How the Pirates win

[TheWizard]

The Pirates made nearly $29.4 million in 2007 and 2008, according to team financial documents, years that were part of a streak of futility that has now reached 18 straight losing seasons. The team's ownership also paid its partners $20.4 million in 2008.

The documents offer a rare peek inside a team that made money by getting slightly less than half its income (about $70 million) from MLB sources -- including revenue sharing, network TV, major league merchandise sales and MLB's website. The team also held down costs, keeping player salaries near the bottom of the National League, shedding pricier talent and hoping that untested prospects would blossom.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=5484947

I thought it was an interesting read...

[S.P. Rodriguez]

My understanding is that Florida got hit with the same type of report before they extended Uggla and Johnson.  The implication I took from the article is that profit sharing is going to be disputed by the clubs that actually pay into profit sharing but take out nothing. 

Clubs like Pittsburgh, Florida and KC are going to have to prove they are spending their profit sharing payments on improving the teams and not ending up in the owners' pockets. 

[HudsonHawk]

Clubs like Pittsburgh, Florida and KC are going to have to prove they are spending their profit sharing payments on improving the teams and not ending up in the owners' pockets. 

By "profit sharing", I assume you mean the competitive balance tax, which takes money from the rich an gives to the poor.  The problem with this, however, is that teams are forbidden to use proceeds from the CBT to pay salaries or development expenses.

[Lefty]

Just another mickey mouse corporation

[Limey]

My understanding is that Florida got hit with the same type of report before they extended Uggla and Johnson.  The implication I took from the article is that profit sharing is going to be disputed by the clubs that actually pay into profit sharing but take out nothing. 

Clubs like Pittsburgh, Florida and KC are going to have to prove they are spending their profit sharing payments on improving the teams and not ending up in the owners' pockets. 

It seems that, currently, they're sponging off the revenue generated by teams that people watch.  If I was one of the other owners, I'd be a little fucked off.

[austro]

The problem with this, however, is that teams are forbidden to use proceeds from the CBT to pay salaries or development expenses.

What's that leave? Stadium payments and Christmas gifts for the grandkids?

[S.P. Rodriguez]

By "profit sharing", I assume you mean the competitive balance tax, which takes money from the rich an gives to the poor.  The problem with this, however, is that teams are forbidden to use proceeds from the CBT to pay salaries or development expenses.

No, I was referring to revenue sharing.  Found this as a good reference: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_revenue_sharing_in_Major_League_Baseball

It's similar to the CBT, but not the same according to this: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_the_Luxury_Tax_work_in_MLB

[Lurch]

It seems that, currently, they're sponging off the revenue generated by teams that people watch.  If I was one of the other owners, I'd be a little fucked off.

I'm pretty sure the Washington Generals are on the Globetrotters' payroll.

[Limey]

I'm pretty sure the Washington Generals are on the Globetrotters' payroll.

I get the joke; but the Trotters-Generals relationship is intentional.  If that was supposed to be a bona fide exhibition show, and the Generals decided not to show up because they still got paid, the Trotters would be pissed.

[jbm]

By "profit sharing", I assume you mean the competitive balance tax, which takes money from the rich an gives to the poor.  The problem with this, however, is that teams are forbidden to use proceeds from the CBT to pay salaries or development expenses.

Seems like a strange restriction.  How would the rich track how the poor spent their donation?

[Lurch]

I get the joke; but the Trotters-Generals relationship is intentional.  If that was supposed to be a bona fide exhibition show, and the Generals decided not to show up because they still got paid, the Trotters would be pissed.

The owners agreed to the rev sharing.  They all benefit from a team in Pittsburgh and are apparently willing to prop them up if necessary

[Lurch]

By "profit sharing", I assume you mean the competitive balance tax, which takes money from the rich an gives to the poor.  The problem with this, however, is that teams are forbidden to use proceeds from the CBT to pay salaries or development expenses.

Pirates president Frank Coonelly said the team spends its revenue-sharing money in several ways designed to create a winner: scouting; amateur draft choices; a new Dominican Republic academy that cost more than $5 million; player development; and, an expensive new computer system** used in player evaluation.

**I'm guessing they bought Macs

[OregonStrosFan]

The docs get better...

Deadspin with similar documents from the Angels, Marlins, Rays and Mariners. http://deadspin.com/5615096/LINK

As usual, Maury Brown at the Biz of Baseball doing a good job breaking everything down. LINK

[TheWizard]

The owners agreed to the rev sharing.  They all benefit from a team in Pittsburgh and are apparently willing to prop them up if necessary

How do the other owners benefit from having a team in Pittsburgh? I'm not making a snide remark either, I'm really curious.

[HudsonHawk]

No, I was referring to revenue sharing.  Found this as a good reference: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_revenue_sharing_in_Major_League_Baseball

It's similar to the CBT, but not the same according to this: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_the_Luxury_Tax_work_in_MLB

Well all teams "pay in" and "take from" from the Revenue Sharing Plan, hence the confusion as to what you were referring.  And the Wiki articles are overly simplistic.  The Revenue Sharing Plan gets into "performance factors" and all sorts of qualifiers to determine who nets positive and who nets negative. 

[94CougarGrad]

I'm pretty sure the Washington Generals are on the Globetrotters' payroll.

The hell you say!

[HudsonHawk]

Seems like a strange restriction.  How would the rich track how the poor spent their donation?

The poor don't spend it.  MLB spends it for them.

[Lurch]

How do the other owners benefit from having a team in Pittsburgh? I'm not making a snide remark either, I'm really curious.

I could be wrong.  I thought Pittsburgh was larger than it actually is (40th in US).  Was thinking the value of MLB would be higher with that market than without.

[HudsonHawk]

How do the other owners benefit from having a team in Pittsburgh? I'm not making a snide remark either, I'm really curious.

No one would watch the Yankees practice.  Without an opponent on the field, even the "big market" teams would struggle.

[Limey]

No one would watch the Yankees practice.  Without an opponent on the field, even the "big market" teams would struggle.

They could schedule more games against better opposition, and contract out the Pirates.  Of course, they might lose those additional games against better opposition, but they would be more entertaining.  If the dog-shit Astros can sweep the Pirates, it's a worse spectacle than practice.

[HudsonHawk]

They could schedule more games against better opposition, and contract out the Pirates.

I suppose you could just have the Yankees and Red Sox, and that's it.  I don't think that league would last as long as you think, though.

[homer]

I suppose you could just have the Yankees and Red Sox, and that's it.  I don't think that league would last as long as you think, though.

Right. Because contracting one or two teams inevitably will lead to this.

[NeilT]

I suppose you could just have the Yankees and Red Sox, and that's it.  I don't think that league would last as long as you think, though.

Suppose?  Are you implying there's anything else?

[HudsonHawk]

Right. Because contracting one or two teams inevitably will lead to this.

That's exactly right.  Nothing gets by you.

[HudsonHawk]

Suppose?  Are you implying there's anything else?

According to Homer, there is no other choice.  It's our collective destiny.

[hostros7]

Is this where we revisit the relegation discussion?  Because I would fuckin' love one for the MLB.

[Lurch]

According to Homer, there is no other choice.  It's our collective destiny.

I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords

[Noe]

Is this where we revisit the relegation discussion?  Because I would fuckin' love one for the MLB.

That would be great, but then again, learning from futbol how to handle a league is probably not very conducive to embracing the idea.  Still, thinking you could relegate Pittsburgh and a team like Memphis or Las Vegas could come up and play in the big leagues is interesting.  Basically would light a fire under teams to keep playing hard because if you don't, you get sent to the minors... the entire organization.

[HudsonHawk]

That would be great, but then again, learning from futbol how to handle a league is probably not very conducive to embracing the idea.  Still, thinking you could relegate Pittsburgh and a team like Memphis or Las Vegas could come up and play in the big leagues is interesting.  Basically would light a fire under teams to keep playing hard because if you don't, you get sent to the minors... the entire organization.

So who provides the players on a team like Memphis or Las Vegas?  What happens to the players at Pittsburgh who are under a major league contract?

[GreatBagwellsBeard]

So who provides the players on a team like Memphis or Las Vegas?  What happens to the players at Pittsburgh who are under a major league contract?

Exactly.  This is why relegation remains fun in theory, but impossible in practice, like nuclear fusion and genuinely hot lesbians.

[subnuclear]

Exactly.  This is why relegation remains fun in theory, but impossible in practice, like nuclear fusion and genuinely hot lesbians.

To quibble, nuclear fusion is definitely possible, its just not a good source of electricity at the moment.  

[Ebby Calvin]

To quibble, nuclear fusion is definitely possible, its just not a good source of electricity at the moment.  

I'm waiting for Limey to refute GBB's second point.

[JackAstro]

Exactly.  This is why relegation remains fun in theory, but impossible in practice, like nuclear fusion and genuinely hot lesbians.

They live near me, and are very real. I don't know if they've made any progress on nuclear fusion yet, and I don't care.

[Taras Bulba]

I've played golf with lesbians on numerous ocassions, some of them quite hot.  Oftentimes, the "husband" (usually of the non-hot variety) will assume a protective posture toward her liptstick partner whenever a male gets somewhat chummy towards the pretty "wife."  I have noted that the regular lesbians tend to be much better at repairing divots, keeping up, etc. so they have that going for them.  Gunga la gunga.

[94CougarGrad]

I've played golf with lesbians on numerous ocassions, some of them quite hot.  Oftentimes, the "husband" (usually of the non-hot variety) will assume a protective posture toward her liptstick partner whenever a male gets somewhat chummy towards the pretty "wife."  I have noted that the regular lesbians tend to be much better at repairing divots, keeping up, etc. so they have that going for them.  Gunga la gunga.

"Regular" lesbians? As opposed to irregular or "unleaded" lesbians?

[Limey]

I'm waiting for Limey to refute GBB's second point.

Dunno about that, but I do know a genuinely hot lesbian.

[Noe]

So who provides the players on a team like Memphis or Las Vegas?  What happens to the players at Pittsburgh who are under a major league contract?

Actually, don't know and... really, don't really care. 

[Limey]

So who provides the players on a team like Memphis or Las Vegas?  What happens to the players at Pittsburgh who are under a major league contract?

This is the issue with MLB and relegation.  There would have to be a severing of the ties between major and minor league clubs.  Otherwise, the major league teams would simply suck up all the good talent to avoid minor league teams being competitive and boosting their own chances of avoiding relegation.

In soccer leagues, the teams are all independent of each other, so player transactions are usually cash sales, where one club buys out the contract of the desired player (with the player getting a slug of the purchase price - typically around 15%).  What this means is that a player developed by an Astros affiliate (or former affiliate) could be purchased by the Yankees and the only way to prevent that would be to outbid the Evil Empire.

This is why relegation works for the most part, but also why the same three teams finish 1-2-3 every year.  The only way another team can compete is to throw insane amounts of money at the problem, and hope that this works (it rarely does).  Of all the debt carried by soccer clubs in Europe, 50% of that is carried by Premiership teams*.

* To be fair, though, both Manchester Utd and Liverpool were bought recently by "investors" for substantial sums which was debt-financed, and the debt was then attached to the club itself that had been previously debt free.

[HudsonHawk]

In soccer leagues, the teams are all independent of each other, so player transactions are usually cash sales, where one club buys out the contract of the desired player (with the player getting a slug of the purchase price - typically around 15%).  What this means is that a player developed by an Astros affiliate (or former affiliate) could be purchased by the Yankees and the only way to prevent that would be to outbid the Evil Empire.

This leads me to a question about European soccer players...what rights do the players themselves have?  Are they free agents, able to sign with whichever team they wish, regardless of who is offering the most for them?  Are they allowed to veto a sale to a club they don't want to play for?  Or is it like baseball's reserve system where a player is bound to the team he signs with, and said team is allowed to trade, sell, loan, borrow, demote, etc players at will?

[Limey]

This leads me to a question about European soccer players...what rights do the players themselves have?  Are they free agents, able to sign with whichever team they wish, regardless of who is offering the most for them?  Are they allowed to veto a sale to a club they don't want to play for?  Or is it like baseball's reserve system where a player is bound to the team he signs with, and said team is allowed to trade, sell, loan, borrow, demote, etc players at will?

There is a players union (at least in England, and I'd be gobsmacked if the French didn't have one).  However, players are signed to individual teams, and not drafted as such, which is why contracts have to be bought and sold between clubs as there is no overriding organisation.  Every club will run some form of development program, involving schoolboy and reserve teams, where those players are under some form of contract.  When that contract runs out, they're free agents able to sign with whomever they choose.  After the Bosman ruling, European players are free to move around the leagues in EU countries as they see fit.  I don't know the details of the contracts, but the player does have some say about "transfers", as they are known, hence the compensation built into most transfers whereby the player gets a slug of the fee paid.

I would suggest, therefore, that soccer players have much more say over where and for whom they play.  If they're good.  There's certainly no pre-set time period where they are indentured to an individual club other than what is laid out and agreed in the individual contract they signed.  If they're crap, they take whatever shitty contract they can get from Crystal Palace whatever shitty team will offer it.  Or go and sell Lady Kenmores open a pub.

[HudsonHawk]

There is a players union (at least in England, and I'd be gobsmacked if the French didn't have one).  However, players are signed to individual teams, and not drafted as such, which is why contracts have to be bought and sold between clubs as there is no overriding organisation.  Every club will run some form of development program, involving schoolboy and reserve teams, where those players are under some form of contract.  When that contract runs out, they're free agents able to sign with whomever they choose.  After the Bosman ruling, European players are free to move around the leagues in EU countries as they see fit.  I don't know the details of the contracts, but the player does have some say about "transfers", as they are known, hence the compensation built into most transfers whereby the player gets a slug of the fee paid.

I would suggest, therefore, that soccer players have much more say over where and for whom they play.  If they're good.  There's certainly no pre-set time period where they are indentured to an individual club other than what is laid out and agreed in the individual contract they signed.  If they're crap, they take whatever shitty contract they can get from Crystal Palace whatever shitty team will offer it.  Or go and sell Lady Kenmores open a pub.

But if a guy signs with Man U., but later the club decides to sell him to Lower Uncton, can the player refuse? 

[Limey]

But if a guy signs with Man U., but later the club decides to sell him to Lower Uncton, can the player refuse? 

He can always refuse as it is a contract of personal service (which cannot be enforced by law, so only financial remedy is allowed).  There may be penalties in the contract for such a refusal though (the aforementioned financial remedies), not to mention that the player eschews his cut of the transfer fee.  I'm sure it has happened in the past but, at the end of the day, a contract is a contract and a player is a player.  The best way to survive a transfer to Crystal Palace Lower Uncton is to play your ass of to make someone better take notice.

Similarly, any MLBer can refuse to play for a team to which he's traded.  You can't make them play.  What you get, as the other party to the contract, is whatever financial remedies are allowed under the contract or by a court.

[HudsonHawk]

He can always refuse as it is a contract of personal service (which cannot be enforced by law, so only financial remedy is allowed).  There may be penalties in the contract for such a refusal though (the aforementioned financial remedies), not to mention that the player eschews his cut of the transfer fee.  I'm sure it has happened in the past but, at the end of the day, a contract is a contract and a player is a player.  The best way to survive a transfer to Crystal Palace Lower Uncton is to play your ass of to make someone better take notice.

Similarly, any MLBer can refuse to play for a team to which he's traded.  You can't make them play.  What you get, as the other party to the contract, is whatever financial remedies are allowed under the contract or by a court.

So the rights of a player are similar to that of an MLB player...at the MLB level.  With MLB players, however, the deal changes if you're assigned to a minor league team.  You get less in pay and benefits, not to mention what it does to the ego.  I'm trying to imagine what would happen to one of the good players on a team that suddenly got relegated to the minors.  Methinks he'd be none too happy.  I'm guessing the contracts in soccer and what's owed to the player in terms of salary and benefits don't change, even if said player is relegated to the third tier?