Report: Telling war of words between Boras and Manfred
Posted on November 19th, 2009 – 9:42 AMBy Joe Christensen
With the free agent market set to open tonight at 11 p.m. (Central), there’s an important piece by Ken Rosenthal on FoxSports.com today, about the growing tension between players and owners. Yes, the C-word gets mentioned again. Collusion.
Prominent agent Scott Boras basically says follow the money. Though his estimates are disputed by MLB officials, he points to the tens of millions teams are receiving from the central fund — from national TV contracts, licensing, etc. — and the tens of millions more some teams get in revenue sharing, and concludes some are pocketing the cash, instead of re-investing in payroll.
Rob Manfred, MLB’s chief of labor negotiations, counters: “Just like when [Boras] does a player negotiation he lies about the numbers in order to get the price up, now he’s taken that to the macro-economic level and lying about industry numbers in order to get player [contract] numbers up,” Manfred said. “There is no one club getting $80 or $90 million in combination from revenue sharing and Central Baseball. Not one.”
Rosenthal notes that the owners and players have agreed to shelve any collusion grievance until after the offseason. But the current collective bargaining agreement expires after 2011, and baseball’s unprecedented stretch of labor peace could be in jeopardy.
For now, with the economy struggling and amid hints that some teams are determined to trim payroll (Tigers, Reds, etc.), this creates an interesting backdrop as the current free agent class begins testing the market.
34 Responses to "Report: Telling war of words between Boras and Manfred"
Personally, I’m fine with it not all going to payroll. The Twins have done a very good job in developing scouting around the entire globe, and we are starting to see the fruits of that labor. There are other ways to spend on a team’s development than payroll.
First! yay
hm, boras isn’t completely off; some of these owners are loaded with money and do not invest in payroll like other owners.
oh beaten out by Seth lol. if it had to be someone, I am cool with Seth
I’m also fine with less than 100% of revenues going to payroll, as long as a bunch isn’t just being used to gild the owners’ pockets.
The owners make too much, the players make too much, tickets cost too much, and hot dogs cost too much. They’re all a bunch of greedy pigs.
BC of ND how do you really feel??
i do agree, however!
Mauer:
5 year extension for 107.5M
add that to 12.5 for 2010
total = 6 years for 120M
what bad economy???
This finger pointing makes me sick. SALARY CAP PEOPLE! PARITY WORKS! THE YANKEES NEED TO HAVE AN EQUAL CHANCE WITH THE ROYALS. AREN’T YOU PEOPLE SICK OF ALL THE GOOD FREE AGENTS LANDING IN THE SAME PLACES EVERY YEAR WHILE THE TWINS GET SCRAPS AND RETREADS!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry GGG i guess everytime i see Boras name it makes me cringe.
Adam S. post nailed it.
Tough to know who’s lying (lying more, that is) without seeing the books, which are likely cooked anyway. However, like Seth, I’m okay with owners not spending 100% on payroll. What industry does that? Of course, how many industries have legal monopolies . . .
not sure a salary cap is the fool proof answer. leagues with them still tend to have imbalance because some teams just have better people running them. spending more doesn’t always mean success. the twins owners are the richest in major sports and could afford to spend more money in an attempt to buy wins but choose not to. a salary cap may help but it doesn’t mean the royals will then be able to compete with the yankees, imo.
Oh, and BC’s 10:00 a.m. post is spot on.
ggg
Of course there will never be equality there never is in any facet of life but at least the yank’s wouldn’t have guys with 28 HR’s hitting 9th! Then a successful org. could be proud of success. Right nown Yanks should be ashamed. If the Twins spent that kind of money they’d be like the chicago bulls when they only lost 10 games the whole season! I forget what year it was. The Yankee’s have nothing to be proud of from this WS. They don’t represent winners they represent elitest american scum!
The Pohlads are fairly wealthy but don’t spend like they could. I’d like to see the Twins payroll in the $85-$90 million range. With that they could get some players needed to possibly win some play-off games.
It sure is easy to spend other people’s money!
The worth of the Pohlad family has very little to do with how much they should spend on the Minnesota Twins. The amount of revenue they make from the Twins should determine how much they should spend.
John Castino says:
November 19th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
“The Pohlads are fairly wealthy…”
Every time I read this I start cracking up. FAIRLY wealthy??? Maybe you meant filthy wealthy? Filty rich? Insanely wealthy? If the Pohlads are “fairly” wealthy, then the other MLB owners are “fairly” poor.
If you really think that a salary cap would help I believe that your missing the point big time. A cap would mean spending even less money on players and would mean the owners would pocket more money. The reality is that teams are not going to lower ticket prices they are not going to lower food prices so I say it might as well go to the players that play the game.
Also I think what some people need to come to grips with is that some owners are not in this game to win baseball games. They are in it to make money just like if they invested into a burger franchise.
One thing for sure is though if i had a billion laying around i would buy the Twins and be bankrupt by season end.
Am I the only person who thinks that Boras may single handedly ruin baseball if he’s allowed to continue his tirades unchecked?
In the real world (Which apparently doesn’t apply to Boras or his clients) you are paid based on what people think you are worth.
If not enough people think you are worth what you are asking for…that would be a sign that you maybe aren’t worth what you thought.
Seriously, I wish I could demand an unprecedented (and in most cases undeserved) pay raise even in a struggling economy.
Frankly, I’m glad that the owners have finally taken a stand and said “No. We will no longer let players salaries to outstrip the actual amount of money available.”
Of course, how many industries have legal monopolies…
It is very hard for me to look at Scott Boras and see a victim there. The guy has clients who make ungodly amounts of money and STILL wants more.
What baseball needs is revenue sharing. That is what makes the NFL so comeptitive and balanced. No indivdual NFL team gets to negotiate their own TV/radio rights, as baseball teams do. That is why the Yankees, Cubs, Braves, and Red Sox are so much more wealthy than the Twins. The problem is that there is no incentive now to dismantle the infrastructure (YES network, WGN, etc..) already in place. I don’t think baseball will ever be as competitive as football. Plus the players union won’t allow restrictions and are more powerful than the NFLPA. A salary cap may be good in theory, but without revenue sharing, what would the Yankees do with all of their “extra” cash if they’re not spending it on players?
Listen ball players make too much but its us who have caused that. We go and pay to go to the games and we watch them on tv. I am as gulity or more guilty than most. However that doesn’t mean that the owners aren’t profitting even more then the players because they are. Wealthy people don’t stick in businesses that don’t make money. Keep that in mind.
The Pohlads aren’t the only investors in most of the businesses they control. So, if you are an investor in the film business, or the airline business, or the bottling business, you might be happy to see the accountants siphon off revenue from the sports business and add it to your Brokeback Mountain earnings. However, the people who own stock in the Twins would be mad, because they’re greedy. Unless you’re an innately greedy Pohlad with your little piggys in every bank. Then you don’t care, because you’re rich and rich people just don’t care. Caution: sarcasm intended.
The Twins organization invests more money on development and player payroll, as a percentage of revenues, than most teams. If they have $200M in revenues in the future, you will see a player payroll averaging in excess of $100M. Unfortunately, as the greedy pigs, players and owners alike, watch you with both pleasure and disgust, you will still be filling your pot belly with $7 warm beers and $6 stale nachos with carcinogenic Velveeta leaving its own separate personal legacy for you and your new public option plan. Boras and his pampered, shallow clients will still think they’re not getting enough of the action. And some of you, being equally shallow and very greedy, will bitch and moan about what a bunch of cheap SOB’s the Pohlad’s are. Zzzzzzzz.
Jason Stark has a similar column up and he does a pretty reasonable job of estimating actual numbers, rather than just taking either Boras’ or MLB’s word for it.
Stark recommends a tax on teams that don’t meet a minimum payroll. I can’t say I go along with that, but I do agree that simply having caps and minimums aren’t the answer.
Unfortunately, 2011 isn’t far off and this labor negotiation has the looks of something that could get very, very, ugly.
100% agree, Pete D!
“The worth of the Pohlad family has very little to do with how much they should spend on the Minnesota Twins. The amount of revenue they make from the Twins should determine how much they should spend.”
Seth, do “development” costs really need to go up at a comparable rate to revenue, though? If the longtime goal has been to limit payroll to 50% of reveune, that has left the other 50% for development. But if revenues with the new stadium rise from $150 million to $200 million, do development costs really need to go up $25 million?
It would seem to me that a lot of those costs are more “fixed” than “variable”.
shazels 11:51 is right on
To tell you the truth i totally ignored the world series this year because of that, no underdogs from either league got close to the world series
I just hope the upcoming labor/ownership strife doesn’t focus solely on % of revenue spent on players but addresses the disparity in some better manner. Problem is, how do you take away slop from the biggest bull? Yanks should have been stopped long ago…
Seth, do “development” costs really need to go up at a comparable rate to revenue, though? If the longtime goal has been to limit payroll to 50% of reveune, that has left the other 50% for development. But if revenues with the new stadium rise from $150 million to $200 million, do development costs really need to go up $25 million?
It would seem to me that a lot of those costs are more “fixed” than “variable”.
Excellent point.
Not to mention, other fixed costs do not go up with increased revenues, either. The Twins will pay the same for travel expenses, hotel expenses, meal money, etc, no matter their revenue. The extra money they pull in from the new stadium should mostly go to payroll. If it doesn’t, then it’s pretty fair to assume it’s going directely into the Pohlad brothers’ pockets.
I’d love to see additional resources invested in the international market and there’s obviously some indication that such is happening… but it doesn’t seem likely to represent anything close to half of the anticipated additional revenue… so far, anyway.
While there are fixed costs I believe there is also a pretty good chunk of stadium costs. We are not paying for all of the new stadium. I do not know how the rent of the metrodome compares with the principal and interest and occupancy of Target Field.
JimCrikket,
You might find this stuff interesting. This is copied from Forbes website.
These numbers are 2008. I couldn’t find 2009.
Note these numbers don’t take into account new stadium debt or debt service. Or for that matter, any new labor contracts made since May 09.
Team Value1$356 mil
The Minnesota Twins
are owned by James Pohlad,
who bought them in 1984
for $44 mil.
2008 Wins-to-player cost ratio8 133
1-Yr Value Chg. 9%
Ann. Value Chg.2 9%
Debt/Value3 28%
Revenue4 $158 mil
Operating Inc.5 $26.8 mil
Player Expenses6 $80 mil
Gate Receipts7 $44 mil
1Value of team based on current stadium deal (unless new stadium is pending) without deduction for debt (other than stadium debt).
2Current team value compared with latest transaction price.
3Includes stadium debt.
4Net of stadium revenues used for debt payments.
5Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization.
6Includes benefits and bonuses. 7Includes club seats.
8Compares the number of wins per player payroll relative to the rest of the MLB. Postseason wins count twice as much as regular season wins. A score of 120 means that the team achieved 20% more victories per dollar of payroll compared with the league average.
Boras disgusts me
Me too.
Someone should run Boras over in the parking lot at Anaheim stadium where he always watches the Angels. I’ll supply the car.
