvenirs, etc.

And you can bet they raked in the cash. Just not as much.
 
McDonald's makes alot of money. GM, Ford, Toyota, Apple, Coke-cola make alot of money. Should the employees of those companies ALL make $500,000 or more annually? Of course not. It's irrelevant what a business makes, and pro sports teams are no different. The "going rate" for a major league baseball player is $700,000 annually. That's the new major league minimum. After that, this is capitalism and it's between the team, and the player what they NEGOTIATE making. If they don't like what they are offered to play on a major league baseball team, then go do something else. No one is sentenced to play pro sports. Stop piling on ownership to just hand over money to players. This is the way business works.
And guess what, the owners are making money, however they set it up is up to them, they bought the team, they put up the original capital and are taking the risks. Now ANNUALLY, they may operate at a loss, just as many businesses do, but if they aren't selling, there's a reason for it.
I have nothing against business owners making money. I am a co-founder / minority owner of a small software business. Making money is good.
I take issue with sports franchise owners who act like they do not have money, refuse to spend money on players and be competitive. They are lying to their customers (us fans) and profiteering. And they will continue to do so as long as the stupid fans (ie. 14Red) continue to believe them.

Also, if you think a McDonalds employee is as vital to the success and profitability of McDonalds as a player like Nick Castellanos is to the success of the Reds, then I can't help you.
 
Oh my goodness...being a business owner you should kind of understand first hand how this works, although I'll say the difference between your small software company and a major pro sports franchise is monumental.
And I continue to bang this drum as well....spending money in baseball does not equal wins.
Last season, here are the ranking by payroll of the highest payrolls in all of baseball, 1,2,5,6,9.10,11, 15, 19 and 26. The Atlanta Braves, world series winners, was only 11th in spending and arguably their best player - Ronald Acuna, Jr. - Missed the last 2 months of the season and all the playoffs...and they STILL won!! The Houston Astros were 5th and made the world series. The Tampa Bay Rays made the playoffs last year, was 26th out of 30 teams spending just under $71 mill last season. Comparatively, the Mets and Phillies, #3 & #4, spent nearly 3x as much at $200 million to NOT make the playoffs?? I'm shocked the teams that spend the most and don't make the playoffs don't get ripped more?? No one ever criticizes that side.

And I"m sorry, Nick Castellenos is 30 years old, he's made $50 million dollars playing baseball. Fifty Million. He'll make another $100 million by the time he's 35 years old. I'm not feeling bad for the players. The floor for major league baseball players is $700,000. That's minimum wage in the baseball world, or in America the minimum wage is between $7.25 and $14.25 per hour.

And I'm sorry, you can't compare the net worth of the team based on today's players. I mean if the Reds would sell, sure the players under current contract would change hands, but it doesn't carry any further than the contract. The Reds would sell for a heck of alot more than the worth of the current players on the roster. That's not a big piece of the puzzle at all. The Reds are the oldest franchise in baseball, have built up the Reds brand, the current TV contracts, MLB licensing, all those things play into the value of the team, not Joey Votto and Nick Senzel.
 
Oh my goodness...being a business owner you should kind of understand first hand how this works, although I'll say the difference between your small software company and a major pro sports franchise is monumental.
And I continue to bang this drum as well....spending money in baseball does not equal wins.
Last season, here are the ranking by payroll of the highest payrolls in all of baseball, 1,2,5,6,9.10,11, 15, 19 and 26. The Atlanta Braves, world series winners, was only 11th in spending and arguably their best player - Ronald Acuna, Jr. - Missed the last 2 months of the season and all the playoffs...and they STILL won!! The Houston Astros were 5th and made the world series. The Tampa Bay Rays made the playoffs last year, was 26th out of 30 teams spending just under $71 mill last season. Comparatively, the Mets and Phillies, #3 & #4, spent nearly 3x as much at $200 million to NOT make the playoffs?? I'm shocked the teams that spend the most and don't make the playoffs don't get ripped more?? No one ever criticizes that side.

And I"m sorry, Nick Castellenos is 30 years old, he's made $50 million dollars playing baseball. Fifty Million. He'll make another $100 million by the time he's 35 years old. I'm not feeling bad for the players. The floor for major league baseball players is $700,000. That's minimum wage in the baseball world, or in America the minimum wage is between $7.25 and $14.25 per hour.

And I'm sorry, you can't compare the net worth of the team based on today's players. I mean if the Reds would sell, sure the players under current contract would change hands, but it doesn't carry any further than the contract. The Reds would sell for a heck of alot more than the worth of the current players on the roster. That's not a big piece of the puzzle at all. The Reds are the oldest franchise in baseball, have built up the Reds brand, the current TV contracts, MLB licensing, all those things play into the value of the team, not Joey Votto and Nick Senzel.
Dude - we have told you many times that 24 of the last 25 years the World Series winner was top 10 in payroll. Figure it out.

Secondly - I understand the difference between our small company and MLB franchises is huge. But... If I had a key software engineer or customer account manager that was key to our success, and they ask for a raise, I have a similar choice to make. I can pay them, and keep our team strong, or not, and weaken our team.

Now assume for a minute that I choose to not pay them, and weaken our team and our products/services. Then I hire a local gas station clerk to do their job, and then lie to my customers and tell them we are trying to "win" for them. That is what Castellini and the Reds front office have done.
 
A baseball team is like a Ferrari. It is an extravagance. If you own one you shouldn't put regular gas in the tank and discount Walmart tires on it. That's what owners of teams like the Pirates, Reds and ...dians are doing. MLB also does the game no favors by allowing it and not doing something to help the small market teams.
 
Dude - we have told you many times that 24 of the last 25 years the World Series winner was top 10 in payroll. Figure it out.

Secondly - I understand the difference between our small company and MLB franchises is huge. But... If I had a key software engineer or customer account manager that was key to our success, and they ask for a raise, I have a similar choice to make. I can pay them, and keep our team strong, or not, and weaken our team.

Now assume for a minute that I choose to not pay them, and weaken our team and our products/services. Then I hire a local gas station clerk to do their job, and then lie to my customers and tell them we are trying to "win" for them. That is what Castellini and the Reds front office have done.
Nah, that's not quite the comparison. The person/ persons replacing Castelleons, Winker are still major league players, and are part of a small fraternity of people in the world that can play professional baseball. Actually, I'd say there are alot more key software engineers or customer account managers in the country than people who can hit a 95 MPH fastball. Also, unless you are unionized, which I'd guess you are not, you are not forced to pay a wage and give increases for the same - or even less production. Now if you said that Castellini hired Joe Burrow to play left field for the Reds and claimed it would help the Reds win, then I could at least see the correlation.
 
If baseball was serious about creating somewhat of a competitive balance between teams of all market sizes it would simply divide ALL media income (local and national) equally among every team. Sure, it will still cost much more to win the bid for the Yankees local media rights than it will to win the bid for the Reds local media rights, but revenue rises the tide for all boats if it is divided equally, not just those of the teams in NY, LA, Chi, Bos, etc.
 
A baseball team is like a Ferrari. It is an extravagance. If you own one you shouldn't put regular gas in the tank and discount Walmart tires on it. That's what owners of teams like the Pirates, Reds and ...dians are doing. MLB also does the game no favors by allowing it and not doing something to help the small market teams.
If baseball was serious about creating somewhat of a competitive balance between teams of all market sizes it would simply divide ALL media income (local and national) equally among every team. Sure, it will still cost much more to win the bid for the Yankees local media rights than it will to win the bid for the Reds local media rights, but revenue rises the tide for all boats if it is divided equally, not just those of the teams in NY, LA, Chi, Bos, etc.
100% agree with both posts. I doubt the full revenue share could occur (Yanks, Dodgers, etc would block it), but you are right.

Bottom line is that there needs to be a hard salary floor and a hard salary cap. Of course the player union wanted the floor, and the owners blocked it, specifically 4 owners including Castellini. Of course the owners wanted a cap and the union shot it down. So we are stuck with a situation where a few owners keep payroll under $40M and a few others are above $250M. Complete inequity.
 
Nah, that's not quite the comparison. The person/ persons replacing Castelleons, Winker are still major league players, and are part of a small fraternity of people in the world that can play professional baseball. Actually, I'd say there are alot more key software engineers or customer account managers in the country than people who can hit a 95 MPH fastball. Also, unless you are unionized, which I'd guess you are not, you are not forced to pay a wage and give increases for the same - or even less production. Now if you said that Castellini hired Joe Burrow to play left field for the Reds and claimed it would help the Reds win, then I could at least see the correlation.
Those replacements aren't anywhere near as good as Winker, Castellenos etc. That's the point.

Don't tell me as a fan that you're trying g to win because you spent $100M on bad players. It's insulting to anyone with a brain.
 
If baseball was serious about creating somewhat of a competitive balance between teams of all market sizes it would simply divide ALL media income (local and national) equally among every team. Sure, it will still cost much more to win the bid for the Yankees local media rights than it will to win the bid for the Reds local media rights, but revenue rises the tide for all boats if it is divided equally, not just those of the teams in NY, LA, Chi, Bos, etc.
Hmm.... like the NFL?
 
Those replacements aren't anywhere near as good as Winker, Castellenos etc. That's the point.

Don't tell me as a fan that you're trying g to win because you spent $100M on bad players. It's insulting to anyone with a brain.
No that wasn't the point. He said you could take someone who never played baseball above little league and just stick them in as a high level player. That's 1000% wrong . It's actually a slap at Tommy Pham and Mike Minor, who have had good major league careers.
And who are you to say how they spend $100M? You have no idea who's going to perform. Jonathan India was projected to be a backup infielder last season, likely bouncing between Louisville and Cincy. Moose got hurt, India got a chance to play every day and you now have a leadoff hitter and 2nd baseman for the foreseeable future.
 
If baseball was serious about creating somewhat of a competitive balance between teams of all market sizes it would simply divide ALL media income (local and national) equally among every team. Sure, it will still cost much more to win the bid for the Yankees local media rights than it will to win the bid for the Reds local media rights, but revenue rises the tide for all boats if it is divided equally, not just those of the teams in NY, LA, Chi, Bos, etc.
If you owned a big market team, would YOU want to share what you've worked for??? Of course not.
 
No that wasn't the point. He said you could take someone who never played baseball above little league and just stick them in as a high level player. That's 1000% wrong . It's actually a slap at Tommy Pham and Mike Minor, who have had good major league careers.
And who are you to say how they spend $100M? You have no idea who's going to perform. Jonathan India was projected to be a backup infielder last season, likely bouncing between Louisville and Cincy. Moose got hurt, India got a chance to play every day and you now have a leadoff hitter and 2nd baseman for the foreseeable future.
Clearly I don't control the Reds spending.

We'd be a successful organization if I did.
 
Manfred and the owners don't seem to realize that the game is steadily losing fans that realize their hometown team no longer has a chance to regularly compete with teams with unlimited budgets that consistently see the stars they raise in their system auctioned off to the highest bidder. Sure, you'll get an anomaly like the Rays but those are pretty damn rare. If you're not going to commit to business then get the hell out of that business.
 
If you owned a big market team, would YOU want to share what you've worked for??? Of course not.
Yes.

Look how it has taken the NFL from number 2 as a sport to number 1 by a large margin.

Having a successful league has e riched every owner far more than they ever could have.
 
Manfred and the owners don't seem to realize that the game is steadily losing fans that realize their hometown team no longer has a chance to regularly compete with teams with unlimited budgets that consistently see the stars they raise in their system auctioned off to the highest bidder. Sure, you'll get an anomaly like the Rays but those are pretty damn rare. If you're not going to commit to business then get the hell out of that business.
Do they? Every year attendance records are broken and networks continue to pay premium dollars to broadcast games. I think it's easy for people to play the blame game, but as long as the dollars keep coming in, why would owners make any sweeping changes? The minimum salary for major league players went up 37% this season. You think the owners would have pushed back more if they were losing market share???
Here's what we know about fans. When the team wins, they WILL come and watch. about 85% of most fan bases are fair weather fans, even in LA and New York.
 
If you owned a big market team, would YOU want to share what you've worked for??? Of course not.
Would I? No, because as an owner of a large market team I have a built in advantage, but should I? Yes, if I want interested fan bases all across MLB and not just in a handful of locales. And yes, there are plenty of examples where big market teams don’t win, but that’s only due to the owners of those teams managing their organizations poorly.
 
Yes.

Look how it has taken the NFL from number 2 as a sport to number 1 by a large margin.

Having a successful league has e riched every owner far more than they ever could have.
Football is popular for other reasons than competitive balance.
1. It's weekly. Much more digestible by fan bases. Once a week for only 17 weeks out of the season. Even if your team wins the Super Bowl, you're only enguaged less than half of the season.
2. Fantasy football. There is no other gimmick that has caused more stir in sports than fantasy football. People who don't even care about football have fantasy teams where they can play GM and add and delete players.
3. A couple key areas in the country LOVE football. The south, SEC territory, Texas, California, Florida and the midwest. San Diego lost it's football team because there is just too many other things to do in southern California than follow a football team that doesn't win. LA's had a heck of a time keeping a team there.
 
One answer is to compel teams to use their share of the revenue sharing funds on their roster. That would compel them to actually try to field a decent team as well as make money. Use it or lose it.

Don't talk to me about the minimum salary. Sure, it has gone up and we'd all love to make that but the reality of the ENTIRE situation is that the while revenue soared (36% from 2015 to 2019) player salaries fell (-6%). The median salary has fallen from $1.65 million in 2015 to $ 1.15 million in 2021, a decline of 30 percent. What MLB fails to realize is that the league is better when more teams are competitive.
 
Do they? Every year attendance records are broken and networks continue to pay premium dollars to broadcast games. I think it's easy for people to play the blame game, but as long as the dollars keep coming in, why would owners make any sweeping changes? The minimum salary for major league players went up 37% this season. You think the owners would have pushed back more if they were losing market share???
Here's what we know about fans. When the team wins, they WILL come and watch. about 85% of most fan bases are fair weather fans, even in LA and New York.
...and they're not coming in places like Cleveland and Pittsburgh.
 
Football is popular for other reasons than competitive balance.
1. It's weekly. Much more digestible by fan bases. Once a week for only 17 weeks out of the season. Even if your team wins the Super Bowl, you're only enguaged less than half of the season.
2. Fantasy football. There is no other gimmick that has caused more stir in sports than fantasy football. People who don't even care about football have fantasy teams where they can play GM and add and delete players.
3. A couple key areas in the country LOVE football. The south, SEC territory, Texas, California, Florida and the midwest. San Diego lost it's football team because there is just too many other things to do in southern California than follow a football team that doesn't win. LA's had a heck of a time keeping a team there.
It's truly amazing how you can be so incredibly wrong so often.
 
McDonald's makes alot of money. GM, Ford, Toyota, Apple, Coke-cola make alot of money. Should the employees of those companies ALL make $500,000 or more annually? Of course not. It's irrelevant what a business makes, and pro sports teams are no different. The "going rate" for a major league baseball player is $700,000 annually. That's the new major league minimum. After that, this is capitalism and it's between the team, and the player what they NEGOTIATE making. If they don't like what they are offered to play on a major league baseball team, then go do something else. No one is sentenced to play pro sports. Stop piling on ownership to just hand over money to players. This is the way business works.
And guess what, the owners are making money, however they set it up is up to them, they bought the team, they put up the original capital and are taking the risks. Now ANNUALLY, they may operate at a loss, just as many businesses do, but if they aren't selling, there's a reason for it.
The way business works is that the owner or seller has a product that the buyer or fan wants to spend their money on. Without buyers or fans, owners are and it doesn't matter what you pay the players.
 
Top